NationStates Jolt Archive

We all know the outcome of WWII and historians and people in general have a knack for asking 'What If's' about it. So I thought I might point out a few flaws in Goering's attack on Britian.

Under Hitlers approval Goering sent his Luftwaffe to have an attack on terrorism on London.

Now stop, right there. Lets look at the facts. The Luftwaffa outnumbered the R.A.F. (Royal Air Force) at about 2 to 1. But, and there is a but, the R.A.F. had better trained and expieranced fighter pilots, and with a population that become very stuborn. And B.E.F. (British Expeditionary Force) was largely intact thanks to a well executed withdraw from Dunkirk.

Now comes where I point out Goering's flaw in attack. Instead of attacking military targets such as Air Bases, Troop emplacements, supply dumps, and such; he concentrated on London and any other major city.

While his attacks did almost cause the destruction of the RAF on the whole, and civilian death toll high, which was his aim, he failed to destroy the British Military and only helped to harden the British resolve.

So the main point I making is this: If Goering had been smart and attacked only military instalations do you think he might have won and Britian defeated?

He was probably overconfident as well expecting to win, except those Poms being stubborn as usual :p

The RLM deciding it would never need four-engined heavy bombers was a fair part as well, which was probably a by-product of Goering's insane belief that the Luftwaffe only needed to refine it's existing aircraft [rather than develop new types] because it was invincible.

Now comes where I point out Goering's flaw in attack. Instead of attacking military targets such as Air Bases, Troop emplacements, supply dumps, and such; he concentrated on London and any other major city.

Yes, Germany was quite experienced at bombing civilian targets.(ie. Guernica)


IF Goering had stayed with military targets, things might have been different for the RAF.

Soft targets like cities are impossible to defend to it was the easier option unlike the well-defended RAF bases. It's more glorious to show burning English cities than a hole in the ground for the propaganda machine too.

The Germans didn't have those heavy bombers like the US and Poms did, so it's capacity to lay down tonnes of bombs like the Allies did to German cities didn't exist. However they did have jet fighters later in the war, but still used those ME-109s which were outclassed by later Allied planes by then.

RAF advantages:

1. Fighting over home turf: downed RAF pilots could be returned to duty, whereas downed Luftwaffe pilots were out of the war.
2. Radar.
3. Consistent and repeated underestimation of the RAFs number of planes by Goering.

Even if military bases had been targetted in preference to civilian targets, the RAF was still planning to retreat its planes into the north of England and to operate them from bases out of range of contemporary enemy planes. The whole Operation Sealion plan was laughable and wasn't going to happen, thus the loss of the Battle of Britain may have lead to a severe dent in British morale, it seems unlikely that it would have knocked the UK out of the war.

The Luftwaffa outnumbered the R.A.F. (Royal Air Force) at about 2 to 1.

Standard military doctrine is that in fighting against those on the defensive odds of 3 to 1 or better are generally required.

But, and there is a but, the R.A.F. had better trained and expieranced fighter pilots, and with a population that become very stuborn.

I find this statement questionable: the Luftwaffe had body of equally experienced pilots to draw from, pilots who had fought over Spain, Poland and France.

The new intake of RAF pilots did include experieinced aviators from around the world as volunteers, experienced Polish aviators and British gentlemen fliers, but it also included those who had never flown before, and in the UK there was neither time nor equipment to train them to the standards that new Luftwaffe intake involved. At one point it was standard for new pilots to have fired only one full belt of ammunition in training, and not all had that luxury - some had never fired live weapons before facing the enemy.

The aim of German bombing on cities was to demoralise the British, wasn't it? So that the citizens of Britain had less faith in the government and be less eager to sign up to the army.

An interesting article I came across (was in a thread dealing with nuclear arms effect, one of the guides I think) that showed that the use of incendiary bombs by the RAF to raze German cities at times produced greater casualties in a single night than Fat Man and Little Boy ever did.

Another interesting point was how the temperature in the firestorm was so high that it caused above gale strength winds that actually sucked people from the ground into the flames where they were literally melted down.

So if you want a horror weapon, incendiary ones are not too shabby either.

Back on topic, yes the military bases in Britain were usually much better defended (usually being out in the open with clear lines of sights for the AA crews) and would have wrecked horrendous casualties on the Luftwaffe. However, if the bases were destroyed, finishing off much of Britains dedicated armed forces, Operation Sealion might have been put into action and the British Isles would have fallen beneath the German forces.

Somehow, I think it would have been much harder for America to move forces into London across the Atlantic rather than from the English Channel to France.

Initially Goering did attack UK airbases, but their casualties became to high.

The big difference wasn't aircraft quality - or pilot quality - the German pilots probably had just as much experience, and an ethic which tended to encourage individual heroism (for better or worse).

The big difference was Radar.

The UK had it, Germany didn't, and in fact didn't know it existed for the first few engagements. It allowed the British pilots to concentrate their smaller numbers where they were needed, without having to mount massive air patrols.

However, if the bases were destroyed, finishing off much of Britains dedicated armed forces, Operation Sealion might have been put into action and the British Isles would have fallen beneath the German forces.


How??? It certainly wouldn't have happened in 1940. I remain completely and utterly convinced that the plan was totally unworkable. It required the use of more barges than the Germans could possibly have access too, and contained the assumption that not only were the RAF out of the picture, but also the Royal Navy.

However, if the bases were destroyed, finishing off much of Britains dedicated armed forces, Operation Sealion might have been put into action and the British Isles would have fallen beneath the German forces.

Hugely unlikely. Sealion, unlike Overlord, demanded the capture of major ports on the British south coast, simply wrecking them beyond short-term repair would have finished it off very quickly.

One of the more apparent reasons why the aerial attack on Britain failed in the first place was the belief of Goering that his bombers needed to be protected by having his fighters escort them at roughly the same altitude. Despite the teachings of experts like Werner Moelders [115 victories, I believe, and considered the father of modern aerial combat tactics] that this was nothing short of aerial suicide, Goering went ahead and did it anyway, allowing the allied forces to pick them off with far greater ease than should have happened. With the fighters "guarding" the bombers, and not being allowed to do what they were good at [dropping lower to outmaneuver the allied aircraft and pick them off before they reached the bombers], my understanding is that the attack on Britain was essentially lost because of this - and because of the timely(?) arrival of the Americans, of course.

So, while being nothing more than an armchair historian at best, I'd have to say no - I don't believe it would have made a difference. One also has to recognize that the destruction of military targets remained a prime objective of the German war machine, and that they did a pretty good job of it while they had the opportunity.

- BC

and because of the timely(?) arrival of the Americans, of course.

Their timely arrival when the Battle of Britain was over, you mean? American pilots were flying with the RAF before that, but the Eagle Squadron and such wasn't in England until after the Battle of Britain was over.

Radar was a major key. Germany later understood it and started to bomb those towers as well. Another key was the decoding of German messages. Britain was able to know when and where the next target was going to be. Radar then was used to pinpoint the number & location of the bombers.

However, the Battle ocured in 1940. That meant airplanes existed for 36 years. Tactics where still being developed. Therefore, it was assumed bombing civilians was a way to put pressure on the Government to surrender.

Britain was the 1st to bomb civilians, Germany retaliated and than kept it up.

Germany lacked the naval craft to invade the islands, therefore the tactic of forcing a surrender via air power made a lot of sense.

Lastly, Germany never realized how weak Britain actually was. Two more weeks and the RAF would have been defeated, but the Germans having minimal intelligence never realized that.


PS Incindary bombs in Japan did more damage & death than the nuclear bombs did. The difference was one plane versus 100 planes.

From what I remember (don't have any sources to hand) the Luftwaffe were originally told not to go anywhere near any civilian areas (like London) as Hitler still wanted peace with Britain (conquering Western Europe, Scandanavia and Britain were never part of his big plan) Then on one mission some pilots got lost and dumped their bombs on London. At the time the RAF were suffering terrible losses and desperately needed some relief from the fighting in the air. In "retaliation" to the bombing of London, Britain bombed Berlin and the bombing of the cities began. This meant that the RAF no longer had to fear constant attacks from the Luftwaffe, as the Luftwaffe was busy bombing British cities and defending German ones.

If you take a look at the various bombing campaigns you'll see that it made sense from the British point of view, as the Blitz killed "only" 42,000 people throughout the war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz -seems to contradict the "accidental" bombing of London. Hmm.) Things were worse for the Germans and Japanese, though, with 100,000 people being killed in Tokyo in a single night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II) I can't remember all the details, but I think one of the strategies used was to bomb the outskirts of a city to prevent civilians from escaping, then firebombing the centre of the city so that all the oxygen was used in the fire, causing death by asphyxiation as well as fire.

Anyway, that's way off topic. Point is: Britain welcomed changing the arena of aerial war from the Battle of Britain to the bombing of civilians, as this ensured the survival of the RAF.

We all know the outcome of WWII and historians and people in general have a knack for asking 'What If's' about it. So I thought I might point out a few flaws in Goering's attack on Britian.

Under Hitlers approval Goering sent his Luftwaffe to have an attack on terrorism on London.

Now stop, right there. Lets look at the facts. The Luftwaffa outnumbered the R.A.F. (Royal Air Force) at about 2 to 1. But, and there is a but, the R.A.F. had better trained and expieranced fighter pilots, and with a population that become very stuborn. And B.E.F. (British Expeditionary Force) was largely intact thanks to a well executed withdraw from Dunkirk.

Now comes where I point out Goering's flaw in attack. Instead of attacking military targets such as Air Bases, Troop emplacements, supply dumps, and such; he concentrated on London and any other major city.

While his attacks did almost cause the destruction of the RAF on the whole, and civilian death toll high, which was his aim, he failed to destroy the British Military and only helped to harden the British resolve.

So the main point I making is this: If Goering had been smart and attacked only military instalations do you think he might have won and Britian defeated?



Your odds on the 2:1 advantage of the Luftwaffe vs. the RAF are misleading at best. For the Battle of Britian the only aircraft in the RAF that had any meaning at all were the fighters. The total numbers made little difference since a large number of the planes in the Luftwaffe were bombers and thus would require protection from the Spits and Hurricanes of the RAF. So the only plane that makes a straight up comparison worthwhile is the Me109. The 109 was operating at the end of it's fuel range when attacking a city like London so was limited in it's ability to respond to attacks by British Fighters.

Hitler's Approval? Actually it was Hitler's demand in retaliation for a bombing of Berlin. The Luftwaffe started by attacking other targets the most profitable was the RAF fighter bases themselves. The change of targets to London and other cities gave the Fighter Command a chance to catch it's breath and regroup.

The seclection of civilian targets came later in the Battle of Britian not at the beginning and was predominatly the idea of Hitler. Goering ran with it, but then he generally never argued with Hitler over much of anything.
Thanks
DJ

In my opinion Goering made a big mistake as he said that the Luftwaffe (which was only to 2/3 ready for combat) will decide the war and that it is not necessary to capture the 300.000 british soldiers that landed at the france coast after the war against france was already won.

If the Wehrmacht had attacked the british forces an invasion of britain with naval forces and with the support of the complete capacity of the Luftwaffe
had been succesful - in my eyes.

The third Reich had also experiencend pilots, as in general very competent officers because of the long german and prussian military history.
The problem during the WWII for germany was its leadership, because Himmler,Goering,Hitler and all the other bad guys weren`t experienced in military things.

Stauffenberg or Rommel, guys like them had the intelligence, knowledge and experience to lead a war, far from an ideological conviction.

The interesting thing is that during the "Big Week" thus at the end of the war the third Reich produced for every shot aircraft two new ones allthough the transportways and big Messerschmidt Factories were destroyed.
But at this point of war, germany had nomore pilots, because the single person didn´t interest in the third Reich, Germany didn`t cared about shot pilots, so that in the end every Farmer who ever had flown an aircraft was put into military service.

The main lack was also in the Abwehr (german secret service) because it was most times used against the own People and not for espionage.

I hope my english is understandable!

Greetings, Friedrich II!

Their timely arrival when the Battle of Britain was over, you mean? American pilots were flying with the RAF before that, but the Eagle Squadron and such wasn't in England until after the Battle of Britain was over.


I believe you're incorrect: Eagle Squadrons were formed in England in September of 1940, and while that's admittedly late in the game, the Battle of Britain wasn't over until late October. However, it's kind of moot - I was just referring to the late entry of the USA into WWII in general.

- BC
- Canadian

We all know the outcome of WWII and historians and people in general have a knack for asking 'What If's' about it. So I thought I might point out a few flaws in Goering's attack on Britian.

Under Hitlers approval Goering sent his Luftwaffe to have an attack on terrorism on London.

Now stop, right there. Lets look at the facts. The Luftwaffa outnumbered the R.A.F. (Royal Air Force) at about 2 to 1. But, and there is a but, the R.A.F. had better trained and expieranced fighter pilots, and with a population that become very stuborn. And B.E.F. (British Expeditionary Force) was largely intact thanks to a well executed withdraw from Dunkirk.

Now comes where I point out Goering's flaw in attack. Instead of attacking military targets such as Air Bases, Troop emplacements, supply dumps, and such; he concentrated on London and any other major city.

While his attacks did almost cause the destruction of the RAF on the whole, and civilian death toll high, which was his aim, he failed to destroy the British Military and only helped to harden the British resolve.

So the main point I making is this: If Goering had been smart and attacked only military instalations do you think he might have won and Britian defeated?
They did attack military installations. The British were pumping out wooden plane decoys at some point just to make the Germans think they still had planes. The fact that the British always seemed to be coming up with more planes eventually frustrated Hitler and he called the whole Unternehmen Seelöwe off. Another thing that decimated the Germans was the fact that the British had Radar, and could send fighters to intercept the bombers before they reached their targets, hence reducing the effectiveness of bombing runs.

We all know the outcome of WWII and historians and people in general have a knack for asking 'What If's' about it. So I thought I might point out a few flaws in Goering's attack on Britian.

Under Hitlers approval Goering sent his Luftwaffe to have an attack on terrorism on London.

Now stop, right there. Lets look at the facts. The Luftwaffa outnumbered the R.A.F. (Royal Air Force) at about 2 to 1. But, and there is a but, the R.A.F. had better trained and expieranced fighter pilots, and with a population that become very stuborn. And B.E.F. (British Expeditionary Force) was largely intact thanks to a well executed withdraw from Dunkirk.

Now comes where I point out Goering's flaw in attack. Instead of attacking military targets such as Air Bases, Troop emplacements, supply dumps, and such; he concentrated on London and any other major city.

While his attacks did almost cause the destruction of the RAF on the whole, and civilian death toll high, which was his aim, he failed to destroy the British Military and only helped to harden the British resolve.

So the main point I making is this: If Goering had been smart and attacked only military instalations do you think he might have won and Britian defeated?
The Luftwaffe began the Battle of Britain (BoB) by attacking RAF airbases and RDF stations. The Luftwaffe were under direct orders from Hitler not to bomb London without direct permission from him. The first bombs to fall on London are now generally accepted to have been an accident dropped by a bomber crew who were way off course and believed themselves to be miles from London. The RAF retaliated by bombing Berlin and this was then met by Germans switching their offensive to London.

British pilots were no better trained than their German counterparts and, in many instances, actually lacked battle experience that the Luftwaffe pilots had gained in Spain with the Condor Legion. British fighter production was able to keep pace with loses, but lack of experienced pilots was a grave problem throughout the Battle.

The BEF, though largely intact from a personnel standpoint, had lost almost all its equipment in the evacuation from Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne. There was very little strategic advantage for the Luftwaffe to attack these bases as there was very little equipment for the troops to provide any form of decent counter-offensive to any German invasion of Britain.

If the Luftwaffe had continued to attack RAF installations and hadn't changed its fighter tactics (forcing the Bf109's to stay in close to the Bombers) then the RAF might well have been forced to withdraw their aircraft to 12 group airstations. It is however debatable if any crossing of the Channel would have occured in a large enough fashion, especially with Hitler now looking toward his intended goal of the USSR.

I watched on discovery channel, that the RAF had one plane type (someone help me out here with the name) that their body and wings were made of wool/cloth. With their body and engine made out of metal.

The best part about those planes, were that after they were shot, they could land, be patched up in minutes, and fly again into the skies. Plus they were very light and agile and easy to mantain.

Compared to German metal planes with their think heavy metal platings.

I watched on discovery channel, that the RAF had one plane type (someone help me out here with the name) that their body and wings were made of wool/cloth. With their body and engine made out of metal.

The best part about those planes, were that after they were shot, they could land, be patched up in minutes, and fly again into the skies. Plus they were very light and agile and easy to mantain.

Compared to German metal planes with their think heavy metal platings.
You're thinking of the Hawker Hurricane. It had stretched fabric around a metal frame.

You're thinking of the Hawker Hurricane. It had stretched fabric around a metal frame.

Yeah thats the one. Thanks.

First the failuire of the blitzkrieg and now the failure of the Blitz. Thrashia, what class are you doing this for?
:)

Well, the point I have always learned/read is:

Göring never concentrated on targets, switching them every few weeks instead of destroying it completly. (as Dontiz later did with his U boats)

Posted by Daistallia 2104:
First the failuire of the blitzkrieg and now the failure of the Blitz. Thrashia, what class are you doing this for?

Well its not a class, more like an obsession. I find that if one wants rule the world some day :D he should be thoroughly learned in military history and strategy.

As for all the other posts.

While the Blitz did start with Goering attacking military installations, he made the mistake of listening to Hitler (not that he mad much choice mind you) and to start attacking London. The whole thing could have been swayed in favor of the Germans on number of occasions. With radar being on the British side they could indeed intercept most attacks.

So in ending I'll raise another 'What If' question:

What if the German army had caught the Allied forces at Dunkirk, and not escaped to England?

One of the big problems for the Germans was the fact that the British had an excellent radar net. They Brits could conentrate fighters at certain points and basically negate the german superiority of numbers.