[Nick Beale]

"an interesting appraisal of combat losses on both sides - the RAF's being much higher for the four months July to October"

Which is interesting but in isolation doesn't tell us much. We need to factor in the respective abilities of each side to replace those losses (as well as weighing them: the resource cost of losing a medium bomber vs. a single-seat fighter, for example) and - more difficult but a real question - were the losses incurred "worth it"? I can see what Britain got in return for what it lost but what did Germany get for its?

The argument has been made here in the past that the Luftwaffe lost more aircraft in the Battle of France (to say nothing of army casualties) but France was knocked out of the war and Germany gained huge economic and strategic resources (imagine the Battle of the Atlantic without U-boat bases in France). Their "investment" in the Battle of Britain got them a big fat nothing.