Best Air Force 1939-1941

Tante Ju said:

It would be very heavy loss if it would be truth. It is not. Number already given 58 bomber destroyed against England during night, about 5 in day time in April 1941. Your numbers are fantasm category.

Click to expand...

We need to see your source material to verify that claim. In the meantime I have posted the loss sheets for the LW in April. these losses are based on the OKL Quartmaster loss return sheets, which have to be considered as the best primary source for the germans. I started at 7 April, and only needed to go to 10 April to exceed your claim of 58 bomber losses. The losses do include aircraft dmaged, but according to Foreman, an aircraft damaged much more than 35% would almost certainly be scrapped.

Anyway here are the bomber losses according to Foreman for the period of 7-10 April. as they exceed 58, and you have not posted your source material, I do not need to go any further than that to debunk your claim. as i said Foreman says he bases these lists on the OKL quatermasters loss reports. For these lists to be wrong, either Foreman is lying, he has not read the report s correctly, the OKL reports are wrong, or your claims are incorrect. guess which one I think is most likley.......

The summary sheets include the units and the serials so you should be able to verify the losses from your own source material.

ctrian said:

LW- 105 , RAF -118 .The defender despite all the advantages that come with it has higher losses than the attacking force .That's definitely disappointing.As for outnumbered ,in what sense ? I was under the impression that fighters strengths were higher on the RAF side .

Click to expand...

Not sure about your point here. I think you are saying that the LW lost 105 bombers and have assumed that the RAF lost 118 fighters in doing that. If so, you have misunderstood the location and nature of British losses. 1941 was different to 1940, because the RAF was beginning to undertake offensive operations in western Europe. At the same time, the LW was still committed to some daylight bomber operations and a major effort at nighht operations. The RAF did not lose 118 fighters shooting down those bombers, they lost the vast majority of their fighters, plus quite a few bombers, in attacking Germany directly (for the bombers) and Northern France. The majority of RAF fighter losses were sustained in offensive patrols against the LW fighter groups. The losses incflicted on the Germans bombers cost the British virtually no fighters.

If I have misunderstood you, please clarify

With regard to fighter strength, overall fighter strengths were roughly even, though the British had rebuilot their reserves, whilst the Germans had not. But in terms of forces committed to the battle over France, the British were definately outnumbered on almost every occasion. A typical circus for them might involve 3 or four squadrons, the biggest committment was 8 squadrons in a single operation. A total of 17 squadrons at one time or another were committed to this battle. The Germans committed over 38 squadrons, and typically would commit 6-10 squadrons to a single battle. They could only achieve this however, by not escorting their daylight raids over England, and not defending other parts of the Reich properly. In the longer term, their over-committment to these battles, cost them the campaign

ctrian said:

Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

And your point is.......Britain did not abandon its offensive in the west because of its numerous and diverse worldwide committments, which for britain were at least as arduous as the LW committment to Barbarossa. Unlike the germasns they planned for, and made allowance in their planning for these committments. They did not allow obligations like the far east, the middle east, the meditteranean, North Africa, the North Atlantic, the fleet air arm, the western approaches, or any of the other myriad of worldwide responsibilities deter them from the task at had. They wanted to gain control of at least parts of the western ETO and theyachieved that by 1942. The Germans failoed to plan properly, under-estimated the threat, and ultimately lost.

As I said, poor organization and planning were the downfall of the LW, Not a weak industrial base, or the potential to build an air force of sufficient power to meet all their commitments

parsifal said:

And your point is.......Britain did not abandon its offensive in the west because of its numerous and diverse worldwide committments, which for britain were at least as arduous as the LW committment to Barbarossa. Unlike the germasns they planned for, and made allowance in their planning for these committments. They did not allow obligations like the far east, the middle east, the meditteranean, North Africa, the North Atlantic, the fleet air arm, the western approaches, or any of the other myriad of worldwide responsibilities deter them from the task at had. They wanted to gain control of at least parts of the western ETO and theyachieved that by 1942. The Germans failoed to plan properly, under-estimated the threat, and ultimately lost.

As I said, poor organization and planning were the downfall of the LW, Not a weak industrial base, or the potential to build an air force of sufficient power to meet all their commitments

Click to expand...

True enough, plus the added burden of the drunken fool Goering in charge of the LW.
I can almost feel for the aces like Galland and Molders. Great flyers and leaders for the LW
'Lions led by a donkey' springs to mind. ( with apologies to the WW1 origin of that phrase)
Cheers
John

Britain could go on thanks to American charity ,the country was bankrupt by 1940 ,absolutely no comparison with Germany.As for the numerous and diverse worldwide commitments i mentioned their great performance against the channel geschwader.Or you could look at their ''successes'' in the Med...My point about losses is that the defending side has a huge advantage and it should be seen in the exchange ratio.Since this is almost 1-1 it's curious why the Brits couldn't do better.

For the poll I vote LW by a whisker. In 1939 there is little doubt, 1940 sort of even and in 1941 they wiped out most of the VVS they were up against but lost heavily in the process.

ctrian said:

Britain could go on thanks to American charity ,the country was bankrupt by 1940 ,absolutely no comparison with Germany.As for the numerous and diverse worldwide commitments i mentioned their great performance against the channel geschwader.Or you could look at their ''successes'' in the Med...My point about losses is that the defending side has a huge advantage and it should be seen in the exchange ratio.Since this is almost 1-1 it's curious why the Brits couldn't do better.

Click to expand...

That first sentence is inflammatory.
A deal was done with our American friends and allies to help us and it took us a long time to repay the loan but, we did.
Wiki sums it up Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cheers
John

Readie said:

That first sentence is inflammatory.
A deal was done with our American friends and allies to help us and it took us a long time to repay the loan but, we did.
Wiki sums it up Lend-Lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cheers
John

Click to expand...

Like you said it sums it up :

Following the fall of France, Great Britain became the only European nation actively engaged in war against Nazi Germany. Britain had been paying for its materiel in gold under "cash and carry", as required by the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s but by 1941 it had liquidated so many assets that it was running short of cash

Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II.[N 1] In 1943–1944, about a quarter of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft (in particular transport aircraft) comprised about a quarter of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships

There was no charge for the Lend Lease aid delivered during the war

This program was a decisive step away from American non-interventionism since the end of World War I and towards international involvement. There was no debt; the U.S. did not charge for aid supplied under this legislation

ctrian said:

Like you said it sums it up :

Following the fall of France, Great Britain became the only European nation actively engaged in war against Nazi Germany. Britain had been paying for its materiel in gold under "cash and carry", as required by the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s but by 1941 it had liquidated so many assets that it was running short of cash




Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II.[N 1] In 1943–1944, about a quarter of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft (in particular transport aircraft) comprised about a quarter of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships

There was no charge for the Lend Lease aid delivered during the war

This program was a decisive step away from American non-interventionism since the end of World War I and towards international involvement. There was no debt; the U.S. did not charge for aid supplied under this legislation

Click to expand...

No debt? you jest surely...

GrauGeist said:

I hate to jump in with what may seem almost off-topic at this point in the Luftwaffe versus RAF debate, but I wanted to point out an often overlooked airforce that definately needs mentioning in this poll...

The Finnish Airforce - who gets my vote not because it had state-of-the-art world-class aircraft or a gruelling pilot training program that produced hundreds of cutting edge pilots, but because they scraped together castoff, often obsolete aircraft piloted by determined men and handed the Soviet Union it's a** against great odds...

That, in my book, is what makes them the best airforce of 1939 - 1941

Click to expand...

Considering the appalling consequences of geography that placed the Finns between the two most dangerous countries in the world, their conduct was magnificent in preserving their nation. To have to strike a bargain with the Nazis to defend your nation from the Stalinists was an incredible dilemma. Then to be poorly equipped and outnumbered and still perform as well as the Finns is truly remarkable. I hope Trilisser from Finland will weigh in on the Finnish Airforce. Thanks for bringing up the subject GrauGeist.

Readie said:

No debt? you jest surely...

Click to expand...

Nope that's your link i quoted.

With respect to RAF I cannot see where they even come close to 2nd even in 41 , is everyone forgetting the Japanese they certainly made short work of RAF in late 41 , and with the exception of the Spit and Wellington and possibly the Hurricane the RAF had poor aircraft and tactics . The RAF was crushed in the Battle of France remember the Battles and Blenheins , bomber command was missing targets by miles (Butt Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) , virtual impotence against U boats . Yes they staved off the LW in BoB but little or no sucess in any other endeavour

pbfoot said:

With respect to RAF I cannot see where they even come close to 2nd even in 41 , is everyone forgetting the Japanese they certainly made short work of RAF in late 41 , and with the exception of the Spit and Wellington and possibly the Hurricane the RAF had poor aircraft and tactics . The RAF was crushed in the Battle of France remember the Battles and Blenheins , bomber command was missing targets by miles (Butt Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) , virtual impotence against U boats . Yes they staved off the LW in BoB but little or no sucess in any other endeavour

Click to expand...

What's today? bash the RAF day?
I'm sure you are trying to get a rise from me and others with these outrageous posts.
'Crushed in the battle of France?'
'Little success in any other endeavour?'
If I thought you were being serious I'd be quite offended.
Cheers
John

Readie said:

What's today? bash the RAF day?
I'm sure you are trying to get a rise from me and others with these outrageous posts.
'Crushed in the battle of France?'
'Little success in any other endeavour?'
If I thought you were being serious I'd be quite offended.
Cheers
John

Click to expand...

I am very serious , I'm not saying they were inept but very ineffective

ctrian said:

Britain could go on thanks to American charity ,the country was bankrupt by 1940 ,absolutely no comparison with Germany.As for the numerous and diverse worldwide commitments i mentioned their great performance against the channel geschwader.Or you could look at their ''successes'' in the Med...My point about losses is that the defending side has a huge advantage and it should be seen in the exchange ratio.Since this is almost 1-1 it's curious why the Brits couldn't do better.

Click to expand...

Again, you miss the salient point. The grand alliance that eventually was ranged against the Axis didnt just hapen, it didnt just occur because of Axis aggression. The formation of the joint chiefs, the united natiopns, the creation of lend lease, the turn around in US public opinion was in part a carefully orhestrated excesise initiated by the British. Cultivation of the US, politically, militarily and economically was the number one priority for Churchill.

As far as Lend Lease is concerned, until April 1941 it was anything but charity. It was a policy of cash and carry, which meant Britain had to pay for everything in cash before they could purchase on time payment under lend lease. And Lend lease, whilst vital to the British effort, hardly compensated in the first 18 months following the entry of the US for the weaknesses of their new ally. You forget the US very nearly lost the war in 1942 by its profligate loss of shipping. You forget or ignore that there was no effective offensive action or significant deployment in the ETO including Britain by US forces until Torch. You overlook that in Europe Britain was fighting not one but two major powers. You foreget or omit that after 12/41, nearly 20% of British war effort had to be diverted to the pacific, and that after 1942, three of its commonwealth allies were forced to make sigificant redeployments back to the pacific. You foreget or omit to note that nearly half of leand lease aid to Britain ended up in the Pacific. You forget or omit that for the first year of the war, about half the US military potential, including the greater part of its navy was sent to the Pacific, and not the ETO. All this so you can make an inane comment about Britain relying on US charity.

As for who was the attacker and who was the defender, I can only repeat my earlier statement. most of the losses you seem to be refrring to were suffered by Britain as the attacker, not as the defender. If you truly want to compare apples to apples, you need to look at the losses being incurred by the RAF whilst engaging those LW intruders over Britain. If you do this you will come up with a far different exchange ratio. My best guess is that the exchange ratio runs at about 5:1 against the LW over England, though I have not done the real legwork fopr this.

ctrian said:

Nope that's your link i quoted.

Click to expand...

Here is the reality ctrian,

Britain did repay a large amount of the debt from Lend Lease, as did Canada. Smaller Commonwealth nations, such as Australia or New Zealand, didn't receive anywhere near as much equipment, and debts were never pursued.

England (or UK) did not benefit from Lend Lease. The USA did sell the UK military equipment which was repaid with interest. The point of the Marshall Plan was to bring Germany in as part of the international political and business community.

Many in the UK are still bitter that Germany (the loser of the conflict) was given such a huge non-repay investment while the UK (the winner) continued to suffer crippled industry, high debt from the war, and rationing.

The British 'debt' to the USA is still being paid today and will always be owed.
Its not all about money.

Cheers
John

pbfoot said:

I am very serious , I'm not saying they were inept but very ineffective

Click to expand...

You are having a Turkish mate

pbfoot said:

With respect to RAF I cannot see where they even come close to 2nd even in 41 , is everyone forgetting the Japanese they certainly made short work of RAF in late 41 , and with the exception of the Spit and Wellington and possibly the Hurricane the RAF had poor aircraft and tactics . The RAF was crushed in the Battle of France remember the Battles and Blenheins , bomber command was missing targets by miles (Butt Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) , virtual impotence against U boats . Yes they staved off the LW in BoB but little or no sucess in any other endeavour

Click to expand...

So I take it you are not a fan of Mosquito, or the Beafighter, or the Beaufort. Not a fan of either the halifax or the Lancaster either I take it. You do realize that the Butt Report led to changes to bombing policy that in turn led to the 1000 bomber raids, and eventually the raid on Hamburg, which in my opinion was the most effective strategic bombing raid until the firebombing of tokyo.

You do relaize that the lions share of blind bombing aids and airborne radars forthe first 2/3 of the war are of British origin. You do realize that Britain passed all its considerable knowldege on Fission to the US.

I agree that if the naval air forces of japan were included in the debate, we would have a tussle for second, but the USN and the IJN are not included in the poll. Difficult to see how the JAAF is superior to the RAF without the help or inclusion of the IJN AF

Readie said:

You are having a Turkish mate

Click to expand...

what is a Turkish.
As for Lend Lease Canada was never a recipient as far as I know we were a giver

pbfoot said:

what is a Turkish.
As for Lend Lease Canada was never a recipient as far as I know we were a giver

Click to expand...

Did Canada buy all those Shermans it used?