PDA

View Full Version : Did the Luftwaffe cost Germany the war?



Freiwillige
02-18-2009, 04:34 PM
I read an interresting article the other day that I can no longer find (Although im still looking.)

The basis of this argument revolves around Goering (Head of the Luftwaffe) And grand admiral Raeder later replaced by Doenitz.

The Kreigsmarine it was argued had the best chance to knock England out of the war by U-boat blockade. It had almost succeeded by 1941 in starving England into suing for peace.

Doenitz had argued post war that Goerings egocentric behaviour had made Luftwaffe navy cooperation tedious at the best of times.

Not only did Reader\Doenitz have to fight Goering for the resources to expand the U-boat fleet at a time when building more boats was essential. Also getting Goering to use more of the Luftwaffe's reconisance aircraft to go searching for shipping proved difficult.

Nearly 1/3 of all allied shipping was being sunk by the Luftwaffe in 1940.

The FW-200 Condore was ideal for Atlantic operations with its long range and suitable bomb load yet Doenitz could never get Goering to release enough of them.

Fighter cover over the bay of bisquay was also very important to the U-boat fleet coming and going into France. Yet here too Goering set aside little resources fot the fleets defence.

Only in Norway was any sort of Navy Airforce cooperation effective, far away from Goerings main interests. Plus with the Tirpitz and other German capital ships based there Goering had little choice but to send the resources needed to defend the Fuhrer's fleet.

Another point of interest is the Graf Zepplin. The German aircraft carrier was 85% complete in 1939, But when the Kreigsmarine requested aircraft Goering stalled and used delaying tactics even going so far as to claim that proper aircraft couldnt be ready until 1944!

The kreigsmarine would have none of that and took the case to Hitler who ordered Goering to make aircraft available to the Kreigsmarine.
Goering finally succumed to the pressure issuing orders to convert already obsolesant types then being phased out of service.
The 109E was turned into the 109T And the JU-87B was being converted for carrier usage.
All this delaying tactics paid off for Goering who much like Hitler had little understanding of Naval warfare. The Graf Zepplin laid in port 95% complete until she was scuttled at the end of the war.

M_Gunz
02-18-2009, 05:13 PM
IMO it all keeps devolving to the Nazi regime being run by a bunch of nuts.

JSG72
02-18-2009, 05:27 PM
Think that it would be "Fair to say" that if Germany hadn't declared War on America. Things may have worked out differently? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

U-boats could stop the supplies to Britain. But they certainly could not stop U.S. Aircraft from flying.

general_kalle
02-18-2009, 05:29 PM
well we know that both hitler and Göring had their special ways of leadership.

if they had developed a heavy bomber like the B17 aswell as a long range escort fighter, not attacked russian and had more rescouces to the submarine fleet they might have been able to force britain to its knees.

JSG72
02-18-2009, 05:58 PM
Undoubtably. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Underestimating the abilities of U.S. Industry. And indeed writing them off as no more than a manufacture of "refidgeraters". Would certainly go some way to reinforcing. The "Third Reichs" From top to bottom inability. To quantify, the task they had taken apon themselves. To conquer Europe and Asia?

horseback
02-18-2009, 06:22 PM
Don't make too much of the Graf Zeppelin; even had the Kriegsmarine gotten her operational, putting together an adequate air group for her would have been the work of years, and the 109 was even less suited to carrier ops than the Spitfire/Seafire.

The 190 would have needed a lot of modification as well, and the weight penalties would have made it easy prey for Corsairs or Hellcats.

Chances are very good that had the Zeppelin sortied out to challenge the Royal Navy or God Forbid, a US carrier task group, that her career would have ended quite abruptly, and that her surviving crew and air component would have been guests of the Allies.

As for the U-Boats, their day was done by mid 1943. Between the USN's explosive growth in capability and numbers and the limited capacity of German shipbuilding, there was little chance the U-Boats could have done much more than they did.

Germany simply bit off more than she could chew between the invasion of the Soviet Union and Hitler's declaration of war on the US. IMHO, they were probably pushing their limits once the Commonwealth started getting their breath after the initial flurries.

cheers

horseback

Choctaw111
02-18-2009, 06:33 PM
Bad leadership cost Germany the war. Had it not been for the numerous blunders made by the Germans, the world would be very different today I believe.

Ba5tard5word
02-18-2009, 06:46 PM
I think the initial post shows why it's a good idea for the US or other nations to have a separate Naval air force and Air Force.

However I think it's a lot of what-ifs. Goering and Hitler were terrible leaders but I think the Germans were simply blinded by their early Blitzkrieg successes and didn't think they needed to gear up for a different fight until it was too late. As mentioned above, they let themselves get bogged down in Russia and once the US gained air superiority in Western Europe and Allied bombing from England ramped up, Germany was doomed.

Metatron_123
02-18-2009, 07:05 PM
Two front war. A war against three magor powers is not winnable. If England was somehow knocked out and Russia wasn't invaded, the US wouldn't have a stepping stone. drunkedness now forces me to depart. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-18-2009, 07:12 PM
Goering certainly blew it for the Luftwaffe. He promised things without really finding out if his airforce could do it or not. He was never leadership material imho.
Of course there were other facters, like, as said, fighting a war on two fronts. Hitler declaring war on the US (when the US hadn`t actually declared war on Germany) was the height of dumb. Many such stupid mistakes were made later into the war.

Good thing too.

Freiwillige
02-18-2009, 07:28 PM
If Germany could have forced England to sue for peace which it was very close to doing (Anybody that disagrees should read Churchills war diary, Its scary how close England came to calling it quits) Then Germany would have to contend with American interventionism no longer since Americas main involment came mostly from English provication and pleas. Obviously this scenario would take place before Germany declared war on USA in dec 41.

If that were the case the full weight of the German military would fall on Comunist Russia.
That 30% increase in force combined with the lack of lend lease to Russia would put Stalin in a bad situation that I doubt that he could have recovered from.

DuckyFluff
02-18-2009, 08:27 PM
Ignorance and a little education are a dangerous thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

England may have sued for peace but the rest of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth would have whipped Hitlers ***. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

The Germans would never have had a successful invasion of BRITAIN they simply hadn't got the wherewithall to invade in any great force, as for WALES, SCOTLAND, and NORTHERN IRELAND, NO WAY would the Germans have been successful, after all it took the English 700 years of failure to realise they could not conquer Ireland permanently, never mind Northern Ireland, lol.

BTW you dummies that keep talking about England in WWII, seem not know ANYTHING about Geography or History, what the hell do they teach you in school http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I_KG100_Prien
02-18-2009, 09:08 PM
Enlightening post Ducky...

M_Gunz
02-18-2009, 09:13 PM
In another war, Goering led The Flying Circus quite well....

Ba5tard5word
02-18-2009, 09:25 PM
Also Germany and Japan had problems with fighting nations with much larger populations and more supplies. Germany could come up with the best planes and guns all day long but if they didn't have the steel or oil to make them or the soldiers to use them, eh. They did very well for themselves considering their limitations, but eventually these problems caught up with them.

R_Target
02-18-2009, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
If England was somehow knocked out and Russia wasn't invaded, the US wouldn't have a stepping stone.

Not necessarily. Even granting a complete occupation of the British Isles (no mean feat in and of itself, and beyond the capability of the Germans IMO anyway), there were plenty of other places to stage an amphibious landing and start advancing. If the USN could stage landings as big as or bigger than Normandy on the other other side of the Pacific (Philippines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa), they could certainly make it to say...Iceland, Norway, or West Africa, and begin stepping their way in. Now add in Commonwealth forces and surviving RN, RAF, and British Army, U.S. Army and Air.....With Allied control of the sea, German forces would be marooned on a huge prison island.

jamesblonde1979
02-18-2009, 09:38 PM
Hitler's impatience cost Germany the war. Germany would have been in a perfect position to clean up if he had waited for 5 years before invading Poland.

I think the Luftwaffe did a sterling job in spite of the conditions and mediocre leadership it was forced to operate under. It proved itself to be resourceful, courageous and highly effective.

Freiwillige
02-18-2009, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by DuckyFluff:
Ignorance and a little education are a dangerous thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

England may have sued for peace but the rest of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth would have whipped Hitlers ***. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif



The Germans would never have had a successful invasion of BRITAIN they simply hadn't got the wherewithall to invade in any great force, as for WALES, SCOTLAND, and NORTHERN IRELAND, NO WAY would the Germans have been successful, after all it took the English 700 years of failure to realise they could not conquer Ireland permanently, never mind Northern Ireland, lol.

BTW you dummies that keep talking about England in WWII, seem not know ANYTHING about Geography or History, what the hell do they teach you in school http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Who said anything about occupation? There would be consessions sure but mind you Hitler never had any intention of occupying England. His idea as clearly stated many times was that England Could keep her empire. Germany's goals were two fold, Reocupation of lands east that had once been part of Germany proper. And the destruction of what Germany considered the evil plague of Europe, Communism.

None of Germany's war aims involved England. That was so last war. So if England wanted to duck out of the war it could have been an honorable peace.

Operational order for Sealion (The invasion of England) read like this (To prepare for and if necessary the occupation of England) Its the and if necessary part that says so much about his mindset. He had on more than one occasion made peace overatures to England.

So If England had made peace with Germany England would most likely carry on as normal
leaving little reason for the Americans or the commonwealth to continue its course.

But this is all just what ifs anyway. So no nead for your patriotic sarcasm.

And to think that England and its common wealth had a chance in hell without the USA and Russia is a pretty vast leap in faith as well. But hey if it makes you feel better to flag wave be my guest!

Buzzsaw-
02-18-2009, 11:25 PM
Salute

The Germans only had around 50 operational U-Boats in 1940 when France fell.

Yet they were almost able to choke off Britain's supply lines in the next few years.

If they had devoted more resources to building U-Boats prior to the war, they might have force Britain to sue for peace.

Churchill said of the U-Boat campaign:

'... the only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril'.

Buzzsaw-
02-18-2009, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:

None of Germany's war aims involved England. That was so last war. So if England wanted to duck out of the war it could have been an honorable peace.

So If England had made peace with Germany England would most likely carry on as normal
leaving little reason for the Americans or the commonwealth to continue its course.

Complete bilgewater

Hitler was not capable of allowing another Nation to be anything but completely and utterly subservient to Germany and his own ego.

There were already plans in place for occupation after the surrender of Britain, which included the appointment of a Nazi Gauliter, and the setting up of extermination camps, where all so called 'dangerous' elements would be sent and murdered. The list included Churchill, any democratic elements and of course any Jews.

Xiolablu3
02-18-2009, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:

And to think that England and its common wealth had a chance in hell without the USA and Russia is a pretty vast leap in faith as well. But hey if it makes you feel better to flag wave be my guest!

BRITAIN and the commonwealth fought for 2 years alone. They had massive victories over the Italians who had to call on German support. Remember Britian was fighting the Axis cause alone at this time. Germany, Italy, Japan, Vichy France AND the smaller hangers on.

I think you need to reverse the question and see it from both sides.

Hitler didnt have a chance in hell of taking BRITAIN and the commonwealth either. In 1941 the island was not 'starving' in the sense that Leningrad was 'starving'. People were not near death by any means. Food was rationed, thats it. There were not people dying in the streets.

TX-Gunslinger
02-18-2009, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:
Hitler's impatience cost Germany the war. Germany would have been in a perfect position to clean up if he had waited for 5 years before invading Poland.

I think the Luftwaffe did a sterling job in spite of the conditions and mediocre leadership it was forced to operate under. It proved itself to be resourceful, courageous and highly effective.

+1

A corporal and fighter pilot are setting at a bar. The corporal turns to the fighter pilot and says "Hey dude, let's take over the country and while we're at it the world too"

Fighter pilot says, "sounds good to me, I'll need lots of fighters, what do you think we'll need to do it?"

The corporal says "Well fortunatly for us, I've studied von Clausewitz closely.... we need a very strong and mobile Army. In the Great War, I was in the Army, you know."

The fighter pilot says "Well I know we need more fighters, better fighters...But about von Clausewitz, what knowlege of fighters did he possess? The airplance had not been invented yet? Why must the Army be stronger than the fighters?"

The corporal retorts "Fool, only the Army can hold territory and we all know that our country needs more territory. You think we need a Navy?"

The fighter pilot says "Why on earth would we? We had one in WWI and it was useless. It sat in the Baltic and did nothing until Jutland. And Jutland was not exactly a stunning victory on our part. The fighters we could have purchased with all the money we wasted on a Navy. Was the Navy there in the trenches with you, during the fighting? Absolutely not."

The corporal, reflecting on the opinion of the fighter pilot, finally concludes with "Von Clausewitz did'nt mention anything about the Navy, as I recall...hmmmm... you may have something there".

Hope I made my point with the little skit above.

Hilter never, ever had a strategic plan. When he intervened, it was always at the operational or tactical level. He never anticipated war with England, France - in Africa - in the Mediterranean, in Yugoslavia - in Greece.

All hasty decisions. Russia was the conquest that he had on his mind for the longest time, prior to implementation. Even so, the Russian campaign - from beginning to end - was run as short term operation.

Germany, had a submarine heavy Navy - with a tiny Surface Force - and nonexistant Naval Air. She could extert minimal influence on the dominant naval power in her region - The Royal Navy.

It's kind of hard to have a global war with no Navy. It's even more ridiculous when the dominant Naval Power for the last several centuries, lives in your area - and has declared war on you.

Hitler and gang had no idea they were provoking a world war by attacking Poland. They believed strongly enough, that England and France would not honor the Polish treaty.

While many things in WWII are seen through blurry glasses - it's crystal clear that the Nazi leadership had no conception of a Global Naval force nor a World War.

Carl von Clausewitz, was certainly a genious - but nevertheless a genious from a small land-locked nation.

Hitler should have read Mahan.

Sorry for the long post - interesting topic...

S~

Gunny

Freiwillige
02-19-2009, 12:30 AM
I dont buy the world conquest cliche's, There getting a bit tired and completley unsubstantiated by the facts. Again just propoganda. Again it has been well documented Adolf's veiws of the English that almost borders on admiration. He saw them as cousins to the Germans and much prefered to have them as allies in the longer scheme of things. Germany had many allies that were givin free reighn in all area of their social\political lives. Italy for example. Also Vichy France had alot of autonomy and wasnt "Occupied".
So the argument that Germany was pre determined to own England and set up death camps and make sure that it rains every single day is hogwash.

It is in mein Kampf as well as most historians veiw that Germany's goals lay east. And the war in the west was more annoying to Hitlers plans than anything. But even if you were to just look at the factual options Hitler chose to use against England. He did not put everything into the invasion of England. In fact he was rather and uncarichteristicly undecided about invasion of England. And it is now known due to archives being opened that even if he had invaded England he only planned to go 1/3rd of the way up the island! At any rate my point is that he didnt have a rabid hatred of the British and its commonwealth the way he did in the east.

Skoshi Tiger
02-19-2009, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:
Hitler's impatience cost Germany the war. Germany would have been in a perfect position to clean up if he had waited for 5 years before invading Poland.


I doubt that Hitler would still have been in power if he had waited 5 years. Germany's economy would have colapsed by then. The time table for his invasion of Poland was not tactically based, but rather he could not afford to loose the momentum he had built up in the Nazi movement.

To remain in power he had to keep the German peoples mind of the real issues and give them a scapegoat to vent their frustration on and give them someone to blame. Poland, the Communists, the Jews.

Hitler didn't really have a choice.

Xiolablu3
02-19-2009, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I dont buy the world conquest cliche's, There getting a bit tired and completley unsubstantiated by the facts. Again just propoganda. Again it has been well documented Adolf's veiws of the English that almost borders on admiration. He saw them as cousins to the Germans and much prefered to have them as allies in the longer scheme of things. Germany had many allies that were givin free reighn in all area of their social\political lives. Italy for example. Also Vichy France had alot of autonomy and wasnt "Occupied".
So the argument that Germany was pre determined to own England and set up death camps and make sure that it rains every single day is hogwash.

It is in mein Kampf as well as most historians veiw that Germany's goals lay east. And the war in the west was more annoying to Hitlers plans than anything. But even if you were to just look at the factual options Hitler chose to use against England. He did not put everything into the invasion of England. In fact he was rather and uncarichteristicly undecided about invasion of England. And it is now known due to archives being opened that even if he had invaded England he only planned to go 1/3rd of the way up the island! At any rate my point is that he didnt have a rabid hatred of the British and its commonwealth the way he did in the east.

Yes but the British made sure that the war DID happen regardless of Hitlers 'wishes'. The British generally did not see this parallel and 'kinship' with the Nazis. Their sympathy lay with the Poles, Czechs and French.

The first thing the Axis had to do was subdue the RAF, 2nd deal with the Royal Navy, and finally land with troops and tanks.

They failed at the first, so the 2nd and third stages were meaningless.

Have you forgotten that the whole of the Lufwaffe tried for 4 months to subdue the RAF? Hardly 'half-hearted'.

Dieppe and D-DAy showed the amount of planning and resources needed to land across the channel and make it stick.

joeap
02-19-2009, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

BRITAIN and the commonwealth fought for 2 years alone. They had massive victories over the Italians who had to call on German support. Remember Britian was fighting the Axis cause alone at this time. Germany, Italy, Japan, Vichy France AND the smaller hangers on.

I think you need to reverse the question and see it from both sides.

Hitler didnt have a chance in hell of taking BRITAIN and the commonwealth either. In 1941 the island was not 'starving' in the sense that Leningrad was 'starving'. People were not near death by any means. Food was rationed, thats it. There were not people dying in the streets.

Sorry Xio I think your math is wrong. France signed the armistice in June 1940, the USSR was invaded by the 3rd Reich in June 1941 and that makes ONE year alone for Great Britain and her Commonwealth allies. Furthermore don't know why you threw Japan in as well. Japan had been fighting China since 1937 but did not attack the Western Powers, including Great Britain, until December 1941, remember the were many simultaneous attacks in SE Asia (Phillipines, Malaysia, (Dutch East Indies) besides Pearl Harbor.

Aaron_GT
02-19-2009, 02:56 AM
Freiwillige:

If Germany could have forced England to sue for peace which it was very close to doing (Anybody that disagrees should read Churchills war diary, Its scary how close England came to calling it quits)

Churchill's war diaries are personal opinion, not historical fact, though, so I wouldn't rely on them as a sole source. In fact by the end of 1941 it was Churchill that was most in danger, in terms of being ousted by Eden. Monty's victory at El Alamein was capitalised on by Churchill to boost his personal popularity which made this impossible. In late 1941 there were even rather critical books about Churchill being published.


Then Germany would have to contend with American interventionism no longer since Americas main involment came mostly from English provication and pleas.

Not really, it was at least as much from a desire not to see the world dominated by a very few and hostile power blocs. Whilst the colonies were originally British and the dominant language was English in terms of source countries of the population the other European nations were more important in the USA anyway.

R_Target wrote:

Not necessarily. Even granting a complete occupation of the British Isles (no mean feat in and of itself, and beyond the capability of the Germans IMO anyway), there were plenty of other places to stage an amphibious landing and start advancing. If the USN could stage landings as big as or bigger than Normandy on the other other side of the Pacific (Philippines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa),

What were the distances from the staging post to attack point, the distances under enemy air cover, relative strength of sub fleets, and weather conditions in the Pacific compared to a putative attack from Iceland to continental Europe?

Buzzsaw- wrote:

There were already plans in place for occupation after the surrender of Britain, which included the appointment of a Nazi Gauliter, and the setting up of extermination camps, where all so called 'dangerous' elements would be sent and murdered. The list included Churchill, any democratic elements and of course any Jews.

It's hard to tell how serious the plans actually were, though. Nations have all sorts of contingency plans for all sorts of things that they don't really expect to implement. Plus some ardent Nazis may have thought an invasion possible and got ahead of themselves at the same time the generals thought it was ridiculous.

Aaron_GT
02-19-2009, 03:00 AM
Have you forgotten that the whole of the Lufwaffe tried for 4 months to subdue the RAF? Hardly 'half-hearted'.

It was only serious for about half that time and wasn't really well organised. The collection of barges, etc., also wasn't well organised either. So despite the plans the whole concept of invading Britain seems to have been quite half-hearted in a bizzarre way. It is as if really they were just expecting an 'accomodation' to have been reached and were caught off balance. And for this we are very thankful!

Xiolablu3
02-19-2009, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

BRITAIN and the commonwealth fought for 2 years alone. They had massive victories over the Italians who had to call on German support. Remember Britian was fighting the Axis cause alone at this time. Germany, Italy, Japan, Vichy France AND the smaller hangers on.

I think you need to reverse the question and see it from both sides.

Hitler didnt have a chance in hell of taking BRITAIN and the commonwealth either. In 1941 the island was not 'starving' in the sense that Leningrad was 'starving'. People were not near death by any means. Food was rationed, thats it. There were not people dying in the streets.

Sorry Xio I think your math is wrong. France signed the armistice in June 1940, the USSR was invaded by the 3rd Reich in June 1941 and that makes ONE year alone for Great Britain and her Commonwealth allies. Furthermore don't know why you threw Japan in as well. Japan had been fighting China since 1937 but did not attack the Western Powers, including Great Britain, until December 1941, remember the were many simultaneous attacks in SE Asia (Phillipines, Malaysia, (Dutch East Indies) besides Pearl Harbor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK thanks for the correction. I got my maths wrong, I thought the battle for Singapore took place as year earlier in 1941, and I forgot about France, but the point of my post still stands.

Xiolablu3
02-19-2009, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Have you forgotten that the whole of the Lufwaffe tried for 4 months to subdue the RAF? Hardly 'half-hearted'.

It was only serious for about half that time and wasn't really well organised. The collection of barges, etc., also wasn't well organised either. So despite the plans the whole concept of invading Britain seems to have been quite half-hearted in a bizzarre way. It is as if really they were just expecting an 'accomodation' to have been reached and were caught off balance. And for this we are very thankful! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, it was very serious for a time IMO, and the fact that it was poorly organised was purely down to Goering's poor organisation.

If it had shown any signs of success then it is likely they would have moved onto the next phase.

But it didnt...

You only have to listen to the German Veterans talk about the BOB to see how serious it was....listen to Gunther Rall or Steinhoff talk about the BOB.

DuckyFluff
02-19-2009, 04:39 AM
Freiwillige... you keep referring to England. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Maybe you just don't understand geography, politics, or history, try looking at a map. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

OD_
02-19-2009, 04:50 AM
Germany had many allies that were givin free reighn in all area of their social\political lives. Italy for example. Also Vichy France had alot of autonomy and wasnt "Occupied".

Not true. Vichy was occupied from 1944 onwards if I remember right, it was also kept on a short leash and was a Fascist regieme, as was Italy, the other Axis powers were later occupied by Germany as well, I think...I think Hungary was anyway. (I'd have to check it though).

The air campaign in the Battle of Britain was not half hearted, it was poorly organised and not led by the sharpest tool in the box but the Luftwaffe was flying and fighting hard. The fact that the sheer scale of the task had not been taken on board is clear in the lack of adequate resources for the invasion itself. It would have been almost certain to fail. While they may have landed enough forces keeping them supplied would have been a nightmare. Look at the lengths the Allies went to in 1944, laying pipelines across the Channel, creating artificial harbours on beaches.

Then there is the terrain to think about, most of the UK is not like Northern France and Belgium, maybe around the South East it is but if you want to control the population of the UK you need to do more than control the South East.

However...the argument that the Commonwealth could have continued fighting (If Britain were out of the war) may be flawed. The majority of the Empire/Commonwealth industry was located in the UK, without it all supplies would have had to come from the USA. Also how many of the colonies would have been inclined to fight for a sacked Imperial Power that can no longer exert control over it? The Empire would almost certainly have fallen apart.

It wasn't just the Luftwaffe that lost the war, it was poor management, poor understanding of logistics and poor leadership on behalf of the Nazi regieme that lost the war. All their mistakes flow from these.

RPMcMurphy
02-19-2009, 06:28 AM
The Nazis spread themselves too thin.
If the Russians had'nt had such strong resolve, for instance when they sent the Germans packing out of Stalingrad, then things would have turned out differently for sure. There is no telling how things would have developed all over the world. Thats just my 2 cents.
http://i363.photobucket.com/albums/oo71/11072008/grab0008.jpg

Aaron_GT
02-19-2009, 07:04 AM
The air campaign in the Battle of Britain was not half hearted, it was poorly organised and not led by the sharpest tool in the box but the Luftwaffe was flying and fighting hard.

The air campaign was indeed serious, but the serious part that put the RAF under pressure was 'only' about two months long, with the other parts being rather less effective attacks on shipping, etc. which is what I meant in an earlier post. That it was botched is without doubt. Perhaps (referring to an OT thread) Goering was the greatest general working for the Allies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What I am not convinced was serious was the idea of invading Britain. If had been serious then the blockade of 1941 would have been followed up by an invasion, rather than going and invading several other places. I think there was a serious intention to get Britain to sue for peace, and invasion being used as a threat, though, and after Poland and France falling so quickly (plus Belgium, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands) then it seemed a credible threat to some.

Kongo Otto
02-19-2009, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Freiwillige:

None of Germany's war aims involved England. That was so last war. So if England wanted to duck out of the war it could have been an honorable peace.

So If England had made peace with Germany England would most likely carry on as normal
leaving little reason for the Americans or the commonwealth to continue its course.

Complete bilgewater

Hitler was not capable of allowing another Nation to be anything but completely and utterly subservient to Germany and his own ego.

There were already plans in place for occupation after the surrender of Britain, which included the appointment of a Nazi Gauliter, and the setting up of extermination camps, where all so called 'dangerous' elements would be sent and murdered. The list included Churchill, any democratic elements and of course any Jews. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any Sources for that one??

ploughman
02-19-2009, 07:39 AM
Possibly he means this? The Black Book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Book-Sonderfahndungsliste-Facsimile-reprint/dp/0901627518)

KIMURA
02-19-2009, 08:27 AM
Hitler was not capable of allowing another Nation to be anything but completely and utterly subservient to Germany and his own ego.


In reverse GB had nothing left in late 1940/spring 1941 to stop a German invasion on GB mainland IF German force would land at British mainland. BEF and it's equipement were left at the beaches in France, British forces were wiped out in Scandinavia, further forces were bound in Egypt and Far East. Expect of the home guard and very few equipement that the BEF saved from France the Germans would easily ran through GB.

The only thing that really saved the British was the English Channel and 40km of water and the planned German invasion of the SU.

DD_crash
02-19-2009, 08:31 AM
I remember a long thread in which Oddie thought that the Germans SHOULD have won http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I wonder if he is reading this?

Xiolablu3
02-19-2009, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by KIMURA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Hitler was not capable of allowing another Nation to be anything but completely and utterly subservient to Germany and his own ego.


In reverse GB had nothing left in late 1940/spring 1941 to stop a German invasion on GB mainland IF German force would land at British mainland. BEF and it's equipement were left at the beaches in France, British forces were wiped out in Scandinavia, further forces were bound in Egypt and Far East. Expect of the home guard and very few equipement that the BEF saved from France the Germans would easily ran through GB.

The only thing that really saved the British was the English Channel and 40km of water and the planned German invasion of the SU. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It had a full air force and a massive Navy.

Both sides knew that the RAF had to be knocked out first or the landing barges and beaches would have been pounded.

Also can you imagine those tiny troop barges going up against the Royal Navy?

The Nazis claimed a 'success' when some ships made a dash through the English channel relatively unscathed. That in itself shows the balance of power of the Navys. Germany simply could not compete in this area.

Had the RAF not succeeded, the Royal Navy was the next Axis obstacle.

There were many ,many large obstacle's in the way of the Axis invasion before the home guard.

Sure the Channel helped Britain survive to fight another day. Exactly the same way as the Ardennes helped the Axis forces to surprise and beat the Allies in 1940. But htese are simply what-ifs. The channel WAS there, just like the Ardennes.

Bobbo_Tabor
02-19-2009, 10:55 AM
Who said anything about occupation? There would be consessions sure but mind you Hitler never had any intention of occupying England. His idea as clearly stated many times was that England Could keep her empire. Germany's goals were two fold, Reocupation of lands east that had once been part of Germany proper. And the destruction of what Germany considered the evil plague of Europe, Communism.

None of Germany's war aims involved England. That was so last war. So if England wanted to duck out of the war it could have been an honorable peace.

That what was the true flaw in Hitler's thinking; he wanted to wage a total war and assumed everyone else was fighting a traditional European limited war. All the Western Allies are going to be gentleman and come to some agreement before it got to beastly. That was pretty much the only way the Battle of Britan could have succeed and he tried the same thing with the Battle of Bulge.

Aaron_GT
02-19-2009, 10:55 AM
In reverse GB had nothing left in late 1940/spring 1941 to stop a German invasion on GB mainland IF German force would land at British mainland.

Replacement equipment (some taken over from French orders) started arriving from July 1940, and UK production was stepped up (in aircraft it exceeded losses) including production of new and improved types of tank, for example. The Home Guard was initially weak in June 1940 as more volunteered than anticipated, but by Spring 1941 was actually fairly well equipped with infantry weapons (M1917 and other Enfield rifles of US manufacture, SMLEs, Lewis guns). Things weren't great, but it wouldn't have been an easy seaborne invasion IMHO.

SeaFireLIV
02-19-2009, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Possibly he means this? The Black Book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Book-Sonderfahndungsliste-Facsimile-reprint/dp/0901627518)

Yep. If Ploughman hadn`t, I would`ve posted. Hitler may have liked England and hoped for a non-invasion takeover, but nevertheless he had plans to make England make a LOT of changes. And considering if Britain had capitulated, even without invasion, it probably would`ve acquiesed under the umbrella of Nazi Germany.

Freiwillige
02-19-2009, 11:50 AM
As this is all purely speculation on all our parts it is hard to tell what the final outcome of any of our what if scenarios would be. But it is fun arguing the what ifs thats for sure.

I think that if the Luftwaffe defeated the RAF the Royal navy would not have posed much of a problem. Between the U-boat fleet blocking the channel from both sides the Luftwffe would have a hay day with anything large enough to be a serious threat to the invasion.

A fleet without serious air cover is a fleet sunk. The Repulse and Renown sunk by the Japanese off of Singapore
is proof that battleships without air cover are sitting ducks. This is of course if the RAF was beaten badly which they were not.

But just getting thru a screen of 100+ type II and Type VII U boats in the narrow channel would be tricky in 1940\41' with the Navy.

Xiolablu3
02-19-2009, 12:24 PM
Now theres an interesting discussion....

What was the strength of Royal Navy+Allies submarines in 1940?

DId they have anywhere near the number that the Axis forces had?

jamesblonde1979
02-19-2009, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Now theres an interesting discussion....

What was the strength of Royal Navy+Allies submarines in 1940?

DId they have anywhere near the number that the Axis forces had?

The Royal Navy would have crushed the Kreigsmarine in an open confrontation (at sea beyond Luftwaffe range.) circa 1940. Just look at the Norwegian campaign and see what I mean, Hitler effectively lost most of his surface navy in a running battle with a small British expeditionary force.

Ba5tard5word
02-19-2009, 01:45 PM
The wikipedia page on the Battle of Britain is pretty interesting. They have this quote from one historian:

Throughout the battle, the Germans greatly underestimated the size of the RAF and the scale of British aircraft production. Across the Channel, the Air Intelligence division of the Air Ministry consistently overestimated the size of the German air enemy and the productive capacity of the German aviation industry. As the battle was fought, both sides exaggerated the losses inflicted on the other by an equally large margin. However, the intelligence picture formed before the battle encouraged the German Air Force to believe that such losses pushed Fighter Command to the very edge of defeat, while the exaggerated picture of German air strength persuaded the RAF that the threat it faced was larger and more dangerous than was actually the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_britain

Mr_Zooly
02-19-2009, 03:17 PM
also Churchill was talking 'dramatically' when he said 'the only thing that truly scared me was the u-boat menace' as the Kreigsmarine were never really organised enough (or had the ear of the fuhrer) or had enough u-boats to effectively stop supplies getting to the UK. The problem was that trust never really existed in the national socialist party and it was all 'its not what you know, its who you know' or rather kiss the bottom of people who matter better than the next guy.
It was the same in the Luftwaffe with kissing the a$$ of the right person to get noticed or promoted, the Luftwaffe was its own worse enemy as was most of the the German forces at the time.

MD_Titus
02-19-2009, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by DuckyFluff:
Ignorance and a little education are a dangerous thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

England may have sued for peace but the rest of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth would have whipped Hitlers ***. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

The Germans would never have had a successful invasion of BRITAIN they simply hadn't got the wherewithall to invade in any great force, as for WALES, SCOTLAND, and NORTHERN IRELAND, NO WAY would the Germans have been successful, after all it took the English 700 years of failure to realise they could not conquer Ireland permanently, never mind Northern Ireland, lol.

BTW you dummies that keep talking about England in WWII, seem not know ANYTHING about Geography or History, what the hell do they teach you in school http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
ha! top notch zooery there fluffyducks, top notch.

sealion and the invasion of the british isles, or the appropriately named alternative, case green - invasion of ireland, was a pretty much doomed venture anyway, there was not the facilities to launch a large scale naval invasion, nor were there ever the conditions of air and naval superiority to do so. it could be argued that things such as having the same crystals in the radios of fighter and bombers, or intelligence about chain home worth a damn, targeting of the aircraft industry, of sector stations rather than barely used refueling points, or using more low level bombing units such as Eprobungsgruppe 210, or any other such myriad alterations in tactics, strategy, equipment (particularly rationalisation), proper war footing manufacturing (which, in aircraft production at least, germany didn't hit until 43-44). basically if germany had been run by someone other than a one testicled mad man who was surrounded by infighting sycophants, with a smattering of truly capable officers of course, then the war would've gone very differently. mainly because it wouldn't have been started.

edit - just been reading a really good book about the BoB. essentially the RAF finished it with more pilots and aircraft than it had when it started. the training facilities were in place, the manufacturing had shadow facilites operating. at only a couple of points did the raf losses exceed the luftwaffe losses per day or action. but the overclaiming and opor intelligence led the luftwaffe to believe that there were "only 200 or so fighters left in britain." there were more than that in 13 group alone, tucked up in the north as training group. at that point i think there was somewhere in teh region of 720 odd in britain, with about 1,000 or so pilots.

WTE_Galway
02-19-2009, 05:20 PM
The Kriegsmarine wasn't exactly small. The german's lost a total of 751 U boats and 55,000 odd trained submariners in the course of the war.

http://www.uboat.net/fates/losses/chart.htm

Xiolablu3
02-19-2009, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Now theres an interesting discussion....

What was the strength of Royal Navy+Allies submarines in 1940?

DId they have anywhere near the number that the Axis forces had?

The Royal Navy would have crushed the Kreigsmarine in an open confrontation (at sea beyond Luftwaffe range.) circa 1940. Just look at the Norwegian campaign and see what I mean, Hitler effectively lost most of his surface navy in a running battle with a small British expeditionary force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rgr that James, but I was talking about Submarines only http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

R_Target
02-19-2009, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

What were the distances from the staging post to attack point, the distances under enemy air cover, relative strength of sub fleets, and weather conditions in the Pacific compared to a putative attack from Iceland to continental Europe?

The Marianas campaign was staged from the Marshall Islands, about 1600 miles. Philippines, Iwo, and Okinawa were staged from Ulithi in the Palaus, about 900, 1200, and 1400 miles. With that radius of action, all of the British Isles, French and Dutch Channel coasts, and the coast of Norway are all within reach.

As for enemy air, the carrier groups were frequently within radius of attack; in the case of Okinawa, for weeks at a time. A numerous CAP vectored by advance guard picket destroyers coupled with frequent aggressive fighter sweeps held most attacks at bay. In European waters, the biggest threat would be when carriers move closer to shore to support an invasion. Otherwise, they would be beyond the range of land-based fighters escorting anti-carrier strikes.

Subs could be a potentially huge threat. However, as subs move closer to the continent, so would the hunter-killer groups previously working the N. Atlantic.

As for weather, it wouldn't be something you'd do in the middle of winter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Of course, the Pacific was no picnic either.

Typhoon Cobra, December '44:


http://i41.tinypic.com/10gyyop.jpg

Freiwillige
02-19-2009, 10:52 PM
Ah but I was talking strictly 41' Hunter killer groups were non existent and the U boat fleet still held most of the cards. So the argument of hunter killer groups moving closer to shore is invalid. In fact since the Luftwaffe lost clear sight of their objectives during BOB due to the constant changes imposed upon them by Goering and their Fuhrer. The battle wast destined to become a stalemate at best for Germany. And obviously seelion couldn't commence with a stalemate. Yes the Axis and Allies made their fair share of mistakes. The difference is that the Axis powers couldn't afford theirs while the Allies could.

But I still stand by the What if scenario that IF Germany had crushed the R.A.F. that the Royal navy would be hard pressed to stop an invasion. They would be hard pressed to even get near the invasion forces since the Luftwaffe could technically cover the majority of the area around England from bases is Norway, Denmark and France. If the fleet sailed it would not be long before it was assaulted, harassed, torpedoed, bombed, Engaged by German surface forces etc. And I'm am quite positive that the Royal navy would have some astounding victory's. But I doubt that they could make it to the channel in any fighting condition and would most likely be turned back. And what if the Italians had been more aggressive with there fleet in that Atlantic as opposed to keeping it in the Med. And what if the Germans seized the French fleet. That would put the royal navy at some what of a parity and equal things out a bit more. What if Hitler seized Gibraltar closing the Royall navy's med fleet off from the Atlantic making them stay in the Med or sail all the way around Africa?

I love what ifs. Its fun topic for discussion.

jamesblonde1979
02-19-2009, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


Rgr that James, but I was talking about Submarines only http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well that makes it interesting...

I think that to have truly maximised the effectiveness of their submarine fleet the Germans would still have required a substantial surface support fleet which would have meant control of the North Sea and North Atlantic convoy routes.

If the Germans had been able to supply their U-boats in the field they would have got more bang for their buck. Although some provision was made for U-boats to be re-armed and re-equipped at sea they were highly vulnerable to any type of Allied interference during the process. So the surface ships still would have been needed along with local air-superiourity.

The RN simply had too many destroyers and frigates for the U-boat fleet to ever work unhindered against the large convoys.

Aaron_GT
02-20-2009, 12:58 AM
But I still stand by the What if scenario that IF Germany had crushed the R.A.F. that the Royal navy would be hard pressed to stop an invasion. They would be hard pressed to even get near the invasion forces since the Luftwaffe could technically cover the majority of the area around England from bases is Norway, Denmark and France. If the fleet sailed it would not be long before it was assaulted, harassed, torpedoed, bombed, Engaged by German surface forces etc.

I'm sure it would have been but I can't see it having turned back and let an invasion of Britain be successfull. I also think that the ability of the Luftwaffe to destroy a fleet is overrated. The Luftwaffe manage to damage some convoys in the channel but didn't even totally stop such traffic, and this was against ships with no AAA. It lacked any credible airborne torpedo force. Its divebombers were badly mauled during the channel phase of the Battle of Britain and reduced in number and would have been mauled again (as well as having to divide their time between fleet and beach head) and it was demonstrated repeatedly in WW2 that it was hard to hit ships with level bombers.

jamesblonde1979
02-20-2009, 01:33 AM
Its divebombers were badly mauled during the channel phase of the Battle of Britain and reduced in number and would have been mauled again (as well as having to divide their time between fleet and beach head) and it was demonstrated repeatedly in WW2 that it was hard to hit ships with level bombers.

But those same level bombers had the performance, at the time, to be used tactically and free up the remaining dive bombers for a concentrated anti-shipping effort. Assuming, of course, some margin of air superiority.

Freiwillige
02-20-2009, 02:09 AM
Lets not also forget that the HMS Renown and HMS Prince of whales were sunk not by Japanese dive bombers but by twin engined level bombers and torpedo bombers! Mitsubishi G3M Nell's were the level bombers and were more antiquated than the HE-111's in German service. Also HE-111's and Ju-88's could be fitted with torpedo's and both had success in that role in the Med. There was also the Heinkle he-51 torpedo bomber.

Not to mention the fact that nearly 1/4 of all shipping sunk in 1940 was sunk by the Luftwaffe.
FW-200's are also more than capable.

Germany had also the S-Boats which were very fast and capable torpedo boats that had very good success throughout the war.

I still stand by my prior assessment.

Kurfurst__
02-20-2009, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I'm sure it would have been but I can't see it having turned back and let an invasion of Britain be successfull. I also think that the ability of the Luftwaffe to destroy a fleet is overrated.

Agreed - it was demonstrated many times during the war that air cannot win land battles all alone, nor do I see it likely to stop or destroy an entire fleet on its own. OTOH, air was certainly capable of making life miserable for a Navy, and deny it from operating for longer period - see Crete. Light units like destoyers were unlikely to survive for long.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It lacked any credible airborne torpedo force.

That's not quite true, a significant number of aerial torpedoes were used by the Luftwaffe during the Battle.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Its divebombers were badly mauled during the channel phase of the Battle of Britain and reduced in number

Hmm, during the Channel phase, in July 1940, there were but twelve Ju 87s destroyed through enemy action, and 8 damaged. Mauled, reduced? Hardly. Plus there were the Ju 88s of course.

R_Target
02-20-2009, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Ah but I was talking strictly 41' Hunter killer groups were non existent and the U boat fleet still held most of the cards. So the argument of hunter killer groups moving closer to shore is invalid.

True. U.S. Forces were in no shape to mount the kind of operation I was talking about in 1941. However, I was strictly addressing the idea that any invasion would be impossible without the British Isles as air bases.

Xiolablu3
02-20-2009, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Its divebombers were badly mauled during the channel phase of the Battle of Britain and reduced in number

Hmm, during the Channel phase, in July 1940, there were but twelve Ju 87s destroyed through enemy action, and 8 damaged. Mauled, reduced? Hardly. Plus there were the Ju 88s of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why was the Ju87 retired from the theatre if it suffered such small losses?

With those loss numbers, it sounds like the Bf109's suffered far more casualties than the Stuka?

I have always read that the Stukas got badly mauled and were retired from Operations on the Western Front during the BOB

EDIT: Nevermind, I just found out. Between August 1 and August 18, due to enemy action 47 were lost , and 4 more during operations. (around 1/6 of the entire Stuka force) These losses were unsustainable and the Stuka was retired from the theatre.

Kurfurst__
02-20-2009, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Why was the Ju87 retired from the theatre if it suffered such small losses?

The better question is - was the Ju87 retired from the theatre ? The answer is it wasn't until the Luftwaffe redeployed to the East in 1941; it is one of the persistent myths of the Battle. Its participation in combat over Britain was limited after August, but the limited range of the B model had probably just as much to do with that as the stiff opposition by RAF FC. Speaking of the latter, Ju 87 operations even in August proceeded well with relatively few losses, with a couple of days with heavy losses, most notably 18 August, when 16 were lost (one-third of all enemy related losses in August) but those were down to unfavourable tactical circumstances (escorts slow to react, dive bombers caught when scatter after the dives), rather than some generic vulnerability. Many raids and units got through OTOH with marginal or no losses at the same time.

On 19 August, the units of VIII. Fliegerkorps moved up from their bases around Cherbourg-Octeville and concentrated in the Pas de Calais under Luftflotte 2, closer to the proposed invasion area.[101] On the 13 September, the Luftwaffe targeted airfields again, with a small number of Ju 87s crossing the coast at Selsey and heading for Tangmere. After a lull, anti-shipping operations attacks were resumed by some Ju 87 units from 1 November 1940, as part of the new winter tactic of enforcing a blockade. Over the next ten days seven merchant ships were sunk and damaged, mainly in the Thames Estuary for the loss of four Ju 87s. On the 14 November, 19 Stukas from III./St.G 1, with escort drawn from JG 26 and JG 51, went out against another convoy as no targets were found over the estuary, the Stukas proceeded to attack Dover, their alternate target. Bad weather resulted in a decline of anti-shipping operations, and before long the Ju 87 Gruppen began re-deploying to the soon to be Eastern Front, as a part of the concealed build-up for Operation Barbarossa. By the spring of 1941, only St.G 1 with thirty Ju 87s remained facing the United Kingdom. Operations on a small scale continued throughout the winter months into March. Operations included ships at sea, the Thames Estuary, the Chatham naval dockyard and Dover and night-bomber sorties over the Channel. These attacks were resurrected again in the following winter.

Aaron_GT
02-20-2009, 08:53 AM
Lets not also forget that the HMS Renown and HMS Prince of whales were sunk not by Japanese dive bombers but by twin engined level bombers and torpedo bombers!

The sinking of battleships by level bombers was rare. Most airforces tried it repeatedly with a very low rate of success. It was certainly done (e.g. the RAF and the Tirpitz) but seems to have been really rather difficult. This seems to be why in the Pacific the USAAF changed to strafing and skip bombing with B25s as level bombing with B17s proved to be very difficult.


Also HE-111's and Ju-88's could be fitted with torpedo's and both had success in that role in the Med.

They did not have this capability in 1940, though, at least not in versions deployed as front-line aircraft.

Aaron_GT
02-20-2009, 08:57 AM
The better question is - was the Ju87 retired from the theatre ? The answer is it wasn't until the Luftwaffe redeployed to the East in 1941; it is one of the persistent myths of the Battle. Its participation in combat over Britain was limited after August, but the limited range of the B model had probably just as much to do with that as the stiff opposition by RAF FC.

The received wisdom (which you seem to be saying is wrong, and I am not saying that you are wrong in saying it is wrong!) is that the B version was withdrawn due to insufficient armour against fighter opposition, and the D version was much improved in this respect and thus much more usable in the East, also given the level of air superiority in 1941-2 that the Luftwaffe enjoyed (plus fighter defence densities were much lower).

Which Luftwaffe aircraft were dropping torpedoes in 1940, and are there any notable successes? It would be interesting to find out.

hop2002
02-20-2009, 10:35 AM
There's no doubt the Stuka was withdrawn from major combat operations during the BoB.

Wood and Dempster, The Narrow Margin:

August 18th was the virtual death knell of the Ju 87s over Britain. Losses had been mounting at an alarming rate and, apart from a few isolated sorties, they were pulled out of the battle

In this context it's worth noting Stuka casualties on operations:

July - 16
August - 51
September - 2
October - 0

Doesn't look like much use in September or October, does it?


On the 13 September, the Luftwaffe targeted airfields again, with a small number of Ju 87s crossing the coast at Selsey and heading for Tangmere

Wood and Dempster note that 13 September had 7/10ths cloud cover, and that the Luftwaffe used this to mount light attacks.

The RAF's Battle of Britain reports say:


Enemy activity was on a light scale, but during the morning small raids were continuously active over Kent and the London area. Bad visibility hindered interception by our fighters, but one enemy aircraft was destroyed and three others were damaged.

This fits in with Goering's order from 19th August, quoted by Bungay:


"Until the enemy fighter force has been broken, Stuka units are only to be used when circumstances are particularly favourable."

So yes, the Stukas remained on the Channel coast, as did the invasion barges. The Germans always hoped (and in some cases believed) the RAF was on the brink of collapse. But the Stuka was retained to be used when air superiority had been achieved, and was sidelined until that time.

Kurfurst__
02-20-2009, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
There's no doubt the Stuka was withdrawn from major combat operations during the BoB.

... and that statement being made without having any detail of actual Stuka operations in September, I presume?


Wood and Dempster, The Narrow Margin:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">August 18th was the virtual death knell of the Ju 87s over Britain. Losses had been mounting at an alarming rate and, apart from a few isolated sorties, they were pulled out of the battle </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wood and Dempster are pretty dismissive - and ignorant - when it comes to the German side of the Battle. Note the guarded refernces - 'few', 'isolated' etc.
Obviously, they did not go into much depth researching it, at one point they even overrode a German document they qouting, that stated that the 109F was superior to the British fighters - Wood and Dempster claimed that it wasn't even participating in the Battle, which is demonstratively wrong, as the type was in production since July 1940, and was being issued to units from October... Similiarly, Wood and Dempster speaks of four-gunned Spitfires in the Battle, and Emils with cannons in their engine hubs.


In this context it's worth noting Stuka casualties on operations:

July - 16
August - 51
September - 2
October - 0

Doesn't look like much use in September or October, does it?

Well, arranging the statistics the way you did - it certainly doesn't.

But, breaking down the numbers into what was caused by enemy action and what by normal accidents that always occur during operational flying, it reveals that while in July and August there were four Stukas lost on operations without enemy enemy interference (with 2 and 3 damaged), with five and seven not on operations

So in brief the number of Stukas

destroyed on operations due to enemy actions in July, September, and October was: 12-47-0
damaged on operations due to enemy actions in July, September, and October was: 8-14-0

destroyed on operations w/o enemy actions in July, September, and October was: 4-4-2
damaged on operations w/o enemy actions in July, September, and October was: 2-3-1

destroyed outside the scope of operations in July, September, and October was: 5-7-7
damaged outside the scope of operations in July, September, and October was: 5-8-8

See any pattern here? The losses sustain by Stukas on operations don't change much.

Its quite appearant that only the number shoot down by the RAF changed considerably, but there were continuing accidents on the similiar scale due to accidents while flying operations.

It certainly looks like that there was not much change in the pace of Stuka operations, but the RAF was completely incapable of shooting any down in September.
There is, of course a reason to that, after the initial combats with Stukas and their escorts over the Channel in July, British fighters were forbidden to go too far away from the British coastline.

No wonder no Stukas were lost - and why they could then wreck havoc on Channel shipping at will. The irony of course that behind the whole Stuka myth that appears to be integral of British view of the Battle (apart from the allegedly 'extremely poor' performances of Zestorer units), it was Spitfires and Hurricans, and not Stukas who were forbidden to operate over the Channel. The propaganda factors in heavily in these descriptions.


Wood and Dempster note that 13 September had 7/10ths cloud cover, and that the Luftwaffe used this to mount light attacks.

Question is, how many more times did those treacherous Stukas resort to some vile and ungentlemanly tricks, while supposedly having been withdrawn from the 'major operations' - like bombing key RAF FC airfields ie. Tangmere..?


So yes, the Stukas remained on the Channel coast, as did the invasion barges. The Germans always hoped (and in some cases believed) the RAF was on the brink of collapse. But the Stuka was retained to be used when air superiority had been achieved, and was sidelined until that time.

Depends on how you define sidelined, but they were certainly there, flying sorties the same way they flew them in July against shipping (from which the attacks on airfields on the edge of their range was a detour) - and certainly not withdrawn from the Battle. Tactics were changed, maybe, but not much else.

Thing is though that the B model of the Stuka was not very suited for operating over Britain. Its range was short (not much different than the 109E, probably less with bombs), hence the decision in August to get them the closest (and not further away) to the battle and grouping all of them around Calais. Its payload rather limited with the ca. 250 + 4x 50 kg carried normally, for the targets it would find there - factories, airfields, military installations. These tasks called for conventional bombers, and dive bomber tasks could be performed by the *other* Luftwaffe dive bomber, the Ju 88, which had both the range, and the payload, and could dive bomb as well, though not with the same accuracy (how much that was required against, for example, an airfield or factory is another matter) as the Ju 87.

Kurfurst__
02-20-2009, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The better question is - was the Ju87 retired from the theatre ? The answer is it wasn't until the Luftwaffe redeployed to the East in 1941; it is one of the persistent myths of the Battle. Its participation in combat over Britain was limited after August, but the limited range of the B model had probably just as much to do with that as the stiff opposition by RAF FC.

The received wisdom (which you seem to be saying is wrong, and I am not saying that you are wrong in saying it is wrong!) is that the B version was withdrawn due to insufficient armour against fighter opposition, and the D version was much improved in this respect and thus much more usable in the East, also given the level of air superiority in 1941-2 that the Luftwaffe enjoyed (plus fighter defence densities were much lower). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The B model certainly had some sort of armoring - a quick glace at the June 1940 manual mentions armored seats for both crewmembers, and there's some note about how the additional armor increases take off weight on the loading sheets. How much exactly, I don't have time to find out right now to go through hundreds of pages of the manual etc.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Which Luftwaffe aircraft were dropping torpedoes in 1940, and are there any notable successes? It would be interesting to find out.

He 59s for certain, apart from that I believe Ju 88s and He 111s would be capable, but this need check out. EDIT: Operational trials/experimental sorties (Versuchseinsätze) with the He 111 H-5 torpedo bomber were made in 'late summer 1940' with Fliegerkorps X. It doesn't sound the whole series was yet ready for, though.

The 111's distant cousin, the He 115 was also used as a torpedo bomber, and given that it was a seaplane, I would not be surprised if it had the capability from the start (EDIT: It had.). The twelve pre-production Fi 167s (purpose built torpedo bombers for the Graf Zeppelin, and reportedly excellent in their flying characterstics) are also a possibility.

I can give you some more information on Luftwaffe aerial torpedoes, though.

Apparently these were available before the war. As of January 1939, 76 F 5b and F 5W types were reported on stock. By the end of the year, this has risen to 129, and the level remained stable, with apparently only 12(??) being used up to the end of July 1940.

From August 1940, torpedoes were used in increasing scale, 22 in August, 70 in September, then the use slowed down (26 in October, 41 in November). Obviously anti shipping operations featured heavily in this period. So far they have seem to have use up stocks, and a result, stocks fell,but from October replacement torpedoes were regularly received and stocks were increasing/stable.

In March 1941 another 52 was used after a lull. April - August 1941 was relatively quit (56 torps used in the period). From September 1941, a monthly avarage of apprx. 50 torpedoes were used, and increasingly more in 1942 and 1943, peaking out in September 1942 at 223 aerial torpedoes used in a single month; during 1942, stocks were steadily increasing from 293 at the start of the year to 1010 by the end of 1942; by the end of 1943, 2662 aerial torpedoes were on stock.

Note: this is relating to F 5b and F 5W type aerial torpedoes only. Figures via "Der Lufttorpedo" by Friedrich Lauck.

Freiwillige
02-20-2009, 12:30 PM
"Agreed - it was demonstrated many times during the war that air cannot win land battles all alone, nor do I see it likely to stop or destroy an entire fleet on its own. OTOH, air was certainly capable of making life miserable for a Navy, and deny it from operating for longer period - see Crete.
Light units like destoyers were unlikely to survive for long.-"Kurfurst

WWII was the proof that airpower was able to dominate naval power.Pearl harbour, Toranto, Force Z, Midway Etc.

I truly doubt that the Royal navy could travel from Scapa Flow or Loch Ewe down to the channel
without destroying its complete combat effectivness. That is if it was stripped of air cover. Keep in mind that the Ju-88 could dive bomb as well. Plus again you could not underestimate the u-boat menace as the Germans would be set up to engage any units entering the channel or coming down either coast of England.

Aaron_GT
02-20-2009, 12:44 PM
Obviously, they did not go into much depth researching it, at one point they even overrode a German document they qouting, that stated that the 109F was superior to the British fighters - Wood and Dempster claimed that it wasn't even participating in the Battle, which is demonstratively wrong, as the type was in production since July 1940, and was being issued to units from October...

Weren't those just preproduction versions? So pre production versions were being issued just after the Battle of Britain, and there would be a time to work up before they were operational (3 months or more was typical in WW2). To me it sounds like Dempster and Wood were entirely correct to say the 109F didn't take part in the Battle of Britain.

I didn't say the Ju-87B didn't have any armour, but that the received wisdon was that it didn't have enough. AFAIK the D had rather more, plus better armament.

Thanks for the info on torpedo use - very interesting. It would be interesting to compare with British usage in the same period. Is there any information on successful LW torpedo attacks in mid 1940?

Kurfurst__
02-20-2009, 01:05 PM
The first 109F-1s Moelders and others got were not pre-production aircraft (altough it is believed that some F-0s existed, as pre production or "Nullserie" aircraft were commonly designated by the Germans). It is known that Moelders got an F-1 WNr 5628, belonging to the batch of 157 aircraft produced by Messerschmitt, Regensburg between blocks 5601 - 5790 between July 40 - February 41 (another 49 F-1s were produced by WNF during the same period). They were like the F-2s, with 601Ns, but had a single MG FF/M in the nose instead of the 151/15.

On the whole why W+D provides goods statistics and probably the best day-to-day account of the Battle, their general attitude is markedly arrogant towards the others side, of which they do seem to have holes in their knowledge, often patched up by dismissive assumptions (and I dont mean the 109F, although their overruling an primary materials validity in that case does illustrate the case).

As for the Ju 87B armor, it had some, certainly could do with more, and the D series was a big improvement in that regard, too. However I strongly feel that the limited fuel capacity (also ractified on the D) was probably a greater problem. Without it, the Ju 87B simply did not have the range to penetrate deep into British airspace, and by September, combat was over London and further targets. The Ju 87 would be ill suited for such deeper penetrations, not to mention that using it along with level bombers more suited for the task (payload and range) would lead to difficulties in escort tactics, and split up the escorts (some of which would have to follow the Stukas in their dives, leaving the other bombers alone).

Re: LW torpedo attacks, "Sea Eagles" Vol. I. has nice details on the early war LW anti shipping ops, but this would have to wait for some time because of my other commitments. British usage - no idea. To say that Coastal and Bomber Command operations are even less covered by literature than LW anti-shipping ops during the Battle is an understatement! It would be much more worthwhile if some historians would concentrate on these rather than rewriting the story of LW vs RAF FC over and over again.. not to mention the futility of such exercise when most of the time they merely repeat the analysis of 1960s authors (themselves largely drawing from wartime "official" histories http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) instead of some real analysis, and through research of both sides.

Aaron_GT
02-20-2009, 01:16 PM
When was the first operational use of the 109F?

As regards the Ju-87B, if the problem was short range then surely the simplest expedient would have been greater production of or retrofitting to R standard (B with more fuel)?

You are on the mark with level bombers being better for deep penetration (better speed, payload, defensive armament). However there were still Chain Home, Chain Home Low, and airfields on the south coast that should have been in range, and it would surely have been useful to press home the attack on these? If playing Rowan's BoB as a strategic campaign I try to do this so as to create a radar and fighter blackout area in preparation for level bomber raids on the same axis.

X32Wright
02-20-2009, 01:25 PM
Major mistakes of the Luftwaffe:

1) Canceling Viermot project: no 4 engined bombers meant less ability to inflict damage on the enemy and less 'range of influence'.

2) Limited range of the Bf-109: even with drop tank it was severely limited in its ability to loiter and stay and hold airspace it is flying in.

3) Various stupid Goering rules: No 'Frie Jagd' is a big one that comes to mind, wherein the escorts were not allowed to engage enemy away from the bombers. This lead to many pilot deaths being sitting ducks.

4) Favoritism of Contract awarding instead of abilities to design: Heinkel was more favored by the Luftwaffe over Messerschmitt. This was obvious in the Bf109 debacle.

5) No Experten rotations and no nugget training: The Expertens were forced to fly until either injured or dead! There were cases of pilots flying sick/injured because Goering called them and insulted them why they're not flying! Allied forces rotated their pilots and used the aces to train 'nuggets'.

6) Expectation of a quick decisive airwar: This is why the german focused on Stuka,Zerstorers and Junkers in the begining of the war expecting it to NOT last. They never planned for long term air war. You can see this in the mentality of having limited ranges in the air forces they have. It was to conquer and hold land bases mentality and not about 'a sphere of influence' (which the Japanese tried). The Stuka was quickly outdated and was retired and never really replaced.

7) Having Goering as leader: Having 'The Fatty' as a leader was a big mistake because he wasn't practical and even delusional at times in the ability of his airforce to win the battles if not the war. This should have been obvious after Battle of Britain but it wasn't to the Reichluftfahrtministerium! (RLM) Same policies were followed after BoB! Frie Jagd was allowed very late in the war in late 44-45.

8) Underestimating the British Radar: This cannot be said enough. They missed the whole situation here. They could have continued bombing the radar stations and bases as well as towers but they stopped instead to focus on London. Yeah Hitler's orders but well...

I should mention Gee and Oboe here as well which helped the war effort enormously. The british were using Mossies as target taggers (by dropping colored flares) using Gee and Oboe homing devices. The Germans were so surprised at the accuracy of this thinking the Allies had ground spies!. I don't think they ever figured it out why.

9) Underestimating the will of the British and Russian people: They expected that Britain would surrender or at least sit at the table to negotiations after BoB and the infamous Bombings of London. Same with the Soviets they expected the Soviets to fall quickly not thinking about the resilience of the Russians even after the horrors of Stalingrad.

10) Flying the Me262 as a bomber and not using the Pfeil (Do335) enough. The Pfeil could carry twice as much load as the Me262 and about as fast if not faster! This is a totally stupid way of looking at ur arsenal and again this was due to RLM politics and Hitler's decisions.

Those are the just obvious reasons for me why the Luftwaffe failed the Third Reich and thankfully they were all lead by a crazy madman who knew nothing about war. They had all the advanced weaponry but not the smarts to use them well. This is somethign for history to learn that technology helps only so far (IED's anyone?)!!!

stathem
02-20-2009, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
"Agreed - it was demonstrated many times during the war that air cannot win land battles all alone, nor do I see it likely to stop or destroy an entire fleet on its own. OTOH, air was certainly capable of making life miserable for a Navy, and deny it from operating for longer period - see Crete.
Light units like destoyers were unlikely to survive for long.-"Kurfurst

WWII was the proof that airpower was able to dominate naval power.Pearl harbour, Toranto, Force Z, Midway Etc.

I truly doubt that the Royal navy could travel from Scapa Flow or Loch Ewe down to the channel
without destroying its complete combat effectivness. That is if it was stripped of air cover. Keep in mind that the Ju-88 could dive bomb as well. Plus again you could not underestimate the u-boat menace as the Germans would be set up to engage any units entering the channel or coming down either coast of England.

How good were the Luftwaffe at destroying ships during the hours of darkness?

How long does it take a Destroyer to traverse the (theoretical) area of Luftwaffe superiority assuming that to be bound by the range of the 109?

How long does it take those 4 knot barges to cross and re-cross the Channel, and again with supplies?

Are RN Destroyers trained in and good at engaging enemy shipping at night?

How many 30 Knot Destroyers were sunk by U-Boats (or A/c for that matter) whilst at full tilt?

Ask yourself these questions whilst looking at a map of the Channel and North sea.

jamesblonde1979
02-20-2009, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by stathem:

Are RN Destroyers trained in and good at engaging enemy shipping at night?



Excellent, and they would have been able to capsize those barges with their wake.

mhuxt
02-20-2009, 02:47 PM
"their general attitude is markedly arrogant towards the others side, of which they do seem to have holes in their knowledge, often patched up by dismissive assumptions"

Pot, meet kettle.

Xiolablu3
02-20-2009, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The first 109F-1s Moelders and others got were not pre-production aircraft (altough it is believed that some F-0s existed, as pre production or "Nullserie" aircraft were commonly designated by the Germans). It is known that Moelders got an F-1 WNr 5628, belonging to the batch of 157 aircraft produced by Messerschmitt, Regensburg between blocks 5601 - 5790 between July 40 - February 41 (another 49 F-1s were produced by WNF during the same period). They were like the F-2s, with 601Ns, but had a single MG FF/M in the nose instead of the 151/15.

On the whole why W+D provides goods statistics and probably the best day-to-day account of the Battle, their general attitude is markedly arrogant towards the others side, of which they do seem to have holes in their knowledge, often patched up by dismissive assumptions (and I dont mean the 109F, although their overruling an primary materials validity in that case does illustrate the case).

As for the Ju 87B armor, it had some, certainly could do with more, and the D series was a big improvement in that regard, too. However I strongly feel that the limited fuel capacity (also ractified on the D) was probably a greater problem. Without it, the Ju 87B simply did not have the range to penetrate deep into British airspace, and by September, combat was over London and further targets. The Ju 87 would be ill suited for such deeper penetrations, not to mention that using it along with level bombers more suited for the task (payload and range) would lead to difficulties in escort tactics, and split up the escorts (some of which would have to follow the Stukas in their dives, leaving the other bombers alone).

Re: LW torpedo attacks, "Sea Eagles" Vol. I. has nice details on the early war LW anti shipping ops, but this would have to wait for some time because of my other commitments. British usage - no idea. To say that Coastal and Bomber Command operations are even less covered by literature than LW anti-shipping ops during the Battle is an understatement! It would be much more worthwhile if some historians would concentrate on these rather than rewriting the story of LW vs RAF FC over and over again.. not to mention the futility of such exercise when most of the time they merely repeat the analysis of 1960s authors (themselves largely drawing from wartime "official" histories http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) instead of some real analysis, and through research of both sides.

I know what you mean. There were loads more Spitfires and Hurricanes lost than Boultan Paul Defiants, but there is constant propaganda that it was a rubbish plane...

Reasearch shows that Spitfires and Hurricanes suffered far more than the Defiants.

Extremely low Defiant losses in Sept 1940, whereas the Spit and Hurri lost loads!

The Defiant was not actually a cr*p plane, its simply a smear campaign and all propaganada. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

No41Sqn_Banks
02-20-2009, 04:19 PM
Maybe it's better to listen to people who where there during that time. This is what General Hozzel told about his experienced during the Battle of Britain:



General Hozzel: I will give a short presentation about our being
involved in the air battle of England.
The first strategic operation in the history of aerial warfare,
the Battle of England, began with the keyword "Eagle's Day 13
August". I/Stuka 1, jointly with II/Stuka 2, was put into combat
action against the British fighter base of Filton, about 80 kms
north of Warmwell. On the assumption that our attack would come
as a complete surprise, we were to hit the "Hurricanes" and
"Spitfires" in their boxes before they were given a chance to
take off. We, as pinpoint dive bombing specialists, were ready
for our targets, but we had not reckoned with what our "host"
had in store for us, as will soon be seen. That morning we had
taken off, with about 80 JU-87s in Angers, landing in Dinard for
our jump off to the coast. Assigned to us as fighter escort for
the planned Stuka attack was a Jagdgeschwader (Fighter Wing) 53
under the command of its young Commodore, my successful training
comrade, Major Baron von Maltzahn, and a Geschwader (Wing) consisting
of twin-engined heavy ME-110 fighters. The participation
39
I
of the latter in that action was, unfortunately, only of symbolic
value because the ME-Il0s were too clumsy and no match for the
British fighter aircraft. Our heavy fighters needed their own
fighter escort.
We took off; picked up our fighter escort over Guernsey. Then,
climbing to an altitude of 4,000 meters, we headed for the enemy.
The escort planes were buzzing around us--a comforting feeling.
Above the channel the weather was quite clear, but when reaching
the English coast we met with a closed layer of clouds which extended
over the country as far as we could see, at an altitude of
about 3,000 meters. We could not guess the altitude of the cloud
cover above the ground, hence, it was impossible to approach our
target In clear sight of it. We had no alternative but to continue
on our course for another 15 minutes, then to dive blind
through the clouds hoping that we would emerge above the target
with sufficient freedom of motion. It was a most doubtful assumption,
as we should soon realize. All of a sudden our British
"comrades" shot up like torpedoes through the clouds, each plane
vehemently firing from its eight barrels at our unit now flying
in wide open formation. With the 250-kg bomb, visibly suspended
from our fuselage, each of our Stuka bomber crews sat, in the
literal sense of the word, on a powder keg. Now the first explosions
were heard--a sudden fireball--and all was over. Our fighter
and destroyer planes dived on the enemy and so tied down a great
number of attackers, but many of them were still left to us. We,
40
with our weaker guns and burdened as we were with our bomb loads,
were unable to ward them off. We had no choice but to dive down
and drop our bombs on the coastal port installations, then to
return in a hedgehopping flight across the channel to our home
base. Thus we escaped further attacks, if only from below. With
difficulty, I was able to assemble my Gruppe, thus increasing our
firepower in defense of the British fighters pursuing us. Many
a Stuka fell victim to the pursuers in single flight above the
Channel. Having landed again in Dinard, we found that both
Gruppen had lost about one-third of their planes. The rest of us
were pretty heavily damaged by enemy fire. We soon learned that
other Stuka Gruppen had met with the same fate that day. The
German Command had profoundly erred in judging the strength of
the British fighter forces which, at that time, were twice as
strong as had been assumed. Our Stuka Gruppen were, all the
same, thrown into battle again, twice or even three times, with
the result that they suffered further unbearable losses.
In the end, reason got the upper hand with the Supreme Command of
the Luftwaffe. It was realized that in view of the heavy losses
any further Stuka actions against the British Island could not be
justified. We were consequently "withdrawn from service" for the
time being, so as to allow our heavily decimated forces to rehabilitate
in preparation for new operations.
Moderator. Does anyone in the audience or on the panel have any
comments or questions?
41
Dr Stolfi; I think a comment might be interesting. With the Stukas
against Britain the situation was that the Germans were not able
to achieve air superiority with the fighters and the apparent
lesson is that when you do not have that air superiority, what
has come out erroneously, is that the Stukas at this time were
chalked off. I think many of you in the audience assume that
roughly after the Battle of Britain, and during most of the
Second World War, the Stuka was an obsolete aircraft and ceased
to exist. I think here the historical lesson is a very sensitive
and esoteric thing. I think that what happened was that when you
do not have air superiority, especially with high-quality fighters
like the British had, these types of attack operations were
exceedingly difficult. I think, still, that it was possible for
the Germans with the appropriate tactics to have used the Stuka
somehow or other. What has happened historically is the Stuka
was chalked off after this, and this is an erroneous interpretation
of the war. The Stuka went on later in the war to be the big
killer of ships in the Mediterranean and probably the most effective
killer of ships in the Second World War as a specific weapon
system. On the Eastern front, the Stuka went on after this disastrous
experience, which I think was generically an air superiority
experience but not anything necessarily to do with dive bombing
Stukas. On the Eastern front, the Stuka held its own very comfortably
for the rest of the war. The Stuka was particularly impressive
in the Mediterranean against British ships after the English campaign.
42
Colonel Dilger: Along that line, General Hozzel, what were the
losses in a relative sense of other type aircraft like the ME-109
or whatever else went over to Britain?
General Hozzel: Not as much as we had, but they had severe losses
as well. It was necessary to end that air battle over England.
The losses were not as severe with the other bomber units or the
fighters.
Dr Stolfi: I think a comment may be in order. The Stukas in the
first several attacks were hurt very badly. Now when you look
statistically and you spread this thing out in time, I think
what the General is saying is that the Stuka losses were more
severe than the HE-Ill losses. When you spread this thing out
in time, Stuka attacks were stopped but the HE-1ll attacks went
on for a couple more months. When you look at the relative
losses that the HE-1il developed over a considerably longer period
of time they lost probably as much; possibly even more. So there
is a question of time on this thing. There were no single attacks
I think in which the HE-Ill suffered quite that much, but ultimately
they lost just about as many aircraft too. Eventually,
they had to be pulled off the operation also, only it took them
a couple of months.

The full interview can be found at http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?ve...identifier=ADA164063 (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA164063)

MD_Titus
02-20-2009, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Why was the Ju87 retired from the theatre if it suffered such small losses?

The better question is - was the Ju87 retired from the theatre ? The answer is it wasn't until the Luftwaffe redeployed to the East in 1941; it is one of the persistent myths of the Battle. Its participation in combat over Britain was limited after August, but the limited range of the B model had probably just as much to do with that as the stiff opposition by RAF FC. Speaking of the latter, Ju 87 operations even in August proceeded well with relatively few losses, with a couple of days with heavy losses, most notably 18 August, when 16 were lost (one-third of all enemy related losses in August) but those were down to unfavourable tactical circumstances (escorts slow to react, dive bombers caught when scatter after the dives), rather than some generic vulnerability. Many raids and units got through OTOH with marginal or no losses at the same time.

[/i] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it's participation was limited after it became apparent how difficult it was to escort effectively. they were so slow the 109's had to fly far below what was combat effective for them, insome cases with flaps down. they needed escort in at height, and out low afterwards. the 109's couldn't dive with them, and were in unfavourable positions as a result of providing low escort. as a result the stukas got slaughtered. they were slow, and basically targets. the only way to escort them effectively was to use the 109's as alternative targets.

MD_Titus
02-20-2009, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
Major mistakes of the Luftwaffe:

1) Canceling Viermot project: no 4 engined bombers meant less ability to inflict damage on the enemy and less 'range of influence'.

2) Limited range of the Bf-109: even with drop tank it was severely limited in its ability to loiter and stay and hold airspace it is flying in.

3) Various stupid Goering rules: No 'Frie Jagd' is a big one that comes to mind, wherein the escorts were not allowed to engage enemy away from the bombers. This lead to many pilot deaths being sitting ducks.

4) Favoritism of Contact awarding instead of abilities to design: Heinkel was more favored by the Luftwaffe over Messerschmitt. This was obvious in the Bf109 debacle.

5) No Experten rotations and no nugget training: The Expertens were forced to fly until either injured or dead! There were cases of pilots flying sick/injured because Goering called them and insulted them why they're not flying! Allied forces rotated their pilots and used the aces to train 'nuggets'.

6) Expectation of a quick decisive airwar: This is why the german focused on Stuka,Zerstorers and Junkers in the begining of the war expecting it to NOT last. They never planned for long term air war. You can see this in the mentality of having limited ranges in the air forces they have. It was to conquer and hold land bases mentality and not about 'a sphere of influence' (which the Japanese tried). The Stuka was quickly outdated and was retired and never really replaced.

7) Having Goering as leader: Having 'The Fatty' as a leader was a big mistake because he wasn't practical and even delusional at times in the ability of his airforce to win the batteles if not the war. This should have been obvious after Battle of Britain but it wasn't to the Reichluftfahrtministerium! (RLM) Same policies were followed after BoB! Frie Jagd was allowed very late in the war in late 44-45.

8) Underestimating the British Radar: This cannot be said enough. They missed the whole situation here. They could have continued bombing the radar stations and bases as well as towers but they stopped instead to focus on London. Yeah Hitler's orders but well...

I should mention Gee and Oboe here as well which helped the war effort enormously. The britishw ere using Mossies as tagert taggers using Gee and Oboe homing devices. The Germans were so surprised at the accuracy of this thinking the Allies had ground spies!. I don't think they ever figured it out why.

9) Underestimating the will of the British and Russian people: They expected that Britain would surrender or at least sit at the table to negotiations after BoB and the infamous Bombings of London. Same with the Soviets they expected the Soviets to fall quickly not thinking about the resilience of the Russians even after the horrors of Stalingrad.

10) Flying the Me262 as a bomber and not using the Pfeil (Do335) enough. The Pfeil could carry twice as much load as the Me262 and about as fast if not faster! This is a totally stupid way of looking at ur arsenal and again this was due to RLM politics and Hitler's decisions.

Those are the just obvious reasons for me why the Luftwaffe failed the Third Reich and thankfully they were all lead by a crazy madman who knew nothing about war. They had all the advanced weaponry but not the smarts to use them well. This is somethign for history to learn that technology helps only so far (IED's anyone?)!!!
this post is filled with correctness.

eindecker
02-20-2009, 07:30 PM
What if_____ (fill in the blank).
The NAZI ideology of hate and agressive expansionism (war) doomed it from the beginning.
What could have happened if the NAZI's did everything right was that the war would never
have started.
If the generals were allowed to do everything to the best of their abilities and the polititions
kept out of the planning the war was going to end badly for Germany no matter what.
Germany was to small, to isolated, lacked OIL and mass murdered or drove off all it's smartest people.
---Blaming the Luftwaffe is way off base---
The war was going to be lost. I see no way the US was not going to be drawn into the conflict.
A bunch of vengeful Jews built a rather nasty weapon originally meant for Hitler.
Best you could have done was delay the war's end till early 1946.
I doubt even the hardest of the hard core NAZI's would have avoided surrender after a few atomic attacks.
Even without the US or the atom bomb I believe the USSR would have eventually beaten the Germans back
even if Britian had fallen.

Goering was a egotistical screw up and drug addict. Hitler fancied himself a general (also a junkie).
Germany was run by a gang of stoned cheap street thugs.
If Goering and Hitler had any sense they would have quit after the annexation of Austria
and lived out a quiet life as drug addicts and thugs in a "greater Germany".
Face it, there was no way for Germany to win.

I will add my own "what if".
What if Adolph Hitler had never had his name changed as a child?
You think he would have gone as far as Adolph Shickelgruber?
Heil Shickelgruber!
Nah, it never would have worked.

Eindecker

X32Wright
02-20-2009, 09:10 PM
The Luftwaffe was a major factor in the early successes of the Third Reich. Blitzkrieg would not be a 'lightining war' if not for the Stukas,Zerstorers,Junkers and Emils.

Goering and the Luftwaffe was asked time and time again by Hitler for commitments and delivery and the Luftwaffe never really delivered anything after late 42.

One prime example would be if they had a long range bomber and long range fighter aircraft, they would be able to support and cover the U-boat wolf packs on the Atlantic and even also support the Bismark. If this was done the Kreismarine would be able to contonue to inflict damage on the merchant ship convoys crossing the Atlantic to support Great Britain from the USA. A naval blockade of Great Britain would spell doom for it but this was not ever done due to the RAF and failure of Kriegsmarine due to the lack of Luftwaffe air support.

This is just one of the burdens that the Luftwaffe carried and there were many implications when the Luftwaffe did not deliver.

Freiwillige
02-21-2009, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by eindecker:
What if_____ (fill in the blank).
The NAZI ideology of hate and agressive expansionism (war) doomed it from the beginning.
What could have happened if the NAZI's did everything right was that the war would never
have started.
If the generals were allowed to do everything to the best of their abilities and the polititions
kept out of the planning the war was going to end badly for Germany no matter what.
Germany was to small, to isolated, lacked OIL and mass murdered or drove off all it's smartest people.
---Blaming the Luftwaffe is way off base---
The war was going to be lost. I see no way the US was not going to be drawn into the conflict.
A bunch of vengeful Jews built a rather nasty weapon originally meant for Hitler.
Best you could have done was delay the war's end till early 1946.
I doubt even the hardest of the hard core NAZI's would have avoided surrender after a few atomic attacks.
Even without the US or the atom bomb I believe the USSR would have eventually beaten the Germans back
even if Britian had fallen.

Goering was a egotistical screw up and drug addict. Hitler fancied himself a general (also a junkie).
Germany was run by a gang of stoned cheap street thugs.
If Goering and Hitler had any sense they would have quit after the annexation of Austria
and lived out a quiet life as drug addicts and thugs in a "greater Germany".
Face it, there was no way for Germany to win.

I will add my own "what if".
What if Adolph Hitler had never had his name changed as a child?
You think he would have gone as far as Adolph Shickelgruber?
Heil Shickelgruber!
Nah, it never would have worked.

Eindecker

No offense mate but this is the rather simplistic veiw of WWII thats been touted for years. Germany was not alone, They had Roumania, Bulgaria, Italy, Slovakia, Japan, Hungary etc. Yea I know that alot of those are smaller less econmic well off countries but they do add up. Lets not even mention the EUropean volunteers that swelled the German military ranks.

All that aside though you do realise that Germany almost won. One less major mistake by the axis and one more major mistake by the allies really could have sumed up the differance. And I will agree as the war progressed it doomed the Axis to defeat but as my original post states. That in 1941 thru 43 the Axis had the best chance to acheive at least a limited victory. Sure they lost but their defeat was far from certain even in july of 44'!

aceofspades_755
02-21-2009, 04:33 AM
In 1940, the Luftwaffe needed a heavier bomber with greater bomb loads and better defense, also it should have been acompanied with a fighter with greater range. The aircraft factories should have increased production during the battle of britain like the british instead of staying at about the same level. Also Goering should not have changed targets from anything aircraft related, like radar instalations and factories and airfields, to London. This would have inflicted far greater damage and have been enough to counterbalance the effects of britains advanced radar systems and advanced fighter aircraft, and the biggest advantage britain had was that she was fighting over home soil, therefore more pilots could be recovered and returned to operational flying.
I think that the german navy should have had an input during these times and not left it soley to the luftwaffe.

squareusr
02-21-2009, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by eindecker:
What if_____ (fill in the blank).
The NAZI ideology of hate and agressive expansionism (war) doomed it from the beginning.
What could have happened if the NAZI's did everything right was that the war would never
have started.

This is one of the more subtle of the important points: firm belief in quick successes (and therefore only planning for quick successes, no plan B) is not merely a small strategical glitch, it is one of the most important boxes on the imaginary checklist that people have to tick off before starting a war.

Delusions of quick successes is the key difference between people who start wars and people who start chess clubs.

PS: this can also help explanaining stuff like the "262 as bomber" thing: people "gifted" with such delusions will regard the use of an asset like jet technology for tactical advantage as a waste, because there's no chance that it will give them the quick success of their dreams. Strategical use, on the other hand, (even if the asset is not good at it at all) has at least a microscopic chance of quick success, which can then be put out of proportion by those delusions.

Freiwillige
02-21-2009, 12:53 PM
Agreed that the failure of the German economy to be put on a total war footing in 1939 or 40' instead of 1944 hurt their efforts. But just as large was the failure of German inteligence to figure out what exactly the British radar towers were and there importance. The composition and production ability of the opposing air force, Hence the common "They are down to there last 60 fighters!"

The common misconception that the 262 was delayed because Adolf insisted that it be transformed into a bomber has been debunked many times. It was the failure of BMW to find enough suitable alloys to produce an engine that could last longer than 1/2 of a flight that delayed the program. How long do you really think it would take the Germans to slap an ETC bomb rack on something?

Xiolablu3
02-21-2009, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
!"

The common misconception that the 262 was delayed because Adolf insisted that it be transformed into a bomber has been debunked many times. It was the failure of BMW to find enough suitable alloys to produce an engine that could last longer than 1/2 of a flight that delayed the program. How long do you really think it would take the Germans to slap an ETC bomb rack on something?


Thats not the issue, the issue is that it went to bomber pilots and not fighter pilots.

ie the mission was not to stop the heavy bombers, which the Me262 was so good for, but to attempt to bomb ground forces.

Therefore the Me262 was wasted for a time being sent on the completely wrong type of missions, with the wrong pilots.

Yes putting bomb racks on only takes a short time, but sending it off to the bombing squadrons instead of the fighter arm was the serious mistake.

Galland estimated that one Me262 fighter in 1944 was worth 5xbf109's.

whoopy1952
02-21-2009, 02:49 PM
First of all,i have to apologise,as my English is far from perfect.
Furthermore,i woulden't have come in on this so late,as usely i don't bother,but in this case i have to make an exeption.
We shoulden't be to symplistic about this,as the question we should asc ourselfs is:could the Nazies ever have won the war with the leadership thy had,as wars are not won by the airforce allone.
My answer to this is categoricly NO !!!
First of all,i live in Flanders,Belgium,not so far from where to frontline was in WW1,and again not so far from where Adolf Hitler served as a "feldwebel"=corporal,in the "great war".
Some of you don't seem to realise this,but Hitler was a disaster for Germany,and the German Army.
Every German soldier who served in WW1,recieved something like an evaluation from his commander,that means Hitler to !!!
When the wall came dawn,i became posseble to get acces to the German archives who had been transfered from Berlin to Moscow in 1945,and there the note from Hitlers commander was found,clearly stating:that feldwebel Hitler was incapeble to be anything higher then that,a corporal !!!
This helps to explain his behavior,and further more,those who where close to him and survived the war clearly say:that Hitler was unstable in a crisis situation,and that makes him a very poor leader.
German Goering should never have been in charge of the "luftwaffe",as the man was completely unreliable,but Hitler put him there,and diden't whant to loose face by replacing him.
You might asc yourselfs:why diden't Hitler wait a few more years to start the war,but the reality is:it was impossible !!!
We have to realise haw costly the rearmement of Germany has been,in fact,Hitler was very poor with economics,and with mony !!!
By 1938,Germany was as good as bankrupt,so Hitler HAD to go to war,or go to South America,and this is NOT A JOKE !!!
Why Poland ?????
In fact,it had very little to do with territory,not at all,"Lebensroum",and "Drang nach Osten",was just an excuse for something else:Polish gold !!!
Poland had recieved a very large compensation afther WW1,and thy had kept it well.
Why did Hitler need gold???
The answer was in Sweden,as Germany was very depending on something called aluminum,but the Swedes where not that stupid:thy wanted to be payed in gold,payment first,delivery afther that.
That also explaines why Hitler shared Poland with Stalin,in exchange for cole and iron.
If he had realy wanted territorial expansion in a pure way,he would never have axepted to give half of Poland to Stalin!!!!!
The German army was made for a fast short war,no more then 6 months,and anything more then that would create very serius economic problems.
So,when the Battle of Britain failed,the war was actualy lost for Germany !!!
Operation Barbarrosa was a big mistake,but again,there where very few options left,and Hitler hoped to use the massive Russian grain fields to his advantidge.
I think that Goering will allways remain a mistery in some ways,but the man did huge damage to the "luftwaffe".
In fact,in the early years,he behaved as if the airforce was his own personal toy,and afther the Battle of Britain,he lost interest,but Hitler did not replace him,a massieve blunder.
I'm sorry boys,but i think it's useless to think in numbers of plains,ships or tanks when the leadership fails,so,did the Luftwafe cost Germany tha war?????
My answer is NO,Adolf Hitler did cost Germany the war,it's as simple as that.

Freiwillige
02-21-2009, 04:38 PM
Sharing poland with the USSR was a way for Germany to ensure that the Soviets would not intervene. Russia looked at poland as a bastard state as did Germany. If you look at the division of Poland by those two powers you will see that Germany had gotten back just a little more than it had lost in WW1 And Russia had gotten back what it had lost.

stathem
02-22-2009, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by whoopy1952:
First of all,i have to apologise,as my English is far from perfect.
Furthermore,i woulden't have come in on this so late,as usely i don't bother,but in this case i have to make an exeption.
We shoulden't be to symplistic about this,as the question we should asc ourselfs is:could the Nazies ever have won the war with the leadership thy had,as wars are not won by the airforce allone.
My answer to this is categoricly NO !!!
First of all,i live in Flanders,Belgium,not so far from where to frontline was in WW1,and again not so far from where Adolf Hitler served as a "feldwebel"=corporal,in the "great war".
Some of you don't seem to realise this,but Hitler was a disaster for Germany,and the German Army.
Every German soldier who served in WW1,recieved something like an evaluation from his commander,that means Hitler to !!!
When the wall came dawn,i became posseble to get acces to the German archives who had been transfered from Berlin to Moscow in 1945,and there the note from Hitlers commander was found,clearly stating:that feldwebel Hitler was incapeble to be anything higher then that,a corporal !!!
This helps to explain his behavior,and further more,those who where close to him and survived the war clearly say:that Hitler was unstable in a crisis situation,and that makes him a very poor leader.
German Goering should never have been in charge of the "luftwaffe",as the man was completely unreliable,but Hitler put him there,and diden't whant to loose face by replacing him.
You might asc yourselfs:why diden't Hitler wait a few more years to start the war,but the reality is:it was impossible !!!
We have to realise haw costly the rearmement of Germany has been,in fact,Hitler was very poor with economics,and with mony !!!
By 1938,Germany was as good as bankrupt,so Hitler HAD to go to war,or go to South America,and this is NOT A JOKE !!!
Why Poland ?????
In fact,it had very little to do with territory,not at all,"Lebensroum",and "Drang nach Osten",was just an excuse for something else:Polish gold !!!
Poland had recieved a very large compensation afther WW1,and thy had kept it well.
Why did Hitler need gold???
The answer was in Sweden,as Germany was very depending on something called aluminum,but the Swedes where not that stupid:thy wanted to be payed in gold,payment first,delivery afther that.
That also explaines why Hitler shared Poland with Stalin,in exchange for cole and iron.
If he had realy wanted territorial expansion in a pure way,he would never have axepted to give half of Poland to Stalin!!!!!
The German army was made for a fast short war,no more then 6 months,and anything more then that would create very serius economic problems.
So,when the Battle of Britain failed,the war was actualy lost for Germany !!!
Operation Barbarrosa was a big mistake,but again,there where very few options left,and Hitler hoped to use the massive Russian grain fields to his advantidge.
I think that Goering will allways remain a mistery in some ways,but the man did huge damage to the "luftwaffe".
In fact,in the early years,he behaved as if the airforce was his own personal toy,and afther the Battle of Britain,he lost interest,but Hitler did not replace him,a massieve blunder.
I'm sorry boys,but i think it's useless to think in numbers of plains,ships or tanks when the leadership fails,so,did the Luftwafe cost Germany tha war?????
My answer is NO,Adolf Hitler did cost Germany the war,it's as simple as that.

Good post, and right on the money. Hitler was like a gambler playing double or quits, with the highest stakes.

And welcome to the board. Always nice to see new posters.

whoopy1952
02-22-2009, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Sharing poland with the USSR was a way for Germany to ensure that the Soviets would not intervene. Russia looked at poland as a bastard state as did Germany. If you look at the division of Poland by those two powers you will see that Germany had gotten back just a little more than it had lost in WW1 And Russia had gotten back what it had lost.

You have a point there,but....i'm affraid there will allways be some sort of mistery about Poland.
I have found no proof whatsoever that Stalin wanted to interveen with what was gooing on in Western Europe,at that time !!!
I looks far more like he wanted to win time,as the Soviet Army was not ready for war !!!
Hitler could not afford to be unshure about his eastern flank if he wanted to defeat the French Army,so he to had to make shure that he woulden't get in thesame situation as in the begining of WW1,where the Imperial Army had to shift divisions from the westfront to the east,and find out,that by the time thy got there,thy where no longer needed !!!

Freiwillige
02-22-2009, 04:30 PM
The proof lies with Von Ribbentrops. When he went to Moscow to meet with Molotov to discuss a non agression pact that is when the partition of Poland was concluded.

deepo_HP
02-23-2009, 12:31 AM
hi whoopy,


Originally posted by whoopy1952:
... Adolf Hitler served as a "feldwebel"=corporal,in the "great war". 'feldwebel' is better translated as 'sergeant', 'corporal' would be 'unteroffizier'. hitler in fact remained 'gefreiter' during wwI, which is 'private'.


Originally posted by whoopy1952:
Some of you don't seem to realise this,but Hitler was a disaster for Germany,and the German Army. i think, it is agreed here, that hitler was a desaster for the world...


Originally posted by whoopy1952:
We have to realise haw costly the rearmement of Germany has been,in fact,Hitler was very poor with economics,and with mony !!!
By 1938,Germany was as good as bankrupt,so Hitler HAD to go to war,or go to South America,and this is NOT A JOKE !!!
Why Poland ?????
In fact,it had very little to do with territory,not at all,"Lebensroum",and "Drang nach Osten",was just an excuse for something else:Polish gold !!!
That also explaines why Hitler shared Poland with Stalin,in exchange for cole and iron.
If he had realy wanted territorial expansion in a pure way,he would never have axepted to give half of Poland to Stalin!!!!! the 'lebensraum'-philosophy was already major part in hitler's 'mein kampf', as well as the declared enemy soviet-russia - long before he gained totalitary power. after hindenburg died in 1934, he announced to his generals, that he wanted a fully armed and war-ready germany in the next 5 years, end of 1937 he ordered them to get ready for war and informed them about his plans about tchechoslovakia.
in 1936 he established the 'vierjahresplan', centered around to get germany's economic and army ready for war and have gathered autarchy in ressources in 4 years.
so, there wasn't a need for war because of economics, the economics had never had any other aim then to prepare for the war.
also hitler surely never accepted to give soviet-russia half of poland, as the hitler-stalin-treaty was never more than for winning time.
undisputable, ressources were welcome to hitler that time, but the same there is no doubt, that all his reasoning from the start was a worldleadership of germany... if that can be called reasonable at all.


Originally posted by whoopy1952:
I'm sorry boys,but i think it's useless to think in numbers of plains,ships or tanks when the leadership fails,so,did the Luftwafe cost Germany tha war?????
My answer is NO,Adolf Hitler did cost Germany the war,it's as simple as that. again, i find your argument turned... hitler did not cost germany the war, he did start the war. he did cost the world millions and - without wanting to discuss his strategical capabilities or mental health - the war was a peak of crime in history.
i agree with you, that i doubt, hitler was a military, economic or political capacity. but that is not the point... without hitler history would have been different, but probably also without the second world war in it's dimensions. so he didn't cost germany the war, he brought it.
in that regard, i guess, this thread is just hypothetically discussing purely military aspects of the events. i agree with you, that i don't think, it makes any sense to do so.

whoopy1952
02-26-2009, 09:09 AM
Hi there deepo !!!
Thank you for reacting.
I'm afraid we all translate Corporal as Feldwebel over here,even the newspapers,so there might be a slight problem with that,but it's realy of no importence.
I'm satisfied with the fact that even Hindenburg called Hitler "The corporal",that's more then enough for me.
I diden't read"Mein Kampf",nor do i feel the need to do it,i know more then enough about Hitler without that.
My reaction was primerely intended to signal that we shoulden't take the original question to lightly.
In fact,that was a very serius question,and there's no easy answer to it,i'm afraid.
In my opinion,no war is lost by one part of the armed forces,it's lost or won as a whole,nothing more or less.
I could have said mutch more,but that would have made my posting far to long,and i'm not shure that most peaple here would be interrested in that.
So,perhaps it's time for me to "shut up" now,and leave you with your thoughts,as i'm not pretending to be "god" here !!!

Burckhardt
02-26-2009, 09:40 PM
The Luftwaffe did not lose the war in my opinion. The war was lost by Hitler. Follies at Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad were the demise of the third reich. Had the Werhmacht been successful at those key battles that could have been won but were blundered by the "little corporal" and his micromanagement, the Allies would could have been matched in manpower and production, the keys to victory. It is as if the hand of God muddled Hitlers thinking,ensuring his demise, because he was close to victory at a few key battles.

Barbarossa was the gamble. Russia was the greatest prize.

whoopy1952
02-27-2009, 03:56 AM
We all know the German Army(wehrmacht)was a formidable fightingforce in 1940.
yet,not all was well with that army,and i'm clearly talking about May 1940 here !!!
The German infantry marched thru my village on there way to Amiens and Dunkirk.
Everyone was gone here,exept my grandfather,who had stayed behind to gard the house,as he was afraid for plundering !!!
It was stupid ofcource,but he diden't want to leave his house(where i still live)so he became a withness of what happend.
When the first element of the German infantry where in my village,thy receaved a heavy artillery bombardment.......by thair own artillery !!!!!
My mother told me that:the whole street was coverd in blood,with body's everywhere.
I know all to well that this happens in every war,yet there seem to have been more "incidents" like that,and thy where mainly due to the failiure of the radio communications sistem.
Furthermore,the 37 mm antitankguns proved to be a failiure against some of the heavier french tanks,and as long as the stukas could save the situation,there was no problem,but that would change dramaticly in Russia.
I have been able to read,in several books,that a critical report about this was send to Hitler,but that by the time the invasion in Russia started,NOTHING HAD BEEN DONE !!!
And soon the German Army would be facing the T34,the most modern tank of that moment !!!
Furthermore,if you look at the preparations for the invasion of England,there have some very serius questions to be answered.
Afther the debacle of Mai 1940,most peaple returned to thair homes,but something strange happend:the Germans where confiscating anything that could float,barges,small ships,you name it,and bringing them together close to the coast.
I remember these vessels well,my uncle had one.
It had been constructed in the North of France,in the 1920's,had a wooden hull,some 250 to 300 tons,a two stroke engin.
Thy where very slow,not easy to manoever,without any watertight compartments,and absolutely UNSEAWORTHY !!!
And these where the vessels who had to transport the German Army to England !!!
If i compare this with the huge masses of specialised landingcrafts for Operation Overlord,then i can only call this PURE AMATURISM OF THE WORST KIND.
Perhaps it's better for the German infantry,that the Luftwaffe lost the B.O.B.,as there would probably never have been something like Stalingrad.
The 6th army would have been at the bothom of the Northsea !!!

Aaron_GT
02-28-2009, 02:23 AM
When the first element of the German infantry where in my village,thy receaved a heavy artillery bombardment.......by thair own artillery !!!!!

This, and aerial bombardment of your own side, was a common feature in WW2 by all sides as communication equipment was not yet sufficiently widespread or reliable and early in WW2 command and control structures weren't sufficiently developed for mobile warfare. The greater the speed of movement the greater the risk.

A common technique in WW2 was to set up boundaries of movement during attacks and basically if aerial reconnaisance spotted movements outside these areas it was assumed to be hostile and likely to be attacked by air or artillery. So if you decided to take the initiative and go beyond your assigned boundary it was at risk of attack by your own side. Likewise if you got pushed back and off axis and lost communications or simply got lost.

The Allies had 4 years to improve command structures before D-Day and even then there were errors, sadly.

jamesblonde1979
02-28-2009, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

A common technique in WW2 was to set up boundaries of movement during attacks and basically if aerial reconnaisance spotted movements outside these areas it was assumed to be hostile

Now known as the FLOT, Forward Line Of Troops. The misinterpretation of which was responsible for most of the blue on blue Allied casualties in both Gulf Wars.

Some things never change, until there is a real time method of tracking movement these incidents will continue.

hogge87
02-28-2009, 01:30 PM
The actual reason for the loss of the war was that Hitler wanted to take over Leningrad at any cost. Many men were sacrificed there, even though there was nothing that stopped Hitler from continuing to Moscow. Had Hitler hurried a bit more, the Russians would never have been able to start manufacturing tanks and airplanes, and Germany wouldn't have problems with fuel.