Aviation/military history guys..

Pretty cool BBC docu on the Battle of Britain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td8bF6Xgb_Y

Yeah, that's a good one. I watched that a little while ago.

There was a somewhat similar one that I watched before that where they talked about a bunch of German Wehrmacht Generals were stuck into a bugged estate building from about 1943-on (I think it might have been the same building come to think of it). They learned quite a bit about the their tactics and how they felt about Hitler, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNiOf0SYKg

There's 7 parts.

I read a great book on the Battle of Britain years ago that I cannot remember the name of. One of the interesting aspects of the book is that it had interviews with pilots from both sides, many time two that actually and shot at each other.

I do remember that it's pretty comprehensive analysis came the conclusion that there was pretty much no way the Germans every could have won. One of the critical aspects was the lack of range in German bombers and fighters (their air force was designed for tactical support of the army, not strategic missions, so they had no need for range)

P.S. A very similar book called The First Team is a very good book on US naval aviation in the Pacific for the first part of the war. I just can't remember what the BoB one was called.

OK, I watched it. Interesting stuff about listening in on the captured pilots. I have some comments on though, in case you are interested (this might get long):

Spitfire vs 109: I don't really agree with the conclusion that the 109 was clearly better. Both planes were very similar in performance. The 109 could loose a Spitfire by pushing over into a dive (the Spit pilots description of the effect appears to be backwards, but that is forgivable), but the Spitfire had a higher dive speed, lower stall speed, and had better high speed roll characteristics (that was an issue with 109s). The 109 did of course have way more firepower (at it is a very small plane).

The comment about the 109 having way more ammo was very deceptive and essentially inaccurate. While it is true that the 109 had 40 seconds worth of ammo, that was only for its 2 machine guns (7.62mm, essential the same as the .303's in the Spit). The 3 cannons however had less then 15 seconds as I remember. So while the 109 had more firing time, the vast majority of that was at 1/4 the firepower of the Spitfire.

The basic conclusion as to why the battle ended of course is accurate, the Germans were loosing the war of attrition. They also could not replace there losses like the British.

What they missed:

As I pointed out previously, the lake of range of the German planes (being primarily a tactical air power) was a big issue. The range was good enough to reach the eastern parts of England with fighter cover, but could not penetrate very far in. Even with bombers alone (not a good idea) they could not reach the industrial parts of west England. Guess where all those fighters were being built? Yup, there was no way for the Germans to slow down the English fighter construction.

Pilots: The did make the point that pilot loss was an issue but failed to note that the English losses were far less, and not only for the lower shoot down rates. When a plane is shot up, it might be a total loss, but it also may just be damaged, or allow the pilot to bail out. Well, when a British plane is severely damaged or the pilot bales out, he just hitches a ride back to the base, for the Germans, it's prisoner time. So, even if they had similar loss rates, the Germans would still be losing pilots faster.

Airfields: The did point out that the airfield of that time were very difficult to actually destroy (although they were really going for destroying the planes), they missed the fact that photo photo reconnaissance played a very big role here. The problem was that the German reconnaissance planes were very high flying planes (to avoid interception) and could not take very accurate photos of the fields. Because of this, they could not easily distinguish which fields were fighter fields and which were bomber, coastal recon etc. Thus, they were partially blind as to where to bomb, and it's effects.

Radar: Knocking out the fixed radar installations of the British would have obviously had a big effect on the British air deference network, but they did not note this. They also did not say why the Germans were unable to do that. The problem was that the towers are very difficult to hit with conventional bombing. The only reasonable way to do it is with dive bombing. The Germans did do this (with some effect I believe), but, as noted in the video, this involved using the Stuka, which were decimated in the raids they did do.

Anyway, I really wish I could remember the name of that book (I certainly remember the rest of it well enough). The makers of this video would have done well to read it as it made its conclusions probably 20 years ago.

I'd heard your point about the pilots before, and I agree. Being shot down over your own territory makes it much more likely that you'll return to service. One thing I didn't notice in the program was research into the old story about RAF pilots being pressed into service without a lot of flight time. I still wonder whether that's reality or simply part of the legend.

And I had always thought that the Spit was a better handling aircraft, but the 109 could evade better simply because the engine was fuel injected. (as was mentioned in the program)

On armament, I think a lot of people don't know that cannon were frequently secondary weapons with far less ammunition (and a slower rate of fire) than machine guns. IMO this was true for both sides during the entire duration of the war.

On the whole, I think you're right. Germany did not have a strategic air force, they had a tactical support one. Wrong tool for the job.

the 109 was fuel injected... the Spits carbureted... THAT is why the 109 had the advantage pushing over to the dive.....

Concerning strategic... the Germans were developing the ME264... no, not the 262 (swept wing fighter), the 264 was the "New York " bomber

aircooled wrote: I read a great book on the Battle of Britain years ago that I cannot remember the name of. One of the interesting aspects of the book is that it had interviews with pilots from both sides, many time two that actually and shot at each other. I do remember that it's pretty comprehensive analysis came the conclusion that there was pretty much no way the Germans every could have won. One of the critical aspects was the lack of range in German bombers and fighters (their air force was designed for tactical support of the army, not strategic missions, so they had no need for range) P.S. A very similar book called The First Team is a very good book on US naval aviation in the Pacific for the first part of the war. I just can't remember what the BoB one was called.

I think I read both of the same books, I know that I have read "The First Team" and as you mention the book on the Battle of Britain did conclude that Germany wasn't going to win that battle.

Ah Hah!! Thanks for that. I found it:

Battle of Britain by Albert Price

Once I saw the author name, that did it. If you are interested in the subject, I highly suggest it.

My general conclusion (I am not sure the book was as strong about the idea) is that there really was no way German could have won. Eliminating the radars would have certainly hurt the air defense network, and not using close support, not bombing London, would have helped but likely would have only even up the loss rate. Even still, the Germans would not have been able to keep up.

The only possible way would have been to refocus their air force and develop different aircraft. But that would have taken quite a while, by which time a couple million Ruskies would likely be storming across the boarder.

Anyway, interesting pondering. I sometimes wonder that many of these situation (well... maybe not Midway) are entirely pre-drawn conclusions when fully analysed in retrospective.

I am still convinced that Europe would look much different if Germany hadn't gone after the USSR and hastily declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. Armor was definitely lopsided to the me109, and I'll withhold comment on armament between the spit and me until I find my book detailing which models fought vs. each other.....as that'll mean differences in power and armament.

aircooled wrote: The only possible way would have been to refocus their air force and develop different aircraft. But that would have taken quite a while, by which time a couple million Ruskies would likely be storming across the boarder.

IIRC, the longest range bomber the Germans had at the time was the FW200. And those were designed as a maritime patrol aircraft. Would have taken quite some time to redesign it for a proper strategic bombing campaign (by that, I mean a serious bomb bay like the B-17 or Lanc). And of course, would have still been ineffective without a German equivalent to the Norden.

As to Hitler's decision to try to settle the score with Stalin before securing the west, I think entire books have been written about that as well. Full confession: I'm among the folks that think even if the UK had been invaded, Germany would never have been able to secure it as well as they did the nations on the continent, especially up north. People forget that Hadrian's Wall was built by the Romans to keep the Scots out.

And thanks for finding the link to the book! Looks interesting.

I claim further that in 'Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire', Hurricanes did eventually happen..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbuTkhiw5Go

Mosquito's were a problem, too; in Europe and the Far East.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xvp2AeM68iM

I'm going to have to agree with the history channel's take on this, in that the defense network won the battle of britain. Nothing more, nothing less.

Germany was going to lose the entire war from day one, but at the time no one but the German Generals knew it.

Hitler's top generals told him to delay going to war until they were stronger. Then they told him to stop at Poland and Austria until strength could be improved and new technology brought online as the initial goals were achieved (getting back lands lost in WWI).

Hitler had multiple projects with similar goals going at the same time, across the board. So while the technological improvements generated were varied and impressive, because the project leads didn't speak to each other there was a lot of effort duplicated and wasted resources. Projects were started and stopped at Hitler's whim. Not that Russia didn't have its own share of project issues (Stalin hated flying and killed many of his scientists and engineers, seemingly at random due to paranoia, so their air power was a joke along with the rest of their armed forces)

Hitler also never wanted to go to war with the UK and in fact Ireland was partially on the side of Germany (showing how much they hated GB at the time, but they were officially 'neutral') So the Allied forces couldn't use the bases in Ireland, at least initially. This desire to befriend or at least negotiate with the UK/GB, I think, colored many of the decisions Hitler made with regards to fighting the UK/GB. By the time war with the UK was a foregone conclusion it was too late to alter tactics significantly/improve technology to really have air superiority.

Many believe this desire to not be at war with the Uk/GB was why Hitler let Dunkirk happen, but it could also be to regain control over his Generals, like one would with attack dogs. Of course once Japan attacked the US, Germany had to declare war as per their agreement with the Japanese and by then the end was written it was just a matter of filling in the details.

Ultimately Germany could have really hurt the UK, maybe even invade at least the eastern portions, albeit briefly. However this could only have happened if Germany had focused on increasing their strength and filling gaps in their tactics (long range bombers and fighters, better radar, better focus on specific technology) before taking on the UK/the rest of the world. Luckily, Hitler screwed the pooch and left the door open slightly.

turboswede wrote: ...Stalin hated flying and killed many of his scientists and engineers, seemingly at random due to paranoia, so their air power was a joke along with the rest of their armed forces...

I wouldn't say their air power was a joke, they had some very effective (practical) aircraft, and like Germany were very focused on tactical support. They developed the first low winged retractable gear fighter (the Rata) before the war and were leaders in very large aircraft (which of course they neglected during the war) and probably had the best close air support plane (IL2) of the war.

Along these lines. A friend of mine was mentioning how it was his belief that one of the major failings of German was too much focus on higher technology military development. An example of this is the V2 (A4). Although very impressive technology wise, practically it was of little use, especially when you consider the huge effort involved in it's development and deployment (the process to launch one is almost silly in its complexity for the result it has).

If you contrast this with Russia, which was pretty much the exact opposite in philosophy. I was watching a program on secret Russian aircraft of WWII (or something like that), where they were talking about a rocket plane they were developing (the Russians were very advance in their rocket development). They decided not to continue the research because of the expense. Effectively saying "let's not build one of those, let's build 500 rifles, give them to soldiers and tell them to charge"

In the end of course, the advanced technology and precision manufacturing of German weapons was many times overwhelmed by large number of far cheaper, less effective weapons (e.g. Tiger vs. T-34 / Sherman). Of course, there is the consideration that even if German went "fast and cheap" they would not have the man power to operate more weapons.

Germany just didn't have the resources the US/Russians had in terms of manufacturing. Even if they'd had the man power (and early in the war they likely would have) they wouldn't have had the raw resources to continue, much like Japan.

<-- favorite ground support, air cover plane was the P-47 (with it's 8-.50cal M2's) and the F4U with it's beautiful gull-wing design. Then again, I've always had a soft spot for radials.

turboswede wrote: Hitler had multiple projects with similar goals going at the same time, across the board. So while the technological improvements generated were varied and impressive, because the project leads didn't speak to each other there was a lot of effort duplicated and wasted resources. Projects were started and stopped at Hitler's whim.

I thought about that when oldschooltoy linked up the ME 264 book. Perfect example. And it wasn't just aviation. Armor & other field units (look at the Kettentrad..I mean, really? A half-track motorcycle?), "secret" weapons, I know someone around here already mentioned the missiles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBvQspSQnk4

Bobzilla wrote: ... favorite ground support, air cover plane was the P-47 (with it's 8-.50cal M2's) and the F4U with it's beautiful gull-wing design. Then again, I've always had a soft spot for radials.

This is a picture of my recently passed step father (upper left) with his squadron (probably around 1950):

He flew a lot of planes in his time and I can tell you his favorite was always the Corsair.