Battle of Britain German defeat...

[4md]

Its interesting to speculate on an airborne and amphibious Assault on Britain, I think the casualties would have been horrific trying to get across that channel and establish a bridgehead.

[Spitace41]

Especially as the Germans had no specialized landing craft. Just modified Rhine barges

[Scout]

Please allow me to interject for absolutely no reason at all.

An excerpt from a speech by one of the greatest orators of his time - maybe of all time.

(you have to imagine the pauses and the gravelly voice)

"................... Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

[daniel1234]

There is also the answer of tactical mistakes by the Luftwaffe, first they knew of posts scattered all over Britain that pick up signals as to when an enemy plane arrives.
With this knowledge and information of incoming enemy planes, the raf could quickly deploy planes to go to the invading Luftwaffe planes.
Goering did not try to take down the posts (successfully) so the battles always favoured the raf.
This small tactical mistake was the first step in the downfall of nazi Germany IMO.
Then as we know it Hitler lost interest in operation sea lion and focused on operation Barbarossa.
To anyone who enjoys reading I would recommend John rays the Battle of Britain book.

[Woolgar]

Good opinions there from everyone!

I aways have the feeling that the invasion of Britain was half- hearted and Hiltler still thought he could sue for peace. Also he had a huge respect for his 'Germanic brother nation' as he put it

Nick

[Adrian]

Half hearted, tactical errors, an enemy clued up on how to combat the German efforts, radar, the Hurricane and Spitfire, the range of German aircraft, the British with their backs to the wall and fighting for their lives, the switch from attacking airfields to the cities, giving up too soon..................etc.

So many factors all played a part, I have mentioned but a few. I believe it is hard to put your finger on one defining topic that could be said to have won or lost the battle.

[Glenn66]

Perhaps he heard the weather was crap, the beer warm and the trains never ran on time and thought "sod it"?

[Martin Bull]

Hitler's early successes relied on a moral/political collapse and capitulation ( 'there's no point in fighting on - the Wehrmacht is invicible' etc ). Seaborne invasion was never seriously planned. The hope was that Britain 'would be sensible' and German troops wouldn't even need to get their boots wet.

The reality was different. The Battle of Britain developed into a battle of attrition in which it became clear that the RAF would fight to the last aircraft - it really had nothing else to lose. But the Luftwaffe couldn't keep absorbing such losses and still maintain strength for Barbarossa.

( BTW, all the above is IMPO based on about 40 years of reading )

[Spitace41]

I agree with you on most points Martin. I would be interested to know, however, why you think that a seaborne invasion was never seriously planned? (Not having a go btw, I just like to gather as many perspectives as I can )

[Larboard]

Half hearted, tactical errors, an enemy clued up on how to combat the German efforts, radar, the Hurricane and Spitfire, the range of German aircraft, the British with their backs to the wall and fighting for their lives, the switch from attacking airfields to the cities, giving up too soon..................etc.

So many factors all played a part, I have mentioned but a few. I believe it is hard to put your finger on one defining topic that could be said to have won or lost the battle.

Those were the big reasons. In my mind, it was actually Hitler's worst mistake of the whole war, for this is where the Invasion came from a few years later. But let's be thankful for his mistakes...

Aircraft range was a huge problem for the Germans, and the RAF quickly retreated airplane factories (many small shadow factories) as well as airfields, out of harm's way to the north, and farther west.

And this brings about another story here that you never hear about. I seem to remember also that the Luftwaffe didn't have a long range bomber program.

There was a story I remember from years ago about one - basically he was the only one - Luftwaffe High Command (ex WWI ace, as Goering) who had a strong interest in developing a long range bomber. He did all his own flying, crashed on take off and died at some point early in the war or before it even started, and the long range bombers ambition died with him.

IF the Luftwaffe had been able to use long range bombers against England, the course of the Battle of Britain might have changed drastically? At any rate, the losses were very high for the Germans, the air war. So, tactics were changed to bombing London and other cities (supposedly after an accidental bombing mission over Germany), basically changed to bombing civilian targets, which actually gave the RAF much relief... The objective was for a terrorized populace (and here is also the almost forgotten story of the UXB's) to bring so much pressure upon the Churchill govt as to force them to capitulate to the Germans. And that didn't work eiher.

Eventually, by the end of summer, Hitler gave up. Supposedly considered England a spent force... Who he supposedly felt amicable towards anyway based on the racial likeness of Anglo-Saxon British people. So the Battle of Britain fairly quietly ended, and forces were pulled to make way for Operation Barbarossa.

His second biggest mistake of the war...