March 1941 - Battle of Britain resumes

[JohnT]

I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Eric Brown on Desert Island Discs. I caught his comment that Herman Goring had rated the outcome of the Battle of Britain as"a draw" because his fighters had been pulled away to the East.

I suspect what I am about to cogitate on has been talked over before so apologies for any repetition.

I got to thinking that the Battle of Britain ended because of the turn of the year and both sides were pretty much exhausted. By the end of October it was clear that the objective of defeating the RAF had not been achieved and, for the time being until the following year, was irrelevant given that no invasion could take place over the Winter and Spring due to the weather and sea conditions in the Channel.

If however Hitler had not been so fixated over attacking the Soviet Union (and to be fair the clock was running there as Stalin re-armed and re-organised after his army purges) what would have been the likely outcome of a renewal of aerial hostilities over England once the weather had improved to allow the same?

My suspicions are that both sides would have been in a slightly better position than in 1940 but that the Luftwaffe would have had less success the following year.

On the RAF side they would have been rested with more new pilots and aircraft while combat tactics learned the hard way would have assimilated into practice - hopefully. The mix of combat experienced pilots and freshers would be better than it was in July/August 1940 and a number of older pilots would have been sadly replaced though combat losses. I read somewhere that a large number of late twenty something senior pilots were disproportionately shot down as opposed to younger guys with faster reflexes who survived. There would have been a better Spitfire/Hurricane mix even though Hurricanes would still predominate. What I am getting at is that the RAF generally would not have been so far behind the Luftwaffe on the learning curve as they were in 1940.

On the Luftwaffe side they would perhaps have fitted their 109's with drop tanks and I must check and see when the "F" arrived in service in numbers*. Their down side is that they still don't have a bomber capable of surviving without fighter escort that can carry the required weight of bomb-load and that while wise heads might suggest a return to attacking airfields etc the political nature of the German leadership would have their face set against stopping attacks on cities like London seeing such a reversion of tactics as an admission of error. Plus the German economy was still not on a 100% war footing at that time.

I am guessing that a re-run would in effect turn out as more of the same probably with greater Luftwaffe losses than before

We will never know though!

* just checked and the F and also the Spit V both made an appearance in the Spring of 41 so interesting that development was in parallel. Not sure how fast they got them into quantity service though.

[Graham Boak]

I understand the first 109Fs saw combat in/around October 1940. These would be the ones that the tail came off. They were available in some numbers by Spring 1941.

I agree with your analysis in most matters, although perhaps the use of the drop tanks would have benefitted the Jagdwaffe more than the greater proportion of Spitfires would have benefitted the RAF. A repeat BoB would of course have seen Fighter Command being run under Big Wing rules, which have worked well given deeper penetration by the Luftwaffe.

However, there would not have been such a battle without a serious attempt to prepare for invasion. In which case there would have been a return to short penetration missions, which would have been a serious problem for the defences, particularly given more of the faster Ju88 which was a problem to our fighters anyway. The problem with the scenario is not only Hitler's aims in the East, but Gemany's inability to mount a serious invasion threat, even against the low defences in 1940. The British Army was been significantly rearmed by Spring 1941, but the Royal Navy was still the real stopper.

[bobgpw]

I think the real answer lies in the events leading up to 6 June 1944.

In 1940 or 1941, the logistical machine required to support a German seaborne invasion of the UK just didn't exist. The time allocated to preparing for the invasion of the UK in 1940 was grossly miscalculated and the resources simply unavailable. It almost feels like the Germans were considering the crossing of the English Channel to be only slightly more challenging than crossing the Meuse!

Firstly, the RAF comprehensively defeated the Luftwaffe in the air. The UK as a whole defeated the Luftwaffe by producing more aircraft and pilots during the battle period. The RAF ended the battle with more aircraft and trained aircrew than when it started. The Luftwaffe did not achieve the kill ratio required to establish and maintain air superiority, mainly due to the RAF achieving on average a kill ratio of around 1.5:1. Could the Luftwaffe really have reversed this ratio by mid 1941? I doubt it.

I agree with Graham that the Royal Navy Home Fleet was the real big hitter of 1940 that was kept at a safe distance from direct attack but would have played a pivotal role in disrupting German surface vessels. Even if suffering heavy losses due to persistent air attack, the Royal Navy would have been able to operate with relative immunity from any Kriegsmarine units. The threat posed by the Royal Navy was very real and I have no doubt that it played a crucial role in 1940 and would have done so again in 1941. Although quite an aged fleet, it was an absolute monster compared to the Kriegsmarine.

In 1941, I think that the Germans would still have lacked the logistical support to invade the UK. Their ability to gain air superiority over the UK and maintain it would not have been achievable. Look at the air effort that the Allies had to expend to invade Normandy. Only total air superiority, crushing naval power and a highly developed logistics network plus the bravery of all involved enabled the June 1944 invasion to be a success.

Oh and don't forget that drop tanks are no use if you have to drop them whilst still partially full of fuel! Dogfighting with a belly tanks leaves you at a distinct disadvantage. By engaging the German aircraft early and forcing them to drop tanks, the radius of action of the 109E/F would still have been very limited. The Germans applied this tactic against the USAAF escorts during 1943.

Fascinating stuff though!

[JohnT]

I confess that overall I agree with Graham and Bob as to the difficulties posed to the Germans by the Channel and the Royal Navy. I recall reading somewhere that Admiral Raeder said at the start of the war (after Hitler had said no war until the 1940's when they would have had some fleet at least) that all the Kriegsmarine could do would be to show how Germans could die honourably. I very much doubt he underestimated the hitting power of the Royal Navy. To quote an historian Hitler thought the Royal Navy was a lion that was a bit mangy. However he had forgotten that mange is not a fatal disease.

My original musing was less around outcome and more just how the Luftwaffe would have tried tactically in "Round 2"? As I thought about it I reckoned they would be marginally better with the 109F and more Ju 88's but other than that nothing had or would change for them. Indeed by the end of the Battle in 1940 the Luftwaffe had gone over pretty much to mass raids by 109s leaving the He111 and other mediums at home. What would have changed by the following Spring?

The RAF on the other hand would have improved aircraft, systems, pilot combat experience, confidence and morale as well as numbers so it would not look at all great for the Luftwaffe. I suspect that the outcome would be such that even Goring wouldn't suggest it was a draw

[Graham Boak]

The RAF would not have had the advantage in numbers and experience. The former, yes, but one lesson from the aerial fighting of 1941 was that the considerable expansion had led to a serious over-dilution of skills. The RAF were not training their fighter pilots to an adequate level, particularly in air-to-air shooting and tactics.

One problem is that a renewed BoB in 1941 would have further reduced the quality and quantity of air power available for other theatres, which was limited enough as it was.

[Doug Rogers]

Interesting subject.

I think if nothing else, what the RAF did do was inflict such losses on the Luftwaffe that they had to stop and reconsider their plans.

I personally don't feel the Luftwaffe ever fully recovered their full strength and having weathered the initial storm the RAF came to realise that the Luftwaffe was a foe that could be beaten.

[Doug Rogers]

Great! Now I'm looking for transfers and kits for early French coast 109F's.

[Procopius]

One problem is that a renewed BoB in 1941 would have further reduced the quality and quantity of air power available for other theatres, which was limited enough as it was.

How? In 1941 the RAF was heavily committed to the pointless and wasteful Rhubarbs over France. I don't think a renewed Battle would have lead to much increased demands on the fighter force, considering the large number of aircraft retained for home defence.

[Graham Boak]

Don't you believe it. A real threat to home defence would have led to a clamp down on anything leaving - bombers as well as fighters.

[Rich G]

I think the battle of britain was a tactical mistake in the first place on the part of the nazis, Britain was not a threat to the continent in 1940, U-boats would have helped keep them at bay until the conquest of Russia could have been completed.

It would most likely have succeeded if Germany turned round immediately after the battle of france to prepare and invade, the russian army would have been 10 months or so further back in re-organising etc and the momentum in attack that could have been achievable because of this would most likely have lead to moscow being captured and they could have bombed the factories in the urals from that point on, once russia was captured then they could have regrouped and would have had plenty of time to prepare and invade britain, which may have gotten slightly stronger but against a massive continental empire would have had not much hope.

Thank god Hitler was an idiot and made terrible interferring decisions that lost the war for them!

Rich

[old thumper]

I find it difficult to predict with confidence what would of happened had the Battle of Britain been resumed in 1941. For a start it would have meant no invasion of the USSR or the Balkan states, although presumably Germany would still have required a strong force to defend itself against Russia.

It seems to me that Germany was never going to successfully fulfil it's Eastern European ambitions without first knocking Britain out of the war. Added to this it sounds to me like a Sealion style invasion of Britain would have cost Germany so dearly that it would have been left to weak to later attack the USSR.

I imagine that any post 1940 Battle of Britain would have taken place more over and on the Atlantic Ocean than over Britain itself. My thoughts are that a blockade would have been used to subdue Britain and that if Germany had not been fighting in the east during 1941 it would have put far greater effort into the Battle of the Atlantic. I don't feel that the sort of daytime air battles witnessed in 1940 would have again taken place in 1941, for myself I would expect the air tactics to have been a continuation of the night blitz and attacks on the Merchant and Royal Navies together with their sea ports.

Edited November 20, 2014 by old thumper

[JohnT]

When I mentioned that the RAF would have had improved pilot combat experience I was thinking that Squadrons with actual combat experience would have been fighting in 1941 having hopefully learned and discarded outdated practises and ideas

Eg

Adopting finger four formations and getting shot of Vics and weavers

Looser squadron formations less conspicuous and more tactical flexibility

Better gun harmonisation ranges

And so on with lessons learned the hard way being applied all to make the RAF a more formidable opponent than it was as an untried and untested fighter force in 1940 learning what worked and what didn't the hard way

[tonyot]

I`m just reading about the Channel Dash incident a the moment and the RAF/RN failed miserably to counter the passage of this large German flotilla through the Channel (admittedly the weather did help a lot!) ,.....so would the RN really have posed much of a threat to a sea landing in the south east of the UK, considering that its main `big guns' were stationed safely out of the way up in Scapa Flow? Would the RAF have been able to protect the RN surface fleet from attack by the Luftwaffe if it had ventured down south within range of concerted air attack or would the warships just be thrown into the battle whatever the risk like Drake et all sailing against the Armada?

Would the `big guns' have remained up north (ready to `bug out' to Canada and fight from there instead if the brown stuff hit he fan) and left the main battle in the Channel to the destroyers and light cruisers?

Cheers

Tony

[JohnT]

Tony

I think the Channel Dash had a huge slice of good luck for the Germans coupled with some very bad coordination by the Brits. Perhaps Crete might be a better analogy.

Royal Navy thinking in 1941 was fashioned by the knowledge and article of faith that a capital ship manoeuvring at sea could not be sunk by aircraft - a universal truth accepted by all until rudely debunked at Singapore later. So I suspect that the heavies would have sortied South. I am sure they would have taken casualties but imagine the havoc created within any invasion fleet should two or three heavies get in there. Would have been a bigger slaughter than the Japanese destruction of the Imperial Russian fleet in the Far East.

[bobgpw]

Even without the capital ships, the RN could muster a larger fleet of destroyers than the entire strength of the Kriegsmarine! I think it would have been the destroyers that would have formed the vanguard of the attack on any invasion fleet, with the cruisers and battleships acting as a screen to the north against the Kriegsmarine threat.

I feel that comparison with Singapore is difficult. The RN at Singapore lacked any credible air support and were attacked by over 85 aircraft. Yes, the RN was warned of the vulnerability of Force Z, especially as the Japanese aircraft were land based, but that air support comprised obsolete aircraft that were barely a match for the Japanese aircraft.

In the confines of the Channel, I think that RN casualties would have been high, but there would have been some protection from the RAF or FAA aircraft.

Going back to my first post, D-Day showed how difficult a seaborne landing could be even with total control of the air and shipping lanes. The Germans failed to achieve air superiority in 1940 and they would have had to have radically changed tactics and equipment in 1941 to do so.

Edited November 21, 2014 by bobgpw

[Bordfunker]

The Luftwaffe would have faced the same issues in 1941 as they had in 1940, fighters without the range to protect bombers beyond the edge of London and bombers which were critically vulnerable beyond that cover.

The 109F may have been significantly better than Emil, but was still short legged. 6 months of bombing the civilian population had failed to either fundamentally weaken the UK's will to resist, or do any lasting damage to the war effort.

Further more, even if the Luftwaffe had managed to gain air superiority, their losses would probably have seriously weakened their ability to support the Kriegsmarine in launching, and more critically supporting the invasion after D-day.

The Royal Navy would have had free reign in the Channel after dark, when the Luftwaffe would have been powerless to intervene, something that Reader well understood.

Therefore I think the Germans would have been unwilling to continue with a campaign that they were unlikely to win,particularly when U-boats offered a better chance of knocking Britain out of the war.

Add to this the fact that the RAF was getting ever stronger, and aircraft production and pilot training were outstripping the Germans, the Luftwaffe would have been on a hiding to nothing.

Karl

[Dave Wilson]

If Germany had concentrated on the U boat campaign to the detriment of everything else then we would have lost and they could have concentrated all of their forces to te east. I believe at one point we were only three weeks from the end if the rate of sinkings had continued. It was the naval blockade that finished Germany off in WWI rather than any land battles.

[Procopius]

If Germany had concentrated on the U boat campaign to the detriment of everything else then we would have lost and they could have concentrated all of their forces to te east.

That's assuming the Allies would react in the exact same manner as they did in the real world, though. I suspect if the Germans had focused more on submarine warfare that the Allies would have responded in kind.

[wellsprop]

The RAF finished the Battle of Britain with significantly more serviceable aircraft and pilots than it began with. In fact, IIRC, the RAF had more aircraft before the beginning of the Blitz (7th Sep) than at the beginning of the battle, so even when the RAF had the full strength of the Luftwaffe directed at it, it still grew in number (originally it did decrease of course).

Ben

[woody37]

When I mentioned that the RAF would have had improved pilot combat experience I was thinking that Squadrons with actual combat experience would have been fighting in 1941 having hopefully learned and discarded outdated practises and ideas

Eg

Adopting finger four formations and getting shot of Vics and weavers

Looser squadron formations less conspicuous and more tactical flexibility

Better gun harmonisation ranges

And so on with lessons learned the hard way being applied all to make the RAF a more formidable opponent than it was as an untried and untested fighter force in 1940 learning what worked and what didn't the hard way

And wider use of cannon armed fighters, the kill ratio probably would improve as well