[Boondock Saint]

Mustard gas eh?

Lousy stuff that ...

Hope its never used again in war ...

[Comrade Juanito]

What i am saying here is sure, the british defended their home well but the way the british and many others portray it is just out there and isnt really as they make it out that way, what bill is asking is was the battle overrated? of course i say.

[The Cactuarian Emperor]

in my opinion it wasnt overrated

[MB.]

For example: I was in London around this time last year, and of course paid a visit to the Imperial War Museum. There, I happened upon a school group of grade 6/7s it loooked, who were being informed about that battle. Thier guide was telling them that had the British lost, they would have been invaded and defeated... Which is simply not true.

Again, in my history classes and school text books, a similiar claim is always made: had the British lost, then surley the Americans would have not been able to enter war in northern Europe- again foregetting that the ODDS were on the side of the BRITISH not the Germans.

I know that the British army, after Dunkirk, was desperate: they suffered from severe losses in munitions during the retreat- but it WAS an Amry none the less. Any invaions would have been long and tired, drawing forces from both sides- forces the Germans needed to attack the Soviets.

[Truth-a-naut]

forces the Germans needed to attack the Soviets.

The Germans didn't need to attack the soviets, soviet trains were still bringing wares,resources to germany right up until barbarossa (in response to the treaty).

"The Germans didn't conqour France during the GW so it is most likely they will be inable to, the second time around."
If it was possible go back to 1938 and tell the French they would be conqoured by the Germans, they would have laughed at you.

The world was suprised when France fell, people today and 'yesterday' seem to underestimate the Germans quite a bit.

The Battle for the Atlantic seemed to be the most important, and it is downplayed. No food no fight.

[Nox]

The British aircraft that caused the Luftwaffe most losses during the battle of Britain was the Hurricane.

Thank you for reminding folks of that.

Nox

[Khenlein]

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.

This man is a genious, he simply KNOWs what could of happenned., when the rest of us can just make conjecture.

[Din]

during the battle of Britain on 5th of sptember 1940, the RAF was certailey outnumbered,

Battle line up
UK (RAF)
Hurricanes 150
Spitfire 100

Germany (Luftwaffe)

Bombers 250
Fighters 450

that was a typical day during the battle of britain

on the day itself Luftwaffe planes in exsess on 300(150 fighters 150 Bombers) per group, were engaged by 20 spitfires (mk 3's and 4's)
also a quote from a RAF personell at no.11 group operations centre, Uxbridge on the day that would become "England's finest Hour"

By lunchtime the enemy had been scattered. The Prime Minister, watching the RAF's performance from the No.11 Group's operation centre at Uxbridge, clenched an unlighted cigar between his teeth, engrossed in the action. At a critical point he asked:
"What reserves are available?"
Air Vice Marshall Park gave the honest, blunt reply:
"None"

i think we can see how desparate the UK was at this time....
Also if the Navy had sealed off the Atlantic ocean it would not have meant that britain would starved only a third of britain would have gone hungry, but Churchill would just have hammered the "Dig for Victory" campaign even harder, ordering that ALL gardens be converted into mini farms

imagine all the space that the stately homes had, if they were converted aswell britain would not have starved
Also Sealion would not have worked, the "Invasion craft" were no more than the barges used on the rhur and rein, towed by navy vessels, if the channel were VERY calm( no breeze which it is only like on a Blue moon, perhaps it would have worked, but the wake from the Navy ships if they picked up to much speed would have ended up drowning many men.

[MB.]

Hmmm....

Odd how I disagree:

The British fighting force in May was up to 650 planes.
The German had roughly 930 planes.
And the British were making MORE fighters then the Germans (4300 compared to 3000 produced over the year).

My source was Basil Liddel Hart's History of the Second World War.

[Comrade Juanito]

Really? Christ! Thats a lot of planes the British pumped out. I stand behind this even more now that i saw this. 1300 more a year. That is a lot of planes. Not to mention that bombers couldnt fend of the RAF well enough. Yes they had guns on the junkers but with the manuverability of the RAF and its speed would tear up them. The British really were at a disadvantage but come on, they could have spotted the german luftwaffe miles away, they could retrive downed pilots, if they could get out which was extremly rare, but nonetheless they could retrieve them, and anti aircraft guns could be set up across outposts and such.

[Din]

that is just one area , they didn't attack everywhere all at once

[MB.]

Meaning?

The only thing that can be siad about the above statistic is that it doesn't include bombers, or dive bombers (which were drawn out of the battle after they proved to vounrable).