PDA

View Full Version : Did America save Britain from invasion by Germany?



EiZ0N
05-19-2005, 03:25 PM
Hi guys

This is not a troll post or anything like that. I'm posting this because I know alot of you know alot about WW2 and are quite passionate about it. Probably.

Anyway, my question is this - did America save Britain from invasion from the Germans? How much of a role did they play in helping Britain defend themselves from invasion?

If the BoB was in 1940, and the lend-lease act passed in 1941, were Americas donations to Britain part of saving Britain from invasion, or just part of the bigger picture of defeating Hitler?

I'm asking this because I have always wondered what the answer to this question was, as my knowledge of WW2 history isn't in-depth enough to answer it myself.

Thanks

carguy_
05-19-2005, 03:30 PM
USAAF won the war.

VW-IceFire
05-19-2005, 03:33 PM
There's probably some grey areas to operate with but essentially no. The Battle of Britain was fough at a time when only the European nations were at war. France had just fallen and Britian was essentially the last major european power to go.

Infact, it was illegal for Americans to travel to England to fight against the Germans and the FBI even had some elements in place to prevent Americans with said intentions come to Canada, sign up with the RCAF, and then go to Britain. 1940 America was very isolationist in general although many felt that it was only a matter of time before being drawn into the conflict. Which of course happened when Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Essentially, Britain defended itself from potential German invasion by itself and the support of the Commonwealth. There were also contributions, particularly in the form of pilots, from the Polish, Czech, and French who had escaped from their respective countries.
Virtually no direct US involvement (I think there were 3 American pilots in The Battle of Britain).

dazza9806482
05-19-2005, 03:33 PM
I think in the short term Britain saved itself, however the Germans wherent particulary interested in an invasion in any case. Operation Sealion was for the most part bluff and bluster. In addition the BoB was all about total air superiority, something that while nice for the luftwaffe to achieve, wasnt necessary for a seaborne invasion, only local air superiority.

in the longer term, speculatively, had the Germans faired better against Russia, and Britain had been alone, with Japan on the attack it is doubtful she could have defended herself or had the industrial capacity to produce necessary war material without the US contribution....

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sure there will be better answers!

danjama
05-19-2005, 03:40 PM
"Operation Sealion was for the most part bluff and bluster"

This is completely untrue. In fact, the plans had so much depth to them it is impossible to write them off as a bluff. Anyway, America did essentially contribute alot to bringing an end to the war. You may argue the bomber offensive etc, but there are so many other reasons that Germany fell. Reasons caused by Russia, USA, and UK. So i dont think it is possible to say USA won the war for britain. It is possible to say that we may not have won it on our own. America and Britain stood hand in hand, and this ended the war. Without Englands key position and status, and Americas significant manufacturing industry and resources, it is entirely possible that the world would be very diferent now.

EiZ0N
05-19-2005, 03:43 PM
Thanks for your quick replies guys, except carguy who misread the question http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

IceFire, I believe it was actually 10 US pilots flying in the RAF during the BoB, which is what I saw when I googled this a little earlier

TX-Gunslinger
05-19-2005, 03:45 PM
America was in the throes of isolationism during the Battle of Britan. While many Americans were sympathathic to Poland, France and Englands plight, and some American volunteers (a handfull) had signed up for service, the U.S. contribution was inconsqequential and almost non-existant.

The British saved themselves. I don't have time right now to look up the Royal Army, Navy and Air Force deaths in the Battle of France and before, but they were considerable.

The war had already been going on for the English for a year (at the start of the conflict) at this point. Dunkirk and the Battle of France had occured and by the time the BOB was over, thousand of British civilians were dead.

In America, there was still widespread public "isolationism" and public figures like Charles Lindbergh and others were (or had been)public supporters of Germany.

President Roosevelt felt differently, but could do nothing. It took till mid 41 to start lend-lease, and that was a strategic gamble on Roosevelt's part, to draw his people into the conflict, assuming that the German Navy would directly attack American shipping.

It took Pearl Harbor, over two years after Germany invaded Poland to get Americans solidifed to step into the war.

We did not save Britan from invasion by the Germans, she saved herself. The next most beneficial help the British got was actually from Hitler himself, who made the decision to attack Russia (foolish) rather than finish off Britan, whom he actually had a "soft spot for". Hitler had assumed that if Goring's Luftwaffe soundly defeated the RAF, then Britan must sue for peace. Bad assumption.

S~

TX-Gunslinger
05-19-2005, 03:47 PM
Wow, I thought I'd be first to reply, but while typing, everyone got ahead of me....

I need to learn to make short posts....

dazza9806482
05-19-2005, 03:48 PM
Certainly the plans had a lot of depth, including fake landing boats, however the movement of german division dont support that the High Command was seriously considering a seaborne invasion of britain. Once France fell and the BEF was routed Hitler turned his attentions to eastern europe and barbarossa. At the begining of the war an invasion of britain was not a serious consideration for the Germans. Certainly complex plans may have benn drawn up, but that is the nature of military planning, especially German military planning at that time...

jugent
05-19-2005, 03:50 PM
No the bad strategical planning saved England.
Germany wasnt ready for war in 1940. The occupation of czekoslovakia made it possible to use the 35t and 38t tanks and fill up the new armoured divisions absolutly necessary for the invasion of france.
England expected correctly that Germany needed a navy, and to build one would take very long time, and without a navy no mainland country could blockade or invade England.
Germany found out that the Submarines was bad substitutes for more potent warships.
Germany would have needed 4 carriers, 15 battleships, 25 cruisers and 100+ destroyers to blockade England.
They got 2 battleships, aprox 10 cruisers and destroyers.
Not eaven Adolf the Hit, could think that the biggest and best equipped army, the French should collapse in the way they did.

Adolf took chances and he put his bet on one card, England should seek peace after their defeat on the mainland.

The occupation of France would have been withdrawn when peace was signed between England and Nazi germany.

The germans didnt bother to take the French navy. They where so sure that England would plee for peace.


Chamberline and Eden advocated for it but Churchill was against it.
If the Germans had encircled and taken the BEF as hostage, perhaps Churchill would been persuaded to it.
Germany had no strong navy, no landing crafts, and no realistic planning for it.
This is what saved England from invasion.
But the germans invades England every summer and vice versa.
The drink each others beer and say that their own is the best.

JG52_Helgstrand
05-19-2005, 03:54 PM
The US wasn't even in the war when the Battle of Britain took place.

B.O.B. July 10 1940 to Oct 31 1940...

Japan attacked Pearl Harbour 7 Dec 1941.
Hitler declared war on the U.S. on Dec 11 1941.

Britain did have some lend lease aircraft from the U.S. but they didn't play a significant role in the Battle.

The battle of Britain is the only battle ever fought and won entirely in the air.

The Brits did get help from Polish, Czech and Belgian pilots who fled their countries after the Nazi invasions.

http://www.battleofbritain.net/bobhsoc/bofb-account.html

(WOW! there was only one reply when I started this, man I'm slow...LOL)

Covino
05-19-2005, 04:04 PM
It's pretty obvious that america had little involvement in the BoB. If Britain would have been invaded without America's help for the entire war, is a much more debated question. And who cares about those what-ifs anyway?

EiZ0N
05-19-2005, 04:13 PM
I find what-ifs to be interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Thanks for so many quick, interesting and helpful replies.

Art-J
05-19-2005, 04:21 PM
Tom Cruise himself won the Battle of Britain and as a result - the whole war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. At least this is what I expect to see in this upcoming movie, what was its title again? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

P.S. - I sincerely apologize all T.C. fans and "Pearl-Harbor-style-Hollywood-war-movies" fans if they feel offended by my comment http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Pirschjaeger
05-19-2005, 04:22 PM
Sorry guyz, and I'm not ragging on anyone, but as a Canadian I must admit I'm getting a little fed up with seeing "Britain saved herself". I've seen this too many times and can't stay quiet anylonger. Britain did NOT save herself. In fact I'd say the most important event for Britain's survival was the intellect of a certain obese LW leader(think Dunkirk) and Britain's most important ally, Canada.

To add, Canada was in it from the beginning to the end. Many Canadians fought for and died for Britain. Canada gave a lot in terms of resources, weapons, and lives. Without Canada and Goehring Britain would have fallen, be sure.

I really don't know, but I think "Britain saved herself" might also be an insult to the Aussies and Kiwis.

Fritz

Chuck_Older
05-19-2005, 04:29 PM
In general I agree with what's being said

Although I must point out that the US was demonstrably engaged in acts that could be considered grounds for war, against Germany, before December 7th, 1941. The place: Atlantic Ocean


Originally posted by EiZ0N:
Hi guys

If the BoB was in 1940, and the lend-lease act passed in 1941, were Americas donations to Britain part of saving Britain from invasion, or just part of the bigger picture of defeating Hitler?



I find it...curious....that you know when Lend/Lease was, but know little about WWII...

EiZ0N
05-19-2005, 04:31 PM
Actually you have made a great point Pirshjaeger.

I think when people say Britain saved herself, they really mean the British commonwealth.

I can see why it's insulting to Canadians and Aussies and others, definately.

Monty_Thrud
05-19-2005, 04:33 PM
Battle of Britain aircrew came from the following countries:


Great Britain - 2,340
Australia - 32
Barbados - 1
Belgium - 28
Canada - 112
Czechoslovakia - 89
France - 13
Ireland - 10
Jamaica - 1
Newfoundland - 1
New Zealand - 127
Poland - 145
Rhodesia - 3
South Africa - 25
United States - 9

<span class="ev_code_RED">^^^^^^</span><span class="ev_code_WHITE">^^^^^^</span><span class="ev_code_BLUE">^^^^^^</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

EiZ0N
05-19-2005, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
Hi guys

If the BoB was in 1940, and the lend-lease act passed in 1941, were Americas donations to Britain part of saving Britain from invasion, or just part of the bigger picture of defeating Hitler?



I find it...curious....that you know when Lend/Lease was, but know little about WWII... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I studied WW2 history for 2 years, but this was before 2001 at school and I learnt about lend/lease and quite alot of other things.

However I've forgotten alot of what I learned http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

p1ngu666
05-19-2005, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Sorry guyz, and I'm not ragging on anyone, but as a Canadian I must admit I'm getting a little fed up with seeing "Britain saved herself". I've seen this too many times and can't stay quiet anylonger. Britain did NOT save herself. In fact I'd say the most important event for Britain's survival was the intellect of a certain obese LW leader(think Dunkirk) and Britain's most important ally, Canada.

To add, Canada was in it from the beginning to the end. Many Canadians fought for and died for Britain. Canada gave a lot in terms of resources, weapons, and lives. Without Canada and Goehring Britain would have fallen, be sure.

I really don't know, but I think "Britain saved herself" might also be an insult to the Aussies and Kiwis.

Fritz

indeed, lots of candians about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
ppl came from all over teh world to fight germany http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

imo there would have been stalemate if americans and russia didnt get involved.

also germans gathered lots of barges etc which bomber command then bombed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Chuck_Older
05-19-2005, 04:37 PM
Start aquiring a reference library

I suggest the book "Clash of Wings" by Boyne as a starter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Great overview of the aerial conflict in WWII

Pirschjaeger
05-19-2005, 04:39 PM
IN THE LONG, HOT SUMMER of 1939, the storm clouds brewing over the continent of Europe began to take an ominous shape, and Commonwealth armies had begun to slowly shake off the lethargy brought on by two decades of neglect in the aftermath of the wholesale slaughter of World War I.
The hopeless, fragile bubble of an uneasy peace had finally burst.
In Canada, a primarily agricultural dominion of 11 million souls, that meant a mad scramble on behalf of our miniscule, under-equipped 5,000-man Permanent Force to dust off long-ignored plans for a general mobilization and rearming. Frantic calls went out across the country to the units of the Active Militia to begin mobilizing for the coming conflict; and to industry at large to gear up for war production.
Many still hungry from the lean years of the recent depression, men from all walks of life all across the country dropped what they were doing and flocked into the headquarters of their local regiments to volunteer their services to king and country. Some showed up to parade dressed in the moth-eaten uniforms their uncles or fathers had worn in 1918; others with nothing but what they had on their backs.

In the beginning, there were no uniforms, boots, kit or weapons for them, save a few well-worn leftovers from WW1. It did not matter. The men came anyway, possessed of the same spirit which had carved this country out of an unforgiving wilderness only a few generations before. From the city and the farm, from the small town, the mine and the vast wasteland of the Canadian Shield, they brought with them a unique, quiet determination to finish the job their fathers had begun only a few years before. Their Monarch and their Nation had asked them to help; they set aside the tools with which they had carved a life and a living out of a harsh world, and prepared to face an uncertain future whose only acceptable object was... Victory.

At the same time, our industry was setting up for wartime production, on an unprecedented scale. Vehicles, tanks, ships, aircraft, small arms and more poured off the assembly lines after a short, hectic tooling-up. While much of what was produced was adapted from British designs, all had a uniquely-Canadian stamp to it which denoted quality and reliability.

And our soldiers marched on, first to England in 1939, and hence to hitherto unknown environs such as Dieppe, Sicily, Italy and Normandy. It is not generally well known that until April 1945, a scant few weeks before the end of the war in Europe, the First Canadian Army was comprised entirely of volunteer troops. Canadian formations in both Italy and Northwest Europe consistently fought well-understrength through the balance of their wars, while hundreds of thousands of healthy, uniformed troops languished at home at the behest of a government lacking the will to impose overseas conscription. This, too, was as uniquely Canadian as was the tenacity and endurance of our fighting men themselves: the volunteers of the Canadian Army Overseas.

Their victory would one day be won, but at a cost undreamt-of by any at the time.

EiZ0N
05-19-2005, 04:49 PM
Interesting Pirschjaeger, thanks. I had no idea they were volunteers.

Bo_Nidle
05-19-2005, 04:56 PM
While i have the highest respect for what the allies did to assist us in WW2 there is no question that this nation stood alone and saved herself from invasion during the Battle of Britain. The numbers of non-British airmen show that the British nationals far outweighed the Foreign allies taking part. Now before anyone jumps on that I want to make clear I have nothing but the highest regard for those that did take part.My point is it was by far British airmen that formed the majority of the RAF. The lend lease from the USA was essential but it was British blood and courage that saw us through it.

As far as the comment about bad planning on behalf of the Germans: It was typical german arrogance that thought as the rest of Europe had collapsed then Britain would follow.Wrong.We tend to fight best with our backs to the wall.

I always think that the argument that the Germans were not serious about carrying out Sealion a little illogical when one considers the amount of men and resources the Germans put into attempting to destroy the RAF and associated defences.

After 1941 the Germans were too busy biting off more than they could chew in Russia and were simply not capable of attempting a comparable later operation to Sealion in the West.

Did the USA prevent Britain being invaded?:No.
Could Britain have won the war without their assistance in Europe?: No
Could the USA have won the war without British assistance in Europe?;No-where would they have staged D-Day from?!

We were/are allies. And thats the way I like it.

Be that as it may,I still, and likely always will,regard the Battle of Britain as my nations finest hour!

ImpStarDuece
05-19-2005, 04:58 PM
Actually, the Canadian Army formations in England represented quite a substantial part of the British land strength in the June-October period. They were put on 'Invasion Patrol'and shifted all over the country at the slightest whiff of trouble.

While the 'standing alone' myth isn't quite right, it would be fair to say that the British did the lions share of the work during the battle.

I don't think that Operation Sealion was feasible; the British were taking the threat of invasion VERY seriously though. Prehaps more seriously than subsequent analysis and hindsight warrants. In order to ferry across their forces the Germans were forced to resort to appropriating and comandeering canal barges and fishing trawlers, not something that would of made the crossing with any ease, particularly if the Royal Navy had shown up.

So no, America did not save Britain from invasion. British action in defending her airspace, the strength of the Royal Navy and the lack of German foresight in not anticipating the need for an invasion until mid-1940 all combined together to save Britain.

VW-IceFire
05-19-2005, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Sorry guyz, and I'm not ragging on anyone, but as a Canadian I must admit I'm getting a little fed up with seeing "Britain saved herself". I've seen this too many times and can't stay quiet anylonger. Britain did NOT save herself. In fact I'd say the most important event for Britain's survival was the intellect of a certain obese LW leader(think Dunkirk) and Britain's most important ally, Canada.

To add, Canada was in it from the beginning to the end. Many Canadians fought for and died for Britain. Canada gave a lot in terms of resources, weapons, and lives. Without Canada and Goehring Britain would have fallen, be sure.

I really don't know, but I think "Britain saved herself" might also be an insult to the Aussies and Kiwis.

Fritz
Absolutely right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were right there in the war with England pretty much from the beginning. Notable Canadians and hundreds of thousands more were involved with the war long before the U.S. ever became involved.

We had the fourth largest navy in the world during World War II (as I recall anyways) and a large number of RCAF pilots were involved in everything from tank busting to level bombing. Plus flight instructors....Canada was THE training ground for Allied pilots.

Its why I mentioned the Commonwealth countries as being major supporters without specifically addressing Canada. We don't need to beat our own chest nearly as often as others...but sometimes we do...just so nobody forgets. Although from what I know of the VE-Day celebrations, the Belgians certainly remember the Canadian contribution to the war.

Anyways off topic really. The question I think has been answered in depth. The Commonwealth and Britain staved off Hitler for quite some time.

Lucius_Esox
05-19-2005, 04:59 PM
Hmm,
Let me see. We are talking about the Germans invading Britain in 1940!

I agree the Germans did a mighty good job themselves of screwing things up ala Goring and Hitler, but then, as now, THE intellect that saved Britain has not been mentioned.

Dowding!

He almost single handedly was responsible for forming the oganisation that was fighter command. This includes AA guns, observer corp, filter rooms, all the chain home radars and their integration into the system.

The system that was fighter command in the 1940's did not have an equal anywhere else in the world.

By comparison to other air defence doctrines of the time it was superbly organised and efficient.

No matter what the nationality of the pilots flying the RAF fighters, they had to be in the right place at the right time.

His tactics were responsible for exploiting the Luftwaffe's inept one's.

He was basically sacked shortly after the battle.

The man who replaced him and was responsible for fighter commands tactics after the battle (which led to very high losses in the RAF) was Leigh Mallory, also responsible for the "big wing theory". Which I might add if implememted during the battle would have resulted in far more bombers reaching their targets.

EiZ0N
05-19-2005, 05:01 PM
Those who don't beat their chest often are held in the highest regard, I feel

Shakthamac
05-19-2005, 05:01 PM
Now, I know that the US had very little direct involvement with fighting the Germans during the Battle of Britain BUT, to say we had no effect is not true either. In 1939, the US formed the Neutrality Patrol, designed to keep isolationist America out of the war. This was first set at 300 miles offshore from the US. This was later extended all the way to Iceland. In effect, convoys were guarded by US Navy warships preventing Uboats from sinking them as it would be them being an agressor which they didnt want at the time. So, Britains vastly depleted navy only had to meet the convoys half way and bring them back. Had the Neutrality Patrol not existed, convoys would have been decimated to the point where Britain would have been in a much dire situation. Keep in mind that this was long before the Battle of Britain ever took place. The US did help Britain out tremendously during the battle, just not in Britain

Pirschjaeger
05-19-2005, 05:01 PM
IN WW2, CANADA PRODUCED almost a million vehicles for service with the Commonwealth forces. In addition, the Canadian Army Overseas used a wide variety of miscellaneous British and American hard- and soft-skin vehicles.

missiveus
05-19-2005, 05:02 PM
The occupation of France would have been withdrawn when peace was signed between England and Nazi germany.

Nonsense. Germany was determined to use France's considerable natural resources and industrial base to augment its own, and implement its racial policies throughout Europe.

To answer the original question, I agree with the majority here: Britain, with the help of its Commonwealth partners, fought for and won its freedom from Nazi tyranny without the help of the USA. Although privately FDR believed American involvement in the European war was inevitable, he had an election to win in 1940 for a third term. Not only was isolationist sentiment strong in America before the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, but shame to admit, many Americans were anti-British and believed England was trying to drag America into fighting her war. Also, the influence of the pro-German Charles Lindbergh shouldn't be underestimated. He was a national hero, the most famous American of the previous decade.

I also think much credit for England's survival must go to Winston Churchill, who became Prime Minister on the day Germany invaded France and the Low Countries. Many British policy makers believed it was sheer lunacy to reject peace negotiations with Germany after Dunkirk. Churchill was steadfast. He'd been right all along about Herr Hitler, and his antipathy toward Uncle Joe Stalin proved well founded by 1945. A weaker man (Lord Halifax?) might have treated with Germany. What if...?

hotspace
05-19-2005, 05:06 PM
Even though I'm English and proud of it, folk's here tend to forget that the US was sending over to Britain 100 Octane Fuel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hot Space

Lucius_Esox
05-19-2005, 05:08 PM
Oh, as an addenda I entirely agree with Bo_Nidle.

If air superiority had been obtained that summer by the Luftwaffe over England http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Sorry people you can dress it up anyway you like, The Battle of Britain was my nations finest hour!

Shakthamac
05-19-2005, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by missiveus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The occupation of France would have been withdrawn when peace was signed between England and Nazi germany.

Nonsense. Germany was determined to use France's considerable natural resources and industrial base to augment its own, and implement its racial policies throughout Europe.

To answer the original question, I agree with the majority here: Britain, with the help of its Commonwealth partners, fought for and won its freedom from Nazi tyranny without the help of the USA. Although privately FDR believed American involvement in the European war was inevitable, he had an election to win in 1940 for a third term. Not only was isolationist sentiment strong in America before the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, but shame to admit, many Americans were anti-British and believed England was trying to drag America into fighting her war. Also, the influence of the pro-German Charles Lindbergh shouldn't be underestimated. He was a national hero, the most famous American of the previous decade.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys need to do a little research on what was actually happening during this time period.

Try Here Neutrality Patrol (http://www.naval-history.net/WW2USN193909.htm)

What was simply called a Neutrality Patrol was Americas direct contribution to Britain's war effort.

Oilburner_TAW
05-19-2005, 05:20 PM
To answer the question, no. The US and a lot of outher countries contributed to Britain's effort, but the British Commonwealth saved itself. As other's have mentioned, if it were not for Dowding's contributions, things most likely would have gone a lot different.

Also, to ditto what ChuckOlder said, "Clash of Wings" is an EXCELLENT book about air warfare during the entire world war, from mid 30's to the dropping of the A-Bomb.

slarsson
05-19-2005, 05:24 PM
Just one little point........

Would everyone, Brits and non-Brits alike, PLEASE stop using "England" and "Britain" interchangeably?

I was born in England, but I cringe every time I hear about "England standing alone in Europe".
Of course the Commonwealth played a major part in the early years of the war, but so did the Welsh and the Scots and the Manxmen and the Northern Irish.

"Britain stood alone in Europe", not "England"!

Pirschjaeger
05-19-2005, 05:27 PM
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 Pirschjaeger:
Sorry guyz, and I'm not ragging on anyone, but as a Canadian I must admit I'm getting a little fed up with seeing "Britain saved herself". I've seen this too many times and can't stay quiet anylonger. Britain did NOT save herself. In fact I'd say the most important event for Britain's survival was the intellect of a certain obese LW leader(think Dunkirk) and Britain's most important ally, Canada.

To add, Canada was in it from the beginning to the end. Many Canadians fought for and died for Britain. Canada gave a lot in terms of resources, weapons, and lives. Without Canada and Goehring Britain would have fallen, be sure.

I really don't know, but I think "Britain saved herself" might also be an insult to the Aussies and Kiwis.

Fritz
Absolutely right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were right there in the war with England pretty much from the beginning. Notable Canadians and hundreds of thousands more were involved with the war long before the U.S. ever became involved.

We had the fourth largest navy in the world during World War II (as I recall anyways) and a large number of RCAF pilots were involved in everything from tank busting to level bombing. Plus flight instructors....Canada was THE training ground for Allied pilots.

Its why I mentioned the Commonwealth countries as being major supporters without specifically addressing Canada. We don't need to beat our own chest nearly as often as others...but sometimes we do...just so nobody forgets. Although from what I know of the VE-Day celebrations, the Belgians certainly remember the Canadian contribution to the war.

Anyways off topic really. The question I think has been answered in depth. The Commonwealth and Britain staved off Hitler for quite some time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, I know, you are right and this is usually not my style. I am just fed up with this. I have seen the same thing in so many posts since I first came here almost 3 years ago.

This wasn't a 6 or 7 country war. Many countries were involved. My post wasn't so much about thumbing the Canadian chest as much as it was meant to give many a little cuff in the back of the head. I was hoping the Aussies and Kiwis would start posting something.

I think what would be interesting is to see a chart with percentages of loses of life(military and civilian), resources, injured, mia's, volunteers, and everything invovled in the war from each nation compared to their situations in 1938. I think we'd be surprised at the results.

All to often countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Greece, Switzerland( Yes, Switerland, making profit from genocide, Neutral my a$$)and many others almost seem to be forgotten and have played significant roles in the outcome of the war.

My outburst isn't about this thread in particular but rather THESE threads. It's been building up for a while and just needed to get this out of my system. When I see "Britain saved herself" it just drives me a little postal.

If the people in Hollywood had taken history in school can you imagine how many great war movies we'd have?

Sorry, not much sleep this week, but it had to be said.

Fritz

missiveus
05-19-2005, 05:31 PM
You guys need to do a little research on what was actually happening during this time period.
You mean like you? Are you trying to argue that America's naval presense in the Atlantic in 1940 was a major contribution to Britain's survival? Yes, America's policy in 1940 favored Britain over Germany, and many American merchant seamen gave their lives in the service of Britain. But in the critical period of the Battle of Britain, when the U.K. stood alone, American assistance was little more than negligable.

Do you deny the widespread isolationist sentiment in America before 12/7/41? Think FDR would have won a third term if he'd pledged American troops and unlimited material in the defence of Britain?

heywooood
05-19-2005, 05:31 PM
It is why the Battle of Britain is held up as an example of one of the most pivotal battles in human history.

Goering and his Luftwaffe were thwarted by a stalwart defense in the air as well as by his own flat out stupidity.

Hitler had a timeline based on the tidal flow in the channel and the climate changes at the end of the year. Goering failed to deliver on his promise of air superiority over England in 5 days (yeah right) and instead - after 3+ months - Luftwaffe losses were not only critical, but the loss of veteran pilots was unrecoverable.

The fact remains that Britain - with the help of her Commonwealth nations and her allies - had enough strength (barely) to prevent a catastrophe of uncertain dimensions.

It looks to me as though this thread will deteriorate into some more idiotic nationalistic garbage very soon now - maybe it should be locked before too many [rappy thoughtless things are said.

Maybe that was the originators desire?...lend lease dates?...c'mon.

Pirschjaeger
05-19-2005, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Shakthamac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missiveus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The occupation of France would have been withdrawn when peace was signed between England and Nazi germany.

Nonsense. Germany was determined to use France's considerable natural resources and industrial base to augment its own, and implement its racial policies throughout Europe.

To answer the original question, I agree with the majority here: Britain, with the help of its Commonwealth partners, fought for and won its freedom from Nazi tyranny without the help of the USA. Although privately FDR believed American involvement in the European war was inevitable, he had an election to win in 1940 for a third term. Not only was isolationist sentiment strong in America before the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, but shame to admit, many Americans were anti-British and believed England was trying to drag America into fighting her war. Also, the influence of the pro-German Charles Lindbergh shouldn't be underestimated. He was a national hero, the most famous American of the previous decade.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys need to do a little research on what was actually happening during this time period.

Try Here Neutrality Patrol (http://www.naval-history.net/WW2USN193909.htm)

What was simply called a Neutrality Patrol was Americas direct contribution to Britain's war effort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. I was just curious if there were other nations involved in that. Norway possibly? Serious question, I'm done ranting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Lucius_Esox
05-19-2005, 05:54 PM
Pirschjaeger,
I hear where you are coming from m8. The Canadin contribution to the war (especially Britains part in it) was immense.

Not only in men and materials either. I believe the Empire flying training school based in your country was responsible for a huge supply of trained pilots for the RAF throughout the war.

But, like you, I get a little cranky when someone does not recognise my countries part in events!

Why I should I dont know, and it's probably bad jingoistic, tribal thingummies at work.

While I agree that Britain never stood alone throughout most of the war she was alone for all intensive purposes in that summer of 1940!

For sure we can argue this or that influenced the outcome of the battle, but it was by far British equipment, British tactics, British brains, and British resolve that stopped Germany gaining air superiority in 1940 in the skies over southern England.

Dowdings comments on the subject sum it all up really. He said something like "it's all about our young men killing more of their young men"

Which is grim.

danjama
05-19-2005, 05:55 PM
"I must admit I'm getting a little fed up with seeing "Britain saved herself".

I am sorry if i offended you, but i, like lucios, believe that this was and is Britains finest hour. I have the highest respect for any pilot, nay, servicemen who served at the time of the BOB, but Britain was on her own. Of course we are grateful for all of the pilots from abroad who were volunteering, but the BOB touches my heart, and was a great victory for our country and the commonwealth. i am sorry if i offended you, but i stand strong and say that a very minor part of the RAF was canadian or any other nationality.

With regards to the threat of operation Sealion, it is true that Hitler would rather not go through with it, but they were undoubtebly serious and willing to go through with it if air superioty was gained. The Nazi govmnt had made many documents and files, documenting exactly how things would run, e.g. post offices, police service etc they even worked out the conversion rate of their money into british money. The truth is, they were going to invade and play nice for a while, then they would begin writing history. They had a list of people who would be eliminated at once. They had descriptive and detailed plans on running a government. The threat was indeed real. The battle of britain was fought for a reason.

On a last note, im sorry if i offend anyone im speaking my opinion. I sincerely hope that this thread doesnt turn into THAT kind of thread, As i think its too serious a subject to be like that over. Peace, 334th_Zippo1(HL).

NorrisMcWhirter
05-19-2005, 06:08 PM
Hi,

I always consider the sucess of the BoB to be inclusive of the Commonwealth + the pilots of other nations who fought, particularly the Czechs, Poles and, of course, NZ for Keith Park.

Yep, Hitler may not have wanted to fight "England" whom he considered to be a most dangerous enemy but I wouldn't call sending a good proportion of his air force in terms of machines and pilots to their doom to be a half-hearted affair.

In answer to the original question...no, not really.

Ta,
Norris

Pirschjaeger
05-19-2005, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
"I must admit I'm getting a little fed up with seeing "Britain saved herself".

I am sorry if i offended you, but i, like lucios, believe that this was and is Britains finest hour. I have the highest respect for any pilot, nay, servicemen who served at the time of the BOB, but Britain was on her own. Of course we are grateful for all of the pilots from abroad who were volunteering, but the BOB touches my heart, and was a great victory for our country and the commonwealth. i am sorry if i offended you, but i stand strong and say that a very minor part of the RAF was canadian or any other nationality.

With regards to the threat of operation Sealion, it is true that Hitler would rather not go through with it, but they were undoubtebly serious and willing to go through with it if air superioty was gained. The Nazi govmnt had made many documents and files, documenting exactly how things would run, e.g. post offices, police service etc they even worked out the conversion rate of their money into british money. The truth is, they were going to invade and play nice for a while, then they would begin writing history. They had a list of people who would be eliminated at once. They had descriptive and detailed plans on running a government. The threat was indeed real. The battle of britain was fought for a reason.

On a last note, im sorry if i offend anyone im speaking my opinion. I sincerely hope that this thread doesnt turn into THAT kind of thread, As i think its too serious a subject to be like that over. Peace, 334th_Zippo1(HL).

Hey buddy, no problem. My understanding, based on the first post, was not just about BoB. As I said, it's been building up for years and my ranting was aimed at no one in particular.

History has been warped and twisted through the years and although there's a lot of good and valid info in here I believe we sometimes add to the twisting unknowingly. With acception of my typing from this little laptop keyboard I am somewhat of a perfectionist, especially when it comes to educational and historical information.

I just don't want "us" to become part of the twisting, warping, and omitting of history. That's the job of the governments.

No need for apologies, just a simple "heads-up" to everyone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

gkll
05-19-2005, 06:21 PM
I would simply note that BOB could have been lost and the invasion still might not have been possible. At that stage of the war no one had shown any talent for sinking ships at sea, consider Dunkirk where the vast majority of ships lost were in or adjacent to the harbor.

The Royal Navy has always followed the principle of "Attack at once by day or night" along with "Engage the enemy more closely" and was vastly preeminent in the channel. Any invasion attempt, even with air cover, would (IMO) have been slaughtered mid channel. Anyway point is that BOB could have been lost and still no invasion...

My 2c

carguy_
05-19-2005, 06:29 PM
So many lies here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

blakduk
05-19-2005, 06:35 PM
Jugent- you wrote 'The germans didnt bother to take the French navy. They where so sure that England would plee for peace.'
I have to take issue on that point- the reason the Germans didnt take the French navy was because the British sank it! After the fall of France Churchill ordered the Royal Navy to attack the French fleet in harbour to stop the Germans augmenting their surface fleet. A regrettable but necessary action from the allies point of view.
I agree with most of the posters here- the BOB was fought and won by the British with support of her commonwealth allies.
Interestingly, at the time of the BOB the official propoganda magazine of the LW, 'Der Adler', was printed in English as well as German for the USA market! It makes for an interesting perspective on the conflict with pictures published in it of UK aeroplanes photographed from within LW bombers.

Lucius_Esox
05-19-2005, 06:39 PM
So many lies here

? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

EiZ0N
05-19-2005, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
So many lies here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I would please ask that if you are going to make a post like this, you could tell us which you believe to be lies and this will bring is closer to the truth?

Comments like this on their own are unhelpful and could be inflammatory

blakduk
05-19-2005, 06:43 PM
JG52_Helgstrand- 'The battle of Britain is the only battle ever fought and won entirely in the air.'
It could be argued that the battle of the Coral Sea, between the Japanese and USA naval airforces, was also entirel fought and won in the air. Technical point i admit, but i'm in a nitpicking mood today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Achilles_NZ
05-19-2005, 06:59 PM
An interesting thread.

From this €œKiwi€s€ point of view, I agree with the majority of what has already been said.
You could argue indefinitely whether or not the British won the battle by themselves.
But I€m of the opinion that they did, as the vast majority of the forces involved directly in the day to day fighting on the frontline were from the United Kingdom, e.g. England, Scotland, Ireland & Wales.

But it€s also true that many Canadians, Aussie€s and Kiwi€s served alongside the English pilots, not counting those pilots that fled Europe and joined the RAF after they€re home countries fell.

Many of the figures regarding the actual numbers that served may not even be all that accurate.
I know that many New Zealand pilots that made the journey to England to join up, tended to be assimilated into the British ranks over and above those involved and considered as €œNew Zealanders€.
I would guess this would have happened with many Australian and Canadian pilots as well.

Perhaps a better question to ask would be, €œCould Britain have survived the battle had the Commonwealth not supplied frontline fighter pilots?€
Again, and this is only my opinion, but I think the British would have still scraped by on their own eventually€¦perhaps just.
They still had the home ground advantage.
They still had the good fortune of German blunders.
They were producing plenty of British designed fighters (although finding qualified pilots to fly them, is the sticking point here) and they still had the channel separating them from mainland Europe that prevented the Germans from walking on in.
Perhaps the channel itself was the biggest ally the poms had of all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But in saying this, its very important not to overlook contributions made from other countries, no matter how small or indirect.
The U.S. Neutrality Patrol and convoy supplies as well as the Canadian based €œCommonwealth€ pilot training program that have already been mentioned especially, were definitely not small.
However, perhaps these were of more significance as the war progressed and not as vital to the winning of the battle of Britain itself.

Perhaps it€s not wise to try to paint it as black and white as that though.
Either way, the more you think about it, the more intriguing the subject becomes.

Lastly, I tend to cringe a little myself when I see the €œWhat about my country€ threads http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

**Edited first paragraph to please the nit-pickers** http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pirschjaeger
05-19-2005, 07:29 PM
After all, this was the Battle of Britain and not the Battle of the Commonwealth€¦ although the more you think about it; perhaps it was, as you can€t have one without the other lol.

Achilles, you have chuckling and slightly confused with this one. I had to read it a few times. I told you not to pay attention to Rumsfeld. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Fritz

Achilles_NZ
05-19-2005, 07:38 PM
hehe my booboo, couldnt find the right words but ya get the drift http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
05-19-2005, 07:55 PM
Well I think we've all had a good run at this and its probably time to move along.

For more indepth history, its a good idea to punch up Google for a start and type in The Battle of Britain and learn a bit. Then grab the books and see where it gets you.

I've written some essays on the topic (history major and all). Its an interesting pivot point of history...there's lots of factors involved and many unknows or little known facts here there and everywhere. Bottom line, the pilots of the RAF and the support structures built up underneath them, essentially saved Britain from German invasion.

LStarosta
05-19-2005, 08:01 PM
As a Pole, I'd hate to brag, but the "lesser-known allies", such as Poland and Czechoslovakia had made a great contribution to the Battle of Britain.

Polish pilots alone claimed 15% of all BoB victories, and 303 Polish Sqn. was the highest scoring squadron in the battle with 126 kills in 2 months.

Many foreign pilots spilled their blood for Britain as if it was their own Fatherland. That's a very noble thing to do.

Philipscdrw
05-19-2005, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Achilles_NZ:
...But I€m of the opinion that they did, as the vast majority of the forces involved directly in the day to day fighting on the frontline were of British nationality e.g. English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh etc....

I thought the Irish aren't British? Eire is part of the British Isles, but Britain is the big island with England, Wales, and Scotland on it - or am I completely misguided?

I appreciate that Northern Irishmen served in the armed forces as part of the UK - but are they British?


I like to wonder what would have happened if Hitler had declared an invasion to Czechoslovakia (sp?) outright, and his generals had assassinated him on grounds of insanity. Maybe Britain and Germany (no longer fascist) could have allied against the USSR? Maybe WW2 could have been about GB&Commonwealth, France, and Germany fighting against the Communist empire, while Japan and the USA have a seperate conflict in the Pacific...

JG52_Helgstrand
05-19-2005, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by blakduk:
JG52_Helgstrand- 'The battle of Britain is the only battle ever fought and won entirely in the air.'
It could be argued that the battle of the Coral Sea, between the Japanese and USA naval airforces, was also entirel fought and won in the air. Technical point i admit, but i'm in a nitpicking mood today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

You're missing one thing there "Naval Forces". How can you say it was entirely fought and won in the air?

"The Battle of the Coral Sea, fought in the waters southwest of the Solomon Islands and eastward from New Guinea, was the first of the Pacific War's six fights between opposing aircraft carrier forces."

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/coralsea/coralsea.htm

blakduk
05-19-2005, 08:25 PM
JG52_Helgstrand- I propose that it was fought and won entirely in the air because the fleets never engaged each other directly. The entire battle was fought by aircraft, the ships never sighted each other.
The parallel with the BOB is that the LW was (at least initially) attacking the RAF airfields, aircraft, and manufacturing centres to attain air superiority. Likewise, the IJN and USN were attacking each others carriers focussing on attaining air superiority.

blakduk
05-19-2005, 08:29 PM
JG52_Helgstrand- BTW, great link, thanks for that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

psychobabbler
05-19-2005, 08:48 PM
maybe i'm misinformed,but i've always been under
the inpression that it was the guys and gals at
Bletchly Park who saved the day.

Achilles_NZ
05-19-2005, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Achilles_NZ:
...But I€m of the opinion that they did, as the vast majority of the forces involved directly in the day to day fighting on the frontline were of British nationality e.g. English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh etc....

I thought the Irish aren't British? Eire is part of the British Isles, but Britain is the big island with England, Wales, and Scotland on it - or am I completely misguided?

I appreciate that Northern Irishmen served in the armed forces as part of the UK - but are they British?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My post was admittedly poorly written and in haste, but you know very well the point I was trying to make.
I hope you weren€t offended, as it wasn€t my intention. I have since corrected the paragraph. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG52_Helgstrand
05-19-2005, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by blakduk:
JG52_Helgstrand- I propose that it was fought and won entirely in the air because the fleets never engaged each other directly.

Well that's true, but it is still considered a Naval battle as apposed to an Airforce only battle.

"It was the first aircraft carrier battle ever fought, and the first naval battle in which the opposing forces of surface ships at no stage sighted or fired at each other. All attacks were carried out by aeroplanes.It is also the largest naval battle that has ever been fought off Australia€s shores."

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/bfa/coralsea.html

"The Battle of Britain will be known for two very important reasons in the Annals of modern history. First it was the only battle to be staged in military warfare that was ever to be fought entirely in the air, even to this day."

http://www.battleofbritain.net/bobhsoc/bofb-account.html

blakduk
05-19-2005, 09:51 PM
JG52_Helgstrand- as indicated earlier, i am in a nitpicking mood today and ultimately this argument is meaningless. Having said that however i will continue to argue.
I think the historical distinction comes down to semantics- the Naval airforces are considered to be part of the navy whereas the airforces distinguished themselves from the army in WW1 (when they were initially called an army aircorps). I see the only real difference between the BOB and Battle of the coral sea being that the aircraft were based on land vs ships. The dogfights were not as extended and the length of the battle was far briefer in the latter. To say that the Battle of the Coral sea was only a naval battle makes as much sense as to say the BOB was a land battle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
05-19-2005, 09:52 PM
another interesting question
if ze germans had invaded and won britain, would galland finaly have is squadron of spitfires?

blakduk
05-19-2005, 09:59 PM
psychobabbler- you wrote "maybe i'm misinformed,but i've always been under
the inpression that it was the guys and gals at
Bletchly Park who saved the day."
I think you might be getting mixed up with the battle of the Atlantic when the Bletchcly park crew cracked the Enigma code allowing the allies to locate and kill the U-Boats.
See- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bletchley_Park

Sharkey888
05-19-2005, 10:11 PM
Don't forget the high octane 100 AV fuel from the USA!!

Shakthamac
05-19-2005, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by missiveus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You guys need to do a little research on what was actually happening during this time period.
You mean like you? Are you trying to argue that America's naval presense in the Atlantic in 1940 was a major contribution to Britain's survival? Yes, America's policy in 1940 favored Britain over Germany, and many American merchant seamen gave their lives in the service of Britain. But in the critical period of the Battle of Britain, when the U.K. stood alone, American assistance was little more than negligable.

Do you deny the widespread isolationist sentiment in America before 12/7/41? Think FDR would have won a third term if he'd pledged American troops and unlimited material in the defence of Britain? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where was Britain getting her raw materials from during the battle? Who escorted those raw materials halfway across the Atlantic?

Regardless of any isolationism or politics, the fact remains that FDR found a loophole called the Neutrality Patrol to help Britain during those times.

JG52_Helgstrand
05-19-2005, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by blakduk:
To say that the Battle of the Coral sea was only a naval battle makes as much sense as to say the BOB was a land battle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nobody's saying it was a Naval only battle.
Just not an aircraft only Battle as BOB was.
Whether the ships actualy fought or not, they still played a major part. Carrier based aircraft are considered part of the ship, a moveable weapon as it were. So technicaly it was not a battle fought only in the air.
Also the ships were attacked by aicraft, which means guns on the ship fired at aircraft, thus making it a ship battle also.

blakduk
05-19-2005, 11:53 PM
JG52_Helgstrand- this is fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It sure beats the life and death arguments i have at work.
"Whether the ships actualy fought or not, they still played a major part. Carrier based aircraft are considered part of the ship, a moveable weapon as it were. So technicaly it was not a battle fought only in the air.
Also the ships were attacked by aicraft, which means guns on the ship fired at aircraft, thus making it a ship battle also."

By that argument the BOB was a land battle- what about AAA batteries on land, the coastal shipping attacked by Stukas, the land targets such as airfields, radar towers, cities etc?
Maybe the BOB could be considered an 'airfield' battle- they were quite mobile (often they were just fields), the aircraft were merely an extension of the firepower (a 'moveable weapon').
In both BOB and Coral sea the only way either side inflicted damage on each other was via aircraft.

gkll
05-19-2005, 11:55 PM
Ice fire said "Bottom line, the pilots of the RAF and the support structures built up underneath them, essentially saved Britain from German invasion."

Well that is one view. However I think it bears repeating that the Royal Navy would have provided a very formidable if not insurmountable barrier. There was hardly a German navy at that point at all, something like 10 destroyers, some E boats (S boats whatever) and a few cruisers. The Royal Navy would have been thrown in fully and completely. Think of the Med and Cunningham's committment to Crete.... and then consider what the Brit reaction would have been to an invasion threat to the home island. And as I pointed out the capability of sinking ships at sea, particularily alert and fast moving warships, was dismal on all sides at that point in the war. And would 'victory' in the BOB have meant the total annihilation of the RAF? Unlikely - they would still have been able to throw up dribs and drabs for some local support, unlike the Med. Finally consider that the invasion fleet was largely improvised landing craft barges and so on which could have been swamped mid channel without any intervention by the Brits at all, with a bit of bad luck with the weather.

Pivotal battle yes, but I remain unconvinced that an invasion could have succeeded. Now add a year or two, some rebuilding of the German Navy, some attrition to the Royal Navy, effectively no RAF, and a lot more practice sinking ships at sea by the Luftwaffe, and maybe... but that is late '41 and no Barbarossa...

I for one would not have wanted to be sitting in some 5 knot F-lighter with waves breaking over the bow and the pumps running full out, only to hear the lookout say "Destroyers off the starboard bow - they're Brits..." knowing there was 50 of the b*stds, just for starters...

gkll
05-20-2005, 12:17 AM
Couldn't resist a vignette to illustrate some fairly typical behaviour by the Royal Navy..... never tried it but a Google search of "HMS Glowworm" "Roope" "Hipper" might yield a detailed account.

Anyway it is a fairly typical example of how units of the Royal Navy reacted throughout the war. This Brit destroyer runs across a German heavy cruiser and (I think) 3 fairly large destroyers... so instead of retiring the Brit attacks, is shot to pieces more or less, but with the engines still working the captain orders the helm hard over and <rams> the cruiser... I mean is this Salamis and the days of the galley or what? These guys never quit, ever. And this was some no-name encounter, not the defence of the home island. "Engage the enemy more closely" is not only a famous signal with history out the yin yang, it is probably a fair summary of Brit naval tactics.

As a canuck whose navy has some fair history of its own, I nevertheless bow to the ageless traditions of the Royal Navy.

Lucius_Esox
05-20-2005, 03:12 AM
It is interesting to see this thread still going http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have seen a couple of comments about the Royal Navy being able to stop Germany alone!

With respect to everyone concerned how long do people think the RN would have lasted without fighter cover? ,,,,,,,,,,,

They wouldn't have even got into the fight if air superiority had been obtained by the Luftwaffe, even local.

Imagine if total air superiority had not been achieved before D Day.

As the Japenese discovered with their Yamoto class battleships later in the war, sea power is extrememly vulnerable to air power without air cover.

Churchill also mused "what if" the Germans had actually landed. He wondered if they would have been able to conquer Britain.

Britain was not Russia and Britains land forces were non existant after the fall of France.

They didn't exactly do very well at full strength in France either, it probably would have been slaughter.

One thing Churchill did get very right was his the "few" speech,,,,,, the few were fighter command.

major_setback
05-20-2005, 03:35 AM
It strikes me that that if Germany had gained air superiority then they would have been free to bomb Britain (London, other cities, the Royal Navy etc.) into submission.

Does anyone know how well the Royal Navy would have done witout air support?

Aaron_GT
05-20-2005, 04:27 AM
Who escorted those raw materials halfway across the Atlantic?

AFAIK the USN was not escorting convoys as far as halfway across the Atlantic in 1940 when the Battle of Britain was occuring.

Aaron_GT
05-20-2005, 04:31 AM
It strikes me that that if Germany had gained air superiority then they would have been free to bomb Britain (London, other cities, the Royal Navy etc.) into submission.

Even with the use of firestorms and a large strategic air force and something approaching air superiority in late WW2 it is still debatable whether the allies managed to achieve this. Britain is smaller but the Luftwaffe bombers had relatively small loads so it is highly debatable whether the country as a whole could have been bombed into submission in 1940-41. What it could have done was made the Royal Navy vulnerable to Ju 87 attacks and made the German troop ships less vulnerable to attack from the RN and RAF and made tactical support bombing of the landings possible.

The Luftwaffe wasn't equipped for strategic bombing at the time. The Bomber B project was still relatively new.

dazza9806482
05-20-2005, 06:41 AM
Not too sure how to quote, but the comment by Philipscdrw re. the Northern Irish is a little misguided....

Whilst this is a whole other story, to this day a significant majority of Northern Irish consider themselves British and have shared the same legislative framework and law as mainland Britian.

Indeed for the past 30 odd years people have killed and been killed over a conflict concerning this particular question of national self determination...

I for the record am of the other persuation ie. Nationalist (SDLP voter), however to not consider the Northern Irish in 1940 as being British is not true. The whole ethos of the Northern Irish state was at this point designed to enfranchise those who considered themselves British and maintain a close link.

Not only this Belfast suffered a blitz during WW2 for its contribution to the UK war effort.

If you are from Britian/England surely none of this could have escaped your notice.

Different issue tho, but one that is prevalant nearly 70 years later.

(thank god i moved away!)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

missiveus
05-20-2005, 08:05 AM
Where was Britain getting her raw materials from during the battle? Who escorted those raw materials halfway across the Atlantic?
In 1940? Canada. Under the Neutrality Act no American arms or war material was shipped to Britain, American vessels were excluded from combat zones, and American citizens were forbidden to serve on belligerent vessels. American merchant seamen who did serve did so at their own risk, and were prohibited from making public statements about their experiences.

gkll
05-20-2005, 08:45 AM
Lucius said " With respect to everyone concerned how long do people think the RN would have lasted without fighter cover? ,,,,,,,,,,,

They wouldn't have even got into the fight if air superiority had been obtained by the Luftwaffe, even local."

With respect to you Lucius I think we <can> make an estimate... we can look at some examples from later in the war, when the Luftwaffe was finally getting the hang of sinking ships at sea. A portion of the British fleet was involved in a completely unsupported evacuation of troops in the Med (Crete, 1941). Their fleet got hammered from the air for days on end. They suffered some grevious losses but were able to get the bulk of the troops off from literally under the noses of a well practiced Luftwaffe...

In 1940 nobody was any good at sinking ships at sea. The Navy would have been battered but (IMO, and others too) would have slaughtered the hapless Germans. Now if you want to suggest an invasion in 41, with no or little RAF and a years attrition to the RN and a commensurate increase in the ability of the Luftwaffe to sink ships... and then add in a rebuilt Kreigsmarine, well maybe then... but that is not really "BOB saved the day" is it?

The RN stood into battle under the noses of enemy air cover at all points in the war, with or without air cover. And they largely did so successfully, particularly in the early years. As I say, look at what happened in the Med with the evacuation from Crete if you want a taste of how the RN might have behaved in defence of the home islands. A famous quote from the commanding admiral at Crete was "It takes 3 years to build a ship. It takes 300 to build a tradition." This in reply to ninny hammers suggesting the evacuation was costing too many ships... that is just how these guys thought and acted.

The RN would easily have been able to get into action, would have done so, would have suffered losses, and would have slaughtered the invasion convoy anyway, with hideous loss of life on the German side. They intercepted a troop convoy trying to reinforce the Germans on Crete and slaughtered them to a man... not one German soldier landed from the sea on Crete, they were airborne everyone.

Anyway just because the paradigm is "BOB saved the day" doesn't make BOB "Pivotal battle which changed the war"... if BOB had been lost we might talk about the destruction of the German invasion fleet in Oct 40 by the RN as a 'pivotal battle'.

gkll
05-20-2005, 09:03 AM
Upon rereading the posts I think there is a modern flavor to the thinking.... we are used to considering a surface fleet helpless against well directed air attack and when there is no air cover... that is true <now>, but does not apply to 1940, and not to the Germans in 1940....

Now the Japanese, ahh that is a different story altogether. In early '42 the Japanese really showed what airpower could do with sound tactical doctrine and keen and finely honed aircrew and superb aircraft. They slaughtered unsupported Brit ships and chased the Brit fleet all around the Indian ocean in early '42. But that is the Japanese in '42 not the Germans in '40.

Ruy Horta
05-20-2005, 09:13 AM
Although Britain was able to keep Germany from invading in 1940, it could only do so with the financial support of the US.

Britain was actually spending itself into an unequivocal dependency upon the United States. Although Britain could have stood up against Germany a little longer without said financial aid, it would have bankrupted the nation and lead to an economic defeat.

The question if the UK was saved militarily in 1940 is something else.

A Luftwaffe victory might have pushed the British to rethink their position, but as long as the RN dominated the channel, it would have been near to impossible to establish a beach head for the German army.

Only with air supremacy could the Luftwaffe have dominated the channel during the day light hours, but at night the RN would have been masters of the shipping lanes.

No America did not save Britain from Invasion (not in 1940 and in 1941 Germany looked East), but it did save Britain from economic collapse, and thereby enabling her to continue the fight during the time she stood (militarily) alone.

OD_79
05-20-2005, 09:43 AM
There are so many factors here that some of you are missing the point.
I've skipped pages 2 and 3 as I haven't got all day!
Looking at it from a very simple perspective the USA did not save Britain from invasion. I think someone posted earlier the amount of US airmen in RAF Squadrons as 10...the only Americans serving with the RAF at the time...no official US contribution in terms of fighting at this stage...not until the very end of 1941 did the US declare war...well over a year after the BoB.
The RAF and it's associated commands saved Britain to the greatest extent. Extremely good fighters, for the time, combined with relatively well trained pilots, combined with an effective Early Warning system made life difficult for the Germans, no doubt there. But the fact is that there was such a fool at the top of the Luftwaffe that was so out of touch with modern air combat was a major factor in the failure of the Luftwaffe.
Equipment that came from the US was mostly unsuited to modern warfare at this time, P-36's to France, sent the UK after the fall of France, P-40's and some bomber aircraft (I can't remember what off the top of my head), they were of little use against 109's. There were supplies from the US, but to say they were being escorted by the American's is a bit of an overstatement at the this time in the war.
American involvement at this stage in the war is largely irrelevant.
I'm not denying that there was aid, but the war would have continued without it. It should be more of a question of whether the Royal Air Force won or the Luftwaffe failed.

danjama
05-20-2005, 09:56 AM
I also remember seeing somewhere (Documents on TV), that the Nazi govt(i dont say german, as they are respectable people) planned to send large amounts of paratroopers into different sectors of the UK to gain control and set up a government once air superioty was won. So with the RAF defeated, and ground defences virtually non existent, what good would the RN be then? I would be afraid to imagine.

Lucius_Esox
05-20-2005, 11:36 AM
Good debate.

Whilst true the Germans wern't exactly "experts" at destroying ships with aircraft in 1940, they wouldn't have had to have been in imo.

A sound use of tactics (sic) by the Luftwaffe would have allowed them to engage the RN at some point, whilst the invasion fleet was still in port. This would have probably have been unaposed!

See the Prince of Wales and Repulse here for likely outcomes.

Actually this type of thinking was nearly responsible for Fighter Command never coming into existance.

It was assumed by people like Jacky Fisher (of Jutland fame) that the "Senior Service" would always be responsible for the defence of Britain.

The idea that the defence of Britain would rest very squarely on the shoulders of airpower was not a popular one in Britain after the 1WW.

Dowding was responsible almost single handedly in making the British government see sense over this issue.

Taranto in November 1940 showed to the world what airpower could do to a surface fleet, and had serious implications for the American fleet at Pearl a year later.

No the Germans didn't have torpedo bombers in 1940, but they certainley had bombs that could sink ships.

I think that the idea that the RN could have stopped the invasion on it's own would have led to a "classic" British conclusion, i.e. a glorious defeat in the mould of the charge of the Light Brigade or Dunkirk.

Dowding was a supreme military thinker and a true man of vision. His ideas beat the Luftwaffe not by daring exploits and sheer resolve (although God there was enough of that) but by cold hard logical process.

The survival of fighter command was paramount, and Dowding knew that, so did a few Germans. Unfortunatley for them they were not the one's capable of making decisions that would have destroyed fighter command

Some glaring errors were commited on the British side (putting the vital sector control rooms above ground being one of the most obvious) but in the end they made fewer mistakes and had a much sounder tactical doctrine.

They won,,, thank f*ck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hop2002
05-20-2005, 12:05 PM
Don't forget the high octane 100 AV fuel from the USA!!

Don't forget the high octane 100 av fuel from Aruba, Trinidad and Abadan, as well as 2 UK refineries.

In fact, more 100 octane fuel was imported from Abadan (in the Middle East) during the BoB than was actually used, and that was just one of the sources.


Although Britain was able to keep Germany from invading in 1940, it could only do so with the financial support of the US.

Britain was actually spending itself into an unequivocal dependency upon the United States. Although Britain could have stood up against Germany a little longer without said financial aid, it would have bankrupted the nation and lead to an economic defeat.

I'm not aware of any US financial aid to Britain in 1940. In 1940 Britain was still forced to pay for everything in gold or dollars, cash up front.

dieg777
05-20-2005, 12:34 PM
I do not think that America saved Britain from invasion, you only have to look at the story of Malta to see what the RAF in particular the British forces and people could do against enormous odds. Where America and the Commonwealth and our other Allies helped was later on , in supporting the supply of materiels to the island , in joining and supporting our armies, navy and airforces and in standing shoulder to shoulder with the British people in a time of need.
The key word I think is Allies. We should never forget the contribution of all involved, wether on active service or in a support role - everyone played their part at this time. The Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic were both a close run fight and we needed all the help from every quarter that we could get.
S

telsono
05-20-2005, 02:08 PM
This has been an interesting discussion. There are many aspects to an invasion that have to be considered. Many of these aspects have been talked about already.
First, the Royal Navy was certainly a deterent to a surface attack over the Channel. The carnage from both sides would have turned it red.
Second, The RAF with its warning system would have been an able adjunct to the RN in the Channel as well as a main deterent to airborne efforts. The advance warning by Radar is a key factor.
Would an airborne force 'ala Crete' have succeeded? Very questionable IMO, in Crete the Germans tried to take out the airfields by landing on them all the effective airfields. The RAF in Crete were refugees from Greece without basic support facilities. In Crete the German paratroopers and airborne troops had to rely on re-supply from the air which was tenuous.
To launch the invasion as well, the Germans would have to strip all of the light cargo vessels in Europe as mentioned earlier. Also, by a 1970's study on the planning for "Sealion", it was estimated that the Germans would have to use every single truck, civilian and military, in Europe as well to accomplish this feat. Horses still played a key role as a beast of burden in the German army to the end of the war. More horses were used for transport in WWII than in any other war.
Technically it would have been a daunting task for the Germans to invade England. To do it at the expense of the entire infrastructure of Europe may make one pause and think it over.

Aaron_GT
05-20-2005, 02:57 PM
I'm not aware of any US financial aid to Britain in 1940. In 1940 Britain was still forced to pay for everything in gold or dollars, cash up front.

Also by giving the rights to use bases in the Pacific in return for military equipment (ships). In 1941, when it was apparent that Britain simply could not afford to pay, and the Neutrality Act was essentially abandoned Lend Lease started.

boxmike
05-20-2005, 03:46 PM
No matter what ya say...There was one fortress left in Europe against Germany's effort...There were the Few...What, deeper analysis? O yea, just break my admire for a foreign country...

- boxter

gkll
05-20-2005, 04:19 PM
Lucius said "Whilst true the Germans wern't exactly "experts" at destroying ships with aircraft in 1940, they wouldn't have had to have been in imo.

A sound use of tactics (sic) by the Luftwaffe would have allowed them to engage the RN at some point, whilst the invasion fleet was still in port. This would have probably have been unaposed!"

I guess I am a little unclear about just what tactics you might be referring to... I mean it is not as if you could have lured the fleet out to sea... they would have showed up when the invasion fleet was at sea not before.

And anyway I think you misread what I am saying a bit.. I am not trying to maintain that there was no need for Fighter command. Without the RAF and with a sustained effort by the Germans they could have eventually and inevitably worn down the RN and got their invasion, but fall 1940 it would not have been possible IMO.

Taranto was motionless ships in harbor, not fast moving cruisers and destroyers at sea and fully alert. The loss of Force Z is those Japanese I was talking about, this showed the way to the future far more than Taranto or Pearl Harbor even... led by a moron of an admiral, with bad doctrine and tactics, unsupported and far from a base, sunk (Doh!) by the finest aircrew and aircraft in the world for the job they had to do. Howeever as I say this was '42 and the Japanese, not '40 and the Germans.

By '45 a surface fleet could not have stood against an airforce unsupported, 5 years of practice and evolution of weapons and tactics makes a great deal of difference.

gkll
05-20-2005, 04:33 PM
Would an airborne force 'ala Crete' have succeeded? Very questionable IMO, in Crete the Germans tried to take out the airfields by landing on them all the effective airfields. The RAF in Crete were refugees from Greece without basic support facilities. In Crete the German paratroopers and airborne troops had to rely on re-supply from the air which was tenuous.

Yes that is all true. My point about Crete was not to draw a parallel to an airborne invasion of the British Isles, but rather an illustration of the RN facing off against the Luftwaffe in daylight operations during the evacuation of the Brit troops... it was absolutely brutal yet they managed to bring off the evacuation. And this was against a Luftwaffe who had radically improved weapons and tactics relative to the fall of '40.

Really the war showed, in the end, the unquestioned superiority of air power over sea power (if you call aircraft carriers part of the 'air', something navies the world over might dispute), however during the early part of the war it still hung in the balance.

gkll
05-20-2005, 04:47 PM
I think that the idea that the RN could have stopped the invasion on it's own would have led to a "classic" British conclusion, i.e. a glorious defeat in the mould of the charge of the Light Brigade or Dunkirk.

Actually Dunkirk is a superb example of my exact point. It could hardly be more supportive - doh for not thinking of it. Dunkirk was the British fleet operating on the other side of the channel against the worst the Luftwaffe could do, shuttling transports back and forth. Bad but not unsupportable losses, this was only months before the BOB. So a mere portion of the fleet was able to operate on the <other> side of the channel against the Luftwaffe, with many defenceless merchies in the mix. Furthermore many of the ships were sunk in harbor or adjacent to land. Take out the merchies and the shepherd duties, don't make the warships crawl around in a harbor or close off-shore, put them out to sea with their favorite job ('attack at once by day or night'), bring them out to mid channel, and quadruple (or more) the number of RN ships and you have bad news for an invasion convoy, nevermind the follow up convoys if they did get a beach head... really it just stretches the mind to imagine it working <at that point in the war>.

smokincrater
05-20-2005, 05:00 PM
Britain and the commonwealth are the ONLY nations to fight axis powers from the 3rd of september 1939 to 2nd september 1945.The British Empire succesfully defended her own shores using her own manpower and her own weapons.The Britsh Empire was the only countries waging war on the Axis powers for more than 18 months!
Need anyone to say anymore on this topic.

"The biggest problem with war is peace."

heywooood
05-20-2005, 05:48 PM
smokincrater has the definitive reply..

FoolTrottel
05-20-2005, 05:48 PM
that the Nazi govt(i dont say german, as they are respectable people) planned to send large amounts of paratroopers into different sectors of the UK to gain control and set up a government once air superioty was won.

They have planned it but ... in May 1940 they lost the bulk of their Ju53's in Holland ...

MoeLarryCheese
05-20-2005, 06:26 PM
The US was officially neutral during the BOB.
No US weapons were used except the Browning
machine guns that armed British Spitfires
and Hurricanes.

The US supplied 100 octane/grade AV Gas at
a critical moment and allowed over boosting
of the Merlin engines in those Spits and Hurricanes.
British AV gas was 87 Octane/Grade at that time.
The fuel arrived first in the ESSO tanker "Beacon Hill".

Food, fuel and raw materials were the primary
support during the BOB.

America was far from neutral.

Also it is now clear that FDR was never going to
allow Hitler to take Britian.

It is also clear that the Brits did in fact turn back
the Germans on their own, and may well have
prevailed on their own.

But they did recieve all the help the US could
provide without being an obvious beligerent.

By the way, the AV gas thing was an important
factor in the over all victory.
US refiners had found a way to crack crude
oil at high tempratures to increast the % of yeild
of gasoline from crude oil. The by product was
a fuel with a much higher base octane rating than
previously possible.

Adding TEL to the 80 grade base resulted in a light
100 grade fuel, and later over 150 grade was yeilded.

The AXIS powers never got the technology before war
broke out. (they had TEL but not the high temp cracking)

MLC

Lucius_Esox
05-20-2005, 11:19 PM
It does pose an interesting question about how would the RN would have been brought to battle without including the invasion fleet.

The Dunkirk example does make you think, but, there was still a fully functional fighter force employed by the British at that time.

Having said that the Raf were criticised by the Army and the RN alike, basically because they couldnt actually see the fight going on inland and high above them, and as we know from online experience doing it low and slow over the beaches would have been a moral boost but disasterous http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

In truth,,,, God knows!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I tell you something though I would love to wargame just this scenario with a realistic game engine.

I think the ammount of different views here shows some of the "real" life problems about Sealion.

How to get the British fleet to engage after air superiority is achieved over the channel?

Hmmm, I know, set up a hospitality ship mid channel and tell the British it's free beer!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

You never know!!

Ruy Horta
05-21-2005, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
I'm not aware of any US financial aid to Britain in 1940. In 1940 Britain was still forced to pay for everything in gold or dollars, cash up front.

Exactly, they were buying themselves into economic ruin. Only through later US aid could they continue the struggle. There are more ways to loose a war. One way is invasion, another is economic ruin if you are dependent on foreign imports.

They might have survived 1940, but 1941 would have been difficult without said (financial) aid.

But in 1940 Britain was not saved from invasion through any action of the US of A.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Of course these are short generalities, a gaming forum isn't the best (or grateful) medium to share complex thoughts.

I can recommend:

1940
Myth and Reality
by Clive Ponting
Hamish Hamilton, 1990
ISBN: 0-241-12668-1

As for the Invasion

Hitler on the Doorstep
Operation 'Sea Lion': The German Plan to Invade Britain, 1940
by Egbert Kiesler
Arm and Armour, 1997
ISBN: 1-85409-428-9

also

The Breaking Wave
World War II in the Summer of 1940
by Telfort Taylor
Simon and Schuster, 1967
ISBN: n/a

OD_79
05-21-2005, 02:36 AM
Just a quick thing on the economic stuff...FDR forced Britain into spending everything, as it was the only way he could show Congress that Britain needed the support of the US, the 50 destroyers for bases were on the condition that Britain was commiting absolutely everything to the war effort. This bankrupted Britain by the end of the war, effectively ending the days of the Empire as it became unsutainable, leaving the way open for the US to take over.
As for fuel, there were other sources and it was not something we were particularly short of.
I think some of you are overestimating the US in that it still had its embassies in Germany, it only gave Britain two weeks in the summer of 1940, the stuff we were supplied with was obsolete, in terms of equipment, and could not be used in modern European warfare.
As for the stuff about the Navy...At this time none of the lessons of attacking surface ships had been learnt effectively as the war was not even a year old...admittedly ships were still vulnerable to air power, but I would argue that not as vulnerable as by 1945 when the practice of anti-shipping attacks were well established. The Navy should have been capable of severly hampering a German invasion force, if not stopping it. The damage an initial attack by the Nay could have done may well have been enough to actually prevent the invasion from succeeding as the loss of invasion barges and supply ships could well have prevented the Germans from being able to supply their troops accross the Channel.

OD

gkll
05-21-2005, 04:50 AM
"The Dunkirk example does make you think, but, there was still a fully functional fighter force employed by the British at that time."

Yeah thats right of course I thought of it later. Also going against the Dunkirk parallel is the fact that Dunkirk was as much at night as they could manage, whereas anti-invasion would be in the day.

Its been an interesting discussion.

S!

Ruy Horta
05-21-2005, 05:15 AM
An invasion isn't pulled off in a day.

Getting yourself established by creating a beach head is one, but that's only the beginning. You'll need to support that army and in 1940 the Kriegsmarine would have been hopelessly incapable of supporting a strong invasion force.

1. Would Britain have fallen through a coup de main on the South Coast?

2. Would the RAF been utterly incapable of operations in any likely scenario?

3. Would the Luftwaffe been capable of supporting the army AND neutralizing the RN and remaining RAF at the same time?

If the Germans regarded air superiority in the South as sufficient to go ahead, that still left RAF reserves beyond Luftwaffe fighter range (but easily in range of the invasion beaches) to be dealt with.

RAF Bomber Command could be put into action, and RN forces would be able to loiter beyond effective Luftwaffe cover at day and pounce the beaches by night and be gone again the next morning.

We are not even looking at the ground forces that could be called upon by Britain in this emergency, regardless of heavy weapons. Note that with its extremely poor amphibious capabilities the Wehrmacht would have been extremely hard pressed to land Panzer forces in the south of England.

Whichever way you look at it a strong invasion and sustained effort would have been extremely difficult for the germans. Sure they could for instance operate fighters from forward airstrips on the south coast, but as long as there was an RAF presence those would be difficult to operate - logistically a nightmare.

Look at the Kriegsmarine and the means of invasion - river barges etc?

Forced to live of the land - fuel & food - German forces would soon have been tied to the south, mainly without heavy weapons or the means to operate them.

The Wehrmacht would probably have suffered a decisive defeat...

Lets face it, Hitler regarded Soviet Russia a more tempting target than Britain for good reason.

Kepe then the sea that is the wall of England;
And than is England kept by Goddes handde

Hollow-Cost
05-21-2005, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
As a Pole, I'd hate to brag, but the "lesser-known allies", such as Poland and Czechoslovakia had made a great contribution to the Battle of Britain.

Polish pilots alone claimed 15% of all BoB victories, and 303 Polish Sqn. was the highest scoring squadron in the battle with 126 kills in 2 months.

Many foreign pilots spilled their blood for Britain as if it was their own Fatherland. That's a very noble thing to do.

Pure self-interest, not really all that noble. Plus it probably took 3 pollacks to change an aileron.

Hollow-Cost
05-21-2005, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shakthamac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missiveus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The occupation of France would have been withdrawn when peace was signed between England and Nazi germany.

Nonsense. Germany was determined to use France's considerable natural resources and industrial base to augment its own, and implement its racial policies throughout Europe.

To answer the original question, I agree with the majority here: Britain, with the help of its Commonwealth partners, fought for and won its freedom from Nazi tyranny without the help of the USA. Although privately FDR believed American involvement in the European war was inevitable, he had an election to win in 1940 for a third term. Not only was isolationist sentiment strong in America before the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, but shame to admit, many Americans were anti-British and believed England was trying to drag America into fighting her war. Also, the influence of the pro-German Charles Lindbergh shouldn't be underestimated. He was a national hero, the most famous American of the previous decade.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys need to do a little research on what was actually happening during this time period.

Try Here Neutrality Patrol (http://www.naval-history.net/WW2USN193909.htm)

What was simply called a Neutrality Patrol was Americas direct contribution to Britain's war effort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. I was just curious if there were other nations involved in that. Norway possibly? Serious question, I'm done ranting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank God.

gkll
05-21-2005, 11:27 AM
Kepe then the sea that is the wall of England;
And than is England kept by Goddes handde

Drake?

Ruy Horta
05-21-2005, 11:41 AM
Not Drake.

They are the opening words in Roskill's The War at Sea.*

According to the introduction the text is part of The Libel of English Policie dated c. 1436 and is attributed to Bishop Adam de Moleyns.

But I thought it was kind of appropriate to the nature of this thread.

*
History of the Second World War
The War at Sea
Volume I The Defensive
Captain S.W. Roskill, RN
HMSO, 1956
(also available in reprint)

IF you are lucky enough to find original HMSO editions, at a good price, don't hesitate. At worst they are still a good investment.

peterm1
05-21-2005, 04:34 PM
On a slightly wider topic, like most of the rest of the world, (or so it seems from my persepctive) I get a little fed up with a certain group of excessively patriotic, egocentric and myopic Americans who think THEY won the war single handedly (courtesy of Hollywood, John Wayne and more recently Tom Cruise, Ben Affleck and.......well you can name the rest of the silverscreen heroes.)

America's industrial muscle and manpower, and yes, sacrific, played a major part in the ultimate allied victory victory - when the US eventually overcame its isolationist mania and entered the war - curtesy of Hirohito / Hitler.

But just think of all the countries that fought for much longer and sufferred so much more than the US. Take the USSR for example - 20 million dead! On any unbiased reading of history, if any one country won the war (which in itself is untrue) it was the USSR , not the US. (And no, before you ask I am not Russian or from an ex soviet blok country, I am an Oz - just someone who is in favour of a little balance so that as these war years recede and the participants die, out future generations will understand that this was an ALLIED cause and an ALLIED victory.

Monty_Thrud
05-21-2005, 05:17 PM
Keep off the grass

gkll
05-21-2005, 06:10 PM
Thanks Ruy... we have Roskill at the local library, I've read it.

AFJMantis
05-21-2005, 09:11 PM
By the end of BoB Britain was producing twice as many aircraft as Germany which was an amazing feat considering the conditions at the time. One thing is for sure though,If England had not repelled Germany there would have been no staging ground for operation overlord, which im sure everyone will agree was a major event in world war II and ultimately led to victory in Europe.
If you look at these facts then it is clear that USA did not save England from invasion, but England indirectly saved Europe by resisting the German invasion.
USA sat back for 2 years and watched what was going on at the time and had decided that the fall of England was inevitable and therefor contacted the British secretary of state and offered to take all Britains art and historic artifacts for safe keeping away from the nazis.The reply was simple, we will look after our own historic artifacts thankyou.
I suggest that England would never have fallen, at one stage there were even suggestions from Hitler that he would call off all attacks on Britain if they would keep to themselves, and not get involved with his plans in Europe.
This says to me that the Nazis knew they had bitten off more than they could chew.Unless you are actually from Britain it is hard to comprehend,but Britain is not France neither is it Poland "We shall NEVER surrender"
I also suggest that Great Britain was an inspiration to the US. This small island that resisted
and repelled the might of the Nazi war machine.

(Quote: Winston Churchill)
The battle of France is over.I expect that the battle of Britain is about to begin.
Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation, upon it depends our own
British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire.
Though the fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us,it is known
that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to
him all Europe may be free, and the life of the world may move forward into broad
sunlight uplands, but if we fail then the whole world including the United States,
including all that we have known or cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age.
Made more sinister and perhaps more protracted by the lights of perverted science.
Let us therefor brace ourselves to our duties,and so bare ourselves,that if the British
Empire and its commonwealth should last for a thousand years, men will still say THIS
was thier finest hour.
(end quote)

Hastatus
05-22-2005, 08:40 AM
If any one factor prevented an invasion of Britain after the BoB it was the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941.

And for the record Britain alone would not have lasted without help from its Commonwealth allies: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, to name only a few. They didnt do it all alone (and neither did the USA).

You could ask a more appropriate question of "could the British have invaded Germany without help from the USA?", thats probably a better question, as has been stated, the BoB was on two years before the US was in the war with any real ground combat units stationed in Britain, so no, the USA played no major part preventing an invasion in 1940 or 1941. Its real achievement as an ally came when it was time to start offensive operations in the ETO and the Med against Germany and Italy, and starting the drive against the Japanese in the CBI and the Pacific.

Read books. Decide on your own.

...as for "isolationist America" posts, I would remind the readers that the USSR signed a non-agression pact with Germany, they only got into the war after they were invaded. The USA was also not a guarantor of Polish nuetrality, nor was she a commonwealth country. So lets go easy on the "Great Crusade" posts. I say this as a Canadian btw. My point being all the nations had different motives and factors that brought them into the war with Germany. Lets not forget that, national sentiments aside. It can also be pointed out that no European power came to Chinas aid, or declared war on Japan, before the USA did.

Popey109
05-22-2005, 09:12 AM
Yea! It€s true; Americans had no interest in fighting a second world war in Europe in less than 30 years. But after December 7 1941 we fought on two fronts€¦how much Allied support did we have in the Pacific?...I mean other than defending there own interest and territory?...and how much support did we provide there?...we are slow to move, but when we move it really makes a difference! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Pirschjaeger
05-22-2005, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Hollow-Cost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shakthamac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missiveus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The occupation of France would have been withdrawn when peace was signed between England and Nazi germany.

Nonsense. Germany was determined to use France's considerable natural resources and industrial base to augment its own, and implement its racial policies throughout Europe.

To answer the original question, I agree with the majority here: Britain, with the help of its Commonwealth partners, fought for and won its freedom from Nazi tyranny without the help of the USA. Although privately FDR believed American involvement in the European war was inevitable, he had an election to win in 1940 for a third term. Not only was isolationist sentiment strong in America before the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, but shame to admit, many Americans were anti-British and believed England was trying to drag America into fighting her war. Also, the influence of the pro-German Charles Lindbergh shouldn't be underestimated. He was a national hero, the most famous American of the previous decade.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You guys need to do a little research on what was actually happening during this time period.

Try Here Neutrality Patrol (http://www.naval-history.net/WW2USN193909.htm)

What was simply called a Neutrality Patrol was Americas direct contribution to Britain's war effort. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. I was just curious if there were other nations involved in that. Norway possibly? Serious question, I'm done ranting. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank God. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Trink. Aren't you getting tired of changing your name yet? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Hastatus
05-22-2005, 09:33 AM
Well, Australia and New Zealand did what they could, considering the very small size of their countries, and the fact that they were already fighting the Germans and Italians in N.Africa.

It was Aussies that fought alongside the US in the quagmire of New Guinea. The British and India fought the Japanese in Burma, but the major contributor to Japans defeat in the Pacific was the USA, by sheer size of their navy, army and air forces as the war progressed.

I dont know if I would characterise the US allies as "only fighting for their own territory". Defeat of Japan was what they all fought for, because thats what it took to remove the threat to their nations interests. Also, the US did not request major forces from its allies in the Pacific, that was by deliberate choice.

Pirschjaeger
05-22-2005, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Hollow-Cost:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
As a Pole, I'd hate to brag, but the "lesser-known allies", such as Poland and Czechoslovakia had made a great contribution to the Battle of Britain.

Polish pilots alone claimed 15% of all BoB victories, and 303 Polish Sqn. was the highest scoring squadron in the battle with 126 kills in 2 months.

Many foreign pilots spilled their blood for Britain as if it was their own Fatherland. That's a very noble thing to do.

Pure self-interest, not really all that noble. Plus it probably took 3 pollacks to change an aileron. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Hollow-head(formally Trink_Afri-Cola)

Racism and prejudism are not welcome in this community and I'm sure 99% of this community agrees.

Sick'em Ivan!

Fritz

LStarosta
05-22-2005, 03:33 PM
Hahaha.

Keep em comin! Your self-elevating comments must be compensating for a lack of endowment of some sort. That's gotta suck!

blazer-glory
05-22-2005, 03:49 PM
Hey dont forget about the poor russians who certainly took the wind out of the Nazis sails. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
05-22-2005, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by AFJMantis:
By the end of BoB Britain was producing twice as many aircraft as Germany which was an amazing feat considering the conditions at the time.

It didn`t. It produced more fighters, but that`s understandable, fighters are defensive aircraft, and Britain was on defense, so they cut back on bomber production and produced fighters, like the Germans did later on. Another thing to mention that the Brits went total war after in this life threatening situation, while in Germany there was no full mobilization of the war industry until 1943 or so.


This says to me that the Nazis knew they had bitten off more than they could chew.Unless you are actually from Britain it is hard to comprehend,but Britain is not France neither is it Poland "We shall NEVER surrender"

Yes unless you are from Britain, it`s hard to comprehend. The British alone would stand little chance vs. Germany had the Germans spend some time for dealing with them; fortunately for the Brits, they were never be in the position to have any remote chance to question German dominance on the continent - and the Germans knew this well, too. They spent no money on phantom threats.



(Quote: Winston Churchill)
Let us therefor brace ourselves to our duties,and so bare ourselves,that if the British
Empire and its commonwealth should last for a thousand years, men will still say THIS
was thier finest hour.
(end quote)

Funny that both Adolph and Winnie were speaking of 1000 year empires, and both did last more than 10-15 years after THEM - thanks to their 'smart' politics. We should be thankful for Winnie, he had big part in making the world a nicer place without those 2 empires of evil.
PS : If winnie was that worried about freedom of people, he could free India and the rest of his colonial empire for start... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG52_wunsch
05-22-2005, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by smokincrater:
Britain and the commonwealth are the ONLY nations to fight axis powers from the 3rd of september 1939 to 2nd september 1945.The British Empire succesfully defended her own shores using her own manpower and her own weapons.The Britsh Empire was the only countries waging war on the Axis powers for more than 18 months!
Need anyone to say anymore on this topic.

"The biggest problem with war is peace."

not much else to say.well said smokin'.cheers

p1ngu666
05-22-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJMantis:
By the end of BoB Britain was producing twice as many aircraft as Germany which was an amazing feat considering the conditions at the time.

It didn`t. It produced more fighters, but that`s understandable, fighters are defensive aircraft, and Britain was on defense, so they cut back on bomber production and produced fighters, like the Germans did later on. Another thing to mention that the Brits went total war after in this life threatening situation, while in Germany there was no full mobilization of the war industry until 1943 or so.


This says to me that the Nazis knew they had bitten off more than they could chew.Unless you are actually from Britain it is hard to comprehend,but Britain is not France neither is it Poland "We shall NEVER surrender"

Yes unless you are from Britain, it`s hard to comprehend. The British alone would stand little chance vs. Germany had the Germans spend some time for dealing with them; fortunately for the Brits, they were never be in the position to have any remote chance to question German dominance on the continent - and the Germans knew this well, too. They spent no money on phantom threats.



(Quote: Winston Churchill)
Let us therefor brace ourselves to our duties,and so bare ourselves,that if the British
Empire and its commonwealth should last for a thousand years, men will still say THIS
was thier finest hour.
(end quote)

Funny that both Adolph and Winnie were speaking of 1000 year empires, and both did last more than 10-15 years after THEM - thanks to their 'smart' politics. We should be thankful for Winnie, he had big part in making the world a nicer place without those 2 empires of evil.
PS : If winnie was that worried about freedom of people, he could free India and the rest of his colonial empire for start... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

imo neither britain nor germany could deliver a knock out blow on the other, hurt each other alot, but not finish it.

also theirs some 940years to go on the empire and commenwealth http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

churchil also ordered the use of gas if the germans invaded.

also the british empire was the biggest there has ever been at its peak http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

also churchill was right in his speech. if england fell to the germans, then africa would be theirs, the middle east, and a drive to link up with japan would be likely. a smash and grab to take any extra islands then to attack russia.
i dont think there was any other countries that could fight anything but a gerilla war successfully in africa, middle east and india.

amusingly hitler stated he was invading russia to get resources to beat the british http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Chivas
05-22-2005, 10:47 PM
Germany saved Britain from invasion by attack Russia.

Pirschjaeger
05-22-2005, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
amusingly hitler stated he was invading russia to get resources to beat the british http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ha ha ha, that is funny. I think conquering Russia to support a conquered Britain might have been closer to the truth. Britain does have a lot of natural resources, making it an import country, henceforth Britains former empire.

Hitler, from what I've heard, had a bit of a "soft spot" for the British. Had Hitler conquered Britain I seriously doubt that any of the nations in the British empire would have submitted to the Third Reich, meaning Hitler would have had to feed an clothe the British from his own pocket.

Besides, gloomy weather and warm beer is not good for moral. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In my opinion, two very good reasons why it would have been totally illogical to conquer Britain before conquering resources.

Fritz

Skalgrim
05-22-2005, 11:19 PM
it was not american and brits,

it was russian that have defeat the germans,

when one cuntry count as the defeater of nazi germany, then was it the russian.


Sure, german was not situation to conquer brits, because the navy was much stronger, without air superiority no way,

one problem, the german airwer was on par with brits airpower, not good way to win with 15min combat time for 109 over britain.

For hitler sick thinking counts the brits and especially the england as very good breed,

for hitler was breed very important,

and prestige and feeling count many for people like him, much more as rationally.

Look stalingrad, it was too more prestige as strategy.

Hitler was from the english culture very impress, and it was perhaps for him a question of honour to defeat they more as stategic part,


Winston Churchill, think he was not so important as many think, the war was won from fighters not political,

the brits had one advantage, the had knows for was they fight,

it is called freedom

..

Skalgrim
05-23-2005, 12:16 AM
think galland book "the first and the last" has you not read,

galland say in those book, he prefer 109 over spit, galland had both plane fly, he know from what he speak.

It every time same, we all looking what we like to read.

Have too read from spit ace that has fly 109 too, he had prefer spit, but what count more, german like 109 and brits the spit more not,

it seem subjective and feeling is to strong, that is the base i trust not pilots accounts.

So it seem they was match birds, at least with same powerload.

109 suffer some time at weak powerload, all good fuel had the 190 gets, because the 109 was with crape b4 fuel good performing bird other as the 190.

Mark Hanna had compare spit and 109 with similar powerload, for him was matches birds,


Think galland would only anger g¶ring, g¶ring was very egotistical person, and it seem galland has like him to anger, was probable too easy,

g¶ring was ww1 ace, and he had think 109 must fly like ww1 dr1 bird.

btw,

190 with b4 fuel had no chance against 109 with same fuel




Originally posted by p1ngu666:
another interesting question
if ze germans had invaded and won britain, would galland finaly have is squadron of spitfires?

Aaron_GT
05-23-2005, 01:41 AM
In 1972 or thereabouts they did a reenactment (on paper) of the Battle of Britain in London, and Galland got to command the Luftwaffe forces. I am not sure what the conclusion the recreation came to.

ploughman
05-23-2005, 02:42 AM
warm beer is not good for moral.


It does just fine for mine...yum, yum, yum, John Smith's, Old Peculiar, Black Sheep, Speckled Hen, let me count the ways.

Anyway, what's this disinformation about warm beer? It's not warm, it's just not served at a fraction of a degree above freezing. It's served somewhere in the upper 40 degrees F, which is plenty cold enough on a dark winter's night.

bolillo_loco
05-23-2005, 02:47 AM
I doubt very much that the germans were in any posistion at any time during the war to invade and conquer brittian. The RAF and RN would have had a field day with the german invasion fleet in the narrow channel. The invasion fleet was a joke! piece meal psuedo invasion bardges pulled by tugs... similar to bolting armor on a bull dozer and calling it a tank.

Lucius_Esox
05-23-2005, 04:26 AM
Got to pitch back in here about the beer thing..

I LOVE BEER, and consider myself,,,,,, knowledgable!!

What are people talking about "warm" British beer as if it's substandard or something?

I think this is some sort of reference to British wartime beer, which out of neccesity was rubbish.

A good British "real" ale is amongst the finest alcoholic beverage's available to man, with brewing traditions going back hundreds of years in some cases.

Doh!!

To those in the know this is a real case of,,, people not having a clue what they are talking about!!!!

Ploughman what you having m8!! Think I will stick with the Harvies meself

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Pirschjaeger
05-23-2005, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
Got to pitch back in here about the beer thing..

I LOVE BEER, and consider myself,,,,,, knowledgable!!

What are people talking about "warm" British beer as if it's substandard or something?

I think this is some sort of reference to British wartime beer, which out of neccesity was rubbish.

A good British "real" ale is amongst the finest alcoholic beverage's available to man, with brewing traditions going back hundreds of years in some cases.

Doh!!

To those in the know this is a real case of,,, people not having a clue what they are talking about!!!!

Ploughman what you having m8!! Think I will stick with the Harvies meself

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

ha ha ha, it's a humorous stereo-type, that's all. No body actually takes it serious,........ahem, usually. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

By the way, I had bangers and mash and about 4 litres of Guiness from the tap lastnight, in a local pub called "John Bull". That's Beijing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
05-23-2005, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:

I LOVE BEER, and consider myself,,,,,, knowledgable!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Also, if your ever in northern Bavaria, near Bamberg, go to a little village called Wattendorf. Look for Huebner Brauerei and try his dunkel Bier, it's the best I've tasted. The Braumeister's name is Hansi. Tell him Fritz from China sent you and he'll take care of you. I hope you're not driving.

BTW, I'll be there next week.

Fritz

Lucius_Esox
05-23-2005, 11:02 AM
Hmmmmm, all this talk of beer is making me thirsty lol.

Ok m8 I will see you there you will recognise me because I will be the one lying under the tables,,, I do love German beer!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pirschjaeger
05-23-2005, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
Hmmmmm, all this talk of beer is making me thirsty lol.

Ok m8 I will see you there you will recognise me because I will be the one lying under the tables,,, I do love German beer!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Lucius, I'm guessing you like beer with or without the adjective, as long as it's beer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

ploughman
05-23-2005, 11:48 AM
Bamberg


My other half was at a conference in Bamberg last year, she reckoned the beers out numbered the people, the brewing capital of Germany she thought. Very pretty too. Of course, in this context beer is lager and so on, not your actual head-like-a-chemical-outflow, zero fizz uber-deliciousness what we get here in England.

NorrisMcWhirter
05-23-2005, 12:43 PM
warm beer is not good for moral

But quite alright as an aid to spelling, it would appear, as I think you meant 'morale' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I do enjoy the snipes at warm English beer when the reason why a lot of beer is cold is to hide the poor, watery taste of it. I've been working with a German colleague who knew all about the stereotypes of English beer and who knows better as he's quite likely to be downing a nice, warm, dark porter as any lightweight lager.

I think the Czechs make the best lager-type beers on the continent and they also know how to make dark beers, too, although they are never quite hoppy enough for me. Besides, they have a lot to thank Camra for (www.camra.org.uk (http://www.camra.org.uk)) as they recently had a large hand in saving the Budvar brewery from the greedy corporate suits at Budweiser...king of beers, my ar*e.

Cheers,
Norris

Aaron_GT
05-23-2005, 01:46 PM
But quite alright as an aid to spelling, it would appear, as I think you meant 'morale

I don't know. Take enough beer and your morals get affected too!

Aaron_GT
05-23-2005, 01:47 PM
king of beers, my ar*e.

Mind you, when Charles becomes Charles III we'll have a King of England that's as weak and watery as Budweiser...

p1ngu666
05-23-2005, 02:07 PM
bud is from the czech replic area i think, or related somehow

im not a beer fan, think it tastes abit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif whatever the type
dont like wine either :\

recently bought a hip flask, so now i look like a alchy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ploughman
05-23-2005, 02:09 PM
35 years that man spent pursuing the horse of his dreams. He may be a limp wristed tree hugging herb sniffer, but he's dogged, I'll give him that. If he was a beer it'd smell of flowers but it'd still get you pissed.

NorrisMcWhirter
05-23-2005, 02:56 PM
Bud did come from the Czechs in the first instance...then it was ruined.

The Czechs were brewing beer when other people were still eating fermenting fruit so they're a dab hand at it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As to Charlie..well, it could be worse. I'm not sure how but it could.

Cheers,
Norris

blakduk
05-23-2005, 06:19 PM
If we're talking beer, you have to go to the Namur region of Belgium, great little breweries dotted all around the landscape. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
As for British lagers, they are RUBBISH. On the other hand their dark ales are truly the nectar of the Gods.
I dont care if people call me a nationalist or whatever, but there is nothing better than a Crown Lager drunk slowly in the evening after working hard in the sun all day on a 40+ (degree C) day.
Please note, 'working hard' can include putting bait on the hook every few hours on the off-chance a fish might consider jumping onto the wharf. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

96th_Nightshifter
05-23-2005, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by slarsson:
Just one little point........

Would everyone, Brits and non-Brits alike, PLEASE stop using "England" and "Britain" interchangeably?

I was born in England, but I cringe every time I hear about "England standing alone in Europe".
Of course the Commonwealth played a major part in the early years of the war, but so did the Welsh and the Scots and the Manxmen and the Northern Irish.

"Britain stood alone in Europe", not "England"!

Thanks for that mate (proud to be a Brit) I'm Scottish.

Pirschjaeger
05-23-2005, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">warm beer is not good for moral

But quite alright as an aid to spelling, it would appear, as I think you meant 'morale' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Norris,

I'm typing from a laptop and therefor am using a girli keyboard. I actually tried to correct it but my net connection is to slow. I have ADSLOW, not ADSL.

In the Bamberg area(Frankisch) there or so many private breweries. Before tasting the beer there, I used to drink Erdinger or Beck's, and actually enjoyed them. But once I tasted beer from the private breweries it changed my opinion about mass produced bottled beer.

If I remember correctly, the Frankisch area has the highest concentration of private breweries anywhere in the world. The problem is more and more of these private breweries are disappearing due to corporate competition. In the end we get a lesser quality beer for a higher price.

I tried a bottled beer(Duckstein) in Steinbeck, Braunschweig. This was a dunkel and tasted just like it was fresh from the brewery.

I still prefer a cold foamy beer from a local brewery though. The only disadvantage is it takes longer for the barmaid to fill the glass, but if she's pretty, who cares? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, the common saying in the Frankisch area is "Beer is bread".

Fritz

heywooood
05-23-2005, 09:36 PM
Germany saved Britain from invasion by Germany...fact.

ploughman
05-24-2005, 04:10 AM
Germany saved Britain from invasion by Germany...fact.

Bloody considerate of them too.

Back on the Beer front I'm in West Wilts and rather partial to the unfortunately name Butcombe, I tried 6X which is what the savage locals drink when they're not poisoning themselves with dayglow cider (zoidah) but it's way too hoppy for me (smells of farts). When I return to God's own county of North Yorkshire from whence I hail, I like to wrap myself around an Old Peculiar, followed by maybe a Black Sheep or a Smith's, depending on which pub I'm patronising. Anymore than one OP I'm history.

Haven't had a Harvey's. Which parts is that from?

p1ngu666
05-24-2005, 10:38 AM
6x tastes of grey tbh
btw im for wiltshire too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
05-24-2005, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<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">warm beer is not good for moral

But quite alright as an aid to spelling, it would appear, as I think you meant 'morale' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Norris,

I'm typing from a laptop and therefor am using a girli keyboard. I actually tried to correct it but my net connection is to slow. I have ADSLOW, not ADSL.

In the Bamberg area(Frankisch) there or so many private breweries. Before tasting the beer there, I used to drink Erdinger or Beck's, and actually enjoyed them. But once I tasted beer from the private breweries it changed my opinion about mass produced bottled beer.

If I remember correctly, the Frankisch area has the highest concentration of private breweries anywhere in the world. The problem is more and more of these private breweries are disappearing due to corporate competition. In the end we get a lesser quality beer for a higher price.

I tried a bottled beer(Duckstein) in Steinbeck, Braunschweig. This was a dunkel and tasted just like it was fresh from the brewery.

I still prefer a cold foamy beer from a local brewery though. The only disadvantage is it takes longer for the barmaid to fill the glass, but if she's pretty, who cares? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, the common saying in the Frankisch area is "Beer is bread".

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Fritz,

NP - I was only winding you up Smile

I can't remember the last time I sampled any mass produced beer unless I absolutely had no choice in the matter. In find it's always best to sample beers from small breweries who actually put some care into what they do and who want to stand out from the crowd instead of simply selling homogeneous cr*p. Plus, our chancellor obviously likes his real ale as he gave tax breaks to microbreweries so they tend to be cheaper, too.

Better and cheaper. Not often you can say that Wink

Ta,
Norris

ploughman
05-24-2005, 12:04 PM
6x tastes of grey tbh
btw im for wiltshire too

Grey tbh??? Not sure what that means but I'm guessing it's not positive. I'm over in sunny Bradford on Avon, nice to hear you're near.

EiZ0N
05-24-2005, 03:58 PM
Haha I love that my thread has turned into a discussion about beers.

I don't like beer even though I try my hardest to like it.

Lucius_Esox
05-24-2005, 05:59 PM
Ploughman wrote

Haven't had a Harvey's. Which parts is that from?

They are a East Sussex brewery and are based in Lewis on the south coast nr Brighton Ploughman.

It doesn't travel too well and is at its best probably within 30 miles of the brewery,,, then it's nectar!!!!

I fish the Sussex Ouse sometimes and it runs behind the brewery b4 it goes out to sea,,,, the smell, yummy yummy.

Only trouble is I live in South East London and have to travel a bit to get a decent pint (Tunbridge Wells, around there)

Still it's a good excuse to get out of London, as if one was needed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lucius_Esox
05-24-2005, 06:01 PM
Actually this explaind the stuff better than I can http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.harveys.org.uk/t1bottledbeersa.htm

ploughman
05-25-2005, 02:21 AM
I had a look at Harvey's website, this one caught my eye.

"Imperial Russian Stout 2000 Alcohol 9.0% vol."

A 9% stout? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Lucius_Esox
05-25-2005, 03:32 AM
Err,, 9 percent,, Stout !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

think of the hangover http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I have not drunk that one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And before this thread goes too far off topic lol, I remember there was some link to the Brewery and the Battle of Britain,,, but I cant remember what it was, doh!

Am gonna do some research here, this might be something to do with the REAL reason why Germany didn't invade Britain in 1940 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
05-25-2005, 04:26 AM
Fear of warm beer.

http://www.spitfireale.co.uk/photos/glass.gif

x6BL_Brando
05-25-2005, 07:58 AM
a good excuse to get out of London, as if one was needed

Here's one, just in case http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4575967.stm

Pirschjaeger
05-25-2005, 11:39 AM
Just got my ticket! I'll be in Wattendorf on Saturday enjoying a nice cold dunkel. Can't wait. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Prost!

p1ngu666
05-25-2005, 12:10 PM
X
Originally posted by Ploughman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">6x tastes of grey tbh
btw im for wiltshire too

Grey tbh??? Not sure what that means but I'm guessing it's not positive. I'm over in sunny Bradford on Avon, nice to hear you're near. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

erm i ment it tastes of "grey" the colour, to be honest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

im purton, 10-20mins from the steaming pile of ****, swindon

Aaron_GT
05-25-2005, 01:47 PM
London.... yuck. And expensive beer too, at least compared to Yorkshire.

ploughman
05-25-2005, 02:58 PM
Everything's expensive compared to Yorkshire. I got a pint for 1.34 in the Tap and Spile on Monkgate in York last week. The last time I bought a pint for that in London Thatcher was still in power.

So, the German invasion, never really going to happen was it?

Pirschjaeger
05-25-2005, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Everything's expensive compared to Yorkshire. I got a pint for 1.34 in the Tap and Spile on Monkgate in York last week. The last time I bought a pint for that in London Thatcher was still in power.

So, the German invasion, never really going to happen was it?

So I guess the Channel wasn't the #1 line of defense. Now we have the definitive answer.

England's beer prices saved the UK from invasion! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Fritz

Lucius_Esox
05-26-2005, 12:35 AM
Yep,,


So I guess the Channel wasn't the #1 line of defense. Now we have the definitive answer.

England's beer prices saved the UK from invasion!


After much exaustive research and debate we have finally found the answer.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JerryFodder
05-27-2005, 04:22 AM
I can't be arsed to read the whole thread but the huge British Navy stopped any chance of invasion. The Germans could not match us and despite air power we'd have sunk loads of their equipment before it made it across even if the channel seas didn't do it themselves.

WOLFMondo
05-27-2005, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:

I fish the Sussex Ouse sometimes and it runs behind the brewery b4 it goes out to sea,,,, the smell, yummy yummy.

Not sure I could eat anything out that river! Always looks an odd colour and the traces of ship engine oil put me off going near it!

Harveys is nice though. Incedentally if your after really nice booze in Sussex look up Middle Farm. They stock allot of locally made ciders, wines, meads and beers from the southeast and you can taste them all. I'm usually blind drunk before I've picked the one I want to buy!

Lucius_Esox
05-27-2005, 06:40 AM
WOLFMondo

Lucius_Esox
05-27-2005, 06:43 AM
LOL,
Will start again I hit return b4 I had written my answer,,,,, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

WOLFMondo,
No I dont eat the fish its the smell from the brewery. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My fav Harvy's pub is the Brecknock Arms in Bells yew green, near Frant.

Excellent pint of Harvy's and the food is a well kept secret,,, ermm, was!

Tater-SW-
05-27-2005, 08:35 AM
Germany had no sealift capability at all, and really didn't have a real Navy, either (compared to major navies of the time like the RN, USN, and IJN--the RN might well have had more BBs than the KM had DDs at the time of the BoB, and it certainly had more CAs than the Germans had DDs)). As such invasion was never a serious possibility in the first place.

tater

Monty_Thrud
05-27-2005, 11:06 AM
A few years back at my local they had a special brew made for them called Lytham Witch, it was very similar to Pendle Witch, but smoother and slightly weaker, but deceptively so, it was one of those brews you'd sell your soul for...I WAS INSTANTLY HOOKED...the first 3-4 pints everything was ok...you could talk normally, however, by the 5TH pint, people started looking at you strangely, you could understand what you were saying...but they couldn't, it crept slowly up your spine and hijacked your brain...i loved it, i would have quite gladly embraced alcholism had they kept it going...i also ended up sleeping with a very dodgy looking woman whilst i was drinking this stuff...a sign of a good beer indeed...its funny because she looked nice whilst i was under the influence of Lytham Witch...but in the morning....EEK!.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

NS38th_Aristaus
06-02-2005, 05:41 AM
I came across this site with the names of those who fought in the BOB. Enjoy. ~S~

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/roll.html

Pirschjaeger
06-02-2005, 09:46 AM
Wow, can't believe this thread is still going. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif It answers the age old question: "Was Britain's survival more important than our favorite beers?"

He he he, guess not. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Well, I'm now here in Frankonia and enjoying fresh brewed beer every day. Bier ist Brot!

Prost Alles!
Fritz

TacticalYak3
06-02-2005, 09:50 AM
Just read the first couple of pages. I too would like to point out that Canada not only provided pilots, but resources via the merchant marine and training facilities and instructors for the defense of Britain.

Of course Britain had a strong airforce, but she certainly appreciated the help received from the Commonwealth nations.

Canada has a strong history during WW1 and earlier in aiding Britain and making even more sacrifice than in WW2 in this regard.

Tact - "Canadian" - S!

WOLFMondo
06-02-2005, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
LOL,
Will start again I hit return b4 I had written my answer,,,,, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

WOLFMondo,
No I dont eat the fish its the smell from the brewery. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My fav Harvy's pub is the Brecknock Arms in Bells yew green, near Frant.

Excellent pint of Harvy's and the food is a well kept secret,,, ermm, was!

I will have to try that. To be honest and as a Brit I should be slapped for saying it but I much prefer German beer to British.

p1ngu666
06-02-2005, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
LOL,
Will start again I hit return b4 I had written my answer,,,,, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

WOLFMondo,
No I dont eat the fish its the smell from the brewery. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

My fav Harvy's pub is the Brecknock Arms in Bells yew green, near Frant.

Excellent pint of Harvy's and the food is a well kept secret,,, ermm, was!

I will have to try that. To be honest and as a Brit I should be slapped for saying it but I much prefer German beer to British. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

pass the disownomatic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif