Quote Originally Posted by rotorgun
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 10th group rather woefully equipped in comparison to 11 and 12 group?
11 Group, the one mainly involved in the Battle, was the best equipped of the lot, but the others were there if needed. In any case, 12 Group wasn't far off the quality of 11, and it was mostly untouched. The northernmost airfield to see regular action was Hornchurch I think, and that's part of London nowadays, so that tells you something about the Luftwaffe's lack of range.
I realize that the Luftwaffe was dreadfully mauled by the battles in the south prior to switching over to night attacks in late August. Wasn't that because they had switched tactics due to Hitler's orders to bomb the cities? I guess my point was that attrition began to favor the RAF only after such a move.
Goering was successively withdrawing various models from bombers from action because they were too vulnerable to Hurricanes and Spitfires. Kesselring was also worried about his planes, and wanted to switch to anything that could preserve his force. The appearance of the Big Wings showed that, despite massive losses on both sides, Fighter Command could still field intimidatingly large formations of modern fighters. It was the Tet Offensive of the Battle of Britain if you like, with a better attrition rate for the British. The British raid on Berlin was the excuse the Luftwaffe needed to switch to bombing civilian London instead of the heavily defended airfields.
It was only when London was thrteatened with large-scale raids that 12 group was brought into the battle with the "Big wing" approach.
Bader was itching for action and so were the rest of 12 Group, having sat out the Battle. Leigh-Mallory was eager to allow his protege free rein and show his superiority over Park. They would have found an excuse to enter action sooner or later.
If the Germans were able to gain a foothold in the south, admittedly at very high odds against such an outcome, with what land forces was England supposed to defend so heavily?
The existing land forces weren't great, but the British could afford to throw Home Guard and other motley stuff at the invaders while they reorganised their regular army. Once they did that, they'll have the advantage of home ground and easy supply versus a German forces whose communications were threatened daily. Remember the Normandy force had difficulties in 1944 when they had absolute control of sea and air, neither of which the Germans could have attained in 1940.
The survivors of Dunkirk where also only "lightly" armed due to their heavy weapons being abandoned in France. I still maintain that if the channel could be controlled by the Germans for a week, enough troops, tanks, artillery, and supplies could have been landed for the Germans to establish superiority on land.
During the war, the Kriegsmarine never dared let their ships loiter in the Channel for more than a couple of days at a time. To establish such a bridgehead, you'll have to achieve domination enough to allow merchant ships and barges relatively uncontested passage for a week. As in the Battle of Britain where pure formations of fighters were left alone, the RN doesn't need to sink the Kriegsmarine, all they need to do is sink the transports and there is no successful invasion.