How effective was the RAF against Germany's Luftwaffe

B-17 was more effective but the lancaster carried a larger ordinance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPw4fzjMUp8

>>33776147
>>33776259
Sorry got confused by your pic and thought we were discussing 4 engine bombers. Britain had some good shit. The nazis obliderated all the air forces of Mainland Europe. Only Britain had comparable stuff. Spitfire was a better turnfighter but the Me109's were more powerful and better at energy fighting.

The Soviet's and allies never really fought together, they were on opposite fronts. The General mentality is that WWII was won by a combined effort.

american steel, british intelligence and russian blood

Definitely.

The Battle of Britain was a losing proposition for the Germans from the moment they kicked it off. Daylight raids had to be escorted which limited them to a relatively small slice of England meaning the RAF could focus their defensive efforts there, night raids were safer but didn't do much in the long run.

British fighter production was fine, all things considered, and the Germans simply could not have kept up, attrition was going to get them regardless of what they did. The general consensus is that a change in strategy might have prolonged the Battle of Britain, but the Luftwaffe was never going to win it. The RAF could recover downed pilots and even some downed aircraft, whereas if the Luftwaffe lost a pilot or an aircraft over British soil, there was no hope of recovering them.

The VVS and USAAF don't even enter into the discussion as they weren't involved in the war at any time where the RAF was 'holding out' against the Luftwaffe (except maybe over Africa, but that's another story). By the time Operation Barbarossa had kicked off, the RAF were mounting raids against German targets in occupied France already, and any bombing campaign the Luftwaffe tried to execute after 1941 was an absolute joke.

tl;dr Yes they could, we know this because they did.

>>33776147
The Germans would have pounded britains bitch-ass

Very. Read some German and accounts and memoirs rather than asking /k/ for their meme tier opinion.

>>33776360

>being this delusional

>>33776147
Up until the invasion of the USSR the UK was alone and was very effective against the German Air Force, however they were winning by the skin of their teeth as the RAF had taken quite the pounding.

Not to mention the RAF had the best fighter of the war the Spitfire.

>>33776147
The main problem the brit's had was finding people to fly the planes they produced, it's easy to produce a plane but trained man capable of flying it effectively are far more valuable.

The Germans might have been able to overwhelm them if they kept the focus on bombing airfields throughout the war.

>>33776147
Yes.

File: WWII aircraft losses by front.jpg (83KB, 1023x727px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1023x727px

>>33776147
Look at the first five rows of numbers. I'd say it compares favorably to what the Soviets accomplished fighting a defensive battle over their own ground in the following four lines.

However, the real key are the last seven lines, from the second quarter of 1943 onward. The British and Americans, working together, soaked up and destroyed the vast majority of German air power over Western and Southern Europe, helping keep the pressure off the Eastern front. This is not to mention the vast quantity of AAA guns forced to defend Germany instead of get deployed or the production, transport and manpower destroyed or disrupted.

The fact of the matter is that the UK had already held out without the US or USSR as far as defending the Home Islands from invasion or leveling by the Luftwaffe. By Pearl Harbor and Barbarossa, the window for Operation Sealion had already closed. However, winning the war and finally subduing Germany required all three major air forces.

File: 1458187652967.jpg (808KB, 1580x993px) Image search: [Google]

808KB, 1580x993px

>>33776304
Loss of experienced pilots and aircrew to the Germans knackered them very badly and they did lose hundreds more that just aren't quickly replaceable. Meanwhile, they where able to train RAF pilots in most of the Commonwealth countries and ship them over- lot of Canadians, Australians and South Africans turned up to help and while they where not the majority, quite a few experienced Polish pilots as well.

Another big factor was the Germans couldn't get enough parts to their planes, operational readiness was very low across all types.

>>33778475
Bombing the radars might have been more effective, the old WW2 planes really just need a flat bit of ground without too many bumps in it and they can take off and land, course a sealed surface is better but if you 'had to' they could.
Pilots, not too bad considering they had all Commonwealth countries training up since 1939, plus a few ring-ins from other places that went there on their own accord decided it would be an adventure

>>33776147
>I mean seriously, could they have held out against the Germans if the Red Air Force and and the USAAF hadn't assisted them?
um, we did it exactly that.

Master Race fagots warent so tough when they had to face an equal enemy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._303_Polish_Fighter_Squadron

>>33778203
True

File: wwii-dday-to-veday-21-638.jpg (112KB, 637x432px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 637x432px

>>33776147
The RAF held their own and was not exactly kicking ass but still coming out ahead. The German fuckup in Russia helped a lot, and the Americans showed up late to the party and took all the credit.

Germany would have fallen without American involvement, the Americans were really only there to beat the Commies to Berlin.

not very

>>33779891
Operation Barbarossa didn't start until after the Battle of Britain concluded. Despite having an airforce roughly 4/5th the size of the Germans and deficiency in ability to replace pilots at the start, the Brits were able to inflict almost twice the aircrew casualties, outpace German aircraft production, outpace German pilot replacement, and launch counter-raids against occupied France.

File: 1481150874126.jpg (60KB, 1024x1022px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1024x1022px

>>33778427
>spitfire
>good
funniest thing i'v read on /k/ all day, whats next are you going to say Merlin engines were superior to Allison

File: 1493226034781.jpg (6KB, 252x137px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 252x137px

>>33780028
>he thinks they weren't

File: header_p51_forum_264333765.jpg (283KB, 1400x530px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1400x530px

>>33780028
yep, so good you Yanks even used them

File: 1490557181832.jpg (105KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 850x400px

People don't realize the Luftwaffe was just as diverse as the RAF, maybe not in numbers as Germany didn't have a colonial empire but they took in pilots from all over Europe.

Lots of Slovaks,Spaniards, Estonians, Austrians, Danes...


It's kinda funny, after Czechoslovakia was invaded almost all the Czech pilots escaped to the RAF, while most of the Slovak pilots volunteered with the Luftwaffe. So they were effectively countrymen before the war and enemies during it

http://acesofww2.com/slovakia/

http://acesofww2.com/czech/

>>33780028
this

Also US pilots during the Battle of Britain basically saved their squeaky britbong asses

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4HSpmiR8Uo

Considering germany tossed more than half of its steel produced against the british id say it was rather succesful.

File: physicalversion.jpg (14KB, 286x308px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 286x308px

>>33779891
>being this retarded

>>33780028
>replace Allison with Merlin
>oh look our airplane can now escort bombers all the way to Germany

>>33776360
T. Merkel

File: 1492912250981.jpg (41KB, 628x960px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 628x960px

>>33780248
Are you taking a scene from a Micheal Bay movie as historical evidence?

>>33776147
Germany was using a tactical air force designed to support military advance against an air force which had invested comparable time, effort, and technology in strategic air power. Light and medium bombers were going up against radar-assisted fighters over their home ground whilst being escorted by limited-ranged single engine fighters, confining Luftwaffe daylight attacks to the south of England (save for a brief and rather fruitless attack by Luftlotte 5, based in Norway, on the north east coast).

>>33780028
are you baiting or just retarded

>>33778569
>Bombing the radars might have been more effective

interestingly enough German bombs had great difficulty knocking down the radar antenna themselves as the lattice structure was relatively unaffected by the blast. Support buildings were often destroyed but there were mobile reserve radar stations on hand which could usually be established relatively quickly