Get Nebula with 40% off an annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/realtimehistory Watch Battle of Britain on Nebula: nebula.tv/battleofbritain?ref=realtimehistory
Ducumentary is full of small and big errors. Tactical fighter formation had like zero influence on efficiency. All losses mentioned are total nonsence. Operational losses on both side were nearly the same, but combat losses were much higher on the RAF side, not Luftwaffe. You cant mention accidents that are not part of the battle itself. The second biggest mistake is total lack of ULTRA + Y Service. That was CRUCIAL. RAF FC knew even units names and their height during the air battle. About killed and wounded, you cant count it like that. Losses were in the air, on the ground and on the sea. Again huge mistake. Also Bungay isnt military historian, but very successfull book author and moron who made up total nonsence theory and fake the "research" of the battle. Thats why there is such calm about his former famous 2010 name.
I made research that stated 938 Spitfires severely damaged or destroyed from ALL caused during July-October 1940 period! Just think, what could be number for Hurricanes and other aircraft types during such small amount of time. RAF FC was on its last legs during August/September 1940 period, but survived when losses decreased.
I'm wondering how long the Dutch could have plausibly held out if they had AAA cannons and maybe a decent radar system. They gave up a week into the attack following the razing of Rotterdam.
Goring assured his pilots "The RAF are down to their last 50 fighter aircraft", a Black joke amongst the Luftwaffe aircrew when attacked by RAF "Here comes the last 50 British fighters, AGAIN".
Ho ho. Goring promised that the Luftwaffe could supply the 6th Army after it had been surrounded at Stalingrad. Everyone saw how badly that turned out for the Germans. Goring was great at making promises; very, very short on delivery every single time.His was a record of perfect failure.
Hence why the Big Wing was so effective, just when the LW pilots had been told that the RAF were on their knees. The big wing was the biggest psy ops victory of the battle.
Nobody has mentioned the British ran a war game in 1974 on Operation Sealion. The war game assumed initial surprise to enable the German army to at least have the initial landings be successful. Participants included former members of both the British and German armed forces. Like many people have posted, logistics and reinforcements proved very problematic. The Germans were forced to attempt their own Dunkirk which was only partially successful with most troops being drowned or captured.
Alison Brooks (I mentioned her article elsewhere) ends with "We can choose to wave a magic wand, and wipe out the RN and the RAF, and examine how successful the invasion was likely to be in their absence. Sandhurst has done this on four occasions to my knowledge. Both sides were given the historical starting positions, with an invasion date of 24 September. "In each case, the details of the fighting varied, but by each analysis resulted in 27 September dawning with the Wehrmacht holding two isolated beachheads, one at roughly 2 divisions strength on Romney March, and one of 1 division at Pevensey. Each were opposed by more numerous forces, with growing numbers of tanks and artillery. German resupply was still across open beaches. "Operation Sealion can only be described as a blueprint for a German disaster."
Considering, after Norway, the British Home Fleet had more battleships than Germany had destroyers, a naval invasion even with air cover would have been "very bold"
@@GenocideWesterners That's Russian propaganda. Don't propagate disinformation. Russia's war contribution was negative. Arming and supplying the axis, allying with both axis powers, invading China several times, and requiring so many ships to rescue Russia, that Force Z was defeated and Singapore fell.
Hear hear ! And we can rest assured that the team would not punctuate a thorough study of the Eastern Front with excursions into the ‘childhood’ of Lenin or the ‘anti semitism ‘ of Marx,…unlike a certain TH-camr well known to some of you….
25:41 As someone in the RAF, thank you for recognising the ground trades. As you mentioned they often get overlooked and quite frankly the air force wouldn’t work nor would it be as effective as it was without the hard graft of those on the ground also!
Lord Dowding (who I knew better than anyone still alive today) fully recognised the value of all the ground trades and operators, as he said, we are all part of a team. th-cam.com/video/lxg83RQvRX4/w-d-xo.html
The Germans had another problem. If things started getting bad for fighter command, Dowding always had the option of pulling most of 11 group back north of the Thames beyond the range of the German fighters, but available to rapidly redeploy to provide air cover for the Royal Navy once the invasion had started. The Germans were never going to get clear skies above their invasion fleet, and their Stukas were never going to get a free run at the Royal Navy ships.
@@Cailus3542 What about U-Boats? Even a handful of them could wreck havoc on the Royal Navy where it would be very difficult for the British to detect and stop them from attacking RN ships and sinking them especially in 1940 before the allies started organizing and devising more effective ways to combat them.
Then again Dowding and Park were being stabbed in the back by the political manoeuvres of Leigh Mallory in 12 Group. It's quite ironic that when Leigh Mallory took over 11 group, he repeated all the mistakes the Germans made when he launched air attacks on France. Meanwhile Sir Keith Park went on the win the air battle over Malta.
Years ago I found a book in a bookshop that was a reprint of a book given out in preparation for the defence of the home islands, one chapter was called "how to destroy or disable a German Tank with items you might find around the house Still wish I'd picked up a copy to this day
@@Kalbot84 it would be an invaluable textbook. To be kept next to Mrs Beaton "Put Jerry off his guard by offering him a cup of tea. While he is distracted....."
@@DanBeech-ht7sw I can vaguely remember part of the tank chapter, it involved you running up to the tank, shoving a burning oiled rag through the vision slit, and having someone else waiting on top with a kitchen knife (or better yet, a shotgun or revolver if your household owns such an item) ready to "do in" the German tankers as they emerged to escape the smoke. It also mentioned that if you were lucky enough to procure a grenade you could "do in" the first "fellow" and drop the grenade in after him, whereby one would shut the lid of the tank and put paid to their little misadventure in one swift blow. Edit: I wouldn't have been surprised if there had been a chapter called "home-made poisons that are undetectable in the taste of a well brewed tea"
They actually trained the Home Guard in guerrilla, , commando and sabotage techniques. They were nothing like the fictional Dads Army tv comedy series you saw on tv years later. Far from it.
The Royal Air Force had a significantly larger impact on the Battle of Britain compared to the Royal Navy. This was primarily because the Battle of Britain was an aerial campaign, fought between the German Luftwaffe and the RAF Fighter Command. The goal of the German forces was to gain air superiority as a prerequisite for Operation Sea Lion, Hitler’s planned invasion of Britain
@@seanlander9321 i suppose you get this view from the movie dunkirk. but the royal navy actually send 41 destroyers to dunkirk (germany had 21 in total). Getting anything other than small arms and men across the channel was simply impossible in 1940 makeshif ports werent developed well yet. and there was no way a battleship would be any use there. no navy could do the job there
@@unknown_boazgeen4832People forget as well that while Dunkirk was happening a 2nd BEF was landing in Cherbourg. About just under 400,000 British soldiers where at Dunkirk while the army numbered about 2 million at the time. It wouldn't make sense that if the British army was so defeated in summer 1940 they could launch an offensive against the Italians in Africa in the winter
I've studied this war inside and out (along with other historical stuffs) and for some reason hearing stuff like this never gets old. No matter how much of it is just stuff I already know. Well done.
Sealion would have been a total disaster. If you just look at D-Day and the logistical cost of that! The German army would have been left on uk soil without ammo and fuel. What would have happened next would be anyone’s guess. For a start, all the British kit was with the Germans in France and their kit was in the south of England!
So it's about 260 miles from Kent coast to the River Severn below Bristol. With 90,000 men that's 1 man per 4 yards. The thin grey line. Put them in tanks, gun crews, support, such as kitchens and logistics, then your number fighting men looks a bit puny.
@@simonwells2213 The Germans weren't going to have any heavy guns or tanks in the first wave, so that's a plus. The bad news (for them) is, we saw in WW1 what happens when infantry with no artillery or armour try to advance against a dug in enemy with machine guns.
@@myoptimumpride5178 Air superiority, or naval superiority. They need something to support the troops. Look at the Allies' experience in Sicily and at Salerno and Anzio and imagine what the outcome would have been without naval vessels offshore providing artillery support. For D-Day they had battleships providing support with 15" and 16" guns, along with supremacy over the skies of Northern France. The German problems for Sea Lion centers on the relative weakness of the Kriegsmarine and that they would be operating in defense of an extremely slow moving flotilla. The handful of destroyers that would be available to escort the invasion wouldn't last long against the several dozen destroyers of the Royal Navy and the several hundred smaller craft (including motor torpedo boats). Trying to make up for the gap in naval strength with airpower would require being able to defeat the RAF, but the Luftwaffe consistently lost more aircraft than the RAF. A problem made worse by the fact that Britain was outproducing Germany in aircraft by almost 2:1 and was training a lot more replacement pilots, and the fact that while the RAF lost around 1,200 fighter aicraft in the battle, only about 540 RAF fighter pilots were killed. Safely bailing out over home territory meant they could be back in the cockpit the next day while German aircraft shot down over Britain meant a loss of an aircrew (killed or captured). Trying to wear down the RAF had the Luftwaffe shrinking at a faster rate. British and German experts wargamed out Sea Lion in the 1970s. The best estimate of air strength for the air component of the battle had around 1,400 combat aircraft of the Luftwaffe (more than half being bombers) going up against around 1,000 fighters of RAF Fighter Command. That's a big difference from the numerical superiority the Luftwaffe started the battle with.
@@myoptimumpride5178 Inevitably they would've had to, not that they would've been able to anyways since the Brits would've had a metric amount of AA coverage (with those aircraft having to get very close to it too) and the RAF would've been fighting tooth and nail as well, not to mention their aircraft having less fuel because of the trip and the issue of (never) recovering pilots who bail
@@ChrisCrossClash Because the wehraboos that make up half of hoi4's fanbase would scream and whine. They get obnoxious enough when someone suggests that conquering Britain shouldn't let them grab India, Australia and Canada for free.
A bit disappointing that the aircraft production figures arent shown, they show that Britain was getting stronger throughout the battle whilst Germany was getting weaker. It was never really a close run thing, the Luftwaffe would have needed a miracle to overcome the RAF and this can be seen in the kill ratios later in the battle. The comparison of the 109 vs the Spitfire is also unfortunately a bit weak, both were tricky to land (although th 109 was worse) however the 109 was also more difficult to take off with. Air accidents make up a significant proportion of losses so these are important factors. Overall it needed a more experienced pilot to get the most out of it, something which Germany was running short of.
Excellent post, I think the Germans needed 4 or 5 times as many fighters and bombers as they started the battle of Britain with and also a higher replacement rate than the British. With such a massive superiority they could then have defeated the RAF and had sufficient airpower to negate the Royal Navy. Sealion might then have succeeded.
Spitfire also had a series of 'tells', like wing flutter before the stresses of a high G turn would rip the wing off. Pilots learning of these tells were more willing to push the aircraft to the absolute limit because it would warn them before they got into serious trouble. Does not sound much of an advantage, but if you have two pilots of equal skill that ability to more aggressively take the aircraft to the very edge of its limits might make the difference between life and death.
@SP Agree with your analysis. The Luftwaffe needed a miracle and then some. It had no fuel for any extended operation over Britain. It had to suspend the Battle of Britain anyway because of mounting air losses and the need to build up their forces for Operation Barbarossa in 1941. As it was, the Germans were running very low on things like aviation fuel by the end of September 1940. And by that point, weather conditions in the English Channel are prohibitive for any invasion of England with their crapulous river barges for transport.
"A bit disappointing that the aircraft production figures aren't shown, they show that Britain was getting stronger throughout the battle whilst Germany was getting weaker. " Thanks to Lord Beaverbrook cutting through delaying 'red tape', & Dowding keeping the Battle over home territory and not allowing his aircraft to chase bombers back over the water to France.
You're spot on, Germans never shied away from doing mad stuff if there was a half of a chance of success. Seelöwe was a non-starter, much more useful as a threat than an actual operation.
@@thkempe Wrong. They most certainly would have. German accuracy against Naval Targets was actually damned terrible in 1940, the Royal Navy already KNEW that. Why? Because if it had been IJN Pilots attacking British and French shipping at Dunkirk it would have been a disaster. Luftwaffe pilots however made few actual hits for the number of attempts made, and while the ship losses were not insignificant, they were not serious either. Especially as the RN used mostly older Destroyers. Luftwaffe accuracy against shipping that was either at anchor, or moving in predictable straight lines because of the congestion of the shipping present was frankly abysmal. Against destroyers and cruisers actively manoeuvring at flank speed Luftwaffe accuracy would have been even worse. And the Royal Navy KNEW that. While the Luftwaffe did increase training for many bomber crews against Naval targets that was not until AFTER 1940, so at the time very, very few Luftwaffe crews actually had any training, let alone experience hitting shipping.
@@alganhar1 The fact that they kept their big ships so far away (although the Germans lacked air superiority) proves you wrong. During the evacuation of Crete in 1941, 3 British cruisers and 6 destroyers were sunk and 1 carrier, 3 battleships, 6 cruisers and 5 destroyers were damaged, some of them seriously. This was achieved by the incompetent Luftwaffe.
@@thkempe Complete rubbish, if the Royal Navy knew the Germans were invading they 100% would have headed straight for the invasion barges, and also remember the Luftwaffe was only trying to defeat one branch of the RAF (fighter command) they still had to destroy bomber and coastal commands as well, with well over 1200 bombers total, even if they destroyed fighter command, no the more i look into the Battle of Britain, the numbers and Operation Sealion the more I find it imposable for the Germans to successfully invade.
A lot of the german transport aircraft lost in the so-called battle for France were actually shot down over the Netherlands by the Dutch because Germany used a lot of airborne troops and failed mostly except for some bridges around Rotterdam
@@ohgosh5892 Many Ju 52s were lost during the invasion of Norway. Look it up, it deserves its own video. The Luftwaffe needed to deliver lots of soldiers to capture airfields at dawn on the day of invasion. Trouble is: There weren't enough Ju 52s, so they took Ju 52s from their training command, each flown by an instructor and a trainee pilot. The Ju 52s could only carry sufficient fuel for a one-way flight. On arrival above the airfield, they'd be compelled to land there with nowhere else to go. One Norwegian flak gunner was alert, shot down the first Ju52 and every other Ju 52 which followed. Within minutes, the airfield was littered with lots of crashed and burning Ju 52s. Eventually there were enough surviving soldiers to band together and silence the flak post. The Luftwaffe never recovered from its severe losses of training aircraft and instructors. This was worsened by losses during the BoB.
Lots of people asking for full Eastern front. I'd rather have more deep-dives into spcefic battles, such as operation typhoon, operation bagration, or the tjerkassy/korsun pocket.
The important operation was Fall Blau. Germany lost the war at Stalingrad when it failed to capture the Caucasus oil fields. After that, it was only a matter of how long the misery would continue until Allied armies were in downtown Berlin.
Trafford Lee-Mallory and Douglas Bader were a bloody menace. Lee-Mallory was a particularly odious and detrimental character. His politicising and tactical ineptitude continue to cost the allied war effort for years. (Fighter sweeps and spitfires for Malta being just two egs)
I agree with the Fighters for Malta. Malta did need to hold. The Rhubarb sweeps over occupied France however were a stupid idea. Lost the RAF a lot of pilots and aircraft they could have better used elsewhere.
@paulaction9874 Idk where he went wrong. Leigh-Mallory was a schemer who almlst destroyed the career of the most successful Group commander of the Battle of Britain
we're in the very early stages of doing an Eastern Front series. Currently roughly discussing how many episodes and what events to anchor each episode on. Going to take a while before we get going though.
@@realtimehistory Would be great if you guys could use modern Russian sources as well, because 90% of English content about the topic is just reusing the same narratives and myths, that are rooted in the Western view on the Great Patriotic War. Wish you all kinds of success, nevertheless
It's not the lack of heavy ships that would have decimated the invasion, it's the near total lack of destroyers. The KM had lost most of theirs in Norwegian waters.
Great video, you guys do a great job, little funny note I caught at the end, 24th minute, thought I read it wrong when you were explaining his quote, " AssMan" , thought I was watching Seinfeld for a minute 😅😂 Thanks you guys !!!😊
4 หลายเดือนก่อน +2
07:17 he even hid his mikrofon for you guys :) Thx for the Video. I learned a lot. And a quote by Jens, nice!
Jens' Buch war extrem Aufschlussreich, klare Leseempfehlung, ein ganz neuer Denkansatz (für uns zumindest). Die Flugzeugdesigner in den 20er und 30ern hatten teilweise ganz schön einen an der Waffel.
4 หลายเดือนก่อน
@@realtimehistory Wenn ich jemals ein Video über Flugzeugdesign in den 20er 30er Jahren mache, werde ich diesen Kommentar zitieren :) Und ja, das Buch von jens steht auf keiner Kaufliste, aber leider habe ich schon einen riesen Haufen anderer Bücher liegen :)
I had a branch of my family wiped out on 15th of September 1940 when the Germans bombed the community air raid shelter in Neptune Street in Rotherhithe. The whole branch wiped out except for one. I found out researching my family history. Very sad.
@@leothecat9609 You're probably right. I'm imagining lumber and coal barges going up and down the Ruhr Valley disappearing. Actually, the Rhine river starts in The Netherlands, so that's exactly where they are coming from.
@@leothecat9609 No, much worse than that. The OKH confiscated nearly all of the coal barges moving coal from Saarland to the Ruhr industrial zone. This was already impacting heavily German war production of everything. Losing those barges in an invasion of Britain would have 1. crippled German war industry permanently, 2. forced the cancelation or deferrment of Operation Barbarossa. As it was, German logistics in Barbarossa were so poor that the army could only feed itself by robbing and murdering the local peasantry. Even as matters actually stood, the Wehrmacht in 1941 had only enough fuel for three months of operations. That's why the German army ground to a halt in late September 1941. Not the Russian winter, nor the muddy season. The army was out of fuel and would have to wait at least two months to resume a limited offensive in November.
CS Forrester wrote a short story, «If Hitler had invaded England» (part of the Gold from Crete anthology). This was a major focus in his narrative - and, not to spoil the ending, a vital factor in Germany's post-invasion conduct of the war.
Another an informative and wonderful historical coverage episode was shared by an excellent ( RTH) channel...thanks for sharing this magnificent episode ...👍🏻🙏
A British historian made the often overlooked point that when the German army was selecting targets for the Luftwaffe as they did in Poland and France, the Luftwaffe performed very well. However, when they were left to their own devices, as in the battle of Brittain, they fell short of the mark. Interesting point.
Aircraft repair and manufacturing beat the Germans. Squadrons were often amazed to find a full compliment of Aircraft, ready to fly, only hours after being badly shot up.
The numbers of aircraft and experienced pilots available to the Germans versus the British should have made the battle for air supremacy over Britain a foregone conclusion. As happened many time during the war though the man in Berlin, far removed from the actual battles, lived in a completely different reality from what was actually happening.
I would love to see a documentary of the Allied and Axis paratroopers operations. Such as German paratroopers in Norway, Belgium, and in Greece. Italian paratroopers and their combat operations in North Africa. Japanese paratroopers operating in Southeast Asia. And allied paratroopers in Normandy, Sicily, Netherlands, and in the Philippines and Burma.
What about Soviet Paratroopers in Winter 1941/42? In any case, I am not sure we will do an exclusive video on paratroopers, but several of the campaigns you mentioned will be covered. Check out our Sicily video for example which is already out.
@@realtimehistory Them too. I forgot to mention them as well. But I would be very interested to hear about Soviet paratroopers and their combat operations in the Second World War.
If the Germans had executed Sea Lion, the losses of equipment and man power would have devastated the German Army. I doubt the English would have capitulated like the French did. If the Germans had gotten ashore in strength, which is doubtful, they could have made significant progress. However, I doubt that the Island would have been occupied. The English were ready to continue the fight from their colonies. Italy would have been knocked out of the war in 1941, because, the Germans would have been unable to bolster their army. Doubt that any invasion of the USSR could have happen much before 1946 or later and the Red Army reforms would have been completed. The Balkan Campaign would never have occurred and the Greek Army may have even occupied Rome.
Where did I call it the battle of England? Did you read my comment? Do you understand English? Nothing wrong with calling people who live in any part of England, English. You can also call them British, however, my use of the English is not technically wrong. Please read my comment again.
Here's my take, without even watching this video yet, so we'll see how close I get. But in my opinion, Britain won the BoB for three key reasons. 1. Strategic placement of their country, a.k.a. they're an island. Island means water, and water means Navy. Part of the reason that Germany cut a swath through mainland Europe was because they were able to utilize their ground forces AND air force into co-ordinated strikes against Poland, France, etc. But because Britain is and island, the Germans can't use their ground forces, and there was no way their navy was going to be able to stand up in battle against the British. So they could only rely on their air force. 2. Sophisticated defence network. Britain had this amazing defence network set up and ready to go. Radar stations along the coast (with enough range to detect German formations almost IMMEDIATELY after they left the coast of France), plane spotters dotted along the ground with instruments to help get a better description of what's coming, and then the central command hub underneath British streets that allowed the Brits to co-ordinate defensive strategies. 3. Bad intel for the Germans. By some stroke of luck, and sheer incompetance, the Germans were continually being fed bat intel by their people monitoring the situation. Everything from made up reports to flat out refusal to accept the actual facts. Now, that's not to say the Germans got absolutely SMACKED during the BoB. They did have success, especially when they started night bombing, but the task was already daunting from the beginning and it was hard to overcome these three factors.
Canada & Australia was part of British Empire so technically, when mentioning British in World War topics, it wasn't only from the mainland Great Britain but also conclude all around their territorial colony as well, including Canada & Australia. British Empire's colony & territory was massive across the ocean & continent before each of their territorial colony gain independence.
@@tab7madeupYeah they also considered themselves British and apart of the empire, it’s only after the world wars and empire collapsed they started to form the identity. Australians were mad Churchill said they defend Britain first and then go back to reconquer everything Japan takes, so a lot of people soured and said nah I’m just Australian now. This was inevitable anyway as instead of forming them as states with one identity they put them on a path to drift off overtime as increasingly autonomous dominions, but the world wars accelerated it.
This is the second time the "flame fugasse?" Has been mentioned in my recollection. It was used in puapa new Guinea to great effect on one occasion as far as I know!
The various "stop" lines going throughout the UK were pretty basic, in my area (Fife) it was practically an anti-tank ditch. Bits and bobs like pillboxes being part of houses. If you go on the coastal walk you may also come across concrete emplacements for AA guns I think.
Yes, but you may want to consider that Fife was ever really considered a viable Invasion route for Germany. While you are right that they were pretty basic in some areas, they were actually pretty complex in others. Its just evidence of most of those stop lines no longer exists.
The Germans made three massive blunders during the Battle of Britain. 1. The 3 Air fleets of the Luftwaffe never coordinated attacks, to overwhelm the RAF. 2. Very seldom did the Luftwaffe attack in timed waves to catch the RAF fighters on the ground refueling and rearming. It always gave the RAF time to recover. 3 Was the biggest, switching to city bombing instead of aerodrome destruction, giving the RAF the reprieve it needed as stated in the video.
The most costly period for the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain was the ~4 weeks that they went after the airfields and RAF infrastructure. The Luftwaffe managed to bring RAF operational strength for Fighter Command down from around 750 to 700 fighter planes (mostly hurricanes). To achieve this, the Luftwaffe went from around 2,200 operational combat aircraft in those airfleets to 1,700 operational combat aircraft. The RAF could have kept going through that intense struggle longer than the Luftwaffe could have. Maybe that switch to bombing cities was needed to cut the rate of their losses. They certainly were losing aircraft at a slower rate bombing cities than airfields.
@@iansneddon2956 Yep. Britain won the Battle of Britain by a country mile. Germany went into the battle in order to facilitate an invasion of Britain. To do that, they needed to shoot Fighter Command out of the skies. The Germans were never remotely close to doing that.
The Germans never figured out what the "schwerpunkt" of the air operation was. The whole operation was dependent on achieving air superiority over the Channel and SE England and the Luftwaffe lost focus on that mission. Given the lack of coordination between the German Army, Navy and Air Force during the Battle of Britain, it could be argued that the Air Force never had focus on that mission. The only person institutionally empowered to give that sort of focus was Hitler and he wasn't exactly the sort to buckle down to work a problem much less get his people to work together to figure it out. Given that the Luftwaffe had to figure out how to peel apart Fighter Command on the fly they would have had to make some really lucky guesses to succeed in 1940 before time was up for a 1940 invasion. That not being achieved in 1940 is the basis of all of the "Sea Lion was not possible" mythos. Just because the Germans didn't figure it out doesn't mean they couldn't have, especially if they continued to work the problem. Also, it having to be done in 1940 and only 1940 is as much of a myth as D-Day could only occur in 1942. In fact, D-Day being delayed first to 1943 and then to 1944 made time to work the problem, do the preliminaries, and enhance the chances of success. Germany undistracted by a war with the Soviet Union would have had the time and resources to succeed with Sea Lion in 1941 or even 1942. Of course, the British wouldn't have sat idly by without responding to the German initiatives but Britain's plate was full in 1941 & 1942 historically. They would have had to make even more hard choices than the ones that cost them their empire post war if they were the sole focus of Germany's & Italy's efforts for an extra year.
@@AdamMisnik The Luftwaffe strategy followed the overall "strategy" of trying to knock Britain out of the war, which they needed to do to continue their overall objectives (end the naval blockade, bring in resources, prepare for the invasion of the USSR). The initial thought was after the fall of their allies (Poland, France) and the retreat of their army across the Channel leaving behind equipment, that Britain was ready to give up and would talk peace. They just missed the possibility of this, as there was a War Cabinet revolt led by Lord Halifax just as the Dunkirk evacuation operation was beginning for just that - commencing peace talks with Germany. But it was decided within days as the most influential member of parliament, Neville Chamberlain, declared his continued support for Churchill. With the shorter ranges the Luftwaffe was designed to operate at, and a desire to push Britain a bit until they gave up the war, the initial attacks were focused on the Channel shipping (adding to the U-boat campaign to further reduce UK's access to resources). And attacking something as vital as shipping would bring the RAF out to fight them. That part worked but it wasn't having the desired effect on the British government, so they switched to their more conventional campaign against the enemy air force. Attacking their airfields which they would have to defend with the opportunity to catch the RAF on the ground. Problem is that this type of campaign worked with the enemy airfields being not far across the border/front. After the initial success as the RAF wasn't expecting or being used to these attacks, it didn't work out so well. Advance warning and coordinated defense meant aircraft could be scrambled to not be on the ground or to provide cover for squadrons that were refueling, with the Luftwaffe operating near the limits of their fuel while the RAF aircraft could run their engines at higher power without so much concern of preserving fuel for a trip home. For an alternate history in which a German invasion could be carried out, you would need a different leadership in Germany - planning for a war against UK and building up the needed capacities from before the war. But that would also have a different response from UK. For example, if Germany had invested in a much larger u-boat fleet instead of a surface fleet, then British naval construction would have shifted in response. Building up a larger transport and escort capacity would have had its own response by the Royal Navy and British industry. Are we talking a history in which Chamberlain did not fold at Munich? Because the early refusals of Britain and France to stand up against Germany along with the quick victories in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, etc. would inevitably bring a kind of "victory disease" to any nation, and especially one whose prevailing ideology was based on racial superiority. In what alternate history would you have Hitler approaching war with Britain with recognition that Britain had a more efficient economy such that Germany was at war with a major power that would outproduce them? That after fighting the more obsolete Gloster Gladiators in Norway and chasing the RAF out of France (along with the BEF forces both times) that they should take the British military very very seriously? And what solution were they ever going to have to deal with the Royal Navy? If I had to describe the Royal Navy's plans to thwart an invasion in one word, it would be "overkill". Case in point, the German plans included a diversionary flotilla of cruisers and transports feigning an invasion force that would land in the North in order to make the British divert forces away from the Channel. It would not have worked because (1) the British were planning on such a force coming to carry out an actual invasion and (2) they expected this force to be larger (to include Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and other ships that were not available due to undergoing repairs). The Luftwaffe was not designed for the type of fight they found themselves in, projecting power at a longer distance across the Channel. There is no clearer focus or strategy they were going to adopt that was going to bring them the defeat of the RAF. But if I had to pick one, here is what it would be... start bombing London in July 1940 as close to around the clock as they can manage and rotating squadrons from the air fleets kept in the East to allow them to rest and recover to keep this going longer. Flying multiple sorties per day against a target the RAF had to defend, and keeping their bombers in more easily defended formations than going after airfields. Still wouldn't have worked. I don't think they were going to make the British defeatist and would not break the RAF in time for a 1940 invasion. And time was on Britain's side as production increased in Canada, and the training programs established overseas in 1939 were going to be bringing an even larger stream of replacement pilots starting in September 1940. With a wartime economy efficiently producing aircraft and other equipment, Britain was going to outproduce Germany on into 1941 and 1942, and with Roosevelt winning re-election the US was going to shift into support for UK in early 1941. The invasion of USSR was not some side project undertaken because they thought they had Britain under control, it was a desperate measure to prevent an otherwise inevitable defeat of Germany. The oil from Romania was not enough, and with the Royal Navy effectively preventing Germany from importing it from overseas (as Japan was doing up until July 1941) and there were shortages of food as well. And Stalin had at one point cut off the supplies he was shipping, and had Germany on more of a starvation diet as he demanded more and more in return. Look at Germany's wartime production. It wasn't for lack of trying that their production wasn't really ramping up until 1942-1943, peaking in 1944. Germany was spending as much/more of their GDP on the military than Britain was. But with so many men in the army, their workforce was reduced. And with the "blockade" there were shortages in raw materials. Waiting to invade USSR would have meant waiting until even later for military production to increase. And what would Britain have produced by 1941 or 1942? Maybe there is some alternate reality to consider as if USA would cut lend-lease aid to UK if Germany hadn't declared war on USA. There were not the same spending constraints for USA as they were generally unable to spend their entire approved budget for lack of more men to pay and more produced equipment to purchase. Germany delaying a war with USSR would have meant a decline in German oil reserves to the point they would have been unable to carry out that invasion as Germany gradually was worn down and defeated just as they were in WW I. Germany was going to lose their initial advantages in having a larger air force and having more prior experience as the RAF was growing - even during the Battle of Britain. Even with so much on UK's plate, they retained land forces in UK in sufficient number to fight off an invasion while RAF fighter command increased in size to around 65% larger operational strength in May 1941 than they had in July 1940, while the Luftwaffe of May 1941 was smaller than the Luftwaffe of July 1940. And this is with RAF fighter command retiring obsolete fighter models and having a higher % of Spitfires vs Hurricanes. Continuing the air campaign against Britain would have that RAF number lower, but with the Luftwaffe suffering greater losses and being less able to replace losses, it would mean the May 1941 Luftwaffe would have been much much smaller. And by the end of 1941 RAF Fighter Command strength was around 90% greater than it had been in July 1940. Britain never stopped maintaining strength in Britain to withstand an invasion attempt. And British ship construction wasn't slowing down either. As for USA, they were already planning in January 1941 to fight a war with Germany alone - with money being spent to develop an intercontinental bomber (to bomb German cities flying round trip from USA). This project was not completed to a flying prototype until 1946 but shows American intent. The intent of Lend-Lease was to keep Britain from being knocked out of the war so eventual American involvement (if needed) could include B-17s flying from UK and using Britain as a staging ground for landing in France. Time was never on the side of Germany. They had a military geared to winning short wars against nations they could just march into, overwhelming their opponents before they could increase their strength and figure out how to respond. But they couldn't do this over the English Channel in 1940 and were not going to have better prospects in 1941 or 1942.
According to those military senior officers of the time and still around at the end of the was from both sides, they could have tried but they would have lost.
Read an interesting bit by Max Hastings; the battle of Britain was the only way to fight Britain in a format where Britain was world class, indeed world-leading. Plus it consolidated public opinion behind the war. If they had just sat tight and maybe sent Rommel to africa 6 months earlier - things might well have gone different.
@MarkHarrison733 well, no, I suppose not. He's a writer of non-fiction books on historical subjects who tries to gather evidence from archives and conducting interviews with participants. You could hardly call him a historian.
@@MarkHarrison733 doesn't make what he said incorrect -the German jet engine was based on whittles jet engine then modified due to patent issues. -Britain had advanced radar -Britain was first to put radar into planes during the war -Britain created the first aircraft carrier to compliment air warfare -Britain had the fastest engine on the planet -Britain had the first long range reconnaissance plane -Britain had multiple ways of fighting which threw off Germany idea of how many planes the RAF had -Britain built more planes and faster Britain was in fact leading in plane warfare.
The Hurricane was the last in a line of Hawker aircraft, including the Hart and the Fury. The original idea was for a 'Fury monoplane' with four machine guns, from December 1933, which evolved into an 'interceptor monoplane' from 1934. Basically, the Hurricane was built using traditional methods, with which ground crews were already familiar, and was easier to repair and return to operations than the more complex and advanced Spitfire.
Do you think the P-38 also a long range twin engine fighter would fair better than the Bf-110 if used in a similar manner during the Battle of Britain?
P38 is exactly as you say, a long range twin engine fighter. The bf110 is a ground attack aircraft with much heavier weaponry and more bomb capacity. I doubt the p38 would do better
I am still dumbfounded that NOBODY had the courage to tell Hitler "Invading Russia at this time forces us in a 2-front war... are you sure we have the resources to do that?" or just tell him he's on crack (which he was, but I digress....)
In a sense the English Channel was a defensive wall looked at from both sides. For Britain to launch an invasion would have been as hard as for Germany to launch one. So in that sense the western front was not really an active front (apart from minor raids etc). Also, the USSR had been at war in Finland and did not look competent. France would have looked a much more competent foe, yet they had just been defeated in weeks. So attacking the USSR looked more rational at the time. German generals did not all agree on attacking France, or anywhere else for that matter, but, given the run of luck they'd had, objections would have been more muted.
Not at all. Wargames after the war, that actually allowed Germany the element of surprise to allow the initial landings to succeed failed, with either the total loss of the invasion force, or almost total. Even if they got troops on the beaches (which itself is doubtful in a realistic scenario), they had to supply them. And THAT was the real problem.
If you compare it to the Allied effort at D-Day, not very. German logistics were always dodgy--See Barbarossa, where their logistics didn't survive everything going according to plan. River barges and a tiny navy vs. the largest navy in the world and the stormy English Channel does not sound like a recipe for success.
Germany could never have taken England,they didn't have the navy to stop the British navy,they didn't have enough transport's and any force that might have landed would have been to small with inadequate supplies
You probably don't need a navy to stop another navy. The Japanese demonstrated how to handle large warships when they came within range of land-based air forces.
The Luftwaffe was designed to support the army, not for anti-ship duties. They had no torpedo bombers and their performance at Dunkirk was dismal. They could not have stopped the Royal Navy.
The Luftwaffe actually had aircraft that could carry torpedoes (He 115, Ju 88, He 111). But more importantly, they had dive bombers. And maybe Mussolini could have proven useful, at least once (Savoia-Marchetti S.79). During the evacuation of Crete, the British Navy lost 3 cruisers and 6 destroyers to the Luftwaffe, while 6 cruisers, 5 destroyers, 3 battleships and 1 aircraft carrier were damaged.
@@thkempeHowever the Germans did not have crews trained for torpedo attack, also their dive bombers didn't carry anything heavy enough to seriously damage British battleships. Moreover the British were trained and equipped for night fighting, so could have been sailing destroyers and cruisers up.and down the channel every night destroying anything they could find, with little the Germans could do to stop them.
At the Combat Studies Institute (CSI), U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, we greatly doubted that Sea Lion could have succeeded. In all its history, the Prussian/German Army had never conducted an amphibious landing on a hostile shore. As the narrator here mentioned, the German concept of a channel crossing was just a big river crossing. But the English channel had more differences than similarities when compared with even the widest river in Europe. In 1944, with the benefit of their vast experience in such operations, the British and Americans saw the English channel not so much as an obstacle, but an international highway that allowed them tremendous freedom of movement.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Except, of course, in 1940 Germany & the Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact, and the Soviets were supplying Germany with both raw materials and oil.
'If they had given the airfields another heavy thumping, I don't think we would have made it'. These were the words of a RAF pilot. Just when Germany needed to press home their near-advantage and target RAF airfields again, they focused on London instead and that was the end of Hitler's plan to subjugate britain.
Not the case. This analysis fails to account for the German losses at the same time, while RAF airfields were quickly operational following an attack. Simply put, whatever the Germans did, they could not replace their own losses while the RAF could
Those ~4 weeks during which the Luftwaffe was going after the airfields was the most costly period of the Battle... for the Luftwaffe. We should have a quote from a Luftwaffe pilot figuring if he was sent against those airfields for another week he wouldn't make it home. Instead of having such a quote, you could look up "channel sickness" for the effect this onslaught was having on Luftwaffe pilot morale (spoiler, they were faking illnesses like appendicitis to get out of flying across the Channel.) Or they could have just kept going against the airfields and maybe by the end of September they might have the 800 remaining operational aircraft of the Luftwaffe going up against the 700 operational fighters of RAF Fighter Command (with the RAF being able to add another 200-300 aircraft if they really had to).
As others have already pointed out, the Luftwaffe's sustained period of targeting the RAF airfields achieved nothing except to lose more planes than they destroyed, and none of the RAF stations were closed down. The Luftwaffe couldn't continue with the attrition rates and failure.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The Luftwaffe achieved significant losses in the first days of their attack on the RAF airfields as they were able to catch aircraft out in the open and sometimes during refueling and re-arming. But the RAF adapted by arranging air cover during the vulnerable activities, keeping aircraft under camouflage and deploying fake aircraft (decoys) to draw fire. Not all airfields were being used which would allow squadrons to be relocated to new airfields and inactive airfields could have decoys to draw Luftwaffe attacks on essentially non-targets (this succeeded for multiple attacks, particularly as squadrons were rotated so airfields the Luftwaffe thought were being used might not be on the day the attack was launched. A key point to remember from this is the word "airfield", not airstrips. These were large flat fields of grass from which the planes took off and landed. So a few bomb craters could be easily avoided. They would need to crater most of the field to prevent it from being used and it could be repaired just by bulldozing dirt back into the holes.
@@iansneddon2956 Yes very true. Cheers for the detailed extra information. I actually live not too far from Kenley airfield. I sometimes walk around it and watch the gliders take off. Im sure I read, might have been from Bungay, that during the attacks on their airfields the Luftwaffe lost more planes than they destroyed on every single day except one.
If you take the trouble to read Dowdings book you may be surprised to find that he never mentions any BoB. just a page and half on what he refers to ''summer air battles over southern England'' only concern Dowding had was a temporary shortage of pilots.
True. It was an integrated system. I think once the bombers had passed over the coast radar was useless. Then it was down to binoculars and listening devices and the substancial organization that co-ordinated the information. In a sense it was an example of combined arms. As a kid I remember seeing a huge parabolic wall in a field in the middle of England. The purpose was to collect sound waves and focus them on a microphone much like a a radar or radio telescope dish does. It was a form of 'audio radar' made out of concrete. It's worth a google to find photos of listening devices from WW1. They are hillarious, but effective. Slightly off-topic: in WW1 the British used sound to triagulate where German artillery was to direct counter-battery fire.
This is a fantastic video. It is well-developed, very convincingly argued, and very well-explained... It would have been just perfect if it contained some non-online (bibliographical) references at the end.
My dad had two lots of 5 days with 9 "sorties" a day... medical evac planes into jungle strips. Not so much being shot at as in this battle but still left him shattered.
In your thumbnail image you forgot to paint the Isle of Man in the middle between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain blue. Its men are British and fought in Scottish, English, Welsh regiments, their ferry boats were requisitioned for naval service, and the Fleet Air Arm and Royal Air Force had Air bases on that island. Also the British government set up Internment camps on the island.
Britain 1940: here is a packet of pepper to interfere with the invaders vision. With a little luck you will take the day! Germany 1945: here is a Panzerfaust. It can literally destroy a tank. You are not expected to survive.
Before watching more than the first 10 seconds... "Could Germany really invade Great Britain?" My immediate response was, "No, the Royal Navy would have sacrificed itself to prevent any form of supported landing/invasion. & Before people say that they wouldn't have the ability to do so, Germany would've only been able to transport their troops on river barges which means that destroyers would have been enough for them which would totally devastate the German economy. They wouldn't be able to transport anywhere near enough food or other goods to where they were needed."
If Sealion had happened, It would arguably have been great for the allies, perhaps even shortened the war. Sealion would've been a disaster greater than stalingrad. A total Encirclement of whatever troops managed to land in britain. Once the sea lanes would be cut, there would be nowhere for the germans to escape to. And operational losses alone would be huge considering the German's complete lack of ambhibious experience and shipping capacity. if the swells and rough weather in the channel on D-day managed to overturn landing craft and DD tanks, i can't imagine what it would do to a bunch of river barges, half of which didnt even have their own propulsion. If anything It'd probably be massive morale boost for the Britain and the allies, in finally shattering the image of an invincible and unstoppable German war machine.
It's funny you had MAH to note the British use of radar as an advantage when he made a video talking about how radar wasn't as important to their defence as it's made out to be.
RADAR was a part but what gave the RAF a massive advantage was the command and control system put in place by Dowding allowed the RAF to launch and vector rather then having flying patrols thus saving wear tear and maintenance of the fighters
@@MarkHarrison733 Lol, no, it was a puppet state with a fascist leader. You're thinking of Free France which operated out of London and unoccupied colonies.
Just over 80% of the pilots were British. The remainder overwhelmingly came from the Commonweath, or from states which had been conquered by Germany. All flew in Brirish aircraft, under British direction, following an air defence sysrem invented by the British. You may not like it, but in reality Britain was, to all intents and purposes, alone.
@ When you say “I may not like it” on the contrary I feel the same way as King George Vl, when he stated words to the effect of: Not having to pamper or cajole ie no longer sending valuable fighter aircraft to Europe.
I find some peoples' conviction that Sealion was guaranteed to fail boring. It would have been a long shot in the late Summer and early Fall of 1940 but a lack of British interservice cooperation may have created opportunities for the Germans and the British Army was in rough shape after their escape from France. The Royal Navy had the ability to disrupt the sea lanes across the channel nearly any time they wanted but at what cost? They barely had enough ships for all of their commitments as it was. A costly victory in the Channel could have cost them the war. Logistics would have probably been the decisive factor against German success. If the Germans had applied themselves to a Sealion in the Spring of 1941, instead of Barbarossa, that would have been more interesting still. Assuming they used the time to adapt to what they learned over the previous Fall and Winter. The British Army had recovered but as it demonstrated in North Africa, it still had little idea how to deal with a Panzer division and the Royal Air Force still couldn't support the Army in any meaningful way on the battlefield. The German Navy had also recovered from Norway and their Air Force had developed anti-shipping tactics that would have made the intervention of the Royal Navy much more expensive than it would have been in 1940. The biggest advantage in delay would have been time to sort out the logistics of keeping their Army supplied in England. The British were not stumble bums so a lot would still have to go right for the Germans for them to have succeeded in 1941, but unlike 1940 it wouldn't have required nearly everything to go right. Thanks for the show. Sealion is one of my favorite what ifs from Military History.
@@ChrisCrossClash By your comment you sound boring. I know no such thing omniscient one but I'm sure your all-knowing manner is a boon to you and a joy to your loved ones.
In June the Heer and Luftwaffe were still busy fighting the French, and in July there weren't available transports to ship troops across. The RAF and Royal Navy were there to oppose any such invasion assuming when the Germans would assemble enough transports to even try. So now we are in August and surplus tanks and artillery are being shipped from Britain to North Africa as forces in Britain were equipped. There were still some shortages with some equipment, but the ~100,000 German troops that might be transported (assuming the Royal Navy doesn't have more than a few hours to respond to the slow moving invasion flotilla) would have been up against around 400,000 troops of the British Army (plus WW I veterans in their 50s who would be issued rifles and light machineguns to go help out - they could equip several hundred thousand of these Home Guard troops).
@@iansneddon2956 Fair points. Untrained Home Guardsman units would have been quickly destroyed in combat to little effect. They would have made those French B Divisions in May seem like war gods. Assuming your numbers are correct, it wouldn't be 400,000 against 100,000. It would have been whatever portion of that 400,000 were in Kent (or wherever the Germans landed) versus however much of that 100,000 of the German Army made it ashore. The rest would have to be moved to the invasion zone, possibly over interdicted roads and railways. Initially at least, numbers would have been on Germany's side.
@@AdamMisnik The core of the Home Guard were WW I veterans who were well aware of advancing in cover with experience from trench raids, assaulting defended positions and defending their own positions. Some of the Home Guard were enlisted to help train British Army troops as the opposing force in training exercises. They almost always won in these exercises. They lacked the physical fitness of the younger British Army troops, but had experience and mental toughness to compensate. You are correct that troops were spread around the Island. But the German plans were to spread out the invasion force to not get bogged down at a single beachhead. It takes time to re-organize and offload supplies. Also, the boats and barges were not suitable for transporting horses so the German infantry would be pretty much limited to marching carrying everything with them that they needed. Advancing from the beachheads would be slow. So you might have a situation where somewhere over 20,000 German troops might be initially up against just a single infantry division (about 16,000 troops) but the British infantry division would have more organic artillery to bring to bear and would only need to hold back the Germans or slow their advance while reinforcements flooded in to the landing areas within a day or two. British forces could stage fighting withdrawals back on their own supply lines while the Germans would exhaust their own supplies and be separated from supplies on the beach the greater distance they advanced, and would be forced to spread out their force thinner over a widening front if they expanded the beachheads. With reinforcements arriving as well as resupply, the British would be growing stronger while the Germans grew weaker. Time would be on the side of the British forces. To succeed, the Germans would need reinforcement and resupply, something that would quickly become impossible as the Royal Navy assembled flotillas in the Channel. With the slow movement of the riverboats and barges, and need to plan arrivals on the beaches around tides, it would be optimistic to expect a round trip of the transports (which would nee to be reused for reinforcement and resupply) of around 24 hours. Plans were made and rehearsed for damaging ports the Germans might try to capture to prevent their use by the Germans. It is very easy to carry out damage in minutes that would take weeks for engineers and equipment to undo. When British and German experts wargamed this out in the 1970s, assuming a German surprise allowing them to deploy the full ~100,000, the German forces were not able to advance far from their beachheads and were soon running low on ammunition for their own limited artillery. The result was a German surrender within 6 days of the start of the invasion with few of the invading force being able to be evacuated back to France.
June 1040 Britain had 792 tanks over 3,000 mechanized carriers, over 200 pieces of artillery, 11 full divisions of regular troops, 1.5 million men with guns and 300 million rounds of ammo. Hardly defenseless.
The Bf 110s were used for close escort. If used for free hunting and according to german tactics, they proved successful. Vide Christer Bergström, The Battle of Britain. An Epic Battle revisited.
But even in free hunting they remained vulnerable. The main defensive tactics of flying in circle formation with other 110s also consumed a lot of fuel. What Erprobungsgruppe 210 demonstrated was how to use the ordinance of the Zerstörer in accordance with that the Luftwaffe wanted to achieve here.
The 110 was very effectiv when used the right way, but when flying "low and slow" as close escort to the bombers it was not ! In fact the 110 has the best kill to loss ratio of all air crafts during the B of B when regarding fighter vs fighter !
The Luftwaffe was never going to 'win' the Battle of Britain so that an invasion could be done. Because numbers! Theo Osterkamp, the commander of the fighters of Luftflotte 2 during the battle calculated before the battle that to pave the way for an invasion, the LW would have to virtually eliminate Fighter Command while retaining about 750 single engined fighters. The LW had around 1000 single engined fighters available and thought FC had about 500 (they had about 700 at the outset). Thus, the LW would have to destroy 500 enemy fighters while losing only 250 of their own. That means a 2:1 kill ratio favouring the LW and a fairly high rate of kills per day, somewhere in the 100 fighters range. Trouble is that you only get lopsided victories between peer air forces when small units (< 10 or so) are jumped and even then one side rarely gets wiped out. And if you're only jumping small enemy units how do you kill 100 fighters per day (and remember this is assuming FC started with only 500 fighters and gets no more). You're not going to get your hundred kills in packets of 5 or so and even getting those requires special circumstances, which the Germans aren't going to reliably get those lopsided situations often with FC operating within an integrated air defence network based around radar. So then you need lopsided results in big combats! Historical analysis, including from WW1, however showed that in large combats, dozens of planes per side, loss _rates_ are low compared to the planes engaged. So, if there are enough planes engaged to generate large numbers of kills, the loss ratio is not going to be a lop-sided 2:1 for the Germans. If the combats are small enough you might generate a 2:1 kill ratio, there just aren't going to be enough kills in absolute numbers. And, of course, the RAF started with more than 500 fighters, about 700, and received many new planes and pilots during the campaign. The LW did not get many new planes and pilots. German industry was straining just to keep their numbers from falling too fast. On top of that, grass fields were all 1940s fighters needed, so FC could, if pressed too hard, retreat north out of range of Bf 109s (as they then were) and return south to cover Bomber Command and the Navy going after an invasion fleet.
Get Nebula with 40% off an annual subscription with my link: go.nebula.tv/realtimehistory
Watch Battle of Britain on Nebula: nebula.tv/battleofbritain?ref=realtimehistory
can you make more videos about napoleon wars?
Ducumentary is full of small and big errors. Tactical fighter formation had like zero influence on efficiency. All losses mentioned are total nonsence. Operational losses on both side were nearly the same, but combat losses were much higher on the RAF side, not Luftwaffe. You cant mention accidents that are not part of the battle itself. The second biggest mistake is total lack of ULTRA + Y Service. That was CRUCIAL. RAF FC knew even units names and their height during the air battle. About killed and wounded, you cant count it like that. Losses were in the air, on the ground and on the sea. Again huge mistake. Also Bungay isnt military historian, but very successfull book author and moron who made up total nonsence theory and fake the "research" of the battle. Thats why there is such calm about his former famous 2010 name.
I made research that stated 938 Spitfires severely damaged or destroyed from ALL caused during July-October 1940 period! Just think, what could be number for Hurricanes and other aircraft types during such small amount of time. RAF FC was on its last legs during August/September 1940 period, but survived when losses decreased.
I'm wondering how long the Dutch could have plausibly held out if they had AAA cannons and maybe a decent radar system. They gave up a week into the attack following the razing of Rotterdam.
Goring assured his pilots "The RAF are down to their last 50 fighter aircraft", a Black joke amongst the Luftwaffe aircrew when attacked by RAF "Here comes the last 50 British fighters, AGAIN".
Ho ho. Goring promised that the Luftwaffe could supply the 6th Army after it had been surrounded at Stalingrad. Everyone saw how badly that turned out for the Germans. Goring was great at making promises; very, very short on delivery every single time.His was a record of perfect failure.
Jip, the Germans lost the entire war because of just two people, Goring and Hitler.
"Here comes the last squadron of Spitfires again"
Goering was an insufferable clown...
Hence why the Big Wing was so effective, just when the LW pilots had been told that the RAF were on their knees. The big wing was the biggest psy ops victory of the battle.
Nobody has mentioned the British ran a war game in 1974 on Operation Sealion. The war game assumed initial surprise to enable the German army to at least have the initial landings be successful. Participants included former members of both the British and German armed forces. Like many people have posted, logistics and reinforcements proved very problematic. The Germans were forced to attempt their own Dunkirk which was only partially successful with most troops being drowned or captured.
83% irrecoverable losses for the Germans, absolutely catastrophic casualty rates.
Alison Brooks (I mentioned her article elsewhere) ends with
"We can choose to wave a magic wand, and wipe out the RN and the RAF, and examine how successful the invasion was likely to be in their absence. Sandhurst has done this on four occasions to my knowledge. Both sides were given the historical starting positions, with an invasion date of 24 September.
"In each case, the details of the fighting varied, but by each analysis resulted in 27 September dawning with the Wehrmacht holding two isolated beachheads, one at roughly 2 divisions strength on Romney March, and one of 1 division at Pevensey. Each were opposed by more numerous forces, with growing numbers of tanks and artillery. German resupply was still across open beaches.
"Operation Sealion can only be described as a blueprint for a German disaster."
Considering, after Norway, the British Home Fleet had more battleships than Germany had destroyers, a naval invasion even with air cover would have been "very bold"
@@alexhubble A very courageous decision, as Sir Humphrey might have put it
Nice reference! One of my favourite sitcoms
We now need a full documentary of the Eastern Front
Agreed
The eastern front is where the war was decided.
That’ll be a day long video.
@@GenocideWesterners
That's Russian propaganda. Don't propagate disinformation.
Russia's war contribution was negative. Arming and supplying the axis, allying with both axis powers, invading China several times, and requiring so many ships to rescue Russia, that Force Z was defeated and Singapore fell.
Hear hear ! And we can rest assured that the team would not punctuate a thorough study of the Eastern Front with excursions into the ‘childhood’ of Lenin or the ‘anti semitism ‘ of Marx,…unlike a certain TH-camr well known to some of you….
25:41 As someone in the RAF, thank you for recognising the ground trades. As you mentioned they often get overlooked and quite frankly the air force wouldn’t work nor would it be as effective as it was without the hard graft of those on the ground also!
Lord Dowding (who I knew better than anyone still alive today) fully recognised the value of all the ground trades and operators, as he said, we are all part of a team. th-cam.com/video/lxg83RQvRX4/w-d-xo.html
The Germans had another problem. If things started getting bad for fighter command, Dowding always had the option of pulling most of 11 group back north of the Thames beyond the range of the German fighters, but available to rapidly redeploy to provide air cover for the Royal Navy once the invasion had started. The Germans were never going to get clear skies above their invasion fleet, and their Stukas were never going to get a free run at the Royal Navy ships.
Even if they had, the Luftwaffe was woefully unprepared for attacking warships, especially battleships and cruisers.
There was that possibility, but both park and Douding avoiding it at any cost due to late and low interception raid.
@@Cailus3542
What about U-Boats? Even a handful of them could wreck havoc on the Royal Navy where it would be very difficult for the British to detect and stop them from attacking RN ships and sinking them especially in 1940 before the allies started organizing and devising more effective ways to combat them.
Then again Dowding and Park were being stabbed in the back by the political manoeuvres of Leigh Mallory in 12 Group.
It's quite ironic that when Leigh Mallory took over 11 group, he repeated all the mistakes the Germans made when he launched air attacks on France.
Meanwhile Sir Keith Park went on the win the air battle over Malta.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ U Boats would have had to sneak past the Home Fleet's destroyer screen which would be very difficult in the English Channel
Years ago I found a book in a bookshop that was a reprint of a book given out in preparation for the defence of the home islands, one chapter was called "how to destroy or disable a German Tank with items you might find around the house
Still wish I'd picked up a copy to this day
The pepper in the eyes is the most hilarious. I mean really? 😂😂😂😂
@@Kalbot84 it would be an invaluable textbook. To be kept next to Mrs Beaton
"Put Jerry off his guard by offering him a cup of tea. While he is distracted....."
@@DanBeech-ht7sw I can vaguely remember part of the tank chapter, it involved you running up to the tank, shoving a burning oiled rag through the vision slit, and having someone else waiting on top with a kitchen knife (or better yet, a shotgun or revolver if your household owns such an item) ready to "do in" the German tankers as they emerged to escape the smoke. It also mentioned that if you were lucky enough to procure a grenade you could "do in" the first "fellow" and drop the grenade in after him, whereby one would shut the lid of the tank and put paid to their little misadventure in one swift blow.
Edit: I wouldn't have been surprised if there had been a chapter called "home-made poisons that are undetectable in the taste of a well brewed tea"
@@Kalbot84 you'd have had to use your petrol coupons for that!
They actually trained the Home Guard in guerrilla, , commando and sabotage techniques. They were nothing like the fictional Dads Army tv comedy series you saw on tv years later. Far from it.
Always happy to see another video of you guys come live! Keep up the great work.
Thanks! Will do!
Kurt Assman: He's blunt and doesn't say much, but he knows what he likes.
Would have made for a great proctologist, had the war not happened ^^
Can't trust anything the guy says, he's full of it
They don't like it up 'em, sir!
His brother ‘Titsun’ was an elite rear admiral in the Kriegsmarine as well
Could Germany invade Great Britain?
Short answer: No because of the Royal Navy.
Shorter answer: No.
The Royal Air Force had a significantly larger impact on the Battle of Britain compared to the Royal Navy. This was primarily because the Battle of Britain was an aerial campaign, fought between the German Luftwaffe and the RAF Fighter Command. The goal of the German forces was to gain air superiority as a prerequisite for Operation Sea Lion, Hitler’s planned invasion of Britain
@@osamabinlaggin3281 Shame the RN and RAF couldn’t evacuate anything from Dunkirk other than unequipped infantry then, eh?
@@seanlander9321 i suppose you get this view from the movie dunkirk. but the royal navy actually send 41 destroyers to dunkirk (germany had 21 in total). Getting anything other than small arms and men across the channel was simply impossible in 1940 makeshif ports werent developed well yet. and there was no way a battleship would be any use there. no navy could do the job there
@@unknown_boazgeen4832People forget as well that while Dunkirk was happening a 2nd BEF was landing in Cherbourg.
About just under 400,000 British soldiers where at Dunkirk while the army numbered about 2 million at the time.
It wouldn't make sense that if the British army was so defeated in summer 1940 they could launch an offensive against the Italians in Africa in the winter
Yes actually to say otherwise is British propaganda.
I've studied this war inside and out (along with other historical stuffs) and for some reason hearing stuff like this never gets old. No matter how much of it is just stuff I already know. Well done.
Sealion would have been a total disaster. If you just look at D-Day and the logistical cost of that! The German army would have been left on uk soil without ammo and fuel. What would have happened next would be anyone’s guess. For a start, all the British kit was with the Germans in France and their kit was in the south of England!
So it's about 260 miles from Kent coast to the River Severn below Bristol. With 90,000 men that's 1 man per 4 yards. The thin grey line. Put them in tanks, gun crews, support, such as kitchens and logistics, then your number fighting men looks a bit puny.
@@simonwells2213 The Germans weren't going to have any heavy guns or tanks in the first wave, so that's a plus. The bad news (for them) is, we saw in WW1 what happens when infantry with no artillery or armour try to advance against a dug in enemy with machine guns.
@@BlackStar2161Does that mean that an invading army will have to rely on air superiority to do a successful landing?
@@myoptimumpride5178 Air superiority, or naval superiority. They need something to support the troops. Look at the Allies' experience in Sicily and at Salerno and Anzio and imagine what the outcome would have been without naval vessels offshore providing artillery support. For D-Day they had battleships providing support with 15" and 16" guns, along with supremacy over the skies of Northern France.
The German problems for Sea Lion centers on the relative weakness of the Kriegsmarine and that they would be operating in defense of an extremely slow moving flotilla. The handful of destroyers that would be available to escort the invasion wouldn't last long against the several dozen destroyers of the Royal Navy and the several hundred smaller craft (including motor torpedo boats).
Trying to make up for the gap in naval strength with airpower would require being able to defeat the RAF, but the Luftwaffe consistently lost more aircraft than the RAF. A problem made worse by the fact that Britain was outproducing Germany in aircraft by almost 2:1 and was training a lot more replacement pilots, and the fact that while the RAF lost around 1,200 fighter aicraft in the battle, only about 540 RAF fighter pilots were killed. Safely bailing out over home territory meant they could be back in the cockpit the next day while German aircraft shot down over Britain meant a loss of an aircrew (killed or captured). Trying to wear down the RAF had the Luftwaffe shrinking at a faster rate.
British and German experts wargamed out Sea Lion in the 1970s. The best estimate of air strength for the air component of the battle had around 1,400 combat aircraft of the Luftwaffe (more than half being bombers) going up against around 1,000 fighters of RAF Fighter Command. That's a big difference from the numerical superiority the Luftwaffe started the battle with.
@@myoptimumpride5178 Inevitably they would've had to, not that they would've been able to anyways since the Brits would've had a metric amount of AA coverage (with those aircraft having to get very close to it too) and the RAF would've been fighting tooth and nail as well, not to mention their aircraft having less fuel because of the trip and the issue of (never) recovering pilots who bail
I don’t know if Germany could have invaded but HOI4 has taught me that the Italians could invade the UK with no problem
HoI4’s UK AI is insane. It relies entirely on the Navy to defend the channel & doesn’t garrison the land.
@@dorn0531 Why don't they seriously fix that then?
@@ChrisCrossClash Because the wehraboos that make up half of hoi4's fanbase would scream and whine.
They get obnoxious enough when someone suggests that conquering Britain shouldn't let them grab India, Australia and Canada for free.
@@adamlakeman7240 yeah i always thought that was a bit strange, you'd think they would rebel soon as the peace conference ended
I found the AI in HOI4 to stupid and left it supply lines undefended which made it easy to defeat.
A bit disappointing that the aircraft production figures arent shown, they show that Britain was getting stronger throughout the battle whilst Germany was getting weaker. It was never really a close run thing, the Luftwaffe would have needed a miracle to overcome the RAF and this can be seen in the kill ratios later in the battle. The comparison of the 109 vs the Spitfire is also unfortunately a bit weak, both were tricky to land (although th 109 was worse) however the 109 was also more difficult to take off with. Air accidents make up a significant proportion of losses so these are important factors. Overall it needed a more experienced pilot to get the most out of it, something which Germany was running short of.
Excellent post, I think the Germans needed 4 or 5 times as many fighters and bombers as they started the battle of Britain with and also a higher replacement rate than the British. With such a massive superiority they could then have defeated the RAF and had sufficient airpower to negate the Royal Navy. Sealion might then have succeeded.
Spitfire also had a series of 'tells', like wing flutter before the stresses of a high G turn would rip the wing off. Pilots learning of these tells were more willing to push the aircraft to the absolute limit because it would warn them before they got into serious trouble. Does not sound much of an advantage, but if you have two pilots of equal skill that ability to more aggressively take the aircraft to the very edge of its limits might make the difference between life and death.
Had hitler allowed a total war economy earlier in the war, they might have kept up with production before allied bombing took its toll
@SP Agree with your analysis. The Luftwaffe needed a miracle and then some. It had no fuel for any extended operation over Britain. It had to suspend the Battle of Britain anyway because of mounting air losses and the need to build up their forces for Operation Barbarossa in 1941. As it was, the Germans were running very low on things like aviation fuel by the end of September 1940. And by that point, weather conditions in the English Channel are prohibitive for any invasion of England with their crapulous river barges for transport.
"A bit disappointing that the aircraft production figures aren't shown, they show that Britain was getting stronger throughout the battle whilst Germany was getting weaker. "
Thanks to Lord Beaverbrook cutting through delaying 'red tape', & Dowding keeping the Battle over home territory and not allowing his aircraft to chase bombers back over the water to France.
I can’t get enough of this epic background music, especially when combined with Jesse’s riveting narration!
I can, it's bloody annoying. Why does every TH-cam video maker insist on having it?
No, not a chance the Germans could have succeeded, the Royal Navy was MUCH too strong for them.
You're spot on, Germans never shied away from doing mad stuff if there was a half of a chance of success. Seelöwe was a non-starter, much more useful as a threat than an actual operation.
I doubt the RN would have dared to get so close to the coast if the Germans had air superiority.
@@thkempe Wrong. They most certainly would have. German accuracy against Naval Targets was actually damned terrible in 1940, the Royal Navy already KNEW that. Why?
Because if it had been IJN Pilots attacking British and French shipping at Dunkirk it would have been a disaster. Luftwaffe pilots however made few actual hits for the number of attempts made, and while the ship losses were not insignificant, they were not serious either. Especially as the RN used mostly older Destroyers.
Luftwaffe accuracy against shipping that was either at anchor, or moving in predictable straight lines because of the congestion of the shipping present was frankly abysmal.
Against destroyers and cruisers actively manoeuvring at flank speed Luftwaffe accuracy would have been even worse. And the Royal Navy KNEW that. While the Luftwaffe did increase training for many bomber crews against Naval targets that was not until AFTER 1940, so at the time very, very few Luftwaffe crews actually had any training, let alone experience hitting shipping.
@@alganhar1 The fact that they kept their big ships so far away (although the Germans lacked air superiority) proves you wrong.
During the evacuation of Crete in 1941, 3 British cruisers and 6 destroyers were sunk and 1 carrier, 3 battleships, 6 cruisers and 5 destroyers were damaged, some of them seriously. This was achieved by the incompetent Luftwaffe.
@@thkempe Complete rubbish, if the Royal Navy knew the Germans were invading they 100% would have headed straight for the invasion barges, and also remember the Luftwaffe was only trying to defeat one branch of the RAF (fighter command) they still had to destroy bomber and coastal commands as well, with well over 1200 bombers total, even if they destroyed fighter command, no the more i look into the Battle of Britain, the numbers and Operation Sealion the more I find it imposable for the Germans to successfully invade.
A lot of the german transport aircraft lost in the so-called battle for France were actually shot down over the Netherlands by the Dutch because Germany used a lot of airborne troops and failed mostly except for some bridges around Rotterdam
Very interesting, thanks.
@@ohgosh5892 Many Ju 52s were lost during the invasion of Norway. Look it up, it deserves its own video.
The Luftwaffe needed to deliver lots of soldiers to capture airfields at dawn on the day of invasion. Trouble is: There weren't enough Ju 52s, so they took Ju 52s from their training command, each flown by an instructor and a trainee pilot.
The Ju 52s could only carry sufficient fuel for a one-way flight. On arrival above the airfield, they'd be compelled to land there with nowhere else to go.
One Norwegian flak gunner was alert, shot down the first Ju52 and every other Ju 52 which followed. Within minutes, the airfield was littered with lots of crashed and burning Ju 52s.
Eventually there were enough surviving soldiers to band together and silence the flak post.
The Luftwaffe never recovered from its severe losses of training aircraft and instructors. This was worsened by losses during the BoB.
Wow. Didn't know that!!!!
@BerjanGerrits-q2b I don't know the exact figures. It's years since I read the account in a book about the history of the Luftwaffe.
They still walked through the Netherlands in two days mind
Lots of people asking for full Eastern front. I'd rather have more deep-dives into spcefic battles, such as operation typhoon, operation bagration, or the tjerkassy/korsun pocket.
our series would include several chapters like our Kursk coverage
The important operation was Fall Blau. Germany lost the war at Stalingrad when it failed to capture the Caucasus oil fields. After that, it was only a matter of how long the misery would continue until Allied armies were in downtown Berlin.
Trafford Lee-Mallory and Douglas Bader were a bloody menace. Lee-Mallory was a particularly odious and detrimental character. His politicising and tactical ineptitude continue to cost the allied war effort for years. (Fighter sweeps and spitfires for Malta being just two egs)
rubbish. get educated not propagandated.
I agree with the Fighters for Malta. Malta did need to hold. The Rhubarb sweeps over occupied France however were a stupid idea. Lost the RAF a lot of pilots and aircraft they could have better used elsewhere.
@paulaction9874 Idk where he went wrong. Leigh-Mallory was a schemer who almlst destroyed the career of the most successful Group commander of the Battle of Britain
i see you too have watched the Hard Thrasher
It's hard not to read about Lee-Mallory without me thinking that he was secretly working for Germany.
Great video (again) ❤
Thank you very much
WE NEED A FULL DOCUMENTARY ON THE EASTERN FRONT
we're in the very early stages of doing an Eastern Front series. Currently roughly discussing how many episodes and what events to anchor each episode on. Going to take a while before we get going though.
Kind of a big one there, haha
@@realtimehistorydon’t worry
We believe you can do it
@@realtimehistory Would be great if you guys could use modern Russian sources as well, because 90% of English content about the topic is just reusing the same narratives and myths, that are rooted in the Western view on the Great Patriotic War. Wish you all kinds of success, nevertheless
@@bogdandrugov2127 Alright tell us then, what are some of the Russian narratives and sources then that differ from Western sources?
Another great documentary. Keep it up guys!
The Battle of Britain proved for the first time thst Hitler could be beaten and thats why its importance can't be underestimated.
It's not the lack of heavy ships that would have decimated the invasion, it's the near total lack of destroyers. The KM had lost most of theirs in Norwegian waters.
By the Royal Navy no less.
Outstanding documentary. Thank you.
Great video, you guys do a great job, little funny note I caught at the end, 24th minute, thought I read it wrong when you were explaining his quote,
" AssMan" , thought I was watching Seinfeld for a minute 😅😂
Thanks you guys !!!😊
07:17 he even hid his mikrofon for you guys :) Thx for the Video. I learned a lot. And a quote by Jens, nice!
Jens' Buch war extrem Aufschlussreich, klare Leseempfehlung, ein ganz neuer Denkansatz (für uns zumindest). Die Flugzeugdesigner in den 20er und 30ern hatten teilweise ganz schön einen an der Waffel.
@@realtimehistory Wenn ich jemals ein Video über Flugzeugdesign in den 20er 30er Jahren mache, werde ich diesen Kommentar zitieren :) Und ja, das Buch von jens steht auf keiner Kaufliste, aber leider habe ich schon einen riesen Haufen anderer Bücher liegen :)
An excellent presentation. Thank you
Excellent documentary 😊
"We wouldn't be trapped on an island with them, they would be trapped on an island with us"
Thoughtful and intelligent analysis!
Utterly spectacular video guys and girls, you continue to exceed your very own already-high standards. What a triumph.
Excellent video, top notch!
This was a great episode... Having Christof was Amazing
The threat certainly felt like it amongst the London civilians, according to my 94 year mother and my late grandparents
Brilliant analysis. The aviation expert explaining tactics shows a particularly high level of knowledge and understanding of the subject matter.
I had a branch of my family wiped out on 15th of September 1940 when the Germans bombed the community air raid shelter in Neptune Street in Rotherhithe.
The whole branch wiped out except for one.
I found out researching my family history.
Very sad.
@@MarkHarrison733
first bombs dropped on Berlin - august 25th
first bombs dropped on London - august 24th
@@MarkHarrison733 Iraq isnt germany, and arabs and Kurdish arent germans
Great and interesting documentary!
Glad you enjoyed it!
6:00 Requisition 2,400 continental river barges😬
That's got to be painful for heavy industry.
Mostly Dutch I would guess
@@leothecat9609 You're probably right. I'm imagining lumber and coal barges going up and down the Ruhr Valley disappearing.
Actually, the Rhine river starts in The Netherlands, so that's exactly where they are coming from.
@@Jason-fm4my I mean seriously they really thought River Barges were going to work on an open sea like the Channel?
@@leothecat9609 No, much worse than that. The OKH confiscated nearly all of the coal barges moving coal from Saarland to the Ruhr industrial zone. This was already impacting heavily German war production of everything. Losing those barges in an invasion of Britain would have 1. crippled German war industry permanently, 2. forced the cancelation or deferrment of Operation Barbarossa. As it was, German logistics in Barbarossa were so poor that the army could only feed itself by robbing and murdering the local peasantry. Even as matters actually stood, the Wehrmacht in 1941 had only enough fuel for three months of operations. That's why the German army ground to a halt in late September 1941. Not the Russian winter, nor the muddy season. The army was out of fuel and would have to wait at least two months to resume a limited offensive in November.
CS Forrester wrote a short story, «If Hitler had invaded England» (part of the Gold from Crete anthology). This was a major focus in his narrative - and, not to spoil the ending, a vital factor in Germany's post-invasion conduct of the war.
WE NEED A FULL DOCUMENTARY ON ASSMAN
directed by and staring John Stagliano
Another an informative and wonderful historical coverage episode was shared by an excellent ( RTH) channel...thanks for sharing this magnificent episode ...👍🏻🙏
Great video and now following you on Nebula ❤
A British historian made the often overlooked point that when the German army was selecting targets for the Luftwaffe as they did in Poland and France, the Luftwaffe performed very well. However, when they were left to their own devices, as in the battle of Brittain, they fell short of the mark. Interesting point.
Aircraft repair and manufacturing beat the Germans. Squadrons were often amazed to find a full compliment of Aircraft, ready to fly, only hours after being badly shot up.
The numbers of aircraft and experienced pilots available to the Germans versus the British should have made the battle for air supremacy over Britain a foregone conclusion. As happened many time during the war though the man in Berlin, far removed from the actual battles, lived in a completely different reality from what was actually happening.
@@jebbroham1776 Reminds me of Herr Putin.
I would love to see a documentary of the Allied and Axis paratroopers operations. Such as German paratroopers in Norway, Belgium, and in Greece. Italian paratroopers and their combat operations in North Africa. Japanese paratroopers operating in Southeast Asia. And allied paratroopers in Normandy, Sicily, Netherlands, and in the Philippines and Burma.
What about Soviet Paratroopers in Winter 1941/42? In any case, I am not sure we will do an exclusive video on paratroopers, but several of the campaigns you mentioned will be covered. Check out our Sicily video for example which is already out.
@@realtimehistory Them too. I forgot to mention them as well. But I would be very interested to hear about Soviet paratroopers and their combat operations in the Second World War.
If the Germans had executed Sea Lion, the losses of equipment and man power would have devastated the German Army. I doubt the English would have capitulated like the French did. If the Germans had gotten ashore in strength, which is doubtful, they could have made significant progress. However, I doubt that the Island would have been occupied. The English were ready to continue the fight from their colonies. Italy would have been knocked out of the war in 1941, because, the Germans would have been unable to bolster their army. Doubt that any invasion of the USSR could have happen much before 1946 or later and the Red Army reforms would have been completed. The Balkan Campaign would never have occurred and the Greek Army may have even occupied Rome.
Where did I call it the battle of England? Did you read my comment? Do you understand English? Nothing wrong with calling people who live in any part of England, English. You can also call them British, however, my use of the English is not technically wrong. Please read my comment again.
Here's my take, without even watching this video yet, so we'll see how close I get. But in my opinion, Britain won the BoB for three key reasons.
1. Strategic placement of their country, a.k.a. they're an island. Island means water, and water means Navy. Part of the reason that Germany cut a swath through mainland Europe was because they were able to utilize their ground forces AND air force into co-ordinated strikes against Poland, France, etc. But because Britain is and island, the Germans can't use their ground forces, and there was no way their navy was going to be able to stand up in battle against the British. So they could only rely on their air force.
2. Sophisticated defence network. Britain had this amazing defence network set up and ready to go. Radar stations along the coast (with enough range to detect German formations almost IMMEDIATELY after they left the coast of France), plane spotters dotted along the ground with instruments to help get a better description of what's coming, and then the central command hub underneath British streets that allowed the Brits to co-ordinate defensive strategies.
3. Bad intel for the Germans. By some stroke of luck, and sheer incompetance, the Germans were continually being fed bat intel by their people monitoring the situation. Everything from made up reports to flat out refusal to accept the actual facts.
Now, that's not to say the Germans got absolutely SMACKED during the BoB. They did have success, especially when they started night bombing, but the task was already daunting from the beginning and it was hard to overcome these three factors.
Would be interesting to see something about the rarely covered East Africa campaign or the invasion of Iraq.
A great channel! Thank you!
Britain was not alone; Canada and Australia sent three equipped divisions.
No. One Canadian division & two Australian/New Zealand brigades.
Canada & Australia was part of British Empire so technically, when mentioning British in World War topics, it wasn't only from the mainland Great Britain but also conclude all around their territorial colony as well, including Canada & Australia. British Empire's colony & territory was massive across the ocean & continent before each of their territorial colony gain independence.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 The Australian Ninth Division was deployed to the UK in 1940.
@@tab7madeupYeah they also considered themselves British and apart of the empire, it’s only after the world wars and empire collapsed they started to form the identity. Australians were mad Churchill said they defend Britain first and then go back to reconquer everything Japan takes, so a lot of people soured and said nah I’m just Australian now.
This was inevitable anyway as instead of forming them as states with one identity they put them on a path to drift off overtime as increasingly autonomous dominions, but the world wars accelerated it.
Her former colonies sent 50 destroyers and ten coast guard cutters.
This is the second time the "flame fugasse?" Has been mentioned in my recollection. It was used in puapa new Guinea to great effect on one occasion as far as I know!
Excellent documentary!
Excellent work.
They never had a plan or the right equipment. The idea of Sealion was a fear but never a rational possibility.
The various "stop" lines going throughout the UK were pretty basic, in my area (Fife) it was practically an anti-tank ditch. Bits and bobs like pillboxes being part of houses. If you go on the coastal walk you may also come across concrete emplacements for AA guns I think.
Yes, but you may want to consider that Fife was ever really considered a viable Invasion route for Germany.
While you are right that they were pretty basic in some areas, they were actually pretty complex in others. Its just evidence of most of those stop lines no longer exists.
The Germans made three massive blunders during the Battle of Britain. 1. The 3 Air fleets of the Luftwaffe never coordinated attacks, to overwhelm the RAF. 2. Very seldom did the Luftwaffe attack in timed waves to catch the RAF fighters on the ground refueling and rearming. It always gave the RAF time to recover. 3 Was the biggest, switching to city bombing instead of aerodrome destruction, giving the RAF the reprieve it needed as stated in the video.
The most costly period for the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain was the ~4 weeks that they went after the airfields and RAF infrastructure. The Luftwaffe managed to bring RAF operational strength for Fighter Command down from around 750 to 700 fighter planes (mostly hurricanes). To achieve this, the Luftwaffe went from around 2,200 operational combat aircraft in those airfleets to 1,700 operational combat aircraft. The RAF could have kept going through that intense struggle longer than the Luftwaffe could have.
Maybe that switch to bombing cities was needed to cut the rate of their losses. They certainly were losing aircraft at a slower rate bombing cities than airfields.
@@iansneddon2956
Yep.
Britain won the Battle of Britain by a country mile.
Germany went into the battle in order to facilitate an invasion of Britain. To do that, they needed to shoot Fighter Command out of the skies. The Germans were never remotely close to doing that.
The Germans never figured out what the "schwerpunkt" of the air operation was. The whole operation was dependent on achieving air superiority over the Channel and SE England and the Luftwaffe lost focus on that mission. Given the lack of coordination between the German Army, Navy and Air Force during the Battle of Britain, it could be argued that the Air Force never had focus on that mission. The only person institutionally empowered to give that sort of focus was Hitler and he wasn't exactly the sort to buckle down to work a problem much less get his people to work together to figure it out.
Given that the Luftwaffe had to figure out how to peel apart Fighter Command on the fly they would have had to make some really lucky guesses to succeed in 1940 before time was up for a 1940 invasion. That not being achieved in 1940 is the basis of all of the "Sea Lion was not possible" mythos. Just because the Germans didn't figure it out doesn't mean they couldn't have, especially if they continued to work the problem. Also, it having to be done in 1940 and only 1940 is as much of a myth as D-Day could only occur in 1942. In fact, D-Day being delayed first to 1943 and then to 1944 made time to work the problem, do the preliminaries, and enhance the chances of success. Germany undistracted by a war with the Soviet Union would have had the time and resources to succeed with Sea Lion in 1941 or even 1942. Of course, the British wouldn't have sat idly by without responding to the German initiatives but Britain's plate was full in 1941 & 1942 historically. They would have had to make even more hard choices than the ones that cost them their empire post war if they were the sole focus of Germany's & Italy's efforts for an extra year.
@@AdamMisnik The Luftwaffe strategy followed the overall "strategy" of trying to knock Britain out of the war, which they needed to do to continue their overall objectives (end the naval blockade, bring in resources, prepare for the invasion of the USSR).
The initial thought was after the fall of their allies (Poland, France) and the retreat of their army across the Channel leaving behind equipment, that Britain was ready to give up and would talk peace. They just missed the possibility of this, as there was a War Cabinet revolt led by Lord Halifax just as the Dunkirk evacuation operation was beginning for just that - commencing peace talks with Germany. But it was decided within days as the most influential member of parliament, Neville Chamberlain, declared his continued support for Churchill.
With the shorter ranges the Luftwaffe was designed to operate at, and a desire to push Britain a bit until they gave up the war, the initial attacks were focused on the Channel shipping (adding to the U-boat campaign to further reduce UK's access to resources). And attacking something as vital as shipping would bring the RAF out to fight them. That part worked but it wasn't having the desired effect on the British government, so they switched to their more conventional campaign against the enemy air force. Attacking their airfields which they would have to defend with the opportunity to catch the RAF on the ground. Problem is that this type of campaign worked with the enemy airfields being not far across the border/front. After the initial success as the RAF wasn't expecting or being used to these attacks, it didn't work out so well. Advance warning and coordinated defense meant aircraft could be scrambled to not be on the ground or to provide cover for squadrons that were refueling, with the Luftwaffe operating near the limits of their fuel while the RAF aircraft could run their engines at higher power without so much concern of preserving fuel for a trip home.
For an alternate history in which a German invasion could be carried out, you would need a different leadership in Germany - planning for a war against UK and building up the needed capacities from before the war. But that would also have a different response from UK. For example, if Germany had invested in a much larger u-boat fleet instead of a surface fleet, then British naval construction would have shifted in response. Building up a larger transport and escort capacity would have had its own response by the Royal Navy and British industry. Are we talking a history in which Chamberlain did not fold at Munich? Because the early refusals of Britain and France to stand up against Germany along with the quick victories in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, etc. would inevitably bring a kind of "victory disease" to any nation, and especially one whose prevailing ideology was based on racial superiority. In what alternate history would you have Hitler approaching war with Britain with recognition that Britain had a more efficient economy such that Germany was at war with a major power that would outproduce them? That after fighting the more obsolete Gloster Gladiators in Norway and chasing the RAF out of France (along with the BEF forces both times) that they should take the British military very very seriously? And what solution were they ever going to have to deal with the Royal Navy? If I had to describe the Royal Navy's plans to thwart an invasion in one word, it would be "overkill". Case in point, the German plans included a diversionary flotilla of cruisers and transports feigning an invasion force that would land in the North in order to make the British divert forces away from the Channel. It would not have worked because (1) the British were planning on such a force coming to carry out an actual invasion and (2) they expected this force to be larger (to include Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and other ships that were not available due to undergoing repairs).
The Luftwaffe was not designed for the type of fight they found themselves in, projecting power at a longer distance across the Channel. There is no clearer focus or strategy they were going to adopt that was going to bring them the defeat of the RAF. But if I had to pick one, here is what it would be... start bombing London in July 1940 as close to around the clock as they can manage and rotating squadrons from the air fleets kept in the East to allow them to rest and recover to keep this going longer. Flying multiple sorties per day against a target the RAF had to defend, and keeping their bombers in more easily defended formations than going after airfields. Still wouldn't have worked. I don't think they were going to make the British defeatist and would not break the RAF in time for a 1940 invasion. And time was on Britain's side as production increased in Canada, and the training programs established overseas in 1939 were going to be bringing an even larger stream of replacement pilots starting in September 1940. With a wartime economy efficiently producing aircraft and other equipment, Britain was going to outproduce Germany on into 1941 and 1942, and with Roosevelt winning re-election the US was going to shift into support for UK in early 1941.
The invasion of USSR was not some side project undertaken because they thought they had Britain under control, it was a desperate measure to prevent an otherwise inevitable defeat of Germany. The oil from Romania was not enough, and with the Royal Navy effectively preventing Germany from importing it from overseas (as Japan was doing up until July 1941) and there were shortages of food as well. And Stalin had at one point cut off the supplies he was shipping, and had Germany on more of a starvation diet as he demanded more and more in return.
Look at Germany's wartime production. It wasn't for lack of trying that their production wasn't really ramping up until 1942-1943, peaking in 1944. Germany was spending as much/more of their GDP on the military than Britain was. But with so many men in the army, their workforce was reduced. And with the "blockade" there were shortages in raw materials. Waiting to invade USSR would have meant waiting until even later for military production to increase. And what would Britain have produced by 1941 or 1942? Maybe there is some alternate reality to consider as if USA would cut lend-lease aid to UK if Germany hadn't declared war on USA. There were not the same spending constraints for USA as they were generally unable to spend their entire approved budget for lack of more men to pay and more produced equipment to purchase. Germany delaying a war with USSR would have meant a decline in German oil reserves to the point they would have been unable to carry out that invasion as Germany gradually was worn down and defeated just as they were in WW I. Germany was going to lose their initial advantages in having a larger air force and having more prior experience as the RAF was growing - even during the Battle of Britain. Even with so much on UK's plate, they retained land forces in UK in sufficient number to fight off an invasion while RAF fighter command increased in size to around 65% larger operational strength in May 1941 than they had in July 1940, while the Luftwaffe of May 1941 was smaller than the Luftwaffe of July 1940. And this is with RAF fighter command retiring obsolete fighter models and having a higher % of Spitfires vs Hurricanes. Continuing the air campaign against Britain would have that RAF number lower, but with the Luftwaffe suffering greater losses and being less able to replace losses, it would mean the May 1941 Luftwaffe would have been much much smaller. And by the end of 1941 RAF Fighter Command strength was around 90% greater than it had been in July 1940. Britain never stopped maintaining strength in Britain to withstand an invasion attempt. And British ship construction wasn't slowing down either.
As for USA, they were already planning in January 1941 to fight a war with Germany alone - with money being spent to develop an intercontinental bomber (to bomb German cities flying round trip from USA). This project was not completed to a flying prototype until 1946 but shows American intent. The intent of Lend-Lease was to keep Britain from being knocked out of the war so eventual American involvement (if needed) could include B-17s flying from UK and using Britain as a staging ground for landing in France.
Time was never on the side of Germany. They had a military geared to winning short wars against nations they could just march into, overwhelming their opponents before they could increase their strength and figure out how to respond. But they couldn't do this over the English Channel in 1940 and were not going to have better prospects in 1941 or 1942.
@@MarkHarrison733 Is it nice and cozy in your own private reality?
This documentary could have just said “No” and been done in 3 seconds. Just kidding great documentary.
According to those military senior officers of the time and still around at the end of the was from both sides, they could have tried but they would have lost.
Great summary
Read an interesting bit by Max Hastings; the battle of Britain was the only way to fight Britain in a format where Britain was world class, indeed world-leading. Plus it consolidated public opinion behind the war. If they had just sat tight and maybe sent Rommel to africa 6 months earlier - things might well have gone different.
@MarkHarrison733 well, no, I suppose not. He's a writer of non-fiction books on historical subjects who tries to gather evidence from archives and conducting interviews with participants. You could hardly call him a historian.
@@MarkHarrison733 doesn't make what he said incorrect
-the German jet engine was based on whittles jet engine then modified due to patent issues.
-Britain had advanced radar
-Britain was first to put radar into planes during the war
-Britain created the first aircraft carrier to compliment air warfare
-Britain had the fastest engine on the planet
-Britain had the first long range reconnaissance plane
-Britain had multiple ways of fighting which threw off Germany idea of how many planes the RAF had
-Britain built more planes and faster
Britain was in fact leading in plane warfare.
Spitfires were difficult to manufacture due to their curved wings so there were not many of them. Most of the UK's fighters were Hawker Hurricanes.
The Hurricane was the last in a line of Hawker aircraft, including the Hart and the Fury. The original idea was for a 'Fury monoplane' with four machine guns, from December 1933, which evolved into an 'interceptor monoplane' from 1934.
Basically, the Hurricane was built using traditional methods, with which ground crews were already familiar, and was easier to repair and return to operations than the more complex and advanced Spitfire.
i love it and i was wandering could make one about the Siege of Budapest
Came from nebula for my second watch!
My un le was in these battles. He said very little about it, but once described how the crew felt when they all came back once.
15:14 This was seen in Battle of Britain (1969)
Do you think the P-38 also a long range twin engine fighter would fair better than the Bf-110 if used in a similar manner during the Battle of Britain?
P38 is exactly as you say, a long range twin engine fighter. The bf110 is a ground attack aircraft with much heavier weaponry and more bomb capacity. I doubt the p38 would do better
Please do a full series on the war of 1812.
What, of America getting their arses thrown out of Canada again by the British for the umpteenth time? 😂😂Don't think the Yanks would like that.
The "real war of 1812" was Napoleons invasion of Russia!
I am still dumbfounded that NOBODY had the courage to tell Hitler "Invading Russia at this time forces us in a 2-front war... are you sure we have the resources to do that?" or just tell him he's on crack (which he was, but I digress....)
In a sense the English Channel was a defensive wall looked at from both sides. For Britain to launch an invasion would have been as hard as for Germany to launch one. So in that sense the western front was not really an active front (apart from minor raids etc). Also, the USSR had been at war in Finland and did not look competent. France would have looked a much more competent foe, yet they had just been defeated in weeks. So attacking the USSR looked more rational at the time. German generals did not all agree on attacking France, or anywhere else for that matter, but, given the run of luck they'd had, objections would have been more muted.
Excellent - thank you very much. Although the British were worried, I think as you say retrospectively the Germans didn't have any realistic chance.
I always wondered how realistic Operation Sea Lion would have been to actually execute.
The short answer is, not very. www.philmasters.org.uk/SF/Sealion.htm
Not at all. Wargames after the war, that actually allowed Germany the element of surprise to allow the initial landings to succeed failed, with either the total loss of the invasion force, or almost total.
Even if they got troops on the beaches (which itself is doubtful in a realistic scenario), they had to supply them. And THAT was the real problem.
@@alganhar1 Yeah, I've been reading about Sea Lion. It was never a true threat.
If you compare it to the Allied effort at D-Day, not very. German logistics were always dodgy--See Barbarossa, where their logistics didn't survive everything going according to plan. River barges and a tiny navy vs. the largest navy in the world and the stormy English Channel does not sound like a recipe for success.
He he, Kurt Assman 😂
Hey, he could have been named Randy...
This is incredible quality. Thanks for another amazing video!
Germany could never have taken England,they didn't have the navy to stop the British navy,they didn't have enough transport's and any force that might have landed would have been to small with inadequate supplies
You probably don't need a navy to stop another navy. The Japanese demonstrated how to handle large warships when they came within range of land-based air forces.
The Luftwaffe was designed to support the army, not for anti-ship duties. They had no torpedo bombers and their performance at Dunkirk was dismal. They could not have stopped the Royal Navy.
The Luftwaffe actually had aircraft that could carry torpedoes (He 115, Ju 88, He 111). But more importantly, they had dive bombers. And maybe Mussolini could have proven useful, at least once (Savoia-Marchetti S.79).
During the evacuation of Crete, the British Navy lost 3 cruisers and 6 destroyers to the Luftwaffe, while 6 cruisers, 5 destroyers, 3 battleships and 1 aircraft carrier were damaged.
@@thkempeHowever the Germans did not have crews trained for torpedo attack, also their dive bombers didn't carry anything heavy enough to seriously damage British battleships.
Moreover the British were trained and equipped for night fighting, so could have been sailing destroyers and cruisers up.and down the channel every night destroying anything they could find, with little the Germans could do to stop them.
At the Combat Studies Institute (CSI), U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, we greatly doubted that Sea Lion could have succeeded. In all its history, the Prussian/German Army had never conducted an amphibious landing on a hostile shore. As the narrator here mentioned, the German concept of a channel crossing was just a big river crossing. But the English channel had more differences than similarities when compared with even the widest river in Europe. In 1944, with the benefit of their vast experience in such operations, the British and Americans saw the English channel not so much as an obstacle, but an international highway that allowed them tremendous freedom of movement.
The first thing required for a successful amphibious landing is a strong fleet.
The second is a number of suitable assault ships.
Germany had neither.
They were never going to invade Britain. The USSR and its resources, & oil was always the main objective.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Except, of course, in 1940 Germany & the Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact, and the Soviets were supplying Germany with both raw materials and oil.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 that was simply part of the ploy. Germany was developing their "Ural Bomber" in the mid '30s.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Yet only a tiny number of prototypes were ever completed. One Dornier 19 & two Junkers 89s.
'If they had given the airfields another heavy thumping, I don't think we would have made it'.
These were the words of a RAF pilot. Just when Germany needed to press home their near-advantage and target RAF airfields again, they focused on London instead and that was the end of Hitler's plan to subjugate britain.
Not the case. This analysis fails to account for the German losses at the same time, while RAF airfields were quickly operational following an attack.
Simply put, whatever the Germans did, they could not replace their own losses while the RAF could
Those ~4 weeks during which the Luftwaffe was going after the airfields was the most costly period of the Battle... for the Luftwaffe. We should have a quote from a Luftwaffe pilot figuring if he was sent against those airfields for another week he wouldn't make it home.
Instead of having such a quote, you could look up "channel sickness" for the effect this onslaught was having on Luftwaffe pilot morale (spoiler, they were faking illnesses like appendicitis to get out of flying across the Channel.)
Or they could have just kept going against the airfields and maybe by the end of September they might have the 800 remaining operational aircraft of the Luftwaffe going up against the 700 operational fighters of RAF Fighter Command (with the RAF being able to add another 200-300 aircraft if they really had to).
As others have already pointed out, the Luftwaffe's sustained period of targeting the RAF airfields achieved nothing except to lose more planes than they destroyed, and none of the RAF stations were closed down. The Luftwaffe couldn't continue with the attrition rates and failure.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The Luftwaffe achieved significant losses in the first days of their attack on the RAF airfields as they were able to catch aircraft out in the open and sometimes during refueling and re-arming.
But the RAF adapted by arranging air cover during the vulnerable activities, keeping aircraft under camouflage and deploying fake aircraft (decoys) to draw fire. Not all airfields were being used which would allow squadrons to be relocated to new airfields and inactive airfields could have decoys to draw Luftwaffe attacks on essentially non-targets (this succeeded for multiple attacks, particularly as squadrons were rotated so airfields the Luftwaffe thought were being used might not be on the day the attack was launched.
A key point to remember from this is the word "airfield", not airstrips. These were large flat fields of grass from which the planes took off and landed. So a few bomb craters could be easily avoided. They would need to crater most of the field to prevent it from being used and it could be repaired just by bulldozing dirt back into the holes.
@@iansneddon2956 Yes very true. Cheers for the detailed extra information. I actually live not too far from Kenley airfield. I sometimes walk around it and watch the gliders take off.
Im sure I read, might have been from Bungay, that during the attacks on their airfields the Luftwaffe lost more planes than they destroyed on every single day except one.
If you take the trouble to read Dowdings book you may be surprised to find that he never mentions any BoB. just a page and half on what he refers to ''summer air battles over southern England'' only concern Dowding had was a temporary shortage of pilots.
10:30 I'm glad everybody includes the Royal Observer Corps now, and it's not just all Chain Home.
True. It was an integrated system. I think once the bombers had passed over the coast radar was useless. Then it was down to binoculars and listening devices and the substancial organization that co-ordinated the information. In a sense it was an example of combined arms. As a kid I remember seeing a huge parabolic wall in a field in the middle of England.
The purpose was to collect sound waves and focus them on a microphone much like a a radar or radio telescope dish does. It was a form of 'audio radar' made out of concrete. It's worth a google to find photos of listening devices from WW1. They are hillarious, but effective.
Slightly off-topic: in WW1 the British used sound to triagulate where German artillery was to direct counter-battery fire.
This is a fantastic video. It is well-developed, very convincingly argued, and very well-explained... It would have been just perfect if it contained some non-online (bibliographical) references at the end.
There is a list in the video description box below the video.
@@jessealexander2695 👍👍
I'm convinced!! I'm ordering tons of pepper right now!!!
Rumour from one of his Generals says he did not want to invade ,if we had surrendered he would have left as is one big pow camp
My dad had two lots of 5 days with 9 "sorties" a day... medical evac planes into jungle strips. Not so much being shot at as in this battle but still left him shattered.
Was the role of AA gunners very huge and important during the battle of Britain too?
Something is wrong with this video. Some of it is cut off, like the presentation was too large and TH-cam couldn't fit it into the playback window :(
Great doc
In your thumbnail image you forgot to paint the Isle of Man in the middle between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain blue. Its men are British and fought in Scottish, English, Welsh regiments, their ferry boats were requisitioned for naval service, and the Fleet Air Arm and Royal Air Force had Air bases on that island. Also the British government set up Internment camps on the island.
Very well considered video .
Britain 1940: here is a packet of pepper to interfere with the invaders vision. With a little luck you will take the day!
Germany 1945: here is a Panzerfaust. It can literally destroy a tank. You are not expected to survive.
Before watching more than the first 10 seconds...
"Could Germany really invade Great Britain?"
My immediate response was, "No, the Royal Navy would have sacrificed itself to prevent any form of supported landing/invasion. & Before people say that they wouldn't have the ability to do so, Germany would've only been able to transport their troops on river barges which means that destroyers would have been enough for them which would totally devastate the German economy. They wouldn't be able to transport anywhere near enough food or other goods to where they were needed."
If Sealion had happened, It would arguably have been great for the allies, perhaps even shortened the war.
Sealion would've been a disaster greater than stalingrad. A total Encirclement of whatever troops managed to land in britain. Once the sea lanes would be cut, there would be nowhere for the germans to escape to. And operational losses alone would be huge considering the German's complete lack of ambhibious experience and shipping capacity.
if the swells and rough weather in the channel on D-day managed to overturn landing craft and DD tanks, i can't imagine what it would do to a bunch of river barges, half of which didnt even have their own propulsion.
If anything It'd probably be massive morale boost for the Britain and the allies, in finally shattering the image of an invincible and unstoppable German war machine.
2:29 *Don't tell 'em Pike !*
It's funny you had MAH to note the British use of radar as an advantage when he made a video talking about how radar wasn't as important to their defence as it's made out to be.
it wasn't the key to British victory as it's sometimes portrayed but it was an advantage.
@@MarkHarrison733I believe at this point it wasn't yet possible to have radar mounted to fighters though, ground radar only.
RADAR was a part but what gave the RAF a massive advantage was the command and control system put in place by Dowding allowed the RAF to launch and vector rather then having flying patrols thus saving wear tear and maintenance of the fighters
Your Map is Wrong at 0:55 Germany didn't Occupy all of France. Southern France is Ruled by Vichy France.
A puppet state.
@@MarkHarrison733 Lol, no, it was a puppet state with a fascist leader. You're thinking of Free France which operated out of London and unoccupied colonies.
He mentions this in another video. The Vichy government administered the south of France until November 1942.
The RAF had pilots of different nationalities, and yet this was an endeavour in which it can be said the UK defeated Germany alone.
Just over 80% of the pilots were British. The remainder overwhelmingly came from the Commonweath, or from states which had been conquered by Germany.
All flew in Brirish aircraft, under British direction, following an air defence sysrem invented by the British.
You may not like it, but in reality Britain was, to all intents and purposes, alone.
@ When you say “I may not like it” on the contrary I feel the same way as King George Vl, when he stated words to the effect of: Not having to pamper or cajole ie no longer sending valuable fighter aircraft to Europe.
@@optimusminimus-v3d In that case, you must agree that Britain in 1940 was alone.
Make your mind up.
I find some peoples' conviction that Sealion was guaranteed to fail boring.
It would have been a long shot in the late Summer and early Fall of 1940 but a lack of British interservice cooperation may have created opportunities for the Germans and the British Army was in rough shape after their escape from France. The Royal Navy had the ability to disrupt the sea lanes across the channel nearly any time they wanted but at what cost? They barely had enough ships for all of their commitments as it was. A costly victory in the Channel could have cost them the war. Logistics would have probably been the decisive factor against German success.
If the Germans had applied themselves to a Sealion in the Spring of 1941, instead of Barbarossa, that would have been more interesting still. Assuming they used the time to adapt to what they learned over the previous Fall and Winter. The British Army had recovered but as it demonstrated in North Africa, it still had little idea how to deal with a Panzer division and the Royal Air Force still couldn't support the Army in any meaningful way on the battlefield. The German Navy had also recovered from Norway and their Air Force had developed anti-shipping tactics that would have made the intervention of the Royal Navy much more expensive than it would have been in 1940. The biggest advantage in delay would have been time to sort out the logistics of keeping their Army supplied in England. The British were not stumble bums so a lot would still have to go right for the Germans for them to have succeeded in 1941, but unlike 1940 it wouldn't have required nearly everything to go right.
Thanks for the show. Sealion is one of my favorite what ifs from Military History.
By your comment, even you know truly Operation Sealion would not have succeeded.
@@ChrisCrossClash By your comment you sound boring. I know no such thing omniscient one but I'm sure your all-knowing manner is a boon to you and a joy to your loved ones.
In June the Heer and Luftwaffe were still busy fighting the French, and in July there weren't available transports to ship troops across. The RAF and Royal Navy were there to oppose any such invasion assuming when the Germans would assemble enough transports to even try.
So now we are in August and surplus tanks and artillery are being shipped from Britain to North Africa as forces in Britain were equipped.
There were still some shortages with some equipment, but the ~100,000 German troops that might be transported (assuming the Royal Navy doesn't have more than a few hours to respond to the slow moving invasion flotilla) would have been up against around 400,000 troops of the British Army (plus WW I veterans in their 50s who would be issued rifles and light machineguns to go help out - they could equip several hundred thousand of these Home Guard troops).
@@iansneddon2956 Fair points. Untrained Home Guardsman units would have been quickly destroyed in combat to little effect. They would have made those French B Divisions in May seem like war gods. Assuming your numbers are correct, it wouldn't be 400,000 against 100,000. It would have been whatever portion of that 400,000 were in Kent (or wherever the Germans landed) versus however much of that 100,000 of the German Army made it ashore. The rest would have to be moved to the invasion zone, possibly over interdicted roads and railways. Initially at least, numbers would have been on Germany's side.
@@AdamMisnik The core of the Home Guard were WW I veterans who were well aware of advancing in cover with experience from trench raids, assaulting defended positions and defending their own positions. Some of the Home Guard were enlisted to help train British Army troops as the opposing force in training exercises. They almost always won in these exercises. They lacked the physical fitness of the younger British Army troops, but had experience and mental toughness to compensate.
You are correct that troops were spread around the Island. But the German plans were to spread out the invasion force to not get bogged down at a single beachhead.
It takes time to re-organize and offload supplies. Also, the boats and barges were not suitable for transporting horses so the German infantry would be pretty much limited to marching carrying everything with them that they needed. Advancing from the beachheads would be slow.
So you might have a situation where somewhere over 20,000 German troops might be initially up against just a single infantry division (about 16,000 troops) but the British infantry division would have more organic artillery to bring to bear and would only need to hold back the Germans or slow their advance while reinforcements flooded in to the landing areas within a day or two. British forces could stage fighting withdrawals back on their own supply lines while the Germans would exhaust their own supplies and be separated from supplies on the beach the greater distance they advanced, and would be forced to spread out their force thinner over a widening front if they expanded the beachheads.
With reinforcements arriving as well as resupply, the British would be growing stronger while the Germans grew weaker. Time would be on the side of the British forces.
To succeed, the Germans would need reinforcement and resupply, something that would quickly become impossible as the Royal Navy assembled flotillas in the Channel. With the slow movement of the riverboats and barges, and need to plan arrivals on the beaches around tides, it would be optimistic to expect a round trip of the transports (which would nee to be reused for reinforcement and resupply) of around 24 hours. Plans were made and rehearsed for damaging ports the Germans might try to capture to prevent their use by the Germans. It is very easy to carry out damage in minutes that would take weeks for engineers and equipment to undo.
When British and German experts wargamed this out in the 1970s, assuming a German surprise allowing them to deploy the full ~100,000, the German forces were not able to advance far from their beachheads and were soon running low on ammunition for their own limited artillery. The result was a German surrender within 6 days of the start of the invasion with few of the invading force being able to be evacuated back to France.
June 1040 Britain had 792 tanks over 3,000 mechanized carriers, over 200 pieces of artillery, 11 full divisions of regular troops, 1.5 million men with guns and 300 million rounds of ammo.
Hardly defenseless.
Plus three divisions from Canada and Australia.
Jesse, How many takes did you need to deliver that last line with a straight face?
The Bf 110s were used for close escort. If used for free hunting and according to german tactics, they proved successful. Vide Christer Bergström, The Battle of Britain. An Epic Battle revisited.
But even in free hunting they remained vulnerable. The main defensive tactics of flying in circle formation with other 110s also consumed a lot of fuel. What Erprobungsgruppe 210 demonstrated was how to use the ordinance of the Zerstörer in accordance with that the Luftwaffe wanted to achieve here.
Wrong, for example check out the Luftwaffe 3 raid from Norway attacking Northern England, they got decimated including their Bf110 escort.
The 110 was very effectiv when used the right way, but when flying "low and slow" as close escort to the bombers it was not ! In fact the 110 has the best kill to loss ratio of all air crafts during the B of B when regarding fighter vs fighter !
The Luftwaffe was never going to 'win' the Battle of Britain so that an invasion could be done. Because numbers! Theo Osterkamp, the commander of the fighters of Luftflotte 2 during the battle calculated before the battle that to pave the way for an invasion, the LW would have to virtually eliminate Fighter Command while retaining about 750 single engined fighters. The LW had around 1000 single engined fighters available and thought FC had about 500 (they had about 700 at the outset). Thus, the LW would have to destroy 500 enemy fighters while losing only 250 of their own. That means a 2:1 kill ratio favouring the LW and a fairly high rate of kills per day, somewhere in the 100 fighters range. Trouble is that you only get lopsided victories between peer air forces when small units (< 10 or so) are jumped and even then one side rarely gets wiped out. And if you're only jumping small enemy units how do you kill 100 fighters per day (and remember this is assuming FC started with only 500 fighters and gets no more). You're not going to get your hundred kills in packets of 5 or so and even getting those requires special circumstances, which the Germans aren't going to reliably get those lopsided situations often with FC operating within an integrated air defence network based around radar.
So then you need lopsided results in big combats! Historical analysis, including from WW1, however showed that in large combats, dozens of planes per side, loss _rates_ are low compared to the planes engaged.
So, if there are enough planes engaged to generate large numbers of kills, the loss ratio is not going to be a lop-sided 2:1 for the Germans. If the combats are small enough you might generate a 2:1 kill ratio, there just aren't going to be enough kills in absolute numbers.
And, of course, the RAF started with more than 500 fighters, about 700, and received many new planes and pilots during the campaign. The LW did not get many new planes and pilots. German industry was straining just to keep their numbers from falling too fast. On top of that, grass fields were all 1940s fighters needed, so FC could, if pressed too hard, retreat north out of range of Bf 109s (as they then were) and return south to cover Bomber Command and the Navy going after an invasion fleet.
The redeployment of the Luftwaffe was like the ending of a migaine for the Churchill government.