[MB.]

It dooes seem to be this way. Consider: The British were fighting on their own ground- from their own fields- with planes that could out manouver most German fighters. Infact, the Germans hardly had more fighters then the British at all. Not only that, bu the British had the advantage of air defense and radio and radar systems. The only real disadvantage suffered by the British was a lack of trained pilots.

So why are people so surpirsed when the Germans lost? It wasn't like they were actaully going to invade anyway, at least not after the descsion to attack Russia, at which point Sealoin was canned. So what's the big deal?

[Nox]

No ... the Battle of Britain is not over-rated.

My friend, you have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Nox

[MB.]

I mean that it is overated in the modren sense- people look at the battle and say thing like: wow! If we'd lost, we'd be speaking German, which just ain't true.

[Comrade Juanito]

I agree with you completely bill, the british knew their land, could spot german fighters easy and could have anti air craft placements all over the place not to mention the superior spitfire.

[The Cactuarian Emperor]

Germany could never had betean England in a quick battle.

but it was no small feat holding out the nazis single handly for that long

[Comrade Juanito]

yes, i agree the german war machine seemed unstoppable but the british by no means were as supremely out matched as history makes it.

[The Cactuarian Emperor]

Juanito....

Germany had all of europe while it was invading england.

I think it was outmatched

[Comrade Juanito]

o come now! the germans were land based fighters and the british were more accustomed to sea and air fighting, thought they did have some very successful campains in africa, anyway, they had the better plane, they had the tips offs of scouts, they had the anti aircraft guns that could tear threw the junkers. they were outmatched but not so much so as the british say, they glorify it far to much

[FascistDictator]

No i agree with Nox. The battle over Britain was not over-rated. If the Axis pulled out of unnessecary battles like the ones in the mid-east, china, and russia and concentrated on the Uk ithink there is every bit of a chance that Britain could have fallen to the NAZIs.

[The Cactuarian Emperor]

of course england is accostomed to land and air battles....


They're an island

[Comrade Juanito]

i know i know, they were outmatched, what i am saying is it was not at all as glorious as they make it out, the british have defended plenty of times in the past and have either pulled out victory or lost just barely, so this one should come of not such as suprise, sure sure, the germans had half of europe but they never took plane designs down, or had new engineers, not to mention the UKs home terf, they knew all of this, hey had the radar to spot them miles away, and as i said before, spitfire spitfire spitfire, does anyone even kno how great this plane was? next to the mustang it was the greatest fighter of world war 2 in europe.

[The Cactuarian Emperor]

the british have defended plenty of times in the past

Actually most of the time the english attacked

[Comrade Juanito]

im talking more to africa and the mid east, southern asia, that sort

[Nox]

Germany could never had betean England in a quick battle.

This is true. However, had the Allies not had an enigma machine, Germany surely would have starved the UK into submission.

Nox

[Truth-a-naut]

I read that OKW overestimated the defensive forces in the UK and decided that the USSR was a more ripe target.
The Kriegsmarine could never have supplied enough protection for an invasion fleet, the landing craft would have been chewed up by the RAF so IMO that BoB was not over-rated, Knock the UK out and the isolation movement in America would have blossomed.

[MB.]

There is smply NO way that sealion would been sucsessful- even HAD the Germans gone through with it. The fact that they cancelled the operation and turned towards Russia signifies that they thought nothing of a British threat. thus, when they began the air compaign, it was soon that the invasion was called off all together. Thus, the British claim that the battle was SO important for had they lost, surley they would have been invaded. Two items are wrong in that statement. 1) They couldn't have lost, unless they were TOTALY incompetent and 2) even HAD they lost, the units that had been established to sweep the english away were being moved to the Russian front for the beginning of Barrbarossa.

Lets make a hypothyitcal situation: say- by some marical- the Germans had quickly (and I mean quickly, like within a month) crushed the RAF. Surley then the Germans would have invaded, and probally been succseful- well no. The Germans would not invade, at least not with Stalin gearing up for what he considered inevitable (or so the Germans thought), and the campaing would have been long and bitter, despite the dissarmy of the British forces after Dunkirk. BUT this is all hypothetical. There is simply NO WAY the RAF could have been knocked out this quickly. If ANYTHING it was the Germans facing the odds, not the British, who had to do little more then shoot down slow German bombers, and worry about the occasional 109 with an almost empty fuel tank anyway.

[Nox]

Here's a little rain on everyone's parade:

Hitler did invade the UK ... have you forgotten the Channel Islands? And yes it is also convenient for the Americans to forget that the Japanese landed in Alaska.

Facts, facts, cursed facts.

Nox

[Yeddi]

slight deviation: What the Germans should have done was as soon as they got to the coast 1) crush the BEF at Dunkirk.. properly and then 2) do a reverse Dunkirk! grab all the boats they could and gone straight on for england. I think it wouldn't have been too hard to take, or atleast establish a strong foothold on

[somua]

slight deviation: What the Germans should have done was as soon as they got to the coast 1) crush the BEF at Dunkirk.. properly and then 2) do a reverse Dunkirk! grab all the boats they could and gone straight on for england. I think it wouldn't have been too hard to take, or atleast establish a strong foothold on

Crushing the BEF in Dunkirk it wasn't so Easy, the germans had a bad experience few month before in Warsaw with their armored division.

More than 500 000 thousand mens the brits and more than 200 000 french were trapped in rhe Dunkirk Kessel with a lot of materiel, the RAF was able to covert a part, it was even for the Panzer -divisons a hard bit to chew.

Also the panzer divisions need a break after the initial rush, at the end of the french campaign in june a third of the panzer was out of action ( destroyed or needed major repair )

[Siberian Fox]

Just a cople of notes on this thread.

Firstly, the main thing that is overated about the battle of Britain is the contribution of the Spitfire. Yes they were excellent aircraft (although earlier versions could not outclimb 109s) but they were only availiable in small numbers. The British aircraft that caused the Luftwaffe most losses during the battle of Britain was the Hurricane.

Secondly, on operation Sealion: There is a thread about this somewhere in the archive. Any German invasion would absolutely, most definitely have failed. Not just because of the RAF, not just because of the Royal Navy, but because files declassified a couple of years ago showed that Churchill and High Command had decided that if Germany invaded they would use mustard gas on the landing beaches. Even Hitler didn't do that to our boys in Normandy in 1944.

So, for those who don't think that the situation was desperate for Britain in 1940, it was. Using chemical weapons is not something one does lightly.