Placing the Fairey Battle.

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Juha

"BC dropped 30 bombs on the Koenigsberg and missed. The FAA Skuas sank it. In my book it is evidence for the claim that BC lacked competence."


Tony
after all BC sank ½ of German battleships, Tirpitz
Knocked out for good ½ of German battlecruisers, Gneisenau.
sank 2/3 of German Pocket battleships, Admiral Scheer and Lützow.
Now the 2 pocket battleships were sunk during the last month of war but Lützow was still giving valuable gun support to hard pressed Heer when sunk. Halifaxes damaged Schanhorst badly at La Pallice on 24 July 41. Carpet bombing of La Havre sunk a number of torpedo and motor torpedoboats and forced others to move away from there during summer 44. There were also many failures and the bombings of Schanhorst, Gneisenau and Hipper at Brest were ineffective. But so were Luftwaffe's attacks on Scapa Flow, on Rosyth and on Loch Ewe or what was the RN's temporary base in NW Scotland.

BTW, how many sorties LW flew against damaged Illustrious at Valetta harbour, when it laid there during emergency repairs? IIRC they got only one hit. Was LW's anti-ship specialist Fliegerkorps incompetent? Was Ju 87 wrong plane against docked ships? To me the first question is ridiculous, what You think?

Juha

I tell you what I think, Juha.
I think the claims made by the RAF and BC from 1930 to 1945 were ridiculous.
In the 1930s the RAF argued that the RN did not need to build any more capital ships because the RAF could destroy all German warships much more cheaply.
The RAF said the only need for an army was to protect its airfields and the ports, and to occupy Germany after it had capitulated to the RAF. All threats everywhere would be met by bombers. They pointed to American tests in which bombers sank battleships.
The panic over being bombed that gripped the British public in the 1930s was far greater than anything today over 'Muslim extremists', and just as ridiculous. But it meant the RAF got nearly all of the funds.
In 1939 the RAF was a well-equipped and well-funded strategic bomber force.
When hostilities began BC was asked to deliver on its promises, and specifically to degrade the Kriegsmarine. But BC's attacks on the Admiral Scheer in the Schillig Roads on September 4, 1939, and on the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst off Brunsbuettelkoog on the same day, and its attack on the Koenigsberg, all failed completely. The sinking of the Koenigsberg showed where the money should have gone.
So what went wrong with BC?
I say BC's claims were always outrageous and their performance was incompetent. By the time BC learnt some competence it didn't matter because the Kriegsmarine had been destroyed by the RN, and the Wehrmacht had been beaten by the Soviet army.
Concerning the Luftwaffe, the Germans rearmed with the Luftwaffe as part of all-arms. The Germans never believed the Luftwaffe could win the war on its own. Hitler said as much. The Luftwaffe was a tactical arm and little thought was given to using it strategically.
German all-arms were successful until they met an army with better equipment and better integrated all-arms. They were beaten at their own game.
The Allies by comparison were not in the all-arms game. The game they were in could be described as glorifying the boys in blue.
But a time comes when reality replaces spin. BC never got a campaign medal.

Tony