BATTLE OF BRITAIN (1940) - Respecting THE FEW.

[Spitfire]

Slightly off-topic I'm afraid chaps, but have any of you read Geoffery Wellum's autobiography 'First Light'? If so, the BBC are releasing a documentary on it to coincide with the Battle of Britain 70th anniversary in September.

I have spent the last week on the set doing some of the main background work and it looks very very promising!

Something to look forward to hopefully

First Light is aso one of my favourits!
Sounds good with the BBC documentary - can't wait to see your pics - and hopefully Danish Television will show the documentary too.

 

[Smithy]

P.S. Will dig out a few of the photos I took on set to give you a little taste of what is to come

Please do Pip. I'm champing at the bit for this

Søren good to hear you had a grand time. I think next time I'm back up in Europe we're going to have to time it for Duxford.

 

[Pip]

Here we go, apologies for the quality of the photographs as I took them on my phone camera. Really ought to lug a proper camera around with me more often, although there's a limit to what you can fit in RAF SD pockets lol

3 of us alongside the owner of the replica Spit behind us which was used as background behind the Mk2 Spit.

 

[Spitfire]

Please do Pip. I'm champing at the bit for this

Søren good to hear you had a grand time. I think next time I'm back up in Europe we're going to have to time it for Duxford.

How about September 4th and 5th: The Battle of Britain Airshow?

 

[Smithy]

Fantastic photos Pip, but where are 92's "QJ" codes

Am I correct in saying that they used the "AI" codes because they will be using footage from 1969's "Battle of Britain"?

Once again thanks for posting!

Søren, I'd love to make it over for the 70th anniversary celebrations, although I'm not sure whether I will be able. I'll see what I can do though!

 

[Pip]

I have a feeling that was their intention, on a similar par to the method used when filming Dark Blue World. Shame to have done it, but where needs must I guess. There were a few authenticity niggles like you would expect, but on the whole it seemed pretty good with the uniforms and equipment receiving a firm nod from the 'powers that be'

Hopefully see you all at an airshow sometime soon!

 

[Spitfire]

Nice shots Pip - thanks for sharing.

 

[Pip]

A friend took a few good group ones on his camera so I'll post them up here if people are interested. Will also keep in touch with the program's stills photographer for any news of developments etc!

Sorry for hijacking the thread somewhat.

 

[Pip]

With thanks to Richard Carson.

 

[Chas]

That's a bit of a daft thing to say. New information becoming available and new interpretations are the basis of history writing.

And new information is constantly coming to light concerning the BoB. Look at the titles released by Andy Saunders of late and particularly his "Finding the Few" of last year. My good friend Ken Wynn is releasing his 3rd edition of "Men of the Battle of Britain" this year and it is going to be 30% larger than the previous edition, and how much of it is going to be new unpublished information? 30%.

Obviously if the BoB is not of great interest to you then you could get by just reading one of Townshend Bickers, Bishop, Bungay or even Wood and Dempster's offerings. But for those with a particular interest in a subject, new information and new interpretations are also going to be of interest, and eagerly awaited.



With Sealion, the fact of the matter was that an actual ground invasion of Britain was not necessarily needed. If the Luftwaffe had of been able to decimate the RAF then German air superiority over the Channel and southern England could ultimately have forced a British conditional ceasefire, or at the very least severely hampered Britain's ability to wage a war against Germany. Dowding acknowledged this, and Hitler also preferred a conditional ceasefire of Britain, that is why he was still repeating his 19th July appeal for one in leaflets in August.

Either way, 2917 brave men made sure that we never had to face the possibly of either a conditional British ceasefire or even the possibility of a German invasion.

So I'm daft for suggesting another view of a historical event?

Excuse me for attempting to make brisket out of your sacred cow, but that is a specious argument at best; for a number of reasons. Firstly, with Churchill at the helm, there wouldn't have been even a conditional ceasefire. The "we will fight them on the beaches" speech had already been made. Second, Sea Lion, if it had been attempted, most likely would have been a disaster. The Germans had no experience whatsoever with amphibious operations of any size. If you recall from the Allied experience, specialized equipment and vessels were necessary and it wasn't until after Anzio that all the necessary lessons were learned in order for D-Day to happen. In essence, the Wehrmacht was planning to cross the Channel, in October in river barges. So what they were proposing was something roughly on the scale of Operation Torch with river barges. When Sea Lion was called off, there was universal sense of relief that ran through all ranks, especially with the German high command. They knew that it was likely to be a disaster.

Thirdly, the Luftwaffe would not have been able to stop the RN from breaking up an invasion. They had no armor piercing bombs, no aerial torpedoes and no experience with using the latter. I point out as well that the largest ship ever sunk by the Luftwaffe was a Fiji Class cruiser. The Channel and North Sea were already heavily mined against U-Boats, so you can forget operating U-Boats there, the only effective counter to the RN in any case. Besides, the channel is too shallow to effectively operate submarines in. German heavy guns at the Straits of Dover were a concern, but were far too few in number to stop say, three BB's and a screen of CA's moving down from Scapa Flow at 22+ kts.

So if Sea Lion wasn't needed, then why fight the BoB in the first place (if you are German)? Smithy, you're suggesting that they had no intention of landing at any rate. So what you're already suggesting is that there was a degree of redundancy in any case. That makes no sense when you look at Hitler's approach to military planning; he was at the very height of his power and prestige, and if he ordered it, it was going to be carried out. It's more than likely if it was attempted, the veil of invincibility that the Wehrmacht was wearing would have been ripped away far sooner than it actually was. And that would have been a far more costly defeat to NAZI Germany in material terms than what the BoB actually was.

I'm not saying that the BoB didn't need to be fought, it clearly had to be. I'm guessing that my analysis of the BoB is being seen as revisionist or in some way is being interpreted as being critical of the sacrifice of the 2917. It isn't; I'm suggesting that it wasn't the decisive battle that it is being sold as. Nothing was decided until May of '43, when the German U-Boats were defeated and the US was well and truly involved in the ETO. Before that, the British were limited to small-scale stuff; commando operations and nuisance air raids.

I've read several books on the subject of the BoB, but somebody is going to have to pull a pretty good-sized rabbit out of the hat if they suggest that one needs to buy and read more books on it. Unless of course, the intention is to support British publishing concerns.

 

[Spitfire]

May I kindly suggest that Chas moves this (interesting) debate to a new thread, in order not to have this one closed down.
We are still some who likes to read as much as possible on the subject Battle of Britain - and still feel we can learn something new.

 

[BaggyPants]

When did Gary start the slug balancing act? lol

 

[Pip]

Haha he was originally going to have an enormous handlebar job on it but he preferred to have that one, being a Flt Sjt etc

Looked very good though, would have thought it to be real if I hadn't seen him without one a few minutes before he disappeared into the make up van lol

 

[Chas]

The thread is about a new book on the BoB, and for my part it is being conducted under the ROE of the WW2 FL moderator's rules, so I don't see (at least at this point) a reason for closing it.

Anything regarding WW2 is of great interest to me, to answer a previous question. I'm still trying to figure out what specific new information is available that wasn't beforehand.

 

[Spitfire]

Neither do I at this moment. I only fear it might happen eventually.

 

[Spitfire]

Was the Battle of Britain that important?

Yes it was! There is no doubt in my mind.
Was it one of the great turning points of WWII?
Maybe not – but it was, as Mr. Churchill said: “The end of the beginning”.

Would Hitler have invaded UK in 1940?
I don’t know – and nobody knows really. Except Adolf – who for some very good reasons can not tell us.
BUT – he did order the generals and admirals to make up a plan- a plan which also included the destruction of RAF.
Goering boasted his Luftwaffe could do it in two weeks and after that, the English would beg for peace and no costly invasion would be necessary.

I am also aware of the feelings some of Hitlers admirals and generals had to the plan.
Just as the result of an invasion still is blowing in the wind.
The British navy was stronger than the German – but they were also scattered all over the place. The Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the far east.

I think that Hitler had great hopes that Goering and his Luftwaffe – together with the blockade of the shipping – would force the British people to its knees.
And the invasionplans were halfhearted and up his sleeve.
But we also know, that no matter what all the generals and admirals in the German highcommand might think of the plan, if Hitler had ordered it, they would either had to go through with it or spend the rest of their lives in a not so nice camp.

To sum it all up:
I believe that The Battle of Britain showed Hitler and his generals and admirals, that it would NOT be a walkover. That Britain and its people had NOT given up. And certainly was not going to either.
I also believe, that if Goering had succeeded with the destruction of RAF and all the other military targets Luftwaffe was going for, there would have been an invasion of Britain anyway. Hitler and his high command knew – and feared – that USA would be drawn in, and when they were, they needed somewhere to fight from. A steppingstone.
And Britain was just that.

That’s just how I see it. And I wasn’t even there.
And that’s also why, I still think it was “not the beginning of the end – but the end of the beginning!”

Why do I still read about this subject then?
Because every new book written on the subject brings out new details, gives new voices a chance and allows me to experience new personal stories.
The Few are getting fewer almost every month now.
I want to get to know their stories before it’s too late.
That’s why two or three books on the subject is not enough for me.

 

[Chas]

Full points to you, Spitfire, for your honesty. You have every intention of buying every book you can on the subject. No problem, man. Fill your boots.

FYI: RN assets available to address Operation Sea Lion: 8 BB's, 30+ Cruisers, 90 DD's and 25 Submarines. More than enough. That was just the Home Fleet. Doubtless more would have been made available from the other fleet commands.

The Germans did not have enough subs to come even close to threatening the supply lanes until '42 and their surface fleet had already been badly mauled in the Norwegian Campaign.

 

[Smithy]

So I'm daft for suggesting another view of a historical event?

No I said you were daft for saying that there wasn't anything new to write about the BoB and that everything had already been covered.

Excuse me for attempting to make brisket out of your sacred cow, but that is a specious argument at best; for a number of reasons. Firstly, with Churchill at the helm, there wouldn't have been even a conditional ceasefire.

That's a debatable point. If the RAF had been decimated then Britain would not have had control over her southern airspace, meaning this would have given free range to the Luftwaffe to conduct operations against towns, shipping, etc. If this had of occurred it would have been exceedingly difficult for Britain to continue waging the war effectively and maintaining public support if the Luftwaffe had free range to bomb everything within range of its bases in France, Denmark and Norway.

So if Sea Lion wasn't needed, then why fight the BoB in the first place (if you are German)? Smithy, you're suggesting that they had no intention of landing at any rate.

Once again I never said Hitler had no intention of landing. What I said was that it seemed to him that ultimately it would not be necessary. He firmly believed initially that Britain would seek a ceasefire especially after the disaster with the BEF, and then even after primary bombing targets were switched to population centres after 25th August. That's why the logistical invasion plans were cursory. He mistakenly believed that Britain would capitulate.

Before that, the British were limited to small-scale stuff; commando operations and nuisance air raids.

So the Western Desert battles from 40 to 43 were "small-scale stuff"?

I've read several books on the subject of the BoB, but somebody is going to have to pull a pretty good-sized rabbit out of the hat if they suggest that one needs to buy and read more books on it. Unless of course, the intention is to support British publishing concerns.

Once again I'll reiterate what I have said, new information is constantly being discovered about the BoB and the men who fought it. It might not be interesting to you as it might be of a detail level that doesn't interest you.

So you're not interested in another book on the BoB? Well that's good for you as nobody's going to force you to buy it. But obviously others here are interested in it and have an interest in hearing about when new books on the subject are published.

 

[Chas]

OK, what new information?

And yes, the Western Desert campaign was small-scale. Only the Italian forces deployed there were anything other than Corps-sized formations; and they (the Italians) were largely ineffective. Compared to the war in Russia, and the invasion of Europe, the Western Desert campaigns were small scale engagements. Of great strategic importance, with the overall issue of who controlled the Suez Canal, but considering the assets invested, still small scale.

 

[Smithy]

OK, what new information?

Plenty. New information on aircrew and their fate, various authors analyses of the BoB are always changing. For example compare an early account such as "The Narrow Margin" with a later one such as Bungay's "Most Dangerous Enemy". There's also new first hand accounts. Just because you're not interested doesn't mean others aren't.

At the end of the day you've made your point. We all know now that Chas isn't interested in another book on the BoB. So why don't you leave it at that and go and read about something you're interested in and post in a thread about that, rather than preaching to everybody here that there's nothing new to be read and that people shouldn't buy more books about it.

And yes, the Western Desert campaign was small-scale. Only the Italian forces deployed there were anything other than Corps-sized formations; and they (the Italians) were largely ineffective. Compared to the war in Russia, and the invasion of Europe, the Western Desert campaigns were small scale engagements. Of great strategic importance, with the overall issue of who controlled the Suez Canal, but considering the assets invested, still small scale.

Well it's fairly obvious that the Eastern Front was an huge engagement but by the same token I'd also hardly call operations such as Crusader, Tobruk and the battles of El Alamein "small-scale".

To be honest I'm not sure whether you are doing a bit of trolling in an attempt to be contrary and stir things up a bit or whether you truly believe that because you're not interested in something why on earth anybody else possibly could be. There's a great many topics and threads here at the Lounge which I don't have the slightest interest in nor could give a monkey's about but I don't personally feel the need to go posting in them to state the fact.

I think it's safe to say though that everybody has a very good idea now that you're not interested in any new books about the BoB, that you don't think people need to buy any more and that the BoB wasn't of great strategic importance. I disagree with all these points but hey, we have heard you.