"A War Against England is Quite Out of the Question", Hitler 1938

<<< If you like what we do, please click here to support us >>>

During the Summer of 1940, Germany came perilously close to winning the Battle of Britain by destroying RAF Fighter Command over Southern England and allowing Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of England, to begin.

During the Spring of 1940, the Luftwaffe had been highly successful in the tactical close-air-support role of Germany's Blitzkrieg (lightning war) across Europe but it was it's strategic bombing role in the Blitz (bombing of British cities) from September 1940 onwards, that lost Germany the air war over England.

Germany's pre-war thinking was very much that the Luftwaffe's primary role was as tactical close air support for the army. This proved most successful in Poland, Belgium and France.

Ironically, if the Luftwaffe had remained in the tactical role of destroying Fighter Command airfields, it may well have won the Battle of Britain - it was only when it turned to strategic attacks on cities (for which the Luftwaffe had not designed) that the Battle started to turn in Britain's favour.

Tactical Good - Strategic Bad!

Between the wars, the German military were working on the assumption that the prospects of peace in Europe after 1940 were doubtful. The Luftwaffe was therefore instructed to prepare for war with a target date of 1943.

Germany's first consideration was for land wars with its European neighbours which led it to the conclusion that the Luftwaffe's primary role was to support the army.

Dive Bombers Good - Level Bombers Bad

Severe shortages in munitions led it to  an almost obsessive preference of dive-bombing over level bombing. Dive bombing was very much more accurate, which would considered or critical importance due to the desperate shortage of munitions available to Germany.

The demand for bombs would be so great during the Polish campaign that for a while concrete bombs filled with shrapnel were produced to cover shortages.

Medium Bombers Good - Heavy Bombers Bad

The severe shortages in petroleum products meant it could not run a heavy bomber force for strategic bombing. The proportion of resources that a heavy bomber capability would take from the Luftwaffe's petroleum products budget was considered to be much too big for the small benefit they thought they might get from it.

Another reason a heavy bomber force was never developed was the lack of suitable engines to power a heavy bomber. This was partly due to the late start that German engineers had in designing high-performance engine types and partly due to the low octane fuels available to operate them.

Germany entered the war using 87-89 octane fuels. In contrast, during the Battle of Britain, the British were using 100 octane rules supplied by the United States.

German industry had designed some successful heavy bombers but the Luftwaffe would never get to use them.

Development of German Bomber Types

Between the wars, Germany was rapidly building an air force and designing the aircraft that it should comprise of. From concept to production of a new aircraft type, it could take the best part of five years. This allowed for only two or three generations of aircraft before their target date of being ready for war by 1943. Between 1919 and 1929 the speed, range and bomb load of a typical bomber had more than doubled.

In 1934 a medium bomber specification was issues and the Dornier Do17 and the Heinkel He111 were selected for further development but these would continue to have shortcomings which led to the development of the Junkers Ju88 "fast bomber".

The original Ju88 had very impressive performance which was the spoilt by the German authority's insistence on it being modified to have a dive-bombing capability.

"A War Against England is Quite Out of the Question"

Hitler told Georing in the Summer of 1938 that:

"a war against England is quite out of the question!" 

[The Luftwaffe War Diaries, Bekker 1968] 

It is this, together with shortages of munitions and petroleum products that sealed the fete of Germany's expensive heavy bombers. Emphasis would instead be put into larger numbers of the fast, light, twin-engined medium bombers which were accurate and ideal for close air support of land forces.

Hitler hadn't expected a war with England and the Luftwaffe hadn't prepared for it. But had Germany produced a heavy bomber capability in time for use against England's cities as well as its airfields, the levels of destruction, and even the very outcome of the Battle of Britain itself, could well have been different.

by Steve Dunster

The True Start Date of the Battle of Britain? ...and Convoy Peewit

<<< If you like what we do, please click here to support us >>>

The 8 August 1940 saw the first large scale sustained clashes between the RAF and the Luftwaffe and as such was initially considered to be the official start date of the Battle of Britain by the Air Ministry.

In 1941 Dowding rejected the 8 August to be the start date and proposed it to be the 10 July 1940, which, in Britain, is the date accepted by most nowadays. In Germany, the start of the Battle of Britain was when they launched their Eagle Attack, their plan for the destruction of RAF Fighter Command.

The action in the period from 10 July to 7 August was in many ways indistinguishable from post-Dunkirk harassing raids. For this reason, some still consider the 8 August to be the true start date of the Battle of Britain.

On the days leading up to the 8 August 1940, Luftwaffe activity was fairly light. This was mainly due to the fact that there was little in the way of British shipping movements.

The 8 August 1940 saw are a large convoy (with the RAF codename of Peewit) of more than twenty merchant ships attempting to go through the Straits of Dover and heading westwards.

The 8 August 1940 saw the heaviest ever raids against a British convoy. 

Only 4 of original 20+ ships of Peewit convoy reached Swanage undamaged

This was the first time for two weeks that a merchant convoy attempted passage through the English Channel.

The convoy had assembled the previous night at Southend and passed through the Dover Straits during the hours of darkness, heading for Swanage in Dorset.

Sadly the convoy was picked up by the German Freya radar. German torpedo boats were sent to attack at the convoy at dawn and afterwards some 300 Ju87s and 150 Bf109s were also sent to attack the convoy.

41 Squadron (Spitfires), 64 Squadron from Kenley (Spitfires), 65 Squadron from Hornchurch (Spitfires) and 610 Squadron from Biggin Hill (Spitfires) were sent to the Channel to intercept.

The torpedo boats had sunk three ships and damaged another three before light.

The British fighters reached the enemy aircraft before they had engaged the convoy. During the air combat that followed, four Spitfires were shot down with three pilots killed, one bailed out. Two more Spitfires were damaged and forced to return to base and another crash-landed on the Kent coast.

A Bf109 was shot down and the pilot killed, four others tried to make it back to base but crash-landed in Northern France. Another was severely damaged but made it back to base.

Only one ship received damage from a single Ju87 that managed to get through.

With the benefit of low cloud, the protection of the Royal Navy and RAF fighters, Convoy Peewit continued its journey westwards.

Further down the coast the convoy ran into better weather and the convoy was attacked by 89 Ju87s and 70 Bf109s just off the Isle of Wight. The Ju87s caused severe damage to the convoy.

Fighter Command scrambled 145 Squadron from Westhampnett/Tangmere (Hurricanes), 257 Squadron from Northolt (Hurricanes) and 609 Squadron from Middle Wallop (Hurricanes) to meet the attackers.

By the time the RAF arrived the Ju87s were returning to their bases but intense combat ensued between the British fighters and the Bf109s.

The Spitfires and Hurricanes were forced to fight the Bf109s, leaving Ju87s to attack the convoy unhindered.

Damaged and burning ships bellowing black smoke were scattered over the Channel for miles.

The RAF had lost 13 Hurricanes in defending Peewit, five others were damaged and one Spitfire was destroyed. 13 pilots were killed and 3 seriously wounded.

Len Deighton in his book Fighter (1977) commented:

The British sailors who died this day were the victims of two aspects of stupidity. Firstly, the coastal convoys, carrying domestic cargoes, were still being sent through the dangerous waters of the Channel (instead of the goods going by railway, as they did later). Secondly, the Admiralty, in spite of endless evidence, refused to allow for the fact that the Germans might have excellent radar.

Whatever the shortcomings of the Admiralty, this was indeed a portent of the intense air fighting to come when massive formations of Luftwaffe and RAF aircraft would clash in the skies over the next few weeks.

To some, it was the intense aerial combat over Convoy Peewit which heralded the start of the Battle of Britain proper,  on 8 August 1940

by Steve Dunster

The Destruction of Fighter Command - in 4 Days?

<<< If you like what we do, please click here to support us >>>

Hitler's Directive for the Conduct of War Against England

On 1 August 1940 Hitler issued his Directive No 17, For the Conduct of Air and Naval Warfare Against England. In summary it said:

• Employ all forces available to eliminate the British air force as soon as possible
• Once temporary or local air superiority is achieved, operations will continue against ports
• Air operations against hostile naval and merchant ships will be considered a secondary mission
• The intensified air offensive will be conducted so that adequately strong air forces can be made available whenever required to support naval operations against favourable fleeting targets

Eagle Attack

On 2 August 1940 the Luftwaffe General Staff issued the plan for the destruction of the RAF, starting the campaign for the Battle of Britain. Their plan for Adlerangrif or "Eagle Attack" consisted of three phases:

Phase One

First 5 days: attacks made a semicircle starting in the west and proceeding south and then east, within a 90 to 60 mile radius of London

Phase Two

Next 3 days: radius from London reduced to between 60 and 30 miles

Phase Three

Final 5 days: attacks concentrated within a 30 mile radius centred on London


In addition to the task of defeating the RAF, the German Combined Staffs had issued a directive in July from Field Marshal Keitel stipulating:

"The German lack of command of the sea could be substituted by supremacy in the air"

It was recognised that permanent air supremacy was impossible without the occupation by land forces because many of the British air bases and supporting factories were beyond the range that Luftwaffe bombers could operate with fighter escorts. But it was thought that temporary air supremacy over the invasion area would be possible. This was considered sufficient to allow Operation Sea Lion (the invasion of England) to proceed as planned.

The Luftwaffe were confident in their believe that they could achieve:

"The destruction of RAF Fighter Command in the south, would take four days"

Not all of the Luftwaffe leadership was the General Staff that Alderangrif was the correct approach. The two Luftlotten commanders, Sperrle and Kesselring, both felt that RAF Fighter Command should be decisively weakened through night attacks before beginning any significant daylight operations.

These views were over-ruled by Goering who believed that Fighter Command had already been substantially weakened. Goering was slowly beginning to take more and more control of Luftwaffe operations.

PHASE ONE of Eagle Attack

On 6 August 1940 Goering set 10 August as the start date for Eagle Attack but bad weather postponed it until 13 August. On the 13th marginal weather resulted in the cancellation of some missions and sporadic  results from others. Instead of focussing on Fighter Command, target types were many and varied, including: Bomber Command airfields, Fighter Command airfields, Coastal Command stations, channel shipping, aircraft factories and at least nine manufacturing cities.

There was little other objective other than to "test the British defences."

Throughout Phase One, through to the 18 August, attacks were directed against Fighter Command but generally only limited damage was inflicted with most facilities back in service within hours.

Despite having the objective to reduce the effectiveness of Fighter Command, only limited effort was directed against Fighter Command bases, facilities and command and control capabilities.

Goering's Reorganisation after Phase One

The Luftwaffe believed it was sufficient to draw up the British fighters to kill them in the air and a German intelligence report on the 18 August suggested that it was working:

"Estimated that the British had lost 770 fighters in the period from 1st July to 16th August and that only 300 were still operational"

In reality 214 British fighters had been destroyed, 71 damaged in combat and more than 600 were still operational.

At the end of Phase One, Goering decided to withdraw Ju87s from the Battle because of their excessive losses and he needed to conserve them for support of invasion forces. Bf110s had suffered similarly high losses but Goering refused to withdraw them, instead he directed Bf109s to escort them as well as bombers.

Despite the Bf109s accounting for the majority of RAF kills, Goering would persistently blame the Bf109 pilots for lack of aggression and this led to some senior fighter unit commanders being replaced.

Goering also decided there was little value to making any further attacks of British radar installations.

PHASE TWO of Eagle Attack

Phase Two did not immediately follow the first phase because of reorganisation or additional fighter forces in the Pas de Calais and because of bad weather. After a five day delay the offensive resumed on 24 August. The Luftwaffe concentrated its attacks on Manston, Hornchurch and North Weald.

New tactics were used by both sides. The Luftwaffe used fewer bombers and more fighters in their formations because of the continued reluctance of the British to do battle with the German fighters. Park had ordered his pilots to accept combat with German fighters only if Fighter Command sector airfields were threatened.

For the duration of Phase Two, 24 August to 6 September, the RAF lost 273 fighters in combat plus 49 damaged. The Luftwaffe lost 308 fighters and bombers with 62 damaged.

Six out of seven sector airfields were extensively damaged and the telecommunications links to and from the operations blocks had proved especially vulnerable.

The German strategy of concentrating on attacking Fighter Command airfields was working, it was forcing the RAF fighters into combat. The higher concentration of fighters in German raids reduced the edge that Fighter Command had previously had.

The Luftwaffe could afford to trade Bf109s one for one with Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Fighter Command was Facing Destruction by the end of Phase Two

According to Dowding, "The rate of loss was so heavy that fresh squadrons became worn out before convalescing squadrons were ready to take their place."

Dwindling Reserves

Between 8 August and 6 September, 657 British fighters had been lost. By using replacement aircraft from repairs and storage, Fighter Command had managed to keep frontline strength to about the same levels as were available at the end of July - until 1 September.

Reserves had dwindled from 518 Spitfires and Hurricanes on 6 July to only 292 by 7 September.

Disappointing Production

In the last week of August, only 91 Spitfires and Hurricanes were produced while losses reached 137 destroyed and 11 seriously damaged.

On the Verge of Destruction

Fighter Command estimated that reserves would be exhausted in three weeks followed by the steady depletion of frontline squadrons. This would be accelerated if the Luftwaffe could successfully know out critical production facilities.

Critical Shortage of Pilots

In Phase One of the campaign (8 to 18 August) the RAF lost 154 pilots (killed, seriously wounded or missing) but only 63 new fighter pilots had come through from the training schools.

During August the combat strength of Fighter Command fell by almost a third from 1,434 to 1,023. The squadron average fell from 26 to 16 operational pilots.

In July and August, roughly a quarter of the squadron leaders and a third of the flight leaders had been killed or removed from flying due to injuries.

Experienced pilots made up less than half of Fighter Command's strength, the remainder having less than 20 hours flying time on fighters.

Stress levels were high and it was not uncommon for pilots to fly three or four sorties a day.

Eagle Attack Nearly Worked

The RAF was faced with the real possibility of withdrawing the depleted and exhausted 11 Group to bases north of London.

Goering's Eagle Attack was close to success. The Luftwaffe had within its grasp the possibility of achieving air superiority over the landing grounds of Operation Sea Lion, the German invasion of England.

Luftwaffe's Change in Strategy

From the Luftwaffe's point of view, losses were very heavy and they had failed to tempt the RAF up in sufficient numbers to allow the German fighters to deliver the decisive blow.

The idea of attacking London was gaining traction by the end of August.

The German High Command had set 15 September as the original date for the invasion but by the beginning of September it was delayed until 21 September because the Luftwaffe had not neutralised the threat from the British Navy and RAF to the invasion forces.

On 3 September Goering told Kesselring and Sperrle that there was no chance of destroying the English fighters on the ground and the RAF's last reserves would have to be forced into the air.

His idea was that if the British were heavily defending their airfields, then they would defend even more vigorously their capital. Since London was within the range of the Bf109, the Luftwaffe could more easily concentrate their fighter forces for the kill.

Sperrle strongly disagreed with Goering's plan to attack London. He felt that the British forces were too strong and that they too could concentrate all the their fighters over London. He favoured continued attacks on the airfields.

German intelligence reports suggested that British aircraft serviceability was as low as 100 at the end of August. In fact the operational strength stood at 672 on 23 August.

Hitler had forbidden attacks on London but the British had launched several attacks on Berlin in response to an accidental bombing of parts of London on 24 August. Fearing for his own popularity, Hitler agreed on 31 August to reprisal attacks on London.

PHASE THREE of Eagle Attack

On 7 September, Phase Three started with 650 bombers and over 1,000 attacking London docks by day. Substantial damage was inflicted on London but Fighter Command, from 7 September onwards, had been saved from defeat on the ground. However, it was still possible that the RAF could be defeated in the air above London.

From 11 to 14 September, London was attack by two major attacks (200+ bombers) and two minor attacks by day as well as attacks every night. Additional day raids were also carried out on Southampton (twice), Portland, Brighton, Eastbourne, Canterbury, Great Yarmouth and Norwich presumably to soften up the defences of these cities in preparation for invasion. But instead, the Luftwaffe would almost certainly have been better targeting 11 Group airfields.

Luftwaffe bombers losses were high and the bomber commanders were successful in getting Goering to order that the first role of the German fighters was to protect the bombers and not attack the enemy, but his stated objective was to draw up fighters so they could be destroyed. The whole purpose of attacking London in the first place would seem to have been lost.

The respite experienced by RAF airfields allowed the first break in over ten days for the pilots of 11 Group. Fighter Command had been in a state of near exhaustion but a new vigour resulted and was to prove decisive in the air battles on 15 September, they day that is now celebrated as Battle of Britain Day.

The Decisive Day - 15 September 1940

The Luftwaffe High Command fully expected the missions scheduled for 15 September to be the decisive blow. From Hitler down, the German leadership believed that Fighter Command had been broken in spirit and material. RAF resistance to attacks on 11 and 14 September had been slight (owing to errors in coordinating intercepts).

Attacks against London on 15 September involved 300 bombers and 1,000 fighters with another raid  of 30 against Portland and Southampton aircraft works.

With the support of 12 Group, Fighter Command met the raid with 170 Spitfires and Hurricanes operating from bases close to London which were not under attack.

Fighter Command downed 58 and damaged 25 German aircraft including 26 fighters lost and 8 damaged. Psychologically, the blow to the Luftwaffe was devastating.

British superiority on the 15 September was most likely to have benefited from the proximity of their airfields to the Battle, the freshness of the crews, the fact the airfields had not been attacked for the two days previous and the fact there was no diversionary raid.

German attacks continue in attempts to wear down the enemy but none with the strength launched on the 15 September.

Despite their continuing attacks, the Luftwaffe saw no evidence that the RAF was getting weaker but was suffering terrible losses.

Eventually raids would be restricted to the hours of darkness and Operation Sea Lion was indefinitely postponed. In the Spring of 1941, Hitler turned his attentions towards Russia and the Luftwaffe units that had been bombing England were re-deployed to the Eastern Front.

Britain can be grateful to more than just Churchill's Few

Fighter Command, particularly Dowding and Park but also all the pilots and ground crew, had played their part well and were well deserved recipients of the "gratitude of every home in our Island."

But Britain should also be grateful to some of those "in the abodes of the guilty" (as Churchill described the Germans):

had they attacked airfields by night prior to attacking them by day, 

had they attacked the airfields for longer, 

had they continued to attack Britain's radar installations, 

had Goering allowed his fighters to engage the British fighters instead of protecting his bombers, 

had Goering continued to attack airfields whilst he attacked London

had Hitler followed his instinct and prevented attacks on London 

and focussed on air-supremacy over his landing grounds

then the Luftwaffe may have won the Battle of Britain and Hitler may have invaded England.

by Steve Dunster

What was the Battle of Britain? ...and who were The Few?

<<< If you like what we do, please click here to support us >>>

The American journalist Ralph Ingersoll thought that:

The Battle of Britain was important in history as Waterloo or Gettysburg

What was the Battle of Britain?

...maybe the answer depends on who you ask!

Answer 1: No Idea!

According to the results of a survey carried out by the RAF Benevolent Fund for the 75th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain (published by The Telegraph on 10 July 2015), of 1,000 people asked:

40% of today's young people have no idea of what the Battle of Britain is

Only half of all adults knew that The Few is a reference to those who fought in the Battle of Britain

One in ten 18-24 year olds thought the Battle of Britain took place last year

The same number thought the Battle of Britain referred to a Viking attack

Answer 2: Spitfires and Dashing Pilots

Spitfires look fantastic nowadays, they must have looked even more so during the 1940s when the previous frontline fighters were bi-planes. Some of the pilots were young, rich, well educated, drove fast sports cars and looked very dashing.

At a time when public morale was everything and large numbers of RAF aircraft were flying over the Home Counties, it would have made great sense to have publicised these dashing pilots on posters and in films.

In actuality, pilots came from all backgrounds and all parts of the Empire and a great number of them were not even officers.

Whilst the Spitfire is still one of the prettiest aircraft ever made, there were actually more Hurricanes than Spitfires during the Battle of Britain and they shot down more enemy aircraft.


Answer 3: The Greatest Air Battle Ever Fought

Germany had some 2,500 aircraft ranged against the UK. The RAF had some 600+ fighters. There was no doubt that the people who witnessed the Battle of Britain must have been in awe of the numbers involved.

The noise, the destructive power, the sight of hundreds of aircraft, wave after wave...something that may never be seen again.

Answer 4: When Britain Fought Alone against the Might of an Undefeated Nazi Germany

As "under-dog" stories go, the Battle of Britain has surely got to be up there with the best. Germany was huge and its industrial might was immense. Then after the fall of France, Germany had most of Continental Europe under its command.

Since the fall of France, Germany could launch air attacks and an invasion from anywhere along the East Coast but also anywhere along our South Coast too.

The Luftwaffe had more aircraft than the RAF, it had more experience, better tactics and arguably better equipment.

Answer 5: When Britain Turned the Tide of the War Against Germany

When war was declared on 3 September 1939, fear and anxiety seared through every family in the Realm.

The hideous violence of the Great War (as it was known then, only later to be known as the First World War), the War to End All Wars, was still fresh in living memory.

So many families had lost fathers, brothers and sons - gassed, machine-gunned, blow apart or drowned. Many of those that survived had missing limbs and many more had psychological damage. Almost every family had been affected or knew one that was.

It is these memories and images that went through the minds of families when they heard Neville Chamberlain declare war on the radio 3 September 1939.

Terrible though the First World War was, the next war was feared to be even worse. Air warfare technology had transformed. Modern aircraft could go higher, faster, further and carry bomb loads of unspeakable destructive power.

There was a feeling that "the bomber would always get through" and that they would not just drop high explosives but incendiaries and, the most feared of all, gas!

The entire population was issued with gas masks. It was an offence to be in public without carrying your gas mask.

By July 1940, UK families had lost 100,000 of their fathers, brothers and sons in the fall of France. Another 200,000 had only just made it home by the skin of their teeth and with the determination of the Royal Navy and it's fleet of Little Ships. They had lost their children, sent to the countryside to avoid the horrors of aerial bombing. The sea shores were off limits and covered in minefields and barbed wire. Local recreation grounds were now the homes of barrage balloons, search lights and anti-aircraft guns. Long cherished gardens had been dug up to plant vegetables and bury bomb shelters. Almost everybody, it seemed, was wearing military uniform or had become part of the war effort in civilian life as air raid wardens, fire watchers, working on farms or in factories or in hospitals or raising money.

The whole of Continental Europe had fallen to Nazi Germany in weeks. Two of the greatest armies in the world (of France and Britain) had been brushed aside with heavy losses. German forces were only a few short miles across the Channel. To the entire world, it seemed that England was next.

Refugees from Belgium and Occupied Europe had made it across the Channel with horrific stories of torture and summary executions. There could be little doubt in the minds of the ordinary British public that if Germany succeeded in invading the UK that political elites, academics, engineers and anybody in a leadership position would be imprisoned, deported or executed.

Can it be any wonder that when the new Prime Minister Winston Churchill with his rousing speeches in June about never surrendering that it captured the hearts and minds of the entire population.

The Home Fleet of the Royal Navy were given the job of destroying any invasion fleet that headed for UK shores. The Royal Navy was a formidable fighting force and one that is widely thought to have been our saviour should Hitler have actually attempted an invasion... but they were far out to sea and away from the public gaze.

The Royal Air Force on the other hand were flying frequently over homes, factories and farms going out to meet the enemy. With the roar of their Merlin engines and disciplined formations they must have been an exciting and encouraging sight for the desperate eyes of a frightened public.

The public could see swirling vapour trails as "our boys" engaged the enemy. Sometimes they'd see enemy aircraft shot down or even crash-land close by. It was a visible and tangible sight that gave weight to Churchill's assertion that: "we will never surrender."

I don't think Churchill can have over-stated it when he said that:

"....the gratitude of every home in our Island...goes out to the airmen who...are turning the tide of the war."

The reality is that the British Army and Royal Navy were every bit as involved in the prevention of the much feared invasion as the Royal Air Force was...but the RAF were always present, above the homes of the anxious...and they were winning...despite being dreadfully out-numbered and suffering dreadful losses.

...and for that, every home in the Island I am sure would have been immeasurably grateful...I know I would have been.

Answer 6: The gratitude of so many...to so few

Only weeks before the Battle of Britain, an army of some 300,000 British troops had been defeated in France...yet over the Summer of 1940...when everybody feared imminent invasion...only 3,000 young pilots were visibly "turning the tide of the war".

Numerically the pilots of the RAF were 1% of the number of men in the British Expeditionary Force that were driven out of France.

In my mind I can see how strongly Churchill's words would have resonated in the hearts of a grateful and relieved public when he said:

"Never in the field of human conflict, was so much owed, by so many, to so few"

Answer 7: Their Finest Hour

And what of Churchill's impassioned hope that:

"If the British Empire [were] to last a thousand years, men would still say, this was their finest hour."

The Battle of Britain is just about still within living memory, it was only 75 years ago

...and apparently half the population of the country that were saved from tyranny...have already forgotten The Few that saved them.

If our country did last a thousand years, and if the Battle of Britain did turn out to indeed have been its "finest hour" 

how ungrateful would it have been to have forgotten it entirely

Please, don't let the importance of the Battle of Britain die. It's not taught in schools, there are precious few films, plays or games of it and major book stores allocate very little shelf space to it.

Raise the profile of the Battle of Britain in any way you can and show your gratitude to The Few

...and everybody else who fought and lived through this extraordinary part of our history.

Thank you

by Steve Dunster

Big Wing or Political Conspiracy?

<<< If you like what we do, please click here to support us >>>

The term "Big Wing" refers to the aerial combat tactic of having several squadrons in a single formation and was contraversially adopted during the Battle of Britain by 12 Group commander Air Vice-Marshal Trafford Leigh-Mallory and Acting Squadron Leader Douglas Bader.

Initially the Duxford Wing (as it became known) had comprised 242, 310 and 19 Squadrons but later 302 and 611 Squadrons were also added.

It was thought larger formations (Big Wings) would facilitate the shooting down of higher numbers of enemy aircraft and incur fewer losses than using smaller formations. Sadly large formations were slow to deploy, difficult to manage in the air and chaotic in battle.

Leigh-Mallory and Bader of 12 Group felt there were huge advantages in having large formations to attack the enemy.

Dowding (commanding officer of Fighter Command) and Park (commander of 11 Group) strongly felt the opposite. Park had tried using Wings in the defence of the Dunkirk beaches and found them to be unwieldy, chaotic and often in the wrong place.

History has sided strongly with Dowding and Park

The Park approach of sending up single squadrons one after another to harass enemy formations on the way to their target was highly successful at protecting targets from the worst excesses of the raid and in the shooting down of enemy aircraft. Sadly it was costly and the tactic was not popular with some of his pilots because of the large losses.

This guerrilla approach to aerial combat was exactly right for the war Park had to fight but it made huge demands on the pilots' bravery and skill...nevertheless it protected targets and shot down enemy aircraft.

The Big Wing by comparison rarely engaged with the enemy (prior to the Luftwaffe raids on London) because it took too long to form up, was often in the wrong place, was unwieldy if it did engage and the increased chaos during combat resulted in much over-claiming of their successes. The Big Wing's actual successes turned out to be a fraction of what was claimed.

The supporters of the Big Wing would point out its high claims and low losses. Even at the time, the claims were thought to have been exaggerated and their low loss rate was accountable to the fact they had rarely engaged with the enemy.

So the Big Wing was an utter failure? Perhaps not...

History's assessment of the Big Wing's performance has been to assume its somewhat haphazard formation was solely intended to destroy enemy aircraft and protect intended targets...a purpose it was patently unsuited for according to the historic record.

But perhaps its purpose was not just to attack the Luftwaffe...it would seem that the Big Wing was an effective political device for use against Dowding.

Hugh Trenchard (founder of the RAF) had apparently clashed with Dowding when they were both commanders in the Royal Flying Corps during WW1.

Trenchard had retired by the time WW2 had started but was still influential at the highest levels of the RAF and Air Ministry.

Trenchard and his supporters felt that "the bomber would always get through" and that the only effective means of defending against bombing raids was to deliver a "knock out blow" by sending our own bombers back in response.

There was a strong feeling by some that Fighter Command was the wrong approach when it came to defence against bombers. Fortunately, Dowding managed to get enough political support to put together Fighter Command and its Dowding System of Command and Control...but Dowding was unpopular in powerful places.

When it became clear that Bomber Command was incapable of delivering a "knock out blow" to Germany in 1940 the pro-bomber advocates were severely embarrassed by Fighter Command's successes.

Was the Big Wing fiasco used by Dowding's political enemies to help bring him down?

The Duxford Big Wing was formed after only a telephone discussion between Leigh-Mallory and Bader with little planning and with no discussion or agreement with Fighter Command. Bader had great enthusiasm for a Big Wing and Leigh-Mallory took him at his word.

Is it dubious, or reckless, or negligent that a senior commander should take the word of an inexperienced junior officer and unilaterally commit to such a poorly executed experiment at such a critical time? And why did he put one of his least experienced Squadron Leaders in charge of such a difficult-to-lead unit?

Bader did not always follow ground control instructions and often flew into 11 Group's area on his own initiative leaving Fighter Command unable to use the Big Wing in any coordinated way and many times it was caught out of position and unable to do good.

Ironically Leigh-Mallory complained to Park during the Battle (according to McInstry), "Full explanation required why 11 Group fighters have shot down enemy fighters over 12 Group area."

At a meeting of the Air Council on 17 October 1940, Dowding and Park found themselves on the defensive. Park started to monitor the effectiveness of Leigh-Mallory's big wings and submitted a report which showed that in ten separate sorties in the second half of October they had managed to shoot down just one German aircraft. But nobody was interested. It would seem that political interests, not military evidence, was guiding those at the highest levels.

Despite having won the Battle of Britain, Dowding retired from his post in November 1940 and Keith Park was removed as commander of 11 Group and sent to Training Command. Park was replaced by Leigh-Mallory who brought his Big Wing ideas south. Leigh-Mallory would seem to have had sympathies in high places for his opinions and actions.

Dowding's career was over but Park would eventually be given commands as befitting his talents: Malta, Sicily and North Africa.

The Big Wing may not have played an important tactical role in Battle of Britain
...but it played a crucial role in the outcome of the political conspiracy against Dowding

When the Air Ministry's Historical Branch first published its account of the Battle of Britain, there was no mention of Hugh Dowding or Keith Park. It was only at Churchill's insistence that they were eventually included.

In a letter Park wrote at the time (McInstry), "Frankly I was more worried about the lack of cooperation (with Leigh-Mallory) than I was about out-witting the massed German raids."

Once Leigh-Mallory was in post at 11 Group in January 1941, a paper exercise was carried out to explore the effectiveness of a Big Wing within 11 Group. The intention was to prove the superiority of large formations using the circumstances of an actual attack on Kenley, Biggin Hill and Hornchurch sectors on 6 September 1940.

Leigh-Mallory mis-managed the operation, permitting the raid to progress unhindered which resulted in Kenley and Biggin Hill aerodromes being "bombed" whilst their aircraft were still on the ground.

We should perhaps be grateful that Leigh-Mallory wasn't successful in becoming 11 Group commander any sooner, the Battle of Britain may well have had a different outcome

by Steve Dunster

We Found my Dad's old Hurricane - in the Science Museum

<<< If you like what we do, please click here to support us >>>

My Dad, Edgar Dunster, was ground crew for 615 Squadron at RAF Kenley during the Battle of Britain. 

During the mid to late 1970s we were on a family holiday and visited Torbary Aircraft Museum. My Dad froze and became very emotional, pointing at a Hawker Hurricane and said, "That's my aircraft!"

He was insistent! Apparently

"You never forget your aircraft's registration number!" 

...presumably because you're always writing it down on some form or other after you've worked on it.

All I can remember is that the Hurricane was in Battle of Britain colours, had the 615 Squadron "KW" markings and that Dad was insistent it was his. I did take a photo of it for him but I've no idea where that photo is now.

The guy in charge of the museum pricked Dad's bubble when he pointed out the Hurricane was a replica built for the 1966 film Battle of Britain, and was merely painted to look like Dad's aircraft.

You can imagine that Dad was feeling a little deflated but then he perked up when the guy said that the real one was in the Imperial War Museum.

As the years went by, remembering how emotional Dad had got at seeing his old aircraft, I kept suggesting we go to London to find it. My parents had a bit of a phobia about going to London and we never did but I never let go of the idea.

When I was old enough, I travelled to London on my own and visited the Imperial War Museum to try and find his aircraft. Sadly my trip was fruitless.

Years later I discovered that a new aircraft museum was being put together in Duxford near Cambridge and that it was part of the Imperial War Museum. So I figured that maybe his aircraft was there - but sadly not.

The trail had gone cold and Dad died in 1981 never having seen his aircraft.

After he died I got married and had two wonderful children and thought nothing more of Dad's old aircraft.

In 2014 I started a Battle of Britain Twitter account called @BofB1940 as a summer project with my eldest son (Kit) to teach him something of the workings of social media.

Using Battle of Britain records and history books I'd collected over the years, Kit and myself put together a real time Twitter feed for the Battle of Britain as if it was happening now.

Spurred on by the unexpected success of @BofB1940, Kit started avidly consuming Battle of Britain reading material. His eye was drawn to one article that I'd never read, about the Hurricane in the Science Museum.

Kit asked me to confirm that Dad's old squadron was 615 which I did.

Apparently when we had visited the Science museum as a family for the first time only months before, the Hurricane we'd seen was actually from Dad's old squadron.

Sadly I had no recollection of the registration number of Dad's old aircraft but I was lucky enough to find information from a Torbay Museum Guide that somebody had put on the Internet: it said

Hawker Hurricane KW-Z (replica for the Battle of Britain film)

This was progress, it told me that what Dad thought his old aircraft had the ident letter Z.

The article that Kit found said that the Science Museum Hurricane had the following markings during its time with 615 Squadron:

L1592   KW-Z

This gave me more information and Google was now able to tell me:

Replica BAPC.63: initially marked L1592 KW-Z; currently marked SD-T located at the Hawkinge Museum, Kent

Looking up the BAPC register, I was able to confirm that BAPC.63 was:

P3208/SD-T Hawker Hurricane (full scale model), Kent Battle of Britain Musuem, Hawkinge - built for the film "Battle of Britain" ex L1592

And for me this was conclusive proof:

• I had Torbay museum records from the Internet telling me what Dad saw was KW-Z. 
• I had aviation forums telling me the replica at Torbay was BAPC.63
• I had the BAPC register saying BAPC.63 was originally marked as L1592 KW-Z
• I had an article saying that L1592 was in the Science Museum and used to be marked KW-Z

So I am guessing when the guy at at Torbay Aircraft Museum said the original was in the Imperial War Museum, maybe he meant the Science Museum - or maybe there was a transfer from one to the other or maybe we weren't listening properly.

We had found Dad's aircraft and it was in the Science Museum and we had all seen it (without realising it was his) only months before.

I'd very much like to take my family back to the Science Museum soon, this time knowing that it was Dad's aircraft...and strangely I'd also like to visit the Hawkinge Battle of Britain Museum to see the exact replica that I stood in front of with my Dad...thinking it was his old aircraft.

Then a further realisation dawned. If L1592 was definitely Dad's aircraft then presumably Dad would have known its pilot.

Dad was at Kenley on 18 August when the aerodrome was bombed and Mum was in married quarters only a few miles away in Whyteleafe.

On that same day, Dad's old aircraft and pilot were up flying in combat. Len Deighton has documented what happened in his book Fighter - The True Story Of The Battle Of Britain:

18 August 1940

Pilot Officer D. J. Looker in KW-Z was at an even greater disadvantage than the rest of 615 Squadron, for his usual aircraft was damaged, forcing him to fly in a Hurricane I, from reserve. It had fabric-covered wings and its fuel tanks were not self-sealing. Worse, from a handling point of view, it had a de Havilland variable-pitch (two-pitch) airscrew instead of a Rotol constant-speed propeller. This meant inferior performance and more work for the pilot.

No. 615 Squadron were still using the old formation (four vees) and were flying tightly together in the pre-war style. Undoubtedly this made them easier to spot. They were bounced out of the sun by the Bf 109s they were looking for, and the tail of KW-Z was hit by cannon shells. The Hurricane went into a spin, but Looker was experienced enough to regain control of it. He was reluctant to bail out, having just spent a month in hospital with leg injuries after a dog-fight during the battles in France. He dodged through the balloon barrage cables that were there expressly to inhibit such flying, and then put the Hurricane down at the first landing field he saw. It was the pre-war London airport at Croydon. As he came in, he ran the gauntlet of the anti-aircraft guns who thought he was a German bomber.

Pilot Officer Looker survived, but incredibly one of the airport officials at Croydon made a written complaint about his airport being used as an emergency landing field. Looker's Hurricane also survived, to become an exhibit at London's Science Museum.

I am of course pleased that Dad's old aircraft still exists but I am absolutely delighted that it was only my son's involvement, the Grandson he never met, that was the key to the whole mystery:

Kit had finally found his Grandad's old aircraft. Something that easily brings a tear to my eye.

by Steve Dunster

Boulton-Paul Defiant: Stupid Idea or Dreadful Leadership?

<<< If you like what we do, please click here to support us >>>

The Boulton-Paul Defiant has been the subject of much discussion on the @BofB1940 twitter feed. Most have the view that the aircraft is a flawed concept, an idea that couldn't possibly have worked, an idea that needlessly cost lives.

A small minority on the @BofB1940 feed have defended the aircraft saying that it was Fighter Command's mis-use of the aircraft that was flawed, not the design concept. 

Slaughter of the Innocents

On the 19th July 1940, No 141 Squadron (Defiants) sent up nine aircraft (together with a Spitfire squadron and a Hurricane squadron) to intercept Bf110s that were reportedly dive bombing shipping off Dover. 

Whilst they were still climbing, a group of Bf109s were sweeping high above the English Channel with perfect visibility. Undetected by the climbing Defiants, the Bf109s performed the perfect bounce and attacked from the sun.

The brief but brutal combat resulted in the loss of six out of the nine Defiants and signalled the end of the RAF using them as daytime front-line fighters. No 141 Squadron was withdrawn to 13 Group and the Defiant was eventually relegated to that of a night fighter role.

Stupid Idea?

Many people (like me) think that a fighter the size of a Spitfire with a less powerful engine, with the extra weight of a second crew member and a one ton turret is a really stupid idea.

If you then take that stupid idea and make sure that the pilot has no forward firing armaments and that the turret can only fire upwards and that the gunner has to constantly tell the pilot what he's trying to shoot at - then this must surely be the most monumentally stupid idea of all human conflict?

Such people (like me) can't understand why on earth the Boulton-Paul Defiant could possibly have been deployed into 11 Group as a day time front line fighter in Hell Fire Corner. We assumed that this "stupid idea" must have seemed a "good idea" a long time before the War, like the Blenheim, but by the time war broke out, it was out-dated. If that's true, what was it doing in Hell Fire Corner?

The Defiant at its Best

It turns out that the Boulton-Paul Defiant was actually the newest fighter in the RAF which would explain why it was used in front-line day time duties in Fighter Command.

Sadly the Defiant wasn't designed as a fighter to take on single seat fighters, it was designed as a Bomber Destroyer to kill unescorted bombers.

During the Winter of 1940, No 264 Squadron was equipped with the first ever Defiants. They developed new tactics for the new type. 

No 264 Squadron was Operational in March 1940 and was highly successful in the Battle for France.

A properly trained Defiant squadron, it would seem, can be highly successful at destroying Ju87s, He111s and Ju88s. A valuable asset indeed for the Battle of Britain

No 264 Squadron (Defiants) had 64 enemy aircraft claimed destroyed for a loss of 14 Defiants.

141 Squadron had its Own Ideas

No 141 Squadron was the second squadron to be equipped with Defiants but decided they would take little notice of the tactics developed by the highly successful 264 Squadron before it.

When 141 Squadron was thrown into the heat of battle on 19 July 1940, it had none of the well trained, well thought through, tried and battle-tested tactics of 264 Squadron.

Defiants couldn't Speak to Spitfire or Hurricane Squadrons

One of the shortcomings of the Defiant (as highlighted by 264 Squadron but not fixed by Fighter Command) was that the Defiants were fitted with a different radio system to that of the rest of Fighter Command.

When No 141 Squadron was sent up to engage the enemy on 19 July 1940 with a Spitfire squadron and a Hurricane squadron, they had no method of communicating with them.

The Defiant was an Unescorted Bomber Destroyer

...so why on earth was 141 Squadron ever deployed to 11 Group. It was possibly the only Group in Fighter Command that was likely to have fighter escorted bombers almost all the time because it was so close to enemy airfields in France.

No 141 Squadron would presumably have been far better deployed to 13 Group in Scotland or the East Coast.

Stupid Idea or Dreadful Leadership?

Whilst I have always been of the view that the Boulton-Paul Defiant was a stupid idea, I had been ignorant of the tactics developed for it in 264 Squadron and how amazingly successful they had been in France.

I was also unaware that it's concept was one of the Unescorted Bomber Destroyer, for which (looking at 264's statistics) it would seem to have been remarkably well suited.

This does leave me with these three burning questions:

1. Why was No 141 Squadron leadership allowed to completely ignore battle-proven tactics as developed by No 264 Squadron and to go into battle on 19 July 1940 un-prepared?
2. Why was No 141 Squadron not deployed to a Group in Fighter Command where it was more likely to come across "unescorted bombers", like Scotland or the East Coast?
3. Why was the interoperability issue not addressed regarding the different radio systems used on Defiants?

For me, thanks to No 264 Squadron, I no longer consider the Defiant a stupid idea. 

It doesn't sound like a flawed concept but a niche and specialist role.

I have to say that I'm a convert. I now agree with the small minority on the @BofB1940 feed who say it wasn't the Defiant that was the problem, it was the leadership...the leadership of No 141 Squadron and the leadership of Fighter Command.

Churchill wanted Defiants but Dowding wanted Spitfires & Hurricanes

Churchill supported the concept of the Defiant but Dowding wanted fast single-seater forward-firing fighters.

Dowding only equipped two of his squadrons with Defiants and when one of them suffered heavy losses it gave him the ideal reason to withdraw Defiants from his front line.

Was it Dowding's lack of enthusiasm for the Defiant that created the conditions which led to a series of leadership failures that resulted in No 141 Squadron suffering such heavy losses?

Churchill later felt that he'd been wrong to support the Defiant...but maybe he hadn't been, maybe he'd been ignorant of the leadership failings surrounding No 141...he might even have been ignorant of the incredible successes of No 264 Squadron.

Why was No 264 Squadron Withdrawn from Operations?

By May 1940, the successful No 264 Squadron started to suffer mounting losses as the Luftwaffe discovered the Defiant was vulnerable to frontal attack. 264 was withdrawn from operations as a day fighter and started to train for the night fighter role.

Nevertheless, had Defiant squadrons been restricted to that of Unescorted Bomber Destroyer,  maybe 264 would have faired better.

Maybe it was right that the Defiants were withdrawn but maybe there was also an element of self-fulfillment about Dowding's prophecy.

Should the Defiant have been Withdrawn?

Is it possible that if enough Defiant squadrons had followed the battle-proven tactics and training of 264 

...and if Fighter Command and ensured that all Defiants could have communicated properly with their protecting Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons 

...and if Fighter Command had ensured that Defiants were largely engaging with unescorted bombers by deploying them into Scotland and the East Coast and freeing up single seat fighters for 11 Group,

...is it possible that the RAF's newest fighter, the Defiant, could have come out of the Battle of Britain with high scores and low losses

...and when we said the words Spitfire and Hurricane with patriotic pride, perhaps we might also have said Boulton-Paul Defiant.

by Steve Dunster