Telegraph: George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe

[LeesburgSkinFan]

No one ever seems to bring up the fact that, if GW were alive today and had to fight a war, his method of fighting would be considered terrorism compared to standard war practices of his time. Yet we put his face on money and name states, schools, and our capitol after him. Does this bother anyone else?

Not in the least.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Not in the least.

How? In a time when the way to fight a war was to have everyone in uniform line up and shot each other, we had many men out of uniform and they rarely "lined up". Our militia/guerilla tactics were completely against the way wars were fought at the time. But GW was smart enough to find a way to win a war using unheard of methods against a foe who completely out-powered him. Now look at what is happening in the ME and tell me what is different. A foe is coming up with unconventional ways to defeat a foe that outpowers them. I'm not saying I like it. I am just pointing out the irony.

[Barney B]

How? In a time when the way to fight a war was to have everyone in uniform line up and shot each other, we had many men out of uniform and they rarely "lined up". Our militia/guerilla tactics were completely against the way wars were fought at the time. But GW was smart enough to find a way to win a war using unheard of methods against a foe who completely out-powered him. Now look at what is happening in the ME and tell me what is different. A foe is coming up with unconventional ways to defeat a foe that outpowers them. I'm not saying I like it. I am just pointing out the irony.

Was Washington purposefully killing British civilians?

[TheGreatBuzz]

Was Washington purposefully killing British civilians?

No. But we don't only consider killing civillians as acts of terrorism. No civillians were killed in the bombing of the USS Cole. But that is still considered an act of terrorism.

EDIT: I am not saying I don't appreciate what he did and am grateful for it. I'm just pointing out the hipocrasy of "doing what is needed to win" when it doesn't benefit us. And this is from a guy who has had boots on the ground and seen the effects of "doing what is needed to win". I just accept that an inferior enemy will us unheard of means.

[CRobi21]

How? In a time when the way to fight a war was to have everyone in uniform line up and shot each other, we had many men out of uniform and they rarely "lined up". Our militia/guerilla tactics were completely against the way wars were fought at the time. But GW was smart enough to find a way to win a war using unheard of methods against a foe who completely out-powered him. Now look at what is happening in the ME and tell me what is different. A foe is coming up with unconventional ways to defeat a foe that outpowers them. I'm not saying I like it. I am just pointing out the irony.

Which kind of military methods used by the ME do you consider terrorist?

If you say road side bombs, I'd disagree. If you say the events of 9/11, I'd agree.

I do not consider road side bombs, IEDs, etc, terrorist acts. It is a tactic, like you said, used by our opponent who are overpowered. I understand that those tactics have probably detonated on civilians, but the same could be said about many of the tactics we use. Civilian casualties come with war.

But to directly target civilians is terrorism.

Military vs Military Tactics = War

Military vs Civilian Tactics = Terrorism

I don't think GW has ever been accused of the latter.

[pjfootballer]

I think the word Terrorism gets thrown around way too much, just like the word Hero, IMO.

[Henry]

I think some of you are overstating the effect the German U-boats had on British shipping before the US entered the war, and how much help the US was giving the British early on.

The UK had a much stronger navy than the Germans, and never lost that superiority throughout the war. The Germans had to rely on their U-boats and attacks from the air to attempt to counter this, and had to limit the majority of their efforts to attacks on merchant shipping. In this they were moderately successful, but never came close to starving out the British. The British had a HUGE merchant fleet ... something like 1/3 of the world's merchant tonnage was British. German raids, while painful, didn't effectively cripple this fleet ... certainly not by 1940.

While I agree that WW2 would not have been won without American support, we really get almost no credit for the Battle of Britain. In 1940 the Americans wouldn't send goods to the British in their own ships. All commerce with America was done so on a cash-and-carry basis, forcing the British to run the U-Boat gauntlet themselves until mid-1941, well after the Battle of Britain ended. Lend-Lease wasn't enacted until March 1941. Again, well after the Battle of Britain was over.

British assets were running dry by the middle of 1941, but by then the threat of a German invasion had passed and Hitler had turned his attention where he'd wanted it all along, the Soviet Union.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Which kind of military methods used by the ME do you consider terrorist?

If you say road side bombs, I'd disagree. If you say the events of 9/11, I'd agree.

I do not consider road side bombs, IEDs, etc, terrorist acts. It is a tactic, like you said, used by our opponent who are overpowered. I understand that those tactics have probably detonated on civilians, but the same could be said about many of the tactics we use. Civilian casualties come with war.

But to directly target civilians is terrorism.

Military vs Military Tactics = War

Military vs Civilian Tactics = Terrorism

I don't think GW has ever been accused of the latter.

Well than I would say you are wise beyond your years. Not many realize that tactics used by our current enemy, while distasteful to us now, are just a new manner of war. They, in my book, do not reach the level of terrorism.

[Henry]

Which kind of military methods used by the ME do you consider terrorist?

If you say road side bombs, I'd disagree. If you say the events of 9/11, I'd agree.

I do not consider road side bombs, IEDs, etc, terrorist acts. It is a tactic, like you said, used by our opponent who are overpowered. I understand that those tactics have probably detonated on civilians, but the same could be said about many of the tactics we use. Civilian casualties come with war.

But to directly target civilians is terrorism.

Military vs Military Tactics = War

Military vs Civilian Tactics = Terrorism

I don't think GW has ever been accused of the latter.

Agreed. We didn't call the Iraqis we were fighting terrorists. We called them insurgents.

Washington was definitely an insurgent.

[Predicto]

Anyway, I think the Napoleon vs. Washington debate is a very good one. One thing I've noticed in this thread: There doesn't seem to be enough acknowledgement of the fact that Napoleon had an entire modern, well-funded, well-supplied, first-rate military on his side, while Washington had a bunch of peasant farmers with muskets. I think it would be interesting beyond imagination to see their places flipped.

That's true. But Napoleon singlehandedly created that modern, well-funded, well-supplied, first-rate military. After the French Revolution, the French army was a ragtag bunch of peasants with muskets (read about the Battle of Valmy, for example). Napoleon turned that motley group into the greatest fighting force on the earth in about 5 years.

[england]

Britain's Greatest Enemies

1) George Washington

2) Adolf Hitler

3) Madona's Accent :pfft:

-David Letterman

4)dick van dyke's accent in mary poppins

[Predicto]

4)dick van dyke's accent in mary poppins

We owe you guys reparations for that one. :doh:

Meanwhile, Hugh Laurie sounds more American than I do. Go figure.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

British assets were running dry by the middle of 1941, but by then the threat of a German invasion had passed and Hitler had turned his attention where he'd wanted it all along, the Soviet Union.

It should also be pointed out that the US was not exactly running a charity in terms of its support to Britian. The terms of our support more or less brought about the end of the British Empire.

There's a lot of "ifs" in the scenario, but if Hitler had managed to conquer the Soviet Union and if the US had remained neutral, it's possible that Hitler would have eventually been able to invade Britain, but that remains an open question. It's pretty much certain that by the Winter of 1941, Britain no longer lived under the threat of invasion.

[Corcaigh]

It should also be pointed out that the US was not exactly running a charity in terms of its support to Britian. The terms of our support more or less brought about the end of the British Empire.

I think the Brits also charged you a few billion to rent fields in the east of the country on which to station bombers.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Was Washington purposefully killing British civilians?

Fun Fact: The most important battle in the Southern Theater was an American-American conflict at King's Mountain.

I would make the case that Washington was a guerllia warrior and certainly a revolutionary warrior. Terrorist seems like an attempt to stretch the word beyond its breaking point.

I would say that the only prominent Revolution figure who could even remotely make such an argument about is Marion. Even then, it would be a stretch.

---------- Post added April-17th-2012 at 04:09 PM ----------

But to directly target civilians is terrorism.

Military vs Military Tactics = War

Military vs Civilian Tactics = Terrorism

I don't think GW has ever been accused of the latter.

I think you need to be careful even with that argument. If that was the case, nearly every participant in WWII on both sides was a terrorist.

---------- Post added April-17th-2012 at 04:16 PM ----------

That's true. But Napoleon singlehandedly created that modern, well-funded, well-supplied, first-rate military. After the French Revolution, the French army was a ragtag bunch of peasants with muskets (read about the Battle of Valmy, for example). Napoleon turned that motley group into the greatest fighting force on the earth in about 5 years.

No one ever discusses the advantages Washington had. The genius in Washington was that he knew he had some advantages and exploited them to their absolute fullest. He knew he could never hope of matching redcoats in the field. But he also knew that Britain was trying to supply a massive army across an ocean. He knew that Britain was trying to control a land mass several times larger than Great Britain itself. He knew that the war was not politically popular. And he knew that he had geographic and climate advantages.

I think the war was ultimately won the in South where the biggest advantage was "mosquitoes" and "malaria."

The genius of Washington was his ability to stay in the field long enough for these advantages to wear down the British.

[Hubbs]

I think some of you are overstating the effect the German U-boats had on British shipping before the US entered the war, and how much help the US was giving the British early on.

The UK had a much stronger navy than the Germans, and never lost that superiority throughout the war. The Germans had to rely on their U-boats and attacks from the air to attempt to counter this, and had to limit the majority of their efforts to attacks on merchant shipping. In this they were moderately successful, but never came close to starving out the British. The British had a HUGE merchant fleet ... something like 1/3 of the world's merchant tonnage was British. German raids, while painful, didn't effectively cripple this fleet ... certainly not by 1940.

While I agree that WW2 would not have been won without American support, we really get almost no credit for the Battle of Britain. In 1940 the Americans wouldn't send goods to the British in their own ships. All commerce with America was done so on a cash-and-carry basis, forcing the British to run the U-Boat gauntlet themselves until mid-1941, well after the Battle of Britain ended. Lend-Lease wasn't enacted until March 1941. Again, well after the Battle of Britain was over.

British assets were running dry by the middle of 1941, but by then the threat of a German invasion had passed and Hitler had turned his attention where he'd wanted it all along, the Soviet Union.

By the way, you can chalk up the Battle of Britain as yet another unforced error of a loss caused by Hitler himself. The RAF was, by its own estimation, mere weeks away from complete collapse due to a combination of a shortage of competent pilots and total fatigue among the pilots they did have when Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to stop going after British airbases and start targeting the civilian population instead. Things had gotten so bad when that decision was made that some British pilots were going days at a time without sleep. They just couldn't keep up with the frequency of the airfield attacks, and when civilians were targeted the RAF decided to rely more heavily on British anti-aircraft guns for a bit while more pilots were trained and current pilots got some desperately-needed rest.

Hitler built a war machine that really could have conquered all of Europe if he hadn't overruled his generals over and over again. But he did, thank God.

[FanboyOf91]

By the way, you can chalk up the Battle of Britain as yet another unforced error of a loss caused by Hitler himself. The RAF was, by its own estimation, mere weeks away from complete collapse due to a combination of a shortage of competent pilots and total fatigue among the pilots they did have when Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to stop going after British airbases and start targeting the civilian population instead. Things had gotten so bad when that decision was made that some British pilots were going days at a time without sleep. They just couldn't keep up with the frequency of the airfield attacks, and when civilians were targeted the RAF decided to rely more heavily on British anti-aircraft guns for a bit while more pilots were trained and current pilots got some desperately-needed rest.

Hitler built a war machine that really could have conquered all of Europe if he hadn't overruled his generals over and over again. But he did, thank God.

:no:

http://gateway.alternatehistory.com/essays/Sealion.html

tl;dr

Even if the RAF goes down, Germans have to deal with inadequate landing craft, ****ty invasion logistics, the Royal Navy can annihilate any invasion force on the Channel and the beaches.

[Corcaigh]

By the way, you can chalk up the Battle of Britain as yet another unforced error of a loss caused by Hitler himself. The RAF was, by its own estimation, mere weeks away from complete collapse due to a combination of a shortage of competent pilots and total fatigue among the pilots they did have when Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to stop going after British airbases and start targeting the civilian population instead. Things had gotten so bad when that decision was made that some British pilots were going days at a time without sleep. They just couldn't keep up with the frequency of the airfield attacks, and when civilians were targeted the RAF decided to rely more heavily on British anti-aircraft guns for a bit while more pilots were trained and current pilots got some desperately-needed rest.

Hitler built a war machine that really could have conquered all of Europe if he hadn't overruled his generals over and over again. But he did, thank God.

That's dubious. The RAF could have retreated to the Midlands out of the range of German fighter cover

And the RAF was not close to collapsing. The casualties inflicted on each other's forces weren't that decisive.

[Hubbs]

:no:

http://gateway.alternatehistory.com/essays/Sealion.html

tl;dr

Even if the RAF goes down, Germans have to deal with inadequate landing craft, ****ty invasion logistics, the Royal Navy can annihilate any invasion force on the Channel and the beaches.

The British army didn't have **** to repel Germans landing in "inadequate landing craft" with. And if the Luftwaffe had effectively eliminated the RAF as a significant threat, it would have controlled the seas within gun range of the invasion beaches.

That's dubious. The RAF could have retreated to the Midlands out of the range of German fighter cover

And the RAF was not close to collapsing. The casualties inflicted on each other's forces weren't that decisive.

It wasn't about casualties. The British were very close to being unable to defend their airfields because their pilots were going to lose the ability to adequately defend them. You try keeping your planes in flying condition when pilots are literally falling asleep in the air, or when the stronger ones manage to go without REM sleep for 60 straight hours and start to hallucinate.

[RansomthePasserby]

I would make the case that Washington was a guerllia warrior and certainly a revolutionary warrior. Terrorist seems like an attempt to stretch the word beyond its breaking point..

Agreed.There's a huge difference between "terrorist" and "guerilla warrior." Washington was the latter, and no doubt he learned some of his tactics from the wilderness fighting during the French and Indian war.

[Henry]

By the way, you can chalk up the Battle of Britain as yet another unforced error of a loss caused by Hitler himself. The RAF was, by its own estimation, mere weeks away from complete collapse due to a combination of a shortage of competent pilots and total fatigue among the pilots they did have when Hitler ordered the Luftwaffe to stop going after British airbases and start targeting the civilian population instead. Things had gotten so bad when that decision was made that some British pilots were going days at a time without sleep. They just couldn't keep up with the frequency of the airfield attacks, and when civilians were targeted the RAF decided to rely more heavily on British anti-aircraft guns for a bit while more pilots were trained and current pilots got some desperately-needed rest.

Hitler built a war machine that really could have conquered all of Europe if he hadn't overruled his generals over and over again. But he did, thank God.

Churchill gets some credit for this for defiantly ordering night bombing raids on Germany. Hitler was so incensed that the British would dare to actually fight back that he switched his attacks to London itself. Acting the Bully had worked so well for Hitler in the past that he had no idea how to do anything else. Churchill's refusal to bow to this intimidation absolutely befuddled Hitler, who to this point had gotten his way by simply throwing his weight around. When it became clear that Britain would not go away without a knock-down drag-out fight, Hitler decided to try taking on the Soviets without having neutralized the British threat in his rear, which would ultimately be his undoing.

[FanboyOf91]

The British army didn't have **** to repel Germans landing in "inadequate landing craft" with.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070504034219/http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm

The German logistical plan to get troops and supplies across the Channel were not as professional and thorough as that for the initial crossing described above.

To get the first wave across, the Germans gathered barges and tugs, totally disrupting their trade in the Baltic. Eventually, 170 cargo ships, 1277 barges, and 471 tugs were gathered. These were, inevitably, bombed by the RAF (about 10% being sunk before they dispersed again). The barges were mainly those designed for use on the Rhine, with a shallow freeboard. They sink in anything above Sea State 2. The wash from a fast-moving destroyer would swamp and sink the barge. (Correct: the RN could sink the lot without firing a shot).

The situation with regard to mariners for the barges with experience of the sea was even worse. When used as a landing craft, the barges, tugs and motorboats required extra crew. In total, the Kriegsmarine estimated that a minimum of 20,000 extra crew would be needed. That's 20,000 extra crew at least knowledgable of matters maritime. By stripping its ships to the minimum (which doesn't bode well for the Kriegsmarine if it is required to fight a fleet action), the Kriegsmarine was able to supply 4,000 men. The Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe transferred 3,000 men who had been sailors in civilian life, and an in-depth trawl of the reserves and the factories and the drafts brought forward another 9,000 men. After digging through the entire manpower cupboard, the barges were still 4,000 men short of the minimum required.

Nothing could alter this, and the Kriegsmarine came to the reluctant conclusion that the barges would have to sail in an undermanned condition.

Finally, the barges were under-powered for open water operations, and required towing. The basic unit was a tug towing two barges, and travelling at 2-3 knots, in the Channel, which has tides of 5 knots. Given that the distance that the far left of the invasion had to cross, a minimum of 85 miles, the poor bloody soldiers would be wallowing for a minimum of 30 hours in an open boat, and expected to carry out an opposed amphibious landing at the end of it.

The most comical element of the plan, however, was that for manoeuvring the flotilla. The plan was that this huge mass of towed barges would proceed in column until reaching a point ten miles from the landing beach, then wheel and steer parallel to the coast. When this was complete, the vessels would make a 90 degree turn at the same time, and advance in line towards the coast. This was to be carried out at night, and controlled and co-ordinated by loud hailers. There had been no chance to practise the operation, and there was less than one skilled sailor per vessel.

And if the Luftwaffe had effectively eliminated the RAF as a significant threat, it would have controlled the seas within gun range of the invasion beaches.

Not by sea:

http://gateway.alternatehistory.com/essays/Sealion.html

Last, but definitely not least, is the ability to protect the invasion fleet from naval attack. Something that is often sadly ignored in Sealion scenarios (except the ones that the Germans themselves came up with, one of the main reasons Sealion was never more than a pipe dream to them), is that the invasion fleet and its supplies must cross a body of water known as the English Channel. Water is the domain of the Royal Navy, at the time renowned as the most effective fighting force on the oceans. The forces of the Home Fleet, stationed at or near Britain at all times (usually at Scapa Flow naval base, out of range of German air attack), included at least one aircraft carrier, half a dozen to a dozen or so battleships and battlecruisers, and over a hundred smaller vessels such as destroyers, cruisers, and frigates. Dozens of the lighter vessels were stationed around the southern coast of Britain at any given time. In the event of an invasion, the ships already in the south would cause serious damage to an invasion fleet. Even if the invasion came as a complete surprise, within 24 hours the majority of the home fleet would be sitting in the middle of the English Channel, sinking everything that came within sight. They would certainly take losses, from various forms of attack, but this would not have stopped them. With their country about to be invaded, every last ship would be sacrificed if necessary to stop the invasion. It would not be necessary, however, because the Germans hadn't much to throw back at the battleship task forces in the way of its assault.

Most of the German navy was composed of U-boats. Great for commerce raiding, lousy for attacking well defended convoys, especially in 1940. Even lousier for attacking entire fleets of warships. Not to mention the fact that in the English Channel, in an area packed with destroyers and with very little room to manouver, using U-boats would be nothing short of suicide because they would have nowhere to hide. The German surface navy, at its height, never consisted of more than one battleship, a few battlecruisers and "pocket battleships", and ten to twenty lighter vessels. Thus, the Kreigsmarine at the height of its power was outnumbered between 5 to 1 and 10 to 1 by the Home Fleet. Not good odds if you have to not just fight a force of ships, but prevent them from so much as surviving for a day or two in the middle of the English Channel to sink your barges. At the time at which Sealion would have been likely to actually occur, the odds were even worse. The battleship Bismark was not yet finished, and the Germans had just successfully invaded Norway. This "success" left almost all of their fleet either destroyed, or having serious damage repaired. They had a few cruisers and destroyers to throw against the Royal Navy.

The German fleet may thus be entirely discounted from the question of how the Germans could prevent significant elements of the British fleet from sailing into the channel and sinking their invasion's supply line. The U-boats were useless in such a situation, and even if the surface fleet was not temporarily out of service due to Norway, it was not anywhere near large enough. Again we run into the old problem that if it is to be large enough, the building plan has to be started in advance (for capital ships, at least five years in advance!), and will take away substantial resources from the rest of the war effort. Battleships require a lot of steel to build. It doesn't work to postulate that the U-boats will starve Britain into surrender, either. First, it would be very hard to build more - they required precision manufacturing of many components, skilled workers to build them, and skilled officers to crew them. All of these were in quite short supply. Second, Britain is weakest in the later half of 1940, after that it becomes much stronger quite fast, and within a year is so well defended that there is no chance of a successful invasion. The problem is that this leaves only a year between the start of the war, and the time when Britain is supposed to be starved into being weak enough to allow an invasion. Not nearly enough time for a U-boat force of even twice the size and capability of the one the Germans had in 1940. The U-boat force was most effective later in the war, when it had more U-boats, better U-boats, and bases in France from which to easily reach the Atlantic. It must also be pointed out that building more U-boats detracts from the rest of the war effort, will likely lead to increased antisubmarine countermeasures by the British to compensate, and doesn't really help the problem of those battleships sitting in Scapa Flow deciding to sail down and sink the invasion's supply line.

Nor by air:

Last but not least, aircraft - also not enough to stop the Royal Navy. The main problem is that they don't have the range to reach Scapa Flow, so they can't actually attack the British ships until they are already well on their way to where they will do the most harm. The Germans didn't have much capability to attack ships, anyway. They had no dedicated naval attack aircraft, no torpedo bombers, and their pilots lacked both training and experience in naval attacks. This was demonstrated in the Norway campaign, when they achieved a very low success rate against outnumbered, unarmed ships. In contrast, a battleship task force with a full screen of cruisers and destroyers has a tremendous number of antiaircraft batteries with all-around coverage, and can deal tremendous punishment to enemy aircraft. In the Pacific war, even when both sides had extensive antiship capabilities, air battles between American and Japanese fleets often lasted for many attacks over a period of days, with hundreds of aircraft being able to sink many major vessels in a task force, but virtually always leaving many survivors. Even a Royal Navy force with no air support at all could survive for the required few days in the channel under attack by an air force much better against ships than the Luftwaffe.

In fact, the Luftwaffe would have been quite bad against ships. Virtually all of its bombers were level bombers, which drop bombs from high altitude against stationary targets to good effect. Ships, however, can manouver so as to make themselves harder to hit - and level bombers thus become poor choices to use against ships even in the hands of expert pilots (only the Japanese had any real success with them in the war). Dive bombers and torpedo bombers are generally more effective. As mentioned previously, Germany had no torpedo bombers and its only dive bomber was the Stuka. The Stuka was the terror of the skies in the 30s, but by 1940 it was considered slow, vulnerable, and short ranged. Stukas would have suffered horrendous loss rates against the intense air defense of capital ship groups with concentrated destroyer screens. It's also worthy to note that, due to their range and speed, they could only make an absolute maximum of three attacks on Royal Navy elements sailing from Scapa Flow before they reached the channel. Realistically, only one or two. Thus the British fleet elements sailing south to stop the invasion would not experience significant air attack until they were already within range of the invasion fleet and its supply lines.

And this is ignoring the RAF withdrawal option Corcaigh mentioned.

[Corcaigh]

It wasn't about casualties. The British were very close to being unable to defend their airfields because their pilots were going to lose the ability to adequately defend them. You try keeping your planes in flying condition when pilots are literally falling asleep in the air, or when the stronger ones manage to go without REM sleep for 60 straight hours and start to hallucinate.

The Luftwaffe and RAF had comparable strength in battle thanks to radar. And Luftwaffe had longer flying time to get to the 'battlefield', including flying through fire from anti-aircraft batteries. Why is it that the RAF was close to collapse but apparently the Luftwaffe were immune from fatigue?

Furthermore, the RAF was 'playing at home' and could refuel and rearm during the battle. German fighter cover didn't have that ability. Luftwaffe losses were approximately double the RAF.

In hindsight, a total focus on attacking Fighter Command might have turned out differently. But 20/20 and all that.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The Luftwaffe and RAF had comparable strength. And Luftwaffe had longer flying time to get to the 'battlefield', including flying through fire from anti-aircraft batteries. Why is it that the RAF was close to collapse but apparently the Luftwaffe were immune from fatigue?

The major issue for the Luftwaffe was not so much losses of planes (which was heavy) but losses of pilots. When a German plane went down, that pilot was out of the war whether he ejected or not. When a British pilot ejected, he typically was able to re-enter the fight. The Germans lost a few hundred more planes than the Brits (which was a loss they could sustain better than the Brits but not indefinitely) but lost several thousand more pilots and crews.

By the end of the Battle of Britain, the RAF suddenly had the most experienced fighter pilots in human history while the Germans were using their JV.

[Corcaigh]

The major issue for the Luftwaffe was not so much losses of planes (which was heavy) but losses of pilots. When a German plane went down' date=' that pilot was out of the war whether he ejected or not. When a British pilot ejected, he typically was able to re-enter the fight. The Germans lost a few hundred more planes than the Brits (which was a loss they could sustain) but lost several thousand more pilots and crews.

By the end of the Battle of Britain, the RAF suddenly had the most experienced fighter pilots in human history while the Germans were using their JV.[/quote']

All true. Defending your homeland, with the assistance of pilots from countries with a chip on their shoulder, such as Poland, in very capable aircraft such as the Hurricane and Spitfire all were factors.

But apparently it's all down to Hitler that the Germans lost.