Battle of Britain: Kanalkampf [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

BossMark

07-10-12, 06:01 AM

Actually, the weather was surprisingly inclement during July 1940, with showers around the South-east and the Channel on the 10th and continuous rain elsewhere.

Know matter what the year its always pissing down in this bloody country :nope:

What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over: 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. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows 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 freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and 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 therefore brace ourselves to our duty and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say: This was their finest hour '.

Winston Churchill's most famous speech in my opinion:yep: (even though he was a bloody Tory):D

Herr-Berbunch

07-10-12, 06:11 AM

Winston Churchill's most famous speech in my opinion:yep: (even though he was a wonderful Tory):D

Fixed. :yeah:

I think Hitler, at this point, still wanted peace with Britain - wasn't going to happen though.

Catfish

07-10-12, 06:23 AM

^errrright, maybe there would have been no world war without England's "Total Germany" :03:

Hitler and even Doenitz were surprised - after England's declaration of war H. then quickly wanted to force England into submission, so there would be an armistice soon. Contrary to public storytelling a german invasion of England was never really planned (and impossible, b.t.w.) - same as with the US.
Also contrary to public opinion Hitler's plans did not aim at world domination. Even he was not that crazy. He wanted to invade Russia, or at least conquer large parts of it.

Regarding Churchill's speech about a fight for christianity, well, we saw what the Vatican did in WW2.

Oberon

07-10-12, 06:30 AM

Fixed. :yeah:

I think Hitler, at this point, still wanted peace with Britain - wasn't going to happen though.

I think, in a different world, we could very well have wound up working with Hitler against the Soviets, it was really a toss up at the time as to which we perceived as the greater threat, and given that a) it was a Tory government in power since '35 and the various communist uprisings and protests throughout Europe in the years after the October Revolution, it was generally thought that the Soviet Union was the greater enemy, and was right up until Germany started eating various neighbours. Then we wound up working with the Soviets against the Germans.
Strange how history makes strange bedfellows. :hmmm:

Anyway, that's dragging this thread off topic somewhat. :dead:

Herr-Berbunch

07-10-12, 07:13 AM

Anyway, that's dragging this thread off topic somewhat. :dead:

It is in GT for a reason. :O:

The Vatican, pah, you mean the escape route. :nope:

Penguin

07-10-12, 11:15 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmOCrrb-j_8

I am astonished how calm but eloquent the guy reports while you can clearly hear the fighting going on in the background. Very impressive! :huh:
Sounds nearly like he's commenting a mixture between Olympic diving and football.

07-10-12, 11:22 AM

It is time someone invested in a good movie about Battle of Britain..or miniseries.
hopefully before hollywood gets to it.

Sailor Steve

07-10-12, 11:34 AM

Umm...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064072/
One of the best airplane movies of all time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157239/
They changed too many things from the book for my taste, but still a good show.

07-10-12, 11:44 AM

Umm...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064072/
One of the best airplane movies of all time.

I have red a lot on the subject...some memories and history books.
The movie i have seen also...twice? i think as kid.. but still something more up to date would be great.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157239/
They changed too many things from the book for my taste, but still a good show.
This one i will have to check out..cant remember watching it

Oberon

07-10-12, 11:59 AM

Sailor Steve

07-10-12, 12:00 PM

Oh! I almost forgot:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0244479/

Jimbuna

07-10-12, 12:43 PM

The Military Channel had a good programme on BoB last night and it really struck home the realisation of just how close to defeat we came.

nikimcbee

07-10-12, 12:46 PM

Do any of you Brits (or Germans) have any family that participated in BoB? Were they impacted by the bombing?

JU_88

07-10-12, 01:01 PM

Do any of you Brits (or Germans) have any family that participated in BoB? Were they impacted by the bombing?

Not quite no, My parents were born in 43 and 45 respectively so they just missed it. My dad was from cardiff (out of Luftwaffe range) and my mother was from Harrow in West london (no good targets to bomb there I guess)
My Grandfather on my mums side was a test pilot for de Havilland, I know he test flew the Dragon Rapide in the early 30s. My mum tells me he that contributed towards the Wing design of the Mosquito, but she is not sure exactly what.
Its hard to find info on him on the net -because his Father (my great Grandfather) was somewhat more famous, so he dominates my Google search results.
Has his own wiki page and everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapurji_Saklatvala he looks like Dracula :D!
What the artical doesnt tell you, is that he knocked up an Irish Hotel maid during his career, and if he hadn't?.. well lets just say I would not be here to type this. :haha:
(Im an 8th Indian in case you are wondering - no call center jokes please! :D.)

Catfish

07-10-12, 01:09 PM

Do any of you Brits (or Germans) have any family that participated in BoB? Were they impacted by the bombing?

Germany here, I guess you will find no family in Germany that was not somehow impacted by the later allied bombing.
My female relatives like parents and grand parents were all "ausgebombt", meaning they lost their apartment or house during one of the raids.
Even families in the countryside often had relatives living in bigger cities.

"Funnily" enough it was the soldiers who had the least experience with the big bomber raids, but they certainly saw or experienced it when on (rare) holidays at home.
My father was almost shot down in France while flying a JU 52, but this was before the BoB. The british pilot only fired one salvo, greeted and flew away, he often told me about that (if not much of the rest of the war). He was a Junkers technician later sent to Paris to organize all kinds of technical support. He was forced into the army towards the end of the war, and then wounded in action near the Oder river.

Greetings,
Catfish

Jimbuna

07-10-12, 01:12 PM

Do any of you Brits (or Germans) have any family that participated in BoB? Were they impacted by the bombing?

My uncle (deceased) was a flight sergeant on Lancasters.

JU_88

07-10-12, 01:14 PM

Germany here, I guess you will find no family in Germany that was not somehow impacted by the later allied bombing.
My female relatives like parents and grand parents were all "ausgebombt", meaning they lost their apartment or house during one of the raids.
Even families in the countryside often had relatives living in bigger cities.

"Funnily" enough it was the soldiers who had the least experience with the big bomber raids, but they certainly saw or experienced it when on (rare) holidays at home.
My father was almost shot down in France while flying a JU 52, but this was before the BoB. The british pilot only fired one salvo, greeted and flew away, he often told me about that (if not much of the rest of the war). He was a Junkers technician later sent to Paris to organize all kinds of technical support. He was forced into the army towards the end of the war, and then wounded in action near the Oder river.

Greetings,
Catfish

Cool history there, :yep: and a brave man too, the JU-52 was not a very desirable aircraft to fly into a combat zone. (being a slow transport)
on the British side, my deepest sympathies to anyone who was assigned to the Crew of a Bristol Blenhiem.

eddie

07-10-12, 01:18 PM

There's also First Light:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iKYdBXiQjo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCddkvphsvI&feature=relmfu

I haven't watched it all myself, but I've read the book which is very good.

I think that is the series I have seen, but its been so long I'm not sure. The one thing that stood out the most is when this RAF pilot flies his Spit just above this small river! He was so low, that the prop wash was having a great effect on the water. I think he flew under a small bridge too, but like I said, its been so long since I've seen the series, I'm not really positive about flying under the bridge!:oops:

Herr-Berbunch

07-10-12, 01:20 PM

Not that I know of. :hmmm:

Where my parents live now, a couple of houses away there are two that are totally different after being destroyed by HE - only three dropped, one on the houses and two landed in the fields to the rear, now a school field. Mostly my town got away with it but the docks didn't, but they had a distinctive feature to point the way to the major targets - Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester - so they were careful not to hit that. At one point of the war it was nearly demolished.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/magazine_unsung_landmarks_vote/img/1.jpg

Catfish

07-10-12, 01:23 PM

OT regarding BoB:
My uncle (deceased) was a flight sergeant on Lancasters.
You sure saw this, then ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnzNJ-RXIi8
and that
http://www.itv.com/itvplayer/video/?Filter=320255

Cannot watch the 2nd one here in Germany though, but people tell me it is very good ..

Greetings,
Catfish

Herr-Berbunch

07-10-12, 01:24 PM

First light was a two-parter shown last year about Geoffry Wenham, the youngest pilot, iirc. How A Piece Of Cake slipped me by I've no idea - I watched it avidly. Can't remember much about it in the intervening years though.

And finally, nobody - especially hollywood - should redo the Battle of Britain. :stare:

Oberon

07-10-12, 01:29 PM

Do any of you Brits (or Germans) have any family that participated in BoB? Were they impacted by the bombing?

The only one who mentioned it was my Nan who remembered seeing the contrails above London, which always makes me think of this bit in the film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43zVRey2XEs&feature=player_detailpage#t=66s

Otherwise most of my family were in the north and out of the way.

Oberon

07-10-12, 01:35 PM

And finally, nobody - especially hollywood - should redo the Battle of Britain. :stare:

I agree with this, it's tempting, too tempting, and I'm not sure of the ability of the major film producers to pull something like this off with the style that the films of the 1960s did.

However, we will see how the new Dambusters turns out...

Herr-Berbunch

07-10-12, 01:40 PM

However, we will see how the new Dambusters turns out...

With a faithfully recreated dog called Digger. :stare:

JU_88

07-10-12, 01:45 PM

With a faithfully recreated dog called Digger. :stare:

I geuess they had two options in order appease the PC crowd.
1) Rename the Dog
2) Cast 50 Cent as wing comander Guy Gibson.
There first choice would have been Mr T, but he never utters the N' word and of course he "aint gettin on no fool plane!" :O:

Oberon

07-10-12, 01:46 PM

With a faithfully recreated dog called Digger. :stare:

If they can get everything else right I can (just about) forgive them the dog...and given what this looks like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_m1M7vAz60

I'm a bit more confident than I once was. :yep:

I geuess they had two options in order appease the PC crowd.
1) Rename the Dog
2) Cast '50 Cent' as wing comander Guy Gibson.
:O:

:har::har::har::har::har:

Jimbuna

07-10-12, 03:28 PM

I geuess they had two options in order appease the PC crowd.
1) Rename the Dog
2) Cast 50 Cent as wing comander Guy Gibson.
There first choice would have been Mr T, but he never utters the N' word and of course he "aint gettin on no fool plane!" :O:

LOL :cool:

nikimcbee

07-10-12, 03:34 PM

nikimcbee

07-10-12, 03:39 PM

And why can't they make games like this today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhO94FPfb0w

Jimbuna

07-10-12, 03:39 PM

My fav plane from the BoB:

http://www.hyperscale.com/images/109e%20cover.jpg

My fav plane to shoot down from BoB (in a flight sim):
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/aircraft/Junkers-Ju87/IMAGES/variations-ju87.jpg

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQD5eoNHYMGR0tSbByng7_4FBVUckYUG KjcLAYPL30P-UdFQuzIUdUJTtTflA
http://www.masashihara.com/guitartalk/beer/beer-5.jpg
http://files.sharenator.com/Spitfire8_Spitfire_Ale_adverts-s640x462-15487.jpg

eddie

07-10-12, 05:14 PM

I agree with this, it's tempting, too tempting, and I'm not sure of the ability of the major film producers to pull something like this off with the style that the films of the 1960s did.

However, we will see how the new Dambusters turns out...

Finally remember it was Piece of Cake, the series I saw on BoB. And a stunt man did fly a Spit under a Bridge, found this bit about it-

"Veteran Pilot Ray Hanna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Hanna) (1928-2005) performed the stunt where the Spitfire flies under the low bridge.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_of_Cake_(TV_series)#cite_note-5) The scene was filmed at a bridge at Winston near Barnard Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard_Castle). Hanna, a New-Zealand-born former RAF pilot and Red Arrows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Arrows) member, was 59-years-old when he performed the stunt."

Thought this was a great series when it came out in 1988.

Sailor Steve

07-10-12, 08:28 PM

And why can't they make games like this today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhO94FPfb0w
I spent hundreds of hours playing that game. I even created a bunch of my own missions. On the other hand I once got into trouble and ran. A 109 chased me all the way to Scotland. Highly realistic.
:rotfl2:

nikimcbee

07-11-12, 12:27 AM

nikimcbee

07-11-12, 12:31 AM

So on a side note, let's say the Germans were successful and won the BoB. Do you think they would have been able to capture Britain?

Catfish

07-11-12, 02:46 AM

So on a side note, let's say the Germans were successful and won the BoB. Do you think they would have been able to capture Britain?

^ No, and they never really intended. They then put up a show of gathering boats etc. of all sizes at the northern french coast (ridiculed by the own military as a fleet of wrecks), but how would have they occupied England (with what troops) later, even if they would have been able to win the BoB and then conquer it ? (which itself was questionable even if they had won the aerial war). It was done to force England into an armistice, after England had declared war.

After England did not give in to the bombings and ultimatum the german military realized they had lost, the more intelligent ones that they had lost the war, because a big aircraft carrier just across the channel .. Hitler gambled too high, he had come through with all the european countries so he thought England would agree to stay neutral. He then hoped to finish off Russia fast enough to have his hands free in the west and then force England to give up fighting, with the Ploesti oilfields and the technologically developed part of Russia as back support.

With Russia also invading Poland from the east (remember the Hitler-Stalin pact to split Poland) he did not understand why a related country like England (Angles, Saxons, Normans - his historical and racial thoughts) would declare war to just of all Germany.

Anyway the BoB was lost - we can only speculate what would be, had Hitler been able to beat Russia - but he also underestimated the latter. Russia received help from the other Allies, but it would have been able to beat the advancing troops alone, if a bit later.

Greetings,
Catfish

Tribesman

07-11-12, 03:27 AM

With Russia also invading Poland from the east (remember the Hitler-Stalin pact to split Poland) he did not understand why a related country like England (Angles, Saxons, Normans - his historical and racial thoughts) would declare war to just of all Germany.

The Russian attack was over two weeks after the start of the war with Germany and Britains agreement with Poland only covered an attack by Germany.
Any attack by any other country would only trigger a meeting for the British and Polish governments to decide if they could find any agreement on what action they should propose to talk about and maybe then talk about it and then maybe decide to do similar things together or not depending on how they were feeling that day.

JU_88

07-11-12, 04:14 AM

And why can't they make games like this today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhO94FPfb0w

What in terms of actual gameplay mechanics makes this game superior to say; 'BOB: wings of Victory' released in 2005?
Im just asking because nostalgia sometimes has a tendancy to paint things glossier than they actually were.

Oberon

07-11-12, 05:32 AM

BOBII: WOV is probably the best Battle of Britain game on the market at the moment. Cliffs of Dover is trying to be good, and it has its moments, but it's let down by a horrible amount of bugs and other faults which it's debatable will be fixed as they're focusing mostly on their new release 'Battle for Moscow'. BOBII has a great community which has done some fantastic work on it, it features huge formations of bombers (which CLOD would melt trying to render) and colossal dogfights, and if you fancy doing things from the strategic side of the map, you can do that too. It's well worth a look.

In regards to the potential success of Sealion, well, I can only link you to the wargame played out after the war by German and British commanders:

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/seelowe.txt

It was never really a serious option, not with the Royal Navy available to cut supplies, and the likelihood that we would go chemical on the invading troops. But it made good black propaganda to keep the British populace ready to fight and do their bit for the war effort. Most of the Wehrmacht were quite relieved when Sealion didn't go ahead...and then they went to Russia... :dead:

Jimbuna

07-11-12, 05:39 AM

So on a side note, let's say the Germans were successful and won the BoB. Do you think they would have been able to capture Britain?

Highly unlikely...they would have had the Royal Navy to deal with first as well as a potentially huge influx of Commonwealth and US reinforcements.

Of course, other theatres of conflict would have been sacrificed initially to protect the home island but I doubt anything would have been achieved other than adding a couple of years on the war.

Catfish

07-11-12, 06:22 AM

OffTopic:
The Russian attack was over two weeks after the start of the war with Germany and Britains agreement with Poland only covered an attack by Germany.

Well i am sure the german high command knew exactly of that pact.
It did not matter if anyone attacked Poland as long as it was not Germany. So what do you think about such a treaty ?
Or, what do you think Germany thought about it ?
Surely enough England knew of the Hitler-Stalin pact against Poland, in fact it painted Russia as a mass murderer just like Hitler, in the "Punch" magazine and the british propaganda of those months.

I do not want to paint anything bright what Hitler did here, but the situation with the corridor between Germany and Danzig sucked big time, and there had been polish provocations, if completely blown up by german propaganda, anyway the latter sold well to the german population.

So when a meeting between Poland and England took place after the two-side attack of Germany and Russia, both Poland and England decided to let the Russians be the good guys ? I am not sure about Poland ..
It sure was not about the jews at that time, we also know what Stalin did to them, also before 1939.

More on Topic:
well there has been no newer sim about BoB, but "Cliffs of Dover". I would have liked IL2 to pick up that scenario ... i also remember the Lucas BoB, but i also remember i de-installed it the day i bought it - had just got Silent Service II (on two 5 1/4" diskettes lol), and compared to this sim Lucas' grahics were just too crappy. The coast on the horizon was just a pixel-thick line, becoming two lines if closing ..
And then came Sierra's RedBaron I, Aces of the Pacific and over Europe, all so much better than the Lucas game.

Greetings,
Catfish

Tribesman

07-11-12, 07:15 AM

It did not matter if anyone attacked Poland as long as it was not Germany.
Yes.
So what do you think about such a treaty ?

The treaty was strictly over the danzig question, it covered everything it was meant to cover.
Do you see any problem with it considering what it was meant to do?

So when a meeting between Poland and England took place after the two-side attack of Germany and Russia, both Poland and England decided to let the Russians be the good guys ?
Where on earth did you come up with that idea?
Britain decided it wasn't going to go to war against Russia over a treaty covering Danzig, thats the only decision that mattered. What Poland decided was totally irrelevant.

Oberon

07-11-12, 08:06 AM

nikimcbee

07-11-12, 09:02 AM

What in terms of actual gameplay mechanics makes this game superior to say; 'BOB: wings of Victory' released in 2005?
Im just asking because nostalgia sometimes has a tendancy to paint things glossier than they actually were.

From what I remember, I liked the campaign options and how the campaign worked. I think you are totally correct about the nostalgia side of things.

nikimcbee

07-11-12, 09:12 AM

Fortunately, the Brits had a secret weapon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhmnOpoGAPw

07-11-12, 09:39 AM

I think it was less a matter of deciding that the Russians were the good guys and more a case of not committing suicide. Declaring war on Germany AND the Soviet Union would be akin to modern day Uzbekistan declaring war on the United States. So the Soviets were just put to one side until we could deal with Germany, which was going to be a tough enough job anyway, although in 1939 we didn't realise just how tough it was going to be.

:yep:

The western powers hoped to contain Germany by playing chicken...hoping that declaration of war might force Germans to fold.
Also judging by the obvious differences between Germany and Russia i think it could be assumed that this alliance would not hold for long.

Russian might had been ideological threat to western europe but German militarism was much more of issue based on past history up till then.

JU_88

07-11-12, 10:27 AM

Highly unlikely...they would have had the Royal Navy to deal with first as well as a potentially huge influx of Commonwealth and US reinforcements.

Of course, other theatres of conflict would have been sacrificed initially to protect the home island but I doubt anything would have been achieved other than adding a couple of years on the war.

Ive often wondered this, thing is without RAF air cover much of the royal navy would have been sitting ducks.
They would still have to had cout our supplies off first.
Would have been tough though even then, think how hard its was for the allies to take back France and was when the Germans were spread too thin, and suffering from major fuel shortages. Imagine if they had all been concentrated in Northern France.

Oberon

07-11-12, 11:49 AM

We would still have had enough to cover inland Kent, depending on what time the invasion was launched, a lot of the Luftwaffe was tied up bombing London and accruing losses through that. Whether Goering would have been able to persuade Hitler to let the daylight bombing of London stop in preference to bombing the Royal Navy then it could have incurred a hefty toll, however the size of the Royal Navy at the time was enough that it could have incurred heavy losses and continued to sink German shipping attempting to cross the Channel, particularly if they pulled in the fleets from around the world, the Far-East fleet and the Med fleet. The ability of the Kriegsmarine to conduct an amphibious operation was minimal in the beginning of the battle, but they managed to scrape and scrimp together some landing craft, mostly intended for river crossings, not the channel, and then they would be able to transport some of their forces across, but it would have been very spotty.

I have a theory, and thanks to the Official Secrets Act it shall remain a theory for another few years. On the 31st August 1940 a small German raiding force attempted to land at Shingle Street, a lone bit of land not far from the top secret RADAR testing facilities at Bawdsey. Their goal was to probe British defences, discover RADAR information and generally create as much chaos as they could before withdrawing. Essentially similar to the Allied Raid on Dieppe that would come two years later. Like Dieppe, the raid failed, British forces picked up the raid leaving port in Holland and France and shadowed it to shore where the sea defences and navy attacked, with the 'burning sea' defence system used by the army to repel the landing craft. Disorganised the raid turned and fled back to the French coast. With this taste of British sea based defences, Hitler decided that the effort to invade Britain was too great for the reward gained, and that it would require less resources diverted from Barbarossa to maintain the Uboat blockade and Luftwaffe bombardment.

That's a theory I have, and one with patchy evidence, and little else to support it, and until 2021 we won't really know for definite what happened on that night in August on a shingle beach in a remote part of Suffolk.

JU_88

07-11-12, 12:52 PM

^ Yep Bombing London was one Hitlers first major strategic blunders, as he pulled the Luftwaffe away from supressing the RAF by bombing Fighter Command on the ground. BOB was going well for the German up until then, they had scared the Royal Navy into retreating to the Shetlands and now they were Pounding Fighter Command to a pulp.

Funny thing is he decided to focus on London because he was so outraged when Berlin was attacked by Bomber command, which in turn was a a retaliation by Churchill for the accidental Bombing of London by a lone HE-111 crew who lost the rest of their squadron during a night raid,
they panicked, dumped there bombs (unwittingly over a blacked out London) and headed home.

If any of that HE-111 crew is still alive today, I think we owe them a beer. :)

Sailor Steve

07-11-12, 12:55 PM

I got bombing down to a science in this game, so I could destroy one building with one bomb. So when I attacked a target, I could usually destroy it (the entire target site). If I remember, the AI bombing raid success were based off off your success. I did what the Germans should have done all along, focus all efforts in detroying the RAF. I bombed most of the important airfields and got the RAF status below whatever the victory number was.
Yes, you could win easily with one airplane. I never lost, and stopped playing the campaign after three tries on both sides.

I also loved their DRM system, the ring with the Luftwaffe symbols on it. I was never able to win as the RAF though.:-?
I won every time no matter which side I played. Not talking about my talents, just that they made it way too easy. I also loved the huge manual in its own ring binder.

What in terms of actual gameplay mechanics makes this game superior to say; 'BOB: wings of Victory' released in 2005?
Im just asking because nostalgia sometimes has a tendancy to paint things glossier than they actually were.
Nothing made it superior to any current airwar game. Contrary to McBee I say the so-called campaign was a bad joke. They did make it easy to create new missions, and I was always sending ones I'd made to friends around the country. It was the best of its time, and led to the sequel Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe. Yes, nostalgia is a great thing.

Oberon

07-11-12, 01:48 PM

If any of that HE-111 crew is still alive today, I think we owe them a beer. :)

I've often said, and stand by it, that Adolf Hitler was the Allies greatest weapon against Nazi Germany. :yep:

JU_88

07-11-12, 02:01 PM

I've often said, and stand by it, that Adolf Hitler was the Allies greatest weapon against Nazi Germany. :yep:

Certainly true of his Temper and patience.

Catfish

07-11-12, 02:40 PM

Tribesman

07-11-12, 02:47 PM

am sure England would have bombed civilian targets in Germany anyway, with that lone H-111 they just had their pretext, like who did it first.

You seem to be missing whole chapters of history.
Look at the events which led to the collapse of the US led effort on drafting the missing law of war.

Oberon

07-11-12, 02:51 PM

I am sure England would have bombed civilian targets in Germany anyway, with that lone H-111 they just had their pretext, like who did it first.

French and german planes and airships already bombed civilian targets early in WW1, at that time it was the french who were first. I am sure Germany would have used its Zeppelins anyway but it's so good to have the moral upper hand so to speak :-?

I think we probably already were, however most of our airforce of the time was focused on defence as opposed to offense. The belief through the 1930s was "The bomber will always get through", it was this panic that lead to the development of radar and interceptors over bombers. However, in all fairness to the RAF, German strategic bombing of cities began in Spain, continued in Poland, France and Holland and I think would have started from the beginning in England had Hitler not wanted to try to push us into suing for peace first. Furthermore, as proven by history, diverting the bombers away from primary targets was unwise. Furthermore, our retaliation, when it happened, was aimed at Tepelhof airfield and a factory in Siemanstadt, but our bombers were about as accurate as a blind cripple with a full automatic and thus the bombs fell all over the shop, and thus began the tit for tat bombings that helped us win the Battle of Britain. Although by that time things were starting to swing in our favour anyway, with the release of the foreign national pilots into service, the production tempo of aircraft at a high, the Big Wing strategy coming into play and the inability of the Luftwaffe to permanently knock out our early warning network which meant we could vector our aircraft from outside 11 Group to help cover northern Kent.

Schroeder

07-11-12, 02:52 PM

Do any of you Brits (or Germans) have any family that participated in BoB? Were they impacted by the bombing?
MY paternal grandfather's family lost everything they had twice to bombs when Stettin (nowadays called Szczecin and being part of Poland) was hit by Bombers. I don't know wheter it were American or British ones. He was allowed to get home from the Airforce to help getting the remains of their stuff together. The leave he got for that was long enough to travel home and stay for one day, then he had to return. They lost everything a third time when they fled from the Soviets in 1945. My grandfather surrendered with his unit in France to some American troops some time after D-Day (I believe it was already 1945) and it was more or less by chance that the family was reunited again in what later became West Germany. My grandfather has never seen his home city ever again.

Catfish

07-11-12, 04:24 PM

Hello Tribesman,
regarding the decision of who the bad guys were (Russia or Germany, after splitting Poland between themselves following the Hitler-Stalin pact) you wrote

Where on earth did you come up with that idea?
Britain decided it wasn't going to go to war against Russia over a treaty covering Danzig, thats the only decision that mattered. What Poland decided was totally irrelevant.

The polish high command and government kept in touch with London until the very last city surrendered to german troops, asking for help and advice, and sending radio broadcasts until the end. England just had not the means to help them, treaty or not.
So what Poland decided was totally irrelevant, yes, however it did make some impression on the british government.

You seem to be missing whole chapters of history.
Look at the events which led to the collapse of the US led effort on drafting the missing law of war.

Whole chapters of history ? Do you mean the bombing in Spain ? This was a good practicing ground for bombing of course, however when England had declared war Hitler had no intention of bombing civilian targets, at first.
What do you mean with "drafting the missing law of war" ?

Greetings,
Catfish

Tribesman

07-11-12, 06:18 PM

The polish high command and government kept in touch with London until the very last city surrendered to german troops
So what?

England just had not the means to help them, treaty or not.

What has that got to do with anything?

So what Poland decided was totally irrelevant, yes, however it did make some impression on the british government.

Really, how?

however when England had declared war Hitler had no intention of bombing civilian targets, at first.

Proof?

What do you mean with "drafting the missing law of war" ?

The attempt to draw up a law which would extend the laws on land and sea to include air warfare.
The slow preliminary agreement process was rushed through with American assistance after hitler bombed the hell out of civilians in Poland it was finally abandoned after hitler bombed the hell out of Dutch civilians which was just before he bombed the hell out of belgian and french civilians which was all a long time before a lone He-111 got lost and bombed London

Oberon

07-11-12, 06:59 PM

OKW Direktive Nr 2 and Luftwaffe Direktive Nr 2 prohibited aerial attacks on enemy (British or French) naval forces unless they bombed Germany first, noting "the guiding principle must be not to provoke the initiation of aerial warfare on the part of Germany."

Furthermore, Hitler's Directive No.17 states that he reserved the right to use terror bombing, but otherwise attacks in civilian areas were to be minimised. Goerings General Order of the 30th July 1940 stated:

"The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces. ... The most thorough study of the target concerned, that is vital points of the target, is a pre-requisite for success. It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population."

Catfish

07-12-12, 03:53 AM

Not to belittle the cause of the war, civilian casualties or war crimes -

^ Oberon's post - OKW and Luftwaffe directive as an answer to whether bombing civilians in England (!) being initially allowed or not.

Regarding the bombing of Rotterdam this was a failure of communication on the german side and absolutely unneccesary, which just means it was not primarily intended. This did not help the civilians in the center of Rotterdam though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz
There is also the "forgotten bombing", when fires destroyed houses in Rotterdam after an allied attack in 1943, but because fires spread from bombed industrial installations and control got out of hand.

I am no expert of this, i have read and heard there were bad civilian bombings in Poland mostly by Stukas, however i do not know much about Belgium - had a short look at Google but did not find much about bombing of cities, apart from military targets. If someone has information or a good link ?

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

Tribesman

07-12-12, 05:45 AM

^ Oberon's post - OKW and Luftwaffe directive as an answer to whether bombing civilians in England (!) being initially allowed or not.

But that wasn't your claim.
Hitler was in favour of bombing civilians when he thought he could get away with it without serious reprisal and against it when he thought he couldn't.

Catfish

07-12-12, 07:29 AM

But that wasn't your claim.
Hitler was in favour of bombing civilians when he thought he could get away with it without serious reprisal and against it when he thought he couldn't.

Quoting myself (sorry):
" .. Whole chapters of history ? Do you mean the bombing in Spain ? This was a good practicing ground for bombing of course, however when England had declared war Hitler had no intention of bombing civilian targets, at first. ..."

Which part didn't you understand ?
Also what about civilian bombing in The Netherlands, Belgium, France ?

And ".. [Hitler] thought he could get away with it", do you think Mr. LeMay would have fire-bombed japanese cities if he would have been certain that the japanese could retaliate ?

Oberon

07-12-12, 07:39 AM

I am no expert of this, i have read and heard there were bad civilian bombings in Poland mostly by Stukas, however i do not know much about Belgium - had a short look at Google but did not find much about bombing of cities, apart from military targets. If someone has information or a good link ?

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Warsaw_%281939%29

From the very first hours of World War II, Warsaw, the capital of Poland, was a target of an unrestricted aerial bombardment campaign by the German Luftwaffe. Apart from the military facilities such as infantry barracks and the Ok***281;cie airport and aircraft factory, the German pilots also targeted civilian facilities such as water works, hospitals, market places and schools. In addition, civilians were strafed from the air with machine gun fire in what became known as a terror bombing campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Frampol

"Frampol was chosen as an experimental object, because test bombers, flying at low speed, weren't endangered by AA fire. Also, the centrally placed town hall was an ideal orientation point for the crews. We watched possibility of orientation after visible signs, and also the size of village, what guaranteed that bombs nevertheless fall down on Frampol. From one side it should make easier the note of probe, from second side it should confirm the efficiency of used bombs."

Catfish

07-12-12, 07:51 AM

Thanks Oberon :salute:

however i looked for information about Belgium in WW2, since Tribesman mentioned it.
No doubt Poland was bombed without mercy.

Oberon

07-12-12, 08:14 AM

Thanks Oberon :salute:

however i looked for information about Belgium in WW2, since Tribesman mentioned it.
No doubt Poland was bombed without mercy.

Oh, Belgium? I'm not aware of deliberate terror bombing in Belgium, the front crumpled too quickly for that. If anything the Luftwaffe focused almost purely on military targets during the drive to the coast, hamstringing the Belgian defence by destroying rail and road networks and sowing chaos by attacking retreating Allied forces. It's entirely possible that cities were bombed by the Luftwaffe, but not as a part of a terror bombing campaign, strategic perhaps, but primarily militarily based.

Tribesman

07-12-12, 12:45 PM

No doubt Poland was bombed without mercy.
Were the plans for Poland made and executed before or after Britain declared war?

do you think Mr. LeMay
What does Le May have to do with the plans and actions of Hitler?

Oh, Belgium?
The air attacks on refugees as a means of disruption?

Oberon

07-12-12, 01:05 PM

The air attacks on refugees as a means of disruption?

Hmmm, good point, although the extent of whether that was an official order and act or just sick sods in killing machines is a matter of discussion. To be honest I would have thought that NOT killing refugees would cause more disruption as it would mean more refugees on the roads clogging them up to tanks and vehicles. Still, one can never fully factor in logic in war.

In terms of terror bombing though, which is what this discussion was originally about IIRC, I do not think that strafing refugees counts although it does cause both terror and may involve bombs. It's one of those grey areas I'd say.

Tribesman

07-12-12, 02:56 PM

Hmmm, good point, although the extent of whether that was an official order and act or just sick sods in killing machines is a matter of discussion.
If I get time I will see if I can dig up something from Nuremburg.
If I recall correctly it came up in the background in an offshoot from the commando order murders that was about about the execution of allied airmen.

CaptainMattJ.

07-12-12, 04:57 PM

Oberon

07-12-12, 08:13 PM

the switch to British cities was one of the deciding factors in the German's defeat in the battle of Britain. Had pressure been kept on the RAF, they might not have recovered, even with the spitfires, and might've been knocked down so much that the invasion could have commenced.

That's the commonly taught version and to some extent it is true, however all the RAF would need to have done was move its fighter bases back a little into 10 Group and then it would still have air coverage over Britain.
Pilot shortage was a dire problem, but it was being overcome by shoving any young fresh faced boy into a Spitfire, and by bringing in the Czechs and Poles into the front line squadrons we were keeping the pace.
While we could put pilots who bailed out back into aircraft, the Germans could not, every time we knocked down a fighter or bomber over Southern England, it was a credible dent in the Luftwaffes ability to fight, only if the RAF pilot was himself killed did the RAF suffer.

Another advantage we had was that the Germans used faulty intelligence, they frequently bombed Coastal Command or Bomber Command airfields, mistaking them for Fighter Command fields, and even those that they did bomb, since most of them were grass fields, they were easily repaired and often back in service within a couple of days maximum.

This is not to lessen in any manner the peril in which our airforces found themselves, often outnumbered in the skies and out-performed by the 109 in many instances except in their turning circle, but fortunately for us, the further into Kent the bombers went, the less dogfighting time the 109s had. I believe that over London itself the 109s had five minutes of dogfighting time before they were forced to break off and head for home.

It would have left Southern England isolated, however this would not have necessarily meant that a German invasion would have been successful. Firstly they would have to content with the Royal Navy, which probably would have operated mostly at night, hitting supply convoys and reinforcement convoys, with our submarine arm hitting their ships during the day. The Kriegsmarine in 1940 was not much of a match for the Royal Navy, particularly if, and had Sealion gone ahead they would have, they pulled warships out of the Med and Far-East. Even with losses to aircraft there would have been enough warships to smash any invasion fleet six ways from Sunday.
Those who did get ashore would have been gassed fairly quickly, our forces were ready to use mustard gas IIRC, and it's doubtful the Germans would have been expecting its use. Yes, it would have meant that our population would have suffered through retaliation...but we had expected that and put out a widespread gas mask campaign. Even dogs and horses were wearing the darn things! :haha:
Those who survived the gassing and the artillery would soon find themselves running low on supplies, SOE operatives would emerge from their prepared hiding holes and hit supply trucks, infrastructure and generally damage the war machine however they could. It would be like the French resistance, but with more organisation. The ships bringing these supplies would be continually harassed by torpedo boats, submarines and destroyers.
It would be debatable if the Wehrmacht would ever have seen London, most post-war estimates put the limit of their advance in the area around central Kent before the Wehrmacht collapsed.

It's possible, particularly if gas warfare commenced, that Britain would sue for peace, particularly if Halifax got involved, and that would be a tactical victory for Germany who would rest assured of the safety of its western flank whilst it prepared to hit Russia. However Barbarossa itself would have been severely delayed whilst the required manpower was built up, and perhaps in that time Stalin would have finally been convinced by his agents that a German attack was actually going to happen and would have been a little more ready to fight them.

The odds were against the Germany of August 1940 in any seaborne assault, and the Wehrmacht knew it, when Sealion was dropped the entire German armed forces breathed a sigh of relief...and then wound up sent to Russia. I'm not quite sure which I would have preferred if I'm honest... :doh:

As I said though, I'm not trying to discredit or in ANY way lower the achievement of the men (and women) of the RAF during that period, nor that of the men and women of the Luftwaffe, but a cold hard look at the facts, including that of new data which has surfaced over the years since the end of the war, indicates that we weren't in quite as bad a situation as is often portrayed.