# Where was the Luftwaffe defeated?



## stona (Jul 12, 2012)

There was a thread a while ago in which it was posited that the Luftwaffe was defeated on the Eastern front,contrary to the generally accepted Anglo-American view.
I couldn't find the overall statistics at the time to show where the Luftwaffe's losses occured,but stumbled across them looking for something else. They are pretty unequivocal numbers,unless you believe that the Luftwaffe was materially defeated in 1942.







The table is published in U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, European War, Volume 2A, Statistical Appendix to Overall Report and is collated from German,OKL documents.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 12, 2012)

Luftwaffe was more than just single engined fighters..


----------



## stona (Jul 12, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> Luftwaffe was more than just single engined fighters..



Yes but from 1943 onwards the objective,particularly of the USAAF,was to gain air superiority. To this end it concentrated on the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force. Luftwaffe multi engined bombers were hardly relevant as such on the Western front.German production in 1943/4 was predominantly of single engined fighters.You can only shoot down what the enemy puts up.






Cheers
Steve


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 12, 2012)

stona said:


> Yes but from 1943 onwards the objective,particularly of the USAAF,was to gain air superiority. To this end it concentrated on the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force.



It was the USAAF objective only however.. you want to judge other's performance by applying USAAF goals and tactics to measure their success, but IMO its flawed thought. Soviet did not want to shoot down German fighters. They wanted to escort Shturmoviks, and shoot down Germans fighter and bomber when needed. British did not want to shoot down German fighter either. They wanted to minimize losses of their night bomber so they can keep up operation.



> Luftwaffe multi engined bombers were hardly relevant as such on the Western front.



They were however very relevant on the other fronts. Western front was hardly the only relevant thing in the war. German bombers played a vital role in the Eastern Front, supporting German land army, and that is where the war was decided.



> German production in 1943/4 was predominantly of single engined fighters.You can only shoot down what the enemy puts up.



Very true. But I still do not get how shooting down many German fighters is the same as shooting down many German fighters, bombers, attack, recon and transport, ie. the Luftwaffe.

If shooting down fighters is a measure how the LW was defeated then we can close the thread since the German still produced a lot more than shot down and the number of their serivce fighters actually increases steady until 1945... that said, the LW was defeated, or at least certain lost ability control air by two factor IMO: sheer output of American factories (simply too many American planes to catch and shoot down) and destruction of their oil capacity by USAAF bombers.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 12, 2012)

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

Nice chart on losses East vs West.

_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._


----------



## stona (Jul 13, 2012)

The British most certainly did want to shoot down German fighters. They had learnt a bitter lesson in 1941/42 trying to do this and were only able to do this effectively much later in the war. Unlike the USAAF the RAF didn't have a fighter capable of doing the job at range.

It is worth noting that a significant percentage of twin engined aircraft produced from late 1942 onwards did go to the nightfighter arm. I will attempt to find the numbers at home over the week end.

The Luftwaffe did of course suffer losses in bomber,transport and "others" on the Eastern front just as it did in the West.Bomber and Transport losses in the Mediterranean make sobering reading. Someone who has more time on their hands can dig for the numbers of multi engined aircraft destroyed by the RAF and USAAF on the ground or at the factories before they were ever accepted into service. This was the effect of the Second Front in the air so often minimised by Eastern Front promoters.
Germany lost the war on the Eastern front,I don't think anyone would deny that,but the Luftwaffe was systematically ground into oblivion and denied vital resources(look at charts of production v requirements of just about anything,fuel,rubber,engines etc from around the end of the first quarter in 1944) on the Western Front,very largely by the USAAF. 
You don't destroy an Air Force simply by shooting down its aircraft though that is a good starting point.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jul 13, 2012)

When one of the Germans' top echelon was interviewed, by the Russians, post-war, he was asked what he considered to be their most telling defeat, thinking he would say Stalingrad. They were somewhat shattered, when he said that they never recovered from the damage inflicted in the Battle of Britain.


----------



## merlin (Jul 13, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> When one of the Germans' top echelon was interviewed, by the Russians, post-war, he was asked what he considered to be their most telling defeat, thinking he would say Stalingrad. They were somewhat shattered, when he said that they never recovered from the damage inflicted in the Battle of Britain.


 
According to Stephen Bungay - it was Field-Marshall Gerd von Runstedt.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 13, 2012)

> they never recovered from the damage inflicted in the Battle of Britain.



Beat me to it.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 13, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> It was the USAAF objective only however.. you want to judge other's performance by applying USAAF goals and tactics to measure their success, but IMO its flawed thought. Soviet did not want to shoot down German fighters. They wanted to escort Shturmoviks, and shoot down Germans fighter and bomber when needed. British did not want to shoot down German fighter either. They wanted to minimize losses of their night bomber so they can keep up operation.
> 
> *The USAAF objectives were threefold: First was to crush German Industry and restrict supply of war materials critical to The German prosecution of the war. Second was to enable air superiority over Allied land forces. Third was to provide Tactical interdiction of men and material to the front.
> 
> ...



*German technology in re-generating skilled fighter pilots never matched their ability to produce machines. While the manufacturing capability of the US was unmatched, it was the ability to plan and deliver an endless supply of trained crews that got the the USAAF through the August through October, 1943 period - then the delivery and utilization of a high performance fighter with very long range to carve out the Luftwaffe fighter pilot cadre from December through May, 1944.

*


----------



## Jenisch (Jul 13, 2012)

stona said:


> Germany lost the war on the Eastern front,I don't think anyone would deny that



I wouldn't "deny" this, but it depends of the way you see the things. I have serious doubts that if the war started like historically, the Russians, alone, would be able to set a foot in Germany. Thus, Germany lost the war in the East or West? It's not incorrect even to say it was in both.


----------



## stona (Jul 13, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> If shooting down fighters is a measure how the LW was defeated then we can close the thread since the German still produced a lot more than shot down and the number of their serivce fighters actually increases steady until 1945...



No it did not.

In January 1942 there were 1,324 fighters available.

The number peaked in July 1943 with a total of 1,849

By July 1944 this had FALLEN to 1,523. There is a slight recovery to a September 1944 peak of 1,610 (still less than mid 1943 and less than its strength in May 1940 of 1,758 fighters) before which the graph continues inexorably downwards.

The faster the Luftwaffe produced aircraft the quicker the USAAF/RAF shot them and their barely trained pilots down.

Only during one month of the entire war (July 1943) did the Luftwaffe have more fighters available than it did in May 1940,immiediately prior to the Battle of France.

Compare those numbers with the enormous build up of air power by the Western Allies in the same month,September 1944.

USAAF 5,490 Fighters 7,007 Bombers
RAF 7,651 Fighters 6,044 Bombers.

These numbers were mostly higher for both Air Forces by the end of the war. Only the number of RAF bombers was reduced.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (Jul 13, 2012)

Tante Ju said:


> the LW was defeated, or at least certain lost ability control air by two factor IMO: sheer output of American factories (simply too many American planes to catch and shoot down) and destruction of their oil capacity by USAAF bombers.



Germany disappeared under a hail of high explosive ordnance,particularly in the last months of the war.






Only 9.5% of this was aimed at POL (and rubber).






It had this effect.






What is often overlooked is that similar charts can be drawn for just about every aspect of German production,transport etc.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jul 13, 2012)

My opinion is that whilst the combat losses in the air were heavily weighted to the west for the LW, the overall loss rates including non-operational losses, captures and the like tipped this balance back in favour of the eastern front. More than half the LW losses in the east had nothing to do with the VVS. Bad weather, poor airfields and the advanacing Red Army took their toll on the LW. 

Somewhere ( I will try and find it) I read that during the Bagration operation, LW losses to non combat causes were seven times those of the losses due to enemy air activity. 

The Eastern front was just as much of a meat grinder for the LW as it was for the Heer.


----------



## mikewint (Jul 13, 2012)

Aircraft losses are certainly important but even more important are PILOT losses. As pilots are killed they are replaced but as the war progresses the replacements are of lower and lower quality which in turn accelerates the loss of aircraft and lowers kill ratios. Germany could never hope to equal the US ability to manufacture aircraft or field quality pilots. The Germans on the western front were indeed overwhelmed by sheer numers of aircraft and pilots


----------



## drgondog (Jul 13, 2012)

stona said:


> Compare those numbers with the enormous build up of air power by the Western Allies in the same month,September 1944.
> 
> USAAF 5,490 Fighters 7,007 Bombers
> RAF 7,651 Fighters 6,044 Bombers.
> ...



Steve - that is a curious number for USAAF strength in Sept 1944? are you stating ETO+MTO?

By quick calc the 8th and 9th AF FC had about 2200 fighters operational. The MTO-USAAF of 12th and 15th AF had about 1/2 that in context of operational strength actually assigned to all the Fighter Groups.

Short question - number seems 2x for fighters, The bomber number when you include all the light and mediums with the heavies seems closer to correct.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 13, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> When one of the Germans' top echelon was interviewed, by the Russians, post-war, he was asked what he considered to be their most telling defeat, thinking he would say Stalingrad. They were somewhat shattered, when he said that they never recovered from the damage inflicted in the Battle of Britain.





merlin said:


> According to Stephen Bungay - it was Field-Marshall Gerd von Runstedt.



I'm sure you're right.....and there is some merit in this opinion, no doubt, it was a serious set of losses (as in fact were all the losses from Poland and on to France) that would later reveal themselves as very costly.
But it also has to be bourne in mind on any discussion of the German view of the eastern front that despite the obvious results some Germans were loath to admit they had actually suffered defeat on the EF at all.
It was always due to losses demands elsewhere and not really down to any significant defeat at the hands of the Russian forces.
Nazi ideology at work I think.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 13, 2012)

What is true is that many AAA assets and LW fighter assets were stripped from East and diverted to Germany for the battles against USAAF and RAF over Germany.


----------



## stona (Jul 13, 2012)

The figures for the USAAF come from the "USAAF Office of Statistical Supply,HQ USAAF" and represent the total number of combat planes,by type,in both the ETO and MTO.

The RAF numbers come from the Central Statistical Office and likewise represent totals in both theatres.

Both certainly represent the total numbers in theatre,not just those operational.

Don't forget the Luftwaffe numbers,from OKL documents,which I posted represent total strength in all theatres,including the Eastern Front,also including those non operational.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Erich (Jul 13, 2012)

Gentlemen ~ I have a copy of the written order in April 1943 to move LW gruppen from the Ost to the West which slowly accumulated into Reichsverteidigung


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2012)

mikewint said:


> Aircraft losses are certainly important but even more important are PILOT losses. As pilots are killed they are replaced but as the war progresses the replacements are of lower and lower quality which in turn accelerates the loss of aircraft and lowers kill ratios. Germany could never hope to equal the US ability to manufacture aircraft or field quality pilots. The Germans on the western front were indeed overwhelmed by sheer numers of aircraft and pilots



I agree,the two go hand in hand.

Pilot quality fell off a cliff. Josef Schmid,effectively in command of all fighters defending the Reich,wrote of the situation as early as April 1944.

"U.S. freie Jagden added to the strain on RLV aircrews. Inexperienced pilots suffered Jager-shrek (fear of fighters) owing to the realisation of their own vulnerability when forced to fly alone due to weather or damage. This led to premature bail outs"

On 27th April 1944 Galland said.

"The problem with which the Americans have confronted the fighter arm is quite simply the problem of air superiority.The situation is already being characterised by enemy air superiority.
_The numerical ratios in daytime combat at present fluctuate between approximately 6:1 and 8:1_ in favour of the enemy.The enemy's standard of training is astonishingly high.The technical capabilities of his aircraft are so manifest that we are obliged to say that something must be done immiediately...

It is unfortunate that the Jagerstab's efforts to increase fighter production must be carried out under the pressure of bombing and very heavy losses...

In the past four months our day fighter forces have lost well over 1,000 pilots,including many of our best Geschwader,Gruppe and Staffel commanders. We are having great difficulty in closing this gap,_not in a numerical sense_,but with experienced leaders."

My italics

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 14, 2012)

Indeed Steve, they could move as much as they could underground in fact my understanding is that Germany was littered with many of the latest brand new a/c types Germany had at wars end but without trained pilots to fly them, or fuel to power them - and they had neither, there really wasn't much point in that (astonishing under the circumstances) production.

But one can't help coming back to the delusional mindset of the disintegrating state back then, they ended the war calling up 13yr old children, it simply beggars belief.....and they and their slightly older brothers were meant to fly Heinkel 162 jets.....and God only knows where they were supposed to get the rudimentary glider time that was supposed to be the training for the jets!?
It's simply staggering.....but in its own way as indicative of the total destruction of the (as someone once coined the phrase) 'whole rotten edifice'.


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Indeed Steve, they could move as much as they could underground in fact my understanding is that Germany was littered with many of the latest brand new a/c types Germany had at wars end but without trained pilots to fly them, or fuel to power them - and they had neither, there really wasn't much point in that (astonishing under the circumstances) production.



The allies certainly found plenty of the latest aircraft in various states littering German airfields at the end of the war.
There is a common misconception that the ramming attacks of Sonderkommando Elbe were carried out using old and tired aircraft. This is not so. I was recently reading an account by Werner Zell of his one and only special mission and he had selected a brand new Bf 109 K-4 for the job. His only modification was to remove the rear/head armour (Galland panzer) as he had heard that this could hit you on the head when the canopy was jettisoned.
He survived despite being badly injured in the ramming and then being machine gunned in his parachute by a P-51. He later counted 19 holes in his parachute.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## cimmex (Jul 14, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Indeed Steve, they could move as much as they could underground in fact my understanding is that Germany was littered with many of the latest brand new a/c types Germany had at wars end but without trained pilots to fly them, or fuel to power them - and they had neither, there really wasn't much point in that (astonishing under the circumstances) production.
> 
> But one can't help coming back to the delusional mindset of the disintegrating state back then, they ended the war calling up 13yr old children, it simply beggars belief.....and they and their slightly older brothers were meant to fly Heinkel 162 jets.....and God only knows where they were supposed to get the rudimentary glider time that was supposed to be the training for the jets!?
> It's simply staggering.....but in its own way as indicative of the total destruction of the (as someone once coined the phrase) 'whole rotten edifice'.



13 year old??? Even in 1945 boys had to be at least 16 to join the army. My uncle just reached age 16, wanted to join in spring 45 but was rejected because already three of his brothers had died in the war in the East. This is what my mother (born 1931) told me some years ago.
cimmex


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2012)

True,but how many enlisted underage.
My own Grandfather enlisted underage in the latter stages of WW1. I only found out,after his death,when I noticed a discrepancy of two years between his recorded DoB and that given in his Army records.
He gave his age as 18 in 1916 when he was infact only 16.







We forget in this digital age how much easier it was to get away with this sort of "economy with the truth". Records were much more difficult to check.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## cimmex (Jul 14, 2012)

in every time and even more during the NAZI regime Germany had a very strong bureaucracy and you need documents and papers for all and everything so claiming a wrong age during recruiting is not easy but could occur in some few cases. 
cimmex


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2012)

cimmex said:


> in every time and even more during the NAZI regime Germany had a very strong bureaucracy and you need documents and papers for all and everything so claiming a wrong age during recruiting is not easy but could occur in some few cases.
> cimmex



I don't doubt it and I wouldn't compare late WW2 recruiting with the mass volunteers of 1914-16. Nonetheless desperation can certainly cause a blind eye in the recruiter.

We know that the British and French Armies recruited hundreds of thousands of under age boys in WW1.I don't know but would be surprised if Germany was different.

I'm sure that at least some young lads (and girls) in a National Socialist fervour were recruited in late war Nazi Germany.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2012)

stona said:


> The allies certainly found plenty of the latest aircraft in various states littering German airfields at the end of the war.
> There is a common misconception that the ramming attacks of Sonderkommando Elbe were carried out using old and tired aircraft. This is not so. I was recently reading an account by Werner Zell of his one and only special mission and he had selected a brand new Bf 109 K-4 for the job. His only modification was to remove the rear/head armour (Galland panzer) as he had heard that this could hit you on the head when the canopy was jettisoned.
> He survived despite being badly injured in the ramming and then being machine gunned in his parachute by a P-51. He later counted 19 holes in his parachute.
> Cheers
> Steve



I have often speculated that the bulk of shooting at guys in chutes (on Allied side) might have been ;love taps' from bomber gunners. In the example above the guy would probably be dead had a P-51 pilot been shooting at him.. I have no doubt that German pilots were shot at after bailing out, as Allied crews suffered the same fate. 

It is an interesting question. There was no mercy given on the ground by a sniper shooting a soldier eating a K-ration, or a tank gunner shooting soldiers running away from him in the back. Is the guideline to wait until chow is over and he GI picks up his M-1? Or wait until the soldiers running away decide to stand and fight? Different from killing a guy hanging in a parachute after trying to kill you and failing? I don't know how to make that distinction.

I know there was dialogue and discussion about 'just when do you stop shooting?" When the German pilot ejects his canopy, when he is trying to climb or drop out of his ship"? Is there a problem strafing a crash landed fighter? or catching the guy as he tries to run from his airplane?

He didn't (couldn't) surrender. The pilot was trying to save his own life in the immediate moment but certainly would be back in a new fighter later if we are talking about a German pilot over his own territory, or RAF pilot during BoB.

It wasn't contrary to Geneva Convention or "Rules of War" - so where is the moral/ethical line and how is it articulated and applied? Is a fighter pilot that shoots at another fighter pilot in a parachute different morally from an He 111 pilot dropping bombs in the middle of London - or B-17 bombadier unloading on Hamburg or Dresden?

Equally interesting question. Where is the moral legal stricture valid for a citizen of a German city that has been bombed taking up arms and killing an armed American fighter pilot - who may Not have surrendered his firearm? 

I can't speak for everyone here, but if we were in a war here I would have zero inhibitions about wasting a Chinese or Russian (hypothetical adversary) pilot shot down near me. If I had the shot.. I would take it.

Oh, well - enough philosopy.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2012)

stona said:


> The figures for the USAAF come from the "USAAF Office of Statistical Supply,HQ USAAF" and represent the total number of combat planes,by type,in both the ETO and MTO.
> 
> The RAF numbers come from the Central Statistical Office and likewise represent totals in both theatres.
> 
> ...



Thanks Steve - I suspected the source. It is such a huge overage from operational strength that I wonder if War Weary/Salvaged aircraft also have a tab in the inventory count. That is the trouble (for me) with the Government records I have seen when trying to figure out operational levels In Theatre. The very same issue arises when trying to break out Cause of Loss - Operations.


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2012)

Zell was quite specific that it was a P-51 that shot at him. 
Earlier he was struggling to release his hood whan another (or possibly the same) P-51 shot at him,in Zell's opinion causing his jammed canopy to release. In his original account he refers sarcastically to this Mustang as his "Saviour".
Here's the moral rather than legal conundrum,whilst still in the aircraft he would be considered a legitimate target by most combatants. Once free and in a parachute this would not be the case for most.

I've looked into this in some detail and did post in an earlier thread. There is no doubt that men in parachutes were shot at by all sides. It was not routine or commonplace. The restraining factor seems to have been the awareness of the potential attacker that "There,but for the Grace of God go I".

Dowding was of the opinion that an airman descending into enemy territory,that is a German floating down to the fields of Kent,was effectively already a PoW and as such not a legitimate target. This obviously leaves the question open regarding another pilot descending onto home territory whence he might quickly be back in action.

Bomber crew members from all sides certainly got mis-handled or worse by the civilian populations they had been attacking. Their best bet was to be taken into the charge of the local Police or Military authorities as soon as possible. Here they were _usually_ treated correctly. For an Allied airman the sooner he was in the hands of the Luftwaffe the better. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 14, 2012)

cimmex said:


> 13 year old???



Well if 13 is not corrrect then several TV programs I've seen talking about the final 1945 situation are wrong.

I had a look wiki has this to say "By 1945, the Volkssturm was commonly drafting 12-year-old Hitler Youth members into its ranks".

I expect as the collapse began the rules may have said one thing but party zealot nutters another.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 14, 2012)

cimmex said:


> 13 year old??? Even in 1945 boys had to be at least 16 to join the army. My uncle just reached age 16, wanted to join in spring 45 but was rejected because already three of his brothers had died in the war in the East. This is what my mother (born 1931) told me some years ago.
> cimmex



Thats not my understanding. My father fought in the defence of Berlin at the very end. On April 23rd, battalions made up entirely of Hitler Youths all of them under the age of 16 were quickly formed to hold the Pichelsdorf bridges by the Havel River. These bridges in Berlin were supposed to be used by General Wenck's relief army coming from the south. That army, unknown to the boys, had already been destroyed and now existed on paper only. It was one of several phantom armies being commanded by Hitler to save encircled Berlin. How does my father know that....he was there, and helped to organise these battalions of child soldiers. he still has nightmares about it. 

At the Pichelsdorf bridges, 5,000 boys, wearing man-sized uniforms several sizes too big and helmets that flopped around on their heads, stood by with rifles and Panzerfausts, ready to oppose the Russian Army. Within five days of battle, 4,500 had been killed or wounded. In other parts of Berlin, HJ boys met similar fates. Many committed suicide rather than be taken alive by the Russians. 

In February 1945, project Werewolf began, training German children as spies and saboteurs, intending to send them behind Allied lines with explosives and arsenic. But the project came to nothing as most of these would-be saboteurs were quickly captured or killed by the Allies as they advanced into the Reich. 

In his last public appearance, just ten days before his death, Adolf Hitler ventured out of his Berlin bunker on his 56th birthday into the Chancellery garden to decorate members of the hitler Youth serving in the armed forces. Admittedly may of these boys were not in front line combat roles, many were serving as as runners and messengers and the like, but they were still soldiers. One of those decorated soldiers was a twelve-year-old Hitler Youth with an Iron Cross for hisr heroism in the defense of Berlin. The extraordinary event was captured on film and remains one of the most enduring images chronicling the collapse of Hitler's thousand-year Reich, as the tottering, senile-looking Führer is seen congratulating little boys staring at him with worshipful admiration. They were then sent back out into the streets to continue the hopeless fight. 

From 1939, immediately following the fall of Poland, Hitler Youth (actually Jungvolk....Hitler Youth below the age of 14) including girls, were attached to the Land Service were assigned to the acquired territory in northern Poland (Warthegau) to assist in the massive Nazi repopulation program in which native Poles were forced off their homes and farms by Himmler's SS troops to make way for ethnic Germans. Hitler Youths also assisted in this operation by watching over Polish families as they were evicted from their homes, making sure they took only a few basic possessions. These boys were armed, making them the firdst boy soldiers in the german armed forces. 

By the beginning of 1943, Hitler's armies were stretched to the limit, battling the combined forces of Soviet Russia, United States, Britain and other Allies. By this time, most able-bodied German men were in the armed services. As a result, starting on January 26, 1943, many anti-aircraft batteries were officially manned solely by Hitler Youth boys. The boys manning the guns were Hitler Youth, ostensibly over the age of 16, but in reality including many as young as 14. 

At first they were stationed at flak guns near their homes, but as the overall situation deteriorated, they were transferred all over Germany. As the situation worsened, the younger boys of the Jungvolk were brought into help and were were assigned to operate search lights and assist with communications, often riding their bicycles as dispatch riders. In October 1943, a search light battery received a direct bomb hit, killing the entire crew of boys, all aged 14 and under.


----------



## cimmex (Jul 14, 2012)

I agree, Volkssturm was a different matter and HJ boys were used to assist the Flak crews or for similar tasks but never were chosen to fly the He162. This plane was to valuable and nobody would risk to destroy property of the Luftwaffe by children.
cimmex


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 14, 2012)

It seems perverse to put a 'like' to your comment parsifal, but you know what I mean.
Children as soldiers, such a tragedy wherever it happens.
The awful shame is it goes on in many African conflicts to this day.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 14, 2012)

cimmex said:


> I agree, Volkssturm was a different matter and HJ boys were used to assist the Flak crews or for similar tasks but never were chosen to fly the He162. This plane was to valuable and nobody would risk to destroy property of the Luftwaffe by children.
> cimmex



But surely it is well known understood that the plan was for Hitler Youth (and any other barely trained unfortunates they could scrape up) to fly these jets?


----------



## Jenisch (Jul 14, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> I'm sure you're right.....and there is some merit in this opinion, no doubt, it was a serious set of losses (as in fact were all the losses from Poland and on to France) that would later reveal themselves as very costly.
> But it also has to be bourne in mind on any discussion of the German view of the eastern front that despite the obvious results some Germans were loath to admit they had actually suffered defeat on the EF at all.
> It was always due to losses demands elsewhere and not really down to any significant defeat at the hands of the Russian forces.
> Nazi ideology at work I think.


 
What about the Russians saying they didn't needed allies? Communist ideology at work?


----------



## stona (Jul 14, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> But surely it is well known understood that the plan was for Hitler Youth (and any other barely trained unfortunates they could scrape up) to fly these jets?



Not really. This originates with comments made by Ernst Heinkel _after_ the war. He suggested that the original intention was that the craft should be flown by inexperienced pilots. This is reinforced by the confusing name "Volksjager". There is no evidence that I've seen from Luftwaffe sources that this was ever contemplated by the Luftwaffe itself. Infact the handling made it a difficult machine to fly,even for experienced pilots.
The He 162 was operated only by JG 1,by qualified Luftwaffe pilots.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Gixxerman (Jul 15, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> What about the Russians saying they didn't needed allies? Communist ideology at work?



Probably.....and?



stona said:


> Not really. This originates with comments made by Ernst Heinkel _after_ the war. He suggested that the original intention was that the craft should be flown by inexperienced pilots. This is reinforced by the confusing name "Volksjager".



Perhaps, but he must have gotten that from somewhere.
Besides by 1945 they really were scraping up 'manpower' from anywhere they could that was left.
However you define it children were being recruited into the ranks, the Hitler Youth SS army units were well documented, why would a HY air element be far-fetched, especially with the SS involved.
Cue the lunatic 'with enough determined will and true national socialist spirit one can overcome all' nonsense.



stona said:


> There is no evidence that I've seen from Luftwaffe sources that this was ever contemplated by the Luftwaffe itself.



I've no doubt the LW itself never lost sight of the need for proper trained aircrew, I don't think this would have been coiming from them.....but as I said they were already throwing the children into the grinder on land, I'm not sure I'd see those same types baulk at hurling them into the air.
As it was even Goring's LW leadership had all sorts of stupid ideas about combat (re the swearing to fight in the air end up doing a ramming attack)....even if some sanity was retained further down the food chain. 



stona said:


> Infact the handling made it a difficult machine to fly,even for experienced pilots.



It's an interesting one, I've read reports of awful handling.
Yet there are reports (from Cap. Eric Brown) that it was "delightful to fly".......but then went on to say "although the very light controls made it suitable only for experienced pilots".



stona said:


> The He 162 was operated only by JG 1,by qualified Luftwaffe pilots.
> Cheers
> Steve



Yes, absolutely agreed, I've never seen anything contrary to this.


----------



## stona (Jul 15, 2012)

I think the idea of barely trained men and boys flying the Volksjager is another illustration of the gulf between political rhetoric and military reality. This gulf was particularly large in the twilight of the Third Reich.

These aircraft were accepted by the Luftwaffe which never had any intention of having untrained crews fly them. 

It's not just the flying. The Luftwaffe was perfectly well aware that the majority of its_ trained _pilots were barely capable of hitting anything in air to air combat (a problem not unique to it). How on earth would someone who could barely fly the aircraft be of any use in a combat situation?

It is entirely possible that Ernst Heinkel was merely repeating,post war,something that had been an intention of the Nazi political leadership.This does not mean it was ever a realistic military objective. 
There was mileage to be gained by someone like Heinkel in portraying the Nazi leadership as inept,the sort of "carpet biting madman" image of Hitler or the fat drug addled image of Goering. These were very much promoted by many senior "non-political" figures after the war as they tried to distance themselves from the regime which most of them had enthusiastically served.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jul 15, 2012)

To get back to the main thrust of this thread, I think it important to try and understand the the theoretical basis of the various air forces involved, and then to determine how closely each of the combatants came to achieving those aims. Not every air force had as its primary aim the winning on a front wide basis air superiority. some, like Germany and the soviets had as their primary mission, support of the army....direct support if you like. The Germans took a slightly more balanced view of the air battle as they saw it....they used their fighters to take control of the skies in the sectors of the front where they needed it, they used their level bombers to suppress enemy airfields, interdict communications and interfere with supply lines and inhibit the movement of reserves. They were never a force designed or equipped to fight a purely strategic air campaign, as their experiences in the BoB clearly demonstrate. Lying side by side with that failure, is their moment of greatest success, and the best illustration of how their concepts of air warfare could be applied. `The BOF probably represents the best example of their theories of air power successfully applied.

In other words the LW was primarily designed as a tactical extension of their land forces. it was where the germans excelled and where they enjoyed their greatest success

The Russian concepts of air warfare were very similar, but if anything, their doctrine stressed even more the concept of direct support. There was a reason why the russians built 37000 Sturmoviks....they suited exactly the type of air warfare the russian believed was appropriate. In the end, for the russians, winning the air battle was meaningless. what their air power had to do was help their ground armies win battles and retake ground. They were very successful at that, as were the germans, but the russians did prevail in this kind of warfare so, by definition, one has to conclude that the russians turned the corner and won their air battle. Opinions do vary, but in my opinion the first successful air campaign were the operations in the kuban. Operations over kursk were a qualified, but limited success, thereafter things only got better for the russians.

For the british, their 1939 vision of air warfare underwent an almost total transformation. Their ideas that large fleets of daylight bombers operating unescorted to cause the defeat of an enemy were proven very early to be unsound. They transformed to night bombing, which helped, but carried with it their own problems. These were eventually solved, but it took a long time. At sea, the use of VLR a/c in ASW warfare was a critical defensive move, ut one that took a long time to sink in. The need to provide direct support....tactical airpower was another concept the british took a long time to develop. on the other hand, by the narrowest of margins, the british development of defensive fighter techniques, were easily the most advanced in the world at the beginning of the war, and is probably the one thing that worked as designed and avoided surrender for them.

The US entered the war with similar concepts to the british in 1939....the unescorted bomber would destroy the enemy ability to fight. it took the Americans considerably longer to realize the folly of sending unescorted bombers over enemy territory, but they at least knew that this was what was needed to win the war, and eventually they came up with the targets, the weapons and the fighters needed to destroy the LW, and from that, win the war. Whilst germanys petrochemical industry was a good target choice, i dont believe its the only one that could have delivered victory. Provided the target choice was reasonable, putting a large number of bombers over germany, with a heavy and effective fighter escort, backed up by a good pilot and airframe supply was going to produce victory. The germans were not really in a good position to counter this....their late war decision to concentrate on fighters alone was a strategic blind alley bound to deliver them defeat

In summary, I dont the answer of 'where the LW was defeated" can be all that easily answered. it was defeated in many ways, and at many levels, and no single point of time, or geographical location or event can be pinned down as THE moment where the LW was defeated....


----------



## stona (Jul 15, 2012)

Erich said:


> Gentlemen ~ I have a copy of the written order in April 1943 to move LW gruppen from the Ost to the West which slowly accumulated into Reichsverteidigung



Yes Erich but they should be considered in the context of all movements.
Do those orders refer to I./JG 26 which_ returned_ to RLV duties having swopped with elements of JG 54 in February '43? 

In reality not many fighter assets were transferred from the Eastern Front to RLV duties. 
March 1943 I./JG 3 did so at the same time as elements of JG 2 and JG 27returned from Africa.

May 1942 Stab JG 3 moved West but didn't receive any aircraft until October!

February 1944 I./JG 5 moved from Bulgaria to RLV duties.

The last units to move West were II./JG 5 and IV./JG 54 in May 1944.

I've probably missed or forgotten a couple,but the trend was not to strip one theatre to reinforce another. At the time of "Torch" in November 1942 the units defending the Reich were actually reduced as units were moved South.

Through all this the RLV forces never amounted to anything like the 2,000 fighters that Goering wanted and the Luftwaffe never had anything like enough pilots to fly them anyway.

The RLV forces were mostly expanded by producing new units,like the Zerstorer Gruppen created in October 1943, splitting existing units,making them up to a full three Gruppe Geschwader or adding a fourth Gruppe.
In March 1944 RLV forces got a large boost with the transfer of JG 300,301 and 302 to the day fighter forces.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Erich (Jul 15, 2012)

Steve

as I said it was a written order for ALL units not involved in the ground attack and bombing campaign that were closer to the Reich to pack u8p and leave. besides 26 you had 1 and 11 which started the practice of dropping bombs of course the ill-affected br 21cm rocket launcher and the sub-types, plus unusual uses of cannon, T/E were also called back but took their sweet time for all sorts of reasons to get back to the front lines, primarily a complete change of tactics for the ZG crews to attack US 4-engines.

the He 162 would of never made it past JG 1, the Volksjäger was a pipedream as the Me 262 was to supplant existing Reich defense units the He 162 is not even mentioned in written ordred materials for late 1945. Funny the Ta 152H and sub-variants do not get past the JG 301 unit either, the Lw was slow to of course implement anything in spring of 45 so much wa already lost via written exists.

4th staffel became a reality in August of 44 for day fighter units, not NJG as a side note.............

Wilde Sau units the 3 mentioned were also performing several day time ops during late 1943


----------



## stona (Jul 15, 2012)

Thanks for that Erich.

I have seen it argued that the earlier operations of JGs 300,301,302 actually reduced the operational readiness of other units whose aircraft they effectively shared.

Of course by mid/late 1944 it was a moot point who was flying RLV. The units we mentioned (at least elements of JGs 3,4,5,11,27,53,76,77,300,301,302,ZG 26, ZG 76,as well as "specialist" units like I./JG 400,"Jasta" Helgoland and ErprKdo 262) were officially engaged in RLV but the Eastern Front was closing in on the Reich too.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 17, 2012)

drgondog said:


> I have often speculated that the bulk of shooting at guys in chutes (on Allied side) might have been ;love taps' from bomber gunners. In the example above the guy would probably be dead had a P-51 pilot been shooting at him.. I have no doubt that German pilots were shot at after bailing out, as Allied crews suffered the same fate.
> 
> It is an interesting question. There was no mercy given on the ground by a sniper shooting a soldier eating a K-ration, or a tank gunner shooting soldiers running away from him in the back. Is the guideline to wait until chow is over and he GI picks up his M-1? Or wait until the soldiers running away decide to stand and fight? Different from killing a guy hanging in a parachute after trying to kill you and failing? I don't know how to make that distinction.
> 
> ...



i dont have to explain it to you because you know all too well....but there is this stygma of "chivalry" attached to fighter pilots. i dont know if its hollywood...folklore from the first ww....but it does exist. example....franz stigler and the B17 charlie brown. everyone loves the story but forgets stigler shot down a couple 17s before stalking the CB...and had full intention of shooting it down before he saw the blood of the dead tail gunner....then he had a moment of sympathy or compassion. he never repeated the act and went on to shoot down other allied ac as....was his duty. its all grand the stories of the fighter pilots saluting the helpless enemy in his uncontrollable ac and flying away....but that's pipedream...a way to "humanitize" war into a gentleman's contest where everyone walks away to go at it another day. pilots did do things like that. but it was a war and their duty ( regardless of which side they were on ) was to defend their country, protect their countrymen and allies, and vanquish the enemy so the war would end. because pilots were somewhat removed from the grim horrors of seeing the death they dealt.. the war to them was sterile. at the end of a mission they would go back to their base....eat a hot meal in a mess....drink in the officers club...maybe go to town and go on a date with some gal....sleep in a decent bed...and do it all over the next day. they didnt didnt eat cold rations from a can, sleep in a frozen puddle, watch their buddies die beside them..etc..etc. they watched planes catch fire...spin out ... auger in... blow up...some pilots bailed...some werent so lucky. they were all somewhat removed or insulated from it. it was a tough decision as to what to do next and i am sure the emotions changed day by day. if someone you knew was shot bailing out or had landed safely and was killed on the ground after they surrendered....the decision that day may be different from yesterday. and that happneded on both sides. to be honest i have not read to many accounts of pilots shooting enemies while in the silk ( either side ). not doubting it happened just havent read it. i have read many reports where the downed ( bellied in...etc) ac was straffed as the pilot was getting out or the pilot was straffed on the ground. which ever side of the fence you sit on you know that the plane itself is not as much of a threat to your war effort as is the pilot. a fleet stranded on the ground isnt as threatening as one in the air. and the only thing making that possible back then was a pilot. take the time and really ponder it.....the pilot you let go today...what will he do tomorrow? its different if he goes down over territory you occupy...and his home turf! tomorrow he could and will probably be in another ac....in the sky. will take down a 17 or a 24 with 10 men....maybe take down 2, 3, ?? will he sneak up on the tail of someone in your group and take them down? and you could have kept that from happening. if you had eric hartmann in your sites..on the ground or in a chute...or molders, galland or any of the great aces....would you take the shot...or salute and fly off? like i said tough decisions and each man had to make that call for themselves....and i will not judge any of them.. which ever side they may be on.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 17, 2012)

stona said:


> Thanks for that Erich.
> 
> I have seen it argued that the earlier operations of JGs 300,301,302 actually reduced the operational readiness of other units whose aircraft they effectively shared.
> 
> ...



Plus JG1

At the end of the day, JG 2 and 26 from LF3 were engaged every time against incoming and outgoing US bombers form England in combinatio with RLV, and even JG 51 was engaged when US attacked Posnan, Stettin or flew Shuttle missions over Poland.


----------



## Erich (Jul 17, 2012)

don't forget III. and IV./JG 54 but in any case the prime directive till January 15th, 45 was defense of Germany as a whole then the carry over for the last battles east of Berlin where the bulk of the Reich defense were sent east to combat the Soviets but like JG 301 the futility in this as the LW JG's had to combat both Allied sides, could be dive bombing the Soviets one day and then putting up scant fighters for attacks on US bombers or engage US 9th AF fighter bombers, and British FB missions way to the north in Germany......


----------



## hurricane55 (Aug 4, 2012)

My best guess of where the Luftwaffe was defeated was Operation Bodenplatte. The USAAF and allies lost 144 aircraft on the ground, 70 in aireal combat, and 62 heavily damaged, while the Luftwaffe lost around 300 planes. But while the Allies could replace their losses and pilots, the Germans could not. Many of the downed German pilots were experienced veterans.

My other guess is Berlin. The Luftwaffe put up a fierce defense, but it was still no match for the unstoppable Alied advance, and the it was crushed with the rest of Germany


----------

