PDA

View Full Version : Did this change the course of the war?



BSS_Goat
07-27-2005, 10:16 AM
"... a mistake by a German bomber crew and the British reaction led to phase three, the city bombing phase. During a night bombing mission a German He 111 accidentally dropped its payload on London, in direct violation of Hitler's orders. "

Did this change the end result of WW2? If so how would you like to be one of those morons on that crew that lost the war? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BSS_Goat
07-27-2005, 10:16 AM
"... a mistake by a German bomber crew and the British reaction led to phase three, the city bombing phase. During a night bombing mission a German He 111 accidentally dropped its payload on London, in direct violation of Hitler's orders. "

Did this change the end result of WW2? If so how would you like to be one of those morons on that crew that lost the war? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

darkhorizon11
07-27-2005, 10:31 AM
Nah, first of all that wasn't the first bombing of civilians, the Japs had bombed Chinese civilians as far back as 1937 with no feelings of guilt. Plus with the relative inaccuracy of bombing back then, it would have happened sooner or later. Thats just on the Western Front.

On the Eastern front the Soviets and Stalin would have had no qualms about bombing their own people to stop the Germans, nevermind German civilians...

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 10:31 AM
Many people believe this and it seems logical but I feel the bombing of civilians would have happened anyway. Look at how quickly Churchill and Hitler both used that twist of fate to do their worst to each other.

Considering no one was hurt and that little damage was done, who knows if it really happened that way? Maybe Hitler ordered the mistake knowing what Churchill would do in retaliation. Maybe Churchhill dropped them the same way he dropped the Lusitania(right name?) into the hands of the u-boats.

I think it changed the war but not by much. I figure it only sped things up a little.

BTW, I know I'll get flamed for bad mouthing Churchill but just go to google and use the key words, "Churchill", "anti-semitism", "1920" and start from there. You might be surprised. I can give him credit for holding England together but that's where it ends.

Fritz

BSS_Goat
07-27-2005, 10:33 AM
Does anyone know the name of the crew members?

Mad_Moses
07-27-2005, 10:36 AM
I would have happened no matter what.

I think to a degree it was a mistake for both sides to have spent so many resources on bombing civilians early in the War and probably dragged out the war longer than if just military targets were focused on.

Later in the War city bombings was more of a mercy tactic used by the Allies both day and night. The man reason being there were few large targets left for the Allied heavy bombers hit.

Thankfully the Japanese came to their senses before there entire country was laid to waste.

Regards,
Mad

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-27-2005, 10:36 AM
Well I am not sure it changed the over all course of the war but it certainly saved the RAF's bacon as up until that point they had been taking a hell of a pounding.

Personaly I think Churchill (or some one up top) capitalised on the incident to start bombing civilian targets in Germany. Perhaps they realised that this would provoke Hitler to commit his air forces to a sustained resource draining and futile bombing campaign instead of focusing on the anihilation of RAF targets with a view to invasion.

Either way the civilians of both countries payed a heavy price for what was an apparent one off blunder by a lost and panicking air crew.

Jungmann
07-27-2005, 10:37 AM
What if game always fun. And BTW, I remember reading somewhere that that incident, the mistaken London bombing by the Heinkel, was specious, didn't happen, but was early on a cornerstone of Brit and RAF propaganda. Anybody know for sure?

But some facts are pretty clear. For some reason, Goering shifted his bombers from attacks on RAF airfields and aircraft plants to London in August, 1940. London could take it--as could most German cities when Bomber Command tried to burn them out in later years. By shifting to civilian targets, the RAF was spared, the Fighter Command pilot shortage could be filled (barely) and Goering could not achieve air superiorty over England by September. This meant the planned German invasion for the fall out of the Channel Ports had to be cancelled (fall Channel weather would have made it impossible), and Hitler would never get another chance.

If the invasion had happened, the Germans might have been repulsed (the whole operation seemed to be planned with less than total enthusiasm) or maybe not. Britain might have been forced to capitulate. With Britain cutting the best deal it could with Hitler, the US would have probably remained isolationist (as it mostly was up until Pearl Harbor) and made its own arrangement with Hitler, accepting the status quo; without England as a base, the US would have no place to stage a military offensive against Germany with any hope of success.

This wouldn't have stopped the Japanese from their 1941 attacks--they were following their own agenda. War with Japan, for the US, would have meant war with the Axis, with Germany as well, and then the Americans would have been faced with a war in Europe with no real allies.
What were the options--capture of North Africa, capture of Scandinavian countries, to circle Germany and bleed it? Not a very promising scenario.

So it's hard to say what would have happened. It's safe to say Goering's shifting his bombers to London was a major f**kup, that it allowed England to stand free and rebuild after Dunkirk and inspire the US to stand behind it with war material and Lend-Lease ships in 1941 in the face of political isolationism and before Pearl Harbor. In that sense, Goering changed the course of the war.

My .02. Cheers,

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jungmann:
What if game always fun. And BTW, I remember reading somewhere that that incident, the mistaken London bombing by the Heinkel, was specious, didn't happen, but was early on a cornerstone of Brit and RAF propaganda. Anybody know for sure?

But some facts are pretty clear. For some reason, Goering shifted his bombers from attacks on RAF airfields and aircraft plants to London in August, 1940. London could take it--as could most German cities when Bomber Command tried to burn them out in later years. By shifting to civilian targets, the RAF was spared, the Fighter Command pilot shortage could be filled (barely) and Goering could not achieve air superiorty over England by September. This meant the planned German invasion for the fall out of the Channel Ports had to be cancelled (fall Channel weather would have made it impossible), and Hitler would never get another chance.

If the invasion had happened, the Germans might have been repulsed (the whole operation seemed to be planned with less than total enthusiasm) or maybe not. Britain might have been forced to capitulate. With Britain cutting the best deal it could with Hitler, the US would have probably remained isolationist (as it mostly was up until Pearl Harbor) and made its own arrangement with Hitler, accepting the status quo; without England as a base, the US would have no place to stage a military offensive against Germany with any hope of success.

This wouldn't have stopped the Japanese from their 1941 attacks--they were following their own agenda. War with Japan, for the US, would have meant war with the Axis, with Germany as well, and then the Americans would have been faced with a war in Europe with no real allies.
What were the options--capture of North Africa, capture of Scandinavian countries, to circle Germany and bleed it? Not a very promising scenario.

So it's hard to say what would have happened. It's safe to say Goering's shifting his bombers to London was a major f**kup, that it allowed England to stand free and rebuild after Dunkirk and inspire the US to stand behind it with war material and Lend-Lease ships in 1941 in the face of political isolationism and before Pearl Harbor. In that sense, Goering changed the course of the war.

My .02. Cheers, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting thoughts. I have always thought that Goehring, that fat, morphine addicted schwein was one of the most important factors in the war becoming prolonged and a world war.

Or, can we be thankful he was as useless as a bowl of puss in January? What if he was useful and ended the war sooner? How many people would Hitler have killed then? At the times where he made his major ****-ups, no one cared about what Hitler was doing. Maybe Goehring saved more lives then he lost.

Fritz

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-27-2005, 11:03 AM
Goehring?!?! The man (by the time of ww2) was a complete buffoon and if he did anything you can bet your tailendcharlie it wasn't with out Hitlers say so.

One thing I do get from reading accounts and interviews with various participants of the Battle of Britain is a sense of almost total despair and frustration that must have been felt by the lower ranks of the Luftwaffe at the way Hitler and Goehring fought the air war over Britain.

Pirschjaeger
07-27-2005, 11:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
Goehring?!?! The man (by the time of ww2) was a complete buffoon and if he did anything you can bet your tailendcharlie it wasn't with out Hitlers say so.

One thing I do get from reading accounts and interviews with various participants of the Battle of Britain is a sense of almost total despair and frustration that must have been felt by the lower ranks of the Luftwaffe at the way Hitler and Goehring fought the air war over Britain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hitler trusted Goehring and therefor followed many advices from the schwein. One good example was Dunkirk. Dunkirk could have actually ended the war, at least for England.

IIRC, in regards to BoB, it was the main reason many higher ranking leaders quit in the early part of the war. That and the silly invasion plans.

Fritz

NorrisMcWhirter
07-27-2005, 12:59 PM
If you read 'The most dangerous enemy', Goering did actually make some reasonable decisions but was always going to fail because the task was simply too difficult to achieve in the timeframe (in the context of the BoB).

Unfortunately for the Nazis, their entire organisation didn't lend itself to proper co-operation as people (like Goering) were too busy trying to further their own personal standing.

I wouldn't class Goering as a buffoon....perhaps 'inconsistently competent' would be a better description.

Ta,
Norris

VW-IceFire
07-27-2005, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
"... a mistake by a German bomber crew and the British reaction led to phase three, the city bombing phase. During a night bombing mission a German He 111 accidentally dropped its payload on London, in direct violation of Hitler's orders. "

Did this change the end result of WW2? If so how would you like to be one of those morons on that crew that lost the war? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That incident is largely credited with changing the outcome of the Battle of Britain which itself has been considered the crucial turning point of World War II as had the battle been lost, the war would probably have been over for the most part.

Basically it was, London was bombed, Churchill was furious and sent a retaliatory strike and then Hitler was furious and threatened to level London from the air. And so the RAF got its repreive and was able to fight back.

Heliopause
07-27-2005, 01:19 PM
The Germans never set sail to the Britisch isles. Hitler wanted a peace treaty so he could focus on Russia. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Daiichidoku
07-27-2005, 01:29 PM
sure it meant a lot...just like USN lucky draw at midway...or a briefcase moved to another side of a table leg...

btw, it was a Ju88, the crew (or at least the pilot) of it is known, i will have ot find it now.....

NorrisMcWhirter
07-27-2005, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
"... a mistake by a German bomber crew and the British reaction led to phase three, the city bombing phase. During a night bombing mission a German He 111 accidentally dropped its payload on London, in direct violation of Hitler's orders. "

Did this change the end result of WW2? If so how would you like to be one of those morons on that crew that lost the war? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That incident is largely credited with changing the outcome of the Battle of Britain which itself has been considered the crucial turning point of World War II as had the battle been lost, the war would probably have been over for the most part.

Basically it was, London was bombed, Churchill was furious and sent a retaliatory strike and then Hitler was furious and threatened to level London from the air. And so the RAF got its repreive and was able to fight back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, read 'The Most Dangerous Enemy'. Bungay makes a very strong argument for the bombing of London making little difference to the BoB; it was the German's failure to inhibit the command and control network that was their major failure (as well as their having to achieve largely unattainable high kill/loss ratios). I don't doubt that the London incident escalation gave some breathing space to the RAF but it's quite possibly nowhere near as significant as people like to make out.

Ta,
Norris

Atomic_Marten
07-27-2005, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
"... a mistake by a German bomber crew and the British reaction led to phase three, the city bombing phase. During a night bombing mission a German He 111 accidentally dropped its payload on London, in direct violation of Hitler's orders. "

Did this change the end result of WW2? If so how would you like to be one of those morons on that crew that lost the war? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Me like a lot.http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/loser.gif

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
07-27-2005, 02:13 PM
Hmm If you were to look at the battle of britain from the perspective of one particular faction of the british educational system. The air conflict over Britain was not so much a failure for the luftwaffe but more so a deferred success ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4697461.stm

and with that its goodnight from me and goodnight from him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
07-27-2005, 02:27 PM
It was more like the P51 won the war.

VW-IceFire
07-27-2005, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
"... a mistake by a German bomber crew and the British reaction led to phase three, the city bombing phase. During a night bombing mission a German He 111 accidentally dropped its payload on London, in direct violation of Hitler's orders. "

Did this change the end result of WW2? If so how would you like to be one of those morons on that crew that lost the war? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That incident is largely credited with changing the outcome of the Battle of Britain which itself has been considered the crucial turning point of World War II as had the battle been lost, the war would probably have been over for the most part.

Basically it was, London was bombed, Churchill was furious and sent a retaliatory strike and then Hitler was furious and threatened to level London from the air. And so the RAF got its repreive and was able to fight back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, read 'The Most Dangerous Enemy'. Bungay makes a very strong argument for the bombing of London making little difference to the BoB; it was the German's failure to inhibit the command and control network that was their major failure (as well as their having to achieve largely unattainable high kill/loss ratios). I don't doubt that the London incident escalation gave some breathing space to the RAF but it's quite possibly nowhere near as significant as people like to make out.

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've read just the opposite as well in several cited and academically accepted sources so its really hard to pin down exactly.

The RAF, particularly 11 group, was in a shambles by this point although the surviving pilots were becoming quite experienced and capable. From what I can remember, that letting up of the bombing did contribute to the rejuvination of 11 group.

On the other hand, theres quite a bit of documentation that also points to the Luftwaffe having very poor intelligence on RAF airbases and ended up bombing several non-military bases as well as bomber command bases and neither had anything to do with Fighter Commands intercept efforts so some RAF bases went unscathed from bombing or were sometimes missed completely. So its quite possible that the RAF would have prevailed anyways...but the turn on London definately helped the situation.

Ankanor
07-27-2005, 02:58 PM
Like Kate Blanchet as Galadriel said in the Lord of the Rings movie : "Even the smallest person can change the course of the future"

I fly only LW, but sometimes I start wondering what would our world(Jesus, that's a tough phrase to say http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I almost broke my tongue) be like if Hitler had set peace with England/conquered it and then conquered the USSR.

Chirchill's speech about the Iron Curtain would be slightly diverted : "from the beaches of Normandy to the warm Pacific Islands on the world has fallen an Iron Curtain" (that is the case in which Britain is unconquered)
No McDonalds, you would get a Wurst with Broetchen, and a Bottle of Bitburger(actually the last one is good in comparison to the coke)
No Hiphop music, I wonder if the Beatles would ever happen to be. Maybe "The King" would have some influence on modern music, but not a signifficant one, at least not in Europe.
Maybe I would be writing that, being a student in Germany, but I would be writing it in German, on a German internet, where the world outside "the curtain" will not be able to reach. And that's the smalelst details of your life, the ones you wouldn't normally notice until you stop having them. Should I continue about the Strict Immigration(sp?) policy to and from Europe? The schools in which there is a subject called "Racial science" or something? The "Keepers of Purity", the fact that you are examined if you are a true Aryan when you apply for school, university, job, marriage even.

It is thoughts like that that make me be eternally grateful for the sacrifice of the millions who died so I can live in THIS world, not THAT one. In days like these, I love the world so much, I once was asked if I had more of the stuff I had presumably been smoking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

JG5_UnKle
07-27-2005, 03:28 PM
I agree that poor intelligence on the part of the luftwaffe led to mistakes.

Underestimating the British C&C network was a big mistake. Without that network the BoB could have been over in six weeks imho. Instead the luftwaffe concentrated on airfields.

Bombing some airfields, the luftwaffe would "write-off" the field as combat ineffective, when in fact it was operational in hours or a day or two.

Kill claims were overblown on both sides but the luftwaffe believed their own hype http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and overstated RAF losses. Actual luftwaffe losses were known to the RAF through ULTRA intercepts, so the RAF let their claims go to press (good propaganda) whilst knowing the actual real (heavy) losses they were inflicting on the Luftwaffe.

Goering felt he needed to protect his bomber crews and shackled the fighters to them. The 109 pilots resented this as it removed the initiative and free fighting they enjoyed to that point.

The endurance of the 109 meant the RAF could keep their fighters and bases out of reach - pilots could be trained in a protected area. The low endurance meant low combat time over target, plus a tricky swim - even though the rescue services were excellent.

So bombing London was costly and difficult for relatively limited strategic value. The bomb loads were insufficient to effectively disable industrial centres and affect the war output.

They would been better attacking the C&C network and hitting airfields and other RAF assets - there would be Goerings air supremacy.

Thankfully they didn't.

Chuck_Older
07-27-2005, 04:02 PM
If Germany had beaten the RAF in 1940, that still doesn't make their follow-up invasion a sure thing- they still would have had to fight a determined enemy on his own shores

I'm not so sure i can beleive all the 'hype' was beleived only by the RAF, when i think about the staus reports that were given to Goering about Bf 109 flights that roamed far and wide over England, that indicated that the RAF was out of planes. Far from it- they just weren't attacking fighters

germany's intel made some horrid blunders in the battle of Britain, just like they would do in estimating Soviet strength the following year. Kill claims are not the whole story here

telsono
07-27-2005, 04:33 PM
Akanor said:
---------------------------------------------
No Hiphop music, I wonder if the Beatles would ever happen to be. Maybe "The King" would have some influence on modern music, but not a signifficant one, at least not in Europe.
---------------------------------------------
Rock and Roll would never have happened if the Third Reich had a say. Over one thousand German youths were sent to concentration camps because of their love of "Swing" music. Django Reinhardt the famous jazz guitarist was looked down upon because of his gypsy origins, and was also was a source of defiance to the German occupiers of his native France. Jazz oriented music and modern art were targets of Nazi attacks especially of the American Black roots of the former. The "King" would have been a definite target of Goebbel's propaganda.

Chuck_Older
07-27-2005, 04:58 PM
Well, then there's the fact that the beatles were around before hip hop, so hip hop couldn't influence the Beatles

But jazz and swing being the reasons for rock n roll???

FOR SHAME!

Everyone, everyone by now should know that the Blues had a baby, and they named it rock n roll. Ska is a bigger influence on rock n roll than jazz ever was http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The blues my friend. that's the lineal ancestor of rock n roll. Heck, country music has more to do with rock n roll than swing- called rockabilly, dontcha know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
07-27-2005, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Goat:
"... a mistake by a German bomber crew and the British reaction led to phase three, the city bombing phase. During a night bombing mission a German He 111 accidentally dropped its payload on London, in direct violation of Hitler's orders. "

Did this change the end result of WW2? If so how would you like to be one of those morons on that crew that lost the war? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That incident is largely credited with changing the outcome of the Battle of Britain which itself has been considered the crucial turning point of World War II as had the battle been lost, the war would probably have been over for the most part.

Basically it was, London was bombed, Churchill was furious and sent a retaliatory strike and then Hitler was furious and threatened to level London from the air. And so the RAF got its repreive and was able to fight back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, read 'The Most Dangerous Enemy'. Bungay makes a very strong argument for the bombing of London making little difference to the BoB; it was the German's failure to inhibit the command and control network that was their major failure (as well as their having to achieve largely unattainable high kill/loss ratios). I don't doubt that the London incident escalation gave some breathing space to the RAF but it's quite possibly nowhere near as significant as people like to make out.

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've read just the opposite as well in several cited and academically accepted sources so its really hard to pin down exactly.

The RAF, particularly 11 group, was in a shambles by this point although the surviving pilots were becoming quite experienced and capable. From what I can remember, that letting up of the bombing did contribute to the rejuvination of 11 group.

On the other hand, theres quite a bit of documentation that also points to the Luftwaffe having very poor intelligence on RAF airbases and ended up bombing several non-military bases as well as bomber command bases and neither had anything to do with Fighter Commands intercept efforts so some RAF bases went unscathed from bombing or were sometimes missed completely. So its quite possible that the RAF would have prevailed anyways...but the turn on London definately helped the situation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get me wrong - I doubt the Germans could ever have won the BoB either (IF they wanted to) unless they had managed to destroy the well-distributed and difficult to destroy C&C system (of which they understood little apart from it's effectiveness at vectoring fighters onto it's attacks) and bothered to go after the Supermarine works at Southampton on a larger scale. With London in or out of the equation, if Goering had more squadrons operating as the "oddball" Erprobungsgruppe 210 did, things could have been different; the RAF sustained some of it's worst losses on the days that 210 and co blinded the controllers thus allowing airfield attacks with little warning. Trouble is (for the Germans), the RAF never really lost enough aircraft on these days to tip the balance completely.

I can't believe Germany would ever have pulled off an invasion even if they had gained air superiority over the SE what with the Royal Navy (who are not afraid of going after lost causes) available to scupper it. Besides, it's far more likely that the Government would have folded well before that and no invasion would have been required.

Ta,
Norris

telsono
07-27-2005, 05:31 PM
Chuck, I know all about the the Blues influence on Rock n Roll. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I was just mentioning some of the more obvious targets of the Nazi's. You have to remember Long John Baldry's "Conditional Discharge" story. That always gives me a smile.

Ankanor
07-27-2005, 06:25 PM
My bad, Chuck, I should learn to write, not like I speak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif What I say trying to say was "No hiphop music, [pause](H*ll)I wonder if the Beatles would ever happen to be." I makes more sense now, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, I still hold my opinion that the Beatles got their inspiration from Elvis and later from the Crickets.

P.S. You promised you would take your pills and visit those anger management classes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Luftwaffe_109
07-27-2005, 08:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">germany's intel made some horrid blunders in the battle of Britain, just like they would do in estimating Soviet strength the following year. Kill claims are not the whole story here </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I don't think this is quite true. The OKH had a very adequate grasp of the strength and disposition of the Soviet forces they were facing in June 1941.

What they lacked, however, was a good picture of what they would be facing inside of six months.

One of the most important aspects of Operation Barbarossa was the assumption that the annihilation of the Soviet forces available on 22 June 1941 would prove decisive to the war in the East, in a similar way that the annihilation of the French and Polish armies had proven decisive in Fall Gelb and Fall Blau.

However, what is also clear is that the OKH did not have an good understanding of the forces the Soviet Union could mobilise, or how quickly they could mobilise them. This is shown by the actual events, by German projections prior to the campaign compared to the reality and by the German comments made as the campaign proceeded, which consistently emphasise the surprising and troubling scale of Soviet force generation. For example,

General Halder wrote, in his diary in August 11, 1941, "At the outset of the war, we reckoned on about 200 enemy divisions. Now we have alredy counted 360."

When Operation Barbarossa was launched, the Red Army was not mobilised for war. The plan for moblisation, MP-41, however envisioned the immediate reinforcement of the army by approximately 5 million men.

However, this isn€t the full story. After so many years of compulsory military service in the USSR, there existed a massive pool of trained manpower that far exceeded this figure, and which could be used to raise fresh divisions.

Now, the strength of the Soviet military along the western border on 22 June was somewhat under 3 million men (which is what the German intel knew).

However, by the third quarter of 1942, this number of troop facing the Germans had increased to 5,664,000 men. Thus, the strength of the forces the USSR could put against the Germans had increased by roughly 3 million men over the first year of the war alone (ie the size of the Red Army had doubled).

Note, however, that during the same period, the Soviet forces had suffered some 7,878,117 casualties of all types. When you consider this, you see that (in order to make good their losses and increase their frontline strength by an additional 3 million) the Soviet Union had mobilised 11 million men! That€s almost 4 times the size of the total Soviet army in June 1941.


So you see, it is not that the German intel had been wrong about the Soviet armed forces' strength or disposition prior to the invasion. What they had been wrong about was the gigantic mobilisation potential possessed by the USSR.

ImpStarDuece
07-27-2005, 09:11 PM
One of the things you have to remember about the Battle of Britain was that Fighter Command, even stretched as it was, didn't use all its resources as favourably as it could of. Dowding was perhaps just a smidgeon too cautious. While it was undoubtly his birlliant dtermination to harbour resources and sound, if somewhat conservative, tactics that ensured the survival of the RAF, his stubborness and inflexability also cost the RAF.

It was No. 11 Group that saw the vast majority of action during the Battle, as it had responsibility for the south-eastern corner of England. In fact Leigh-Mallory, the No. 12 group commander, accused Park, the commander of No. 11 Group, of attempting to keep No. 12 Group 'out of the show'. Leigh-Mallory could indulge in his pet 'Big Wing' theory because he had sufficent breathing space and time to build up large formations.

While No. 11 group was overstretched No. 12 Group felt that it wasn't seeing ENOUGH action. Part of this was the Big Wing, which was unweildy and took too much time to assembly. Its like comparing a broadsword to a rapier. The broadsword is huge and heavy and does massive blunt trauma damage when it strikes, the rapier is quick and nimble but doesn't do massive damage. Similarly, No. 10 group was also under utilised to some extent, spending mych of the Battle covering No. 11 groups airfields, even during the Blitz.

When Dowding talked of not being able to withstand more than another week of attacks on his airfield he mostly referred to No. 11 Group. No. 12 and No. 10 Groups went comparatively unmoslested on the ground by the Luftwaffe, although both had airfields that were heavily attacked in the initial stages of the battle.

The situation of the RAF was not as desperate as a lot of popular history makes it out. There were plenty of experianced and competent pilots who could of been rotated into No. 11 Group from Nos. 10, 13 and 12. In fact, Dowding eventually moved to a system of classifying units according to their efecitveness (A,B,C) and rotating bith individaul pilots and eventually entire squadrons into No. 11 Group in order to maintian its effectiveness.

If pressure had intensified I think Dowding would of been wise to give up on some of the costal stations moved some of his fighter squadrons further inland, giving them larger amounts of raid warning and climbng time. One of the Achilles heels for British pilots was that they were often forced to climb into a battle. This out them at a decided disadvantage to their German counterparts, who often had height and positional advantages over the RAF, even if their fuel situation prevented them from making the most of it.

It may of been better for the RAF (but worse for London and civilain Britain) if some of the larger raids had been hit AFTER they had made the strike. Scrambling to defend an airfield is all well and good but it your opponent is 3000 feet above you is doesn't do much more than get you shot down. If you go after a formation when you have at least positional equality the odds may of gone even better in the RAFS favour.