Company of Heroes: Eastern Front

Author Topic: Battle of Britain  (Read 7980 times)

Offline EasyWay91

  • Strelky
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Battle of Britain
« on: September 12, 2010, 10:30:10 PM »
England's finest hour! It was their last stand and battle for survival! Here is a question I've been thinking about, why did the Germans lose more planes than the British?
 
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
-Joseph Stalin

Offline Gerrit 'Lord Rommel' G.

  • Developer
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 2276
  • #RememberAdmiralAckbar
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2010, 11:16:05 PM »
And here the answer:
1. ) Concentration bombers without fighter support is an absolutly bad idea!
2. ) The moment when Luftwaffe concentrated on London they had lost the battle.
It is so easy to shot down enemy's planes when u know where they are.
3. ) German bombers were tactical bombers with light anti air armament. They werent able to do such a strategic operation like the battle of Britain operation.

All on all just some abstract points about the battle of Britain and germany's defeat.
May the force be with you.

Offline EasyWay91

  • Strelky
  • **
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2010, 12:01:58 AM »
Thanks for the info, I thought it was just because the British were better pilots!
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?
-Joseph Stalin

Offline HyperSniper999

  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
  • Wehrmacht and Afrika Korps power!
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2010, 12:33:32 AM »
To put it in a nutshell, German High Command got all twisted up and impatient and decided to divert resources from attacking enemy airfields to the British war industry. After that, command thought that bombing London to smithereens would force Churchill to give up. That failed because now the British could use their air bases again.
If the Luftwaffe had kept its focus on the airfields, there would be no Britain today. There would probalbly still be a Nazi Germany today because the US would have no staging ground for a bid at liberating Europe. That would mean Hitler could send almost all of his men to the East. The Soviets, faced with a greater opposing force, probalbly would not hold out. Even if Stalingrad was a Soviet victory, I don't think the Soviets could win the war alone.
"You can close your eyes and plug your ears and be afraid and ignorant of the darker parts of history, but always know that you're the one responsible for allowing those events to happen again and with even greater consequences and not know how to end the nightmare you did upon yourself."

Offline Seeme

  • Mr. Spam
  • *
  • Posts: 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2010, 03:57:54 AM »
But then all the units would Defeat Japan, And help Russia from there. Or the Lend lease could send troops as way. You can never decide history.
The Russians think there sooo tough, wait till the Ostheer comes...

Coh Name: Seeme

Offline GodlikeDennis

  • Donor
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 4454
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2010, 04:07:01 AM »
The US would probably have invaded through Italy or Southern France anyway. Goering was a terrible administrator and didn't focus enough on important technological advancements like jet fighters, missiles and RADAR. He also didn't understand his enemy enough and attacked London instead of airbases or RADAR stations.

The most important part of keeping London was keeping allied spirits high and having a staging ground for strategic bombers. With those constantly targeting German infrastructure, the Soviets were able to win with sheer productivity.

Seeme, if the Germans had invaded Britain they may have siezed vital information about Manhattan and could've built the bomb first. Without London to worry about, they could've focused on trans-continental bombers and targeted the American homeland, something that only happened in the war a tiny bit from Japanese sub attacks (submersible aircraft carriers!). The Americans might have surrendered if their own cities were attacked. Germany was actually developing a bomber that could cross the Atlantic and drop a dirty bomb - bomb that spreads radioactive material everywhere but doesn't have a blastwave - long before the allies had anything comparable. It was strangely similar to the B2 stealth bomber of today.
If you get into an argument with me, you're wrong.

Offline HyperSniper999

  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
  • Wehrmacht and Afrika Korps power!
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2010, 09:38:34 PM »
The US learned after Torch that it was a terrible idea to invade without a staging ground.  The US couldn't just invade willynilly. They also still needed some support from the British, too.
"You can close your eyes and plug your ears and be afraid and ignorant of the darker parts of history, but always know that you're the one responsible for allowing those events to happen again and with even greater consequences and not know how to end the nightmare you did upon yourself."

Offline Seeme

  • Mr. Spam
  • *
  • Posts: 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2010, 09:02:38 PM »
I will repeat this phase my friend:

You never know what could of happen in history
The Russians think there sooo tough, wait till the Ostheer comes...

Coh Name: Seeme

Offline Spieel

  • Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • It is I, Spieel
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2010, 12:19:41 AM »
I will repeat this phase my friend:

You never know what could of happen in history

But it is still fun debating about it. 

Seeme, if the Germans had invaded Britain they may have siezed vital information about Manhattan and could've built the bomb first. Without London to worry about, they could've focused on trans-continental bombers and targeted the American homeland, something that only happened in the war a tiny bit from Japanese sub attacks (submersible aircraft carriers!). The Americans might have surrendered if their own cities were attacked. Germany was actually developing a bomber that could cross the Atlantic and drop a dirty bomb - bomb that spreads radioactive material everywhere but doesn't have a blastwave - long before the allies had anything comparable. It was strangely similar to the B2 stealth bomber of today.

I highly doubt that the British had any real information about the Manhattan project, especially considering that it was one of the most closely guarded secrets of the war.
Even if the Germans invaded England I doubt that they would've focused on America.
Invading Russia was Hitlers whole Idea, the only reason he actually launched Barbarossa was because he thought that the British were as good as beaten.

Offline GodlikeDennis

  • Donor
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 4454
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2010, 07:08:09 AM »
England had just as much to do with, if not more than, the Americans with Manhattan. It was a joint allied project.

Even if the Germans invaded England I doubt that they would've focused on America.

This is sort of my point. Without German infrastructure being targeted by British and American strategic bombers they may very well have beaten the Soviet Union anyway. They could also have simply targeted the American homeland with transcontinental bombers without retaliation. Significant forces would not have to be focused on America. Even without nukes, a dirty bomb can cause similar devastation. America may have surrendered as Japan did.
If you get into an argument with me, you're wrong.

Offline TheReaper

  • Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2010, 04:20:56 PM »
The Germans had about that fuel to fight about 10 minutes, after that they had to had back to the airbase to refuel. The Brits hadn't to go far wit their planes, so they could stand longer in an air battle. Göring was an idiot.

Offline Spieel

  • Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
  • It is I, Spieel
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2010, 09:40:50 PM »
England had just as much to do with, if not more than, the Americans with Manhattan. It was a joint allied project.

Even if the Germans invaded England I doubt that they would've focused on America.

This is sort of my point. Without German infrastructure being targeted by British and American strategic bombers they may very well have beaten the Soviet Union anyway. They could also have simply targeted the American homeland with transcontinental bombers without retaliation. Significant forces would not have to be focused on America. Even without nukes, a dirty bomb can cause similar devastation. America may have surrendered as Japan did.

Firstly; England and America didn't pool their resources on nuclear research until '43'
(After the MAUD Committee's report, the British and Americans exchanged nuclear information, but initially did not pool their efforts. A British project, code-named Tube Alloys, was started, but did not have American resources. Consequently the British bargaining position worsened and their motives were mistrusted by the Americans. Collaboration therefore lessened markedly until the Quebec Agreement of August 1943, when a large team of British and Canadian scientists joined the Manhattan Project. (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Manhattan_Project) )
In 1941 the Germans did not yet have anything the likes of transcontinental bombers, besides the battle of Britain occurred in late 1940, when America was nowhere near entering the war. It took a intentional attack by Japan to bring America into the war.
Would the Germans have defeated Britain in 1940 they may have persuaded the Japanese from attacking the United States (they were allies after all) and instead gave them the oil and rubber that Britain controlled in Asia, taking away the need
for Japan to attack America, and allowing a multi front war with Russia.
I highly doubt Russia would have been able to defend two large fronts.

The Germans had about that fuel to fight about 10 minutes, after that they had to had back to the airbase to refuel. The Brits hadn't to go far wit their planes, so they could stand longer in an air battle. Göring was an idiot.

Dennis said it upwards, the fuel wasn't their biggest problem. They should have spent more resources taking out the RADAR installations, without them the Brits wouldn't have advance warning, so their planes would not be in attack position by the time the Germans attacked. Also unfortunately it was Hitler's decision to bomb London ( and other British cities) in retaliation for the British bombing Berlin first, (04/09/1940   Hitler threatens that British cities will be bombed night after night in reprisal for the bombing of Berlin. source; http://www.worldwar-2.net/timelines/war-in-europe/european-air-war/european-air-war-index-1940.htm), up until then the luftwaffe targeted only airfields. Hitler tried to play General even though he was only a corporal in WW1. Sadly this is the reason behind most of the German defeats in WW2.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2010, 09:43:13 PM by Spieel »

Offline TheReaper

  • Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2010, 09:58:06 PM »
The Germans had about that fuel to fight about 10 minutes, after that they had to had back to the airbase to refuel. The Brits hadn't to go far wit their planes, so they could stand longer in an air battle. Göring was an idiot.

Dennis said it upwards, the fuel wasn't their biggest problem. They should have spent more resources taking out the RADAR installations, without them the Brits wouldn't have advance warning, so their planes would not be in attack position by the time the Germans attacked. Also unfortunately it was Hitler's decision to bomb London ( and other British cities) in retaliation for the British bombing Berlin first, (04/09/1940   Hitler threatens that British cities will be bombed night after night in reprisal for the bombing of Berlin. source; http://www.worldwar-2.net/timelines/war-in-europe/european-air-war/european-air-war-index-1940.htm), up until then the luftwaffe targeted only airfields. Hitler tried to play General even though he was only a corporal in WW1. Sadly this is the reason behind most of the German defeats in WW2.
[/quote]

As far as I know the germans don't knew there was radar insatallations on the shores, and didn't care about it. Anyway, if Hitler continued to fight the British airfield surley they won the war. Hitler was lucky some of a time, and had a big ego. He didn't listened to their commanders.

Offline GodlikeDennis

  • Donor
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 4454
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2010, 04:22:08 AM »
Germany knew that they existed and that they were extremely important. They just didn't know exactly WHAT they were. Dive bombers would sometimes take out these sites just before major bombing attacks. Hitler/Goering switched the focus to London later on though which messed everything up, as RADAR stations were quite easy to repair.
If you get into an argument with me, you're wrong.

Offline Seeme

  • Mr. Spam
  • *
  • Posts: 1880
    • View Profile
Re: Battle of Britain
« Reply #14 on: October 06, 2010, 12:40:23 PM »
Not if it was bombed to heck. ;D
The Russians think there sooo tough, wait till the Ostheer comes...

Coh Name: Seeme