• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Spitfire and the Battle of Britain

D

DavidAkin

Guest
The latest edition of BBC History Magazine takes some contrary looks  at the Spitfire and at The Battle of Britain in its "Battle of Britain Special" edition.

There's some interesting reading by authors who wish to blow up some of the conventional thinking about that battle.

I was intrigued to hear the inside story of how the British political and military powers nearly missed out on the Spitfire -- and thought for the longest time that the Bristol Beaufighter would be the mainstay of Fighter Command. Researcher Leo McKinstry reviews some archives of the time and charts how the groupthink of certain military and political leaders had to be overcome before the Spitfire would be taken up as the key weapon in the Battle of Britain.

There is also an article that suggests it was the Royal Navy and not the RAF that won the Battle of Britain (!).

It's a bit tough to find this magazine in Canada but for a decent snapshot of both these pieces, check out the podcast put out by the magazine:
http://www.bbchistorymagazine.com/podcast/historypodcastnovember.mp3



 
Researcher Leo McKinstry reviews some archives of the time and charts how the groupthink of certain military and political leaders had to be overcome before the Spitfire would be taken up as the key weapon in the Battle of Britain.

There is also an article that suggests it was the Royal Navy and not the RAF that won the Battle of Britain (!).

David,

I would argue that the key weapon in the Battle of Britain was not the Spitfire or for that matter any other aircraft. Rather it was the chain of radar station and the command and control network that was developed to manage the information gathered from these sites. Without the ability to gain these early warnings the limited resources of Fighter Command would have been overwhelmed.

A for key aircraft, well I suspect that proponents of the Hurricane will argue that as the most numerous type fielded (by the British)  that it deserves the title of Key Weapon.
Finally I would agree that the Royal Navy stopped the German invasion of Britain. Without command of the sea there was never any hope of a successful outcome. As Lord St. Vincent, First Lord of the Admiralty said when asked if the French might invade during the Napoleonic wars. “I do not say the French won’t come. I only say they won’t come by sea!”


 
David,

I agree with ExSarge's point about the Royal Navy.

Stephen Bungay, who wrote a comprehensive history of the battle - The Most Dangerous Enemy (Aurum Press, 2000), notes that the most remarkable thing about the Battle of Britian is that it took place at all. There was a strong faction in the British cabinet and government lead by the Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax that was in favour of making peace with Germany in 1940. Moreover Churchill was still considered a bit of a maverick by much of the establishment who regarded his becoming Prime Minister instead of Halifax as a disaster. He writes in a footnote on page 9 that "In his Five Days in London (Yale University Press, 1999) John Luckacs argues that the crucial period was in fact the five days from 24-28 May during which Churchill fought Halifax for domination of the Cabinet and just managed to pull it off."

How different the history of the 20th Century would have been if Halifax and his cohorts had prevailed!

 
Of course the Hurricane and the Spit hold nothing against the dreaded Buoltan-Paul Defiant  ;D

Right up their with the Fairy battle.
 
At a time when Britain was losing battles in Europe, the Middle East & the Far East, they needed heroes & that, my friends, is what the RAF gave us.  Were they really heroes? It's up for debate but, you know the answer if you ask a flyer.

The Germans weren't into using drop tanks on their aircraft - so range was always a problem for them and the Spitfires & Hurricanes had home field advantage.

The RAF had their Beaufighter.... and the Germans had their ME110.  Both aircraft had their problems, though the 110 came into it's own as a night fighter.

My tip of the hat goes to the Network of Radars & coastal defense.
 
I was intrigued to hear the inside story of how the British political and military powers nearly missed out on the Spitfire


I tip my hat to the old lady who finanaced the development of the Merlin Engine.
The government didn't want to pay for it and it could have died on the drawing board.
I'll try to to look up her name.......
Without the Merlin - no Spits, Hurricanes, Mustangs, Lancs etc. etc.

 
(Merlin engines found their way under the hood in Centurion tanks)
 
geo said:
The RAF had their Beaufighter.... and the Germans had their ME110.  Both aircraft had their problems, though the 110 came into it's own as a night fighter.

My tip of the hat goes to the Network of Radars & coastal defense.

Agreeing with the radar station bunch as to one of the key factors for the successful conclusion of the Battle of Britian I will however disagree with geo vis via the ME 110 and the Beaufighter.

"Beaufighters were used in many theaters of war and for varied duties, performing particularly well in the Western Desert thanks to their long range. Coastal Command of the RAF received several torpedo-carrying versions which were responsible for sinking a great deal of enemy shipping. The last and most numerous was the superb Mk X, which could carry a large torpedo or bombs and rocket projectiles, and claimed among its victories several German submarines." Further it is noted for, "carrying out the last operational sortie of the European war, a strike against German shipping in the Skagerrak"

"The Beaufighter IF was soon bearing the brunt of the action against German night bombers,....."During its operational career it had played a prime role in defeating the Luftwaffe's night "blitz" of 1940-1941", Serving with distinction in the Pacific until the capitulation of Japan. "To the Japanese, the Beaufighter became known as "The Whispering Death" (not be confused with "Whistling Death F4U Corsair) which gives some idea of the speed at which one could suddenly appear, strike and turn for home."

"The Beaufighter may have been the product of improvisation, but it was a remarkably successful one." From the American point of view, "The British Bristol Beaufighter filled the need for an effective night fighter in the U.S. Army Air Forces until an American aircraft could be produced." Continuing, "The 414th, 415th, 416th and 417th Night Fighter Squadrons received more than 100 "reverse Lend-Lease" Beaufighters.(National Museum USAF)

For the RCAF the Beaufighter is described as "With a speed of 330 mph, air intercept radar and a one-two punch of cannons and machine guns (or torpedoes or rocket projectiles when engaged in anti-surface duties), the Bristol Beaufighter was one of the Second World War's most formidable night fighters, as well as being the backbone of Coastal Command's anti-shipping war."(Bristol BEAUFIGHTER)  In fact ["Moose" Fumerton] with "two crash landings and a bullet wound to emerge from World War II as Canada's top-scoring night-fighter ace, credited with destroying 14 enemy aircraft and damaging a 15th." "Fumerton gave the RCAF its first night victory on Sept. 1, 1941, as he and Sgt. Pat Bing, who became his long-time navigator, were on a practice flight near the coast of northeast England in their twin-engined Bristol Beaufighter. They were diverted to intercept a German Junkers 88 bomber flying in from the North Sea."

Source:
Bristol Beaufighter
http://www.aviation-history.com/bristol/beaufite.html

National Museum of the USAF
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=492

Bristol BEAUFIGHTER
http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/fighters/beaufighter/index.php?name=beaufighter

Robert Fumerton, 93: Distinguished fighting ace
http://www.thestar.com/Obituary/AtoG/article/108225

Suggested Readings:

Brown, Atholl Sutherland Silently into the Midst of Things177 Squadron Royal Air Force in Burma, 1943-1945: History and Personal Narratives Victoria, BC.



 
3rd,
My "complaint" if you will about the Beaufighter was with it's initial use as a fighter.... as an air superiority fighter during dailight operations, the plane was just too darned big.

The Beaufighter's main claim to fame would be that it was coming off the production lines at almost exactly the same time as the first British airborne radar sets. With the four 20 mm cannons mounted in the lower fuselage, the nose could accommodate the radar antennas, and the general roominess of the fuselage enabled the AI equipment to be fitted easily. Even loaded down to an even heavier 20,000 lb (9 t), the plane was still fast enough to catch the even slower German bombers. By early 1941, it was an effective counter to Luftwaffe night raids.

In it's maritime role, agreed - Great big stable platform from which to shoot things from
As a ground attack role, agreed - great big stable platform from which to shoot from
 
Even IF the German airforce had been able to defeat the RAF in the summer of 1940, the main problem facing them was the utter LACK of proper landing craft  and  suitable vessels to land armoured units on the beaches of southern England.

Any one who takes the time to LOOK at the German "invasion craft " sitting in French costal ports at that time , will see that the vast majority of them were shallow draft  CANAL boats and barges. I base this on RAF low level photo recce pictures. These vessels  were NOT the right stuff to complete a sucessful invasion over the Channel, which has some of the worst sea and weather conditions to be found anywhere in the world.

In addition, the German army had NEVER conducted a large scale assault across any water obstacle  bigger than a river, before. The German navy had NO  vessels that could deliver large scale amounts of artillery, or armour in a  beach landing plan. The German army had no ready force of  trained amphibious landing troops, or any way to deliver them to a landing area.

Sealion was a "threat of  potential invasiion " NOT an actual chance of an invasion by the Germans.  That is why it never happened.

And I agree with those that point to the RN as the most likely force to defeat any German invasion armada, but I would also point at the RAFs Bomber Command, who would have been "on call " to attack the slow moving barges in the Channel. Imagine a 500 bomber sortie, in daylight, concentrating on the troop ships and their supply tenders ?  How many of those ships would even be able to get to their landing beaches. never mind get  the troops ashore ?  FAILURE.

Jim B. Toronto.
 
jimb...
something like the Elizabethan fleet of fireships, bringing death and destruction to the enemy.
 
Jim B

Excellent points. The Germans had no idea of the challenges of amphibious operations and no reference data to fall back on. In terms of capability, they had not advanced far beyond the invasion fleet assembled by William the Conqueror in 1066. (If anyone is interested take a look at the shipping in the Bayeux Tapestry.) Furthermore they also were deficient in airborne forces to sieze or screen their bridgehead.

Many, many years ago C.S. Forester, the author of the Hornblower series, wrote a story about the failure of the German invasion and the subsequent defeat of the Germans after a long, hard struggle. He concluded that historians were agreed that if instead of mounting a hastily-assembled invasion, the Luftwaffe had been turned loose on Britain, the Germans would have overwhelmed the RAF and bombed the UK into submission.
 
jimb said:
Even IF the German airforce had been able to defeat the RAF in the summer of 1940, the main problem facing them was the utter LACK of proper landing craft  and  suitable vessels to land armoured units on the beaches of southern England.
Any one who takes the time to LOOK at the German "invasion craft " sitting in French costal ports at that time , will see that the vast majority of them were shallow draft  CANAL boats and barges. I base this on RAF low level photo recce pictures. These vessels  were NOT the right stuff to complete a sucessful invasion over the Channel, which has some of the worst sea and weather conditions to be found anywhere in the world.
In addition, the German army had NEVER conducted a large scale assault across any water obstacle   bigger than a river, before. The German navy had NO  vessels that could deliver large scale amounts of artillery, or armour in a  beach landing plan. The German army had no ready force of  trained amphibious landing troops, or any way to deliver them to a landing area.
Sealion was a "threat of  potential invasiion " NOT an actual chance of an invasion by the Germans.  That is why it never happened.
And I agree with those that point to the RN as the most likely force to defeat any German invasion armada, but I would also point at the RAFs Bomber Command, who would have been "on call " to attack the slow moving barges in the Channel. Imagine a 500 bomber sortie, in daylight, concentrating on the troop ships and their supply tenders ?  How many of those ships would even be able to get to their landing beaches. never mind get  the troops ashore ?  FAILURE.
Jim B.
I disagree with your assessment.  In spite of lack of experience (etc) in the conduct of amphibious operations, the Wehrmacht was able to successfully invade, through a combination of Airborne and amphibious forces, the island of Crete.  Yes, they took great losses (as well as the wrong lessons: yes the Fallschirmjaeger took heavy losses, but without their contribution, the invasion could not have succeeded).  As for the invasion of England, the main reason why it never took place was due to a total lack of centralised planning: the Luftwaffe had one plan, the Kriegsmarine another, and the Heer yet a third!
IF (and this is one huge "if") the Germans had started planning properly say in early June 1940, they could have kicked off a successful invasion by September.  Their "flimsy barges" would have made it through in enough numbers to secure the beachheads and link up with the Fallschirmjaeger.  As for the Royal Navy, do you really think that they would have ventured into the claustrophic Channel with the Luftwaffe tearing them apart?  Sure, they did just that in 1944, but this was 1940, no US Air Force to assist, and the RAF was in no position to offer effective cover.

Once they landed, how would England fight?  Most of its equipment was in Belgium, and the single fully equipped division, the 1st Canadian, was a relative newcomer comprised of but three regular battalions, and the rest were barely trained civilians who had joined a few months earlier. 

Of course, I'm saying this, now, some 60+ years after the fact, so.....


 
Old Sweat :

As we know now, the ability of the British aircraft industry, to "out build the german ability to shoot the RAF down " would have  been a factor in any question of future  tactics. They were able to replace equipment loses with rebuilds or new airframes, from the factories.

Do you suggest that the germans would have been able to  subdue the RAF eventually , thru fighter versus fighter engagements ?  I disagree.

JIm B.
 
jimb said:
Do you suggest that the germans would have been able to  subdue the RAF eventually , thru fighter versus fighter engagements ?  I disagree.
I agree with you on this one.  The Germans were causing great damage to the RAF's capability to keep fighters in the air, but not through fighter vs fighter engagements, but by striking the fighter-building industry.  Of course, over time, the industries out of reach of the Luftwaffe would have been able to make up for it, but the Germans only needed a limited "window" in order to have sufficient air superiority to mount an invasion, using log rafts, river barges, or whatever.  With the Luftwaffe overhead, keeping the RN out of the Channel, they could have pulled it off.  Having said that, there were too many competing personalities within the Wehrmacht to do so.
 
First, I don't believe the Germans could have landed and maintained an invasion force in the UK in the summer of 1940. I could go on for pages, but basically they did not have either the knowledge or the equipment to pull it off. They also could not attain air superiority, let alone domination, to cover a landing and the subsequent build up and maintenance. The Royal Navy was a fleet in being and given that the RAF would have provided air cover, could have interdicted the sea lanes.

Crete was an entirely different matter, and it was predicated on German command of the skies. Even so, the airborne invasion nearly failed.

Do you suggest that the germans would have been able to  subdue the RAF eventually , thru fighter versus fighter engagements ?  I disagree.

I do not accept that they could have subdued the RAF through fighter versus fighter engagements. My point was that Forester was gently ribbing the pundits that were claiming the Germans should have invaded England, rather than fight the Battle of Britain in the air.
 
Mortarman :

How well was Crete defended and by whom ?  I don't think that the two can be compared, really.

I do agree with your point about a complete lack of overall planning and control on the german side, re an invasion of Great Britain. Think about how long the Allies took to get their plan  ( Overlord ) shaped up, ( 2 years )  and of course there was the  need for the building of thousands of landing craft and the huge number of special vehicles (AVRES and duplex drive  Shermans ) to give  the 1944  landings  a more than 50/50 chance of sucess.

The Royal Navy.................Of course they would have "ventured into the Channel " To defeat an invasion force ? They would have pulled out Lord Nelson's HMS Victory from dry dock, if they thought it  would have been the ship that would have "turned the tide ".  Every last man and ship would have been used.

Jim B.

 
Note that during the Battle of Britain, the RAF had home field advantage...

able to gass up and load up from friendly local air stations

Damaged aircraft could be recovered & fixed VS complete loss by the Germans

Pilots who had their planes shot out from under them could, if not injured, get back into the fight within days VS complete loss by the Germans.

 
jimb said:
Mortarman :

How well was Crete defended and by whom ?  I don't think that the two can be compared, really.

I do agree with your point about a complete lack of overall planning and control on the german side, re an invasion of Great Britain. Think about how long the Allies took to get their plan  ( Overlord ) shaped up, ( 2 years )  and of course there was the   need for the building of thousands of landing craft and the huge number of special vehicles (AVRES and duplex drive  Shermans ) to give  the 1944  landings  a more than 50/50 chance of sucess.

The Royal Navy.................Of course they would have "ventured into the Channel " To defeat an invasion force ? They would have pulled out Lord Nelson's HMS Victory from dry dock, if they thought it  would have been the ship that would have "turned the tide ".  Every last man and ship would have been used.

Jim B.
Of course the Royal Navy would have ventured into the channel, and that Royal Navy would have become the Royal Glass-bottom-boat-tour Navy, because that's where it would have ended up: at the bottom of the channel.  During the war, we saw the ascendence of the airplane over the Battleship: the Bismarck was sunk due to "obselete" aircraft delivering wave after wave of punishment.  Given that both sides (Luftwaffe and RAF) would have been about equal range from the fight, and given that the Luftwaffe outnumbered the RAF, the Luftwaffe would have won that battle. 

The comparison to plan the invasion of a well-defended coast (France 1944) vs a virtually undefended coase (England, 1940) are not the same.  Had the Germans believed that they would have knocked out France by June 1940, they would have started planning for the invasion of England much sooner.  As it was, by 22 June 1940, Hitler's eyes were already turning to the East.  Had he put his own personal pressure on the planning of the invasion of England by say July 1940, it is my estimation that the Germans could have mounted an invasion by September of that year.  Of course, there is no real way this could have happened, given the situation at the time: all eyes were on Russia.

"What if" the Germans invaded?  Before answering that, let's look at Crete.  The defences numbered some 9000 Greeks and maybe 25000 Commonwealth troops.  The Germans were outnumbered, but key was the seizure of an airfield to fly in reinforcements.  And the Allies had forewarning of the attack (through ULTRA intercepts).

So, suppose its 3 September, 1940.  The UK has been at war for exactly one year.  The RAF is down, but certainly not out.  Axis forces dominate the channel from Cherbourg to Dunkirk.  Anti shipping mines have been laid across both ends of the channel, and the stage is set, even though not all of Hitler's conditions for invasion have been met.

Initially the church bells sound out that the invasion is coming.  German Fallschirmjaeger land across the south of England, near the channel.  They are in a blocking role, to provide early warning and buy time for the invasion force to consolidate and build up.

UK based RADAR picks up a massive invasion fleet crossing the channel.  The RN responds and begins to head south from Scapa Flow.  They are picked up by German scout planes and harrassed the entire way down, taking hits along the way.  RN minesweepers are harrassed by the Luftwaffe as well, as they attempt to break open a lane for the RN. 

The first wave lands against modest opposition and they begin to link up beachheads.  The RN is getting closer, and the Luftwaffe, and what's left of the Kriegsmarine, attempt to block their efforts.  I BELIEVE that the Luftwaffe would get through as the RN got closer.  Yes, the RN would press the issue, but I believe, for the reasons stated above (equal range to the battlefield, etc) that the numerically stronger Luftwaffe would win the day, providing effective top cover for the invasion fleet.

As for the ground battle, given that the Wehrmacht would be able to reinforce relatively effectively (especially once the RN has been chased from the Channel), they would be able to build up to a point where they would have the superiority in numbers to carry the day.

But, as I stated, this was impossible for the Wehrmacht to do given the competing personalities and Hitler's real aim of destroying the USSR.




 
MR

This is where we differ. I don't believe the Germans could have put together a successful invasion in the time available in 1940, even if the RAF had been defeated. For all intents and purposes the army especially would have been a collection of type 4 officers - hardworking and ill-informed - as regards amphibious operations. You rather blithely assume that they could have towed barges and light shipping across the channel and continued to do so. However, to maintain the tonnage of passengers and cargo to conquer the British Isles without a port was surely beyond the capacity of the available bottoms.

This is a most interesting discussion, I admit, and much both more fun and less useful than many.

OS

 
Back
Top