PDA

View Full Version : Was the Luftwaffe Defeated on the East Front and Not the West?



MB_Avro_UK
06-29-2008, 04:03 PM
Hi all,

Perhaps 70% of the German war capacity in WW2 was directed towards Russia on the East Front?

il2 has 'opened my eyes' as regards the East Front.

And were 80% of German casualties inflicted by the Russians?

And did this also apply to the Luftwaffe?

The eventual massive might of the Russian war machine was IMO very significant.

I'm just looking at historical perspectives here.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

ICDP
06-29-2008, 04:41 PM
Sorry double post

ICDP
06-29-2008, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Perhaps 70% of the German war capacity in WW2 was directed towards Russia on the East Front?

il2 has 'opened my eyes' as regards the East Front.

Yes, I believe this is about right for division of the German ground forces.


Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:And were 80% of German casualties inflicted by the Russians?

Once again this could be a fair estimate regarding the German combatant losses.


And did this also apply to the Luftwaffe?

Prior to USAAF heavey bomber raids over Germany the LW were indeed mostly engaged in the eastern front. By around early 1943 the LW day fighters were beginning to move west to face the massive bomber raids. If we look at the overall number of aircraft divided between fronts in 1943-1944 it would have been split fairly evenly between east and west. Having said that by far the biggest majority of day fighters were based in the west or in Reich Defence units.

I think the overall ratio of losses was around 4:1 in favour of the western front from mid 1943 until late 1944. Though it should not be forgotten that the LW did suffer a very high attrition rate of pilots and aircraft in the east before 1943.

Hoenire
06-29-2008, 05:56 PM
Stupid question.

You don't defeat an air force, you defeat a country. You can minimise the effectiveness of an air force but that doesn't much if you can't beat the army on the ground.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Freiwillige
06-29-2008, 05:56 PM
Keep in mind that numerically the soviets held the advantage but even up untill the end of the war the Luftwaffe was able to gain local air superiority almost anywhere they wanted over the VVS by neglecting other areas of the front and putting alot of their aircraft in one area.
I think overwhelmingly the Luftwaffe was destroyed by the west, while in the east they were still enjoying success albiet on a smaller scale and against opposition that was growing stiffer by the day.

stalkervision
06-29-2008, 07:52 PM
In general yes the Russians did the most to defeat the germans. No doubt about it. Just ask yourself this question if you don't believe it. What would the war have been like had the germans honored the non-agression pact with the Soviets?

Blindman-
06-29-2008, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Hoenire:
Stupid question.

You don't defeat an air force, you defeat a country. You can minimise the effectiveness of an air force but that doesn't much if you can't beat the army on the ground.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Being a teacher by profession this type of comment really irritates me, as I bend over backwards trying to get my students to feel free to ask any question, telling them that there really are no stupid questions (only stupid answers).

If you have a question, always feel free to ask it, and most often the answer will benefit many of those hearing it. If it is a question that everyone else knows the answer to does not make it stupid or less worthy of asking.

Freiwillige
06-29-2008, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
In general yes the Russians did the most to defeat the germans. No doubt about it. Just ask yourself this question if you don't believe it. What would the war have been like had the germans honored the non-agression pact with the Soviets?

Its a little more complicated than that. I doubt that the Russians or the Western allies could have beaten the Germans alone. Russia had the man power But a severe lack of mobility and an immobile army is a beaten one as the Germans have proved in russia time and time again.
By 1944 the Russian army was very mobile due in part to lend lease. American trucks, fuel and supplies mechanized the Russian army while American and British bomber raids did there part to De-mechanize the German army. Here is a small list of what U.S. gave the Russian's.

95% of all rail stock
60% rails
59% AvGas
350,000 trucks
75,000 Jeeps
P-39 5707 (4719 reached the USSR)
P-40 2397
P-47 195
P-63 2397 (21 lost in transfer)
Hurricane 2952
Spitfire 1331
Total: 14982
Bomber and Attack Aircraft
A-20 2908
B-25 862
Hampden 23
plus a few others
Total: 3800

Also Oil refineries were being bombed all the way into Romania starving the Whermacht and Luftwaffe of what it needed most, Petrol.

So by mid 44' A mobile German army became rather static and defensive and The once static Russian army became highly mobile. The roles were reversed on the eastern front and it was like 41', 42' and 43' just in reverse!

Yes, The russians killed far more Germans but without the west I beleive they would have lost.

chunkydora
06-29-2008, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Blindman-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoenire:
Stupid question.

You don't defeat an air force, you defeat a country. You can minimise the effectiveness of an air force but that doesn't much if you can't beat the army on the ground.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Being a teacher by profession this type of comment really irritates me, as I bend over backwards trying to get my students to feel free to ask any question, telling them that there really are no stupid questions (only stupid answers).

If you have a question, always feel free to ask it, and most often the answer will benefit many of those hearing it. If it is a question that everyone else knows the answer to does not make it stupid or less worthy of asking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

NO SUCH THING AS A STUPID QUESTION!!!!!!

chunkydora
06-29-2008, 08:41 PM
The luftwaffe? No. The Germans? Yes.

For every 3 german soldiers fighting the western allies there were 8 fighting the Russians.

Xiolablu3
06-29-2008, 09:05 PM
In Mid-1940 the whole of the front-line of the Luftwaffe was in the West. Through the Battle of Britain, The whole of the Luftwaffe was up against most of the RAF. (Baring those in colonies like SIngapore).

After the invasion of Russia, and as Hitler sought too bring Britain on side vs Russia, most of the Air Force was moved East, except two crack fighter wings like JG26 and JG2 which included many of the best aces in the Luftwaffe. Around 200 day fighter planes were stationed in the West. Probably many more night fighters as the RAF primarily (but not always) di their 'serious' bombing at night. The day bombings were basically an attempt to get the German fighters up to fight as they were reluctant to 'mix it'.

The RAF now moved over to he attack and many hard lessons had to be learned, as the Germans had learned in the Battle of Britain.

It wasnt until the US day bomber campaign that many fighters were actually NEEDED in the West. They needed Nightfighters more than day fighters as the real damage being done by the RAF was at night (The first 1000 bomber raids were by the RAF on 30/31 May (Cologne) to 17 August 1942)

Nevertheless JG26 and JG2 kept a large share of Aces as the Western front was deemed to be far more dangerous than the Eastern front at this time.

Also relatively large groups of German aircraft were stationed in the Med when Mussolini had his disastrous campaign against the British Army in the Desert and over Malta. Very small groups of RAF Hurricane and Gladiator fighters held off much larger (During June 1942 there were 500 Luftwaffe and 300 Italian aircraft directed against the island) forces of Italian and Luftwaffe aircraft until new supplies of Spitfires could reach them, and they finally could hit back and win complete Air Superiority again by 1943.

http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/spitfire-in-service...defence-of-malta.htm (http://www.spitfiresite.com/history/spitfire-in-service/1942/1942-defence-of-malta.htm)

It wasnt until the end of 1943 that the Americans really got the daylight bombing campaign into swing and this resulted in a lot of day fighters being brought back from the East in the hope that they could inflict 'unsustainable losses' on the US Air forces and halt the daylight bombing campaign. Arguably if it wasnt for the P51 they might have succeded. The earlier raids which relied on P47's and Spitfires as far as these guys could fly ands then went on alone, suffered heavy losses. (Schweinfurt is a good example of unsustainable losses the bombers suffered without escort fighters) The German fighters simply waited for the escort to turn back and then attacked the bombers.

By Mid 1944 the USAAF and RAF had worn down the Luftwaffe and it was a shadow of its former self. They had lost most of their top aces and were scraping the barrel as far as pilots went. Attrition vs the RAF,RCAF, Russians and US air forces had really taken its toll.

So, to answer your question, yes between mid 1941 and mid 1943, most of the day fighter units bar two crack Units (around 200 aircraft), JG26 and JG6 in teh West and peaking at around 100-200 fighters in the Med around 1942, were located on the Eastern Front. What the Germans needed at this time in the West were Night fighters to counter the RAF's night bombing campaign which gradually gained pace from mid 1941 until the end of the war.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/thousands.html

WTE_Galway
06-29-2008, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
In general yes the Russians did the most to defeat the germans. No doubt about it. Just ask yourself this question if you don't believe it. What would the war have been like had the germans honored the non-agression pact with the Soviets?

Chances are the Russians would have waited another year or two until Germany was feeling the strain and then around '43 or there abouts done the dirty on Germany and taken all of Europe.

ImpStarDuece
06-29-2008, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Here is a small list of what the Western Allies gave the Russian's.

95% of all rail stock
60% rails
59% AvGas
350,000 trucks
75,000 Jeeps
P-39 5707 (4719 reached the USSR)
P-40 2397
P-47 195
P-63 2397 (21 lost in transfer)
Hurricane 2952
Spitfire 1331
Total: 14982
Bomber and Attack Aircraft
A-20 2908
B-25 862
Hampden 23
plus a few others
Total: 3800


Fixed for you

bhunter2112
06-29-2008, 10:40 PM
Germany was defeated in the east. The greater threat was from the east. If by magic you could have ceased hostilities on the eastern front germany could have held europe basically at any point in the war from threats to the west. It was a mistake to invade russia, and a costly one!

Skoshi Tiger
06-29-2008, 10:55 PM
I've got one of the old war time US propaganda films on VHS tape (About the B17 offensive - "Mission for today" I think) In it they state the Alied offensive and strategies.

Basically it came to grinding down the German forces on the eastern front and tying up as much of the LW trying to protecting German industry and resources in the Western and Mediterainian fronts. Without all fronts active at the same time Germany may have gotten the upperhand! (Divide and Conquer and all that)

From a western point of view, they kind of glossed over the Russian contribution to the war ( 20 odd million lost sons and daughters!) when I was at school!

Xiolablu3
06-29-2008, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by bhunter2112:
Germany was defeated in the east. The greater threat was from the east. If by magic you could have ceased hostilities on the eastern front germany could have held europe basically at any point in the war from threats to the west. It was a mistake to invade russia, and a costly one!

Thats quite crazy to think that Germany could have stood up to the Industrial might of the USA along with the British and COmmonwealth.

Germany could not even subdue Britain alone, once the USA came onside it was all over, regardless of Russia being involved or not IMO. There is NO WAY that Germany could outproduce the US+UK+Canada+Austraila+Commonwealth. Eventually Germany would have fallen. Maybe it would have taken 5 more years, but eventually the massive weight of numbers of the Britian+Commonwealth+USA would have told.

Russia was seen as no threat at all in the early days. 'Kick the front door in and the whole rotten core will come tumbling down' were Hitlers exact words. He expected Russia to be finished in months, and it nearly was. If it was not for lend lease and the Western Allies putting pressure on Germany elsewhere (Malta/Med/Africa/France) then its very possible Russia could have been overrun.


I dont think Hitler actually thought that the UK and USA would help Russia at all. In fact I think he was shocked to learn that the UK and US had chosen to support Stalin over him.

BTW I am NOT saying that any of those 3 world powers (Russia/Britian+Canada+Aus+Commonwealth/USA) could have defeated Germany+Italy+Hungary+Japan+Croatia+Rumania alone. But I think 2 could have done it, but it would have taken longer.

Once the Allies had caught up with German Re-armament and preparation for war which took them a little by surprise (Germany had a head start as Hitler knew his own plans for war) and also recovered from German surprise attacks, it was RELATIVELY easy for the 3 powers together. The outcome of the war was never really in doubt once the three powers started working together. And I think any two of them could have done it in the end, too.

The Battle of Britain 1940 and Defence at Stalingrad 1942 were the real turning points which happened basically before any real US involvement in the war, with just the two powers fighting the Axis. AT these points Russia/Britain+Commonwealth checked Hitler/Musolinni and started to strike back.

Freiwillige
06-30-2008, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bhunter2112:
Germany was defeated in the east. The greater threat was from the east. If by magic you could have ceased hostilities on the eastern front germany could have held europe basically at any point in the war from threats to the west. It was a mistake to invade russia, and a costly one!

Thats quite hilarious to think that Germany could have stood up to the Industrial might of the USA along with British Empire help.

Germany could not even subdue Britain alone, once the USA came onside it was all over, regardless. There is NO WAY that Germany could outproduce the US+UK+Canada+Austraila+Commonwealth. Eventually Germany would have fallen.

Russia was seen as no threat at all in the early days. 'Kick the front door in and the whole rotten core will come tumbling down' were Hitlers exact words. He expected Russia to be finished in months, and it nearly was. If it was not for lend lease and the Western Allies putting pressure on Germany elsewhere (Malta/Med/Africa/France) then its very possible Russia could have been overrun.

I dont think Hitler actually thought that the UK and USA would help Russia at all. In fact I htink he was shocked to learn that the UK and US had chosen to support Stalin over him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germany almost defeated the allied landings on June 6th It was touch and go until the American break out over a month and a half later. Now if Germany had the other 70% of its military fully equiped just hanging out in Germany and France
you could forgett an allied victory in that decade. And thats just assuming that Germany stayed defensive, If they had remained in the offensive against England into 41' the outcome is hardly disputable. Its sheer economics and populations. Germany's economy was far stronger than England's and their Population was far greater=more soldiers.

Xiolablu3
06-30-2008, 12:20 AM
You seem to forget that the British Empire and Commonwealth was still very large at that time. (Commonwealth still is)

It wasnt just Britain that Germany was fighting, it was Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand etc etc.

The outcome of an attempted invasion of Britain is absolutely disputable.

Go and read the Sealion thread from weeks ago....Even Hitlers Generals thought it was ridiculous to try and cross the channel vs the worlds largest Navy. (And far far far bigger than the tiny Kreigsmarine)

Just to get it into perspective, go read up on the 'channel dash' when the German Navy claimed a victory because they made in through the English channel unscathed past the british Navy Ships.

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

You believe that D-Day nearly failed, yet you believe Germany could have invaded Britain in landing craft and paratroopers in 1941 vs the Worlds largest Navy with mass air cover?? Just think hard about that for a moment...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Freiwillige
06-30-2008, 02:45 AM
I agree that there would have been complications but impossable, Not hardly.
If the Luftwaffe kept grinding at the R.A.F well into 1941 I think Germany's industry was better suited to make replacments considering that England was running short of most supplies thanks to the U-boats choking off England from the rest of the world. Then the Luftwaffe would have only had to cover the immediate invasion part of the channel. Also no war in russia means more resourses spent on things like mre U-boats. Once ashore I am pretty sure that the Whermacht would clean house with the British army of 1941 which had left all of its heavy weapons in france. So it all boils down to 30 miles of choppy water.

joeap
06-30-2008, 03:35 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
In general yes the Russians did the most to defeat the germans. No doubt about it. Just ask yourself this question if you don't believe it. What would the war have been like had the germans honored the non-agression pact with the Soviets?

Absolutely, no question at all. I think most recognise it.

That's not what Avro is asking (maybe a comment I made inspired him to write this thread?). He's asking who did the most to defeat the Luftwaffe, or where did the LW lose the war? I don't think any one front really did IMHO. The LW was the only branch that really switched between different fronts during the war while the German Army was always focused against the USSR from 1941 to 45. The Kriegsmarine of course was focused aginst the UK.

I think the air war was the area that the Western Allies gave the most direct help to the Soviets. Otherwise the help was indirect, Lend Lease and the resources the Germans spent on u-boats, air defence etc. The Soviets of course were irritated as the direct help they wanted was to force the Germans to pull out divisions from the east, and in fact they won there big victory in Stalingrad with their own resources.

However, I still think a case can be made that the Soviets pushed the Germans out more quickly with the Western Allies assistance (much more mobility as someone mentioned) than otherwise.

This is not to denigrate the VVS as they did help the Red Army a great deal and get the medal for "most improved armed branch". Also it should be noted that a fair amount of air assets were sent to the Asia-Pacific theatre by the Allies which might have been used in the ETO.

ICDP
06-30-2008, 04:24 AM
Even with the relatively small numbers of German forces deployed in North Africa the U.K were almost defeated. Had the Germans not invaded Russia then the war in North Africa would have been total failure for the U.K and commonwealth. Imagine the much higher numbers of German forces available, the U.K and commonwealth forces would have been overrun in a matter of weeks.

Also I think a lot of people underestimate the Russians. Prior to any meaningfull lendlease deliveries the Russians stopped the Germans in late 1941 and had actually launched a pretty successfull counterattack in winter 1942. Lendlease was definately a massive help and the Russians would have found it much harder to defeat the Germans. They were not helpless without it, they proved that beyond all shadow of a doubt.

tragentsmith
06-30-2008, 04:50 AM
Well, you can build theories....

It would have been like this if Hitler would have not have the famous "Dictator syndrom" to attack Russia :

No landing in the UK in 1940 -1941 anyway. The Kriegsmarine was just unable to fight against the Royal Navy and it's nonsens to think they could.

HOWEVER, no war in the east would have meant that Germany would have been able to ship way more material in North Africa to support the italians against the Brits. What would have been the result in North Africa if Germany had sent 3 or 4 more PD to help the 21st Panzer Division ?

Besides, the Luftwaffe would have been redeployed massively in the Balkans and in Italy, giving a decent aircover to the Reggia Marina and thus considerably disturbing the royal navy in it's job to intercept convoys to supply North Afrika and the DAK.

For the war in the Atlantic, Germany could have started first to finish their aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin, thus giving cover to their fleet while operating in the Atlantic. The Tirpitz would have made totally different sorties and the Royal Navy would have been forced to keep way more forces to keep the atlantic lines safe. Especially when you think that the Bf109 T would have been a better opponent against the Swordfishs of the RN that just the AA guns of a battleship.

So let's assume that the forces would have been more equal in North Africa, that Germany would have put a bigger pressure on the Mediteranean Sea and against Malta, thus rendering the supply of this Island even more difficult and the supply of North Arican allied Armies harder.... Then a victory from the DAK in North Africa becomes something possible, even probable, when you see the results that Rommel had with his small forces against the british army in 1941 - 1942. The capture of the Suez Channel, plus the capture of english oil fields in the middle east would have been VERY problematic for the UK.

Of course, the USA would have still continued to supply them, but then all the supply would come from the USA throught the Atlantic, diminuing the ways to that the UK could use to get supplies, thus making it easier for the Germans to watch. The other solution for the UK would be to get their supplies shipped from their colonies all around Africa, making very long delays to get their supply.

The big question would then be : What would Germany do when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour ? Would he declare war against the USA ? I guess he would, being sure to defeat them, but would be totally unable to fight them with no adapted forces to strike them. Then it would be a run against the clock for both powers. There is no way Germany could put an attrition war against the USA, and Germany would have to be really careful not to suffer an attrition war either. The only way to avoid the USA to be a real threat would be to land in the UK to avoid the americans having a close base from where they can launch an invasion, forcing the germans to keep large amounts of forces to keep western Europe safe for them.

What we can say in the meantime is that the Luftwaffe would have been able to contain night bombing better by not having fighter forces in the east, allowing them to put much more cover over western Europe. Protecting the German industry would have been a key point for the German capacity to fight in a better way. Besides, the germans would have been able to put much more experten on the frontline against the UK. You would have 500- 600 fighters to cover western europe, and maybe 300 over north africa, making it a lot harder for the british army to launch any kind of counteroffensive. French Vichy would be also a key point. What would have been their reaction if the UK was totally defeated in Africa and in the Middle East, making the Mediteranean Sea a sea "Royal Navy free", given the fact that except Gibralter, the UK would have no more bases for their ships ? Vichy would have surely have to "accept" a German presence in Morrocco like they did with Indochina when the Japanese "offered" to protect them by deploying large forces in the French Indochina.

So, here would be the situation in mid 1942 :
- Defeated british armies in North Africa, with supply lines cut between UK and Malta.
- No more fuel supply coming from Irak and certainly an occupied Saudi Arabia by Italian or German forces.
- A German Navy with certainly more aircraft carriers (converted cargos first and then designed ships), learning from the experience of the Bismarck.
More U Boots to fight in the atlantic against supply convoys for the UK.
- More bombers and torpedo bombers in the Atlantic to prevent the Royal Navy to make sorties.
- RAF short in fuel to prevent Luftwaffe sorties over the Atlantic EXCEPT if the german submarine war is failing.
- USA unable to find a decent base from where to lauch a landding.

I would say in 1943 we would have one major interrogation : What would be Stalin's reaction ? As far as I read from historians, Stalin wasn't dumb. He knew his army was in a restructuration period in 1941, and wanted at all price to avoid the fight against the German Army he was scared of seing the major successes the Wehrmacht had in 1939 - 1940 - beginning 1941. He knew his army need at least 2 to 4 years more to be prepared for a fight against the Germans that he knew was coming eventually. The opposition between the two ideologies were just too strong to avoid such a fight. Staline was counting on a fight in 1944 - 1945 against Germany, and not really before.
In 1943, would he have started a "preventive war" against germany to use the fact that the Wehrmacht was busy elsewhere to try to defeat them ? Would he have waited one year more to get all the best cards before striking ? We will never know. But what we can guess is that between 1941 and 1943 - 1944, Staline would have not received the slightiest help from the Allies, so the Red Army would be approximatively as mobile as in 1941 IRL, the USA not sending them any trucks or tanks or airplanes.
The T34 would be massively used in the Red Army. But german spies would have surely found about them in 2 - 3 years, not like they did when they invaded the USSR in 1941. That would have give them the time to reequip their army with better tanks than the Pz II or III they still used in number in 1941.
Bad point for the red army, more of their military chiefs sent to the Gulags would have had time to die there before being massively released to lead the Red Army against the germans. The lack of competent officers would be even worse that IRL, with Stalin's obsession of controling the Army totally.
Inbetween, German officers would have 2 - 3 years of fight experience more, givig the Wehrmacht an even bigger advantage that they had in 1941, especially about supply lines seeing the campain in North Africa where logistic was a real issue. The german would have better organized the transport of their supply in Russia, with immediately standardising the space between the rails of the russian railroads, etc... Lend lease for the russians would be much harder for the westerna allies given the fact that the middle east would be under German influence. What would be Turkey's choice too ? They nearly entered the war with Germany IRL, would they do it if Germany promised them to rebuild the Otoman empire that they lost in WWI and had defeated the UK and France's influence in the Middle East?

So.... Speculations, speculations...

But at the end..... Berlin would surely have been nuked while V3 or V4 would be destroying New York and Washington.... Possibly nuking them too....

So, I prefer history as it is.

leitmotiv
06-30-2008, 05:48 AM
The Luftwaffe was never defeated in the East, as was the German Army. This is an important distinction. The bulk of the fighter Gruppen needed to fight for air superiority over parts of the Eastern battle front (neither side could ever wrest air superiority over the entire Eastern Front---physically impossible) had been moved west to defend the homeland by early 1944. The critical bomber Gruppen were disbanded in mid-1944 except for the jet bomber units in training. The bomber pilots were retrained to fly fighters or ended up with the rest of their crews in Luftwaffe Field Divisions. What destroyed the Luftwaffe was the loss of their secure rear area for training due to the marauding swarms of long-range P-51s in mid-1944, the deaths of the bulk of their remaining skilled fighter pilots in the winter of 1944 defending German airspace against American bombers with their fighter escorts, and the loss of the Ploesti oil fields, Hungarian oil fields, and the loss or destruction of most of the synthetic oil plants in Germany which grounded the still sizable number of German fighters available in 1945. The massive fighter force they sent to Normandy after D-Day was soundly beaten by Allied fighters. After this disaster Galland could only assemble a force of poorly trained fighter pilots led by the remaining Experten. This last reserve was thrown away in the Bodenplatte fiasco on 1 January 1945. I ascribe to the view it was primarily the American long-range fighters that destroyed the Luftwaffe by denying it a secure base upon which to operate.

leitmotiv
06-30-2008, 05:57 AM
What defeated the Germans was this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8I3zCQzZx68

Freiwillige
06-30-2008, 05:58 AM
Very well thought out post. But there are even more what ifs! What if Hitler seized Gibralter?
What if Afrika was taken, then the middle east thus putting German forces right under the Russian oil feilds? What if Rommel succeded and met up with Paulis in Stalingrad?

stalkervision
06-30-2008, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
What defeated the Germans was this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8I3zCQzZx68

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
06-30-2008, 06:24 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 stalkervision:
In general yes the Russians did the most to defeat the germans. No doubt about it. Just ask yourself this question if you don't believe it. What would the war have been like had the germans honored the non-agression pact with the Soviets?

Absolutely, no question at all. I think most recognise it.

That's not what Avro is asking (maybe a comment I made inspired him to write this thread?). He's asking who did the most to defeat the Luftwaffe, or where did the LW lose the war? I don't think any one front really did IMHO. The LW was the only branch that really switched between different fronts during the war while the German Army was always focused against the USSR from 1941 to 45. The Kriegsmarine of course was focused aginst the UK.

I think the air war was the area that the Western Allies gave the most direct help to the Soviets. Otherwise the help was indirect, Lend Lease and the resources the Germans spent on u-boats, air defence etc. The Soviets of course were irritated as the direct help they wanted was to force the Germans to pull out divisions from the east, and in fact they won there big victory in Stalingrad with their own resources.

However, I still think a case can be made that the Soviets pushed the Germans out more quickly with the Western Allies assistance (much more mobility as someone mentioned) than otherwise.

This is not to denigrate the VVS as they did help the Red Army a great deal and get the medal for "most improved armed branch". Also it should be noted that a fair amount of air assets were sent to the Asia-Pacific theatre by the Allies which might have been used in the ETO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


IMO luftwaffe was attritted by the Russian's to a significant and important extent before the Allies finished the job but certainly they didn't finish the luftwaffe alone.

jasonbirder
06-30-2008, 06:34 AM
Was the Luftwaffe Defeated on the East Front and Not the West

Does it really matter? As in terms of overall contribution...what decisive impact did any nations Air Force have on the overall outcome of the war?
As the old joke goes...two Russian Field Marshalls meet in the Reichstag at the end of the war one syas to the other "So...who won the air war?"

tragentsmith
06-30-2008, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Very well thought out post. But there are even more what ifs! What if Hitler seized Gibralter?
What if Afrika was taken, then the middle east thus putting German forces right under the Russian oil feilds? What if Rommel succeded and met up with Paulis in Stalingrad?

Well, if Turkey had entered the war with Germany, then it would have been a bit harder for the russians because they would have had to separate their forces to hold a second front. Besides, with countries under influence or control of Germany all around the black sea and the italian navy, Germany could have lead sea operations against Crimea way faster than they did with the romanian navy. Turkey would indeed have given them 2 big advantages : A secured friendly country as a base for offensives, with no partisans to watch, and most of all, a lot of manpower for the axis armies.
In 1942, Türkey had a good and well trained army thanks to the politic led by Atatürk. The only bad point was the lack of modern equipment. But with an undisturbed german industry the germans would have been able to reequip them...

2 bad points however :
- as for the Wehrmacht, the reequipment would have taken years. THe türkish army would have need time to be fully operational. Especially when you need to standardise one army to the equipment of another. But for logistical reasons, it's one of the key of the plan to success.
- 2nd bad point is the front with russia... It's manly mountains. And to win by going through mountains, you have to be well equiped, well trained and have surprise.

I think that the easiest way for the german though would not have to rush towards Stalingrad from the south, but to rush through the East to reach the oil fields at Baku and cut the russian army from his vital supplies.

stalkervision
06-30-2008, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Was the Luftwaffe Defeated on the East Front and Not the West

Does it really matter? As in terms of overall contribution...what decisive impact did any nations Air Force have on the overall outcome of the war?
As the old joke goes...two Russian Field Marshalls meet in the Reichstag at the end of the war one syas to the other "So...who won the air war?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

joeap
06-30-2008, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Was the Luftwaffe Defeated on the East Front and Not the West

Does it really matter? As in terms of overall contribution...what decisive impact did any nations Air Force have on the overall outcome of the war?
As the old joke goes...two Russian Field Marshalls meet in the Reichstag at the end of the war one syas to the other "So...who won the air war?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...so all the resources spent building planes, training pilots etc. was a waste of time I suppose. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JtD
06-30-2008, 09:08 AM
The effects of air war are definitely overestimated by popular historians, but are in no way small. They had a definitive impact on how the war went, or more at what pace the war went from 1944 on.

Xiolablu3
06-30-2008, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
What defeated the Germans was this:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8I3zCQzZx68

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, you got me watching more of that, I really havent seen much of it before, only short clips.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vlmGknvr_Pg&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss&feature=related

Funny stuff

Von_Rat
06-30-2008, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Was the Luftwaffe Defeated on the East Front and Not the West

Does it really matter? As in terms of overall contribution...what decisive impact did any nations Air Force have on the overall outcome of the war?
As the old joke goes...two Russian Field Marshalls meet in the Reichstag at the end of the war one syas to the other "So...who won the air war?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


cough,,,, id say that air power played THE decisive role in the pacific war.


heck most of the land battles on the islands in the pacific were just for the purpose of gaining more air bases.

not to mention that in nearly all the decisive naval battles were fought by carrier airpower.

JZG_Thiem
06-30-2008, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Was the Luftwaffe Defeated on the East Front and Not the West

Does it really matter? As in terms of overall contribution...what decisive impact did any nations Air Force have on the overall outcome of the war?
As the old joke goes...two Russian Field Marshalls meet in the Reichstag at the end of the war one syas to the other "So...who won the air war?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


cough,,,, id say that air power played THE decisive role in the pacific war.


heck most of the land battles on the islands in the pacific were just for the purpose of gaining more air bases.

not to mention that in nearly all the decisive naval battles were fought by carrier airpower. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You cant compare the ETO with the PTO. in the vast pacific theres mostly...water. You can tpopulate, hold, defend or attack...water. Only small patches called "islands" could serve people. The plane was the ultimate tool. It had the range, mobility, speed and weapons to cover all the water in order to control land.

Continental Warfare is much different. Land CAN be populated, defended and all that without planes. Land does not have to be bypassed on a large scale on your conquests.

Im not saying air warfare is useless when fighting on continents. It is just not the only or most important part of war but it plays a lesser role then over vast oceans.

So both are right, Rat and Jasonbirder, but it cant be compared what they refer to.

JtD
06-30-2008, 12:09 PM
I'm pretty it were the Marines that captured Iwo Jima, not some fancy planes.

Xiolablu3
06-30-2008, 12:13 PM
The Allied bombing campaign certainly reduced production and caused havoc throughout Germany, so it certainly had a large effect.

But you need to support the air campaign with ground battles.

Iron-Works
06-30-2008, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I'm pretty it were the Marines that captured Iwo Jima, not some fancy planes.

You are not pretty.

JtD
06-30-2008, 12:57 PM
How do you know?

Maybe it helps if I add a "certain".

jasonbirder
06-30-2008, 01:20 PM
The Allied bombing campaign certainly reduced production and caused havoc throughout Germany, so it certainly had a large effect.

Allied bombing had no significant impact upon German production until Autumn 1944 - when the heavy bombers returned to "Strategic" targets after offering support at more of an operational level in the run up and immediate aftermath of D-Day.
Is there really anyone that believes that at that point the outcome (or even the timing give or take a few months) of the war was still in doubt?


so all the resources spent building planes, training pilots etc. was a waste of time I suppose
More than a waste...a definate hinderence in terms of the overall outcome...Manpower quality in Allied ground Forces was markedly low because they came last in line when it came to choosing personnel...The british never fielded a capable tank and the Americans took until late 19944/1945 to field a tank in significant numbers (76mm Shermans) that was the equal of the Long 75 PzIVs the Germans had been using since 1942...

Freiwillige
06-30-2008, 02:00 PM
Well he who has air superiority wins the battle.
When the Luftwaffe was swept from the skies a big part of Germany's defeat in Normandy was Allied air attacks relentlesly pounding the German supply columns and front line troops but when the weather grounded allied airpower in the Bulge it was the Germans who were coming out on top and it wasnt until the weather cleared that we pound them to a stop again.

Air forces cannot take and hold territory and thus cannot win wars but they can give a tremendous advantage to a ground campaign.

JZG_Thiem
06-30-2008, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I'm pretty it were the Marines that captured Iwo Jima, not some fancy planes.

They could capture and hold the place, because they could be appropriately supplied/supported by ships, which in return were secured by american air superiority.
A luxury many Japanese garrisons didnt have. Thats why bases like Rabaul and Truk could be left behind after being isolated. Thats why The Japanese didnt even try to supply Iwo Jima.

I still insist: over oceans air superiority provides a base for naval ground, which enables ground troops to hold islands and advance.

Over a continent air superiority is no that crucial (effective?).
In vietnam, total and utter air superiority didnt make sure to win the war. Yet at least it made sure it couldnt be lost...up to a certain (rather political) point.
Same for Bombing germany. As already stated, the damage done wasnt *back breaking* to german economy at all. Aircraft production peaked out big time during the hardest attacks on german industry. Without air superiority it may have been even bigger tho, so it helped.
There wasnt *havoc being wreaked* around germany in general during the bombing campaigns. All major cities were heavily damaged, but a country is more than just the sum of its major cities. The effect on morale has also being overestimated before *experiences* were made. Germany overestimated it in 1940 over britain and the allies did the same mistake in 1943-44. The will to fight wasnt broken on either side, but bombing contributed. the allies thought that they just needed more planes to do what germany failed on in 1940, but i think they didnt have enough. From what i have read it was realized, but the huge bomber fleets were just been kept, as they (and the organisation around them) were already existent and supported the allied efforts sufficiently.

Neither did the germans in 1940 nor the allies later have the resources (planes) to sufficiently destroy production facilities in order to make that feat the single/decisive one. I am not quite sure if the effort was worth the result. The result was limited, the effort was...imo huge. Others may have a different opinion.

The key role of bombing over the continent was rather the destruction of logistic options. The denial of use of transportation was more crucial than anything, especially since in May 1940 the age of mobile warfare arrived (or at least the Germans realized that it had already arrived).

Going back to the starting point, it can be said that the role of air warfare in the PTO was similar. It supported/denied logistics.

To sum it up, i strongly agree with Freiwillige.

joeap
06-30-2008, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Allied bombing campaign certainly reduced production and caused havoc throughout Germany, so it certainly had a large effect.

Allied bombing had no significant impact upon German production until Autumn 1944 - when the heavy bombers returned to "Strategic" targets after offering support at more of an operational level in the run up and immediate aftermath of D-Day.
Is there really anyone that believes that at that point the outcome (or even the timing give or take a few months) of the war was still in doubt?


so all the resources spent building planes, training pilots etc. was a waste of time I suppose
More than a waste...a definate hinderence in terms of the overall outcome...Manpower quality in Allied ground Forces was markedly low because they came last in line when it came to choosing personnel...The british never fielded a capable tank and the Americans took until late 19944/1945 to field a tank in significant numbers (76mm Shermans) that was the equal of the Long 75 PzIVs the Germans had been using since 1942... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nonsense, first of all you are confusing strategic and tactical airpower. On the other hand I would agree too many resources were given over to strategic air forces often at the expense of vital needs like the Battle of the Atlantic. Yet even here, while overall production did not go down, new weapons were delayed (the Type XXI u-boat for example) quality of production was poorer and MANY resources were spent on air defence. Just think of how many 88s had to be used this way.

Just think, Germany won it's victories in 1940 with the Luftwaffe. In 1941, they suffered, as we know know, significantly higher casualties in Barbarossa than the rest of the war up til that time. The Red Army was hampered, according to the latest research I've read, by lack of skill in combined arms (tank and infantry) and a nearly non-existant VVS. The Luftwaffe was able to help the army in an important way.

Had the VVS not been wiped out in the opening strokes, and been somewhat more competent and prepared than it was (it became much better as the war went along) how much shorter would the war have been??? Even as it was the Germans nearly took Moscow and possibly (though this is grist for another thread) won the war.

Even in western Europe, do you really believe an intact Luftwaffe would not hold serious risks for the Western Allies especially as they had to land and wwre vulnerable to attacks on shipping and the small beachheads?

Blood_Splat
06-30-2008, 07:24 PM
Germany was lucky not to get this treatment. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H1sS1TmXF38&feature=related.

Von_Rat
06-30-2008, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I'm pretty it were the Marines that captured Iwo Jima, not some fancy planes.

yeah but planes were the only reason to land on iwo jima in the first place.

iirc iwo was only wanted to serve as a emergancy airstrip for b29s.

Hoenire
07-01-2008, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Blindman-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoenire:
Stupid question.

You don't defeat an air force, you defeat a country. You can minimise the effectiveness of an air force but that doesn't much if you can't beat the army on the ground.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Being a teacher by profession this type of comment really irritates me, as I bend over backwards trying to get my students to feel free to ask any question, telling them that there really are no stupid questions (only stupid answers).

If you have a question, always feel free to ask it, and most often the answer will benefit many of those hearing it. If it is a question that everyone else knows the answer to does not make it stupid or less worthy of asking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I presume that you do not teach your students to think first before opening their mouths, or do you just spoon-feed the curriculum? And before anyone spouts the rubbish about there being "No stupid questions, only stupid answers", I'm pretty sure that most of us can remember asking a stupid question at some point. I ask a couple every week but I don't blind myself to seeing it, I'm just embarrassed.

Being a lawyer by profession it always amazes me that people do not think before acting. A moment's thought would have brought the realisation that air forces aren't defeated, just rendered less effective (and this isn't the same thing at all).

Maybe there are no stupid questions, just stupid people? No Avro, I don't think you're stupid, just lazy in your thinking or phrasing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If the question had been phrased differently then you'd probably have had a constructive comment from me instead of a withering critique.

reisen52
07-01-2008, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:

iirc iwo was only wanted to serve as a emergancy airstrip for b29s.

It also served as a P-51 base for escort & ground attack missions against the home islands.

ImpStarDuece
07-01-2008, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
The british never fielded a capable tank

Compare the Cromwell with the Sherman, and the Crowell comes out very favourably: equal or superior armour protection, better reliability and mauverability, superior cross country and road speed, lower shilouette. All in a tank 4 tons lighter than the Sherman

The main failing of the Crowell was the small turret ring, limited due to British rail guage necessities, which prevented a larger turret and gun being fitted. There was a failed attempt to put a high velocity 75 mm into the existing turret, eventually resulting in the development of the "77 mm" high veolcity cannon fitted to the Comet (also another good British tank).

Besides, if I was stuck in a British or Lend Lease tank in 1941/1942 (not an enviable position, given British tank tactics, or lack of them, at the time), I'd rather be in a Valentine or Crusader than a Honey or Lee/Grant.

Blutarski2004
07-01-2008, 08:59 AM
Where was the LW defeated?

If one is willing to accept that destruction of aircraft, death or capture of pilots, damage to aircraft manufacturing facilities, denial of facilities and airspace for pilot training, and the destruction of the German fuel industry represented important factors in the defeat of the LW, then, on every point, it was the air war in the West that dominated.

By "West" I mean: Europe/Med/African theaters.

This issue has been argued at great length in previous threads and the conclusion is IMO unavoidably obivous to any objective reader.

Looking at LW aircraft/pilot losses alone, the VAST majority occured in the West. Anyone interested in doing the math for themselves can Google up Atkinson Murray's book "Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945" [available on-line]. All Murray's data come from official wartime LW archives.

What was the implication of this with respect to the war in the East? The Wehrmacht was forced to withdraw very substantial airpower assets from the East, including a number of bomber formations, which crippled the tactical air support which had hitherto been one of the absolute foundation stones of successful Blitzkrieg ground tactics. The difference in effectiveness of early-war versus late-war German ground tactics, particularly with respect to their armored and motorized formations, was profound.

Kurfurst__
07-01-2008, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jasonbirder:
The british never fielded a capable tank

Compare the Cromwell with the Sherman, and the Crowell comes out very favourably: equal or superior armour protection, better reliability and mauverability, superior cross country and road speed, lower shilouette. All in a tank 4 tons lighter than the Sherman. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you other points, but as far as protection goes, the Cromwell was protected only poorly and in an old-fashioned way, while the Sherman was not bad at all actually - it just happened it faced the best tank guns of the world. Overall the later versions of the Cromwells with the 75mm guns were not bad - the 6pdr version is another matter: it simply lacked HE firepower. Cross country mobility wasn't the forté of the Cromwell; but then again, the Sherman was not particularly shiny when it came to muddy terrain either.

BWaltteri
07-01-2008, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Where was the LW defeated?

If one is willing to accept that destruction of aircraft, death or capture of pilots, damage to aircraft manufacturing facilities, denial of facilities and airspace for pilot training, and the destruction of the German fuel industry represented important factors in the defeat of the LW, then, on every point, it was the air war in the West that dominated.

By "West" I mean: Europe/Med/African theaters.

This issue has been argued at great length in previous threads and the conclusion is IMO unavoidably obivous to any objective reader.

Looking at LW aircraft/pilot losses alone, the VAST majority occured in the West. Anyone interested in doing the math for themselves can Google up Atkinson Murray's book "Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945" [available on-line]. All Murray's data come from official wartime LW archives.

What was the implication of this with respect to the war in the East? The Wehrmacht was forced to withdraw very substantial airpower assets from the East, including a number of bomber formations, which crippled the tactical air support which had hitherto been one of the absolute foundation stones of successful Blitzkrieg ground tactics. The difference in effectiveness of early-war versus late-war German ground tactics, particularly with respect to their armored and motorized formations, was profound.

Luftwaffe was not defeated. Maybe it was short of everything in the end but it kept fighting up to the last day of war.

The German loss was not LW's fault.

Kurfurst__
07-01-2008, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Where was the LW defeated?

If one is willing to accept that destruction of aircraft, death or capture of pilots, damage to aircraft manufacturing facilities, denial of facilities and airspace for pilot training, and the destruction of the German fuel industry represented important factors in the defeat of the LW, then, on every point, it was the air war in the West that dominated.

... if we limit our timeframe to the post-June 1944 period, then yes. However, I believe there was a bit of air combat before June 1944 as well.



Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Looking at LW aircraft/pilot losses alone, the VAST majority occured in the West.

It is doubtful, the actual number was closer to around 50%, but as noted, the losses are not evenly spread across the timeframe.

Xiolablu3
07-01-2008, 10:17 AM
I dont think we can say that the Luftwaffe was really beaten until 1944.

The Channel front was stalemate.

I know that they lost quite a few aircraft in the Med. At one point in 1942 there were 500 Luftwaffe Aircraft and 300 Italian attacking small forces of RAF planes until the RAF got the upper hand.

However basically they lost Ace and Veteran pilots at a steady rate through the war, which was in the end catastrophic.

By the time 1944 came around, the class of Luftwaffe pilot was far lower in general than 1940.

Blutarski2004
07-01-2008, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by BWaltteri:
Luftwaffe was not defeated. Maybe it was short of everything in the end but it kept fighting up to the last day of war.


..... I make the "defeat" argument in the sense that by late 1944 the LW was no longer able to effectively contest control of the air. I do not argue that they ever surrendered or failed to give 100 pct of all possible effort.




The German loss was not LW's fault.

..... On this point there is absolutely no disagreement.

JtD
07-01-2008, 11:43 AM
I just meant to say no matter how important the air force was in the PTO, important battles were still won by ground forces.

Blutarski2004
07-01-2008, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
... if we limit our timeframe to the post-June 1944 period, then yes. However, I believe there was a bit of air combat before June 1944 as well.

..... Love ya, Kurfie. The particular time-frames within which any given component of the vistory was achieved is not material to the basic argument, which is that the western allied air forces were principally responsible for all the factors which produced the ultimate collapse of the LW in late 1944.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Looking at LW aircraft/pilot losses alone, the VAST majority occured in the West.

It is doubtful, the actual number was closer to around 50%, but as noted, the losses are not evenly spread across the timeframe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... The official LW losses in the West versus those in the East are freely available. I invite interested parties to do the math for themselves.

For example, between June 1942 and Nov 1943 -

Total losses, all types Jun-Dec 1942:
West - 2547
East - 2388

Total losses, all types Jan-Nov 1943:
West - 8159
East - 3773

Kurfurst__
07-01-2008, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Love ya, Kurfie.

I doubt that. Your self-embarrassments - well, with a bit of helphttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - in the past give no reason for that.


Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

The particular time-frames within which any given component of the vistory was achieved is not material to the basic argument, which is that the western allied air forces were principally responsible for all the factors which produced the ultimate collapse of the LW in late 1944.

That`s your argument only, I am afraid. If you feel the need to jump on your old bandwagon, why not do it in a new thread?



Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

It is doubtful, the actual number was closer to around 50%, but as noted, the losses are not evenly spread across the timeframe.

..... The official LW losses in the West versus those in the East are freely available.[/QUOTE]

Lies, damned lies, statistics.

Define your term for 'loss', and also what do you include in 'all types'.

Blutarski2004
07-01-2008, 12:36 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 Blutarski2004:
..... Love ya, Kurfie.

I doubt that. Your self-embarrassments - well, with a bit of helphttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif - in the past give no reason for that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Relax. It was meant in all honesty, Kurfie. There was no intent to insult or belittle you.



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 Blutarski2004:
The particular time-frames within which any given component of the vistory was achieved is not material to the basic argument, which is that the western allied air forces were principally responsible for all the factors which produced the ultimate collapse of the LW in late 1944.

That`s your argument only, I am afraid. If you feel the need to jump on your old bandwagon, why not do it in a new thread? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Gee, this thread is entitled " Was the Luftwaffe Defeated on the East Front and Not the West?". Where did I go wrong? If I didn't err in placing my post on this thread, do you have anything useful to say about it?



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 Blutarski2004:
..... The official LW losses in the West versus those in the East are freely available.

Lies, damned lies, statistics.

Define your term for 'loss', and also what do you include in 'all types'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Murray cites original Luftwaffe data. I assume you ar familiar with their statistical definitions of 'loss', 'all types'. Now, of course, I don't know if Murray cited official Luftwaffe lies, official Luftwaffe damn lies, or official Luftwaffe statistics; he claims they are statistics. Maybe you can help me out on that issue.....

Kurfurst__
07-01-2008, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... The official LW losses in the West versus those in the East are freely available.

Lies, damned lies, statistics.

Define your term for 'loss', and also what do you include in 'all types'.[/QUOTE]

..... Murray cites original Luftwaffe data. I assume you ar familiar with their statistical definitions of 'loss', 'all types'. Now, of course, I don't know if Murray cited official Luftwaffe lies, official Luftwaffe damn lies, or official Luftwaffe statistics; he claims they are statistics. Maybe you can help me out on that issue.....[/QUOTE]

... that is not an answer. It is an evasion.

Blutarski2004
07-01-2008, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Define your term for 'loss', and also what do you include in 'all types'.


..... Murray cites original Luftwaffe data. I assume you are familiar with their statistical definitions of 'loss', 'all types'. Now, of course, I don't know if Murray cited official Luftwaffe lies, official Luftwaffe damn lies, or official Luftwaffe statistics; he claims they are statistics. Maybe you can help me out on that issue.....

... that is not an answer. It is an evasion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


.....How, pray tell, is it an evasion? I cited data from Murray's book. Murray's references cite his sources as official LW wartime records.

The book is freely available on-line, Kurfurst; you can find it on books.Google.com. Go do your own homework if you think the figures are bogus.

Clearly, time has not mellowed you.

Kurfurst__
07-01-2008, 01:24 PM
The reason I ask is that, for example, Murray in some comparisons conveniently of OOBs ignores whole arms of the Luftwaffe - Schlacht units, for example. Now, there were a lot of Schlacht units on the Eastern front but pretty few on the Western front. I wonder if that is the same case with these losses you have cited.

IMHO many of Murray`s conclusions are rather questionable. He cites an impressive amount of statistics, but often showing unable to properly and thoroughly analyse them. For example, the relative loss of Bf 109 production at the end of 1943 he attributes the Schweinfurt and the attacks on the ball bearing plants; but then it does not explain why 190 production kept rising. Clearly he did not do his homework there properly investigating the true causes, but arrived to his conclusions maybe too quickly.

Just throwing around some statistics pre-processed by Murray who`s book overall does not impress me much either is not enough I am afraid. For start, Murray in the first place is the first and foremost representative of the theory you represent.

Blutarski2004
07-01-2008, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The reason I ask is that, for example, Murray in some comparisons conveniently of OOBs ignores whole arms of the Luftwaffe - Schlacht units, for example. Now, there were a lot of Schlacht units on the Eastern front but pretty few on the Western front. I wonder if that is the same case with these losses you have cited.

IMHO many of Murray`s conclusions are rather questionable. He cites an impressive amount of statistics, but often showing unable to properly and thoroughly analyse them. For example, the relative loss of Bf 109 production at the end of 1943 he attributes the Schweinfurt and the attacks on the ball bearing plants; but then it does not explain why 190 production kept rising. Clearly he did not do his homework there properly investigating the true causes, but arrived to his conclusions maybe too quickly.

Just throwing around some statistics pre-processed by Murray who`s book overall does not impress me much either is not enough I am afraid. For start, Murray in the first place is the first and foremost representative of the theory you represent.


..... Do you have any better data to contribute?

Kettenhunde
07-01-2008, 02:19 PM
Eastern historians argue that the back of the Luftwaffe had already been broken in the fight against the Soviet Union. What are the facts? Where was the battle for air superiority fought and lost?



4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.


http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

JSG72
07-01-2008, 02:22 PM
I Have! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But then since You can read but don't understand. It would appear to be pointless?

Unless you really want to know? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Story of IL2 Forum Threads actually? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Blutarski2004
07-01-2008, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Eastern historians argue that the back of the Luftwaffe had already been broken in the fight against the Soviet Union. What are the facts? Where was the battle for air superiority fought and lost?



4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.


http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Thanks for posting that, Kettenhunde. I think that covers the question pretty well.

Freiwillige
07-01-2008, 03:21 PM
I know that this is an overly simplistic answer to a more complex question but in most of my learnings, video's, books and studies on the Luftwaffe ive come across this more than a few times.

The German experten tend to hold the British in the highest regard as opponents. Americans a little less and the Soviets with an almost
contempt as to their skill as pilots.
Thats the general concensus from what I have picked up over the years.

leitmotiv
07-01-2008, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Hoenire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blindman-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoenire:
Stupid question.

You don't defeat an air force, you defeat a country. You can minimise the effectiveness of an air force but that doesn't much if you can't beat the army on the ground.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Being a teacher by profession this type of comment really irritates me, as I bend over backwards trying to get my students to feel free to ask any question, telling them that there really are no stupid questions (only stupid answers).

If you have a question, always feel free to ask it, and most often the answer will benefit many of those hearing it. If it is a question that everyone else knows the answer to does not make it stupid or less worthy of asking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I presume that you do not teach your students to think first before opening their mouths, or do you just spoon-feed the curriculum? And before anyone spouts the rubbish about there being "No stupid questions, only stupid answers", I'm pretty sure that most of us can remember asking a stupid question at some point. I ask a couple every week but I don't blind myself to seeing it, I'm just embarrassed.

Being a lawyer by profession it always amazes me that people do not think before acting. A moment's thought would have brought the realisation that air forces aren't defeated, just rendered less effective (and this isn't the same thing at all).

Maybe there are no stupid questions, just stupid people? No Avro, I don't think you're stupid, just lazy in your thinking or phrasing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If the question had been phrased differently then you'd probably have had a constructive comment from me instead of a withering critique. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rarely on these forums have we had the honor of being visited by such a preening hubristic ego. We are not discussing semantics. This kind of churlish parsing, most common to the blighted profession of law or, sometimes, English teachers, is "not done" among fellows having a general discussion. Perhaps you wish to announce your profession in order to let us know you think you have special qualifications for discussing the doom of the German air arm? In which case I, a history person by training, would say "tosh"---lawyers can't bear a fact which has not been subjugated to their meretricious embellishment until dawn is sunset and sunset is dawn.

JSG72
07-01-2008, 04:04 PM
Leitmotiv?

What P**h You spake!

However!

You can't beat a forever drunken arguament. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
07-02-2008, 05:01 AM
Just one point, that I have never really been able to understand.

According to the numbers of planes built, from the end of 1944 there were 2000 Fw190D's produced and 1800 109K4's. But just where did all these planes go?

Did the Allies really destroy 4000 planes *just of these 2 types* in the last 3 months of the war?

SOmething doesnt add up there, as far as I can see, unless most were destroyed on their way to the factories or before being used.

Freiwillige
07-02-2008, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just one point, that I have never really been able to understand.

According to the numbers of planes built, from the end of 1944 there were 2000 Fw190D's produced and 1800 109K4's. But just where did all these planes go?

Did the Allies really destroy 4000 planes *just of these 2 types* in the last 3 months of the war?

SOmething doesnt add up there, as far as I can see, unless most were destroyed on their way to the factories or before being used.

I think alot of them just sat around for a complete lack of fuel. Just because they were delivered doesnt mean that a particular JG had the resourses to fly them. TH fuel problem was so bad at the end that aircraft were pushed out to the flight line because taxi'ing took up to much fuel.

luftluuver
07-02-2008, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
According to the numbers of planes built, from the end of 1944 there were 2000 Fw190D's produced and 1800 109K4's.
Stop your exaggerating Xio. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif There was just under 1600 neubau Ks built. Dora 9 production was just slightly over 1800 units.

K 4: Sept 15, Oct 293, Nov 221, Dec 325, Jan 338, Feb 233, Mar 168, total 1593

Dora 9 production began in Aug 44.

JtD
07-02-2008, 09:48 AM
Every battle the Luftwaffe entered produced a higher turnover in men and material than could be sustained. One could argue if that was already the case in Poland, but thereafter it definitely happened. So when the war went on and on with little to no time to replace the losses with equal quality material, the Luftwaffe slowly but steadily lost it's edge. And as it lost it's edge, the turnover increased. The Luftwaffe was defeated on all Fronts. Because of the combined effort.

The Luftwaffe was made for short, intensive campaigns of tactical support, the was no strategy in Germany about how to deal with a long, strategic war, not on the front, and much less in the flying schools and factories.

Xiolablu3
07-02-2008, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
According to the numbers of planes built, from the end of 1944 there were 2000 Fw190D's produced and 1800 109K4's.
Stop your exaggerating Xio. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif There was just under 1600 neubau Ks built. Dora 9 production was just slightly over 1800 units.

K 4: Sept 15, Oct 293, Nov 221, Dec 325, Jan 338, Feb 233, Mar 168, total 1593

Dora 9 production began in Aug 44. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats still an incredible number of losses/planes, however mate.

Most of these could never have got airbourne, or must have been destroyed on the ground.

waffen-79
07-02-2008, 11:19 AM
There is no doubt in my mind that:

The Red Army, defeated the Wehrmacht

The combined efforts of Bomber Command and the 8th Air Force defeated the Luftwaffe ON THE GROUND

regards

JtD
07-02-2008, 12:03 PM
Most of the Luftwaffe ground forces were lost on the Eastern front, I think. They made the largest part of the Luftwaffe anyway.

Kurfurst__
07-02-2008, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just one point, that I have never really been able to understand.

According to the numbers of planes built, from the end of 1944 there were 2000 Fw190D's produced and 1800 109K4's. But just where did all these planes go?

Did the Allies really destroy 4000 planes *just of these 2 types* in the last 3 months of the war?

SOmething doesnt add up there, as far as I can see, unless most were destroyed on their way to the factories or before being used.

The US produced over 300 000 aircraft during the war. They had very roughly about 30 000 by the wars end.

Following your logic...

But I think this was discussed a couple of dozen times.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109Neubau.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/HuHun_LWForceStructure/LWaircraft_per_task.png

Saburo_0
07-02-2008, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoenire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blindman-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoenire:
Stupid question.

You don't defeat an air force, you defeat a country. You can minimise the effectiveness of an air force but that doesn't much if you can't beat the army on the ground.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Being a teacher by profession this type of comment really irritates me, as I bend over backwards trying to get my students to feel free to ask any question, telling them that there really are no stupid questions (only stupid answers).

If you have a question, always feel free to ask it, and most often the answer will benefit many of those hearing it. If it is a question that everyone else knows the answer to does not make it stupid or less worthy of asking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I presume that you do not teach your students to think first before opening their mouths, or do you just spoon-feed the curriculum? And before anyone spouts the rubbish about there being "No stupid questions, only stupid answers", I'm pretty sure that most of us can remember asking a stupid question at some point. I ask a couple every week but I don't blind myself to seeing it, I'm just embarrassed.

Being a lawyer by profession it always amazes me that people do not think before acting. A moment's thought would have brought the realisation that air forces aren't defeated, just rendered less effective (and this isn't the same thing at all).

Maybe there are no stupid questions, just stupid people? No Avro, I don't think you're stupid, just lazy in your thinking or phrasing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If the question had been phrased differently then you'd probably have had a constructive comment from me instead of a withering critique. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rarely on these forums have we had the honor of being visited by such a preening hubristic ego. We are not discussing semantics. This kind of churlish parsing, most common to the blighted profession of law or, sometimes, English teachers, is "not done" among fellows having a general discussion. Perhaps you wish to announce your profession in order to let us know you think you have special qualifications for discussing the doom of the German air arm? In which case I, a history person by training, would say "tosh"---lawyers can't bear a fact which has not been subjugated to their meretricious embellishment until dawn is sunset and sunset is dawn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
May I just add that this "stupid" question has yielded some really intelligent and interesting posts/ discussion. ??????
It IS a very good question. IMHO.

& BTW some of you may enjoy the book Why the Allies Won. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Allies-Won-Richard-Overy/dp/039331619X

Gumtree
07-03-2008, 01:09 AM
From many years of reading tomes written on the art of war and those that practice it, I am stunned to find in these 4 pages people who share the opinion that Air power was not decisive in the second world war.

An old maxim goes something like 'whoever holds the high ground , controls the initiative' has been passed down from ancient times.

Towns and castles were built on hills, when WW1 came about thousands lost their lives for a piece of ground perhaps only 40 feet higher than the ground they started on.

When air power came on to the scene man fought for its domination. During the brutal fighting in North Africa Rommel learnt that the West fought by dominating the sky and thus rendering all tactical and even Strategic movement difficult if not impossible.

Air supremacy lead to a strangling of the ground troops as they could not move or fight due to lack of supplies.

If your enemy has air supremacy over the battlefield then you are worse off than a boxer with one hand tied behind your back and you shoes tied together full stop!

To think or even say that Air power is not the most dominate weapon on the battlefield is, in my opinion, completely off the mark.

Rommel new it and spent days arguing with Hitler and the East Front Generals on how to defeat the invasion. He lost the argument and the Panzer reserve was given to an ex East front Tank veteran called Geyr von Schweppenburg. His handling of the crucial Tank divisions led to their being too late to affect the decisive landing period.

The reason was simple, Air power! It let him move by night alone and when it did mass for attack it risked disruption by the Tactical air forces.

The Allies controlled the high ground and could see what the Germans where up to and react accordingly.

During Gulf War 1 the allied air power caused such dislocation of the Iraqi land forces that once the ground attack came, a walk over ensued.

There is no doubt that ground troops hold the ground and exploit the victory, yet I subscribe to the premise that Air Power is first and foremost amongst the military arms.

Just my opinion of course.

jasonbirder
07-03-2008, 03:40 AM
When air power came on to the scene man fought for its domination. During the brutal fighting in North Africa Rommel learnt that the West fought by dominating the sky and thus rendering all tactical and even Strategic movement difficult if not impossible.

Rommel in the desert was defeated principally by British Naval Power...Without reliable convoys to support and supply his troops in North Africa they found themselves short of Everything which ultimately brought about their defeat...The limitations of Airpower can be seen in that even when the Italians and Germans were completely dominant over the Central Mediterranean Allied Naval Forces were able to operate with relative impunity - and British Submarines were even able to operate from Malta at the height of the Malta Blitz!


Rommel new it and spent days arguing with Hitler and the East Front Generals on how to defeat the invasion. He lost the argument and the Panzer reserve was given to an ex East front Tank veteran called Geyr von Schweppenburg. His handling of the crucial Tank divisions led to their being too late to affect the decisive landing period.

The reason was simple, Air power! It let him move by night alone and when it did mass for attack it risked disruption by the Tactical air forces.

It is arguable that the confused command situation caused as much disruption to the defence efforts as did Allied Air Power - it has been shown time and time again that the effectiveness of Air Attacks on Ground Forces have been continually over-estimated. Besides in the context of the overall conflict...D-Day was mid 1944, was there any doubt about Germanys ultimate defeat at that stage? Regardless of Air Superiority over the Normandy battlefields?

Gumtree
07-03-2008, 04:27 AM
It was mainly the air power from Malta that sank the convoys and the air power that disrupted the German movement and command on the battle field and on the rail system that supplied the same.
Tactical attacks have a far greater effect than pure damage.

If you want proof from a direct source read the Rommel papers fro a start then any of the many books on Normandy will I feel lead you to the same conclusion.

Freiwillige
07-03-2008, 04:31 AM
D-Day was mid 1944, was there any doubt about Germanys ultimate defeat at that stage? Regardless of Air Superiority over the Normandy battlefields?

Yes plenty of doubt. Read June 1944. That book claims that pre 6/44' the axis powers were far from beaten but after 6/44' their fate was sealed! Japan too had lost some major battles in June of 44' that were irreversible. But prior to that it was quit possable that the allied landings in Normandy could have turned into another Dieppe. If the Allies failed then another assault would be a ways off and Germany could have fortified its eastern front. Even in the end when Germany was beaten somebody failed to notify the Germans! Seelow heights an undermanned German defensive position stopped Zhukov in his tracks for 24 hours and the losses were 30,000 Germans for 100,000 Russians.

Xiolablu3
07-03-2008, 04:40 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 Xiolablu3:
Just one point, that I have never really been able to understand.

According to the numbers of planes built, from the end of 1944 there were 2000 Fw190D's produced and 1800 109K4's. But just where did all these planes go?

Did the Allies really destroy 4000 planes *just of these 2 types* in the last 3 months of the war?

SOmething doesnt add up there, as far as I can see, unless most were destroyed on their way to the factories or before being used.

The US produced over 300 000 aircraft during the war. They had very roughly about 30 000 by the wars end.

Following your logic...

But I think this was discussed a couple of dozen times.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I brought it up a couple of times but I never receieved a satisfactory answer apart from 'They all went into storage', which is incredibly vague IMO.



Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109Neubau.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/HuHun_LWForceStructure/LWaircraft_per_task.png

Can you explain why the graphs answer my question? Maybe I am being stupid here, but I dont connect the two.

By the way, I am not doubting that that many were built, just that most/many never got into the sky, or were destroyed right away. Otherwise the Allies would be realing from German air attacks in 1944/45, but this just didnt happen. The motto at that time was 'Wo ist der Luftwaffe', because they never had any air support. Also the Germans on the Western front fired on EVERY plane they saw because they could be 99% sure it was Allied. See what happened on Bodenplatte, many many planes lost to their own AAA, they were just convinced that a large group of planes MUST be Allied.

My argument is that, although many, many 1000's of planes were built, that it is quite irrelevant because most of them never even got into the sky.

Also can you tell me what Umbau and Neubau are please?

stathem
07-03-2008, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by Gumtree:
It was mainly the air power from Malta that sank the convoys and the air power that disrupted the German movement and command on the battle field and on the rail system that supplied the same.
Tactical attacks have a far greater effect than pure damage.

If you want proof from a direct source read the Rommel papers fro a start then any of the many books on Normandy will I feel lead you to the same conclusion.

agreed wholeheartdly and...

...people always seem to forget the importance of reconnaisance. (although they may be able to spell it better than me)

Airpower enabled the Med convoys to be found and engaged by the RN. Ok, they had Ultra but that only gave an indicaton of when and roughly where to look...the recce pilots on Malta still had to go out and find the convoys.

Xiolablu3
07-03-2008, 04:57 AM
I agree about the Med, people tend to remember North Africa and D-day, but forget about the drive up Italy and think that the Western Allies were just sitting around until mid-1944.

There was some incredibly hard fighting done in the drive up Italy, which needed air power/support.

Kurfurst__
07-03-2008, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I brought it up a couple of times but I never receieved a satisfactory answer apart from 'They all went into storage', which is incredibly vague IMO.

I cant help it if you simply want to refuse the most logical explanation and instead keep repeating the same story about how hundreds of planes 'must have been' disappeared without a trace.


Can you explain why the graphs answer my question? Maybe I am being stupid here, but I dont connect the two.

Well you seem to suggest the Luftwaffe`s strenght was declining in frontline strenght - the graphs compiled from the frontline strenght reports made by the LW between 1942-1944 seem to disagree.


By the way, I am not doubting that that many were built, just that most/many never got into the sky, or were destroyed right away.

The same must have happened then to a lot of Mustangs, Spitfires, Tempest, Hurricanes, P-47s through the war. 'They never got into the sky or were destroyed right away.'

As curiously, just like in the case of the Luftwaffe, we find that only a fraction of the produced aircraft were doing active service at a time. The others waited in storage - for a pilot to fly them, a unit to be issued to, or a worn or heavily damaged airframe to replace.


Otherwise the Allies would be realing from German air attacks in 1944/45, but this just didnt happen.

Again, where were those ca. 500 000 American, Soviet and British aircraft produced during the war in 1945? Can you answer that question?

Certainly they were not up in the sky.


The motto at that time was 'Wo ist der Luftwaffe', because they never had any air support. Also the Germans on the Western front fired on EVERY plane they saw because they could be 99% sure it was Allied. See what happened on Bodenplatte, many many planes lost to their own AAA, they were just convinced that a large group of planes MUST be Allied.

Again we enter the realm of gross generalisations and wishful thinking. I wonder what GIs being strafed in April 1945 on the Autobahn in Bavaria has to say on the subject.


My argument is that, although many, many 1000's of planes were built, that it is quite irrelevant because most of them never even got into the sky.

It must hold even more true to aircraft of which not even 1000 were built.


Also can you tell me what Umbau and Neubau are please?

Neubau is an airframe produced fresh new - typically 109Ks and G-10s in 1944.
Umbau aircraft are converted/upgraded existing aiframes - typically early production G-6/AS and G-14.
Its just a note that about half of the G-6/AS 'production' is missing from my graphs, because we dont know how many were converted exactly.

Falcke
07-03-2008, 06:16 AM
Also can you tell me what Umbau and Neubau are please?

EDIT: Ok nevermind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
07-03-2008, 06:46 AM
Kurfy, you MUST have read 'I flew for the Fuhrer', the book gets extremely depressing at the end, around 4 battered 109G's being thrown desperately at 1000's of Allied planes. And this is late 1944, not even 1945.

By the end of 1944 when Knocke is wounded he absolutely knows the air war is lost and its all over. He knows the planes are unsafe to fly in his last missions, but he does it anyway, through duty.

Why did they not just grab one of the 1000's of brand new, pristine FW190D9, Me262 or 109K4 from 'storage'?

If you are convinced there was absolutely no shortage of top notch planes, did they just deny them to KNockes squadron? Is he lying? This is why I say 'something doesnt add up here' when you try to tell us there were many 1000's of these late war LW planes available. Knockes squadron is basically out of decent planes in late 1944 and resort to flying unsafe birds.

If you have a good explanation then I am definitely all ears and willing to change my mind.

PS. I dont have the book to hand, I have lent it a friend, so if I get details wrong, dont crucify me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
07-03-2008, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Here is a small list of what U.S. gave the Russian's.

Hurricane 2952
Spitfire 1331


Do I have to point out whats wrong what that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
07-03-2008, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


The same must have happened then to a lot of Mustangs, Spitfires, Tempest, Hurricanes, P-47s through the war. 'They never got into the sky or were destroyed right away.'


Not nearly as many. In fact hardly any Tempests were destroyed on the ground, most were taken down by flak. C'mon Kurfy, its well known that a large amount of LW aircraft were destroyed on the ground late in the war.

luftluuver
07-03-2008, 07:23 AM
Luftwaffe Order of Battle
10 January 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1462
and a total of 4566 a/c.

And if one looks at the units one will find they are not up to establishment strength. Hard to understand that with so many a/c 'sitting around in storage'.

At the same time in the ETO/MTO the USAAF had 17,575 a/c.

see http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t088.pdf

And a total of 71,430 a/c.

Frequent_Flyer
07-03-2008, 11:47 AM
In the begining, the Russians were unorganized, unskilled and flew aircraft of inferior quality. These undisputed facts, unwittingly to the Germans, covered up a great number of tatical, leadership and design defiececies. True to the proverb, Germany only rose to the level of its adversary. Nothing the Germans experienced in the East could have prepared them for the airwar with the west. With the possible exception being their fighter's were woefully defceint in range. Had they developed a long range heavy bomber and its complementry escort fighter. They may have been able to reach the Russian production facilitys in the critical early stages of the war.

The Germans and Russians fought a short range tactical airwar. Each side trying to defend/ attack a fluid concentration of air and ground military assets. Neither side produced a long range fighter so these assets by necessity were close to the action and in harms way. Even the largest concentration of aircraft airborn and engaged, for one " battle " paled in comparision to what was on the Western horizon .

Moving West, Germany did not posses nor develop the leadership necessary to coordinate its efforts on the scale to compete, let alone defeat the western strategic bombing doctrine. The organizational, logistical and industrial skills the west developed for the this doctrine explotied every weakness the Luftwaffe had.

Technically they had no answer for the high altitude, long range bombers and escorts. They could not effectively move thier stationay production and fuel facilities. There leadership was not equiped to organize and coordinate the resistance necessary to repell the miles of bomber streams operating high over their very homeland. Even if the could have produced on par with the US, the self-fulfillig profecy of destroying Germany's ability to wage war rendered this moot. The destruction of these facilities meant less aircraft could be produced and sent East,. Combine this with the shifting of their air assets west, life is now easier for the VVS and ground forces.
The high altitude strategic bombing as evinced by the losses in both aircraft ( total west vs. total losses in east) fuel prodution and other critical assets. Was the primary reason the allies defeated the Luftwaffe and Germany.

Hoenire
07-03-2008, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoenire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blindman-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoenire:
Stupid question.

You don't defeat an air force, you defeat a country. You can minimise the effectiveness of an air force but that doesn't much if you can't beat the army on the ground.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Being a teacher by profession this type of comment really irritates me, as I bend over backwards trying to get my students to feel free to ask any question, telling them that there really are no stupid questions (only stupid answers).

If you have a question, always feel free to ask it, and most often the answer will benefit many of those hearing it. If it is a question that everyone else knows the answer to does not make it stupid or less worthy of asking. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I presume that you do not teach your students to think first before opening their mouths, or do you just spoon-feed the curriculum? And before anyone spouts the rubbish about there being "No stupid questions, only stupid answers", I'm pretty sure that most of us can remember asking a stupid question at some point. I ask a couple every week but I don't blind myself to seeing it, I'm just embarrassed.

Being a lawyer by profession it always amazes me that people do not think before acting. A moment's thought would have brought the realisation that air forces aren't defeated, just rendered less effective (and this isn't the same thing at all).

Maybe there are no stupid questions, just stupid people? No Avro, I don't think you're stupid, just lazy in your thinking or phrasing! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If the question had been phrased differently then you'd probably have had a constructive comment from me instead of a withering critique. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rarely on these forums have we had the honor of being visited by such a preening hubristic ego. We are not discussing semantics. This kind of churlish parsing, most common to the blighted profession of law or, sometimes, English teachers, is "not done" among fellows having a general discussion. Perhaps you wish to announce your profession in order to let us know you think you have special qualifications for discussing the doom of the German air arm? In which case I, a history person by training, would say "tosh"---lawyers can't bear a fact which has not been subjugated to their meretricious embellishment until dawn is sunset and sunset is dawn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe talk about preening hubristic ego... If you look carefully you'll note I was parrotting the person I was replying to. As you're a history person (what on earth is a history person? A historian or someone who once took some history exams and now does something else?) by training obviously everything you say or write follows research that is open to interpretation by whoever wants to question your conclusions.

Oh, I forgot you're also a professional on professionals. Take the blinkers off, there's a good fellow. What you really should have done was ignore the posts and thus proven yourself so much more mature.

This is fun! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ps Without semantics the meaning of the question is entirely lost. Look at the replies in the second and third pages and perhaps, just perhaps, you'll understand what I mean.

Blutarski2004
07-03-2008, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Hoenire:
Hehe talk about preening hubristic ego... If you look carefully you'll note I was parrotting the person I was replying to. As you're a history person (what on earth is a history person? A historian or someone who once took some history exams and now does something else?) by training obviously everything you say or write follows research that is open to interpretation by whoever wants to question your conclusions.

Oh, I forgot you're also a professional on professionals. Take the blinkers off, there's a good fellow. What you really should have done was ignore the posts and thus proven yourself so much more mature.

This is fun! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ps Without semantics the meaning of the question is entirely lost. Look at the replies in the second and third pages and perhaps, just perhaps, you'll understand what I mean.


..... You may recall that Churchill referred to himself as a "former naval person", so the self-appellation of "history person" is hardly the awkward phrase you so slyly imply it to be. But then I understand that you're just out for a bit of fun.

You're correct that a trained historian understands that "everything you say or write follows research that is open to interpretation by whoever wants to question your conclusions." History persons do engage one another in the manner you describe. In that sense, they are much like attorneys, but are accustomed to do so with less resort to rhetorical device.

JtD
07-03-2008, 02:02 PM
Frequent Flyer, do you know how what happened when and where in the air war over Europe in WW2?

Kurfurst__
07-03-2008, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kurfy, you MUST have read 'I flew for the Fuhrer', the book gets extremely depressing at the end, around 4 battered 109G's being thrown desperately at 1000's of Allied planes. And this is late 1944, not even 1945.

I am not sure what are you talking about - Knoke was heavily wounded when his car went on a mine in October 1944. He was commanding III/JG 1 between August - October 1944. In the last 6 months his unit sustained severe losses was re-filled several times with pilots and equipment.

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg1.html

Records of his unit indicate they received 69 new aircraft (G-14s) in October 1944, reaching maximum strenght again. Undoubtfully JG 1 was very severely mauled during 1944.



Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Why did they not just grab one of the 1000's of brand new, pristine FW190D9, Me262 or 109K4 from 'storage'?

They did.

In June 1944, 63 aircraft received from factories, 12 from repair centres, 14 transferred from other units. By July they were actually above authorized strenght.
In July 1944, 41 aircraft received from factories, again they are near autorized strenght.

During Augst they receive a couple of aircraft, but loose most in the general retreat from the West.

The unit is withdrawn for rest and refit for September.

In October the unit is rebuilt with 69 new G-14s (again they are above authrozed strenght, now authorized Gruppe actually increased to 68 aircraft. Each Wing (Gruppe) gets an extra Squadron, and each Regiment (JG) gets and extra Wing in its order of battle).

During December again they take heavy losses and by end of the month the unit only reports 18 aircraft - again they are refitted with 109Gs and Ks in January 1945. And so on.

You can check III/JG1`s equipment status here : http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg1.html




If you are convinced there was absolutely no shortage of top notch planes, did they just deny them to KNockes squadron? Is he lying? This is why I say 'something doesnt add up here' when you try to tell us there were many 1000's of these late war LW planes available. Knockes squadron is basically out of decent planes in late 1944 and resort to flying unsafe birds.

Denied? His unit received alone in the last six months of 1944 some 200 brand new fighter aircraft in six months, some 28 from repair centres and 23 from other units. III/JG 1 received more new aircraft alone than the entire RAF got Mk XIV Spits in 1944. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This doesnt sound 'denied of reinforcements' to me. In fact, there was such a surplus of planes resting in the depots that usually they did not even bother to repair even the slightly damaged ones - it was much simplier to just grab a new one from a nearby depot.

'Leutnant Hans-Ulrich Flade, a Bf 109 pilot with II./JG 27. recalled that if a fighter were damaged it was simplier to get a new one than to make repairs:

We simply went to the depot nearby, where they had hundreds of brand new 109s - G-10s, G-14s and even the very latest K models. There was no proper organisation anymore: the depot staff just said, 'There are the aircraft, take what you want and go away'. But getting fuel - that was more difficult'.

See Alfred Price: Last year of the Luftwaffe Page 130.

Kurfurst__
07-03-2008, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


The same must have happened then to a lot of Mustangs, Spitfires, Tempest, Hurricanes, P-47s through the war. 'They never got into the sky or were destroyed right away.'


Not nearly as many. In fact hardly any Tempests were destroyed on the ground, most were taken down by flak. C'mon Kurfy, its well known that a large amount of LW aircraft were destroyed on the ground late in the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. I just demonstrate how much of a nonsense it is to argue that if only a portion of the produced planes are actively serving with the units, the rest must have been bombed or something. By the end of the war, something like a hundred Tempest were in service, which includes the immidiate reserves of the Squadrons (ie. 12 + 8-10 spares). Yet something like 6-800 were produced by the end of the war. Most of them were in storage, waiting to be issued, just like Luftwaffe fighters.

Transition is not a simple thing and it is simplier to build planes than to train pilots. All air forces had more planes at hand than pilots to fly them.

JSG72
07-03-2008, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kurfy, you MUST have read 'I flew for the Fuhrer', the book gets extremely depressing at the end, around 4 battered 109G's being thrown desperately at 1000's of Allied planes. And this is late 1944, not even 1945.

By the end of 1944 when Knocke is wounded he absolutely knows the air war is lost and its all over. He knows the planes are unsafe to fly in his last missions, but he does it anyway, through duty.

Why did they not just grab one of the 1000's of brand new, pristine FW190D9, Me262 or 109K4 from 'storage'?

If you are convinced there was absolutely no shortage of top notch planes, did they just deny them to KNockes squadron? Is he lying? This is why I say 'something doesnt add up here' when you try to tell us there were many 1000's of these late war LW planes available. Knockes squadron is basically out of decent planes in late 1944 and resort to flying unsafe birds.

If you have a good explanation then I am definitely all ears and willing to change my mind.

PS. I dont have the book to hand, I have lent it a friend, so if I get details wrong, dont crucify me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3.

I have read many instances of End of War situations where Luftwaffe pilots. who were shot down. and who contacted their Home bases of their predicament. Were instructed to go to the closest Either production, repair or holding facility and pick up a plane and fly it back.
There were many of these fascilities dotted around.Germany Austria and Czechoslovakia.
There were many airframes but few delivery pilots available.Even less fuel to fly them all the way to where they were required at the front
If you look at many of the pictures of late War Luftwaffe fighter Units you will recognise the relative jumble of fighter marks contained within what once was a coherent strong force. But now had descended to what was essentially. A Fly what you find situation. With many planes not having been given the Unit markings. It becomes a bit of a minefield trying to recognise what Unit was actually flying what towards the end.

I am aware that this is meerly a Generalisation.

But Knokes situation( Was it in Oct '44?). Was In my opinion probably born about by the fact that there was nobody available to transfer planes to IIIJG1 (Based in Belgium and under constant attack) at that time and that the Unit was better dealt with being transferred to Fels am Wegram in Austria where they would be refitted.

Kettenhunde
07-03-2008, 05:20 PM
Of course. I just demonstrate how much of a nonsense it is to argue that if only a portion of the produced planes are actively serving with the units, the rest must have been bombed or something.

Those airframes are probably in maintenance stocks. Most Air Forces maintain around a 3: 1 ratio for maintenance stocks.

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
07-03-2008, 05:35 PM
You are missing my point, and I dont have Knockes book on hand right now, so I am at a bit of a disadvantage, however...

I am not CLAIMING any certain thing happened to all these planes, just that most of never got into the air or did hardly any flying before they were destroyed or grounded through lack of fuel. You state yourself in your quote that it was extrememly hard to find fuel, so this emphasises my point even more.


You cite the 5 Spitfire XIV squadrons in the 2nd TAF as an example, they barely lost any aircraft, needing only the number you suggest were built before the nd of the war to keep their squadrons up to strenth of 100-120 aircraft. These aircraft were constantly active, no shortage of fuel, squadrons at full strenth most of the time.

Meanwhile the Luftwaffe's many 1000's of planes which were built are not being flown as they are in 'storage', or are grounded through lack of fuel, or are only flying 2 or 3 sorties before they are destroyed.

Therefore even though there may have been 1600 109K4's produced, I am willing to bet that even the RAF SPitfire XIV's performed as many, or even more meaningful sorties than the whole of the 1600 109K4's did in total.

I will reiterate my point again. That even tho there were 1600 109K4's, for example, built, most of them never got off the ground through lack of fuel, or were destroyed on the ground, or were destroyed after a couple of sorties.

As you state SPitfire XIV's as an example, I would like to add up all the SPitfire XIV's sorties in the 2nd and compare them to the total number of Bf109K4 sorties made. At a guess, I would say that the Spitfire XIV, even tho far less were built, flew more sorties and did more 'war work' than the Bf109K4 did.

It wouldnt be too hard to get a rough idea if we know how many German squadrons were eqquiped with the Bf109K4 and how many were to hand on each given day. But of course that wouldnt take into account the very, very bad fuel situation, as it states in your source.

LEXX_Luthor
07-03-2008, 05:59 PM
Xalibu (page 1)
Germany could not even subdue Britain alone, once the USA came onside it was all over, regardless of Russia being involved or not IMO. There is NO WAY that Germany could outproduce the US+UK+Canada+Austraila+Commonwealth. Eventually Germany would have fallen. Maybe it would have taken 5 more years, but eventually the massive weight of numbers of the Britian+Commonwealth+USA would have told.
Maybe. Ussia had not even begun to start war production by 1945, and actually began downsizing the war production in 1944 as the end was cleary seen. 50,000+ P-47N's per year would be my guess if the war extended a few years beyond 1945.

On the other hand, the German Army performed miracles, and it required the Soviet Union to destroy the German Army on the ground. If not for Operation Barbarossa, the whole The Meds campaign might have been a mass overun by Rommel.

Interesting ideas in an article The Demodernization of the German Army in World War 2 by Charles Winchester, pointing out the true lack of massive long term mobility which was evidenced by the German Army's dependence on horse transport and vehicles that were taken from defeated west Euro nations...

:
:
Secondly, Operation Barbarossa was undertaken with the proceeds of the biggest auto theft in history.
:
:
Yet the efficiency of the German army, on a unit-for-unit basis, remained higher than that of the Allies. Since 1945 this has drawn the attention of NATO planners, seeking to identify the source of the Wehrmacht's strength in the hope it could be replicated.

Google cache article
~>
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:fItzt0605TgJ:www.o...n&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us (http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:fItzt0605TgJ:www.ospreypublishing.c om/fetchContentPage.php/cid%3D68+%22demodernization+of+the+german+army%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)

KrashanTopolova
07-03-2008, 06:43 PM
It's possible of course to differentiate the advanced aircraft technology of the 1930's from the WW1 aircraft technology but perhaps not so possible to distance basic tactics from those used in WW1 (eg BnZ diving out of the sun). The role of the aircraft carrier is an obvious tactics exception that emerged all by itself in the WW2 Pacific,
A 'false retreat' was often used in WW1 to draw out the enemy from particular areas and positions. Stalin moved his production capability to safer areas and that appears to have tempted Hitler to go for the Russian oilfields (I stand to be corrected)
Similarly, the Buslilov Offensive of WW1 was an offensive staged to draw German forces away from Verdun France. It worked (even the Red Baron was withdrawn from supporting Verdun to the eastern front).
The Lend Lease scheme to Russia could have simply been tactical support to a member of a coalition designed to ring the 'Axis' (there is controversy over whether FD Roosevelt purposely drew Japan into a war by starving Japan of oil; all the while visioning a post-war world of his preference) Churchill always felt left out when FDR and Stalin didn't invite him to one of their talks (again I am just putting an argument).
I wonder with curiousity about global politics feeding into global military tactics. What was the reason Hitler declared war on America: (the only country he ever officially declared war on). Was it simpy an emotional reaction from inside knowledge of the workings of global politics? (I'll show you America!). Or perhaps a psychological attempt to bolster his coalition partners Italy and Japan etc into Doing the same thing in hopes of building leverage against America and Britain and Russia thus obtaining a place to negotiate a post-war world? In any case it was a very strange declaration.
In the end it could simply boil down to the fact that both the Germans and the Japanese could not afford R&R for their pilots because the amount of military hardware facing them increased...and increased,,,and got better...and increased...

Blutarski2004
07-03-2008, 07:44 PM
Read "Supplying War" by Martin van Creveld. Rommel's supply line was a single two-lane motor highway so long that half the fuel he received was burned moving his supplies from Tripoli to the front. It was the equivalent of fghting a battle in Miami while having your supplies driven down from New York.

Frequent_Flyer
07-03-2008, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Frequent Flyer, do you know how what happened when and where in the air war over Europe in WW2?

Sure do. Thanks for asking.

Equally important I know what happened in Russia, Germany ,the US and England prior to "how what happened when and where in the air war over Europe in WW2"

JtD
07-03-2008, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

Sure do. Thanks for asking.

Then why do you think the loss of fuel production, that happened half a year before the wars end, was "the primary reason the allies defeated the Luftwaffe and Germany"?

And please explain:

Technically they had no answer for the high altitude, long range bombers and escorts.

Because from what I know, the Luftwaffe was pretty effective with what it had. Just not enough of it. And I'd say the Me 262 was a state of the art interceptor.

So, technically, which nations air force was better suited to go after escorted heavy bombers at high alt?

Kurfurst__
07-04-2008, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
You are missing my point, and I dont have Knockes book on hand right now, so I am at a bit of a disadvantage, however...

I am not CLAIMING any certain thing happened to all these planes, just that most of never got into the air or did hardly any flying before they were destroyed or grounded through lack of fuel. You state yourself in your quote that it was extrememly hard to find fuel, so this emphasises my point even more.


You cite the 5 Spitfire XIV squadrons in the 2nd TAF as an example, they barely lost any aircraft, needing only the number you suggest were built before the nd of the war to keep their squadrons up to strength of 100-120 aircraft. These aircraft were constantly active, no shortage of fuel, squadrons at full strenth most of the time.

Meanwhile the Luftwaffe's many 1000's of planes which were built are not being flown as they are in 'storage', or are grounded through lack of fuel, or are only flying 2 or 3 sorties before they are destroyed.

Therefore even though there may have been 1600 109K4's produced, I am willing to bet that even the RAF SPitfire XIV's performed as many, or even more meaningful sorties than the whole of the 1600 109K4's did in total.

I will reiterate my point again. That even tho there were 1600 109K4's, for example, built, most of them never got off the ground through lack of fuel, or were destroyed on the ground, or were destroyed after a couple of sorties.

As you state SPitfire XIV's as an example, I would like to add up all the SPitfire XIV's sorties in the 2nd and compare them to the total number of Bf109K4 sorties made. At a guess, I would say that the Spitfire XIV, even tho far less were built, flew more sorties and did more 'war work' than the Bf109K4 did.

It wouldnt be too hard to get a rough idea if we know how many German squadrons were eqquiped with the Bf109K4 and how many were to hand on each given day. But of course that wouldnt take into account the very, very bad fuel situation, as it states in your source.

.... yes this has been your brainchild all along. Some time ago you worked yourself up upon learning that there were many D-9 and K-4s, G-10s were built. You started claiming that very few got to Squadrons. This was proven wrong with facts, so you started claiming they flew very few sorties. This was proven wrong with facts again. So you got back to claiming that even if there were more produced, even if there were more with the units, even if they flew a lot of sorties, *SOMEHOW*, its all irrelevant and what is relevant is how it *SHOULD HAVE* happened in your wishful thinking - like, they were all bombed before getting to units (regardless that numbers show they were getting to units in large numbers). When a pilot is quoted about how they didn`t even bothered to repair planes because there were so many around it was just easier to grab a new one, you again go back to line 1 and start over repeating the same.

Ever since you keep repeating that circle, simply ignoring the documented historical facts, and entrench yourself in this wishful thinking, make up things and put them into Knoke`s mouth, post the same bizarre nonsense in the umpteenth thread and cheerfully ignore the facts presented to you again.

Its just sad to watch that after all the facts you would need has been posted for you, you keep repeating the same like if nothing would have happened. You have entrenched yourself in a partisan stance completely. This was proven to be a nonsense far too many times, and as apparently it is a completely futile attempt to even try to convince you of something else than you wish it to be, I leave that subject to you and your fantasies.

stathem
07-04-2008, 03:26 AM
Erm, I'd just like to support but also slightly correct Xiola in this.

He didn't make the incident he attributes to Knocke up; however it was earlier than late 44.

It describes the situation post D-day (28th August) as the Luftwaffe was being pushed back.

Check my post on this thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7901028153?r=8311012453#8311012453)



One final note, and this is the one I'd ask people to consider most carefully - the 28th August 1944. Here he tells us a protracted story which leads to his last combat flight.

"This morning the Squadron serviceability report lists only four aircraft as operational. Two others with badly twisted fuselages are capable of non-operational flying only. They are such battered old crates I am not going to be responsible for sending any of my men into combat in them.
So at 0600 hours there is a telephone call from the Chief Staff officer at corps HQ. He gives me a furious reprimand.

"This morning you reported only four aircraft available for operations. I have just learned that you can still fly six. Are you crazy? Do you realise the seriousness of the situation? It is nothing but sabotage; and I am not going to tolerate it. Every one of your aircraft is to fly. That is an order!""

Kettenhunde
07-04-2008, 08:08 AM
It describes the situation post D-day (28th August) as the Luftwaffe was being pushed back.



However, a study of the air war shows that the factor which was most decisive to the Allied air superiority over Normandy in the summer of 1944, was their huge numerical superiority.

On 6 June 1944, the Allies had a total of 13,000 aircraft ready to support the Normandy invasion. The Luftwaffe had 1,300 aircraft at its peak (reached on 10 June) in France.



http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/normandy.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

hop2002
07-04-2008, 09:21 AM
You cite the 5 Spitfire XIV squadrons in the 2nd TAF as an example, they barely lost any aircraft, needing only the number you suggest were built before the nd of the war to keep their squadrons up to strength of 100-120 aircraft. These aircraft were constantly active, no shortage of fuel, squadrons at full strenth most of the time.

Meanwhile the Luftwaffe's many 1000's of planes which were built are not being flown as they are in 'storage', or are grounded through lack of fuel, or are only flying 2 or 3 sorties before they are destroyed.

Therefore even though there may have been 1600 109K4's produced, I am willing to bet that even the RAF SPitfire XIV's performed as many, or even more meaningful sorties than the whole of the 1600 109K4's did in total.

I will reiterate my point again. That even tho there were 1600 109K4's, for example, built, most of them never got off the ground through lack of fuel, or were destroyed on the ground, or were destroyed after a couple of sorties.

As you state SPitfire XIV's as an example, I would like to add up all the SPitfire XIV's sorties in the 2nd and compare them to the total number of Bf109K4 sorties made. At a guess, I would say that the Spitfire XIV, even tho far less were built, flew more sorties and did more 'war work' than the Bf109K4 did.

The Luftwaffe maintained pretty low sortie rates for much of the war. I haven't seen sortie data for late 1944 and 1945, but I'd be willing to bet it would be lower still.

Caldwell in his account of JG 26 operations has the following to say about Jan and February 1945:


The weather permitted little flying in early January, allowing the Geschwader's pilots a brief period to celebrate their own successes on New Year's Day and to give some thought to the twenty Schlageter pilots who had not returned.

<snip>

By noon on 4 January, the weather around the Geschwader's bases had cleared to a light ground haze, and the First Gruppe scheduled a training mission. Twenty-three Dora-9s took off from Fuerstenau, led by Obit. Fred Heckmann. The 4th Staffel, which was still being led in the air by Obfw. Erich Schwarz, took off last, lost the rest of the formation in the haze, and headed east, toward a formation of Allied fighter-bombers reported near Osnabrueck. Uffz. Hans Kukla's engine caught fire, and he bailed out. The rest of Schwarz's small formation was ordered to reverse course and attack a new formation near Rheine. They climbed to 16,000 feet, crossed the Dutch border, and spotted eight Typhoons beneath them, escorted by from ten to fifteen Spitfires. The German bounce was fended off by the Spitfires, and a turning combat ensued, in which the Allied aircraft held the advantage. Three Focke-Wulfs crashed, killing one pilot. The Canadian pilots of No. 411 Squadron claimed six victories in this engagement and suffered no losses. The fifteen aircraft that had stayed with Obit. Heckmann made no contact and returned to Fuerstenau without incident.

The Second Gruppe also ordered up a small formation, consisting primarily of aircraft from the 8th Staffel. Shortly after take off from Nordhorn, apparently while still forming up on the Dutch side of the nearby border, the Focke-Wulfs were hit by the Spitfires of another Canadian squadron, No 442. The German formation scattered. The Canadian pilots filed claims for one probable and one damaged. Their "probable" in fact crashed, carrying Lt Wilhelm Mayer to his death. Although a member of Gerhard Vogt's 5th Staffel, Mayer had frequently led the 8th Staffel in the air since Wilhelm Hofman's eye injury, and he was flying an 8th Staffel aircraft on this mission. Mayer was one of the most successful pilots in the Gruppe, with twenty seven victories, and was awarded a posthumous Knight's Cross two days after his death.

<snip>

On 12 January, the Russians began a major offensive along the Vistula River. Twenty Gruppen of single engined fighters were sent east from the Western front to bolster the German defenders. These units were the remnants of Galland's one time strategic reserve, which had been brought west for Unternehmen Bodenplatte. The aerial defense of the skies over Germany's western borders was now left to the same four Geschwader that had had the task the previous autumn - JG 26, JG 27, JG 2 and JG 53.

The next day with flyable weather was 14 January. Heavy ground fog persisted up to 1,000 feet, but the skies above were clear. All three JG 26 Gruppen were assigned missions, despite signs of a large heavy bomber raid, which according to the current standing orders was sufficient reason to keep the Geschwader's planes on the ground. But the army, in retreat in the Ardennes, needed relief from the American fighterbombers, and so shortly before 11:00 the Second and Third Gruppen began taking off, under orders to attack Jabos at St Vith. At this moment, the van of a massive Eighth Air Force bomber formation was crossing the coast at Ostend. Most were en route to bomb oil industry targets in central Germany, but the 187 B-17s of the 1st Air Division were headed for the Rhine bridges at Cologne, closely escorted by 42 P-51s, and preceded by a sweep of 62 P-47Ms from the 56th Fighter Group...

When about halfway to their assigned patrol zone, Major Hackl spotted the American escort formations, and led the 8th Staffel on a successful bounce. Two straggling 56th Group Thunderbolts went down. Hackl then led his small unit on a wide left turn to the east of Cologne, in hopes of reaching a position from which the oncoming bomber stream could be attacked. The German formation had been picked up by American radar on the Continent, and twenty-five P-51s from the 78th Fighter Group were vectored to meet them. The trailing Staffeln of Hackl's Gruppe, along with the Bf 109s of the Third Gruppe, were spotted three miles southwest of Cologne. The twenty fighters appeared to the American pilots to be disorganized, as though they were just in the process of forming up. The Mustangs' attack apparently caught the Germans by surprise. Four FW 190Ds, three from the 6th Staffel and one from the 7th, went down immediately, killing all four pilots.

Obit. Vogt's 5th Staffel formation was broken up by the American attack. Vogt himself attempted to escape on the deck. Ground witnesses south east of Cologne heard gunfire in the clouds, followed by the crash of an aircraft, which proved to be Vogl's. The Knight's Cross recipient had been killed in his cockpit; he thus followed his friend Wilhelm Mayer in death by only ten days, fulfilling Günther Bloemertz's prediction. His final record stood at 48 victories, gained in 174 missions.

A second 5th Staffel pilot escaped to the northeast, but he was shot up by four Spitfires. He was unable to find a landing field and, when he ran out of fuel, force landed with injuries near Minden. Another member of the 5th Staffel fled the combat to the south west, but at 12:45 was shot down west of Frankfurt by German flak. He was pulled from his burning Dora by two Russian POWs. A fourth member of the 5th Staffel who was lost at this time was still carried as missing in 1990.

The battle moved eastward. The swirling fighters dropped to the deck, where combats continued in and out of the thick clouds. Three Third Gruppe Messerschmitts crashed, killing their pilots. A fourth pilot bailed out and returned to Plantluenne two days later. Hackl led the 8th Staffel back into the action and claimed victories over one P-47 and one P-51. The 8th Staffel got split up in this combat, and one Rotte was pursued back to Cologne by P-51s. The American pilots saw one of these two Focke-Wulfs crash-land on Cologne Wahn airfield; its pilot was killed in the crash.

The 78th Group pilots filed claims for 6-0-3 FW 190s and 6-0-3 Bf 109s. Actual JG 26 losses in the Cologne area were seven FW 190s and four Bf 109s, in close agreement with the American claims. No P-51 was shot down in this battle, although three Mustang pilots had to make emergency landings on the Continent.

Back at Fuerstenau, the First Gruppe had been at readiness since 10:00. Their orders finally came through; they were to fly a defensive patrol of KG 51's airfields in the Rheine-Hopsten area. 31 Dora 9s took off at 15:25, led by Major Borris. Three aborted, shortly thereafter Borris's remaining 28 planes engaged a Spitfire formation of the same size, which was en route to its own patrol of the Rheine airfields. Major Borris claimed one Spitfire, for his 43rd victory. Two more Spitfires were claimed; one of these collided with a Focke-Wulf, taking both aircraft down in flames. Two German pilots were shot down and killed. Six Focke-Wulf s were pursued to the Dortmund area, where they landed when low on fuel. Borris carried out his ordered patrol with his last dozen aircraft. His scattered force landed back at Fuerstenau between 15:45 and 16:30 hours. The Spitfire pilots, who belonged to Second TAF's two Norwegian squadrons, claimed the destruction of four German fighters and lost only one of their number.

After the bitter fighting on the 14th, which cost JG 26 thirteen pilots killed and three injured, the Geschwader was grounded for several days. The Third Gruppe was taken off operations for conversion to the FW 190D-9. Lt. Waldemar "Vladimir" Soeffing was named Kapitaen of the 2nd Staffel, replacing the severely wounded Franz Kunz. Soeffing, who had nearly recovered from the automobile accident that had grounded him in December, now had responsibility for both the 2nd and 4th Staffeln.

<snip>

The Geschwader's next combat mission was flown on 22 January. I/JG 26 and III/JG 54 received orders at 1030 to attack fighter-bombers in the area of Rheine-Muenster. Details of the Green Hearts' mission are unknown; they suffered no losses. Thirty First Gruppe aircraft took off at 1100 into a cloudless sky, led by Major Borris. Six aircraft aborted, but the rest flew the ordered mission. At 11:17 they encountered Spitfires at 13,000 feet near Rheine. They claimed one victory, but the Spitfires, which were from No. 421 Squadron (RCAF), shot down four Focke-Wulfs, while claiming five. Two German pilots were killed, and one bailed out uninjured. The fourth, Uffz. Hans Kukla, was hit from behind in a dogfight. His engine caught fire immediately, and Kukla bailed out with serious burns, which kept him in the hospital until the beginning of April. Borris's Gruppe landed at various fields between 11:29 and 11:52 hours.

The next day brought the last missions of the month. Once again it was I/JG 26 and III/JG 54 that got the call. In the morning, I/JG 26 was ordered to fly high escort for JG 27 on an anti Jabo mission to Muenchen Gladbach. Obit. Heckmann led twenty Focke Wulfs up from Fuerstenau at 09:00. The mission orders had spelled out the route and altitude of each Staffel in detail. Because of its low altitude, the Gruppe was successfully bounced from above by Spitfires, which dove through the German formation at high speed and shot down four Focke Wulfs. Two German pilots were killed; the other two bailed out with injuries. The enemy fighters were Spitfire XIVs from No. 41 Squadron. The British pilots claimed three FW 190Ds destroyed, while one of their own aircraft failed to return. This was the first major air combat for the Griffon engined Spitfire XIV, which had just begun moving to the continent after employment in England against the Vl threat. The Spitfire XIV was a formidable combat aircraft, with a top speed in excess of 450 mph. Fortunately for the Germans, only four squadrons saw service with Second TAF.

The combat scattered the First Gruppe. Obit. Heckmann led the remnants of his formation back to Fuerstenau at 1000. At 14:30 orders were received for another mission. I/JG 26 and III/JG 54 were to cover the jet airfield at Handorf between 16:00 and 16:30 hours. At 15:30, the scheduled time of takeoff, only ten First Gruppe aircraft were ready. Major Borris led them off to meet the Green Hearts. Fifteen minutes into their patrol, contact was made with a dozen Spitfires and eighteen Tempests. For the next thirty minutes, combats took place around Enschede, from 10,000 feet to ground level. At 16:30, according to the Gruppe War Diary, Borris changed the mission to a frei Jagd, the assigned patrol having been completed. This made no difference to his pilots, who were at that moment fighting for their lives. His small force lost only two aircraft; one pilot was killed, and the other bailed out with light injuries. III/JG 54 suffered severely, six pilots being killed. The victors were the Canadian Spitfires of No. 421 Squadron, which claimed two of the FW 190Ds, and the Tempests of No. 122 Wing, which claimed 10-1-7 FW 190s for the day without loss to themselves, on what proved to be the Tempest wing's most successful day of the war.

<snip>

The weather continued unfit for combat flying for the first two weeks of February.

<snip>

The Geschwader's first mission of the new month was ordered early in the morning of 14 February. I/JG 26 and III/JG 54 were the Gruppen called upon. The mission was to be another protection flight for Rheine; this time III/JG 54 would be the high cover. Major Borris took off at 07:45 with his 24 Focke-Wulfs. He met the III/JG 54 contingent, which was led by Lt. Crump, and was soon over Rheine. The Focke Wulfs orbited at low altitude, which was not a wise manoeuvre under the circumstances. Seven No. 41 Squadron Spitfire XIVs dove through both formations and shot down three Focke-Wulfs, two from III/JG 54 and one from I/JG 26. The two Green Heart pilots were killed. In return, one Schlageter pilot claimed a Spitfire. The British pilots claimed one confirmed and two probable victories over the "long noses", while one Spitfire failed to return.

First, apologies for the wall-o-text.

Secondly, the details of the combats are interesting. The Spitfire IX pilots seemed to have few difficulties maintaining a positive ratio against JG 27 at this stage of the war.

Thirdly, and the actual point of the post, is the long periods of little activity. Nothing on the 2nd or 3rd January. Missions on the 4th Jan.

Nothing mentioned again until 14th January. Missions on the 14th.

Definitely no missions again until the 22nd.

Missions again on the 23rd.

No more missions for the rest of the month.

No mission in February until the 14th. Missions on the 14th.

That's 5 days of operations 2nd Jan - 14th Feb. 30 days with no operations, and 9 days when no missions are mentioned, and the implication is none were flown. (Jim Perry's claims list shows no west front claims for JG 26 between the 2nd and 14th Jan, either).

Edit: There are ORBs for Polish squadrons available on the net at:
http://orb.polishaf.pl/

Two comparable squadrons are 302 and 308. In Jan and Feb 1945 they were both flying Spitfire IXs and XVIs from bases on the continent.

302 were badly shot up on 1st Jan, losing 9 planes on the ground just after landing from an operation. Because of that and poor weather, they didn't carry out any operations until 20th Jan. They still managed 6 operations in Jan and 9 in the first 2 weeks of Feb, a total of 15 days of operations and 219 sorties (remember this is a squadron, not a whole Geschwader)

308 squadron returned just after an attack on their airfield on 1st Jan. They managed 7 days of operations 2nd - 31st Jan, and another 7 days in the first 2 weeks of February. (both RAF totals exclude days where only a few aircraft flew weather recce sorties etc)

So the RAF squadrons each managed to fly operations on 3 times as many days as the whole of JG 26.

Kurfurst__
07-05-2008, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
The Luftwaffe maintained pretty low sortie rates for much of the war.

Source please for the things you obviously make up.


Originally posted by hop2002:

I haven't seen sortie data for late 1944 and 1945, but I'd be willing to bet it would be lower still.

... have you not been shown sorties for December 1944, January and February 1945 on this very board, not very long ago? Do I need to brush your memory a bit? 'Memory leak' again, huh? Memory leak in that you mixed this board up with another one, and thought this is the one you can still pretend you are ignorant of the facts you want to deny?

Truth is, the major battles in late 1944 and 1945 were between the USAAF, the VVS and the Luftwaffe. The daylight RAF was not much of a factor at this part of the war.


Originally posted by hop2002:
Secondly, the details of the combats are interesting. The Spitfire IX pilots seemed to have few difficulties maintaining a positive ratio against JG 27 at this stage of the war.

That is funny, your text makes no mention of combat between Spitfire IXs and JG 27 at all... you must be making up this one, too.

Pierre Clostermann's thoughts late war Spitfires vs. late war FW 190/Me 109s, in automn 1944, NW Europe. From 'The Big Show'.


The Messerschmitt 262's could indulge in tactical reconnaisance over the entire Allied front with impunity, and once again we saw large German formations, sometimes 100 aircraft, machine gunning and dive bombing our troops and convoys in daylight.
The Allied reconnaissance aircraft and our fighter-bombers had a hard time. Typhoon formations frequently lost 2 or 3 machines out of 12 in encounters with FW 190's and Me 109's. The Spitfires were powerless. There was only one Wing of three Spitfire XIV Squadrons and the rest were equipped with Spitfire IX's or Spit XVI's (Spit IX's with Rolls-Royce engines built by Packard in the U.S.A.). In any case all the Spit IX squadrons operated most of the time as fighter-bombers. The Huns, knowing the Spit's quality in a dog fight, carefully avoided taking them on, and the poor Spits had neither the speed nor the range neccessary to force the new German fighters to fight.
The Allied Staff was beginning to get seriously worried about this state of affairs. The situation was similiar in the American sector round Luxemburg, but less acute, as the Germans knew the final attack would come from north of the Ruhr, and they were concentrating on Holland.
The Rundstedt offensive had come as a surprise, and our Staffs for once were finding themselves less well-informed than the enemy. The Messerschmitt 262's had given the German General Staff a clear picture of the situation of our troops, while our reconnaissance aircraft were neutralised by German fighters.

Pierre, who was actually there, obviously saw it different than you. But hey, what did he know, right?


So the RAF squadrons each managed to fly operations on 3 times as many days as the whole of JG 26.

... and still they flew incomparably fewer sorties than JG 26, and saw much less air combat. That is very much true to the whole 2nd TAF as well. They flew very little air combat sorties. Most of the time, they barely passed the frontier, dropped a few bombs from the obsolate Mk IXs, and then back to base, missions lasting 30 mins or less. Hardly the same thing as a 2-3 hour CAP over the area or an interception of a large American bomber units, for which several Wing sized units assembled first etc.

So spare us of your stinking old revisionism please.

Kurfurst__
07-05-2008, 05:14 AM
... to give some idea of the actual level of air combat activity over the Western front, here as some numbers of the aircraft claimed to have been shot down by the USAAF, the Luftwaffe and RAF`s 2nd Tactical Air Force in December, 1944.

The Luftwaffe in the West claimed 552 enemy aircraft for the loss of 527 of their own, in 11 053 combat sorties by fighters. Eastern and Southern operations, or claims made are not included.

The USAAF`s statistical digest for the European Theatre of Operations (ie. Western Europe, w/o the Med) shows 954 aircraft claimed in the air (another 31 on the ground, all by Fighters). Of the 954 claimed in the Air, 867 was claimed by Fighters.
A total of 603 aircraft were admitted to have been lost in December 1944 in the ETO: 211 to enemy aircraft (28 heavy, 42 medium bombers and 141 Fighters), 285 was attributed to FlaK and 107 to 'other causes'.

2nd TAF : 141 claimed 'destroyed'. (8 claimed as 'probably damaged. 63 claimed as 'damaged' but this should not be compared as the USAAF and LW list do not include probables or damaged). In this all claims made by units subordinated to the 2nd TAF are included, ie. Mosquitoes too.

So to recap, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Claims of destroyed in the air by the RAF, LW and USAAF in daylight operations in December 1944 over the Western Front:

USAAF: 954
Luftwaffe: 552
RAF 2nd TAF: 141</span>

Naturally there is probably a fair amount of exaggeration to the claims, and the cause of loss was probably not accurately recorded in cases; still, the statistics are fairly revealing, especially when we consider that the USAAF and Luftwaffe was fairly active in the Balkans and Italy too; and half the Luftwaffe still operating on the Eastern front. OTOH, the 2nd TAF represented practically the only reasonable active RAF daylight air unit in Europe. They did rather little, it would seem, despite being issued with over 1000 aircraft.

Aaron_GT
07-05-2008, 06:20 AM
50,000+ P-47N's per year would be my guess if the war extended a few years beyond 1945.

The peak per annum production in WW2 was about 10,000 per year (16,000 mostly in 2.5 years) so 5 times the rate seems a bit unlikely unless production of other fighter types was ended.

Aaron_GT
07-05-2008, 06:22 AM
That is very much true to the whole 2nd TAF as well. They flew very little air combat sorties. Most of the time, they barely passed the frontier, dropped a few bombs from the obsolate Mk IXs, and then back to base, missions lasting 30 mins or less. Hardly the same thing as a 2-3 hour CAP over the area or an interception of a large American bomber units, for which several Wing sized units assembled first etc.

Your criticism is that the 2nd TAF did its job?

Kurfurst__
07-05-2008, 06:34 AM
Where is where you found the 'criticism'? I have no idea if and how well the 2nd TAF did its job or not. Perhaps you can shed some figures on that, yes?

However its combat statistics clearly show it saw much less air combat than the USAAF or the Luftwaffe in the same area. Much unlike the story some wish to believe in.

Aaron_GT
07-05-2008, 07:36 AM
The 2nd TAF was primarily operating as a fighter bomber force so avoiding fighter combat would seem to indicate that it was executing its mission by not mixing it up. Whilst the Spitfire IXs may not have been ultra competitve against, say, Fw 190s, if they served as fighter bombers at their end of life it would seem to be a good use of the airframes. Spitfire IXs, with the correct Merlin and +25 boost weren't exactly slow above 10,000 feet, with the main vulnerability if loitering below 10,000 feet to drop bombs, but if doing a quick strike this time would be minimal. There were Typhoons with better low altitude performance to do taxi-rank loitering with rockets.

Aaron_GT
07-05-2008, 07:37 AM
So to recap, Claims of destroyed in the air by the RAF, LW and USAAF in daylight operations in December 1944 over the Western Front:

What sort of overclaim rates apply to these?

Kurfurst__
07-05-2008, 08:00 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">So to recap, Claims of destroyed in the air by the RAF, LW and USAAF in daylight operations in December 1944 over the Western Front:

What sort of overclaim rates apply to these? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea; given the general experience with overclaims, perhaps an overclaim factor of 2 to 3 would be reasonable.

ImpStarDuece
07-05-2008, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
... to give some idea of the actual level of air combat activity over the Western front, here as some numbers of the aircraft claimed to have been shot down by the USAAF, the Luftwaffe and RAF`s 2nd Tactical Air Force in December, 1944.

The Luftwaffe in the West claimed 552 enemy aircraft for the loss of 527 of their own, in 11 053 combat sorties by fighters. Eastern and Southern operations, or claims made are not included.

The USAAF`s statistical digest for the European Theatre of Operations (ie. Western Europe, w/o the Med) shows 954 aircraft claimed in the air (another 31 on the ground, all by Fighters). Of the 954 claimed in the Air, 867 was claimed by Fighters.
A total of 603 aircraft were admitted to have been lost in December 1944 in the ETO: 211 to enemy aircraft (28 heavy, 42 medium bombers and 141 Fighters), 285 was attributed to FlaK and 107 to 'other causes'.

2nd TAF : 141 claimed 'destroyed'. (8 claimed as 'probably damaged. 63 claimed as 'damaged' but this should not be compared as the USAAF and LW list do not include probables or damaged). In this all claims made by units subordinated to the 2nd TAF are included, ie. Mosquitoes too.

So to recap, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Claims of destroyed in the air by the RAF, LW and USAAF in daylight operations in December 1944 over the Western Front:

USAAF: 954
Luftwaffe: 552
RAF 2nd TAF: 141</span>

Naturally there is probably a fair amount of exaggeration to the claims, and the cause of loss was probably not accurately recorded in cases; still, the statistics are fairly revealing, especially when we consider that the USAAF and Luftwaffe was fairly active in the Balkans and Italy too; and half the Luftwaffe still operating on the Eastern front. OTOH, the 2nd TAF represented practically the only reasonable active RAF daylight air unit in Europe. They did rather little, it would seem, despite being issued with over 1000 aircraft.

Foreman gives different numbers for the 2TAF aerial claims, in his summary of RAF kills and claims:

194 destroyed,
12 probably destroyed,
60 damaged.

All for the loss of 62 Spitfires, 67 Typhoons, 14 Tempests, 20 Mosquitos, 9 Mustang IIIs and 3 Mustang Is.

He also give USAAF kills as:

823 claimed,
82 probables,
180 damaged.

The 2nd TACTICAL Air Force was mostly supporting the British drive north, and its operations were limited in scope to that end.

Following its losses between Jun and Oct 1944, the bulk of the Luftwaffe withdrew from forward bases, and concentrated on defence of Germany proper aganist the USAAF daylight raids. For the RAF, this meant that opposition from the Luftwaffe over their section of the front almost dematerialised.

Dec 1944 was the RAF's busiest month since Aug 1944, when they claimed 195 aircraft destroyed in the air.

If you want a quiet month for the RAF, look at Nov 1944, when they claimed just 39 aircraft, for 146 losses. In Sep 1944, they claimed just 79 kills.

This is the same period that the Second Army advanced more than 450 km, right up to the Dutch border.

Frequent_Flyer
07-06-2008, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

Sure do. Thanks for asking.

Then why do you think the loss of fuel production, that happened half a year before the wars end, was "the primary reason the allies defeated the Luftwaffe and Germany"?

And please explain:

Technically they had no answer for the high altitude, long range bombers and escorts.

Because from what I know, the Luftwaffe was pretty effective with what it had. Just not enough of it. And I'd say the Me 262 was a state of the art interceptor.

So, technically, which nations air force was better suited to go after escorted heavy bombers at high alt? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My profession is not WW II history, rather a hobby like most on these boards. So I will defer to the Historians. This is a short critique of what the 8th AF did.Regarding the doctrine of high altitude strategec bombing and its acheivements relative to the 8th AF.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aurevi...jan-feb/Werrell.html (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1971/jan-feb/Werrell.html)


The Germans never possesed the organizational, leadership or logistical skills, never mind production capacity, to compete let alone defeat the air effort in the west.

The 8th AF commenced high altitude bombing in 1942. A USAAF chart Crumpp posted dated 9-44, shows 100% of the average altitude of bombing missions to be at or above 20,000ft with ( aprox. 80% above 23,000 ft.)

The FW-190A series altitude performace falls away at 20,000ft. Its contemorary the P-47B improves until 27,000 and the " C " series till 30,000.
Not to ignore the P-51, but it appeared latter.

The FW-190D was delivered in December of 1944.Arguable, an equal, but no better than the P-47 and P-51 at the altitude necessary to challenge the bombing offensive.

A better argument can be made for Germany to have sued for peace in the west prior to the Normandy invasion. Assuming their military "intelligence " gathering was on par with the west. We know there political intelligence was lacking.

The US insisted on " unconditional surrender " from Japan. The west may have obstensible negotiated with Germany in order better position itself in the "political" map of eastern europe.Japan had no collateral for negotiating, and paid for it.

JtD
07-06-2008, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

The Germans never possesed the organizational, leadership or logistical skills, never mind production capacity, to compete let alone defeat the air effort in the west.

German air defense was based on two concepts: AAA and retaliation. Both of them didn't quite work out. But what do you think would have happened if they hadn't lost several thousand planes on the Eastern Front from 1941-1943? Say just some hundred extra fighters to go after the 8th air force as they attacked Schweinfurt? Making it lose not 100 out of 300, but 300 out of 300?

Sorry, imho you got it wrong. Fighter in the Reichs defense simply had a lower priority than fighters on the Eastern front for a too long time.

But that isn't even the point. The bombings effects on Germany's war effort, up until 1944, was negligible. However, as it showed effect, the Soviets had crushed the Heeresgruppe Mitte and the Western Allies had landed in Italy and France. So how do you get to the conclusion that the strategic bombing was the primary reason the Allies defeated Germany, when the course was set long before bombing showed an effect?


The 8th AF commenced high altitude bombing in 1942. A USAAF chart Crumpp posted dated 9-44, shows 100% of the average altitude of bombing missions to be at or above 20,000ft with ( aprox. 80% above 23,000 ft.)

The FW-190A series altitude performace falls away at 20,000ft. Its contemorary the P-47B improves until 27,000 and the " C " series till 30,000.

A field mod would increase the critical altitude for the Fw 190A to 23000ft. That resulted in a top speed increase of 15-20 km/h over the speeds you probably know. I do not know which argument you are trying to make here, so I'll just leave you with that fact.

However, if you were trying to tell me that the US AF was technically better suited to intercept high flying strategic bombers, I'd like to point out their complete and utter failure to install a weapon that could actually kill a bomber quickly.

Not to mention that Germans managed to bring a plane into the war that was a good 100 km/h faster than any escort fighter on any altitude and packed 4x30mm guns. I'd consider that a pretty good answer to the high altitude, long range bombers and escorts. (You know, the answer you said the Germans didn't have.)

Aaron_GT
07-06-2008, 12:41 PM
The FW-190A series altitude performace falls away at 20,000ft. Its contemorary the P-47B improves until 27,000 and the " C " series till 30,000.

The R2800 in the P-47 developed more at 30,000 feet than at sea level? Do you have a chart for that? It would be a nice comparison to the BMW charts Crumpp posted (it would be nice to compile a sticky thread of charts perhaps)

JtD
07-06-2008, 12:48 PM
Engine hp remain about constant, but the plane keeps going faster.

Aaron_GT
07-06-2008, 12:54 PM
Not to mention that Germans managed to bring a plane into the war that was a good 100 km/h faster than any escort fighter on any altitude and packed 4x30mm guns. I'd consider that a pretty good answer to the high altitude, long range bombers and escorts. (You know, the answer you said the Germans didn't have.)

It was delivered far too late to make a difference, though, and with problematic engines that had relatively short service life due to a lack of raw materials (a combination of the USSR cutting off potential reserves from the East, and the USN and RN from the West). In 1939 Germany had a lead in jet design (Whittle having received insufficient backing to that date) but didn't have the metals to capitalise on this in production terms and the gap was made up by war's end, although AFAIK the German investigation of PCB was novel but a case of this needing less special metals than reheat. (I often wonder if reheat came to Whittle because some of his early engines reheated accidentally sometimes).

I would agree that strategic bombing only started to make a difference when the war was lost (although that was only clear in hindsight) and it has been argued that operational bombing with heavy bombers was more effective (Eisenhower had to campaign for this prior to D-Day).

It's an interesting coincidence that J. K. Galbraith helped direct the USA's industrial effort in WW2 then was charged with overseeing the survey of strategic bombing.

After 1945 strategic bombing took on a new logic, of course.

MB_Avro_UK
07-06-2008, 01:32 PM
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 FW-190A series altitude performace falls away at 20,000ft. Its contemorary the P-47B improves until 27,000 and the " C " series till 30,000.

The R2800 in the P-47 developed more at 30,000 feet than at sea level? Do you have a chart for that? It would be a nice comparison to the BMW charts Crumpp posted (it would be nice to compile a sticky thread of charts perhaps) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I second your suggestion re a 'sticky thread of charts' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JtD
07-06-2008, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

It was delivered far too late to make a difference...

That's not the point. It has been said that the Germans had no technical answer to the high altitude bombing. Which is wrong. The technology was there, other things were missing.

Frequent_Flyer
07-06-2008, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

The Germans never possesed the organizational, leadership or logistical skills, never mind production capacity, to compete let alone defeat the air effort in the west.


German air defense was based on two concepts: AAA and retaliation. Both of them didn't quite work out. But what do you think would have happened if they hadn't lost several thousand planes on the Eastern Front from 1941-1943? Say just some hundred extra fighters to go after the 8th air force as they attacked Schweinfurt? Making it lose not 100 out of 300, but 300 out of 300?


" IF " ,is the biggest word in the English language!


Sorry, imho you got it wrong. Fighter in the Reichs defense simply had a lower priority than fighters on the Eastern front for a too long time.

Germany lost more aircraft to the wetern allies. Seems counterintuitive the east would be priority.- Perhaps this would be an example of "poor organizational and leadership " skills. ?


But that isn't even the point. The bombings effects on Germany's war effort, up until 1944, was negligible. However, as it showed effect, the Soviets had crushed the Heeresgruppe Mitte and the Western Allies had landed in Italy and France. So how do you get to the conclusion that the strategic bombing was the primary reason the Allies defeated Germany, when the course was set long before bombing showed an effect?


The 8th AF commenced high altitude bombing in 1942. A USAAF chart Crumpp posted dated 9-44, shows 100% of the average altitude of bombing missions to be at or above 20,000ft with ( aprox. 80% above 23,000 ft.)

The FW-190A series altitude performace falls away at 20,000ft. Its contemorary the P-47B improves until 27,000 and the " C " series till 30,000.


A field mod would increase the critical altitude for the Fw 190A to 23000ft. That resulted in a top speed increase of 15-20 km/h over the speeds you probably know. I do not know which argument you are trying to make here, so I'll just leave you with that fact.

Its possible, However, even if you compare the FW-190D to the final( in the ETO ) P-47M variant, paddle prop higher octane fuel etc. The P-47 has better high altitude performance.




However, if you were trying to tell me that the US AF was technically better suited to intercept high flying strategic bombers, I'd like to point out their complete and utter failure to install a weapon that could actually kill a bomber quickly.

I am not but:
The USAAF had a "one shot one kill weapon" installed on the P-39 before any of the combatants did.It performed pretty well against the LW bombers for the VVS.However, the PZL P.11C also scored victories over LW bombers. One of the original armaments for the P-38 was to install this same 37mm weapon in it. No need to.



Not to mention that Germans managed to bring a plane into the war that was a good 100 km/h faster than any escort fighter on any altitude and packed 4x30mm guns. I'd consider that a pretty good answer to the high altitude, long range bombers and escorts. (You know, the answer you said the Germans didn't have.)

How many victories did the ME -262 vs. escort fighters have compared to combat losses ? Unless the answer is 100:1 and it was deliverd in 1942, it was not the answer when the question was relevant. When it was introduced the relavant question was, ' How was Berlin to be occupied? In fact a more sophisticated and technilocially advanced high altitude aircraft was produced in greater numbers than the ME-262 . The B-29 and it was not too late to impact the war, and the next war.

Although not my words this is what I was attempting to say:


"The Eighth did not fight the air war over western Europe alone but alongside British Bomber Command, American strategic bombers based in Italy, and Allied tactical air forces. The most authoritative report on the results of the air war against Germany states:

Allied air power was decisive in the war in western Europe. Hindsight inevitably suggests that it might have been employed differently or better in some respects. Nevertheless, it was decisive. In the air, its victory was complete; at sea, its contribution, combined with naval power, brought an end to the enemy's greatest naval threat"”the U-boat; on land, it helped turn the tide overwhelmingly in favor of Allied ground forces. Its power and superiority made possible the success of the invasion. It brought the economy which sustained the enemy's armed forces to virtual collapse, although the full effects of this collapse had not reached the enemy's front lines when they were overrun by Allied forces.3

The Eighth's primary accomplishment was the defeat of Germany's air force. At the same time it weakened both her industry and her war effort"

Frequent_Flyer
07-06-2008, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 FW-190A series altitude performace falls away at 20,000ft. Its contemorary the P-47B improves until 27,000 and the " C " series till 30,000.

The R2800 in the P-47 developed more at 30,000 feet than at sea level? Do you have a chart for that? It would be a nice comparison to the BMW charts Crumpp posted (it would be nice to compile a sticky thread of charts perhaps) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I second your suggestion re a 'sticky thread of charts' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not notice any performance data on the Fw-190A-series from Crumpp ? Only Engine and production data if you are refering to the " Griffon" thread.

Aaron_GT
07-06-2008, 06:16 PM
I did not notice any performance data on the Fw-190A-series from Crumpp ? Only Engine and production data if you are refering to the " Griffon" thread.

Indeed, when I said 'BMW charts' I thought it was clear that is what I was referring to. It would be nice to have R2800 versus altitude charts (with and without turbo) to contrast and compare with the charts Crumpp posted for the BMW801.

And it might be useful to have a sticky thread of charts as then in debates in the future we might have a ready set of reference material and simply be able to say 'charts thread page 15 chart #2, compare with page 11 chart #5'.

Frequent_Flyer
07-06-2008, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I did not notice any performance data on the Fw-190A-series from Crumpp ? Only Engine and production data if you are refering to the " Griffon" thread.

Indeed, when I said 'BMW charts' I thought it was clear that is what I was referring to. It would be nice to have R2800 versus altitude charts (with and without turbo) to contrast and compare with the charts Crumpp posted for the BMW801.

And it might be useful to have a sticky thread of charts as then in debates in the future we might have a ready set of reference material and simply be able to say 'charts thread page 15 chart #2, compare with page 11 chart #5'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/aircraft/p-47/7.html

Scroll down about half way till you get to the " M " data. Some interesting performace relating to over boosting the P & W.Especially regarding " durability testing".

I am sure you are aware the BMW 801 radial engine is a licensed copy of the P & W radial engine of its time. The difference in performance lies in the super/turbo chager technology or lack there of..
The charted data on the various P & W engines I will have to ultimately copy and scan, it will not happen today.

Aaron_GT
07-06-2008, 07:25 PM
Thank FF.

The operating times are entirely plausible. I know that Napier benched the Sabre II at 3000 hp for not dissimilar lengths of time. Unfortunately it seems the p1ngu666 is the only person who has ever been prepared to spend the £180 for the definitive work on Napier engines!
Not sure what a Merlin could manage, but I might be able to find out. It's nice to see the comparisons and the different design choices taken.

KrashanTopolova
07-06-2008, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:

It was delivered far too late to make a difference...

That's not the point. It has been said that the Germans had no technical answer to the high altitude bombing. Which is wrong. The technology was there, other things were missing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To add to the above point made by JtD the Allies used decisive tactics to defeat the Me-262; mainly outnumbering formations catching them when they were taking off (when they were at their most vulnerable). If you are prevented from using your better weapon you lose the end game straight away,
The P-47 was modified to be competitive in speed with the German jets but as illustrated, simpler tactics than simply advancing technology as a catch-up could prevail.

JtD
07-07-2008, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

Funny statements.

There are several books out there which you should read in order to get the picture right. Unless you are intentionally simplifying and exaggerating at the same time, you've got a whole lot wrong.

For instance, while you are stating that the Germans were never competitive in the air war in the West, the truth is that in the early war they defeated British daylight bombing and that throughout the war, they frequently inflicted high enough losses (most notable Schweinfurt) to Allied bombers to stall the bombing campaign for several days or even weeks. The point is, that when the bombing commenced, the Allies would come back with a hundred extra bombers while the Germans had the same number of fighters to throw against them. Still, the 8th air force had an aircraft turnover of about 18% each month in 1943, or, in other words, over the course of the year it lost twice the aircraft it actually possessed. For crews, it was 27% per month or almost three times the crews per year.

Still, you say the Luftwaffe could not compete.

The P-47M was not an escort fighter.

The US 37mm was not a "one shot one kill" weapon. It wasn't even a "one hit one kill" weapon. Maybe it was against fighters.

The question for improved air defense did not arise before 1943. Why would the Germans answer it in 1942? As I said, you're making funny statements.

joeap
07-07-2008, 02:00 AM
Simple questions:

Who shot down the most LW planes of the big three?

or

In which theatre did the Luftwaffe lose the most planes overall?

Aaron_GT
07-07-2008, 02:16 AM
The P-47 was modified to be competitive in speed with the German jets

The P-47M is recorded officially at 470 mph at 30,000 with no racks for external tanks (i.e. probably 460 with racks, and a bit slower still at 25,000 feet), the Me 262 at 540 mph at 20,000, falling off a bit by 30,000, which was still sufficient margin (around 50 mph or more) to allow the 262 to dictate the fight at typical escort altitudes except at landing, takeoff or if the pilot makes a gross error. If it was comeptitive with the 262 then the Fw190A was competitive with the P-47M at 25,000 feet (about a 50 mph margin), and the suggestion in the thread is that it wasn't with the slower P-47D.

There are unofficial higher figures for the P-47M but it seems, from various charts and comments about corrections and talk of moving the pitot etc that the P-47 tended to read high at high speeds so I am not sure how much faith to place in the higher speeds.

Frequent_Flyer
07-07-2008, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

Funny statements.

There are several books out there which you should read in order to get the picture right. Unless you are intentionally simplifying and exaggerating at the same time, you've got a whole lot wrong.


For instance, while you are stating that the Germans were never competitive in the air war in the West, the truth is that in the early war they defeated British daylight bombing and that throughout the war, they frequently inflicted high enough losses (most notable Schweinfurt) to Allied bombers to stall the bombing campaign for several days or even weeks. The point is, that when the bombing commenced, the Allies would come back with a hundred extra bombers while the Germans had the same number of fighters to throw against them. Still, the 8th air force had an aircraft turnover of about 18% each month in 1943, or, in other words, over the course of the year it lost twice the aircraft it actually possessed. For crews, it was 27% per month or almost three times the crews per year.



Review this site:

http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

The Americans lost 12,506 aircraft in training related accidents from 1941-45. In combat the 8th AF lost 4,145 to all causes, flak, fighters, mechanical failture, accidents etc. for the same period.

Three times as many aircraft were lost to training mishaps vs. combat losses for the 8 th. The Americans produced more bombers than the Germans produced fighters.They sustained losses overall, yet could still put better trained crews in superior aircraft. While the strength and quality of LW aircraft and pilots were devastated.The bombers/escorts accomplished their task of wiping the LW from the sky and destroying their production capability on the ground. This was settled 60 + years ago. you mention a number of " what ifs", What if USN was fighting the Germans instead of Japan.

My intentions are not to persuade you to agree with me. I think as long as the discourse on the forum is friendly and respectful we can learn a thing or two.




Still, you say the Luftwaffe could not compete.

The P-47M was not an escort fighter.

The US 37mm was not a "one shot one kill" weapon. It wasn't even a "one hit one kill" weapon. Maybe it was against fighters.

The question for improved air defense did not arise before 1943. Why would the Germans answer it in 1942? As I said, you're making funny statements.

Kettenhunde
07-07-2008, 11:30 AM
From a USAAF report on the development of the 8th USAAF tactics:

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5525/bomberunescortedhu3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5525/bomberunescortedhu3.2a6101ab0b.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=185&i=bomberunescortedhu3.jpg)

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5615/bomberunescorted1nz8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5615/bomberunescorted1nz8.cbd83021a6.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=185&i=bomberunescorted1nz8.jpg)

The USAAF official numbers on losses by type in the ETO:

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6513/usaaflossesyo9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6513/usaaflossesyo9.4a8de0897f.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=396&i=usaaflossesyo9.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Boandlgramer
07-07-2008, 11:37 AM
Here is the MTO list , if it is of interest .

http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t160.pdf

Xiolablu3
07-07-2008, 12:03 PM
BTW Crumpp, you can advertise your museum, we had a discussion about it. Its a non-profit organisation.

But please cut down the text to the max number of lines. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MB_Avro_UK
07-07-2008, 03:27 PM
Hi all,

When I posted this thread I was considering the overall military situation facing Germany.

IMO, it is not possible to clinically separate the Luftwaffe fighter arm from the other branches of the German military.

The vast majority of the German military was concentrated against the Russians.

One example is the loss of aircraft trying to supply Stalingrad. These aircraft of course were not fighters, but their loss impacted on the effectivness of the LW.

If there was no war against Russia, the LW would have been a far more potent force in the West?


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

joeap
07-07-2008, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
Simple questions:

Who shot down the most LW planes of the big three?

or

In which theatre did the Luftwaffe lose the most planes overall?

Let me ask again.

Let us break down fighters and bombers. Yes you can seperate them to some extent Avro, if the Germans weren't in Russia of course the Lw would have been more potent. OTOH, without the western powers, the LW would have been more present to help the German army in Russia. The German army was always concentrated on Russia.

One last nitpick, the German Navy was always concentrated on the West, that said it was in third place for resources and manpower.

luftluuver
07-07-2008, 07:42 PM
In combat the 8th AF lost 4,145 to all causes, flak, fighters, mechanical failture, accidents etc. for the same period.

From the link.

Other losses occurred too. Collisions, training accidents and so on. The table below summarizes all losses in the ETO during the war:

Aircraft Type Number Lost
B-17 4,754
B-24 2,112
P-47 1,043
P-38 451
P-51 2,201
Total 10,561

Numbers don't jive. Total heavy bomber losses - 6866

From the link, 4145 heavy bombers were lost on combat missions. That leaves 2721 lost to non combat reasons.
Using the data Crumpp posted, there still is a greater number of combat losses vs non combat losses.


The Americans lost 12,506 aircraft in training related accidents from 1941-45.

What were the combat losses in the other theatres?

Blutarski2004
07-08-2008, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
From a USAAF report on the development of the 8th USAAF tactics:

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5525/bomberunescortedhu3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5525/bomberunescortedhu3.2a6101ab0b.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=185&i=bomberunescortedhu3.jpg)

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5615/bomberunescorted1nz8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5615/bomberunescorted1nz8.cbd83021a6.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=185&i=bomberunescorted1nz8.jpg)

The USAAF official numbers on losses by type in the ETO:

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6513/usaaflossesyo9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6513/usaaflossesyo9.4a8de0897f.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=396&i=usaaflossesyo9.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp


...... An interesting statistic emerges from this document. In the 12-months of 1944, more bombers and fighters were lost to anti-aircraft fire than to aerial attack. I knew that this was the case by late 1944, but did not realize that it was statistically true for the entire year. The tipping point was June 1944. Some ofthis might be explained by the commitment of the allied air forces to tactical support of the Normandy landings during the Jun-Aug 1944 timeframe, but the trend continues from September onwards when the bomber forces returned to their campaign against the German homeland.

If one graphs out USAF losses to German aerial attack on a rolling three-month basis, they steadily increased from a value of 143 in the Nov43/Jan44 time-frame to 399 in the Apr44/Jun44 time-frame - an increase of 2.8x. From that high point, USAF losses just as dramatically and steadily declined, falling from the 399 Apr44/Jun44 figure to 106 for the Feb45/Apr45 period.

It would be of further interest to compare these statistics against the numbers of interception sorties flown by the LW over the same period, as it would theoretically provide a means of quantifying and comparing the effectiveness of the LW fighter effort over time.

hop2002
07-08-2008, 09:35 AM
The Luftwaffe maintained pretty low sortie rates for much of the war.



Source please for the things you obviously make up.

Luftwaffe fighter sorties during the BoB:

Aug 12 - 18 = 3,825
Aug 26 - Sep 1 = 4,700
Sept 2 - 8 = 4,050

Those were the peak 3 weeks for the Luftwaffe. Every other week there were less than 2,000 fighter sorties.

Front line strength was 1,223 fighters on 10th August. That's a peak of less than 4 sorties per fighter per week.

In contrast 11 & 12 Group RAF peak sorties:

Aug 12 - 18 = 3,365
Aug 26 - Sept 1 = 3,930
Sept 2 - 8 = 4,025

Front line strength of 11 & 12 group was 35 squadrons. That's 420 fighters if you use a figure of 12 aircraft per squadron. It's 700 fighters assuming the max establishment of a squadron (20 fighters).

That's a peak sortie rate per fighter of 9.6 per week using Kurfurst's figures, 5.75 using maximum establishment.

But the RAF maintained high sortie rates, whereas the Luftwaffe did not. Apart from the 3 weeks listed, the Luftwaffe flew less than 2,000 a week. 11 & 12 Groups flew over 2,500 sorties every week in August and September, and most of July as well.

I'm tempted to give the sorties for the entire period, but that's probably a bit unfair on the Germans, as they didn't start the battle proper until almost mid August, and gave up trying to win air superiority at the end of September.

Total fighter sorties 12 Aug - 29 September:

Luftwaffe - 14,900
11 & 12 Group - 23,130

That's 12.2 sorties per Luftwaffe fighter, 33 - 55 per RAF fighter.

With a far smaller force, 11 & 12 Group flew far more fighter sorties. The Luftwaffe, with their much greater force, was capable of putting more fighters in the air for short periods (see for example the last week of August) but they could never sustain it. (see first week of September)

Another example, from much later in the war. In 1944 Luftflotte Reich and the fighter forces in the West flew almost exactly 80,000 fighter sorties, 23,000 night fighter sorties, 26,000 "strike" and 5,500 reconnaissance sorties. That's about 134,000 sorties. In an entire year.

The RAF, which we are told was this puny force compared to the Luftwaffe, flew 336,000 sorties (122,000 Fighter Command, 214,000 2nd TAF)

The source for all but the RAF 1944 figures is Hooton, Eagle in Flames.


have you not been shown sorties for December 1944, January and February 1945 on this very board, not very long ago?

Not that I recall. Of course my memory isn't perfect. And of course if they were presented in one of your usual barrages of invective I may just have skimmed over them. Where are they?


Do I need to brush your memory a bit? 'Memory leak' again, huh? Memory leak in that you mixed this board up with another one, and thought this is the one you can still pretend you are ignorant of the facts you want to deny?

No, seriously, I'd like to see them.


That is funny, your text makes no mention of combat between Spitfire IXs and JG 27 at all... you must be making up this one, too.

Is your reading comprehension letting you down again? Or is it faulty logic?

4th Jan:

They climbed to 16,000 feet, crossed the Dutch border, and spotted eight Typhoons beneath them, escorted by from ten to fifteen Spitfires. The German bounce was fended off by the Spitfires, and a turning combat ensued, in which the Allied aircraft held the advantage. Three Focke-Wulfs crashed, killing one pilot. The Canadian pilots of No. 411 Squadron claimed six victories in this engagement and suffered no losses.

That's 3 190s lost, no Spitfires. The Spitfires were from 441 squadron.


Shortly after take off from Nordhorn, apparently while still forming up on the Dutch side of the nearby border, the Focke-Wulfs were hit by the Spitfires of another Canadian squadron, No 442. The German formation scattered. The Canadian pilots filed claims for one probable and one damaged. Their "probable" in fact crashed, carrying Lt Wilhelm Mayer to his death.

That's another 2 190s lost, 0 Spitfires. The Spitfires were from 442 squadron.

14th Jan:

31 Dora 9s took off at 15:25, led by Major Borris. Three aborted, shortly thereafter Borris's remaining 28 planes engaged a Spitfire formation of the same size, which was en route to its own patrol of the Rheine airfields. Major Borris claimed one Spitfire, for his 43rd victory. Two more Spitfires were claimed; one of these collided with a Focke-Wulf, taking both aircraft down in flames. Two German pilots were shot down and killed. Six Focke-Wulf s were pursued to the Dortmund area, where they landed when low on fuel. Borris carried out his ordered patrol with his last dozen aircraft. His scattered force landed back at Fuerstenau between 15:45 and 16:30 hours. The Spitfire pilots, who belonged to Second TAF's two Norwegian squadrons, claimed the destruction of four German fighters and lost only one of their number.

I make that at least 3 190s, 1 Spitfire (Caldwell frequently only gives German pilot losses, not aircraft losses). Caldwell doesn't state the squadron numbers, but the Norwegian squadrons in 2nd TAF were 331 and 332.

22nd January:

Thirty First Gruppe aircraft took off at 11:00 into a cloudless sky, led by Major Borris. Six aircraft aborted, but the rest flew the ordered mission. At 11:17 they encountered Spitfires at 13,000 feet near Rheine. They claimed one victory, but the Spitfires, which were from No. 421 Squadron (RCAF), shot down four Focke-Wulfs, while claiming five. Two German pilots were killed, and one bailed out uninjured. The fourth, Uffz. Hans Kukla, was hit from behind in a dogfight. His engine caught fire immediately, and Kukla bailed out with serious burns, which kept him in the hospital until the beginning of April. Borris's Gruppe landed at various fields between 11:29 and 11:52 hours.

That's 4 190s lost for 1 Spitfire claimed. 421 squadron.

23rd Jan:

Oblt. Heckmann led twenty Focke Wulfs up from Fuerstenau at 09:00. The mission orders had spelled out the route and altitude of each Staffel in detail. Because of its low altitude, the Gruppe was successfully bounced from above by Spitfires, which dove through the German formation at high speed and shot down four Focke Wulfs. Two German pilots were killed; the other two bailed out with injuries. The enemy fighters were Spitfire XIVs from No. 41 Squadron. The British pilots claimed three FW 190Ds destroyed, while one of their own aircraft failed to return.

That's 4 190s, 1 Spitfire. The type is identified this time, though, Spitfire XIVs.

Also on the 23rd:

At 15:30, the scheduled time of take off, only ten First Gruppe aircraft were ready. Major Borris led them off to meet the Green Hearts. Fifteen minutes into their patrol, contact was made with a dozen Spitfires and eighteen Tempests. For the next thirty minutes, combats took place around Enschede, from 10,000 feet to ground level. At 16:30, according to the Gruppe War Diary, Borris changed the mission to a frei Jagd, the assigned patrol having been completed. This made no difference to his pilots, who were at that moment fighting for their lives. His small force lost only two aircraft; one pilot was killed, and the other bailed out with light injuries. III/JG 54 suffered severely, six pilots being killed. The victors were the Canadian Spitfires of No. 421 Squadron, which claimed two of the FW 190Ds, and the Tempests of No. 122 Wing, which claimed 10-1-7 FW 190s for the day without loss to themselves, on what proved to be the Tempest wing's most successful day of the war.

Hard to give a precise total for this day, the Spitfires and Tempests claimed 12, JG 27 lost 2, JG 54 lost 6 pilots killed and an unknown number of aircraft. JG 54 made 2 claims of Spitfires. 2 190s lost, 2 Spitfires, 421 squadron.


Major Borris took off at 07:45 with his 24 Focke-Wulfs. He met the III/JG 54 contingent, which was led by Lt. Crump, and was soon over Rheine. The Focke Wulfs orbited at low altitude, which was not a wise manoeuvre under the circumstances. Seven No. 41 Squadron Spitfire XIVs dove through both formations and shot down three Focke-Wulfs, two from III/JG 54 and one from I/JG 26. The two Green Heart pilots were killed. In return, one Schlageter pilot claimed a Spitfire. The British pilots claimed one confirmed and two probable victories over the "long noses", while one Spitfire failed to return.

3 190s, 1 Spitfire. Spitfire XIVs again. Note the numbers in this engagement, 24 Doras from JG 26 plus an unknown number from JG 54, vs 7 Spitfires.

Final totals:
441 squadron - 3 kills, 0 losses
442 squadron - 2 kills, 0 losses
331 & 332 sqd - 3 kills, 1 loss
421 squadron - 6 kills, 3 loss
Spitfire XIVs - 7 kills, 2 losses

Now the 5 Spitfire squadrons flying unidentified marks made 14 kills for 4 losses. What type of Spitfires were they, Kurfurst? You have assured us the Spitfire XIV was rare, so they can't have been XIVs. The Spitfire XII had been retired. Surely you aren't suggesting they were Spitfire Vs?

The truth is out of those squadrons listed where the Spitfire mark wasn't given, all bar 1 flew the Spitfire IX at the time. The remaining squadron, 441, flew Spitfire XVIs, which was the Spitfire IX with a Packard built engine.

So that's Spitfire IXs 14 kills, JG 26 and JG 54 4 kills.


So the RAF squadrons each managed to fly operations on 3 times as many days as the whole of JG 26.



... and still they flew incomparably fewer sorties than JG 26, and saw much less air combat.

Actually, no. Looking at the text, JG 26 sorties:

4th Jan: "and the First Gruppe scheduled a training mission. Twenty-three Dora-9s took off"

"The Second Gruppe also ordered up a small formation, consisting primarily of aircraft from the 8th Staffel."

14 Jan: "All three JG 26 Gruppen were assigned missions"

No mention of the numbers involved in the 2nd and 3rd Gruppe sorties. 1st Gruppe:
"Their orders finally came through; they were to fly a defensive patrol of KG 51's airfields in the Rheine-Hopsten area. 31 Dora 9s took off at 15:25, led by Major Borris."

22nd Jan: "Thirty First Gruppe aircraft took off at 1100 into a cloudless sky, led by Major Borris."

23rd Jan: "n the morning, I/JG 26 was ordered to fly high escort for JG 27 on an anti Jabo mission to Muenchen Gladbach. Oblt. Heckmann led twenty Focke Wulfs up from Fuerstenau"

"At 14:30 orders were received for another mission. I/JG 26 and III/JG 54 were to cover the jet airfield at Handorf between 16:00 and 16:30 hours. At 15:30, the scheduled time of takeoff, only ten First Gruppe aircraft were ready. Major Borris led them off to meet the Green Hearts."

14th Feb: "I/JG 26 and III/JG 54 were the Gruppen called upon. The mission was to be another protection flight for Rheine; this time III/JG 54 would be the high cover. Major Borris took off at 07:45 with his 24 Focke-Wulfs."

That's a total of 138 sorties, with three operations not having numbers stated, 2 Gruppe strength, 1 "a small formation, consisting primarily of aircraft from the 8th Staffel."

The largest number of aircraft listed for a Gruppe operation is 31 (and the smallest 10), so assuming the 2 Gruppes flew 31 fighters each on the operation, and the staffel strength operation 10, you have another 72 sorties.

That's 210 total, from an entire Geschwader. JG 26 had 3 Gruppe at this time, I believe, and each Gruppe had 3 staffel, which were roughly equivalent to a squadron.

302 squadron, with about 20 aircraft, flew 219 sorties in the same period.

As to air combat, JG 26 certainly ran in to Spitfires on each operation listed. Looking at 302 & 308 squadrons, however, we can see the Luftwaffe was conspicuous by its abscence most of the time. In their 29 days of operations, plus numerous small scale patrols, 302 and 308 didn't encounter the Luftwaffe once. The closest they came was when 302 scrambled some aircraft to hunt for a reported Ju 88 contact (not found) and when 308 were warned enemy aircraft were in the area, but again none were found.


That is very much true to the whole 2nd TAF as well. They flew very little air combat sorties.

Certainly they rarely found enemy aircraft. Looking at that text it's interesting to note that despite flying so few sorties, JG 26 usually went up mob handed to ensure an advantage of numbers when they did meet the enemy. Despite that they did badly. Of course the German army was left entirely unprotected by the Luftwaffe.

joeap
07-08-2008, 09:42 AM
I give up, this has already drifted OT and into a ****ing contest amongst the usual cast of characters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Blutarski2004
07-08-2008, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
I give up, this has already drifted OT and into a ****ing contest amongst the usual cast of characters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


..... It's an elemental force, like gravity.

sgilewicz
07-08-2008, 11:49 AM
Maybe the question should be how quickly would the western allies have beaten Germany if they didn't have to split their resources between Europe and the Pacific? Imagine all those carriers, warships, subs, planes, troops, etc. parked off the coasts of Europe. Just another what if http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Boandlgramer
07-08-2008, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by sgilewicz:
Maybe the question should be how quickly would the western allies have beaten Germany if they didn't have to split their resources between Europe and the Pacific? Imagine all those carriers, warships, subs, planes, troops, etc. parked off the coasts of Europe. Just another what if http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Yes, that would be a good plan.
A real nightmare : US carriers moving deep into germany, on the Rhine and later the Isar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
and even later, the famous "Battle of the Chiemsee" between the US Navy and the Royal Bavarian Navy, where Admiral Ottfried Fischer with his Battleship " Musikantenstadl" defeat the 6.th US Battlegroup under Admiral David Hasselhoff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Blutarski2004
07-08-2008, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sgilewicz:
Maybe the question should be how quickly would the western allies have beaten Germany if they didn't have to split their resources between Europe and the Pacific? Imagine all those carriers, warships, subs, planes, troops, etc. parked off the coasts of Europe. Just another what if http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Yes, that would be a good plan.
A real nightmare : US carriers moving deep into germany, on the Rhine and later the Isar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
and even later, the famous "Battle of the Chiemsee" between the US Navy and the Royal Bavarian Navy, where Admiral Ottfried Fischer with his Battleship " Musikantenstadl" defeat the 6.th US Battlegroup under Admiral David Hasselhoff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... All in support of the amphibious landings on Fraueninsel.

joeap
07-09-2008, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sgilewicz:
Maybe the question should be how quickly would the western allies have beaten Germany if they didn't have to split their resources between Europe and the Pacific? Imagine all those carriers, warships, subs, planes, troops, etc. parked off the coasts of Europe. Just another what if http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Yes, that would be a good plan.
A real nightmare : US carriers moving deep into germany, on the Rhine and later the Isar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
and even later, the famous "Battle of the Chiemsee" between the US Navy and the Royal Bavarian Navy, where Admiral Ottfried Fischer with his Battleship " Musikantenstadl" defeat the 6.th US Battlegroup under Admiral David Hasselhoff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the plan as stated is silly, but the fact is fewer big carriers would be built, which means steel for more tanks and planes...more landing craft earlier etc. Who knows?

JtD
07-09-2008, 04:10 AM
Afaik, the US and Germany were at war because of some events that happened in the Pacific.

Frequent_Flyer
07-09-2008, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Boandlgramer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sgilewicz:
Maybe the question should be how quickly would the western allies have beaten Germany if they didn't have to split their resources between Europe and the Pacific? Imagine all those carriers, warships, subs, planes, troops, etc. parked off the coasts of Europe. Just another what if http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Yes, that would be a good plan.
A real nightmare : US carriers moving deep into germany, on the Rhine and later the Isar. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
and even later, the famous "Battle of the Chiemsee" between the US Navy and the Royal Bavarian Navy, where Admiral Ottfried Fischer with his Battleship " Musikantenstadl" defeat the 6.th US Battlegroup under Admiral David Hasselhoff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... All in support of the amphibious landings on Fraueninsel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Or perhaps the USN could have helped British escorted the convoys of lend lease equipment to Russia.Leading to a greater % sucessfully delivered.Or even assited with Malta and North Africa to a greater extent.The B-29 was being designed to operate in the ETO. The " Jet Stream" would not have been an issue over Germany. Making the B-29 all but untouchable .Did any of the US Marine corp land on the beaches at Normandy?

Low_Flyer_MkIX
07-09-2008, 07:51 AM
No USMC on Normandy beaches, to my knowledge. There were a few USMC 'observers' at Dieppe.

joeap
07-09-2008, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Afaik, the US and Germany were at war because of some events that happened in the Pacific.

Not directly, there was no reason for Germany to declare war on the US.

JtD
07-09-2008, 08:25 AM
Treaty obligations.

Bewolf
07-09-2008, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Treaty obligations.

That, and Germany already was in a war with the US. Or better, the US was in war with Germany, as US destroyers already attacked german submarines bound for the atlantic convoys. The decleration of war enabled Germany to activly go against these ships, which was very problematic beforehand.

sgilewicz
07-09-2008, 10:25 AM
Well the plan as stated is silly, but the fact is fewer big carriers would be built, which means steel for more tanks and planes...more landing craft earlier etc. Who knows?

I freely admit to being a wise*ss when I posted but it just seemed that Avro's initial question was lost in the hubris of "what if" posts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Enterprise sailed the Rhine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

joeap
07-09-2008, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Treaty obligations.

No, not directly read the text of the Tripartite Pact, I've posted it before and don't have time to look for it now. Anyway it says the signatories were bound to come to the aid if any one party was attacked by a third party it said nothing about commencing hostilities which was the case with Pearl Harbour.

Beowulf's reason (USN and u-boot incidents) was sort of given as post facto justification as it had not led to war before and I can't see anyone knowing what Hitler would do in the days after PH.

Blutarski2004
07-09-2008, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Treaty obligations.


..... IIRC, Germany was technically only obligated to declare war in support of Japan if Japan herself was attacked. Hitler's single greatest geo-political miscue was declaring war upon the US.

Roosevelt was pulling out all possible stops to provoke either Germany and Japan into involving the US in the war. He succeeded in both respects and was able to erase in one fell swoop the isolationist sentiment that might have kept the US more or less aloof from the war.

JtD
07-09-2008, 11:12 AM
I don't know what your books say but the US declared war on Japan.

joeap
07-09-2008, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I don't know what your books say but the US declared war on Japan.

Bull****, a declaration of war is not an attack especially when said declaration was preceeded by numerous simultaneous (not just Pearl Harbour) military attacks.

Here is the link:

The Pact (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/triparti.htm)


Germany, Italy and Japan agree to co-operate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three contracting powers is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European war or in the Chinese-Japanese conflict.

How do you interpret attack? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Here is the text in German, just in case the translation is wrong somehow.

Original Text (http://www.zaoerv.de/10_1940/10_1940_1_4_b_872_874_1.pdf)

Blutarski2004
07-09-2008, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I don't know what your books say but the US declared war on Japan.


..... So ..... what's your point?

The United States did indeed declare war upon Japan, AFTER suffering a crippling attack upon the base of its Pacific fleet.

Hardly surprising.

Of course, it was only due to a bureaucratic delay within the Japanese embassy that the Japanese declaration of war was not delivered to the US in synchronicity with their attack upon Pearl Harbor.

JtD
07-09-2008, 02:37 PM
Declaration of war is about as much of an attack as can be.

thefruitbat
07-09-2008, 02:52 PM
What would/could of happened differently, if Germany hadn't of declared war on the USA, would the USA have declared war on Germany straight after Pearl?

???

fruitbat

Blutarski2004
07-09-2008, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Declaration of war is about as much of an attack as can be.


..... What is your point?

Are you arguing that a declaration of war by the US after being attacked by Japan is the moral equivalent of launching an unannounced attack?

Or are you arguing an equivalency between the Japanese Pearl Harbor attack and Hitler's declaraion of war upon the US?

Blutarski2004
07-09-2008, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
What would/could of happened differently, if Germany hadn't of declared war on the USA, would the USA have declared war on Germany straight after Pearl?

???

fruitbat


..... An excellent and perhaps unanswerable question. Roosevelt harbored an intense desire to counter Japanese moves in the Asian arena and to support Great Britain against the Germans. Hence the less than subtle provocations he directed toward both Japan and Germany. However, there was a strong atmosphere of isolationism present on the US domestic political scene at the time that restricted Roosevelts freedom of action. That sense of isolationism evaporated with the Pearl Harbor attack and a great rage arose within the body politic toward Japan.

If Germany had not declared war against the US, it is debatable whether Roosevelt could have diverted some portion of that rage toward Germany. I'm not sure which way the dice would have fallen. Roosevelt was a canny politician and unscrupulous enough to keep up a campaign of provocations and propaganda until Hitler and Germany were pushed over the edge. At best, I think, Germany might have gained a year or two.

thefruitbat
07-09-2008, 03:50 PM
Yeah, i think it comes down to whether or not Roosevelt figured he would of had enough suport to, or not. I think it would of been an incredibly hard sell though, straight after pearl.

Intersting to think what could of happened though,

fruitbat

Freiwillige
07-09-2008, 03:50 PM
Well the German pact with Japan was a defensive one, Calling one to aid the other by obligation if either was attacked.

But Hitler was feeling more and more pressure from America. Like declaring the western half of the Atlantic ocean U.S. territorial waters!
And the U.S. involvment in the sinkings of a German Neutral Cargo ship that left mexico and were sunk near Cuba in 1940.

Not to mention the fact that the U.S. supplying England with war supplies broke all international neutrality agreements and unofficialy set it on a war footing with the Axis powers. And to top it all off U.S. ships were openly firing on U-boats and U-boats in turn sank a few destroyers in defence, which in turn upset Hitler who forbade any attacks on U.S. vessals.

War with America was inevitable and Not from Germany's side, but from America's!

Look at the Facts, Japan attacks America and the we adopt the Germany first plan! That makes it seem to me that Germany was the real enemy in Roosevelt's eyes all along and Japan was the excuse to get us going in that direction.

Roosevelt had tried to pull the isolationist U.S. into the war with Germany in 1940 and Congress rejected it.

thefruitbat
07-09-2008, 04:02 PM
Look at the Facts, Japan attacks America and the we adopt the Germany first plan! That makes it seem to me that Germany was the real enemy in Roosevelt's eyes all along and Japan was the excuse to get us going in that direction.

I agree, but germany made it easy by declaring war. Could it of been sold to public if they hadn't?

fruitbat

Blutarski2004
07-09-2008, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Well the German pact with Japan was a defensive one, Calling one to aid the other by obligation if either was attacked.

But Hitler was feeling more and more pressure from America. Like declaring the western half of the Atlantic ocean U.S. territorial waters!
And the U.S. involvment in the sinkings of a German Neutral Cargo ship that left mexico and were sunk near Cuba in 1940.

Not to mention the fact that the U.S. supplying England with war supplies broke all international neutrality agreements and unofficialy set it on a war footing with the Axis powers. And to top it all off U.S. ships were openly firing on U-boats and U-boats in turn sank a few destroyers in defence, which in turn upset Hitler who forbade any attacks on U.S. vessals.

War with America was inevitable and Not from Germany's side, but from America's!

Look at the Facts, Japan attacks America and the we adopt the Germany first plan! That makes it seem to me that Germany was the real enemy in Roosevelt's eyes all along and Japan was the excuse to get us going in that direction.

Roosevelt had tried to pull the isolationist U.S. into the war with Germany in 1940 and Congress rejected it.


..... Not to mention supplying huge quantities of high-octane avgas to the RAF during the BoB and repairing battle-damaged British ships in US yards.

Hardly the acts of a "neutral" government.

thefruitbat
07-09-2008, 05:11 PM
Again all true, but would Roosevelt have been able to ever turn Germany into enemy no 1, if Germany hadn't forced itself onto the adgenda?

There is no doubt that the US was not that 'neutral' before pearl, with the help it gave to GB, but if Germany hadn't of declared war, how would Roosevrlt of been able to justify Germany as enemy no 1, with the v real and felt threat from the east?

fruitbat

Blutarski2004
07-09-2008, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
Again all true, but would Roosevelt have been able to ever turn Germany into enemy no 1, if Germany hadn't forced itself onto the adgenda?

There is no doubt that the US was not that 'neutral' before pearl, with the help it gave to GB, but if Germany hadn't of declared war, how would Roosevrlt of been able to justify Germany as enemy no 1, with the v real and felt threat from the east?

fruitbat


..... That's the $64,000.00 question. I suspect that FDR would have simply kept ratcheting up the pressure. For example, Roosevelt had authorized $1 Billion in Lend-Lease aid to the USSR within 4 months of the launch of Barbarossa - a process obviously started well before Pearl Harbor.

Still, actual commitment of US armed forces to battle was a BIG step that Roosevelt could not take without congressional approval of an official declaration of war upon Germany. And that would have been a serious domestic political struggle, especially with all eyes focused upon Japan. Hitler's unnecessary declaration of war upon the US unlocked that door for Roosevelt.

WTE_Galway
07-09-2008, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thefruitbat:
What would/could of happened differently, if Germany hadn't of declared war on the USA, would the USA have declared war on Germany straight after Pearl?

???

fruitbat


..... An excellent and perhaps unanswerable question. Roosevelt harbored an intense desire to counter Japanese moves in the Asian arena and to support Great Britain against the Germans. Hence the less than subtle provocations he directed toward both Japan and Germany. However, there was a strong atmosphere of isolationism present on the US domestic political scene at the time that restricted Roosevelts freedom of action. That sense of isolationism evaporated with the Pearl Harbor attack and a great rage arose within the body politic toward Japan.

If Germany had not declared war against the US, it is debatable whether Roosevelt could have diverted some portion of that rage toward Germany. I'm not sure which way the dice would have fallen. Roosevelt was a canny politician and unscrupulous enough to keep up a campaign of provocations and propaganda until Hitler and Germany were pushed over the edge. At best, I think, Germany might have gained a year or two. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lets not forget the abundant conspiracy theories that abound regarding Rooseveldt's supposed prior knowledge of the attack and the handy departure of the carrier force just before hand.

Certainly there are Australian records of advising the US several days beforehand of the siting of a major Japanese force heading towards Hawaii by a RAAF Catalina, however personally i think these warnings were ignored as a result of peacetime complacency and incompetence not a part of some clandestine uber-conspiracy to get the US in to the war.

KrashanTopolova
07-09-2008, 07:32 PM
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 P-47 was modified to be competitive in speed with the German jets

The P-47M is recorded officially at 470 mph at 30,000 with no racks for external tanks (i.e. probably 460 with racks, and a bit slower still at 25,000 feet), the Me 262 at 540 mph at 20,000, falling off a bit by 30,000, which was still sufficient margin (around 50 mph or more) to allow the 262 to dictate the fight at typical escort altitudes except at landing, takeoff or if the pilot makes a gross error. If it was comeptitive with the 262 then the Fw190A was competitive with the P-47M at 25,000 feet (about a 50 mph margin), and the suggestion in the thread is that it wasn't with the slower P-47D.

There are unofficial higher figures for the P-47M but it seems, from various charts and comments about corrections and talk of moving the pitot etc that the P-47 tended to read high at high speeds so I am not sure how much faith to place in the higher speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet there were some air force generals around the world in the 1970's when contemplating what new jet fighter to buy their air force raising the devil's advocate argument that in fact a WW2 piston-engined fighter 'shot down' the new jet types in excercises. Perhaps speed was not the decisive facter - just close enough may have been good enough.

In the end they faced the reality of the obsolescence in speed for the pistons but they were still employed in various front line roles vis a vis C-150's and Skyraiders in Vietnam in the ground support role.
And if you believe Loose Change: a C-150 may have helped a cruise missile take out the Pentagon in the 2001 WTC attacks.
Now that would make Roosevelt's diplomacy in WW2 seem more Angelic than is perceived.

Anyone thinking of oil and resources right now?...what if the Axis had obtained the oilfields of USSR, Middle East and Asia?
The 1000 year Reich, the New Roman Empire and the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere may well have prevented the twin-fin Chevy of the 1950's not to mention the Mustang of the 1960's.

joeap
07-10-2008, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Declaration of war is about as much of an attack as can be.

Well I think that statement is nonsense in the context of what we are discussing, a declaration of war AFTER an attack. Most international legal experts would agree.

joeap
07-10-2008, 04:47 AM
Last time before I go off and try to answer this myself. Any clear figures as to LW losses per type and theatre as there are for the Kreigsmarine and the Wehrmacht? Otherwise we are no closer to answering Avro's question before all this OT nonsense.

R_Target
07-10-2008, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
Last time before I go off and try to answer this myself. Any clear figures as to LW losses per type and theatre as there are for the Kreigsmarine and the Wehrmacht? Otherwise we are no closer to answering Avro's question before all this OT nonsense.

I think the answer is about five or six pages back.

BAG.LordDante
07-10-2008, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Shortly after take off from Nordhorn, apparently while still forming up on the Dutch side of the nearby border, the Focke-Wulfs were hit by the Spitfires of another Canadian squadron, No 442. The German formation scattered. The Canadian pilots filed claims for one probable and one damaged. Their "probable" in fact crashed, carrying Lt Wilhelm Mayer to his death. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TOTALY OFF TOPIC ....
I live in Nordhorn.
It´s such a lovely place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

NORDHORN

Xiolablu3
07-10-2008, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by hop2002:


Certainly they rarely found enemy aircraft. Looking at that text it's interesting to note that despite flying so few sorties, JG 26 usually went up mob handed to ensure an advantage of numbers when they did meet the enemy. Despite that they did badly. Of course the German army was left entirely unprotected by the Luftwaffe.

Another problem of comparing JG26 or otgher such 'elite' Luftwaffe squadrons with the RAF sorties late in the war is that the 'elite' squadrons got by far the best resources. They had the pick of the fuel and planes, whereas most other 'lesser' squadrons got 2nd choice and as such were far less 'active'.

The few elite squadrons got the best planes, first choice of the fuel and ammuntion and the best personel.

To get a real picture of the Luftwaffe sorties and activity you would have to take one of the lesser well known 'average' sqaudrons, not a 'pick of the bunch' squadron like JG26.

Pierre Clostermanns book 'The Big Show' tells us that the RAF was getting into big scraps all the time right up to May 1945.