Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkeEins
but the Allies were always going to 'out-produce' the Germans since the latter had no means of hitting major Allied production centres -whether that be America or the Urals- surely a major failing of Luftwaffe planning, procurement and strategy..? of course ultimately the Luftwaffe finished the war with the same pre-war types in service (109, He111, Ju 87 etc etc), whereas the Hampdens and Whitleys had long gone..
Ruy, you seem to be saying in effect that the Luftwaffe performed ‘well’ given that it was waging a war under changed circumstances, a war for which it not been conceived....presumably you see these changing circumstances as starting to impact from, say, about December 1941 ?...
That line of argument unfortunately brings us back to the Battle of Britain and the importance of Britain’s geographical situation for the continued prosecution of the war in the West. The Luftwaffe -supporting the army- couldn't impede the BEF at Dunkirk & more crucially failed to bring to the British to their knees or the negotiating table during the summer of 1940.
|
Britain could only out produce because they were let off the hook in the winter of 1940 and were receiving massive support from the US.
The British have history on its side, at least that part which they choose to high light, thus it would take more than a continental defeat (at most a major setback) or a single summer of bombing to crack their will.
But no, I don't regard 11 dec as crucial, although I regard it as a fundamental mistake by Hitler. It was Barbarossa which turned the table in the war against Britain. With the Eastern Front it was impossible for the Germans to make the strategic shift in allocated resources needed to defeat Britain. That shift in resources was actually part of pre war military planning, but Hitler choose to shorten the war by quickly defeating the Soviets first (he might be forgiven if one looks at the history of the eastern front in WW1 and the quick unexpected victory against Anglo-French in 1940)..
Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain are important only in as far as it didn't give Germany the quick settlement they were after in their gamble. But I think it is an illusion to think that Britain would have lasted long if she had to sustain the full pressure of the German war machine for an extended period. Tough as it may have been for war time Brits, and the British people can certainly be proud of their country and themselves during this period, it certainly wasn't the full German war machine nor its full potential that was aimed at them.
As for the Luftwaffe not being able to impede the BEF in its evacuation, that's true, but is it that by which we measure its performance? If so, what does that make of the Allied AF during the Sicilian evacuation? Perhaps we should judge it by the fact that the BEF was so quick in leaving the continent in the first place, something that the RAF could not change either.
But I am entering a tit for tat discussion, something that I did not want to do. A lot of pointless writing that has no other purpose than amusing some anonymous OP.
Falke, like I seem to write often these days, we won't agree, so it is better to agree to disagree.