Comando Supremo: British Losses to Regia Aeronautica in Battle of Britain. - Comando Supremo

Jump to content

Icon Message from the Comando Supremo staff

Follow us now on Twitter!


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

British Losses to Regia Aeronautica in Battle of Britain.

#21 User is offline   JulioMoc 

  • Generale di Corpo d'Armata
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 416
  • Joined: 03-January 04
  • LocationMontes Claros - Brazil

Posted 07 June 2004 - 06:14 PM

Since the beginning, Hitler wanted a friendly cease-fire with Britain. Rommel arrived in Calais and no plans for invasion were in course. Only after Churchill refuse a friendly cease-fire in July 14th, the Fuhrer ordered See Lowe to be prepared (July 21th). But Admiral Raeder strongly opposed the plans, increasing Hitler's undisposal to an attack throw the channel. The first phase (obtain aerial superiority) was iniciated without any real will to proceed with landings. The change of objectives from airbases to city bombings was the final attempt to make the british ask for peace. They didn't, they won.
Battle of Britain was lost due lack of courage from the OKW (specially Hitler). The very same reason condemned Graziani in Egypt, lack of courage. Sun Tzu said, thousands of years ago: "In advance, don't stop, whatever situation you are".
Julio
________________________________________
"The most important thing in aerial combat is to see your enemy before he can see you."

Adolf Galland
0

#22 User is offline   pg 

  • 2004
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,041
  • Joined: 16-September 03
  • LocationCumbria, U.K.

Posted 07 June 2004 - 09:35 PM

We're off topic! The long and short of this is that (with the exception of Vince T) everyone agrees that the Italians at the BOB failed to acheive very much for their sacrifices, which were politically rather than militarily motivated for the various reasons given.
0

#23 User is offline   JohnB 

  • Sergente Maggiore
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 22-January 04
  • LocationLondon

Posted 08 June 2004 - 10:09 AM

Very unlikely the Luftwaffe could ever have 'won' the Battle of Britain. Aircraft production numbers (with the Empire Air Training Scheme) ensured that the RAF would have massive superiority in 'planes and pilots as the battle progressed.

For example, in April 1941 alone, Spitfire production was 1600-1700 :shock: ! with a similar number of Hurricanes. In one month Britain produced more aircraft than Italy did in a year.


As regards 'overclaiming' by the RAF, how much was this due to public relations PR as its now called. Certainly the actual pilots had a hard job getting credited for any kills that could not be proved beyond doubt. As it was the Luftwaffe officially credited its pilots with the destruction of 1955 Spitfires and Hurricanes upto 31st October '40 whilst the RAF had only lost 755.
0

#24 User is offline   Ennio 

  • 2004
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 486
  • Joined: 30-September 03
  • LocationLuxembourg

Posted 08 June 2004 - 02:18 PM

Julio Moc wrote:

"Battle of Britain was lost due lack of courage from the OKW (specially Hitler). The very same reason condemned Graziani in Egypt, lack of courage. Sun Tzu said, thousands of years ago: "In advance, don't stop, whatever situation you are"."

Hummmmm. IMMO I always had a vague feeling that Hitler never meant to REALLY land under "the white cliffs". Pressure, yes, political gerrymandering, yes, trying to scare the people, yes, all to press for a political arrangement. But who in his right mind could have thought to force a landing in the UK, on heavily contested beaches, etc. etc. when at the same time the mighty Red Army was advancing in Bessarabia and Bukovina without warning and without negotiations with Germany, placing itself within striking reach of the only oil wells available to Germany?
The GrossGeneralstab forgot all about the Uk that very minute, believe me.......They must have got grey hair at the thought of having half of the Wehrmacht nailed on the shores of the UK, with Stalin having a good laugh.
0

#25 User is offline   Vince Tassone 

  • Primo Tenente
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 08-September 03
  • LocationCalgary, CANADA

Posted 08 June 2004 - 03:03 PM

JohnB said:

Very unlikely the Luftwaffe could ever have 'won' the Battle of Britain. Aircraft production numbers (with the Empire Air Training Scheme) ensured that the RAF would have massive superiority in 'planes and pilots as the battle progressed.

For example, in April 1941 alone, Spitfire production was 1600-1700 :shock: ! with a similar number of Hurricanes. In one month Britain produced more aircraft than Italy did in a year.



keep in mind total production of spitfires in WWII amounted to approx 20,000 while 35,000 Bf.109s were produced. It might be helpful to examine German production at this time which will yield a different story than suggeting "massive superiority" was or could be achieved by the RAF. Also keep in mind the bob was long over (the bulk of the fighting) by april 1941 and barborossa was just around the corner
0

#26 User is offline   JeffreyF 

  • Generale d'Armata
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 437
  • Joined: 17-September 03

Posted 08 June 2004 - 03:30 PM

If the Italians hadn't declared war and the Brits hadn't any area to engage in land campaigns besides an invasion of Europe do you think they would have accepted a cease-fire?
0

#27 User is offline   JohnB 

  • Sergente Maggiore
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 22-January 04
  • LocationLondon

Posted 08 June 2004 - 04:52 PM

Vince Tassone said:

keep in mind total production of spitfires in WWII amounted to approx 20,000 while 35,000 Bf.109s were produced. It might be helpful to examine German production at this time which will yield a different story than suggeting "massive superiority" was or could be achieved by the RAF. Also keep in mind the bob was long over (the bulk of the fighting) by april 1941 and barborossa was just around the corner


It would indeed be helpful to have Bf. 109 monthly production figures, but I haven't got them. Bits and pieces I have seen such as production reaching a peak (up until then) of 750 in a month and 6500 for 1943, less than half of what the UK was producing two years earlier.

Production decreased for the Spit from about Summer '41, IIRC weekly production was down to about 45 'planes in October - one-tenth of what they had been just six months earlier. The primary reason for this of course was that that they were just not needed (at least not in the UK, the RAF in the Med. and the Far East sure could have done with them).
0

#28 User is offline   JohnB 

  • Sergente Maggiore
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 22-January 04
  • LocationLondon

Posted 08 June 2004 - 04:57 PM

JeffreyF said:

If the Italians hadn't declared war and the Brits hadn't any area to engage in land campaigns besides an invasion of Europe do you think they would have accepted a cease-fire?


A cease-fire with Germany? No way.

British resource and industry were being directed towards Bomber Command - there were many in the force and government who believed that aerial bombing alone could ensure victory.
0

#29 User is offline   JulioMoc 

  • Generale di Corpo d'Armata
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 416
  • Joined: 03-January 04
  • LocationMontes Claros - Brazil

Posted 08 June 2004 - 07:16 PM

Ennio,

You are completely right. But I'm trying to expose a fact related to Hitler's missconception of total war. The real defeat in BoB started with the completely stupid order to "stop the tanks" at Dunkirk. We can blame Rundstedt and Hitler for that. Guderian wanted to go forward, and so did Bock. If they had continued, they would've captured the british army and leave England without men. That was an amateur decision and the excuse that he tanks needed rest is ridiculous.
The stop at Dunkirk shows how the entire war was condemned to Germany, even in May, 1940.
Julio
________________________________________
"The most important thing in aerial combat is to see your enemy before he can see you."

Adolf Galland
0

#30 User is offline   Vince Tassone 

  • Primo Tenente
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 08-September 03
  • LocationCalgary, CANADA

Posted 08 June 2004 - 07:30 PM

JulioMoc said:

Ennio,

You are completely right. But I'm trying to expose a fact related to Hitler's missconception of total war. The real defeat in BoB started with the completely stupid order to "stop the tanks" at Dunkirk. We can blame Rundstedt and Hitler for that. Guderian wanted to go forward, and so did Bock. If they had continued, they would've captured the british army and leave England without men. That was an amateur decision and the excuse that he tanks needed rest is ridiculous.
The stop at Dunkirk shows how the entire war was condemned to Germany, even in May, 1940.


The Germans didn't need to "capture" the British army, for the Brits lost almost all their tanks and a good amount of equipment in France and were vulnerable shortly afterwards, and until the end of August, to a cross-channel invasion. Had the Germans quickly followed up their sucesses in France, a cross-channel invasion would surely have succeeded. Hitler, as Ennio says, was more concerned with the Soviets striking from the East, when Germany exhausted herself in a protracted war in the West. More a case of the Brits fooling the Germans with dummy tanks than a real ability to counter a landing during June-August 1940.
0

#31 User is offline   JulioMoc 

  • Generale di Corpo d'Armata
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 416
  • Joined: 03-January 04
  • LocationMontes Claros - Brazil

Posted 08 June 2004 - 08:02 PM

I agree with you Vince, but the invasion would be much more easy without a defensive army of Britain... :wink:
Julio
________________________________________
"The most important thing in aerial combat is to see your enemy before he can see you."

Adolf Galland
0

#32 User is offline   pg 

  • 2004
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,041
  • Joined: 16-September 03
  • LocationCumbria, U.K.

Posted 08 June 2004 - 08:13 PM

You are both assuming that the only land forces Britain had left were rescued from Dunkirk.....which was clearly not the case. As the allies later found out huge numerical and air superiority was needed to suceed in a seabourne invasion, which the Germans simply didnt have in 1940. All this on top of the fact that the British would have been defending their own country....and a lack of suitable transport ships on the part of the Germans, who never seriously prepared for such an invasion.
0

#33 User is offline   Vince Tassone 

  • Primo Tenente
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 259
  • Joined: 08-September 03
  • LocationCalgary, CANADA

Posted 08 June 2004 - 08:17 PM

JulioMoc said:

I agree with you Vince, but the invasion would be much more easy without a defensive army of Britain... :wink:


yes true, much easier not to have anything in front of you.
0

#34 User is offline   JohnB 

  • Sergente Maggiore
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 22-January 04
  • LocationLondon

Posted 09 June 2004 - 09:31 AM

JulioMoc said:

The real defeat in BoB started with the completely stupid order to "stop the tanks" at Dunkirk. We can blame Rundstedt and Hitler for that. Guderian wanted to go forward, and so did Bock. If they had continued, they would've captured the british army and leave England without men. That was an amateur decision and the excuse that he tanks needed rest is ridiculous.


Sorry but that is a highly speculative statement, the BEF already had substantial forces, with more on the way, to stop the German Panzers. Dunkirk itself was a naturally very strong defensive position - the Allies in 1944 decided it was too strong to take and were content to invest it until Germany's surrender.
0

#35 User is offline   JohnB 

  • Sergente Maggiore
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 22-January 04
  • LocationLondon

Posted 09 June 2004 - 09:33 AM

Vince Tassone said:

The Germans didn't need to "capture" the British army, for the Brits lost almost all their tanks and a good amount of equipment in France and were vulnerable shortly afterwards, and until the end of August, to a cross-channel invasion. Had the Germans quickly followed up their sucesses in France, a cross-channel invasion would surely have succeeded. More a case of the Brits fooling the Germans with dummy tanks than a real ability to counter a landing during June-August 1940.



Err.. are you not forgeting about the Royal Navy? How is the German Army supposed to defeat Battleships?
0

#36 User is offline   stefano 

  • Primo Maresciallo dell Impero
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: 09-April 03
  • LocationNew York e Genova

Posted 09 June 2004 - 10:08 AM

JohnB said:

Vince Tassone said:

The Germans didn't need to "capture" the British army, for the Brits lost almost all their tanks and a good amount of equipment in France and were vulnerable shortly afterwards, and until the end of August, to a cross-channel invasion. Had the Germans quickly followed up their sucesses in France, a cross-channel invasion would surely have succeeded. More a case of the Brits fooling the Germans with dummy tanks than a real ability to counter a landing during June-August 1940.



Err.. are you not forgeting about the Royal Navy? How is the German Army supposed to defeat Battleships?



well, they would use their unopposed airforce... oh, wait :wink:
0

#37 User is offline   Ennio 

  • 2004
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 486
  • Joined: 30-September 03
  • LocationLuxembourg

Posted 09 June 2004 - 12:46 PM

"Err.. are you not forgeting about the Royal Navy? How is the German Army supposed to defeat Battleships?"

Please note that the Admiralty made very clear to Churchill that the capital ships and even the heavy cruisers would not operate south of the Wash, due to the risk of loosing the precarious advantage the RN had over its actual and potential enemies in that Summer of 1940. The loss of one or two battleships to the Stukas would have been catastrofic in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific, since there were clear signs that the by then the French Fleet was out of the game.
0

#38 User is offline   pg 

  • 2004
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,041
  • Joined: 16-September 03
  • LocationCumbria, U.K.

Posted 09 June 2004 - 01:20 PM

I think if the Germans were invading, the navy would have gone South of the Wash (they would have no choice).....dont you? Thankfully the RAF were there to do the business and the Germans never really got to a point where they were in a position to mount an invasion.
0

#39 User is offline   Jim H 

  • Administration
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 1,900
  • Joined: 06-April 03
  • LocationNaples, Italy

Posted 09 June 2004 - 01:31 PM

Lets get back on topic or someone open another topic on Sealion.

#40 User is offline   pg 

  • 2004
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,041
  • Joined: 16-September 03
  • LocationCumbria, U.K.

Posted 09 June 2004 - 09:32 PM

I tried to warn them boss!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic


Similar Topics Collapse

  Topic Forum Started By Stats Last Post Info
*New Replies Some pics of Regia aeronautica Related Links Guest_webmastersignal_* 
  • 2 Replies
  • 2,066 Views
*New Replies Battlefield 1942 Add-On "Road To Rome" Wargamers Forum Guest_Botto_* 
  • 1 Reply
  • 2,075 Views
*New Replies British Somaliland Units, Battles and Events Guest_Folgore_* 
  • 10 Replies
  • 3,848 Views
*New Replies Help on Navy losses required! Units, Battles and Events Guest_Gianmaria_* 
  • 0 Replies
  • 1,397 Views
New Replies Attachments Battle Over Malta: Aircraft Losses & Crash Sites 1940- Books, Film, Audio & other Media Jim H 
  • 0 Replies
  • 1,834 Views

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users