Battle of Britain Won at Sea - Not in the Air

Arts & Sciences Culture & History
1

So far most accounts have credited the valiant efforts of the RAF for being the deciding factor in the ‘Battle of Britain in WWII.’
Here is a look at a challenging theory.

[quote] Battle of Britain was won at sea. Discuss
By Thomas Harding, (Filed: 24/08/2006)

Spitfires and Hurricanes have previously been held responsible for preventing a German invasion

The Battle of Britain was not won by the RAF but by the Royal Navy, military historians have concluded, provoking outrage among the war’s surviving fighter pilots.

Challenging the “myth” that Spitfires and Hurricanes held off the German invaders in 1940, the monthly magazine History Today has concluded that it was the might of the Navy that stood between Britain and Nazi occupation.

The view is backed by three leading academics who are senior military historians at the Joint Service Command Staff College teaching the future admirals, generals and air marshals.

They contend that the sheer numbers of destroyers and battleships in the Channel would have obliterated any invasion fleet even if the RAF had lost the Battle of Britain.

The idea that a “handful of heroes saved these islands from invasion” was nothing more than a “perpetuation of a glorious myth,” the article suggests.

“Many still prefer to believe that in the course of that summer a few hundred outnumbered young men so outfought a superior enemy as solely to prevent a certain invasion of Britain. Almost none of which is true,” reports Brian James, the author.

Dr Andrew Gordon, the head of maritime history at the staff college, said it was “hogwash” to suggest that Germany failed to invade in 1940 “because of what was done by the phenomenally brave and skilled young men of Fighter Command”.

“The Germans stayed away because while the Royal Navy existed they had not a hope in hell of capturing these islands. The Navy had ships in sufficient numbers to have overwhelmed any invasion fleet - destroyers’ speed alone would have swamped the barges by their wash.”(more at link)
The Telegraph[/quote]

2

Interesting story, thanks!

But ok, so the truth is that a handful of valiant heroes still fought off the German air force, AND the sheer numbers of destroyers and battleships in the Channel were there as well to fend off any invasion fleet even if the RAF had lost the Battle of Britain.

:idunno:

Still heroes in my book.

3

And the navy wasn’t going to stop the Luftwaffe, who were doing quite enough damage on their own. That the navy was standing in way of a potential threat doesn’t quite stack up.

4

So how come it took most of the RN to sink one German battleship?

The Battle of Britain was won more by Goering’s blunder than anything else.

The Luftwaffe began by targeting air fields in Southern England. The situation became critical, and fighter command was on the verge of breaking when Goering ordered the Luftwaffe to concentrate its attacks on London. That, and that alone, saved fighter command and allowed the RAF to retain air superiority over the south coast.

5

Keeping the French navy out of hostilities was vital, so you could argue that the battle of Mers-el-Kebir, French North Africa (now Algeria), 3 July 1940, was as important as the battle of Britain. Of course, it was a little sneeky and dishonourable hence its obscurity; better to stick with something more heroic.

6

Interesting article. The British navy was indeed stronger, but the article doesn’t take in to account the freedom the Luftwaffe would have had if they had won the Battle of Britain. That’s the freedom to bomb naval bases and shipping lanes, to pick off the British fleet from the air since there would be no RAF planes to prevent this.

7

It is interesting… but, really… the battle was faught in the air, not on the sea. Hard to imagine how the Navy won the battle in the air.

8

More on the battle of Mers Al-Kabir here. open2.net/thingsweforgot/one … page4.html Thanks to Almas John for the reminder about this ugly incident in WWII history.

[quote]The history that we like to remember is the history that fits everything together and explains how we got where we are now, and Mers El Kabir isn’t a necessary part of that story, we can explain our success in resisting German invasion in 1940 much more conveniently by stressing things we did face to face with the Germans. The Battle of Britain is the fighting at this period against the main enemy and therefore it must be the most important part of the story. The fact that it isn’t is really less important. We need to know how we got to the end of the War without being invaded, how did we stop the Germans? The Battle of Britain is perfect.

If we accept that the only way the Germans could have landed in Britain and invaded successfully was across the Channel by sea, then the removal of the French fleet from even the, the complicated position of being an active neutral certainly simplifies the task for the Royal Navy. It allows it to concentrate its forces on the key tasks, which in the Mediterranean remain the Italian fleet, but in home waters the defence of the United Kingdom against invasion. So more ships can be kept at home ready to deal with this threat. So the removal of the French Feet at Mers El Kabir I think plays a critical part in allowing the balance to be drawn and the right forces to be in the right place at the right time.[/quote]

9

The Kriegsmarine & the Wehrmacht in 1940 had an almost negligible amphibious capability, most of the vessels earmarked for the execution of Operation Sealion being of dubious quality. The logistical follow-up would have been exceedingly difficult for both services. Which is why it got shunted off on the Luftwaffe.

And surely it was a combined effort: by the flyboys, the radar tekkies, and the navy’s patrolling & minelaying that helped carry the day. That and Herr Goering’s blustering, over-confidence.

10

Radar radar radar remember that thing the British invented ?
Plus Churchill knew Hitler could not stand to see Berlin bombed, and knew he would convert attacks to the cities and save the RAF.
Please also remember all those brave Polish pilots.
The spitfire was also a mean machine !!!
Royal Navy yeah sure they were strong that is why they wanted to knock out British air cover first. Mind you if Hitler had not attacked Russia the British would of eventually been beaten (in my opinion). But we really would of fought to the death not like the French! It would of been like America attacking the mainland of Japan without nukes.

p.s.
want to see a good WWII war film then the enemy at the gates is great. That is about stalingrad another Hitler military f up.

11

[quote=“fenlander”].
want to see a good WWII war film then the enemy at the gates is great. That is about stalingrad another Hitler military f up.[/quote]
Puerile pap. that movie is.
This is a GOOD Stalingrad movie to see:
imdb.com/title/tt0108211/
warfarehq.com/index.php?page … gard.shtml

Yet, to get back on topic there is this well-written classic:
imdb.com/title/tt0064072/
A good quote:[quote][color=green]“Spring chicken to shitehawk in one easy lesson!” Pilot Officer Archie[/color][/quote]

12

I thought “enemy at the gates” was a good movie as I like movies about snipers.
I thought the scene in the begining with the stuka dive bombers attacking the ship was excellent and the scene of the German bombers flying over the bulidngs was good.
But anyway i will try the movie you recommended it looks good.
I heard there was some recent German flick about Hitler’s last days in the bunker, it was in the cinemas some months back, do you know the name of it, i heard there were a lot of complaints about it making Hitler look human etc I’d like to watch it as it got so much press but can’t remember the name.

13

[quote=“fenlander”]I thought “enemy at the gates” was a good movie as I like movies about snipers.
I thought the scene in the begining with the stuka dive bombers attacking the ship was excellent and the scene of the German bombers flying over the bulidngs was good.
But anyway i will try the movie you recommended it looks good.
I heard there was some recent German flick about Hitler’s last days in the bunker, it was in the cinemas some months back, do you know the name of it, i heard there were a lot of complaints about it making Hitler look human etc I’d like to watch it as it got so much press but can’t remember the name.[/quote]

Granted, E. at the Gates had some nicely shot scenes. But that’s my point. Whatever was good about that movie was the cinematography. Most of the acting was shite.
If you liked Das Boot, you will like Stalingrad. Though it is pretty damn violent.
“Cross of Iron” has to be an all time classic Eastern Front movie. A personal favorite.

Wasn’t the German movie about the bunker called “Downfall” or something similiar in english?

14

yeah it was Downfall just found it.
downfallthefilm.com/

Actually you are right about “enemy at the gates” the acting was very poor. We agree that the cinematograpy was great. I also liked the idea of hero creation for Russian propaganda etc etc

Now i will try and watch downfall I am looking forward to it. Thanks for the name :smiley:

15

[quote=“fenlander”]yeah it was Downfall just found it.
downfallthefilm.com/

Actually you are right about “enemy at the gates” the acting was very poor. We agree that the cinematograpy was great. I also liked the idea of hero creation for Russian propaganda etc etc

Now i will try and watch downfall I am looking forward to it. Thanks for the name :smiley:[/quote]

Too bad that “enemy at the gates” is historically bunk - where as for Das Boot is relatively accurte. You can see the original rolls of B&W photos that Lothar-Günther Buchheim took as a war photograher that served as the basis for the movie. Some of the scenes in the movie mirror almost exactly the shots he took.

But back to the topic - haven’t any of these historians seen what happened to naval fleets with no air cover? Did they miss the lesson of Billy Mitchel (sp.?)? If the RAF had been defeated I wonder how long the Royal Navy could have held things together?

My favorite history on it is this one Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain, by Len Deighton. Shows how even people on the same side weren’t always playing nice. This book has some very amusing almost Economist like picture captions that are serious and funny at the sames time.

Of couse, I beleive that Hitler never really intended to invade Britiain. He was just a clever opportunist that bungled into war. A fun book The Origins of the Second World War by AJP Taylor.

16

I thought that the French tactics were not all bad. I mean in that surrendering without causing any further devastation to people, historical sites and so forth was a brave thing to do. I think in hindsight that the French came off remarkably well, of course never forgetting the brave souls that gave their lives for their families and friends, and the price that everyone paid.

17

[quote=“Elegua”]
Of couse, I beleive that Hitler never really intended to invade Britiain. He was just a clever opportunist that bungled into war. A fun book The Origins of the Second World War by AJP Taylor.[/quote]

That was an interesting contoversial comment placed onto the end of your message. Not missed by me :smiley:
In fact most of the British royal family were nazi sympathisers. However he (Hitler) must of thought the British had no principles when he attacked Poland; that we would not observe our treaty with them, but he was wrong. I tend to agree that he didn’t want to fight Britain. However Russia was a different story as they were his ideological enemy. Hitler also had a lot of sympathisers in the USA too i.e. Henry Ford being the famous one, that supplied Hitler with huge amounts of money.
As for Sulavaca almost praising the French surrender, well I bet the poor human beings in those concentration camps were glad Britain did not capitualte like the French, who you say wanted to save their historical sites. What peuftas!

18

[quote=“fenlander”][quote=“Elegua”]
Of couse, I beleive that Hitler never really intended to invade Britiain. He was just a clever opportunist that bungled into war. A fun book The Origins of the Second World War by AJP Taylor.[/quote]

That was an interesting contoversial comment placed onto the end of your message. Not missed by me :smiley:
In fact most of the British royal family were nazi sympathisers. However he (Hitler) must of thought the British had no principles when he attacked Poland; that we would not observe our treaty with them, but he was wrong. I tend to agree that he didn’t want to fight Britain. However Russia was a different story as they were his ideological enemy. Hitler also had a lot of sympathisers in the USA too i.e. Henry Ford being the famous one, that supplied Hitler with huge amounts of money.
As for Sulavaca almost praising the French surrender, well I bet the poor human beings in those concentration camps were glad Britain did not capitualte like the French, who you say wanted to save their historical sites. What peuftas![/quote]

What’s your point? Read the book - then let’s talk.

As for the second comment about the French. I never understood why until I noticed as I traveled around that in every villiage, no matter how small, there is a momument covered with the names of the people from that town that died in WW I. Possibly that is an explaination.

19

yeah, a great one. you beat me to it.

20

Got them dotted around every Australian town, too.

HG