Scientists use a statistical technique on some of the big “what if” questions in the momentous Battle of Britain
A mathematical model determines that the Luftwaffe would have defeated the RAF in the Battle of Britain if the Nazi attack had started earlier and concentrated on the airfields. Mathematicians at the University of York have used a statistical technique on some of the big “what if” questions in the momentous World War II battle for dominance of Britain’s skies.
What would have happened if deciding on the fly the bombing of London had not happened? What if a more anxious Hitler had pushed for an earlier start to the campaign? What if Goring had focused on attacking British airfields throughout the entire period of the battle?
These are just a few of the alternative scenarios that have shaped a longstanding debate among World War II historians and enthusiasts about what might have affected the outcome of the battle, which took place between May and October 1940.
Mathematicians at the University of York have developed a new model to explore what the impact of changes in Luftwaffe tactics would have been . His approach uses statistical modeling to calculate how this battle might have played out if history had followed one of several alternative courses. The researchers, who publish their work in the Journal of Military History, say the method could now be used as a tool to investigate other historical controversies and unrealized possibilities, giving us a deeper understanding of events such as the Battle of the Atlantic (the continuing military campaign longest of World War II).
“Weighted Boot”
The statistical technique is called “weighted snatch” and the computer simulation is like taking a ball for each day’s events of the Battle of Britain and putting it into a lottery jackpot. Balls are drawn, read, and replaced to create thousands of alternate series of matches over days, but in a different order, and perhaps with some days having more or no activity at all.
The researchers then repeated the process to test the “what ifs” of the battle, making some days more or less likely to be chosen, depending on how a protagonist (such as Hitler) would have changed their decisions if they had been using different tactics , reports Eureka Alert.
Co-author of the paper, Dr Jamie Wood from the Department of Mathematics at the University of York, said: “The weighted bootstrap technique allowed us to model alternative campaigns in which the Luftwaffe prolongs or contracts the different phases of the battle and varies its objectives. “The Luftwaffe could only have made available the necessary bases in France to launch an air attack on Britain in June at the earliest, so our fallback campaign brings the air campaign forward by three weeks .
We test the impact of this and other counterfactuals by varying the probabilities with which we choose individual days.” The results provide statistical support for a change in tactics that several historians have argued might have brought victory for the Luftwaffe in the summer of 1940: the simulations suggested that if they had started the campaign earlier and focused on bombing airfields, the RAF it could have been defeated, paving the way for a German ground invasion.
According to the mathematical model, the impact of these two changes would have been dramatic. Although it is impossible to estimate what the actual statistical chances of an RAF victory were in July 1940, the study suggests that whatever Britain’s prospects, an earlier start and a focus on airfields would have changed the battle significantly later. favor of the Germans .
For example, if the probability of a British victory in the actual battle had been 50%, these two tactical changes would have reduced it to less than 10%. If the actual probability of British victory was 98%, the same changes would have reduced this to just 34%.
