Battle of Britain fighter pilots badly trained

[Kyt]

Battle of Britain pilots 'could not shoot straight'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...npilots130.xml

Some went into combat after just 10 hours of solo flying and without ever having fired their guns. Lack of training facilities, time and recruits severely hampered Fighter Command's efforts in the air, claims historian Andrew Cumming.

Historical documents show the "kill/loss ratio" for the key air battle between 24 Aug 24 and September 6, 1940 was "unimpressive", Dr Cumming found.

He said the Battle of Britain pilots – ''The Few" – have become legendary figures, not because of reality but because they helped form a heroic national identity. The truth is, he claims, that the RAF's performance against German fighters and bombers in late 1940 was "ineffectual" and we owe far more to the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy than we are prepared to acknowledge.

Dr Cumming, who based his findings on military reports in the National Archives, told The Daily Telegraph: "Whenever anybody criticises the RAF it seems to be taken as a slight against the pilots themselves, which of course is ridiculous. But for some reason – national identity – we are very proud of the original story and people can't tolerate any revisionism. That many could not shoot straight is a pretty important allegation. However, the evidence is that there was a lack of facilities, including not enough aircraft to tow practice targets."
advertisement

The 0.303 Browning guns used on Spitfires and Hurricanes were criticised in 1939 by Air Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, head of Fighter Command, who calculated that 300 bullet strikes were needed to shoot down a Heinkel bomber.

Dr Cumming said: "Serious historians recognise that a lot of German bombers that were brought down were stragglers.

''This inadvertently exaggerated the British kill statistics. Five or six would have a go at the aircraft and then all claim a half-kill.

Dr Cumming wrote in BBC History magazine: "New pilots went into combat with sometimes only 10 hours of solo training and without having fired their guns."

However, Dr Christina Goulter, a senior lecturer in defence studies at King's College, London, said: "There is a clear causal connection between the Luftwaffe's failure to achieve air superiority in 1940 and Hitler's decision to postpone indefinitely and then cancel Operation Sea Lion (the seaborne invasion of the United Kingdom)."

I don't really want to comment on this "story" until I've had a chance to read the History Magazine article but, as far as I can see, there's nothing new here. It may sound sensational for the lay public but anyone who's read anything about te BoB knows that pilot training was so streched by the second half of the campaign that the above is true. And as books like Fighter Aces of the RAF in the Battle of Britain state "only a s mall minority pilots accounted for the majority of victories"

BTW, I had a good look through this book a wee while ago and intend to get it soon. It looks really good:

Fighter Aces of the RAF in the Battle of Britain

[spidge]

What makes the BoB more incredible, is the German pilots had "earlier" intensive training and were initially more talented than these young boys.

Moving on, the RAF et al matured like good wine.

Heroes everyone of them!

[Antipodean Andy]

Rehash of old facts. You're right, Kyt, doesn't appear to be anything new. Will be interested to hear what you make of the rest of it.

[morse1001]

An article about this appeared on the BBC website a few months ago! It seems that ti was bandied about bu RN types to try and show it was the Navy that won the BofB.

The other thing is, we might have been sending up young piulots with only a handful of hours on the aircraft but they would not be put on operations until the CO was satisfied with their performance.

[Kitty]

Depended on the CO and how stretched the Squadron was. I recall reading of one lad who turned up in the morning in his sports car, all his kit in the back. Within the hour he was up in the air in a dog fight. He never came back. Didn't even get to move into his first billet.
And nothing new. Just makes me admire the boys even more.

[Adrian Roberts]

Nevertheless, during the Battle of Britain, the RAF lost 902 aircraft and the Luftwaffe 1598. Which is less than than a one to two kill ratio, but 1598 was a lot to lose.

(figures from http://www.battle-of-britain.com/ . Are they saying such figures are incorrect? Does anyone know of a site (or even a book...) listing the specific aircraft lost?)

Isn't it true to say that the Germans called off Operation Sealion after the losses of September 15th? And that the Germans lost a quarter of their experienced front-line aircrew in the BofB , and that after the war Galland said that the BofB broke the Luftwaffe, and it was never the same afterwards?

Undoubtedly the Germans were also concerned about the Royal Navy's ability to disrupt any landings, and about the army's ability to resist. But it seems highly revisionist to play down the RAF's part. Just how inexperienced some of the Few were is not proof of the RAF playing a secondary part.

[Antipodean Andy]

Revisionist. That's the word I was after. Thanks AR!

[Kyt]

Originally Posted by Adrian Roberts

Nevertheless, during the Battle of Britain, the RAF lost 902 aircraft and the Luftwaffe 1598. Which is less than than a one to two kill ratio, but 1598 was a lot to lose.

(figures from http://www.battle-of-britain.com/ . Are they saying such figures are incorrect? Does anyone know of a site (or even a book...) listing the specific aircraft lost?)

Though the numbers you give Adrian are in the same ballpark, there is still discrepancies between various sources. We know that the actual figures given during the war are going to be inaccurate, over the last 60 years, various historians have come up with conflicting numbers. Part of the problem is how one defines destroyed aircraft - some were claimed destroyed but which were later repaired. This is also a problem in trying to establish, for example, how many Bf 109s were produced during the war. So many were "written off" but were then cannablised to construct "new aircraft", that the figures vary considerably.

I've attached a comparison I did of the claims made during the war and those that have consequantly been "confirmed"

The first is "Flight to Victory" by Ronald Walker published December 1940 / March 1941

The second is "The Battle of Britain of Britain: The Jubilee History" by Houghs & Richards published 1990 (the 1990 use figures given in the Official History,1957; and with additional information gathered by the After the Battle magazine).

However, as the various threads on 12 O'Clock High show, even now people are digging out new information that casts new light and/or doubts about individual losses. Start taking all these together, and one can understand why people like the above writer are coming up with new interpretations.

Isn't it true to say that the Germans called off Operation Sealion after the losses of September 15th? And that the Germans lost a quarter of their experienced front-line aircrew in the BofB , and that after the war Galland said that the BofB broke the Luftwaffe, and it was never the same afterwards?

There were many reasons why Sealion was called off. The BoB losses was certainly the key one but not the only one. Firstly, one has to ask whether Hitler really did intend for Sealion to go ahead anyway. Another is whether it was the tactics and limitations of the Luftwaffe rather than just numerical losses that caused first a delay and then the cancellation of the invasion.

As to Galland, I've often had a problem with some of his comments and interpretations. They often came across as saying what the victors wanted to hear rather than a really critical appraisal of the events and facts.

Undoubtedly the Germans were also concerned about the Royal Navy's ability to disrupt any landings, and about the army's ability to resist. But it seems highly revisionist to play down the RAF's part. Just how inexperienced some of the Few were is not proof of the RAF playing a secondary part.

I don't think RAF's part is being played down. But I do believe that it time for the other services to be given due credit for their part in the BoB. We have also often forgotten the part that Bomber and Coastal Commands played.

[Kyt]

I forgot to add this book:

Fighter Command Victory Claims: A Listing of Combat Claims Submitted by RAF Fighter Pilots 1939 to 1940

John Foreman's other books are worth checking out too. I've been meaning to get the 5 volume Fighter Command Diaries for some time (but as I'm being good now and cutting back on my book buying, they will have to wait )

A couple of other books that list individual losses are:

Fighter Command Losses Volume 1 by Franks (covers daily losses with aircraft, pilot, squadron and reasons for loss)

The Battle of Britain: Then and Now (the same as above for the RAF, but also covers Luftwaffe Losses on a daily basis)

and the following website:

Tony Wood's Combat Claims & Casualties Lists
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

[Kyt]

The following article should be read in conjunction with the other three that are linked at the bottom of that page.

"The Royal Navy did not win the ‘Battle of Britain’: But we need a holistic view of Britain’s defences in 1940"

http://www.rusi.org/research/militar...4538D604EF124/