Military Strategy in the Battle of Britain: A Crowlian Analysis

Abstract

The author uses an analysis technique proposed by Philip a. Crowl to analyze the military strategy of the Battle of Britain. Crowl's method involves evaluating a series of questions intended to be asked by strategists as they plan for future wars. After sketching the background of the battle, the author examines the objective of the campaign from both sides and evaluates whether the military strategies were tailored to meet the respective national political objectives. Next the limits of military power are detailed followed by an evaluation of the military alternatives. The analysis concludes with a detailed discussion of public support for the battle and an opinion on whether or not too many parallels were drawn with past successes, while military failures were overlooked in planning process. The author concludes that Germany lost the Battle of Britain primarily because she had no clearly defend objective, failed to recognize the limits of her military power, and lacked a carefully planned alternate course of action. The paper closes with a discussion of current US military strategy and compares our current philosophy with Crowl's questions. It appears that current US strategy has not overlooked the lessons learned from history's first significant air battle.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
May 01, 1986
Accession Number
ADA177864

Entities

People

  • John D. Lauher

Organizations

  • Air War College

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Air Platforms
  • C4I
  • Energy and Power Technologies
  • Space
  • Weapons Technologies

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Air Force
  • Air Forces (Foreign)
  • Air Power
  • Aircrafts
  • Center Of Gravity
  • Europe
  • Lessons Learned
  • Military Organizations
  • Military Strategy
  • Negotiations
  • New York
  • Sea Lions
  • Security
  • United States
  • War Colleges
  • Warfare
  • Western Europe

Readers

  • Military History / Militaries and War Studies
  • Strategic Security Studies