The Air War Over the B.E.F. - An Interview with James Holland

[@paddy.7784]

James Holland always puts in the hard yards and walks the ground . Much respect.

[@timb9363]

And now he now has his series ‘walking the ground’! Solid comment

[@philipbrooks402]

At 35.15 James mentions Ginger Lacey. Was taught to fly by him at Bridlington in 1986. Am now a 20,000 hours plus airline captain. Fascinating individual and rubbished Bader's 'Big Wing Theory.

[@KillianoC]

What did he have to say about the Big Wing?

[@philipbrooks402]

@@KillianoC Rubbished it.

[@sirfintanelmrisofcoanwood5245]

The Chieftain AND James Holland? Sign me the flipping-hell up.

[@RogueCylon]

My Dad was in the RAF during the war, and worked on Spitfires. He was a master mechanic and electrician.

[@nickdanger3802]

26.30 HAD 200 destroyers in 1939, by the end of the Battle of France the RN had fewer than 100 serviceable destroyers.

[@alancooper9632]

I've had a great interest in the second world war since as a young lad watching all our yesterdays with Brian inglis, James Holland seems to bring a great nuts and bolts aprouch to the second world war. Absolutely enthralling for someone like me.

[@guyhancox4246]

Aha, the Chieftain meets Holland - the two guys who between them completely changed my understanding of the operational element of tank warfare. Many thanks to both of you gentlemen!

[@lewistaylor1965]

I need another 8 hours of this conversation to watch...

[@paulnutter1713]

Ahh! the much maligned Hurricane 1 with its canvas covered wings, 2 bladed Watts prop and running on 87 octane fuel and its 15 seconds of firing from 8 mg's as opposed to the 109's 55 seconds from 2 mg's. The cannon shells also tended to go through the canvas skin of the hurricane as opposed to the metal skin of the spit. Look at the hurricane pilots confirmed kills against 109's over France and the BOB, they shot down plenty. The air War in France was the luftwaffe's first defeat, the BOB was their second

[@dublardemesrie]

to me the Spitfire is one of the best planes just because of the Merlin engine and the sound it made when it went by that noise is just glorious

[@EricIrl]

@Brett Bass The Mustang could never fly rings around a Spitfire. It was never designed to do that. What the Mustang had was range and that proved massively decisive in the last 18 months of the war because they could escort American daylight raids deep into Germany. As a former fighter pilot, Goering understood the significance of seeing single engine Allied fighters over Berlin. As a side note, the initial versions of the Mustang were fitted with Allison V12 engines and were judged inferior to the Spitfire - and even the Hurricane over 10,000 feet. The RAF refused to accept Allison Mustangs as pure fighters - although they were used to excellent effect in the low level recce role. Obviously, fitting the Merlin to the Mustang made a significant difference to the Mustang's performance at altitude.

[@bigwoody4704]

Fitting the Bendix-Stromberg pressure injection carburettor on the Merlin made a significant difference to the merlin's performance climbing and diving

[@ohslowpoke4720]

Nice video! Glad to see the RAF getting it's due every once and a while.

[@anonymous8780]

@19:10 Hurricane outturns Spitfire, but Spit has a faster rate of roll.

[@Phantomrasberryblowe]

The Luftwaffe was defeated over Dunkirk by the RAF with the first showing of the Spitfires en-mass. ‘The days of easy victory were over. We had met the RAF head on.’ Major Werner Kniepe of the Luftwaffe’s III /Kampfgeschwarder 2 From The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 Strategy For Defeat by Williamson Murray: _Over Dunkirk, the Luftwaffe suffered its first serious rebuff of the war. As Galland has noted, the nature and style of the air battles over the beaches should have provided a warning as to the inherent weaknesses of the Luftwaffe's force structure._ _Admittedly, the Germans fought at a disadvantage. Although positioned forward at captured airfields, the Bf 109 was at the outer limits of its range and possessed less flying time over Dunkirk than did the "Hurricanes" and "Spitfires" operating from southern England. German bombers were still located in western Germany and had even farther to fly. Thus, the Luftwaffe could not bring its full weight to bear so that when its bombers hammered those on the beaches or embarking, the RAF intervened in a significant fashion. German aircraft losses were high, and British fighter attacks often prevented German bombers from performing with full effectiveness. Both sides suffered heavy losses. During the nine days from May 26 through June 3, the RAF lost 177 aircraft destroyed or damaged; the Germans lost 240._ For much of the Luftwaffe,Dunkirk came as a nasty shock. FliegerkorpsII reported in its war diary that it lost more aircraft on the 27th attacking the evacuation than it had lost in the previous ten days of the campaign._ He goes on to say: _To a certain extent, the strategic collapse of the entire western position has obscured the significant attrition of German armored and air forces that took place during the fighting. At the beginning of the western offensive, the army possessed 2,574 tanks._ _By the armistice, the Germans had lost 753 tanks or nearly 30 percent of their armored forces. Luftwaffe losses of aircraft were on a similar scale (see Tables III, IV, V, and VI)._ _Tables III through VI underscore the extent of German aircraft losses in the Battle of France. They suggest that the tendency to view the Battle of Britain as a separate episode from the defeat of France does not do justice to the resistance of Allied air forces in the spring of 1940 and distort the fact that for five months, from May through September, the Luftwaffe, with only a short pause, was continuously in action. The break in morale of bomber pilots, reported over London in mid-September 1940, thus was the result not only of the strain of fighting over Britain but of operations that had been continuous from the previous May._ The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 (www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-2.html)

[@DannyBoy777777]

@*Kampfgeschwader*

[@Ebergerud]

No quibble with a good post. Might add that the LW lost about 1,000 airmen that were sitting in French POW camps. The UK begged to have them transferred to Britain, but the French refused - understanding the implication. Anyway, after France quit, the LW found themselves with partially restocked with pilots and aircrew for the BoB. And the tank losses were real too. That's one justification for not bringing the tanks into the very bad "tank country" along the coast there (shades of Market Garden). And had the tanks moved even after a two day halt, there might have been nasty losses on that terrain. And the High Command, especially Rundstedt, really wanted a few days to get their army back in one piece - it was spread out across northern France. They still had another campaign against France coming and didn't really appreciate how badly the French had been mauled. Don't forget - every major leader in WWII had been in WWI - I'm sure Rundstedt remembered the 1914 surprise at the Marne. Hitler went along. Should be pointed out that for most of the early war Hitler didn't simply issue orders - he acted more like a referee between feuding generals and they always quibbled. I really think Deighton caught something very important when he pointed out that nobody in the German command even considered the possibility of Dynamo. If so, then Rundstedt and company had a very good argument. Had they thought the BEF was going to escape...they might have acted differently. As Churchill himself pointed out, you don't win by retreating, but Dynamo was the Royal Navy at its very best - bold, efficient and incredibly innovative. Dynamo was a gem from top to bottom. And I bet the LW was surprised to find the RAF over Dunkirk - it was a battle they hadn't expected to fight and hadn't planned for. A real pity that. Always makes me sad when I think of Nazi blunders.

[@antr7493]

he is awesome ., Have to pick up some of his books. His other videos at the US Archive are wonderful

[@cryptozoomauler5505]

I was interested enough to watch the entire interview, so well done!

[@stevepringle2295]

After watching five minutes of Hollands’ blitzkreig on the Chieftain is exhausting.

[@KeithRanker]

I really enjoy reading or listening to James Holland. I once read that Germany lost over 1,400 planes in the 6 weeks of the France/Low Country attack.

[@Richard31406]

anyone notice how high the exhaust is on the 109? spanish version with merlin engine??

[@woodchild2093]

I have now you pointed it out. Cheers

[@kevinohalloran7164]

That Messerschmidt is smiling. Yeah, I know, it's an intake. But, still...

[@Richard31406]

One of these late versions of the Bf109 was the Buchon, a name meaning pigeon. Built in Spain and featuring a British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

[@nigeh5326]

It looks like on of the buchon used in the film the Battle of Britain

[@landsea7332]

You're right - and the nose cone should be much larger .

[@xenofoxx]

Nice little chat. Very informative.

[@Wallyworld30]

This feels like Cheiftain is interrogating this fella. This guy did a great job with the tough questions!

[@linnharamis1496]

A fascinating discussion- thank you!👍

[@DannyBoy777777]

@Linn Haramis Fascinatingly wrong. Holland 's assertions about Luftwaffe doctrine are based in myths - for example it was not a tactical air force; not in doctrine, training or procurement.

[@lislisser6036]

Mr. James... about Stuka... and Dunkerk... I don't think stuka pilots were particularly trained to bomb ships... dive bombers sunk japanaise carriers at Midway but their pilots were trained to sunk ships... by the way... stukas won battle of france at Sedan. In fact there was just not much of Stukas, for example in opening of Barbarossa, only AG Center had stukas support, stukas simply needed fighter protection... like every other plain

[@jimrankin2583]

Hurricane in British service equates to the Curtis P40 in US service. An older but solid performer that could be produced in large numbers until it was supplanted by better equipment as that became available.

[@larsmathiesen8999]

Interesting as always. But I must note that it gives a wrong impression about dive bombings effectiveness against ships, it was actually very effective if IF you where well trained. The Japanese navy and US navy was and where effective. The best example was that because VMSB-241 was so unexpired at the battle of Midway Major Henderson ordered his med not to divebomb in the SBD's to attack in an unpowered dive. The Luftwaffe was not trained in attacking ships and as the Stukas pulled so many Gs in a dive that the crew would pass out it had a automatic pullout mechanism and they would be sitting ducks for a while if they did not have air superiority or for AA guns on British DD's.

[@Marc83Aus]

I don't know much about the fleet that was present, but I have to assume a destroyer would have pretty formidable flak against small numbers of dive bombers. Perhaps if the numbers were sufficient, and they were organized and committed to an attack the fleet could have been severely damaged.

[@EricIrl]

@@Marc83Aus The Luftwaffe Stuka squadrons would not have received any specific training in dive bombing ships. It was a task that was never envisaged by the Luftwaffe, which saw the Stuka as a form of long range artillery for use against ground forces. On the other hand, the US Navy and the Japanese Navy both saw the benefits of dive bombing as an anti-shipping weapon. After all, they were naval forces and their prime targets would be other ships. Oddly enough, the Royal Navy were never enthused about dive-bombing and consequently never really operated a true dive-bomber. The only Royal Navy aeroplane that had dive-bombing in its specification was the Blackburn Skua - which had other roles assigned to it as well which meant it wasn't particularly good at any of the jobs it was given to do.

[@illiminatieoverlordgurglek140]

An 'inside the chieftain's cockpit' series would be awesome! Hint hint.

[@kidmohair8151]

off you go to Military Aviation History, right here on the tube of youness

[@davidrendall7195]

Sorry James what about Army Co-Operation Command? In existence as 22 Group from 1926 to provide artillery observation, battlefield reconnaissance end light bombing. Such aircraft as the Hart and Lysander were specially built for this role, and it was practised in the deserts of the Middle East and Mountains of Afghanistan. Now it was not a success for numerous reasons (see Fleet Air Arm and how the RAF ruined that in the 1920s and 30s.) but it was there and in embryonic form it's squadrons would provide the basis for the desert air force, and provided superb support of the Army in 1940/41, which Wavell called pivotal.

[@jamesmorse959]

Good talk but why is there a MkIX Spitfire and a Bouchon in the background, neither were around during the Battle of France. Nice to see a Mk1 Blenheim though.

[@jimrankin2583]

You have to take what you can get😁

[@Ebergerud]

Years ago Len Dieghton went over this ground in Blitzkrieg and Fighter - excellent accounts both. He made the obvious observation about Dunkirk that Hitler didn't call for an all-out offensive against Dunkirk was that nobody in the German high command could conceive of Operation Dynamo - it wasn't considered feasible. It simply wasn't considered at all. That's not so far from the RN's original expectations as I recall. As far as the BoB goes, Churchill seems to have thought a German invasion was unlikely because he sent British tanks to Egypt to help withstand the imminent Italian invasion. And yet. If you want to say that in retrospect, the RAF's victory was not a "miracle" - perhaps even likely, go ahead. There's truth in that analysis. (If nothing else, nobody in the LW had a clue as to what kind of air power was required to bring a nation to its knees - neither did the RAF and neither did the USAAF in 1942. It appears that Hitler was expecting a British peace overture at any minute.) Yet, war is littered with "blowback" or "unexpected consequences." See the three books written by the great historian John Lukacs over the very real possibility that Halifax might have convinced the British government to open talks with Hitler via Italy (before its entrance in the war in late June 1940). As I recall Deighton argued that even though Sea Lion was a real long shot, that a German mass attack with paratroopers could have seized a beachhead and caused utter panic in London. In 1940 it seemed that the Germans were routinely doing the impossible (and did it again in Crete) so who knows? If I was British, I'd still look at the summer of 1940 as the Finest Hour.

[@ralphe5842]

Germany really hoped Great Britain would sign a peace treaty not really surrender and the Chamberlain government probably would have sea lion would have been a disaster

[@seandouglas5429]

We made good use of dive bombers in the Pacific specifically the Dauntless

[@tbwpiper189]

Heavy Hermann couldn't even sit in an Me109.

[@classicfrog80]

Great watch. More vids like that please.

[@chickenwu3440]

classicfrog80 don't ur.know that wowp is a piece of shit??? Go p warthunder

[@classicfrog80]

And what does it have to do with you replying to my comment?

[@AndyClayton-f5x]

Only Hurricanes were sent across to France, partly because it was rugged enough to operate out of poorly equipped fields, and robust enough to operate with field maintenance. The spitfire, with its narrow undertrack, and need for specialised maintenance and repair, would have been a liability. In the sky, the Hurricane could out turn both the spitfire, and the 109, and its closely packed machine guns delivered a more concentrated burst than the spitfire. Many of the pilots appreciated the fighting qualities of the Hurricane over the Spit. The 109 diving away was a favoured luftwaffe escape route, as it had fuel injection. The merlin's gravity feed would cut out. Steps were taken to rectify the disadvantage in the British engine. The Hurricane was only obsolescent as a high speed fighter, it continued to pack a punch for the remainder of the war, as a ground attack fighter/bomber, and as a shipping defence fighter. Out east, where the plane development was slower it continued to hold its own till the end.

[@alanwitton5980]

Great video very informative

[@DCS_World_Japan]

Assessment of the Vic being superior is way off. Closer formation requires MORE adjustment of stick and throttle to maintain position than a looser formation like the Finger Four. The tighter formation is also worse in defense because both wingman have to stare at lead 100% of the time in order to stay in formation, making the lead the only pilot who can scan for the enemy. Even the RAF abandoned it as a fighter combat formation in '41, adopting many of the German formation tactics. Line abreast is also not "absolute nonsense," it's a mainstay of air combat to this day due to its effectiveness. More space between aircraft offers superior mutual support.

[@ralphe5842]

Hurricanes were good but really no match for a bf109 so they were used against bombers so shot down more aircraft spitfires kept the 109s busy

[@johanrunfeldt7174]

James Holland is largely wrong about dive-bombing. Nearly every Japanese aircraft carrier was sunk by dive bombers, the two Japanese super-battleships Yamato and Musashi were sunk by a combination of dive bombers and torpedo bombers and dive bombing take an equal toll of Japanese merchant shipping as submarine warfare.

[@daniellastuart3145]

That because the Japanese fighter cover was on the deck and not in the sky when the dive bombers arrived over the 4 Japanese aircraft carriers at Midway if it in the air i doubt any carriers would of been sunk the JU 87 was withdrawn form the B of B due to it was easy meat when it came up ageist fighters so James Holland was spot on about the dive bombers

[@johnculver2519]

Yes, but if you build a nice flammable aircraft carrier without deck armour you might as well paint 'please sink me' in big letters on the deck. Aircraft carriers are both much larger and much less maneuverable than destroyers, making them much easier targets for dive bombers. In the med, the german and italian land based dive bombers had moderate success against allied convoys, but with huge losses to naval AA, and that is in an environment where the ships had to defend from repeated air attacks for many days while travelling between hostile coasts. Even then they could not prevent critical convoys from getting through to Malta.

[@RemoteViewr1]

Insightful

[@britishamerican4321]

109 was not clearly superior to the spitfire. 109 did have the advantage in a dive, true, and was better armed overall, true, but the spitfire was tighter turning and slightly faster in level flight (though the difference was not significant, granted).

[@RogueCylon]

Edward VIII consulted with Hitler on the invasion of Belgium, leading to the evacuation of B.E.F at Dunkirk.

[@DannyBoy777777]

Holland is wrong about the Luftwaffe being a tactical air force. The focus of German doctrine was in destroying the enemy air force, and attacks on supply-interdiction. Close air support was not a priority. And that is borne out by procurement. In 1939, the only aircraft specifically designed for close air support was the Hs 123 biplane. The Ju 87 was a general purpose dive bomber, not a specialist close air support weapon.

[@gleggett3817]

you have described a tactical air force.

[@hanskarlsson253]

Hm...a bit of Spitfire snobbery here as usual...

[@grantjacob7327]

The Hurricane was more robust, and could take a bit of punishment!.sorry about the comment,as you may well know this already.

[@markpn2645]

Just eating chicken sandwich stopped to watch this. Generally, nice one guys. Good discussion. Holland, a bit too revisionist for my taste. Also Germans over claimed like crazy hence their massive, massive scores claimed. I have read dozens of autobiographies which seem to prove this.

[@lislisser6036]

British just escaped from battle field... it's funny to call it BEF fought in Belgium or France... they didn't fight... french did... so good that at lest...winning the war... they went bankrupt.. and lost its empery... by the way... Germans rule Europe, their plan worked this way or another.. in the end americans humiliated brits.. and rebuilt Germany... hahaha

[@BingoFrogstrangler]

And to think you had to learn pidgin English instead of Deutsche in your little hut,but good luck .

[@lislisser6036]

@@BingoFrogstrangler WHO NEEDS MORE OF ENGLISH... WHEN EVEN MOST OF THE BRITS DON'T SPEAK IT CARRECTLY... DEUTSCH INSTED COULD LEAD TO REACHES OF GERMAN OPERA, LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY.. NOBODY LEASTEN TO THE BEATLES ANYMORE

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

Was ein Unfug😂