The Royal Navy, Not the RAF, Won the Battle of Britain
Discussion
Ok, I admit that was a sensationalist headline. But I have been reading this article and it seems it provoked quite a debate when published. The author is calling for a reassessment of the role the Royal Navy played, which some people took as meaning they won the BoB. I should point out that he later reiterated his point that the RN only played a part of the victory. RUSI The Battle of Britain Debate author does claim that the main reason Sealion was postponed was that the Royal Navy was redeployed to nearer the channel and that even with air superiority, an invasion fleet would not get through. The fact armoured divisions were deployed to the Middle East is seen as further proof that the threat of invasion was lowered than often thought.
So even if Fighter Command had been wiped out, could the Germans have invaded? The general consensus seems to be that the Royal Navy would have been able to stop them, or at least inflict grievous losses before the Germans even landed. However, the Pacific showed that even the biggest battleships were vulnerable to air attack. Even then, could the remaining fighters not simply be deployed outside of 109 range? Until an airfield was established the invasion beaches would have been open to attack.
There is also the question of the Fleet Air Arm. However, I can't see Skuas, Sea Gladiators or Rocs outfighting ME109s, and as a result Swordfish would have been ineffective. Fulmars were just coming into service, but again could not match the performance of single seat fighters. The best fighter was the Martlet, but were any available and could they have been bought into service in time? In short, I doubt the FAA would have been able to protect its own and inflict substantial losses.
I know the theoretical invasion has been argued long and hard, but the role of the Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm, Coastal and Bomber Commands seem rather overlooked. Popular perception is that we won with a handful of posh guys in Spitfires, but even more detailed histories focus on Fighter Command and its leaders.
So, any opinions?
So even if Fighter Command had been wiped out, could the Germans have invaded? The general consensus seems to be that the Royal Navy would have been able to stop them, or at least inflict grievous losses before the Germans even landed. However, the Pacific showed that even the biggest battleships were vulnerable to air attack. Even then, could the remaining fighters not simply be deployed outside of 109 range? Until an airfield was established the invasion beaches would have been open to attack.
There is also the question of the Fleet Air Arm. However, I can't see Skuas, Sea Gladiators or Rocs outfighting ME109s, and as a result Swordfish would have been ineffective. Fulmars were just coming into service, but again could not match the performance of single seat fighters. The best fighter was the Martlet, but were any available and could they have been bought into service in time? In short, I doubt the FAA would have been able to protect its own and inflict substantial losses.
I know the theoretical invasion has been argued long and hard, but the role of the Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm, Coastal and Bomber Commands seem rather overlooked. Popular perception is that we won with a handful of posh guys in Spitfires, but even more detailed histories focus on Fighter Command and its leaders.
So, any opinions?
Modern warfare relies on all three services, isnt that what combined arms is all about.
I think the point though is that the Battle of Britain was largely fought and won in the skies.
Without air superiority there was little point even considering any further move.
Had the germans won in the skies, of course the RN would have been the second obstacle to overcome and one which i imagine would have proved to be insurmountable.
I think the point though is that the Battle of Britain was largely fought and won in the skies.
Without air superiority there was little point even considering any further move.
Had the germans won in the skies, of course the RN would have been the second obstacle to overcome and one which i imagine would have proved to be insurmountable.
Swilly said:
Modern warfare relies on all three services, isnt that what combined arms is all about.
I think the point though is that the Battle of Britain was largely fought and won in the skies.
Without air superiority there was little point even considering any further move.
Had the germans won in the skies, of course the RN would have been the second obstacle to overcome and one which i imagine would have proved to be insurmountable.
Bang on but without the air superiority the ships would be vunerable to air attack so the RN would have been quickly overcome I think the point though is that the Battle of Britain was largely fought and won in the skies.
Without air superiority there was little point even considering any further move.
Had the germans won in the skies, of course the RN would have been the second obstacle to overcome and one which i imagine would have proved to be insurmountable.
liner33 said:
Swilly said:
Modern warfare relies on all three services, isnt that what combined arms is all about.
I think the point though is that the Battle of Britain was largely fought and won in the skies.
Without air superiority there was little point even considering any further move.
Had the germans won in the skies, of course the RN would have been the second obstacle to overcome and one which i imagine would have proved to be insurmountable.
Bang on but without the air superiority the ships would be vunerable to air attack so the RN would have been quickly overcome I think the point though is that the Battle of Britain was largely fought and won in the skies.
Without air superiority there was little point even considering any further move.
Had the germans won in the skies, of course the RN would have been the second obstacle to overcome and one which i imagine would have proved to be insurmountable.
The Germans feared the Royal Navy - but they feared the RAF more - which is why they had to render it ineffective.
The unsung heroes of the Battle were not the Navy, but RAF Bomber Command - who actually lost more aircrew in the period than Figher Command did.
liner33 said:
Swilly said:
Modern warfare relies on all three services, isnt that what combined arms is all about.
I think the point though is that the Battle of Britain was largely fought and won in the skies.
Without air superiority there was little point even considering any further move.
Had the germans won in the skies, of course the RN would have been the second obstacle to overcome and one which i imagine would have proved to be insurmountable.
Bang on but without the air superiority the ships would be vunerable to air attack so the RN would have been quickly overcome I think the point though is that the Battle of Britain was largely fought and won in the skies.
Without air superiority there was little point even considering any further move.
Had the germans won in the skies, of course the RN would have been the second obstacle to overcome and one which i imagine would have proved to be insurmountable.
Edited to add. The LW were crap at taking out warships, air superiority or not.
Edited by s2art on Sunday 11th January 18:45
Swilly said:
Modern warfare relies on all three services, isnt that what combined arms is all about.
I think the point though is that the Battle of Britain was largely fought and won in the skies.
Without air superiority there was little point even considering any further move.
Had the germans won in the skies, of course the RN would have been the second obstacle to overcome and one which i imagine would have proved to be insurmountable.
The Maginot Line was unbreachable.I think the point though is that the Battle of Britain was largely fought and won in the skies.
Without air superiority there was little point even considering any further move.
Had the germans won in the skies, of course the RN would have been the second obstacle to overcome and one which i imagine would have proved to be insurmountable.
So the Germans simply drove around it or flew over it.
The fleet would have stopped the Germans from crossing the channel by sea for a while but that was it. Not hard to fly from France to the south of England Without the coastal command operating with air superiority how well would the fleet have faired against the U-boats? How many more merchant ships would have been lost?
Mr Dave said:
Swilly said:
Modern warfare relies on all three services, isnt that what combined arms is all about.
I think the point though is that the Battle of Britain was largely fought and won in the skies.
Without air superiority there was little point even considering any further move.
Had the germans won in the skies, of course the RN would have been the second obstacle to overcome and one which i imagine would have proved to be insurmountable.
The Maginot Line was unbreachable.I think the point though is that the Battle of Britain was largely fought and won in the skies.
Without air superiority there was little point even considering any further move.
Had the germans won in the skies, of course the RN would have been the second obstacle to overcome and one which i imagine would have proved to be insurmountable.
So the Germans simply drove around it or flew over it.
The fleet would have stopped the Germans from crossing the channel by sea for a while but that was it. Not hard to fly from France to the south of England Without the coastal command operating with air superiority how well would the fleet have faired against the U-boats? How many more merchant ships would have been lost?
Flawed arguement really. There wasnt a great 'naval battle' in the channel in September 1940, therefore there was no naval victory of the B0B. So how can it be argued either way? The movement of the fleet may well have put another nail in the Op Sealion coffin, but that coffin was built by the RAF.
The germans never really wanted to invade the UK in my opinion, the Germans wanted the UK to cave under the threat and offer some kind of 'vichy' government like France did.
The germans never really wanted to invade the UK in my opinion, the Germans wanted the UK to cave under the threat and offer some kind of 'vichy' government like France did.
Tony*T3 said:
Flawed arguement really. There wasnt a great 'naval battle' in the channel in September 1940, therefore there was no naval victory of the B0B. So how can it be argued either way? The movement of the fleet may well have put another nail in the Op Sealion coffin, but that coffin was built by the RAF.
The germans never really wanted to invade the UK in my opinion, the Germans wanted the UK to cave under the threat and offer some kind of 'vichy' government like France did.
The crux of the argument is that the RN would have prevented an invasion with or without the RAF. And given the actual Sealion plans its correct.The germans never really wanted to invade the UK in my opinion, the Germans wanted the UK to cave under the threat and offer some kind of 'vichy' government like France did.
s2art said:
Tony*T3 said:
Flawed arguement really. There wasnt a great 'naval battle' in the channel in September 1940, therefore there was no naval victory of the B0B. So how can it be argued either way? The movement of the fleet may well have put another nail in the Op Sealion coffin, but that coffin was built by the RAF.
The germans never really wanted to invade the UK in my opinion, the Germans wanted the UK to cave under the threat and offer some kind of 'vichy' government like France did.
The crux of the argument is that the RN would have prevented an invasion with or without the RAF. And given the actual Sealion plans its correct.The germans never really wanted to invade the UK in my opinion, the Germans wanted the UK to cave under the threat and offer some kind of 'vichy' government like France did.
Go watch the film. The navy only rescued downed pilots. Not a lot else....
Tony*T3 said:
s2art said:
Tony*T3 said:
Flawed arguement really. There wasnt a great 'naval battle' in the channel in September 1940, therefore there was no naval victory of the B0B. So how can it be argued either way? The movement of the fleet may well have put another nail in the Op Sealion coffin, but that coffin was built by the RAF.
The germans never really wanted to invade the UK in my opinion, the Germans wanted the UK to cave under the threat and offer some kind of 'vichy' government like France did.
The crux of the argument is that the RN would have prevented an invasion with or without the RAF. And given the actual Sealion plans its correct.The germans never really wanted to invade the UK in my opinion, the Germans wanted the UK to cave under the threat and offer some kind of 'vichy' government like France did.
Go watch the film. The navy only rescued downed pilots. Not a lot else....
And its not all conjecture, Sandhurst put a lot of work into analysing what would have happened. Even to the extent of finding as many of the commanders from both sides to participate.
LaSarthe+Back said:
s2art said:
They wargamed this at Sandhurst. The Germans would have failed to invade successfully even without the RAF. Basically Sealion was a disaster (for the Germans) waiting to happen.
Wouldn't exactly have been a great morale booster had we lost the "game", no would it? 
LaSarthe+Back said:
s2art said:
They wargamed this at Sandhurst. The Germans would have failed to invade successfully even without the RAF. Basically Sealion was a disaster (for the Germans) waiting to happen.
Wouldn't exactly have been a great morale booster had we lost the "game", no would it? But look at D-Day and the invasion of Normandy. You can see the kind of sheer force and supply back-up that was needed - and that was with the bonuses of air and sea superiority, neither of which the Germans had in 1940 or indeed at any other time. So that alone would tell you that Sealion wouldn't have worked. The Germans were great at land warfare, Blitzkreig etc, but getting an army across a 20-mile stretch of hotly-defended water is quite another matter.
Simpo Two said:
Au contraire, it would have proved that the RAF did indeed save the day. But as has been mentioned, Hitler was never that sold on invading England - his real enemy was Russia.
Actually they ran several scenarios, some completely 'impossible' ones, including one where the RAF is handwaved out of existence. Sealion still fails miserably with the Germans taking a truly horrible pounding.So, the RAF did well, but we cant, in retrospect, say they saved the day. There was never any prospect of the day needing to be saved.
s2art said:
Actually they ran several scenarios, some completely 'impossible' ones, including one where the RAF is handwaved out of existence. Sealion still fails miserably with the Germans taking a truly horrible pounding.
Well I can imagine the Home Fleet getting stuck in (if they coud be got to the scene in time) but what about the U-Boats (and E-Boats) helping themselves to such a target-rich environment? We weren't very good at dealing with U-Boats in 1940. I agree with you that had there been no RAF then the Navy could probably have thwarted an invasion (albeit at heavy cost from U-Boats and aerial attack), but popular theory is that by the RAF denying German air superiority, the invasion was never launched, so the Navy never had to deal with it.When faced with such a threat, it's probably good to have ALL lines of defence ready just in case one doesn't work as planned!
Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 11th January 19:37
Negative Creep said:
Ok, I admit that was a sensationalist headline. But I have been reading this article and it seems it provoked quite a debate when published. The author is calling for a reassessment of the role the Royal Navy played, which some people took as meaning they won the BoB. I should point out that he later reiterated his point that the RN only played a part of the victory. RUSI The Battle of Britain Debate author does claim that the main reason Sealion was postponed was that the Royal Navy was redeployed to nearer the channel and that even with air superiority, an invasion fleet would not get through. The fact armoured divisions were deployed to the Middle East is seen as further proof that the threat of invasion was lowered than often thought.
So even if Fighter Command had been wiped out, could the Germans have invaded? The general consensus seems to be that the Royal Navy would have been able to stop them, or at least inflict grievous losses before the Germans even landed. However, the Pacific showed that even the biggest battleships were vulnerable to air attack. Even then, could the remaining fighters not simply be deployed outside of 109 range? Until an airfield was established the invasion beaches would have been open to attack.
There is also the question of the Fleet Air Arm. However, I can't see Skuas, Sea Gladiators or Rocs outfighting ME109s, and as a result Swordfish would have been ineffective. Fulmars were just coming into service, but again could not match the performance of single seat fighters. The best fighter was the Martlet, but were any available and could they have been bought into service in time? In short, I doubt the FAA would have been able to protect its own and inflict substantial losses.
I know the theoretical invasion has been argued long and hard, but the role of the Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm, Coastal and Bomber Commands seem rather overlooked. Popular perception is that we won with a handful of posh guys in Spitfires, but even more detailed histories focus on Fighter Command and its leaders.
So, any opinions?
Does it actually matter? Everyone played their part, that has been recognised and acknowledged by society as a whole. It would be foolish of one group to say 'we did more...', more what? more died, saved more? killed more? defended more? attacked more? But should society have to consciously recognise the role of one group as being more or less than an other? The vast majority of peoples recognise the collective efforts.So even if Fighter Command had been wiped out, could the Germans have invaded? The general consensus seems to be that the Royal Navy would have been able to stop them, or at least inflict grievous losses before the Germans even landed. However, the Pacific showed that even the biggest battleships were vulnerable to air attack. Even then, could the remaining fighters not simply be deployed outside of 109 range? Until an airfield was established the invasion beaches would have been open to attack.
There is also the question of the Fleet Air Arm. However, I can't see Skuas, Sea Gladiators or Rocs outfighting ME109s, and as a result Swordfish would have been ineffective. Fulmars were just coming into service, but again could not match the performance of single seat fighters. The best fighter was the Martlet, but were any available and could they have been bought into service in time? In short, I doubt the FAA would have been able to protect its own and inflict substantial losses.
I know the theoretical invasion has been argued long and hard, but the role of the Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm, Coastal and Bomber Commands seem rather overlooked. Popular perception is that we won with a handful of posh guys in Spitfires, but even more detailed histories focus on Fighter Command and its leaders.
So, any opinions?
That so many still continue to recognise; in this age, is the the thing.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff