Battle of Britain, won by the Navy.

Battle of Britain, won by the Navy.

That's the title of an article by British naval historian David Hobbs in the latest copy of the Australian Navy leagues magazine, claiming that it wasn't the RAF that won the BOB, but the Navy.

Among his claims is that Hitler gave up because even if he destroyed the RAF, he knew he could never get past the RN.

Hobbs goes on to say that the Luftwaffe couldn't even stop the small ships from rescuing the BEF from Dunkirk, and that the armoured decks of the Nelson and Rodney would be impervious to German bombing because they didn't have armour piecing bombs.

He doesnt mention that the RAF fought like hell over Dunkirk providing air support and destroying 160 German aircraft. So supposing the RAF was destroyed, could the RN survive against an all out attack from 1,500 German medium and dive bombers plus about 30 U-boats.

The Navy league naturally pushes for the Navy at every opportunity, but are they being a bit disingenuous in claiming the BOB as a Naval victory?

 

The question really should be - could the RN, without air cover, do enough to scupper an amphibious invasion by the Nazis and the answer to that question has to be a resounding YES - given the extremely fragile nature of such operations and Germany's shortcomings in the naval department.

 

Yep, your probably right, although capital ships without air cover had a tough time of it eg Prince of Wales, Repulse [although torpedo bombers probably scored the most hits, and I don't think the Germans were strong in that area] and Japanese and American big ships etc, but overall the Luftwaffe's success against capital ships wasn't to flash was it?

And the ad hock way the Germans went about the preparing for the assault didn't give them much chance of a successful invasion.

There's been a not to friendly debate between Air power and Sea power advocates going on down here for some time, with the Navy League pushing the Navy, and Dr Carlo Kopp going to bat for Air power.

Don't know if either has that much influence, but it gets a bit out of hand sometimes.

Here's a link to Kopp........
http://www.ausairpower.net/subs-vs-air-power.html

 

Mind you -

The Germans knew that the defeat of the RAF was necessary if they were to have any hope of defeating the RN but ultimately the RN didn't win the battle because (as we know from history) the RAF did.

Consider this scenario, though - the RAF is defeated, there is no attempt at invasion BUT German aircraft are able to wander almost completely unmolested over Britain - what would happen then.

 

not a huge ammout, the allies could wander around europe in early 44 onwards with only nominal fighter attacks.

Besides the Germans lacked the heavy bombers to carry out the indescriminate carpet bombing which everyone thought would end the war

FNG

 

In 1940 the Luftwaffe had no armour piercing bombs and no air launched torpedoes and in the latter case no crews recently trained in their use either. In comparison to the IJN Betty and Nell bombers which sank PoW and Repulse which used a mix of air launched torpedoes and bombs and came from an airforce whose raison d'etre was to sink enemy ships and stop enemy planes from sinking theirs.

As for the original question, I have long held the view that the military significance of the Battle of Britain is seriosuly overblown, but that the political impact of winning that battle was vital to Britain's ability to continue the fight. Without international confidence in the ability of Britain to survive further international support (Particularly that of the US) would dry up, lend-lease may have been curtailed and US manufacturers such as Packard, Curtiss, North American etc might have reconsidered their willingness to enter contracts with a nation that appeared about to go down the pan at any moment and which appeared effectively defenceless.

I think it is wrong to claim the RN won the Battle simply by existing, the Battle itself was fought in the air by RAF pilots (With the exception of a handful of seconded FAA pilots and a handful of FAA land based squadrons), it was fought and won by the RAF and the real significance of the Battle (strengthening US support for the UK at a time when Kennedy Snr was claiming the UK was about to fall) had no real bearing on the prospects of invasion at all. In that regard the RN played next to no part in the Battle.

Had Fighter Command been defeated either overall or locally over the prospective invasion beaches I have every confidence that the RN would have been able to interrupt and destroy the KM's invasion force regardless of any Luftwaffe interference. Whilst even the RN capital ships would not ultimately have been immune to Luftwaffe bombers (As pointed out I believe by FNG in another thread), put simply if enough HE is dropped onto even a Battleship sooner or later something's got to give, however that said no capital ship manouevring at sea was sunk by high altitude levelling bombing alone throughout WWII.

The Luftwaffe would have to have been extremely lucky to sink even a single RN Battleship given the deficencies in equipment and the inaccuracies of high level bombing attacks and it would have required a small miracle for them to achieve the accuracy required to weaken the fleet to the point that the KM had a fighting chance.

 

With the 1,400 medium bombers there were about 300-400 Stuka dive bombers, not enough fire power?
They caused some mayhem in the Med.
Illustrious, severely damaged and out of action for over a year, three cruisers and eight destroyers were sunk, and two battleships and seven destroyers damaged.

 

...but that was later in the war, with men and equipment that were intended to bust ships.

 

If the Germans had complete air superiority over the channel and if the they were invading wouldn't it be possible that U-Boats could come up and attack the British ships while everyone's eyes are on the skies?

 

possible, and since ASDIC isn't developed the U-boats have an edge.
Then again, the torpedo's at the start of the war are still crapy

 

The Japanese didn't have any problems sinking the Price of Wales and Repulse in the South China Sea using Nell and Betty torpedo-bombers.

I would imagine the Germans had plenty of Med-theatre He111s outfitted for the torpedo-role that could have been diverted... not to mention dive-bombing stukas that would be up for the task. The Fw 200 Condors would have had a field-day as well. Any British shipping in the channel would have been at great risk.

Damaged British warships would also be at risk in home-ports as they would be a juicy target for enemy bombers. This is assuming of course that the Luftwaffe had complete air supremacy... as stated.

Tim

 

In 1940 there was no German airlaunched torpedo in service with the Luftwaffe and no German unit had been trained in its use. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there even was a Med theatre as far as Germany was concerned in August 1940.

You can imagine all you want, it doesn't change reality.

The Luftwaffe also had no armour piercing bombs with which to do heavy damage to the capital ships and only the Ju87s and Ju88s stood any chance of actually hitting a ship manouevring at sea. Condors were dangerous prior to the advent of guided air-to-surface weaponary IIRC mainly because of their ability to direct the Wolfpacks onto convoys.

Even a target as large as a Battleship in port was a difficult target beyond the capabilities of level bombers to reliably hit, just look at the effort which had to be expended to get a handful of bombs on the Tirpitz!

The Luftwaffe was incapable of gaining total airsupremacy over the UK, the Midlands and North London were pretty much beyond their ability to launch escorted daylight raids against, so a fair portion at least of the RAF would remain intact to conduct fighter sweeps over the channel.

The U-boats would be squandered in the channel, it is be simply too narrow and too shallow for them to operate. Remember that warships under air attack are going to be performing evasive manouevres, not ideal for lining up a torpedo firing solution, not everyone's attentions are going to be focused skywards and the Luftwaffe is not going to be able to keep an effective constant air umbrella over the invasion forces. They might sink a couple of warships, but at what cost to the U-boat arm as a whole?

 

ASDIC was developed long before WW2
See http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/maritimepape ... 15_ch3.pdf as an example -- mentions it being fitted as early as 1920!

 

On armour piecing bombs, just checked my copy of the Battle of Britain by Richard Bickers, and it states that the JU 87 B2 carried, besides frag bombs, either a 1,102 lb SC type semi-armour piecing bomb or a 1,102 lb PC type Pauline armour piecing bomb.

Any info?

 

But what about mines. I once read that the germans could drop mines out of plains. So, if they could lay a minefield in the path of the advancing RN they could do some damage to those ships.

 

How many sorties would be required to lay an effective minefield though? To mine a 25km x 40km stretch of the channel with each mine one kilometer apart would require 1,000 fairly risky low level sorties (With a single fairly big and bulky mine per plane, edit: The He115 could carry one 1000kg or 2 500kg mines, so depending on how big you want the mines to be that's between 1,000 and 500 sorties with He115s), a pretty big commitment for the Luftwaffe at the time for what appears a fairly thin minefield, and one which will not remain in place but drift with the currents.

How many Luftwaffe planes were capable of minelaying? I'm aware of the He115 for certain, but I've not heard of any others, and given the layout of the He111's bombbay I'm not sure unconverted examples could carry mines. How many Luftwaffe crews were trained in minelaying? Again, I'm not sure, but I'd guess that such risky low level flying would require great care and additional practice.

The RAF also had minelaying planes and would be easily capable of returning the favour.

As for the Bombs, to be honest I'm not sure. My source is Len Deighton's "Fighter", in which he says that the Luftwaffe had no AP bombs. I'm not terribly interested in bombs to be honest beyond a vague appreciation of what each type is for, are Semi Armour Piercing fragmention bombs like the SDs particularly useful for capital ships? Does Bickers mention at what point the Ju87s were actually equipped with PC 500s?

Edit: Whilst trying to find out a bit more about aerial mine laying I came across this comment in a book review which seems relevant:

http://www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/Co ... Review.124

Reinforces my point that the Luftwaffe in 1940 was not a particularly potent anti-shipping force due to a lack of training and equipment.

 

Simon:
I suppose the German incompetence in aerial attacks against naval assets would explain why 340,000 troops were successfully evacuated off the beaches of Dunkirk?
I based my thoughts on the fact the Luftwaffe had anti-shipping squadrons based on the coast and experience--and weapons--to wage a war against naval assets. Perhaps I'm mistaken in assuming too-much.

Tim

 

And just how effective would the Luftwaffe be, if the RN chose to time their attack so they approached the English Channel at night

 

The Germans did not do that badly at Dunkirk aerially - IIRC, the RN had to withdraw their destroyers. The German land forces were too slow, however.

 

The RN destroyers HMS Express and the HMS Shikari were the last ships to leave Dunkirk with troops before the evacuation ended on June 4th