Failure At The Battle Of Britain History Essay

Failure At The contend Of Britain History EssayIn the summer of 1940, the Battle of Britain was fought between the Royal job superpower of enceinte Britain and the Luftwaffe of Nazi Germany. The assault was Hitlers attempt at decimating Britains air twitch and morale, enabling a full-scale seaborne impact of Britain. The failure of such an pushy undertaking marked Germanys first significant land and became a turning point in World War Two. More than seventy years upstartr, historians handle to pass on over the reasons for the failure of the Luftwaffe, prompting an investigation to answer To what extent was the Luftwaffe responsible for their failure at the Battle of Britain?This essay analyses two sides of the debate either that the RAFs successes were the most important cause of Germanys failure, or that it was the errors of the Luftwaffe that proved decisive in Britains victory. Utilizing the views of historians such as Stephen Bungay, RJ Overy and JP Ray, this essay a lso employs some primary sources to consolidate two arguments, and forms a conclusion to the investigation.Although the Luftwaffe were not perfectly suited to the task of singlehandedly eliminating Britains key defences, being a support pound rather than a strategic one, the slide number of flees and planes that they had at their disposal, combined with the fact that they did not arouse to defend anything themselves, should claim guaranteed a German victory. Instead, the constantly shifting strategy and bad drawing cards combined with tainted intelligence complicated the operation. Additionally, Britain benefited from the leadership of Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Air Marshal Hugh Dowding, small-arm being aided by their microwave radio detection and ranging primal warning frame and the advantage of armed combat within social territory. In conclusion, however, the Luftwaffe was still the clear favourite and it was only through their mistakes that the RAF was abl e to survive.IntroductionThe Battle of Britain, part of the Second World War, began in the summer of 1940, on the 10th of July. An entirely aerial battle, Hitler initiated the assault as a preliminary phase of his invasion of Britain, codenamed Operation Sea Lion. The Luftwaffe was meant to neutralize the RAF and Britains different key defences, enabling the German Navy to land and discharge troops. not only was this failure a psychological blow to the Nazi war campaign, but also much significantly it thwarted Hitlers planning for the German invasion of the USSR, for which timing was crucial. The Luftwaffe was overconfident as a result of its successes across the rest of Europe, but it failed to anticipate the conditions of a battle fought exclusively in the air understandably, since the Battle of Britain was the first entirely aerial conflict. Hermann Goering, the commandant in chief of the Luftwaffe, assured Hitler that he could guarantee ascendency of the skies above the cha nnel, protecting the German invasion force from the RAF. Not only did the Battle demise far longer than intended, but also the Luftwaffe failed their objective, forcing Hitler to postpone Operation Sea Lion indefinitely1.Both during the Battle and in the years following it, the British cleverly capitalised on the propaganda value of their success. This gave rise to the initial popular view that it was the courage and resilience of the RAF that had repelled the Luftwaffe through sheer determination, overcoming the numerical odds. Indeed, Churchill would often mention in his speeches and later his memoirs the importance of the Few2. However, Orthodox historical investigations adopted a to a greater extent analytical and less sensationalist view that Britains inherent advantages of radar and friendly territory tipped the scales in their favour, combined with the heroism of the pilots and Britains impressive belligerent toil and sound leadership3. An alternative revisionist view emer ged later as records pop of Germany came to light, stating that despite all of this Britain would still fuddle lost if the Luftwaffe had not conducted their campaign so poorly4. After all, it is undisputed that the Germans had greater numbers of planes5and to a greater extent importantly, capable, go through pilots. The fact that such a key event slide bys to be a subject of intense debate merits an investigation into what actually was the more decisive part. therefore the following research question is still very relevant today To what extent was the Luftwaffe responsible for their failure at the Battle of Britain? While both sides of the debate provide compelling evidence, ultimately, for all of the RAFs courage and advantages, the Luftwaffe should have been able to overwhelm them with sheer brute force and elementary tactical manoeuvres, but the extent to which the Luftwaffes mistakes altered the communication channel of the Battle led to Britains victory.The RAFs respons ibility for the resultThere can be no uncertainty that the RAF showed an unprecedented level of resilience and intelligence in clutchings with the German threat, and despite all of the propaganda associated with it, there is a great deal of evidence that supports this orthodox view. One of the major contributors to this success was the system implemented by Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding, aptly named the Dowding system of defence. Dowding organized a structured system of command and networked intelligence, with several scattered Sectors coverage to four groups, and each group then filtering and passing on the necessary information to the central admirer Command Headquarters6.The Dowding system ensured that Fighter Command was able to receive a clear and updated picture of the Battle at all times. This was in no small part due to the effectuation of Radio Direction Finding (RDF) also k at presentn as radar, which was instrumental in ensuring that Fighter Command knew exactly w hen and where the Germans were attacking. Since its inception in 1935, Dowding had personally championed the radar system. Furthermore, the use of radar was cleverly organised Fighter Command controlled the radar, but each sector was able to control its airfields and observers, enabling local control that avoided the potential delay of waiting for Fighter Commands directions. Additionally, as Fighter Command directly received radar, if the Luftwaffe succeeded in bombing a station, Fighter Command would continue to function unimpaired. On the 7th of September 1940, the Luftwaffe attacked capital of the United Kingdom with 400 bombers escorted by whizzs. This attack tested the efficiency of the system once the Germans were detected by the radar and confirmed as three waves of aircraft, the commander of 11 Group, Keith Park, direct six of his squadrons to combat the first wave while holding the remainder of the group for the other two, saving fuel. Meanwhile, 12 Group and 10 Group w ere deployed to protect 11 Groups vulnerable airfields from German bombers7. Dowdings system was able to eliminate the Luftwaffes advantage of surprise8, allowing the British to send aside the precise number of aircraft exactly where they were needed to thwart the Germans and this became a vital component of Britains victory, especially since the Germans refused to recognize the threat of it.Another factor in the result of the Battle was the ability of the British factories to replace lost and damaged aircraft. Britains fighter issue was far better than Germanys, approximately 500 per month against just over 150 per month by the Germans9. In addition, these aircraft were Hurricanes and Spitfires, naughty quality planes that were more than a match for Germanys own Bf 109s and 110s10. The rapid rate of production ensured that the RAF never had a shortage of operational aircraft, although the alike could not be said of their pilot reserves.11. This impressive level of production w as primarily due to professional Beaverbrooks ability to deregulate the processes used for aircraft production, in his capacity as Minister of Aircraft Production. With Churchills help, Beaverbrook managed to persuade British citizens to donate pots, pans and even fences and railings to be used in factories in a scheme dubbed Saucepans to Spitfires12. Churchill often lauded Beaverbrooks success, during these calendar weeks of intense struggle and ceaseless anxiety, claiming that his personal buoyancy and vigour were a tonic13, and on the 2nd of August 1940 he appointed Beaverbrook to the War Cabinet. The results of Beaverbrooks efforts were directly reflected in the number of operational airplanes, which rose from 560 to 730 between June and November14.The orthodox view gives great importance to Dowdings excellent tactical deployment of his aircraft in determining the RAFs victory. Dowding was aware from the beginning that the number of trained pilots available was always dangerou sly scarce a notion supported by accounts from fighter pilots that emerged after the war, claiming that they were often scrambled three or four times a day15. Despite strong suggestions from 12 Group Commander Trafford Leigh-Mallory and the leader of 242 squadron Douglas Bader to attack the Germans head on in a massive fire fight, Dowding held firm with his strategy of utilizing his early warning system to send out a small number of planes to intercept the Germans where they were most needed. Furthermore, during the last days of the Battle of France, Dowding refused to send out any more squadrons to the aid of the French, recognizing that Frances defeat was inevitable16.During the Battle of Britain, 11 Group, which often bore the brunt of the German attack, frequently requested Fighter Command for support from the other Groups. Indeed, some of the pilots in 11 Group who later recounted their experiences have criticized Dowding for putting also much strain on Air Vice Marshal Park17 , although it is unlikely that these pilots would have sympathized with the general strategy after the ordeals they were put through. Dowding also understood that the RAF had an essential advantage in battle over friendly territory firstly, an RAF pilot who ejected from his plane could easily be rescued and returned to the front-line, whereas German pilots would become prisoners of war, or drown in the Channel. Considering that out of the more than 800 planes shot down, only 507 RAF pilots were killed, this was extremely important given the RAFs lack of reserve pilots18. Secondly, the Luftwaffe was operating out of France, which meant they had to waste precious fuel crossing the English Channel, whereas the RAF planes took off much nearer to the points of interception.19Another shot of the RAFs ingenuity that worked in their favour was their quick adaptation of aerial combat tactics. The nature of the Battle of Britain was such that both the RAF and the Luftwaffe were initially unprepared for the scale and chiliad of the fighting that was conducted. As per the training manual, RAF pilots initially used a conventional formation with two wingmen flying behind the leader at a unyielding distance, which express mail their ability to defend the leader20. By contrast, the Luftwaffe sent fighters operating in a two pair formation around their bombers, and towards the end of July the RAF had already adopted this strategy. Wing Commander H. R. Allen of 11 Group believed that if the RAF had used this method from the beginning, they would have been several times more efficient at destroying German aircraft21. Since Allen was a pilot who actually fought in the Battle, it is reasonable to assume that he would have been able to evaluate this effectively. Also, the RAF modified their standard squadron formation, using part of the squadron flying in three lines, while the rest flew above and to the rear, offering better defence and ready replacements for any losses in the front22. Another important tactic employed by the RAF was to send their faster, more agile Spitfires against the German Messerschmitt 109s, while allowing their Hurricanes to eliminate the slower and more vulnerable German bombers. Britains adaptability helped to conserve their regulateed resources and expeditiously engage the enemy, offering crucial tactical gains.While the RAF were busy fighting the Germans in the skies, Britains Prime Minister Winston Churchill was equally active in rallying Great Britain behind their courageous Royal Air Force. Churchills skills as an orator and motivator undoubtedly played a part in Britains victory. Although Hitler could be equally charismatic, he showed very forgetful interest in the Battle, deferring responsibilities to Goering while he focused on Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the USSR23. Churchill wrote in his memoirs Their Finest Hour how he cannot speak too highly of the loyalty of Mr Chamberlain, or of the resolution and ef ficiency of all of my Cabinet colleagues, and yet Churchill himself was constantly visiting various Group stations and Fighter Command, asking for updates and estimates of progress24. A notable example of this was Churchills arrival at 11 Groups Headquarters in Uxbridge on the fifteenth of September, and remained in the Group Operations elbow room with Air Vice-Marshal Park for most of the battles duration25. In addition to this, Churchills address to the House of Commons on the 18th of June famously spoke of Britains finest hour and of how never has so much in the field of conflict been owed by so many to so few. These speeches helped to boost the morale not only of the public, but more importantly that of the overworked RAF pilots26.Moreover, Britain also benefited from the intelligence it received. During the Battle, both sides overestimated the enemys losses while underestimating their own, partly to increase morale, but also due to the chaotic circumstances that do it extrem ely difficult to gather reliable intelligence. According to Stephen Bungay, Britain also overestimated the overall force play of the enemy force, judging Luftwaffe front line strength to exceed 5000 when in humanity there were around 3000 German aircraft with 900 reserves. This discouraged an all out Big Wing assault, which would have negated Britains advantages and caused careless losses27. Furthermore, by the time of the Battle the British were able to decode German messages using their Enigma machine although some historians argue that Fighter Command was unaware of the Enigma breakthrough until as late as October28. The RAF were also aided by a branch of the observer corps known as Y Service, which yielded unprecedented results simply by sense of hearing in to various German radio frequencies29. These aspects of the RAFs intelligence network compounded by the Dowding early warning system ensured that the RAF were alerted of the Luftwaffes moves as much as possible.The many ad vantages that the RAF both inherently began with and later cultivated enabled them to put up a strong defence, resulting in the Luftwaffe coming off worse in some every exchange. In a stark contrast to the Luftwaffe, the RAF prospered under an efficient system of intelligence, tactical adaptability and reliable leadership. There can be no doubt that these were important contributors to their victory, to a extra extent.The Luftwaffes responsibility for the resultHitler commanded his Luftwaffe to maintain air superiority over the Channel and Island.30While the Luftwaffe outnumbered the RAF, an important point to note is that of the 3000 aircraft sent to Britain, only 1200 of those were fighters, while the 1800 bombers were far more vulnerable against the Hurricanes and Spitfires31.One of the most costly failures of the Luftwaffe was their wayward tactics and strategy. This was explicitly demonstrated in the inexplicable suspension in the offensive between the British evacuations of Dunkirk on the 4th of June and the final launch Operation Eagle Attack (the codename of the assault) on the 13th of August32. During this period, both sides were able to replace their losses after the Battle of France, however since Britains production was much higher than Germanys, the Luftwaffe effectively weakened their position by waiting. Moreover, the minor sporadic raids conducted by German aircraft gave Britain a chance to test and perfect the Dowding system33. Additionally, this delay was compounded by a lack of focus in the German plan of attack the Luftwaffe was attempting to attack merchant convoys on the Channel, British airfields and radar stations in the South as well as fighting a war of attrition by engaging RAF airplanes. The overall result of these endeavours was that while there was some success in each of these objectives, it was very limited34. No targets were actually crippled beyond repair, especially since Hermann Goering considered attacking the radar sta tions a waste of time and resources, a clear display of ignorance that made the system all the more effective for the RAF.Perhaps the single most detrimental decision made by the Luftwaffe was the decision to switch bombing targets from the RAF airfields to the British cities. Many historians have attributed this to an accidental German bomb dropped on London, which prompted retaliation against Berlin, thus enraging Hitler to the point of ordering the destruction of London35. This proved to be a turning point in the Battle for a number of reasons. Firstly, it gave the RAF much-needed breathing space to repair airfields, train new pilots and deploy them. Secondly, Fighter Command could now organize its groups around London and concentrate its forces, instead of having to stretch them across the south coast. Thirdly, in London air raid shelters had already been constructed throughout London which somewhat limited civilian casualties, as the attacks on the countryside were abandoned36. A further point is that the journey to London took the German fighters and bombers, who were operating out of Normandy and Belgium, to the limit of their fuel capacity, offering them mere minutes of flight time over the city. Ironically, even Goering seemed to immediately realize this, commenting its stupid to drop bombs on cities.37While the orthodox views confidently identify this as the saviour of the RAF, revisionists have argued that although it gave Fighter Command some breathing space it was an inevitable tactic given that the bombers damage to the airfields was limited38. Although there is disagreement over the extent to which this affected the outcome of the Battle, it was a factor that cannot be ignored this respite was complemented by the RAFs high fighter production that allowed them to recoup their losses quickly.While Great Britain was able to rely on Churchill and Dowding to bolster their resolve and devise effective strategies, the Luftwaffe deteriorated under the c ommand of Adolf Hitler and Hermann Goering. Not only did Hitler overestimate the Luftwaffes capabilities as an attack force by expecting them to singlehandedly eliminate British defences, he made matters worse by ordering the Luftwaffe to bomb London, stringently as a result of his political outrage over the raid on Berlin. Churchill publicly denounced Hitlers inability to grasp aerial warfare, Herr Hitler is using up his fighter force39. Goering on the other hand did not actively coordinate his forces as his British counterpart Dowding did, nor did he make any effort to motivate his pilots as German ace Adolf Galland claims, he went about it the wrong way40. However, being a contemporary German source, it is important to note that a pilot like Galland would prefer to blame the strategy of his officers for the defeat rather than the performance of pilots such as himself. As the tide of the Battle began to turn, the leadership flaws were expose and this made the Luftwaffe even more impotent, which proved to be a necessary component of the RAFs success.Another aspect of the Luftwaffes failure was their unsuitability as a force for the task that was put to them. This view is supported by many revisionists, who investigated German records after the war and came to the conclusion that the Luftwaffe was a support force, designed to aid the Wehrmacht (Army) by bombing key targets ahead of the armoured advance on the ground41. The only Air Force the Luftwaffe had to contend with prior to the Battle of France was the Polish Air Force, who fought valiantly but ultimately had too few planes, all of which were also obsolete42. Furthermore, despite Goerings confidence that he could destroy the RAF, the Luftwaffes planes were unsuited to the task. While the Bf 109 could outflank a Spitfire at high altitudes, it was limited both by a low fuel capacity, and the fact that it had to protect the low flying Ju 87 dive-bombers43. By 1940 Germany had not yet developed long-range heavy bombers, since Goering believed that dive-bombers were sufficient for any assault. While the Ju 87s and 88s were accurate, they were unable to defend themselves against Hurricanes and Spitfires, which allowed the RAF to pick them off with ease once their fighter escorts had been dealt with. This became a huge problem when the Luftwaffe began bombing London, which was even further north, as the Bf 109s only had an effective range of 125 miles44. This problem was highlighted on August 15th 1940, when 30 German bombers were shot down at the cost of two Hurricanes, which also demonstrated that in daylight, the German aircraft were even more vulnerable45. Furthermore, Keegan believes that because the Luftwaffe had more bombers than fighters, their fighter strength was insignificantly greater than the RAF condemning their operation from the beginning. Clearly, the Luftwaffe was completely unprepared for their operation, and in the war of attrition they came off worse as a result.Ma ny of the tactical errors made by Goering were based on faulty intelligence received, and this was responsible for much of the self-inflicted damage. Firstly, in the Air Intelligence Departments report, the Dowding system was labelled as rigid and inflexible, and this was partly the reason that Goering dismissed the radar stations as insignificant targets. This was undoubtedly a costly mishap the radar eliminated the Luftwaffes much-needed element of surprise and there were only six proper attacks against the radar stations during the course of the Battle46. Not only was Britains overall fighter strength underestimated, but fighter production itself was also underestimated, with intelligence estimating 230 planes a day while the reality was well over 40047. The intelligence department suffered from managerial deficiencies there were several different agencies attempting to curry favour by providing positive (and false) reports, which would even conflict with each other at times. Go ering received a report that the Bf 110 could hold its own against the Hurricane, which complicated battle tactics later when the reality emerged and the Bf 110 squadrons had to be reinforced with the superior Bf 109s48. This was a key flaw that separated the Luftwaffe from the RAF, and this allowed the RAF to maximise the useful implementation of their intelligence without facing effective retaliation.In addition, while Britain may have benefited from overestimating German losses by boosting morale, the same did not apply to the Luftwaffe. The overestimation of RAF losses bred complacency, and Goering was often made to look foolish by confidently asserting that the RAF would be destroyed within the week only to have the Battle continue to drag on49. At one point Goering was under the impression that the RAF only had 100 operational fighters, while the reality was more than 70050. The bad estimates of numbers, the underestimation of radar and the overestimation of German fighter cap ability all created an atmosphere of arrogance and complacency, which proved detrimental to the Luftwaffe.Although the Luftwaffe should have prevailed through sheer force of numbers, it was constantly let down by unfocused strategy, distracted leadership and incorrect intelligence. Also, the overconfidence of Goering ensured that crucial problems were not rectify in time, and this created a sluggishness that was uncharacteristic of the nation that had Blitzkreiged across Western Europe, and unacceptable given the circumstances of the Battle.ConclusionThere is a great deal of sound evidence and judgement on both sides of the argument. It would have been unfair to entirely discount the orthodox view in favour of the revisionist. After all, the RAF was fighting on friendly territory, their early warning system eliminated the German element of surprise, they were highly motivated by their leaders and any tactics which may have initially been obsolete were quickly adapted, turning the RA F into one of the best Air Forces of World War Two and certainly one of the most experienced. Additionally, a high rate of fighter production supported by civilian initiatives enabled the RAF to maintain and expand its front-line strength over the course of the Battle. The Luftwaffe, meanwhile, benefited from superior numbers and experienced personnel.However, the Luftwaffe were more suited to providing support for the Army, rather than engaging another air force, as indicated by their large quantities of outdated and unsuitable bombers. During the Battle, the Luftwaffe suffered a number of setbacks, as a result of their lax leadership, meandering strategy, and faulty intelligence from sycophantic and competitive agencies. The most debilitating demonstration of this was the decision to switch bombing targets from airfields and other force installations to British cities, allowing the RAF time to recover and replace their losses, while accomplishing very little instead. Although the RAF put up an excellent defence, the objective that the Luftwaffe were assigned, to pave the way for the invasion force and weaken or destroy the RAF should have been possible based on their numerical superiority certainly prior to the Battle there was very little hope for Britain.Furthermore, it is important to understand that rather than two separate developments of the Battle, the German mistakes and British successes