Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst
As a matter of fact, the LW's enemy-related, on operations losses for the SE fighters are just 502, (+19 non-enemy related, +22 not on operations) which could be compared to the British loss figures given - ie. the 962 odd figure.
|
Yes, but what have the relative losses in single-engined fighters got to do with anything? I repeat, the Battle was not won by accumulating score points. The RAF needed to prevent the Luftwaffe attaining its objectives and it needed to do that until the weather was such that a seaborne invasion was impracticable (and in England that's probably going to be September/October). The British needed above all to kill bombers but to do that they had to get past the German fighters and sometines that meant fighting them.
An armed force will accept losses if it is attaining its objectives but will usually be less ready to do so if it appears to be getting nowhere. Whatever the numbers lost, the Luftwaffe was getting nowhere. If you aim to destroy your opponent's defences and they just keep getting stronger, you are not winning.
You might remember a thread on the old forum about the Luftwaffe's losses being greater in the Battle of France than in the BoB. Maybe they were, but the payback was that Germany put France out of the war and occupied much of the country. On the other hand, the aircraft and men they lost in the BoB "bought" them nothing.
Modern authors are quite capable of breaking down the figures in the way you suggest. Wood & Dempster's is an old book - written much nearer to the Battle than to the present day.
Incidentally, I don't entirely agree with Graham about RAF bomber losses being relevant (except when they were bombing airfields). Bombing the ports and canals hindered the invasion fleet's build-up but that fleet was going nowhere before air superiority was established. So in a way the bombers were fighting the "next" battle.