The 7th September 1940 - an alternate

How would you interpret the passage of text using the information provided?

  • The passage relates to bombs dropped AND casualties taken during both the day and night raids

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • The passage relates to the bombs dropped at night but the casualties for day and night raids

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • The passage relates to the bombs AND casualties sustained in the night raid only.

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Other - please state

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Total voters
    15
Please help me out here ...

I am currently writing a timeline for the BoB entitled Ready to be Shot Out of the Sky where the German tactics have been changed for the 7th September onwards. In reality the German attacks switched from fighter command to London's East End on this day; in my timeline the daytime attacks continue on fighter command and London is hit at night.

I used the following passage from The Battle of Britain Societies website ...
The bombing continued well into the night, in fact, the total bombing lasted for seven hours. The weather, which had been a glorious late summer's day, and it seemed only right, that it should end with a 'most beautiful sunset', until it was realised that the sun was setting in the wrong direction, the red glow that they saw was the reflection in the evening sky of the burning East End. In all, over three hundred tons of bombs were dropped, and by midnight, the whole of London's East End was engulfed in flames. 490 London civilians were killed, 1,200 more were injured and to add fuel to the fire, a report comes in that Germans have landed on the South Coast of England.
... and I'm not sure my interpretation is 100% correct as my assumption is that this passage relates purely to the night time raids my reasoning is as follows.

I pondered this one for quite a while as the 300 tons dropped on London mentioned in the above passage didn't seem to ring true. From 16:30 - 18:30 the general agreement in most sources is that there were 300 bombers and that from 20:30(ish) - 04:30(ish) there were approximately 250 bombers attacking. If you consider the following bomb loads were typically carried:

-He111 - 2000Kg
-Ju88 - 1800Kg
-Do17 - 1000Kg

then the total bomb capacity, if considering an evenly balanced bomber force, would be 480 tonnes (529 tons) between 16:30 - 18:30 and 400 tonnes (440 tons) between 20:30 - 04:30.

Looking at the book "The Defence of the United Kingdom" gave me a little more clarity about when and how many tons of bombs were dropped by the Luftwaffe during the day and at night on 7th September. In Chapter 15 (dealing with the daylight campaign from 7th September), page 237 it states that 300 tons of HE was dropped and in Chapter 16 (dealing with the night campaign) it references Appendix 26, Night Attacks on London, 7th September-13th November 1940 it states that 335 tons of HE were dropped.

I came to the conclusion that as the passage I used from the Battle of Britain Society website started with "The bombing continued well into the night, in fact, the total bombing lasted for seven hours." combined with the information above that the 300 tons mentioned relate specifically to the night time bombings only.
 
Last edited:
It has been over three decades since I read up on the BoB. What I remember is the the estimate in question were allows for bombers that did not reach the East End. That is of the total number of bombers shown some aborted enroute, some were shot down, and quite a few bombed elsewhere due to bad navigation. The estimate of 300 tons may be too low, but the full nominal weight represented by the carrying capacity of the bomber force never made it to the East End.
 
It has been over three decades since I read up on the BoB. What I remember is the the estimate in question were allows for bombers that did not reach the East End. That is of the total number of bombers shown some aborted enroute, some were shot down, and quite a few bombed elsewhere due to bad navigation. The estimate of 300 tons may be too low, but the full nominal weight represented by the carrying capacity of the bomber force never made it to the East End.

I'm guessing your vote goes to the first option that the 300 tons and the reported casualties relate to both the day and night raids. Thank you :)
 
Just to add a little bit more I found this within "The Defence of the United Kingdom, Basil Colllier, 1957" which might shed a little more light on the subject.
Thus ended the first big daylight raid on London. On the whole it amounted to a victory for the German bombers, most of which had reached their targets without much difficulty, dropping more than three hundred tons of high-explosive and many thousands of incendiaries on and round the capital within an hour and a half.
 
Are you serious ... almost 300 people have now viewed this poll and only 4 have actually got an opinion and one of those is me?

That's only 1% of the people that have visited lol
 
You have quoted from several texts written by various authors, who quote various statistics which differ from each other and may mean anything. I was reading another forum where one member scolded another for using texts as source material instead of original official documents. What a pompous ass, I thought. John Terraine, one of the more likable historians I've come across, mentioned that official sources are merely that. People were sanctioned to document history based on available information, but although they are official, their information doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth. Martin Caidin held a similar attitude, referring several times that victory claims are based on unreliable observations, and that figures in war are wildly variable. There are no calm, unbiased and 100% reliable observers in battle.
There are such observers checking that such things as the compliance to the protocols relating to the use of intellectual property are complied with. Some find that a breach of such compliance is highly distasteful. It might have helped to credit the source of text earlier on, like at the beginning. Try writing about something you know about, in your own words.
 
The "by midnight" and the mentions of the sunset-hours make me think that the "over three hundred tons" is referring to the period between dusk and midnight. I think the casualties are probably referring to the end of those seven hours, as in, the end of the night bombings. Either way, it doesn't seem to me like the author is saying that 300 tons of bombs were dropped in the course of a specific amount of time. He makes it clear when he uses "over 300 tons" (emphasis on "over").
 
Just want to say thank you Leo for your contribution here in this thread as you are the inspiration for its creation, I tend to agree with your interpretation of the passage of text as you mentioned in my timeline thread but wanted to know what others thought. My vote went for the tonnage of bombs relate to the night and the casualties to both the day and night raids. As you know my timeline is based on and takes some modified text from the Battle of Britain Society’s website as it is the most comprehensive chronology I have found on the subject with over ¼ million words covering the time period from 10th July to 24th September 1940 (77 days). I could have chosen any one of hundreds of books on the subject, a number of which I have read, or I could have tried to piece together relevant facts from each and tried to sort out the many, many inconsistencies and contradictions they contain but I have a life which unfortunately demands 90% of my time. Whilst the Battle of Britain Society’s account is reasonably comprehensive in its coverage of the subject it is not always 100% correct and sometimes needs clarification as in the example here. As I don’t have access to too many original records (although I do have some) I have had to try to select other sources that I feel are the most reliable. One of the sources I have chosen to use is The Defence of the United Kingdom by Basil Collier, which is part of The History of the Second World War – the official history of Britain's contribution to the Second World War, published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO). A list of the sources I have used can be found in the original thread “Ready to be shot out of the sky !!!” as you know. Now to answer your specific points where I can …
You have quoted from several texts written by various authors, who quote various statistics which differ from each other and may mean anything.

I have only quoted from two sources in this thread, the text that I am asking people to offer their opinion on from the Battle of Britain Society and quotes from The Defence of the United Kingdom that give a little more clarity about when and how many tons of bombs were dropped by the Luftwaffe during the day and at night on 7th September. In Chapter 15 (dealing with the daylight campaign from 7th September), page 237 it states that 300 tons of HE was dropped and in Chapter 16 (dealing with the night campaign) it references Appendix 26, Night Attacks on London, 7th September-13th November 1940 it states that 335 tons of HE were dropped. I realise that maybe I didn’t make that clear initially, so apologies for that. That may also explain why 62% of those that have voted still feel that the 300 tons mentioned in the passage of text relates to both the day and night raids.
I was reading another forum where one member scolded another for using texts as source material instead of original official documents. What a pompous ass, I thought.
That sounds like the sort of “pompous ass” thing I would say as I do believe that wherever possible source material is far better in allowing a person to make an informed decision rather than relying on someone else’s interpretation of source material. However time and resource don’t always allow for that to be possible so you have to make do with reliable sources instead. Unfortunately that is part of my nature and the way I have, in my professional life as a Laboratory Manager and Technical Researcher, been taught to do things. I can’t present a paper to a European Policy Committee with passages of text in it saying ‘In his book Joe Bloggs states that blah, blah must be true’ without backing it with other evidence, either source data or information I know is as close to the source data as I can get. That is why I have chosen to base my timeline on the Battle of Britain Society website as it does appear to be an unbiased account of events and does not lead the reader towards the authors own conclusions or satisfies the readers preconceived ideas of the Battle of Britain. Facts and figures have been cross referenced with other sources as mentioned above.
John Terraine, one of the more likable historians I've come across, mentioned that official sources are merely that. People were sanctioned to document history based on available information, but although they are official, their information doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth. Martin Caidin held a similar attitude, referring several times that victory claims are based on unreliable observations, and that figures in war are wildly variable. There are no calm, unbiased and 100% reliable observers in battle.

I couldn’t agree more, which is why they were both professionals in their fields and had the time and resource to search out the hidden truths in what they were saying. I, on the other hand, am an amateur without access to the records they had; I can only do the best that I can with what I have available to me.
There are such observers checking that such things as the compliance to the protocols relating to the use of intellectual property are complied with. Some find that a breach of such compliance is highly distasteful. It might have helped to credit the source of text earlier on, like at the beginning. Try writing about something you know about, in your own words.

If you are referring to my use of already published text you probably have a point … but I haven’t done it to be clever or lazy I just like the way the text has been compiled. However I have not just taken the text and claimed it as my own or used it unaltered as I want my writing and the “stolen” text to flow. Here are a couple of examples …

Below is the Battle of Britain Society text and highlighted the areas I have reused -
It took Duxford's "Big Wing" twenty minutes to gain formation. Douglas Bader was leading 242 Squadron, the other two squadrons being 310 and 19. This had been the first time that the "Big Wing" had officially been involved in large scale operational combat with 11 Group. It was Bader's plan, that his wing of 36 fighter planes should be scrambled early and meet the enemy in advance of the Maidstone area, with the purpose of disrupting the enemy bombers. Once the bombers had been forced to scatter, it would then make it easier for the fighters of 11 Group to attack.

The length of time that it took the "Big Wing" to gain formation, was again by far too long. Bader's 242 Squadron took off first with 310 squadron close behind, then they had to throttle back, losing valuable time while waiting for 1 9 Squadron to catch up. Then they had to climb to a height of 20,000 feet to put them in an advantageous position. The outcome was, was that they were attacked by Bf109s while still climbing, and because of this, they could not make contact with the enemy bombers at their vectored position near Maidstone. They did however manage to make contact with an enemy formation over the Thames Estuary and again their results were more than favourable.

My timeline text -
16:45 continued – As the fight in the skies above Northolt continued the Hurricanes at Duxford in 12 Group were taking to the air, joined a few minutes later by the Spitfires from the Duxford satellite station of Fowlmere. These three squadrons, 19, 310 and 242 were to join together to form a “big wing” before moving to their vectored position some 55 miles away to the south near Maidstone as a single formation led by 242’s squadron leader Douglas Bader. A little further south the first of 11 Groups Spitfire squadrons were attempting to take to the air; 603 Squadron from Hornchurch just moments before the first Bf110 came screeching in just 50ft above the airfields perimeter fence and the remnants of the already depleted 66 Squadron managing to find a path along the bomb cratered runway at Kenley. 609 Squadron, also flying Spitfires out of Middle Wallop (10 Group) also took to the air ordered to patrol towards Beachy Head and engage the returning German formations.

Meanwhile back at Hornchurch, the scene of more than 20 individual raids over the past few days, the German bombs were raining down again. Using the combination of dive, low level and high level bombing the attack continued for almost 30 minutes despite 603’s valiant efforts to disrupt the bombers. In the fight the RAF pilots managed to shoot down just a single Ju88 with three of their own planes destroyed or damaged. At North Weald the same pattern emerged, without fighter protection (despite there now being 16 squadrons in the air) the airfield took the full force of the Luftwaffe’s rage.

Just a few miles north of North Weald it took Bader's "big wing" twenty minutes to gain formation. This had been the first time that the "big wing" had officially been involved in large scale operational combat with 11 Group. It was Bader's plan that his wing of 36 fighter planes should be scrambled early to meet the enemy in the Maidstone area with the purpose of disrupting the enemy bombers. Once the bombers had been forced to scatter it would then make it easier for the fighters of 11 Group to attack.

The length of time that it took the "Big Wing" to gain formation was again by far too long. Bader's 242 Squadron took off first with 310 squadron close behind then they had to throttle back, losing valuable time while waiting for 19 Squadron to catch up. The outcome was that they were attacked by the Bf109s providing cover for the North Weald raid while still climbing. As a result of this attack the “big wing” suffered the destruction of six of their 36 fighters with minimal German losses. The brief fight lasted for less than 10 minutes, the Germans having to retreat because of fuel shortages, the majority of the RAF fighters having to return to base to replenish their ammunition and lick their wounds.

And again the Battle of Britain Society text -
Keith Park watched the action developing with Dowding in the ops room at Bentley Priory. There was little that they could do, except watch the huge map below as their fighters tried to penetrate the fighter escorts and disrupt the bombers. 501 Squadron Gravesend (Hurricanes) and 249 Squadron North Weald (Hurricanes) made some inroads to the north of Rochester, but the first load of bombs had already been unleashed on the oil storage tanks at Thameshaven which was still burning from the raid the previous day. There was little chance that they could get near to the bombers as they were outnumbered by ten to one by the Bf109 escorts.
Park wanted to know where the Duxford wing had got to, he remarked that they should have intercepted the enemy bombers in the vicinity of Rochford and Maidstone, where the addition of thirty-six fighters could have assisted 501 and 249 Squadrons and made more of an impact on splitting up the bomber formation. There was no way now that Park could offer assistance 501 and 249, the map board below showed him that another formation was approaching the east end from the north and that another formation coming up from the south was already almost at the target area.

And my own -
16:35 - Keith Park watched the action developing with Dowding in the ops room at Bentley Priory. There was little that they could do, except watch the huge map below as their fighters tried to penetrate the fighter escorts and disrupt the bombers. 501 Squadron Gravesend and 249 Squadron North Weald made some inroads to the north of Rochester. A small formation of He111s split from the main group and the first load of bombs had already been unleashed on the oil storage tanks at Thames Haven which were still burning from a raid the previous day. There was little chance that they could get near to the bombers as they were outnumbered ten to one by the escorting Bf109.

Over the next 5 to 10 minutes the battle raged above the Thames with 504 Squadron and 253 Squadron joining the fray. The inexperience of 249 Squadron, transferred from 12 Group just days earlier, showed as they attacked and lost five of their Hurricanes for an equal number of the enemy. 504 Squadron, transferred from 13 group just the day before also suffered losing two of its fighters again for an equal number of the enemy. The only saving grace for fighter command, only two pilots were killed (one from each of the squadrons) although several were wounded.

As the battle continued it was obvious where the attacks would fall as the bombers changed course going in two separate directions, the targets being North Weald and Hornchurch.
As you can see I have used the published text as the starting point as it is what happened in reality, it gave me a good basis for the changes I wanted to introduce. So maybe it is a little bit of laziness there but why change something that works and describes actual events? I don’t know, you tell me …

And yes there is a large chunk of text taken from the Battle of Britain Society at the start of the timeline as up to 16:15 the events of the day were exactly the same as OTL.
 
Last edited:
You have quoted from several texts written by various authors, who quote various statistics which differ from each other and may mean anything. I was reading another forum where one member scolded another for using texts as source material instead of original official documents. What a pompous ass, I thought. John Terraine, one of the more likable historians I've come across, mentioned that official sources are merely that. People were sanctioned to document history based on available information, but although they are official, their information doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth. Martin Caidin held a similar attitude, referring several times that victory claims are based on unreliable observations, and that figures in war are wildly variable. There are no calm, unbiased and 100% reliable observers in battle.
There are such observers checking that such things as the compliance to the protocols relating to the use of intellectual property are complied with. Some find that a breach of such compliance is highly distasteful. It might have helped to credit the source of text earlier on, like at the beginning. Try writing about something you know about, in your own words.

Amen

Having been paid to write "original source material" as part of my military career I'm a bit cynical about the immaculate accuracy of such. Data gathered in haste, gathered often by unskilled clerks, poorly collated and sloppily recorded is frequent in 'Original Sources'. Falsified data is not a rare problem either. "I dont have time to research this." occurs often enough and the report reflects a best guess or reworked numbers from a previous report.

Professor Flanigan who taught the How To Do History course back in 1979 pointed out how official documents were not necessarily original sources as the published or preserved docs were often rewritten summaries of the actual log books, unit diaries or day books, supply or personnel records, delivery receipts. There was also the question of eyewitness accounts vs 'Offcial Documents' The former are frequently and sometimes with good cause dismissed as unreliable. But, this misses the fact that original documents all originated in effect as eyewitness accounts. When resorting to them one hopes original documents were carefully drawn up, vetted by peers and supervisors, and based on a sincere best effort. However, the same sort of caution, cross checking, analysis, and good sense applies to the use of all sources, including original docs.
 
I have now included the additional information in the opening post so people don't have to read to the end as 70% of people have now voted that the 300 tons relates to both noght and day raids.
 
Top