User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/7/2022 9:39:01 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 303 Squadron during Battle of Britain. You put bunch of pissed off Polish pilots in UK airplanes and let them loose  . Not widely known but since I'm originally Polish, I will spread some knowledge here.The Poles were keen to fight but the RAF would not at first let them fly operationally. This was because few of the exiles spoke English. What the British did not yet realise was that many of the Poles were excellent pilots. Having come through the Polish and French Campaigns, they had more combat experience than most of their British comrades and they employed superior tactics. As the Battle of Britain wore on, and the shortage of trained pilots became critical, the exiles were accepted into RAF squadrons and two Polish fighter units, Nos. 302 and 303 Squadrons, During the Battle of Britain the Czech Sergeant Josef Frantisek was Fighter Command's most successful pilot. Once committed to action, the Poles flew and fought superbly, shooting down 203 enemy aircraft for the loss of 29 pilots killed. No. 303 Squadron became the most successful Fighter Command unit in the Battle, shooting down 126 German machines in only 42 days. Czech Sergeant Josef Frantisek, also of ‘303’, was the top scoring pilot with 17 confirmed victories. https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/online-exhibitions/the-polish-air-force-in-world-war-2/303-squadron/ More info here about 303 Squadron RAF https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._303_Squadron_RAF There's a movie about 303, on Prime iirc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2022 10:02:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Winston Fucking Churchill!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2022 10:07:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mostly Hitler. If Hitler had taken the resources that went into Barbarossa and threw them at England prior to Dec 1941, he could have done it. He saw Russia as the enemy. They tried that. It was called the Battle of Britain. It didn't work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2022 10:16:21 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it was the English Channel The Royal Navy in that waterway may have had something to do with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2022 10:32:47 PM EDT
[#5]
A lot of reasons. Another I learned of recently was their lack of access to quality crude. They could engineer the hell outa some shite, but had shite fuel to run it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 12:31:56 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: U.S. aviators were already flying combat missions against German naval units and U.S. destroyers were already attacking U-boats well before Pearl Harbor. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This brought the US into the war against Japan, but not against Germany. Germany declared war on US after Pearl Harbor and that's what brought the US into the European war U.S. aviators were already flying combat missions against German naval units and U.S. destroyers were already attacking U-boats well before Pearl Harbor. USS Reuben James became first U.S. warship sunk by enemy action in World War II. On Oct. 31, 1941, the Navy destroyer Reuben James was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat while on convoy duty off Iceland, with the loss of 100 crew members, including all officers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 12:57:41 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: U.S. aviators were already flying combat missions against German naval units and U.S. destroyers were already attacking U-boats well before Pearl Harbor. Volunteer pilots, once we entered they had to return, not unlike the flying tigers. U.S. destroyers we’re protecting U.S. registered cargo ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 12:59:52 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it was the English Channel Yeah, this. They weren't set up for a seaborne invasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:01:20 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They tried that. It was called the Battle of Britain. It didn't work. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Mostly Hitler. If Hitler had taken the resources that went into Barbarossa and threw them at England prior to Dec 1941, he could have done it. He saw Russia as the enemy. They tried that. It was called the Battle of Britain. It didn't work. Battle of Britain was a air war only, no troops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:05:26 AM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:11:36 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Battle of Britain was a air war only, no troops. It was an air battle only precisely because the Germans couldn't win the air battle. So what resources were they supposed to not send over to Russia and instead continue to fail to conquer Britain with? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 2:11:35 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it was the English Channel |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 2:31:35 AM EDT
[#13]
Natural boundary (being an island and all)
Radar The Hurricane did more damage, and I think with only 2/3-3/4 as many planes. You can credit American support. You can credit the Russians for making it two fronts. Pearl Harbor…not so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 2:37:53 AM EDT
[#14]
You could make a dam good argument that 1 man saved Great Britain, without Churchill they would have surrendered without a fight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 2:54:36 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good post. Maybe you mentioned it, but Operation Sea Lion was "wargamed' years ago. The conclusion was that Germany *might* be able to establish a beachhead but the advance would have stalled well south of London due to resistance from the defensive lines and their supply lines being picked apart by RAF and Royal Navy action. My opinion is they wouldn't have gotten out the channel. Unless I'm wrong, they didn't have the appropriate landing craft and their air support would be, as you Brits say, dodgy. Then there is the issue of the evacuated troops from Dunkirk, so the UK would have had the manpower to counter the Germans. Fascinating topic. The "what-ifs" of World War II are a huge rabbit hole for me. The aborted invasion of the UK is one, as well as Hitler's dumbass decisions on the eastern front. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 3:05:20 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The accidental bombing of London on August 24 saved Britain. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 3:43:31 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: yeah the Germans lacked transport but after Dunkirk the English didn't have weapons as they left them on the continent, took 4 years for them to rearm I guess we’re just pretending North Africa and Italy didn’t happen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:09:55 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meh. The Germans took a leisurely cruise up the Channel in their big ships right under the Brits nose. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: OP how many destroyer and battleships operated around Britain and west of Britain in 1940 and 1941? What percentage was shipping from USA was successfully blocked by Germany? Where was Rommel in 1940 and 1941 in Afrika at the time? Maybe these had something to do as well.... Meh. The Germans took a leisurely cruise up the Channel in their big ships right under the Brits nose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:15:29 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Meh. The Germans took a leisurely cruise up the Channel in their big ships right under the Brits nose. Here is a video for you.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj-3ntOMLys |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:18:14 AM EDT
[#20]
AMERICA baby, when the USA desire to send our soldiers, planes, and money the game was up for the Germans, make no mistake about it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:19:08 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Battle of Britain was a air war only, no troops. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Mostly Hitler. If Hitler had taken the resources that went into Barbarossa and threw them at England prior to Dec 1941, he could have done it. He saw Russia as the enemy. They tried that. It was called the Battle of Britain. It didn't work. Battle of Britain was a air war only, no troops. Because of... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:24:02 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Attacking the Soviets was a huge gamble. They needed the oil for their war economy to be sure, but there must have been alternatives. Perhaps the Germans would have been better served by making concessions to the Soviets in exchange for oil. Combine this with synthetic refineries and maxing out production in Romania and it could have been enough. They could focus on Britain and the Mediterranean and make real gains. Despite all the anti-Soviet rhetoric from Hitler, the Molotov-Rittentrop pact was honored so there was some goodwill for diplomacy. All the consolidation of forces on the Western front and Mediterranean might have forced a conclusion of the war before the use of atomic weapons. There are so many what ifs in WWII. The Axis powers could have probably won the war if they made better strategic decisions. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Failure to knock out the Soviets in Barbarossa was probably a bigger factor. By the end of 1941 they were locked in a front that stretched from Baltic to the Black Sea with no prospect of quick victory. Once they launched Barbarossa the war in the east became the prime German focus. Everything else was a secondary consideration. Attacking the Soviets was a huge gamble. They needed the oil for their war economy to be sure, but there must have been alternatives. Perhaps the Germans would have been better served by making concessions to the Soviets in exchange for oil. Combine this with synthetic refineries and maxing out production in Romania and it could have been enough. They could focus on Britain and the Mediterranean and make real gains. Despite all the anti-Soviet rhetoric from Hitler, the Molotov-Rittentrop pact was honored so there was some goodwill for diplomacy. All the consolidation of forces on the Western front and Mediterranean might have forced a conclusion of the war before the use of atomic weapons. There are so many what ifs in WWII. The Axis powers could have probably won the war if they made better strategic decisions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:32:48 AM EDT
[#23]
More like Lend Lease and Pearl.
We gave Britain 30 billion and the Soviets 10. Without it they would have been fucked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:41:34 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hollywood History ! The USA did not come to the rescue of anyone the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the Germans declared war. The true winner of the war was the Allied ability to build more stuff ! From the British decentralization of aircraft production using mom and pop machine shops and bus factories etc to build Spitfires and Hurricanes. To US businesses gearing up and enough of making everything for everyone. Hard fact to swallow but the British , Commonwealth and European allies were going to take back Europe with or without the USA. What they had to have was the Woman and men from coast to coast churning out tanks trucks aircraft and ammunition. 2. All of Europe was essentially occupied. Without the US, it would be just Britain and commonwealth. There were no Euro allies. Unless you consider the Soviets allies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 10:46:18 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it was the English Channel And that's about it. Britain left so much of her war materiel in France they were pretty much fucked. If there was a land bridge to Britain there was nothing stopping the Germans from continuing their push. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 11:03:20 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was an air battle only precisely because the Germans couldn't win the air battle. So what resources were they supposed to not send over to Russia and instead continue to fail to conquer Britain with? It wasn’t that the Germans couldn’t win, they were not allowed to win thanks to Hitler and Goering. Their orders needlessly caused the decimation of Luftwaffe fighters and pilots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 12:27:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1. British production was way less than Germany. British Empire production was way less then Germany and occupied territories. 2. All of Europe was essentially occupied. Without the US, it would be just Britain and commonwealth. There were no Euro allies. Unless you consider the Soviets allies. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Hollywood History ! The USA did not come to the rescue of anyone the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the Germans declared war. The true winner of the war was the Allied ability to build more stuff ! From the British decentralization of aircraft production using mom and pop machine shops and bus factories etc to build Spitfires and Hurricanes. To US businesses gearing up and enough of making everything for everyone. Hard fact to swallow but the British , Commonwealth and European allies were going to take back Europe with or without the USA. What they had to have was the Woman and men from coast to coast churning out tanks trucks aircraft and ammunition. 1. British production was way less than Germany. British Empire production was way less then Germany and occupied territories. 2. All of Europe was essentially occupied. Without the US, it would be just Britain and commonwealth. There were no Euro allies. Unless you consider the Soviets allies. Early WW2, we were also at war WITH Soviet Russia - that did not change until some two years later when the Soviets suddenly entered their "Great Patriotic War" phase, and in typical Communist fashion, conveniently brushing aside their previous few years worth of atrocities, etc. so they could play the victim card. Fuck 'em! Just Britain and the Commonwealth?? (aka British Empire) You're familiar with how much of the globe WAS part of the Look at an older (1930's) globe or map - all the pink bits belonged to Britain...quite a lot of real estate, raw material and man-power. I always wonder how much aid the US would have been asked to supply if Churchill's mother had not been American & he'd not held dual citizenship. It WAS a great help, being given the raw materials and in some cases, a lot of old mothballed USN ships - all of which we were still paying the interest on until surprisingly recently... Chances are it would have been more drawn out, but that's not to say the result would have been that different. Besides, we're on the subject of the invasion of Britain itself, not the bigger picture of how the war played out once the US decided which side to come in on 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 12:32:26 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Correct, but don't forget Russia. And if it weren't for Studebaker and Winter, then they'd be eating sauerkraut and lederhosen too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 12:33:16 PM EDT
[#29]
If the channel wasn't there the Germans would have rolled right through them to Scotland in 1940.
Thus the two things that saved them was the channel and the US. Brits would have fell faster than France otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 12:34:55 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The true winner of the war was the The Brits and the Russkies would have been fucked without America supplying them the shit that they needed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 12:57:06 PM EDT
[#31]
I’m not reading through five pages, but the two things that saved Great Britain from Nazi occupation were a witch named Angela Lansbury and her ghost army. What the hell do they teach in school these days. SMDH.
  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:03:37 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Hurricane did more work than the Spitfire during the Battle of Britian. And honestly, the fact that the Brits were the first to develop an integrated air defense system was probably more important than the fighters they used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:04:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1. The Royal Navy 2. Goering Goering may have been the biggest moron of the entire war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:04:42 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think it was the English Channel |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:13:55 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Battle of Britain was a air war only, no troops. Germany needed air superiority to mount a successful invasion. They never even got close. Without air superiority, their attacking armada would be located hours before it landed, their ships would be sunk, and whatever remaining attacking troops got to shore would be bombed into very small pieces. The Allies had air superiority before D-Day, which is why the Germans were caught by surprise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:24:00 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Radar had nothing to do with it? How about losses of pilots? A British pilot shot down landed in England. A German pilot shot down became a POW. No those aren't important. Only the speed and armament of one type of fighter plane was the sole reason. Germany couldn’t handle the aircraft losses either. Dowding’s deployment of fighter squadrons was also key as German sorties were frustrated to find resistance in areas they thought would be lightly defended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:27:50 PM EDT
[#37]
Two Things Saved Great Britain from Nazi Occupation 2. " " " " " |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:30:29 PM EDT
[#38]
I think the ONE thing was Hitler bit off more than he could chew. He didn't know his limitations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:32:11 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Germany couldn’t handle the aircraft losses either. Dowding’s deployment of fighter squadrons was also key as German sorties were frustrated to find resistance in areas they thought would be lightly defended. British aircraft production kept up. They were running short of trained pilots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:32:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think the ONE thing was Hitler bit off more than he could chew. He didn't know his limitations. Goring’s initial hubris helped in that regard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:36:18 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe a reasonably successful evacuation of British/French troops from Dunkirk as well. Losing most of that force would have really hurt the Brits, especially in the short term. Also worth mentioning... radar in Southern England. Without that the RAF would have had a much harder job. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 1. The Supermarine Spitfire. 2. The Attack on Pearl Harbor. Maybe a reasonably successful evacuation of British/French troops from Dunkirk as well. Losing most of that force would have really hurt the Brits, especially in the short term. Also worth mentioning... radar in Southern England. Without that the RAF would have had a much harder job. What saved Britain was British resolve. British resolve kept the troops at Dunkirk from surrendering. British resolve got everything capable of floating across the channel to save them. British resolve kept them in the fight. Unfortunately that resolve, and it’s Churchills, only comes out in existential crises. Otherwise you get the castration sequence of Chamberlains and Wilsons. ETA: The 3 word reply at Dunkirk was simple “and if not”. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 1:38:41 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is what happens when someone is educated by the media and not the actual study of history. The hurricane did most of the fighting, the early versions of the spitfire MK Is and some MK IIs were not as abundant. 372 fought in the battle. 709 Hurricanes took part in the Battle of Britain and had 60% of the air victories. Attack on Pearl Harbor took place in 1941, the Battle of Britain in 1940. At first glance it seems the Hurricane had a much worse kill ratio per plane than the spitfire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 2:25:08 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Goering may have been the biggest moron of the entire war. He was very intelligent, but he should never have been in the position he was in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 2:37:34 PM EDT
[#44]
We gave you the jet engine and all the early work on 'tube alloys'.
And the cavity magnetron. Bloody colonials. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 2:41:41 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It wasn’t that the Germans couldn’t win, they were not allowed to win thanks to Hitler and Goering. Their orders needlessly caused the decimation of Luftwaffe fighters and pilots. Poor decision-making on Goering and Hitler's part probably contributed, sure. Poor decisions like invading Poland knowing it would probably cause Britain to declare war on them. Thinking their goofy racialist Aryan shit meant anything outside their own fantasy land ("The Brits don't really want to fight us, they're good Aryans!"). Thinking they had a chance to pull off a successful invasion of Britain in the first place. Thinking they could cow Britain into surrender with terror bombing. Thinking they could starve Britain out despite having nowhere near the submarine force their own experts told them they needed to do it. The Brits put up a hell of a fight. There's no way Germany could have fought Britain and NOT bled out so many resources that they then lacked the strength to knock out Russia. Successful conquest (extremely unlikely as we now know) or not. Not fighting Russia and instead continuing to throw away resources failing to conquer Britain just means Stalin eventually turns on Hitler when it looks obvious that the Americans and Brits are about to start clawing back North Africa, France, the balkans, etc... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 2:53:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's bullshit. He wanted to take Stalin down worse than he wanted to take down Britain, but he wanted to take down Britain. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Pretty sure Hitler just wanted a separate peace with Britian so he could keep fighting the Russian Communists. What was the motivation? Was his plan to address Jewish communists around the world first then everybody else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 3:00:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What was the motivation? Was his plan to address Jewish communists around the world first then everybody else? It had more to do with some retarded economic theory that western Europe would starve as the east further developed and industrialized. Basically he swallowed the same "shrinking markets" bullshit as the communists even while declaring hatred of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 3:02:00 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was an air battle only precisely because the Germans couldn't win the air battle. So what resources were they supposed to not send over to Russia and instead continue to fail to conquer Britain with? Not sure if serious. Battle of Britain was in June 1940. There was no industrial buildup to it. Barbarossa, following the invasion of the Balkans, was 11 months later. Germany lost two million KIA and POW in the East. Battle of Britain they lost 3500. Drop. Bucket. If he built fighters, bombers, E-boats, light transports, JU-52s, and gliders, set up an air bridge, and said, "yeah, I'm willing to lose one million men" could he have done it? Probably. He fought for 90 days and quit. And at the time they weren't even doing shift work in German factories. In 1941 the Germans built 9,000 aircraft, in 1944 they built 35000, while being bombed, they lost 2000 in 90 days or so over England. It was not total war by any stretch. If they built 20,000 aircraft in 1941, the RAF would have broke. If they had pounded the Supermarine factory in Southhampton, knocked out radar, and gone to full production of airplanes, there would have been a long struggle over whether the Luftwaffe could defeat the RN in the channel. Admittedly, it's hard to scale it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 3:19:04 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At first glance it seems the Hurricane had a much worse kill ratio per plane than the spitfire. It was also an older design. Like having P40s with P51s, or Bf109s with FW190s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2022 3:25:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Early WW2, we were also at war WITH Soviet Russia - that did not change until some two years later when the Soviets suddenly entered their "Great Patriotic War" phase, and in typical Communist fashion, conveniently brushing aside their previous few years worth of atrocities, etc. so they could play the victim card. Fuck 'em! Just Britain and the Commonwealth?? (aka British Empire) You're familiar with how much of the globe WAS part of the Look at an older (1930's) globe or map - all the pink bits belonged to Britain...quite a lot of real estate, raw material and man-power. I always wonder how much aid the US would have been asked to supply if Churchill's mother had not been American & he'd not held dual citizenship. It WAS a great help, being given the raw materials and in some cases, a lot of old mothballed USN ships - all of which we were still paying the interest on until surprisingly recently... Chances are it would have been more drawn out, but that's not to say the result would have been that different. Besides, we're on the subject of the invasion of Britain itself, not the bigger picture of how the war played out once the US decided which side to come in on "in 1963, Churchill was the first person even honored by the United States Congress and President as an honorary American citizen." He did not hold dual citizenship in or before or two. But it did have a distant familial and personal relationship with FDR. Both conspired together as early as World War 1 as 1st lord of the admiralty and Minister of Munitions while FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. They basically invented lend lease as a go around for the Neutrality Act. Even in World War I the United States was producing millions of battle rifles at Remington and Eddystone for the British as we were still supposedly neutral. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File