Was attacking London instead of continuing to concentrate on

>>1449679
No. Nazi Germany's decision to go to war lost the war.
Even the best case scenario would have resulted in Nazi defeat.

>>1449679

No. There was no possible way the airfield bombardment would have enabled Germany to win the war.

For starters, the Brits can always pull their planes back up to the Midlands, where it'll be real tough to get at the airfields. Secondly, sooner or later, you need to do more than maul the RAF, either try to destroy their morale through bombing (good luck) or try to damage things enough to make a sealion work. (even better luck)

>>1449679

No this is a meme. The RAF was not near collapse, they had plenty of reserves and British aircraft production outpaced that of Germany.

>>1449679

Two factors that lost the Battle of Britain for the Germans: The invention of Radar, and the high professionalism of the RAF as opposed to the aristocratic dilettantism of the Luftwaffe, thanks in large part to Goering.

>>1449679
At no point did the nazis have a realistic chance of winning the war. Its pretty much a miracle the war lasted more than a year

>>1449702
I'm pretty sure their main problem was trained pilots.

I do find it impressive that they managed to churn out quite so many planes though, considering their circumstances.

>>1449798

Not him, but pilots were the bottleneck for most air forces in WW2, not the planes themselves. The Germans had aircrew problems as well, and it was probably the loss of skilled pilots/crew more than the airframes themselves that stung in the BoB, especially since they suffered a worse than normal attrition rate per plane loss. Often times they could recover a downed pilot, but if they go down over England, good luck getting back.

>I do find it impressive that they managed to churn out quite so many planes though, considering their circumstances.

What do you mean? They always had a big plane industry and a large manufacturing base. They started the war with like twice the planes in inventory that the Luftwaffe boasted, why would it be a surprise that they held onto the edge?

>>1449679
>the decision that lost the war
The war was already lost at Stalingrad senpai.
Also,bombing doesn't impact dug in factories that much, hence the RAF switched to firebombing civilians instead.

>>1449818
The fact the germans were fucking up their getting materials.

That and (I may be wrong in this) I thought that the British planes were quite complex.

>>1449679
The decision to go to war with England was a mistake. Hitler simply did not have the strategic bombing capability to bomb them into submission, or even to just get to the point where they would accept a peace treaty with conditions acceptable to Hitler. The only possible "victory" over Britain would be an invasion, which Hitler had neither the warships nor sealift capabilities to pull off.

The decision to bomb the cities only hurt Hitler's position, though he had no real chance of winning that campaign by that point anyway.

>>1449679

My great granddad was an air traffic controller on the ground during this battle. I know that doesn't answer your question but still, neat facts

>>1449828
Must have been a stressful job. Not as bad as being in the air but still.

>>1449821

>The fact the germans were fucking up their getting materials.

They weren't, or at least not as much as to provide a crippling amount of damage to the British war economy.

I would recommend this article, if you're really interested in the parry and thrust of the battle of the atlantic, but the tl;dr is that the Germans were nowhere near close to doing enough damage to cripple the brits.

http://jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251

>That and (I may be wrong in this) I thought that the British planes were quite complex.

They were, and quite large too, British bombers tended to be significantly heavier (and thus, more expensive) than their German counterparts, but the British had a lot of industry to work with, far more than most people today realize.