>>18227903
No situation other than stuff that enters scifi territory does Germany win the Battle of Britian

>>18227903
>won the Battle for Britain
Define winning

>>18227915
I thought they almost won, no? Had Hitler not been a retard and started targeting the cities, than they would've won?

>>18227928
Royal Air Force crippled and maybe forced into a peace?

>>18227915
>it’s sci-fi if Britain blunders a string of sorties leading to the decisive destruction of their major ports, bases, and production centers
>it’s sci-fi if this is followed up with a small scale invasion that sweeps the disorganized British forces who are at the mercy of German air power
If it’s sci-fi, well, why did Britain lose in France?
>>18227903
There is no Barbarossa because the war ends with a peace treaty granting Germany back its former European territory. Hitler dies in 1948 of heart failure, succeeded by the son of the Kaiser and a Sober Hermann Goering until 1959 when Otto Skorzeny runs on the European Union platform to keep communism and capitalism out of Europe.
Ivan and Mutt sperg out but can do nothing because the EU is formed early with spookmaster Skorzeny overseeing it.

Germans develop strategic deterrence through Sarin ICBMs.
Russians and Mutts seethe to present day.

>>18227929
No it's often overstated how close the British were to losing ngl but it eased up pressure when Hitler went to cities rather than airfields

Then they'd have to keep bombing the factories & air fields throughout the war until england gives up or bit combat effective

>>18227929
nope, Britain outproduced Germany in aircraft every month of the battle of britain, and every downed german pilot was ether killed or captured, while the brits could put the ones that survived into new planes. Also even a crippled RAF would still be flying sorties regularly enough that the Germans couldn't have invaded. There was no way they could actually have destroyed them.

>>18228532
You idiot. Air craft production matters less than readiness and Germany was slowly gaining on Britain in readiness.
>every German pilot downed
You say this as if Germany had a manpower shortage in 1940 and individual pilots were draining them.
the RAF was losing sortie capable fighters at a rate faster than Germany, if we extrapolate this over a longer period of time, they lose, no questions about it, no debate can be had, if you run out of flight ready aircraft you lose. Your production numbers do not matter because aircraft are not like tanks, they can not be flown out of the factory into battle.
Britain never exceeded 2500 flight ready aircraft throughout the entire war.
Their lowest point was during the Battle of Britain when they sank to 500.

Stop fellating the RAF, they were retarded communists anyway.
And they lost. Couldn’t hold onto France.

>>18228661
>loss of a skilled expirenced pilot means nothing
why are neonazis so retarded?

>>18229135
>Germany was going to physically run out of Pilots despites having an absolute advantage in readiness and manpower
lol?

>>18227930
Why would Britain be forced into peace if RAF is temporarily crippled?

>>18228661
>Air craft production matters less
I can assure you aircraft production matters.
Avgas production also matters. And Britain had more. A lot more.

>You say this as if Germany had a manpower shortage in 1940 and individual pilots were draining them.
It's not a matter of manpower. It's a matter of pilots.
How many pilots does your country have in 2025 as opposed to its general population?

>the RAF was losing sortie capable fighters at a rate faster than Germany
No the Luftwaffe was losing more. This is statistics and it's easily searched.
Luftwaffe fighter planes were tactically crippled by Görings demand to tie them close to the bombers because the bombers were taking high casualties during battles.

>if we extrapolate this over a longer period of time, they lose
The problem is that time is against Germany.
Britain has more resources and more material and greater industrial capacity.
Britain (and France) problem was that they entered ww2 largely unprepared and needed time to mobilize their entire empires but they would absolutely surpass Germany given enough time, especially since Germany had been cut off from the global market.

>if you run out of flight ready aircraft you lose.
Even if Britain hypothetically would run out of aircrafts, they wouldnt "lose" since Luftwaffe still couldnt complete their objective, which was to destroy the RAF infrastructure, because bombing missions were ineffective.
And even if that hypothetically happens, it still doesnt mean Britain "lose" because this was just supposed to be the first step of Operation Sealion, one of the greatest memes of ww2 because of its practical impossibility, which the British leadership (and German) was very aware of.

>they can not be flown out of the factory into battle.
Should be said that Luftwaffe was never able to even destroy the very first forward echelon of RAF airfields, which the RAF had exepected to lose when battle commenced.

>>18227903
Nothing would change. Sure, Germany would have more free reign to bomb Britain at will, but they still wouldn't have the capability to launch Operation Sealion, which was wishful thinking for the Nazis more than anything. Operation Barbarossa would still end in failure, it was doomed from the start

>>18227915
Fpbp

>>18229167
>>18229203
>>18229186
if the Krauts were smart why not after winning the air battle they start focusing on bombing the shit out of the Royal navy? what would the bongs do then?

>>18227930
>RAF loses some planes
>Britain, the largest Empire in the world, decides to surrender instead of using it's steel industry to make more planes
Okay sure lol

>>18229208
but if dey lose dey planes den germany bomb dey steel

Why are they so afraid of merely theorizing a British German peace?

I think it is because it would de-mythologize the nazis, because they would be talked about not as a rogue state but as an integrated, not really unique, European state, this would only hasten the end of the boomer-truth regime.

I mean, its basically dead already, Fuentes killed it.
Why not have fun speculating? Why the vitriol? Why the hatred? Why the inability to even theorize a possible scenario where Nazi Germany is at peace with the rest of Europe?

Everyone already knows slavs are violent orcs and jews are duplicitous genocidal maniacs.
Why carry water for them by making Hitler out to be a cartoon villain?

>>18229186
>aircraft production matters
If we are talking about an ongoing air battle, then no, it does not matter.
All that matters, the sole factor, is aircraft readiness, how many planes can get into the air at one time.
The replacement rate or increase of aircraft is necessarily secondary to the number of aircraft you can get airborne at any given moment.

You're not going to outproduce "mission-kill" type losses with production, its just not possible because in a single day a single pilot can run through 5+ aircraft.
You're not going to get 5 aircraft from factory to sky in a few hours that's just not how aircraft works.
These arent tanks, theyre not battle ready off the assembly line.

>its a matter of pilots
This is a form of manpower.
Germany had many pilot candidates and they were not losing pilots faster than they could replace them.
Its absurd to say that Germany, who was able to put combat capable pilots into planes from civilian status in under two weeks, is going to run out of pilots.
That's just retarded, they arent losing 500 Pilots a day.
They lost 3500 over the course of three months.
>Luftwaffe was losing more
nope.
The Luftwaffe for the entire duration had more operationally ready aircraft than Britian.
When you say "losing more" I suspect you mean irrecoverable, and not aircraft that simply arent fit for operation.

You do realize you can not just land a plane then re-fly it that day right?
That is an extreme minority of aircraft who are not only pristine upon return but also need little enough maintenance to be flight ready the same day, let alone in a few hours.
>time is against Germany
time is against Germany if they do not maintain the pressure.

The reason the Germans called it off was they, incorrectly, thought the British had them beaten. That the RAF was more numerous and could cover the entire air-front.
They couldnt, the RAF with tactical ability and use of Radar and force dispersion was able to barely degrade the Luftwaffe.

>>18229186
Had Germany continued their advantage would have begun to compound immensely and the degradation of the Luftwaffe in 1945 would have occurred with the RAF.
Just a pure lack of flight ready aircraft.
it doesnt matter how many planes you produce when the majority of them can only be flown once every other day at maximum efficiency.
>bombing missions were ineffective
Not really, the Germans couldnt do it during the battle of Britain but in this hypothetical theyd have clearer skies and this would allow them to prevent the Royal Navy from moving into the channel and would allow the Germans to support ground forces landing on the UK whether they are small infiltration teams or division sized elements.
>SeaLion
SeaLion would succeed without question given the aforementioned circumstances.
Britain is unprepared, German forces could be moved with impunity, German forces could be supported with aircraft, German Airdropped forces, when supported by aircraft always punched way above their weight, German ground forces supported by aircraft are unstoppable in 1940.

its not a practical impossibility, not even the wargamers who were absurdly pro-Britain gave it a 0% chance of success.
>the Luftwaffe wasnt able to destroy the forward most RAF base
You dont need to destroy airfields completely, you only need to degrade their utility.

It wouldnt even matter because Britain was running out of combat ready aircraft faster than Germany.
I was actually surprised when I read about how close the battle of Britian was.

Look into it.

>>18228661
>You say this as if Germany had a manpower shortage in 1940 and individual pilots were draining them.
Germany actually did have chronic shortages of experienced pilots throughout the entire war. When nazis brag about how German aces had thousands of kills, the reason that was so is because good pilots were NEVER allowed to leave the front and were thrown into combat over and over again until they died or got captured or crippled. Because they didn't have enough experienced pilots to fight the war AND train new pilots, the standards for new recruits were constantly slipping until they had to design planes that could be operated by children to cope

>>18229377
Germans averaged more kills per sortie across the board, they were literally just better pilots.
Their aces having more air time is why they buried other aces, but if you took airtime into account they still overperform compared to Western and Soviet pilots.
German aerial power was bottlenecked by aircraft readiness, not pilot number.
This was true for basically everyone throughout the war.

File: Skärmbild 2025-12-13 165528.png (93 KB, 908x656)

93 KB PNG

>>18229338
>If we are talking about an ongoing air battle, then no, it does not matter.
It does matter because Britain could replace and outproduce Germany during the battle.

"Richard Overy agrees with Dye and Bungay. Overy says that only one airfield was temporarily put out of action and "only" 103 pilots were lost. British fighter production, not counting repaired aircraft, produced 496 new aircraft in July, 467 in August, and 467 in September, covering the losses of August and September. Overy indicates the number of serviceable and total strength returns reveal an increase in fighters from 3 August to 7 September, 1,061 on strength and 708 serviceable to 1,161 on strength and 746 serviceable.[226] Moreover, Overy points out that the number of RAF fighter pilots grew by one-third between June and August 1940. Personnel records show a constant supply of around 1,400 pilots in the crucial weeks of the battle. In the second half of September it reached 1,500. The shortfall of pilots was never above 10%. The Germans never had more than between 1,100 and 1,200 pilots, a deficiency of up to one-third. "If Fighter Command were 'the few', the German fighter pilots were fewer".[227]"

The RAF grew during the battle. The Luftwaffe decreased.
Pic related.


>Germany had many pilot candidates and they were not losing pilots faster than they could replace them.

"Not only was British aircraft production replacing aircraft, but replacement pilots were keeping pace with losses. The number of pilots in RAF Fighter Command increased during July, August and September. The figures indicate the number of pilots available never decreased: from July, 1,200 were available; from 1 August, 1,400; in September, over 1,400; in October, nearly 1,600; by 1 November, 1,800. Throughout the battle, the RAF had more fighter pilots available than the Luftwaffe.[222][223]"

>>18229338
>The Luftwaffe for the entire duration had more operationally ready aircraft than Britian.
The Luftwaffe was bleeding aircrafts and pilots at a much faster rate than Britain, literally every single statistics points to this, and it was the reason why Hitler called off the attack.

And like another anon pointed out; pilot recovery for the RAF was high, while pilot recovery for the Luftwaffe was low.
This led to a dramatic disproportion in experienced pilots which greatly affected the battle.

Also, German pilots experienced a battle fatigue and collapsing morale that the British pilots never did, because of the high mortality rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanalkrankheit

"Kanalkrankheit, or "channel sickness", was a form of combat fatigue which began to appear in the summer of 1940 among German pilots during the Battle of Britain. For crews of the Luftwaffe, operating at the edge of their combat range, bailing out over England meant certain capture, while parachuting out over the English Channel would often result in death by exposure or drowning.[1]"

>>18229385
>Germans averaged more kills per sortie across the board, they were literally just better pilots.
In 1944 the USAAF had a 5:1 kill ratio against the luftwaffe during daylight bombing raids.
This was specfically for the reason the other anon mentions: German new recruits had an exceptionally poor training because the army had plundered every academy to fill the frontline ranks (along with lack of fuel), and the fighter aces who existed had to remain fighters.

Curious how the USAAF had such a high kill-ratio yet never had any ace with more than 20 kills to his name.
Probably because a normal military recognize their talent early and have them train new recruits.

>>18229353
>hypothetical theyd have clearer skies
1. You cant change the weather
2. Weather over the English Channel gets worse during autumn and winter

>this would allow them to prevent the Royal Navy from moving into the channel
Just as they did during Dunkirk, Narvik and Crete.
In other words; total failure.

You can stick to your hypothetic make-believe. All the facts of what actually happened is against you.

>landing on the UK whether they are small infiltration teams
Where was this godlike small infiltration team during the entire war, both on Axis and Allies.

>or division sized elements
How are you going to get across 20.000 men, trucks, tanks, plus the 700 tons per day supply.

>German forces could be moved with impunity
Is the entire Wehrmacht going to swim?

>German forces could be supported with aircraft
And what if these aircrafts are
1. Destroyed by the RAF
2. Destroyed by the RN
3. Unable to fly for whatever reason (weather, nightfall etc)

>You dont need to destroy airfields completely, you only need to degrade their utility.
The entire German plan was to destroy RAF infrastructure.
That includes airfields.
The Germans never managed to destroy a single one during the entire battle.

Again, you can make things up all you want vs what actually happened.

>It wouldnt even matter because Britain was running out of combat ready aircraft faster than Germany.
The RAF grew during the battle.
The Luftwaffe decreased.

>Look into it.
A single google/AI search should do.

File: Operation Ready Aircraft RAF.jpg (122 KB, 1600x422)

122 KB JPG

>>18229455
>Britain could replace and outproduce Germany during the battle
So why didnt they? Why did their operation-ready aircraft decrease from 2300 to >600 for the duration of the battle of Britain?
Why didnt the number go up?
Lets look at the relevant numbers, their operation ready aircraft had decreased to pre-battle of Britain levels 3 months after the battle of Britain had ended so great were the losses they took during the battle.
>Germans had less pilots
completely irrelevant when the bottleneck isnt pilots but aircraft that can be in the air at any given time.

Its like if two men are shooting at each other and one of the men has a jammed gun, gets a backup gun, and then that gun jams and is on his final backup, and you start saying "well, the guy with the jammed gun had more ammo so he'd win in the end".
Doesnt matter how much ammunition he has if he has no guns.

Doesnt matter how many pilots you have if you dont have planes to put them in.
>replacing aircraft
replacing irrecoverable losses, which is easy, replacing the rate of "mission-kill" or a plane rendered unfit for flight, this was NOT done and the numbers reflect this.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe_serviceable_aircraft_strengths_(1940%E2%80%931945)
The Germans had more fighters throughout btw.

>>18229472
Hitler called off the attack because they were about to be all hands on deck for the invasion of the USSR, not because they ran out of planes or pilots.

The Red Army was losing tanks and men at 15x the rate of the Wehrmacht, did they lose the war because of it?
>pilot recovery was high
Do you even know the disparity in Pilots lost vs recovered?
1500, in total.
That's the grand difference that you for some reason believe is decisive.
They had over 10,000 Pilots, they lost 3500.
The RAF had 3,000, they lost 1,500.
Germany could afford to lose 4,000, the RAF could not afford to lose another 1,500 or more in such a short period of time.
>But on 18 December 1940 Hitler issued Directive 21, beginning preparations for the attack on the USSR, effectively canceling the invasion.[37] Although defeated the Luftwaffe remained formidable: as Winston Churchill concluded, "it was not the beginning of the end but the end of the beginning." The Battle of Britain cost the Luftwaffe 873 fighters and 1,014 bombers. The RAF lost 1,023 fighters.[38]
The RAF lost more fighters, which they had less of than the Luftwaffe.

>>18229478
>USAAF had a 5:1 kill ratio against the Luftwaffe
They didnt, they suffered huge losses to both bombers and fighters during 1944.
>normal military
Yes a normal military, which gets normal, unimpressive results and suffers massive attrition rates.
just 10 men in the Luftwaffe got more kills than 25% of the entire USAAF.
Just 100 Luftwaffe Pilots shot down more aircraft than the ENTIRE USAAF.
A majority of them survived the war.

also just the idea of fighter aces being shuttled away from the front immediately after gaining ace status is funny to me, purposely degrading your personnel at the front.

The Luftwaffe was asspulling miracles throughout the war because they were an exceptional military and their performance reflects a professional military vs a "normal" military.

>>18229539
>weather
by clearer skies I meant less RAF fighters lmao.
>Dunkirk
the Luftwaffe was fighting in France throughout the duration of Dunkirk.
>Narvik
Narvik is not within the strategic range of the Luftwaffe in the way the English channel and North Sea is.
>Crete
Yes, like in Crete where the capabilities of the Royal Navy were degraded to the point they could not stop the fall of Crete, a small island in a grand sea where the Royal Navy controlled both entry points and Germany had no immediate access to, Crete fell anyway.
>hypothetical make believe
Fuck off, Ships lose against planes, the Pacific theater proves this to a degree it is hard to even fathom.
The biggest killer of ships was never other ships, it was aircraft.
>total failure
>both Narvik and Crete fall
>Dunkirk is seen as greatest military defeat of Britian to that point

L O L
the facts support everything I have said.
FYI, planes >>>> ships
not a single exception to this rule can be found.
>why didnt the Germans infiltrate England
They never enacted Sea Lion because they werent omniscient you retard.
They didnt know what awaited them, they didnt know how likely they were to succeed.
They were faced with a handful of options, none of which were favorable, they, having a huge land army, went with Barbarossa, a huge land offensive.
This makes sense given what they knew, however in hindsight, a Sea Lion or rather a modified Sea Lion with more planning and preparation time would have been the better option. To physically force Britain out of the war.
Though even then its unknown if the United States would have just declared on Germany because both countries were in the pocket of international jewry, self described btw, FDR and Churchill both said personally they were going to fight Germany no matter what.

>how are you going to move division sized elements
the same way division sized elements were moved across the mediterranean, a much greater distance with much greater strategic vulnerability.

>>18229539
>are they going to swim
I like how the existence of boats just evaporates when discussing Sea Lion and (You)r camp resorts to "were they going to use river boats? were they going to swim"?
no, they were going to use large shipping craft which they used in the Baltic, North Sea, and Mediterranean.

1. RAF is out of commission if the battle of Britain runs to a point where serviceable fighters drops to a negligible number
2. RN will be ineffective due to point 1, because with zero exceptions planes >>>> ships.
Furthermore the RN couldnt even prevent German ships from going through the channel. it would take literal days to get the RN from Scapa flow where it was based down to the channel and theyd be naked under Luftwaffe assault the entire way.
3. unable to fly
Sorties were made by the RAF every single day of the war.
the "what if they couldnt fly one day" is stupid.
>the Germans didnt destroy one airfield
so what?
Airfields dont matter if there are no operationally ready aircraft.
>make things up
Actually I am the only here correctly identifying the bottleneck, which is how many planes can actually be scrambled into the air at any given time.
you could triple the number of RAF airfields and the battle of Britain would not have changed its it true outcome or in this theoretical.
>the RAF grew
Their combat ready aircraft decreased from the start of the Battle of Britain to its conclusion by November.

instead of using AI, which hallucinates especially regarding fine points of obscure information, read a book.


Its not a foregone conclusion Britian would win the war, and your inability to theorize a world in which Germany isnt destroyed is because you're a deranged eurotranny who can not even imagine such a world, not because its unlikely but because its psychologically painful for you.

>>18230552
>Why didnt the number go up?
They did.
I dont know why you keep ignoring the fact that they did.
Every single paper written on battle for Britain will tell you that RAF increased in size.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/sites/default/files/press-release/Battle_of_Britain_and_Blitz_Factsheet.pdf
"since 7 September Britain’s defences had recovered, fighter production continued
and operational pilot strength was the highest it had been since the start of the Battle of Britain."


>completely irrelevant when the bottleneck isnt pilots but aircraft that can be in the air at any given time.
The bottleneck was pilots.
Overy stated that Luftwaffe was never able to field more than 1200 pilots.
Britain had a similar problem
" Denis Richards, in his 1953 contribution to the official British account History of the Second World War, agreed that lack of pilots, especially experienced ones, was the RAF's greatest problem. He states that between 8 and 18 August 154 RAF pilots were killed, severely wounded, or missing, while only 63 new pilots were trained."

>The Germans had more fighters throughout btw.
All which would have been destroyed if they had continued since Britain shot down more aircrafts, lost fewer pilots, trained more pilots, and produced more aircrafts.

And you still ignore the fact that Luftwaffe never achieved ANY of their strategic missions. Not a single British airfield was put out of service, not a single aircraft production facility destroyed, the RADAR stations completely functioning.

>>18230564
>The RAF lost more fighters, which they had less of than the Luftwaffe.
Every single evidence says the opposite.

>>18230612
>They didnt, they suffered huge losses to both bombers and fighters during 1944.

"With such serious Allied fighter opposition, the Luftwaffe was put under severe pressure in March and April 1944. According to a report made by Adolf Galland, General der Jagdflieger, on 27 April 1944, 500 aircraft and 400 pilots had been lost in the 10 previous operations.[114] Galland also said that in the last four months 1,000 pilots had been killed. Galland reported that the enemy outnumbered his fighters between 6:1 and 8:1 and the standard of Allied fighter pilot training was "astonishingly high".[115] "

"Losses reached an all-time high on 26 November, when intercepting a raid, the RLV lost 119 fighters, 60 pilots killed and 32 wounded for just 25 USAAF fighters and six bombers.[120]"

>>18230644
>the RAF increased in size
Their strategic bottleneck, which was serviceable aircraft, was depleting throughout the battle of Britain to the point they ended it with less than what they began with.
You could multiply every other element of the RAF by 10x and the way the battle played out would not change because what ultimately matters in Aerial warfare are the planes in the air at any given moment.

>the bottleneck was pilots
no it wasnt.
The RAF and Luftwaffe's pilots both exceeded the number of planes they could get into the air.
>Britain shot down more aircrafts
actually they shot down fewer of the aircraft that count, fighters.
>ignore
Theres nothing to address, the strategic goals of the Luftwaffe in the battle of Briain were silly and unrealistic because airfields can be made two days with a shovel crew.
nonetheless, the unintended effect they didnt even themselves know they were having was they were exploiting and amplifying the critical bottleneck the RAF faced, which was the number of operation ready aircraft.
Consider the fact they were unintentionally crippling the RAF and when you theorize about the Luftwaffe having a more coherent strategy is makes sense, they would be the favored horse to win.

>>18230646
nope.
Ovary himself states the RAF lost 1200 Fighters and the Luftwaffe lost 800.
The Luftwaffe inflicted 50% more losses on the RAF's fighter squadrons than they recieved.

>>18230657
Nothing you posted refutes what I said.
Look at the general stats for the USAAF and the Luftwaffe.
The Luftwaffe mogged them despite being outnumbered immensely, because they were a superior force going up against a normal force.

>>18230619
>not a single exception to this rule can be found.
Except Luftwaffe failed to prevent Dunkirk evacuation. Failed to prevent Crete evacuation. Failed to prevent landing in Narvik. Failed to prevent convoys to Malta.

Luftwaffe was optimized for army support, unlike Japan it did not have the doctrine for air-to-ship combat i.e they lacked proper armament and training and poor intergrated tactics with the German navy.

And no, the majority of Royal Navy losses came from submarines, not the Luftwaffe.

>>18230635
>they were going to use large shipping craft which they used in the Baltic, North Sea, and Mediterranean.

The problem is that merchant ships requies a sophisticated deep-water port with proper infrastructure. They cannot use a beach.
Which means German targets would be extremely predictable and even more predictable to prevent with some basic demolition.

Same goes for river barges (which was the intended ships) except river barges capsize on open water.

So yeah, unless the Wehrmacht swims, they cannot invade Britain.

Not that any of this matters since Luftwaffe was never even able to penetrate past the very first echelon of RAF forward airfields, so no precautions were taken.

What if Nazi Germany decides to not attack the Soviets. Then the UK would not be able to win either as they won't be able to invade France and go all the way to Germany, and the Nazis can trade to get resources from the Soviets. Who'd love to see the capitalists get weaker.

>>18230666
>The Luftwaffe didnt prevent British troops from fleeing
which means what? They are an ineffective force?
>didnt have the doctrine for air to ship combat
So why didnt the British fleet just sail right up to the German coast?

Are you suggesting the Luftwaffe could not have degraded the Scapa Flow fleet at all?
That's silly.
Germany had torpedo aircraft, torpedo boats, and submarines, they could have greatly degraded the British fleet for days (if not weeks) which is all it would take to walk from Dover to London and end the war.
This also assumes the Royal Navy begins sailing BEFORE the Germans launch an invasion of the UK, which they wouldnt do.
>majority of Royal Navy losses came from Subs not from aircraft
no one ever said it came from aircraft.
I said planes are the biggest killers of ships, citing the pacific as an example.
The Royal Navy was rarely if ever naked before the Luftwaffe, which you also ignore lol.
>>18230711
>the problem is
It worked on a larger scale with greater risk.
>it was impossible
so why did britain even bother building any kind of defenses whatseover?
>river barges were the intended ships
If the Germans were serious about invading England, dedicating more time, and more resources, why do you think they wouldnt update their plan?
Soldiers were transported with more than just specific transport ships.
And no, river barges do not capsize in the English channel, my source, THEY USED THEM IN THE ENGLISH CHANNEL LOOOOL
Did you even know the Germans actually used them to move soldiers and lay mines in the exact channel you claim they cannot traverse?
>no precautions were taken
well except for the multiple defensive lines the British constructed.
>they were never able to penetrate
uhmm no they penetrated far enough inland to hit targets miles away from the coast.

>>18228222
>why did Britian lose in France?
Because it wasn't the Battle of Britian you retard. That is the main topic. Battle of Britian. Your whataboutism is a retarded comparison

>>18231079
But I thought the RAF was unbeatable??

>>18229385
Germany entered the war with possibly the most effective pilot corps of the big players - not because of any superiority, but because there had been a coordinated effort to have them fly and fight in the Spanish Civil War, using that as a training exercise. German/Luftwaffe policy, motivated entirely by ideological concerns and assumptions, wasted that advantage by burning up their stock of experienced pilots. Sure, as an artefact of that decision their pilots tended to gain more kills (entirely due to them being kept in the air until they died, again no idea of 'superiority') and the direct consequence of that decision ensured that their initially skilled and experienced pilots were unable to pass on their skills and experience to the new recruits - leading to a rapid and inevitable nose dive of pilot quality as the organisation was just too fragile to actually deal with combat.

Even without looking at the production and readiness numbers (the RAF actually grew larger and more capable during the Luftwaffe campaign to crush it, lol) the above demonstrates beyond question that the Luftwaffe was the inferior air force in the war. At this point you might as well be trying to persuade us that you thinking that their uniforms looked cool is the primary metric for judging the effectiveness of an air force.
>tl;dr, as always Wehrbooism only makes sense if you completely ignore reality, and have no ability to think.

>>18231392
Everything he says is just nonsense.
He can try to dance around the whole "they didnt have readiness" thing, but every single source on the Battle for Britain tells you that
1. Britain produced more planes than Luftwaffe
2. RAF destroyed more planes during the battle
3. Britain trained more pilots than Luftwaffe
4.. Britain recovered more pilots (they now had more experience than Luftwaffe)
5. RAF grew during the battle while Luftwaffe decreased
6. Luftwaffe never managed to destroy a single objective, which was the true purpose of the attack
7. No airfield was destroyed. No Vauxhall production facility was destroyed. No Radar link was destroyed
8. Luftwaffe had inferior Avgas since British production could reach 100 octane engine level. ME109 also only had roughly 10 minutes flying time over Britain due to lack of fuel drop-tanks
9. Britain had a larger aluminium and oil source than Germany, and as time goes by Britain can mobilize her empire and use the global market, especially USA.
10.Luftwaffe showed severe signs of battle fatigue "Kanalkrankheit". RAF never showed such dramatic drop in morale.

Hitler called off the campaign because it wasnt going anywhere. No objectives had been achieved, and the Luftwaffe was losing their number advantage. Meanwhile the weather window was closing.

Even during the bombing of London, Luftwaffe casualties became unsustainable vs the RAF, that's why they switched from daylight bombing London to night time bombing.

>>18231392
You say it grew larger but this is irrelevant when they were flying fewer planes by the end than when they began.
The Luftwaffe was crushing the RAF, they just didn’t know how and why so they didn’t capitalize on it.
>wehraboo
You’re a clown. You’re the same as >>18231462

It literally does not matter if you can not get planes into the air.
I have spoken to RAF vets at air shows, the primary bottleneck was aircraft readiness and it’s always overlooked because it’s not technical like production numbers nor is it sexy like how many aces can we field.
It’s a very niche yet very critical element which is difficult to quantify because planes can return with very little damage and some can return with damage that may take days to fix, maintenance crew balancing is also a difficult to quantify aspect.

If you are actually serious about the issue go to your national war college (mine is in my state, you’re euros so your country is 3 miles wide, you could walk there) and ask them about aerial warfare, the bottlenecks and what are the primary factors in aerial warfare. The primary bottleneck is always aircraft readiness turnover.
Britain may have had 1500 pilots at any given time, but they never exceeded 800 planes in the air.

Hitler called off the campaign because of Barbarossa btw. His own words.

>>18231591
>I have spoken to RAF vets at air shows, the primary bottleneck was aircraft readiness and it’s always overlooked because it’s not technical like production numbers nor is it sexy like how many aces can we field.
It’s a very niche yet very critical element which is difficult to quantify because planes can return with very little damage and some can return with damage that may take days to fix, maintenance crew balancing is also a difficult to quantify aspect.
"Tldr: I made it up"


>Hitler called off the campaign because of Barbarossa btw. His own words.
"At the 14 September OKW conference, Hitler acknowledged that the Luftwaffe had still not gained the air superiority needed for the Operation Sea Lion invasion. In agreement with Raeder's written recommendation, Hitler said the campaign was to intensify regardless of invasion plans: "The decisive thing is the ceaseless continuation of air attacks." Jeschonnek proposed attacking residential areas to cause "mass panic", but Hitler turned this down: he reserved to himself the option of terror bombing. British morale was to be broken by destroying infrastructure, armaments manufacturing, fuel and food stocks. On 16 September, Göring gave the order for this change in strategy.[52] "

"Throughout the battle, most Luftwaffe bombing raids had been at night.[248] They increasingly suffered unsustainable losses in daylight raids, and the last massive daytime attacks were on 15 September. A raid of 70 bombers on 18 September also suffered badly, and day raids were gradually phased out leaving the main attacks at night. Fighter Command still lacked any effective capacity to intercept night-time raiders. The night fighters, mostly Blenheims and Beaufighters, at this time lacked airborne radar and so could not find the bombers. Anti-aircraft guns were diverted to London's defences, but had a much-reduced success rate against night attacks.[249]"

>>18231740
>you made it up
You havent read anything.
>The raids often caused spectacular damage but did little to harm the British war effort. Hitler again postponed the invasion on 13 October 1940 until the spring of 1941. But on 18 December 1940 Hitler issued Directive 21, beginning preparations for the attack on the USSR, effectively canceling the invasion.[37]

>The Kriegsmarine Commander-in-Chief, Grand Admiral Erich Raeder, continued to highlight the impracticality of these plans and said sea invasion could not take place before early 1941. Hitler now argued that Britain was holding out in hope of assistance from Russia, and the Soviet Union was to be invaded by mid 1941.[49]

>>18231874
>You havent read anything.
Not what I was quoting when I said it.
I meant your autistic rant about aircrafts not being ready because you "heard someone say it".

As for Barbarossa, Hitler called off the campaign in December.
By December the Luftwaffe strategy of destroying the RAF and destroying RAF infrastructure had long since been abandoned.
Luftwaffe strategy for daylight bombing London had also long since been abandoned for the same reason: RAF was bleeding the Luftwaffe.
By the end of September the Luftwaffe had switched to night time bombing specifically to avoid unsustainable casualties and no longer contesting the skies against the RAF.

In short; Hitler called off the Blitz in preparations for Barbarossa, the Battle for Britain had already long since been decided.

>>18231251
On their home front they are you retard

>>18231591
>Wehraboo rage intensifies!
>It's not very effective.

>>18231973
>because you heard someone say it
no, I read it, and then I asked about it to verify it with the people who were actually there.
>>18231973
>In short; Hitler called off the Blitz in preparations for Barbarossa, the Battle for Britain had already long since been decided.
nice backpedal.
it was called off for Barbarossa.
>>18232617
>explain to midwits why WWII wasnt easy
>midwits go ballistic because this makes the nazis look heckin dangerous and therefore cool

Your entire mo here is to try and infantilize the nazis so you can ridicule them, thats immature and stupid.

>>18232015
>On their home front they are you retard
>29 miles of water magically made the RAF invincible

>>18232650
>no, I read it, and then I asked about it to verify it with the people who were actually there.
No, you really just made it up.
Cope harder.
RAF outproduced Luftwaffe during the battle while having a higher kill-ratio.
The result was that RAF exapnded during the battle, it did not decline, but the Luftwaffe did.
Cope and seethe.

>it was called off for Barbarossa.
Ok so we just gonna pretend like Luftwaffe had not abandoned their efforts to defeat the RAF and destroy RAF infrastructure, and instead committed themselves 100% to night-time bombing of London.

Again, you're just coping and seething because you dont actually know anything about the Battle for Britain. You dont know how it played out, you have zero understanding of when and what happened and why it happened.
By the time Hitler ordered the planning for Barbarossa, the battle had been long abandoned.

Stormfags Checks outs yet again.

>>18232750
You are flailing around like a total retard anon, please stop embarrassing yourself and shitting up the board

>>18228222
I have noticed the british tend to glaze themselves super hard and insist all of their battles would be an impossibility to win for their enemies. If the fall of singapore had not happened they would be posting about how it's sci fi the nips could take singapore

>>18232805
You literally have a diagnose, it shows on your posting.
What is your IRL diagnose anon? Dont lie.

>>18232838
Insinuating that every anon here is British because we can read.

In other threads you accuse everyone of being Polish.

You're not mentally stable.

>>18229208
>it is steel industry

>>18229305
>but as an integrated, not really unique, European state
That isn't true though

rest of your post is not worth adsressing

>>18231591
>The Luftwaffe was crushing the RAF, they just didn’t know how and why so they didn’t capitalize on it.
Lmao literally "we were winning too hard so we just gave up"
Stormfags man

>>18232953
You arent capable of responding because the post is accurate.

>>18233368
>"we were winning too hard so we just gave up"
who are you quoting?
ESL or 100IQ?
>>18232873
That wasnt me but I agree with him, when it comes to the Germans redditors tend to completely infantilize them and overstate the capabilities of their enemies.
If the RAF was actually formidable, they wouldnt have gotten destroyed in France.
If the Channel couldnt be crossed, the Axis would have lost connection in North Africa in 1940.
>>18232871
again not me, people just know you're retarded.

>>18232750
>back to running damage control
lol

The incontrovertible fact remains: The primary factor in Aerial warfare is the number of planes you can put in the air.
The RAF could put fewer and fewer planes in the air as the battle of Britain went on.
That is just a fact.
>higher kill ratio
The RAF shot down 800 German fighters
The Germans shot down 1200 RAF fighters.
When RAF fighters drop to zero, German bombers being shot down also drops to zero.
The Germans were getting the kills that mattered.
Do you agree?
>The Luftwaffe didnt defeat the RAF
yes, obviously, however the end of the operation was the strategic pivot to Russia, not because the Luftwaffe ran out of Pilots/Planes or whatever your claiming happened.

>stormfags
If the Stormfags agree with me on this then the stormfags are right.

You're in denial and everyone can see it, its why you keep restating points and failing to address the central argument which is serviceable aircraft are the sole factor in determining who wins an air battle.

If the RAF was invincible as you claim, they wouldnt have been decisively defeated in France.

>>18234011
>The RAF shot down 800 German fighters
>The Germans shot down 1200 RAF fighters.

Between the dates 26 August – 6 September, on only one day (1 September) did the Germans destroy more aircraft than they lost. Losses were 325 German and 248 British.[264]

Luftwaffe losses for August numbered 774 aircraft to all causes, representing 18.5% of all combat aircraft at the beginning of the month.[265]Fighter Command's losses in August were 426 fighters destroyed,[266]amounting to 40 per cent of 1,061 fighters available on 3 August.[267]In addition, 99 German bombers and 27 other types were destroyed between 1 and 29 August.[268]

From July to September, the Luftwaffe's loss records indicate the loss of 1,636 aircraft, 1,184 to enemy action.[260]This represented 47% of the initial strength of single-engined fighters, 66% of twin-engined fighters, and 45% of bombers. This indicates the Germans were running out of aircrew as well as aircraft.[244]

>>18233965
>>18234011
>If the RAF was invincible as you claim, they wouldnt have been decisively defeated in France.
>If the RAF was actually formidable, they wouldnt have gotten destroyed in France.

By your rhetoric, that's like saying the US army was inferior to the German army because they lost their first engagement at Kasserine, despite the fact that in the following battle of Tunisia, the US army defeated a wehrmacht force of 300.000 men and 2500 aircrafts which was an absolutely crushing blow.


>If the Channel couldnt be crossed, the Axis would have lost connection in North Africa in 1940.
Stormfag IQ level everyone.

>>18232653
>invincible
Nobody made this claim. But the 29 miles of water DID make a difference if you used your brain just a little. Let me help you.
>RAF plane gets shot down
>pilot bails out and can get in another plane
>Luftwaffe plane gets shot down
>pilot bails out and instantly becomes POW
What is your cope going to be next?

>>18234111
>doesnt understand the difference between fighter losses and all aircraft losses
lol?
>>18234149
the US army WAS inferior to the German army.
>battle of Tunisia
There was no battle of Tunisia, do you mean the Tunisia campaign?
>IQ
your IQ is extremely low, you said River Barges couldnt be used for oceanic transportation, but because you dont know anything you dont know they DID use River barges to traverse the English channel, North Sea, and Baltic Sea.
The fact you didnt know the Germans occupied the Channel islands without 'swimming' there makes me think your only interest in WWII is to attack Arch Chud Hitler because he said troons are animals o algo.
>>18234583
>29 miles of water made a difference
evidently not enough to uphold the reputation you try to portray.
>RAF can recover their pilots
>Luftwaffe cant
and? Did the Luftwaffe run out of Pilots?
no? So whats the relevance here?
Were they on the cusp of running out of Pilots?
Was it imminent because the British were running out of places.
>but production
Planes in the air, moron, planes produced is not even remotely synonymous to planes that can be scrambled.


Veterans, Historians, and just basic critical thinking will tell you: Serviceable aircraft are the primary maybe even sole factor in who wins an Aerial engagement.

Agree or disagree?

>>18234845
>doesnt understand the difference between fighter losses and all aircraft losses
Do you understand that not only did Luftwaffe take significantly higher losses, they also lost twin-engine aircrafts which were far more expensive than single-engine ones?
The RAF disporportionate kill-ratio was both in quantity and quality.

>There was no battle of Tunisia, do you mean the Tunisia campaign?
Autism revealed.
Not suprised you're a stormfag either.

>the US army WAS inferior to the German army.
Remind me when the Wehrmacht encircled and destroyed a US army on paralell with the defeat at Tunisia.

>and? Did the Luftwaffe run out of Pilots?
Yes. They were. Training new recruits did not keep up with losses. It's on the fucking wikipedia Battle for Britain page you moron.

Also Germany losing all veterans while the British maintains their veterans (and these veterans becomes more experienced) because Britain could recover their pilots while Luftwaffe pilots either drowned or became POW, it does change the outcome a lot.

>Were they on the cusp of running out of Pilots?
Yes. Because training did not keep up with losses.
Same with Luftwaffe aircrafts. Production couldnt keep up with losses.
The Luftwaffe became significantly weaker with the battle while the RAF grew with the battle. That's the fundemental lesson here.

But still, the critical factor was pilots, not aircrafts.

>>18235087
>significantly more losses
>it was about 8% more aircraft lost than the British
L O L
You still dont understand fighter losses are worse because if you run out of fighters your ability to resist aerial raids drops to nothing.
>stormfag
I dont even know what this means, but youve already outed yourself as a leftist who is here for ideological reasons, this well-poisoning your doing now is just a tactic shitlibs tend to use when theyve lost an argument.

The Americans enjoyed the luxury of a continent sized country and they did not need to make daring frenetic campaigns across deserts, however when their enemies did, it took the combined might of their airforce, navy, and army to defeat an enemy who eluded them for well over a year despite having every disadvantage stacked against them, the superiority of the German man is why they lasted so long against such odds.
The Americans throughout the war underperformed compared to the Germans.

>they were
show me a single undermanned Luftwaffe flight log from the battle of Britian

>training did not keep up with Pilot losses
this is like saying ammunition production did not keep up with the shells fired on a given campaign therefore so and so lost the war because they ran out of ammo.

For the entire duration of the battle of Britain the Germans never once had empty planes sitting around for want of Pilots. not. even. once.
>it changes the outcome a lot
Do you even know how few pilots were recovered?
The vast majority by far of Pilot losses werent to capture, they were to being killed or wounded.
It did not make a difference anyway because at no point did Germany have serviceable aircraft sitting idle without a pilot.
>Germany losing all veterans
over 3/5 of the German aces survived constant fighting from 1939-1945.
They were not "losing all veterans".
>production
The Germans dropped more bombs during the battle of Britain than they produced - therefore they called off the campaign because they ran out of bombs.

>>18235087
>critical factor was pilots not aircraft
Can you prove this? We have the data on serviceable aircraft, all you have to do is show us where the number of Luftwaffe pilots drops below their number of serviceable aircraft.
You can do that right?
You can prove your argument right?

>>18234845
>Veterans, Historians, and just basic critical thinking will tell you: Serviceable aircraft are the primary maybe even sole factor in who wins an Aerial engagement.
This reminds me of the Stalingrad schizo. GDP=tourism or whatever it was.

>>18235366
This kind of brilliant strategic thinking is why Germany lost two world wars.
>keep grinding it out over britain
>lose literally all of your experienced pilots instead of just a lot of them
>lose the war even faster
Also from Wikipedia:
>By 14 September, the Luftwaffe's Bf 109 Geschwader possessed only 67% of their operational crews against authorised aircraft.

>who are you quoting?
I get they probably dont teach you English in whatever shithole country you live in but it's kind of obvious what I am referring to
>That wasnt me but I agree with him
Way to make it obvious dipshit

>>18233965
>who are you quoting?
I get they probably dont teach you English in whatever shithole country you live in but it's kind of obvious what I am referring to
>That wasnt me but I agree with him
Way to make it obvious dipshit

>>18232653
>29 miles of water magically made the RAF invincible
It's not magic it's the fact they won that theater and lost in France

>>18235534
I live in America, capitol of the planet.
Keep seething. HIVan, Pidor, or Niggel?
>>18235461
>denying that the number of men participating in a battle is a primary factor in the outcome of that battle
lol??

Germany lost two world wars because they were the largest rival of the World Navies and global jewry.
>lose literally all of your experienced pilots

Germany's rate of attrition was sustainable given England's rate of attrition for their fighter aircraft.
The British were flying fewer and fewer planes as the battle of Britain went on, this was depleting much faster than the Germans were losing pilots.

You are the type of schizo who would say the Soviet Union can never win WWII because they were just losing too many men.
The Germans lost 1.08 planes for every British plane.
The Soviets lost 15 men for every 1 German.
looking no further than wiki battleboxes is silly because it ignores the relevant details.

We are still waiting for you to answer >>18235366
>We have the data on serviceable aircraft, all you have to do is show us where the number of Luftwaffe pilots drops below their number of serviceable aircraft.
>>18235536
talk about ESL

>>18235366
>show us where the number of Luftwaffe pilots drops below their number of serviceable aircraft.

"The balance of pilots was also more favourable than the legend of the ‘few’ suggests. German single-engined fighter pilots available for the battle remained below the British figure throughout the three months of combat. The impact of regular fighting under difficult conditions eroded combat numbers. At the beginning of September only 74 per cent of German fighter pilots were operationally ready, and that month pilot losses reached almost one-quarter of the force, 23.1 per cent.16"

https://erenow.org/ww/the-battle-of-britain-myth-and-reality/4.php?

>>18235589
>looking no further than wiki battleboxes is silly because it ignores the relevant details.
Buddy, you're the tard who bragged about how Germany could put a fighter pilot into combat in just two weeks. I don't think you actually understand a single thing about WWII aerial combat. Fucking hell, in every stormfag there's actually a Bolshevik commissar hiding.
>tactics? strategy? training? what's that? throw more flesh at it! i hunger, feed me the flesh of virgin slavic children!

>>18235365
>You still dont understand fighter losses are worse because if you run out of fighters your ability to resist aerial raids drops to nothing.
"For the whole of the battle period, the British aircraft industry outproduced the German by a considerable margin. This allowed a continuous flow of replacements to compensate for the higher loss rates sustained by Fighter Command. The Command grew steadily stronger between June and October. On 19 June there were 548 operationally ready fighters (with 200 more ready for the following day); on 31 October there were 729 ready to fly, 370 in store at a day’s notice, and a further 110 at four days’.15 German levels of production and serviceability were too low to establish an effective numerical superiority. "


>The vast majority by far of Pilot losses werent to capture, they were to being killed or wounded.
"German pilots and aircrew were lost to the battle if they were shot down and captured on British soil. Between 1 July and 31 October, 967 prisoners were taken and 638 bodies definitely identified. The ΡOWs were found to be experienced pilots. Only two had been trained since the war began. The oldest was fifty-one years old, a veteran of the First World War;"

>>18235589
Your entire strategy in these debates relies on two things:

1. Spend 16-24 hours per day on this board to spam reply and quote every single sentence people write until anons finally lose interest.

2. Make things up, especially something extremely specific detailed and then pretend like it's true because it's difficult to disprove.

3. Seethe at people using AI or google because this instantly disproves your made-up bullshit.


In other words; the premise of your method is autism, and I suspect you have a diagnose IRL.

>>18229206
>if the Krauts were smart why not after winning the air battle they start focusing on bombing the shit out of the Royal navy?
Because the Royal Navy was stationed at Scarpa Flow hundreds of miles beyond the range of German fighters.

>>18235624
So not lower than the number of serviceable aircraft.
Thank you for proving my point.
>>18235650
Germany COULD put a pilot in the air in two weeks, in fact they did so for months during the end of the war when the Luftwaffe was scraping for any pilot candidates.
You didnt know this?
rest of your post is unhinged.

>>18235651
>didnt read their own copy paste from wikipedia
lol

>>18235677
Theres no strategy, you arent able to contest the facts because you dont actually do any research, you self report about google and AI literally in this post.

I make you seethe because I am right and because Hitler was right, and you are a slavic ape who is mad that actual White people dont take you seriously because you lived in medieval shitholes until 1920.

That's also why you say "diagnose" when its "diagnosis" you polish fuck.

This board has multiple people taking up the positions I trail blazed, you mistake them for me, it already happened in this very thread.

>>18235651
>On 19 June there were 548 operationally ready fighters (with 200 more ready for the following day); on 31 October there were 729 ready to fly, 370 in store at a day’s notice, and a further 110 at four days’.
this incorrect btw, the numbers given by the RAF museum has them at 600 total aircraft ready to fly, not 700-900.

So having established the Battle of Britain wasn't impossible for Germany to win. What would have happened if Germany had won?

>>18236084
Incorrect. Germany had no way to defeat Britian on their home turf in the air unless they had the might of already winning Barbarosa. Which is also scfi fantasy

>>18236219
>Britian losing in France is scifi
and yet they lost anyway, curious.

File: ZaJVd6H.jpg (173 KB, 640x360)

173 KB JPG

>>18236028
Correction: the capital ships of the RN.
This is because the capital ships were not necessary because they're primarily designed to fight other capital ships.

It's idiotic to say that the RN as a whole was stationed in Scapa Flow. The war against Germany required destroyers and corvettes.
Who were winning the battle of the Atlantic? Why do you think no German submarine ever went near any British ports to stop convoys, and instead went far into the Atlantic to find convoys?

Stop being morons.

>>18236249
It's not curious at all. France was defeated due to a single high-risk manouver that even most German generals believed would fail because all the stars had to be aligned for it to be pulled off. Had the French detected the manouver, the war would have been lost.

Hitler had to veto the plans to be approved by high command for this very reason. German high command essentially wanted to repeat the 1914 strategy, which is what the allies were completely prepared for.

>>18236084
>So having established the Battle of Britain wasn't impossible for Germany to win.
Might as well argue that Steiners offensive had succeeded in 1945, liberated Berlin and captured Moscow.
In theory, it was possible, right?

>>18236063
>Watch me continue to make shit up, even when sources are provided.

>>18236446
>the sources provided: wikipedia
L O L

>>18236436
So why did the RAF lose if it was impossible for them to lose in France?
>>18236441
The Luftwaffe wasnt outnumbered 50:1 LMFAO

>>18236044
>So not lower than the number of serviceable aircraft.
It literally says Luftwaffe did not have enough pilots to supplement their available aircrafts you dumb cow.

>Germany COULD put a pilot in the air in two weeks
Not enough pilots. Their training of pilots did not balance their losses of pilots.

>rest of your post is unhinged.
I provided a source and you immediately crash out. lmao.
You cant continue to lie anymore. No one believes your bullshit.
60 posts just to prove what I already knew because you refused to accept AI telling you that you're full of shit.
Now I provided a source and you're recoiling on your lies.
RAF grew during the batttle
Luftwaffe decreased during the battle
Pilots was a bottleneck because Germany couldnt train more than they lost.
Veterancy was an issue because British pilots could return to combat, German pilots became POW and had to be filled with completely new recruits.

>didnt read their own copy paste from wikipedia
It wasnt from Wikipedia retard.

>>18236058
All you do is lie.
The only "research" you do is trying to find some specific detail that's hard to fact-check so that you can build a lie on it. It's pathetic.

I hope you understand that your method here on 4chan, literally only works on 4chan. No one else is going to believe your lies.
And even here on 4chan, even if someone does read what you say and might consider it, they will instantly abandon your argument as soon as they test it in a debate, because it's a lie that only you stick your guns to, and the only reason you can is because you spend 16 hours per day here.
It's literally wasted time because no one is going to pick up on a lie, no one will be able to construct a narrative on a lie.
Your lie is constructed on the fact that you've decided Hitler is always right, that's why no one will ever copy your lie, because it was never even based on reason or logic.

So we've established.

1. You spend 16-24 hours on 4chan
2. You make up lies and then spent 100 posts trying to sell this lie.
3. You assume everyone is British / Polish for calling you out
4. You most likely have a diagnosis because of how you lash out when it's pointed out. Be honest. You do.

>>18236472
>It literally says Luftwaffe did not have enough pilots to supplement their available aircrafts you dumb cow.
not what it says, read your own post.
>wall of text
>a source
What exactly is your source? can you link it? All im getting from google is a link to some highschool paper which has lines that you seem to have taken from it verbatim.
This isnt yours is it?
>https://www.studocu.com/en-us/document/college-of-southern-nevada/historical-issues-and-contemporary-society/factors-that-determined-the-outcome-of-the-battle-of-britain/32604246
This is all that comes up when I look for your "source"

??
>AI
The AI doesnt know what serviceable aircraft are, you evidently also do not know what serviceable aircraft are.
>RAF grew
The number of planes they could put in the did not increase it decreased, the RAF could triple in size and it would not change how many planes they put in the air.
>pilots were a bottleneck
Again, not even your own unsourced post states the Germans had empty planes on the ground.
>veterancy
This is an unquantifiable factor and considering the British recovery was small because recoveries in general are small I dont think its decisive.
The majority of Pilots either die in the air or return to their airfields, only a small number bailout and become POWs or recoveries.

So if The RAF losing is scifi, well, why did they lose in France?

>>18236495
>The only "research" you do is trying to find some specific detail that's hard to fact-check so that you can build a lie on it. It's pathetic.
Where's the lie?
My arguments, which are more just a marshalling of the facts, have become ubiquitous both here and other places for the past year and a half.
There are no lies, you fall back on calling every heterodoxy you can not instantly dismiss as a lie because you lack historical grasp.

>Hitler is always right
This is how I know you're ideological, because you immediately consider any deviation from court history as some kind of neo-nazi attack.
Maybe, I dont know, pop-history gets it wrong and minor details actually matter????
obviously I am right.

1. nope. Youve argued with three people and considered them all me.
2. What are the lies?
3. Am I wrong in assuming you are either: British, Slavic, jewish, or a leftist? These are the profiles of those who guard the heterodoxy for ideological not historiographical reasons.
4. "diagnosis" third times the charm :). There's no lashing out, you're running damage control.
The fact you can not even speculate on the British bowing out of the war and call it 'scifi' to say the British could have sued for peace during the battle of Britian betrays a huge ideological bend.
You literally will not allow yourself to imagine in which the British "lose" to Germany.
Was the Seven years war also scifi?
how about the Greco-Persian war? more scifi?
What chance of success does something need to have for it not to be scifi?

your whole post is pilpul because you googled what serviceable aircraft means and you realized I am right.

>>18236519
>The AI doesnt know what serviceable aircraft are, you evidently also do not know what serviceable aircraft are.
You make something up and then demand that others disproves it.
This tactic only works on 4chan btw.

>What exactly is your source? can you link it? All im getting from google is a link to some highschool paper which has lines that you seem to have taken from it verbatim.
Its this:
https://erenow.org/ww/the-battle-of-britain-myth-and-reality/4.php?
And it's from Richard Overys book The Battle for Britain.
Unlike you, Overy is a historian dont make up lies, and it's clearly stated that pilot shortage was critical during the battle, and that RAF aircraft replacement was continuous because it had never ceased.

>The number of planes they could put in the did not increase
Every single source says the opposite.
Only your lie says this, and you expect everyone else to either disprove your lie or to accept it. Vague and pathetic.

>This is an unquantifiable factor and considering the British recovery was small
Sources say recovery rate was at around 50%.
Same as Luftwaffe pilots taken POW.
Again, you're making up lies.

"Moreover, and importantly, German pilots and aircrew were lost to the battle if they were shot down and captured on British soil. Between 1 July and 31 October, 967 prisoners were taken and 638 bodies definitely identified."

"In addition to these numbers, another advantage for the RAF was that any unfortunate pilot bailing out of his fighter would set down in his parachute on home turf. With survival rates of pilots bailing out of their stricken fighter at 60 to 70 percent, the pilot could eventually return to his squadron barring serious injury."


>So if The RAF losing is scifi, well, why did they lose in France?
Is this your main go-to argument now to prove your lie? Just because you have nothing to back it up with
"lul if the Wehrmacht was losing at Berlin in 1945 then how come they won during Barbarossa?"

>>18236534
>My arguments, which are more just a marshalling of the facts
You made something up. Stop trying to glorify it.

>This is how I know you're ideological, because you immediately consider any deviation from court history as some kind of neo-nazi attack.
No, I am perfectly fine with arguing that Hitler could have won if its a rationa argument, such as if the Wehrmacht had focused its effort with Army Group South during Barbarossa instead of Army Group Center, or Germany make better use of nationalist movements in the USSR during the occupation.
It's more grounded in reason and facts, and can be logically argued even if they're vulnerable arguments, they're still arguments.

What I am against is lies that arent grounded in reason or logic or facts. They're just lies and you know they're just lies so your entire strategy is to demand everyone else to burden themselves to disprove your lies while you actively fight against any source given.
This only works on 4chan btw.
As long as you're aware of it.

>Am I wrong in assuming you are either: British, Slavic, jewish, or a leftist?
Yes, youre being a retard.
Anons on /his/ are just as diverse as anons on any other board.
And assuming everyone is a leftist / British / Polish just because they dont unconditionally accept your lie, is borderline mental illness.

>>18236559
What did I make up?
Where are the lies?
Pilot shortage is irrelevant as long as there are more pilots than fighter aircraft, which there were.
Aircraft replacement is irrelevant if the aircraft you have are not operational.
>every single source
you mean the one source you give where you implied their production numbers are somehow tied to how many aircraft they can put in the sky at any given moment.
>recovery rate
recovery rate is irrelevant if youre only recovering a handful of pilots.
The vast majority of pilots do not bailout.
>lies
you are illiterate.
No one is talking about recovery rate, I am talking about the specific number of pilots recovered vs captured.
by far the difference in pilot losses came from being shot down and killed, not parachuting out and being captured.
Pilot recovery was NOT a decisive factor because so few pilots actually needed to be recovered.

How many RAF fighters bailed out?
50% of them? 80% of them?
give me a number.

>lie
what lie?
>if the Wehrmacht was losing at Berlin why did they win Barbarossa?
who are you quoting? My issue is with calling a German victory where the numbers were roughly equal and the Germans even shot down more fighters than they lost a "scifi" scenario on par with being surrounded and outnumbered 50:1.

Do you think the German chance of winning the battle of Britain was greater or smaller than winning the battle of Berlin?
Did the British have a 50:1 numerical advantage?

>>18236576
>recovery rate is irrelevant if youre only recovering a handful of pilots.
>The vast majority of pilots do not bailout.
Anon Richard Overy literally writes in the source I provided that around 925 German pilots were taken POW in a battle with 2,500 killed.
That means a clear significant amount of the German pilots that were shot down over Britain survived to become POW.

You're not even being a retard now, you're being a deceptive faggot.
You tried to make up yet another lie and hope that nobody disproves you.

>Pilot shortage is irrelevant as long as there are more pilots than fighter aircraft, which there were.
Which there werent
"he balance of pilots was also more favourable than the legend of the ‘few’ suggests. German single-engined fighter pilots available for the battle remained below the British figure throughout the three months of combat. The impact of regular fighting under difficult conditions eroded combat numbers. At the beginning of September only 74 per cent of German fighter pilots were operationally ready, and that month pilot losses reached almost one-quarter of the force, 23.1 per cent.16"

What it says is that there werent enough pilots to operate the fighter planes.

>Aircraft replacement is irrelevant if the aircraft you have are not operational.
Which they were, and this is where you lie intensifies.

>Pilot recovery was NOT a decisive factor because so few pilots actually needed to be recovered.
A recovered British pilot has far more valueable experience than a completely green Luftwaffe recruit because the other drowned / was captured.

>give me a number.
Your lie depends on the strategy that others must disprove it. That's the real subversiveness of it.

>>18236574
What was made up?
What are the lies?
Anons who participate in WWII threads are almost always of a certain profile, I know this because the same posts, verbatim, show up on boards with flags like /k/ or /int/ and its Poland, Israel, Britain, Russia, and America.
again, what's the lie?

>>18236576
>Do you think the German chance of winning the battle of Britain was greater or smaller than winning the battle of Berlin?
>Did the British have a 50:1 numerical advantage?
The British had an overwhelming advantage during the battle for Britain than they did at France.

1. ME109 only had 10 minutes of flying time once they crossed the channel which greatly reduced their survivability and tactical manouverability. Many were shot down because they had to break-off from an ongoing dogfight to return home. This wasnt a problem in France because German airfields were close and provisional frontline airfields could be used.

2. British RADAR could pinpoint Luftwaffe strength, movement and intentions with surgical precision while the Luftwaffe was completely blind to RAF sorties, which gave a huge strategic advantage not seen in France

3. German pilots suffered from extreme morale collapse and combat fatigue during the battle for Britain not seein France (dubbed "Kanalkrankheit") which affected their combat capability. Luftwaffe pilots did not suffer this during the battle for France.

4. British strategy during the Battle for France was tied to French defensive strategic plans and communication which collapsed when the Germans broke through Sedan. During the battle for Britain, the British were responsible for their own coordination which eased strategic planning.

5. Luftwaffe tactical doctrine during Battle for Britain was that figher planes had to be tied closely to Luftwaffe bombers, flying at low alttitude and low speed in compact formations. The Luftwaffe pilots themselves said this was the single most catastrophic aspect of the battle because it made them easy picking for RAF sorties and it hamstrung their tactical ability of initiative. This didnt exist during the Battle for France.

I could go on but 2000 word limit.

Bottom line is that you're a fucking retard because your lie is only backed by a vague understanding that "they won once".

>>18236606
>What are the lies?
Everything you say are lies, now shut the fuck up.

>Anons who participate in WWII threads are almost always of a certain profile
Seething stormfag.

>>18236605
>the majority of German pilots lost were shot down not POWs
I said this.
Where's the lie?
>what it says
Thats not what it says.
Nowhere does it say empty planes were sitting on runways.
per cent of pilots ready is the percent of pilots ready, not the percent of operation ready aircraft which have pilots.
>the lie
WHAT LIE?
>they were
nope. We have the operational aircraft numbers, they were not in the tens of thousands lmao.
production and replacement does not directly translate to serviceable aircraft.
>far more valuable
unquantifiable. If they were so good, whyd they consistently fail to stop German air raids?
>others must disprove it
disprove what?
Where's the lie?

You can not even articulate the specific contention you have with my argument.

>>18236615
>overwhelming advantage
None of these are scifi level advantages and half of them could be overcome if the Germans planned out their attack on Britain better.
Are you under the impression the battle of Britain we are discussing is a dice roll? You know we are speculating on a German victory right? We arent just restating "they lost therefore they could never win", you know this is a speculative thread right? You have trouble with speculation, your tranny mind literally can not fathom a world in which Germany defeats the RAF, though they did in France, or a world in which Britain makes peace with a continental power, which they did even during WWII and numerous times before.
>they won once
actually I am refuting this idea that the RAF losing is "scifi".
something youre backpedaling on.

Keep listing them, maybe you will arrive at scifi level soon.
>>18236619
>everything
so name 1, Pidor.
You're the only mad and you're angry because

>>18236615
>extreme morale collapse
That isn't what Kanalkrankheit was.

>>18236646
>We arent just restating "they lost therefore they could never win", you know this is a speculative thread right?
The argument that Germany could never have won the battle for Britain is based on constructive numbers that couldnt be changed in mid-1940 because the variables had been determined already during the interwar period.

In order to argue that Germany could have won the battle for Britain, it requires variables that could be altered during the battle itself

This is why they CANNOT win the battle for Britain because the factors were pre-determined.
Those factors were
1. Britain had a larger aircraft production infrastructure than Germany did long before ww2 started. Hitlers remilitarization never came close to British pre-existing armament capability.
2. Britain had a larger deposit of aluminium and oil than Germany did which allowed for greater long-term production of aircrafts than Germany could.
3. Britain had a greater network of pilot training institutions than German did, not just in Britain but also in Rhodesia (which produced a great amount of pilots) and Canada.
4. The weather and distance made fighting over the British isles problematic for the Luftwaffe, they had significantly less flying time which reduced combat ability and they lost every pilot that was shot down.
5. Luftwaffe was unable to destroy any RAF infrastructure, hence why during the 3 month relentless operation Luftwaffe destroyed ZERO airfields and ZERO Vauxhall facilties and ZERO radar networks. This wasnt because Luftwaffe bombers were poor pilots, but because ww2 bombing wasnt technical enough for precision bombing, which is the reason why British bombers over Germany were equally ineffective (until the RAF decided to carpet bomb German cities as a whole).

This is why Luftwaffe cannot win, because it depended on factors that were non-changeable once battle commenced. Germany cant suddenly build a whole new infrastructure of aircraft production during the battle itself

>>18236655
Thats exactly what it was.retard.

>>18236631
> whyd they consistently fail to stop German air raids?
Why did Luftwaffe lose more signfinicantly more planes than RAF in every single engagement during the entire battle?

An easy google search will tell you that there was only ONE day during the entire campaign when RAF took higher losses.

And you dont think this is a problem?