How decisive was the Battle of Britain?

How decisive was the Battle of Britain?

  • Extremely Decisive

    Votes: 57 44.5%
  • Somewhat Decisive

    Votes: 44 34.4%
  • Mildly Decisive

    Votes: 15 11.7%
  • Not Very Decisive

    Votes: 12 9.4%

  • Total voters
    128
If Churchill remains as PM, it will still be "never surrender". If he is out, a settlement becomes at least a theoretical possibility. IMHO the only possible settlement that would fly would be no demands on the Empire, no German troops in the UK, no British disarmament, return of all POWS. If the Germans demand return of their WWI colonies, if they demand some level of British disarmament, if they want German military presence anywhere in the Empire, if they demand reparations, these will be unacceptable conditions. The reality is that losing the BoB won't allow the Germans to mount SEALION in fall 1940. IF this cause the UK to lose the support from the USA it had OTL, and IF the dislocations caused by loss of the BoB cause the RN to do less well against the U-boats and peripheral areas like North Africa to do less well, AND the Germans put BARBAROSSA on hold they might be able to put enough together to pull off SEALION the following summer. Maybe.

One political result of the UK losing the BoB might be that the pro-British element in Yugoslavia does not pull the coup it did OTL to get rid of the pro-German regent. That would mean no need for a German invasion of Yugoslavia.
 
I once read an account (unfortunately I can't remember where) of an incident where the Soviets interrogated Gerd Von Rundstedt after the war, and asked him what he considered the most decisive battle of WWII, expecting he'd say Stalingrad or Kursk, but after a few seconds' thought Von Rundstedt replied "The Battle of Britain"...
 
I'm glad that the question is how decisive the battle was rather than how decisive the British victory was. In my opinion neither side truly won, the Germans did not achieve their aims and so technically lost, therefore the Brits must be winners but in reality the Brits won that victory by surviving. Any way that's just the way I see it and I know others will see it differently.

I voted Extremely Decisive for the simple reason that by continuing the fight, by defending their skies, Britain showed they were willing to remain defiant. Without the Battle of Britain the war in western Europe would have ended, basically Britain had two choices after the fall of France, fight on or capitulate. They chose the former hoping to draw the US into the fight at some point in the future. By surviving Britain ensured that this would happen.
 
I'm glad that the question is how decisive the battle was rather than how decisive the British victory was. In my opinion neither side truly won, the Germans did not achieve their aims and so technically lost, therefore the Brits must be winners but in reality the Brits won that victory by surviving. Any way that's just the way I see it and I know others will see it differently.

I voted Extremely Decisive for the simple reason that by continuing the fight, by defending their skies, Britain showed they were willing to remain defiant. Without the Battle of Britain the war in western Europe would have ended, basically Britain had two choices after the fall of France, fight on or capitulate. They chose the former hoping to draw the US into the fight at some point in the future. By surviving Britain ensured that this would happen.

You can use that same reasoning on pretty much most battles ever fought

Britain put a great deal of effort and expended a great deal of trasure into standing up an Air Defence Network to prove the statement 'The Bomber will 'always' get through' a lie

They had been working on the problem for longer than anyone ever since Zepps and Gothas started bombing London in WW1

So to brush off the Battle as a victory for the British 'only because the Germans sulkily picked up the ball and went home' is somewhat disengenuos

It was a Victory for the British because they had been planning to fight it and preparing for the defence of British airspace since 1916 - they applied the 7 Ps* and it paid dividends

*Proper Prior Preperations Prevents Piss Poor Performance ;)
 
From 1936, when he became OC Fighter Command Sir Hugh Dowding was working to what we would now call a "Mission Statement" and this was simple, "secure the Home Base". Trenchard's strategic model for the RAF, of being a deterrent to aggression by being able to bomb the enemy into submission (however hollow that threat might prove in 1940) would prove even more false if the enemy could deliver the deadly "Knockout Blow" as envisaged by politicians and expert commentators. The success of the 'Dowding System' in 1940 was a distinct victory for it proved that the mantra 'The Bomber always get through" as an indictor that strategic bombing could force a country to seek terms as had been espoused since the end of the Great War was not the case. So Yes a vital victory demonstrating the effect of a co-ordinated defence upon a daylight bomber campaign and yes a definite defeat for the Luftwaffe, the first in their history.
 
I think a suggestion like this has been made before, but I can't find it so let's take a crack at this.

It was the German plan in Decades if Darkness.

What if they staged a fake invasion force that's the only existence is to look like they will do it so as to lure the royal navy/airforce into a kill zone.

With what landing craft? The TL Germans were planning to use river barges. You throw away all of those on a hairbrained scheme then Rhine movement collapses and industry takes a big hit. And it’s all for nothing because you have nothing that can inflict significant damage on the RN.
 
I'm glad that the question is how decisive the battle was rather than how decisive the British victory was. In my opinion neither side truly won, the Germans did not achieve their aims and so technically lost, therefore the Brits must be winners but in reality the Brits won that victory by surviving. Any way that's just the way I see it and I know others will see it differently.

That's pretty much how George Washington ended winning, by not losing decisively during the first 3/4ths of the Revolution. But by not losing, meant he won. His aims were achieved, while British aims came up short, even without timely French assistance at the end.
Cornwallis being able to retreat to say, New York by sea, would have still been another loss, and an end to Cornwallis's raiding for the year, leaving the British in control of the South and the North. Being kicked out of Virginia would have been nearly as bad to Lord North's government as the Surrender
 
The German losses were important.

If we had a scenario where the Germans managed to save half their aircraft and air crew losses (1700+ so lets say 800 crewed aircraft saved) from the Battle of Britain. i.e different tactics, OR a Battle of Britain light strategy.

I would have to think most of the extra trained pilots and aircraft would be usable in Barbarossa. Even if you said only half for various reasons were really a surplus (losses and accidents and replacements that would happen anyway, that sort of thing). 400 extra aircraft would be really useful in Barbarossa, in places like the drive on and siege of Leningrad where there were good Baltic state airfields that could handle the extra planes and the Germans were very close to taking the place anyway.

OR you could put those over the Black Sea during the Siege of Odessa and 1941 Crimean battles and produce the fall of Odessa (earlier or can't evacuate) and Sevastopol

OR split the aircraft and make both fall. Both places are in situations where extra aircraft could be used (not at the tip of a spearhead where airfield supply and conditions were an issue)

OR keep the extra aircraft in the med during 1941 flying top cover for convoys.
 
So to brush off the Battle as a victory for the British 'only because the Germans sulkily picked up the ball and went home' is somewhat disengenuos
Someone who is disingenuous is slightly dishonest and insincere in what they say.
Firstly I did say that most would not agree with me and I can understand fully that point of view, battles have to have a victor and a vanquished after all don't they?

However my point is that the Germans had a clear objective in their "Eagle Attack" campaign against Britain, to win air superiority (even localised) to allow an invasion of Britain should they decide to chose that option. When Hitler chose to indefinitely postpone the invasion it was because that objective was not achieved, therefore Germany lost. It was clear at the time and also remains clear now. Britain on the other hand had the objective of surviving, the Battle of Britain with the arbitrary dates chosen was not defined until a much later date. At the time of Germany's loss Britain and the rest of the world didn't know that a victory had been won, this was only decided later. Both sides defined the period of the battle differently, so Germany lost for sure but did Britain win or did they win the much longer struggle to survive that was required to ensure they gained the backing and support of other nations in their struggle against Germany?
 
Firstly I did say that most would not agree with me and I can understand fully that point of view, battles have to have a victor and a vanquished after all don't they?

However my point is that the Germans had a clear objective in their "Eagle Attack" campaign against Britain, to win air superiority (even localised) to allow an invasion of Britain should they decide to chose that option. When Hitler chose to indefinitely postpone the invasion it was because that objective was not achieved, therefore Germany lost. It was clear at the time and also remains clear now. Britain on the other hand had the objective of surviving, the Battle of Britain with the arbitrary dates chosen was not defined until a much later date. At the time of Germany's loss Britain and the rest of the world didn't know that a victory had been won, this was only decided later. Both sides defined the period of the battle differently, so Germany lost for sure but did Britain win or did they win the much longer struggle to survive that was required to ensure they gained the backing and support of other nations in their struggle against Germany?

You could make the same claims about many campaigns / battles with regards to when it was 'won' and in many cases it is only clear after the event - in some cases long after events - that a clearly defined date can be given.

Does not make it 'not a victory' because of this.

As for clear objectives - did the British not have a clear objective - and did they not acheive it?
 
You could make the same claims about many campaigns / battles with regards to when it was 'won' and in many cases it is only clear after the event - in some cases long after events - that a clearly defined date can be given.

Does not make it 'not a victory' because of this.

As for clear objectives - did the British not have a clear objective - and did they not acheive it?
This is probably the contentious issue, what was Britains objective at this time?

Dowding and therefore Fighter Command had the objective of surviving as an effective defensive force indefinitely.

Churchill and therefore the government had the objective of showing the world that Britain was worth backing in a fight and hanging on long enough to draw in meaningful allies. Objective achieved in December 1941.

I don't think there was a clear objective to prevent an attempted invasion... just preparations to repel an invasion.
 
It sounds like you feel that if the Germans won the BoB by driving the RAF north, the pressure for the UK to seek a settlement becomes high. But what settlement could actually be reached, I wonder?
No settlement was possible. London had a settlement with Berlin in 1938, remember? Just how gullible do you think HMG was? The pressure would be there, but that's a long way from even starting negotiations, let alone reaching a settlement. How would the talks go?

Berlin: I'm glad you decided to be reasonable. Now, all you have to do is accept permanent German occupation of Norway, the Low Countries, the Channel Islands and the French Channel and Atlantic ports. Also, we want our pre-1914 colonies back and you must promise to stop building bombers and make no alliance with Russia or America. Plus, Mussolini would like Malta and a few other bits, but we can be flexible about those. Maybe. In return we give you our word not to bomb you any more (oi, Goering, stop sniggering at the back there), though we reserve the right to cause trouble in the Empire whenever we feel like it. Oh, and Vichy would like some compensation for those ships of theirs. Give them a couple of capital ships and we'll call it quits. See how reasonable we're being?

London: I think we're done here.
 
Historians have been debating the significance of the BoB practically from the day it started let alone finished.
I refer you to my earlier post, the task for Fighter Command was simple, remain a viable defence and deny air superiority to the Luftwaffe. This task was accomplished and this was visibly demonstrated by the Luftwaffe changing from daylight bombing to the night blitz.
One bone of contention has always been; did Hitler postpone and eventually cancel the sea mammal because of the failure of Luftwaffe to obtain the needed supremacy or did the Luftwaffe change their operational ethos as a result of Hitler's postponement. Personally all the direct archival evidence I have read convinces me that the former case is the correct one. For the first time since the SCW the Luftwaffe had failed to achieve it's objective. That alone was a major victory for the RAF and the whole British air defence system.
 
Top