| 86 Years Ago Today 22:01 - Jul 10 with 2524 views | Churchman |
The Battle of Britain officially began. Attached is a very brief summary.
https://evanevanstours.com/blo
The basic German aim in the summary was to pave the way for invasion. It was considered a serious threat. I believe it was more to subdue the RAF to the point where continuing the war from a British perspective was not an option. Hitler knew Churchill had a lot of opposition from appeasers like Halifax and I don’t see he’d ever risked his army across the Channel without a Navy.
1900 British aircraft piloted by people from so many countries faced around 2900 Germany aircraft piloted. But that wasn’t the true picture. Front line fighters numbered under 600. German front line numbers were also less.
The quality of German aircraft was in general high, particularly the Bf109 and Ju88. Crew quality was even better. Weaknesses included tactical use, range of 109s, finding out the Bf110 could not survive against single engine fighter, too small bomb loads, political in fighting within the Luftwaffe, inability to resupply lost and damaged aircraft and replace crew. Its intel was poor too.
For the RAF, pilot quality varied. There was political infighting between 11 and 12 Group. The Defiant proved to be a failure and British fighters didn’t carry heavy enough armament. However, its organisation, control, resupply and in particular integrated Chain Home defence proved crucial. It fought over its own country so a bailing out pilot would not necessarily be lost.
The battle or campaign to describe it better was basically three phases. Shutting the Channel to draw in the RAF, attacking airfields and from September London and other cities. The RAF suffered the most when the airfields were continuously attacked, but with the squadron rotation system although pilot quality was declining, the Germans were suffering more.
By the end of October, the Luftwaffe knew they had lost. So did Hitler and attention shifted to Russia. The night blitz continued through the winter with all the destruction and death that went with it.
But Britain had survived. Without the Battle of Britain who is to say how the world would look now.
The battle was not just about the pilots who faced the sharp end - death and injury. It was about a whole populations’ will to survive. From factory workers, NAAFI van drivers, mechanics, ARP, firemen, police, radar operators, civilian services, bomber command, the people. Everyone played their part in what became during 1940 total war from a British/allied perspective.
|  | | |  |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 20:22 - Jul 11 with 564 views | Churchman |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 09:18 - Jul 11 by RIPbobby |
This is brilliant. Have you written any seriously long pieces on this at all? |
Thank you.
No, I haven’t. I’ve never thought anyone would be too interested with the volume of information out there. | | | |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 07:46 - Jul 12 with 492 views | Churchman |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 10:48 - Jul 11 by Whos_blue |
Agreed.
Fantastic thread Churchers and would like to hear more.
I'm fascinated by the BoB. Churchill's comments about "the few" still move me today.
I only have the 69 film as a touch point and have watched it dozens of times.
Duxford offer Spitfire flights but they are prohibitively expensive. They regularly fly over our house. One day maybe....
As an aside, an ex firefighter colleague based at Cambridge fire station once told me that he and other colleagues were extras on the film shot at nearby Duxford. They can be seen riding across the airfield towards the burning aircraft as part of the fire crew. |
Thank you W-B.
The film Battle of Britain is actually a very good touchpoint because it really does try to accurately portray the events of 1940. It is interesting in that it does try to relate both perspectives. Attached is a summary of how it was made.
https://historynet.com/battle-
The flying sequences could not be made now. Flight rules would prevent close flying like that, but when the film was made, it was the only way the aircraft didn’t look like dots. They had to learn how to film those sequences. A lot of the footage was taken from the back of a converted B25 Mitchell. | | | |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 08:07 - Jul 12 with 474 views | NthQldITFC |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 07:46 - Jul 12 by Churchman |
Thank you W-B.
The film Battle of Britain is actually a very good touchpoint because it really does try to accurately portray the events of 1940. It is interesting in that it does try to relate both perspectives. Attached is a summary of how it was made.
https://historynet.com/battle-
The flying sequences could not be made now. Flight rules would prevent close flying like that, but when the film was made, it was the only way the aircraft didn’t look like dots. They had to learn how to film those sequences. A lot of the footage was taken from the back of a converted B25 Mitchell. |
It was brilliant, but the way they added the mass formations in some shots looked really funny when there was more than one plane in the foreground - everything jumped like there were two simultaneous frames of reference.
Not to take away from the film, which was brilliant, particularly in the emotional portrayal for me, with a mass quiet desperation at times matched with a determination and all portrayed subtly with great acting removing the need for cheesy dialogue. |  |
| |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 08:26 - Jul 12 with 457 views | Churchman |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 08:07 - Jul 12 by NthQldITFC |
It was brilliant, but the way they added the mass formations in some shots looked really funny when there was more than one plane in the foreground - everything jumped like there were two simultaneous frames of reference.
Not to take away from the film, which was brilliant, particularly in the emotional portrayal for me, with a mass quiet desperation at times matched with a determination and all portrayed subtly with great acting removing the need for cheesy dialogue. |
Absolutely. You can see plenty of odd stuff in the filming. It was all new and a lot of the lessons were learned for the making of Tora Tora Tora where again the aircraft are the stars of the film.
There was criticism from the veterans that the actors were too old. That’s true, but the film did need the likes of Shaw, Caine, Plummer and co so I can forgive that.
One interesting bit was that they certainly looked at restoring the Ju87 Stuka that now resides at Hendon (I think) but cost and time binned that idea. Shame really because the models weren’t the best! Still, at least they portrayed their use and they were withdrawn from the battle quite early.
There’s a big misconception about the Stuka. It’s mocked for being meat on the table for fighters and it was. Borderline defenceless and impossible to escort. However, it was never designed to compete with Spitfires and Hurricanes,
it was close support, airborne artillery and its wartime record is phenomenal. Ugly looking, it was actually a nice aeroplane to fly and no other aircraft of WW2 quite matched its capabilities, the closest being the Japanese Aichi D3A Val. | | | |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 09:26 - Jul 12 with 424 views | Benters |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 08:26 - Jul 12 by Churchman |
Absolutely. You can see plenty of odd stuff in the filming. It was all new and a lot of the lessons were learned for the making of Tora Tora Tora where again the aircraft are the stars of the film.
There was criticism from the veterans that the actors were too old. That’s true, but the film did need the likes of Shaw, Caine, Plummer and co so I can forgive that.
One interesting bit was that they certainly looked at restoring the Ju87 Stuka that now resides at Hendon (I think) but cost and time binned that idea. Shame really because the models weren’t the best! Still, at least they portrayed their use and they were withdrawn from the battle quite early.
There’s a big misconception about the Stuka. It’s mocked for being meat on the table for fighters and it was. Borderline defenceless and impossible to escort. However, it was never designed to compete with Spitfires and Hurricanes,
it was close support, airborne artillery and its wartime record is phenomenal. Ugly looking, it was actually a nice aeroplane to fly and no other aircraft of WW2 quite matched its capabilities, the closest being the Japanese Aichi D3A Val. |
One thing I always wonder 💭 about is the noise those aircraft would make with squadrons of aircraft leaving the country and the Germans heading this way,the noise must have been horrific and you must have been able to hear them coming from miles away. |  |
| |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 09:37 - Jul 12 with 408 views | NthQldITFC |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 09:26 - Jul 12 by Benters |
One thing I always wonder 💭 about is the noise those aircraft would make with squadrons of aircraft leaving the country and the Germans heading this way,the noise must have been horrific and you must have been able to hear them coming from miles away. |
I wonder how useful those big concrete ears at Bawdsey (or further up the coast?) were? | |
| |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 09:44 - Jul 12 with 403 views | Churchman |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 09:26 - Jul 12 by Benters |
One thing I always wonder 💭 about is the noise those aircraft would make with squadrons of aircraft leaving the country and the Germans heading this way,the noise must have been horrific and you must have been able to hear them coming from miles away. |
They made a right racket. You could tell German bombers approaching because the engines were unsynchronised and made a ‘thrum’. The Daimler-Benz engines powering 109s and 110s had a deeper growl than purring Merlins. Later marks of 109 had larger supercharges so made a whistling sound to accompany the engine note.
The Stuka of course became infamous for the sound it made. Must have been terrifying for anyone under attack. The early versions were equipped with wind driven sirens called Jericho trumpets. Attached to the undercarriage leg or leading edge, they created the famous wail/scream. These were often removed for two reasons. They drove the crew nuts and increased drag on an already slow aeroplane. Later versions of the Ju87 were not delivered with them.
Yes, hearing that little lot approaching was not good. [Post edited 12 Jul 9:49]
| | | |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 12:16 - Jul 12 with 366 views | Whos_blue |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 07:46 - Jul 12 by Churchman |
Thank you W-B.
The film Battle of Britain is actually a very good touchpoint because it really does try to accurately portray the events of 1940. It is interesting in that it does try to relate both perspectives. Attached is a summary of how it was made.
https://historynet.com/battle-
The flying sequences could not be made now. Flight rules would prevent close flying like that, but when the film was made, it was the only way the aircraft didn’t look like dots. They had to learn how to film those sequences. A lot of the footage was taken from the back of a converted B25 Mitchell. |
That link was a fascinating read.
Thanks for sharing. |  |
| "Look, I don't wanna be the same as everybody else. That's why I'm a Mod, see?" |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 86 Years Ago Today on 13:14 - Jul 12 with 347 views | longtimefan |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 06:25 - Jul 11 by Churchman |
My dad and his brother loved the war. As teenagers, they found it exciting. A few days after the Martlesham attack, they watched a Dornier 17 being shot down by three 56 Squadron Hurricanes over Ipswich. It crashed in the park. He always said one of the Hurricanes did a victory roll. I think it was more that the aircraft was damaged by return fire. The Hurricane was put down on Rushmere Golf Course.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/21
The Hurricane is never given the credit it deserves. It was about two thirds of Fighter Command’s front line strength and was responsible for a similar percentage of Luftwaffe aircraft shot down. It was actually a development of 1930s Hawker series biplane design. You can see it in its construction.
Because of that and its superb design, it was easier for ground crew to maintain. The Hurricane was a joy to fly, vice free, robust and with a wide undercarriage easy to land. Technically though it was obsolete almost as soon as it went into service. It was improved with metal replacing dope surfaces, better engines, DeHavilland propellers and US high octane fuel and later 20mm cannons, but it’s performance was never going to be competing with what we’d call now next gen aircraft.
However its sheer construction meant its improvements could only go so far. Regardless, this aeroplane served in a variety of roles all over the world from first to last. |
My Mother used to tell us about having to dive into the hedgerows as a 9 year old while walking along Long Road East in Dedham when a German plane dived in to strafe a couple of military vehicles on the road |  | | |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 16:26 - Jul 12 with 298 views | Churchman |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 13:14 - Jul 12 by longtimefan |
My Mother used to tell us about having to dive into the hedgerows as a 9 year old while walking along Long Road East in Dedham when a German plane dived in to strafe a couple of military vehicles on the road |
The Luftwaffe when flying low had a habit of doing that throughout | | | |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 16:32 - Jul 12 with 293 views | Benters |
| 86 Years Ago Today on 13:14 - Jul 12 by longtimefan |
My Mother used to tell us about having to dive into the hedgerows as a 9 year old while walking along Long Road East in Dedham when a German plane dived in to strafe a couple of military vehicles on the road |
I bike along that road,and all I have to worry about is the potholes!
It’s crazy to think what has gone on before you. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
