33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,344
- Jan 31, 2021
More importantly, you can only operate as many fighters as you have trained pilots to fly them. And training matters a lot, as an untrained pilot is pretty much a flying target.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Of course, you can only operate as many fighters as you have fuel. So you'd need to pump more out of the ground in Austria and increase the synthetic fuel-production.
Were the Germans short of fighter aircraft?Playing with various scenarios recently, i just realized this: if the germans somehow don't get into the whole destroyer thing and drift toward a more soviet style rationalization of aircraft production (concentrating on fewer and most useful types), which destroyer obsession overall did a lot more harm than good (even if the Me-110 was a fairly useful night-fighter), and use those resources to just build more Bf-109s instead, and assuming engine production is similar, replacing the over 6000 Me-110, 700 Me-210 (but the whole debacle cost another potential 1500 airframes) and 1200 Me-410 will give us no less than roughly 15,000 (!) Bf-109s and roughly 2500 FW-190C normaljagers (which is an ATL in itself, as i understand the FW-190C could face the P-51 and P-47 at least on equal terms). PLUS if those 1500 potential zestrorers production is not lost, we have ANOTHER 3000 Bf-109s.
And if we really go the whole hog, scrapping the He-177 debacle gives us enough engines for another say 4500 Bf-109s easily.
Were the Germans short of fighter aircraft?
They ran out of fuel, and trained pilots.
I am wondering for ages why the germans used any and i mean any flyable captured frame to train their pilots. Most being a bit over the hill.trained pilots.
Yes, starting from mid BoB.
Germany was also supplying fighters for their allies, not that they did some stellar job doing it.
Agreed.
They were outproduced by UK, and then again by Soviet Union. Better performing fighters were able to cater for the deficit somewhat, but still.German aircraft production early war was (as has been stated already) also quite low.
I was under the impression they did. They could also use their old Bf109Cs and Ds, as well as He51s as fighter trainers. They planned on a quick, successful war.I am wondering for ages why the germans used any and i mean any flyable captured frame to train their pilots. Most being a bit over the hill.
I can only think that all resources were directed to 1st line bombers and fighters. Must have been a job to get those foreign planes working an maintained.
Just another strain on the luftwaffe.
The war wasn't popular in the US, and the US wars of the last 70 years have shown us that the American public doesn't have a lot of staying power.
2) While American isolationism in the lead-up to our entry in Dec 41 was strong, it was wiped out by the attack on Pearl Harbor.
I've posted some of the polling results before.
I have as well, yes. It's not that the war was "popular", in my opinion, it's that the war was a job that had to be done.
Huh German forces were more motorized and mechanized than Soviet forces were until 1945.Agreed, add to that the dearth of fuel, and the lack of trained pilots and the increased production really wouldn't have mattered much.
Trucks though, just imagine if the German Army was even half as mobilized as the Russians were, thanks to us....
Were they? the Germans used 800,000 horses invading Russia, then they ate them. The USA provided massive numbers of trucks on lend lease.Huh German forces were more motorized and mechanized than Soviet forces were until 1945.
Care to post some numbers?Huh German forces were more motorized and mechanized than Soviet forces were until 1945.
Check out Askey's Barbarossa books where he gets into major detail on all of these issues. The horses had a small fraction of the overall truck lift capacity. Horses were mainly for internal infantry division transportation, not major hauling for corps, army, or army groups. They were used for the stuff that wasn't worth wasting motor vehicles on.Were they? the Germans used 800,000 horses invading Russia, then they ate them. The USA provided massive numbers of trucks on lend lease.
Sure it will take me a little while to dig through my books though. And I'm going to be headed to work shortly.Care to post some numbers?
During WWII, Germany also produced:[2]
Notes:
- 3,024 reconnaissance vehicles
- 2,450 other armoured vehicles
- 21,880 armoured personnel carriers
- 36,703 semi-tracked tractors
- 87,329 semi-tracked trucks
- 347,490 military trucks and lorries
- 226,337 military cars
- 97,470 military motorcycles
- 245,389 train waggons
- Figures include tank production and chassis production used for other variants (for example, Panzer III figures include StuG III assault gun production, etc.).
- Panzer III figures for 1942 and 1943 excludes 700 Panzer III Ausf N models converted from older variants.
- Germany also produced 44,259 armored half-tracks and 3,607 armored cars during the war.
Ate them is a metaphor for they died. 800,000 horses is 400,000 carts which have to be replaced by trucks when the horses die. Also when you take horses into a city you need a supply chain of feed and water for your transport even in open countryside a few thousand horses eat all the grass that is around them. The Soviets may well have used more horses, but they live there, Germany only ever captured a fraction of their territory and not much stored feed.Check out Askey's Barbarossa books where he gets into major detail on all of these issues. The horses had a small fraction of the overall truck lift capacity. Horses were mainly for internal infantry division transportation, not major hauling for corps, army, or army groups. They were used for the stuff that wasn't worth wasting motor vehicles on.
Also the Germans didn't eat them, certainly not in 1941. Many died from overwork, disease, climate, etc. Also keep in mind that the Soviets used many more horses than the Germans.
Not really, they were replaced by more horses. Including captured Russian ones. And yes I am aware of the limitations of horse supply. Funny that most of the armies of WW1 managed to use them without major issues and the Germans were able to march to the gates of Moscow, while the Wallies were logistically hamstrung at the German border with their trucks supply system.Ate them is a metaphor for they died. 800,000 horses is 400,000 carts which have to be replaced by trucks when the horses die. Also when you take horses into a city you need a supply chain of feed and water for your transport even in open countryside a few thousand horses eat all the grass that is around them. The Soviets may well have used more horses, but they live there, Germany only ever captured a fraction of their territory and not much stored feed.