Defeat of the Luftwaffe

Jenisch, you are assuming I made a mistake. I didn't mention 1939 - 1941 at all, you did. If you want to discuss 1939 - 1940, say so, Don't assume everyone else doesn't know about it, we do. You'll do better if you refrain from using the phrase "Bourgeois Falsifiers." Calling people names never changes the facts.

So the Luftwaffe lost 3,000 aircraft in in 1939 - 1940. They built 27,000 Me-109's alone from 1941 - 1945. I think that more than replaces the losses, and that is just for Me-109's, never mind other aircraft. The Germans were beaten by being out-produced as Shortround has rlated above, combined with a two-front war against enemies who wouldn't roll over and quit.

In the Battle of Britain, the British lost 1065 aircraft (mostly fighters). The Germans lost 1922 (879 fighters, 80 Stukas, and 881 bombers). So what? They MORE than repalced tham.

German aircraft losses were down at 6.1 losses per 1000 sorties in France in 1940. They were at 9.6 in Britain in 1940, and 36.1 In pre-D-Day 1944. After D-Day, German losses shot up to 110.6 per 1000 sorties.

Allied losses per 1000 sorties were at 58.5 in France in 1940, 29.5 in Britian in 1940, 29.3 pre-D-Day 1944, and dropped to just 2.5 per 100 sorties post-D-Day 1944.

If those numbers don't tell a story, NOTHING does, and it has nothing to do with the Bourgeois. You can quibble over a few numbers more or less, but they are generlly in the agreed ballpark, so the story is plain, at least to me.

If we had better Sovoet data, we could compare. We already know the Soviet air losses were staggering early in the war, but they eventually got a point where german fighters simply could not live in a Soviet sky in late 1945 - 1945. So the Soviets MUST have learned a thing or two about air combat, huh?

We ALL made mistakes, Allied and Axis, but the outcome won't change, regarless of who tells the story, unless they depart from fact and get into fiction.

There are many great stories of WWII, on all fronts, and there is nobody who is an expert at all of them. Not all Axis soldiers were bad (there was a big difference between a Nazi SS Storm Trooper and German soldier, ideology-wise anyway) and not all Allied soldiers were good. There were heros and villains from every side and from every service, including civilians.

GregP said:

Jenisch, you are assuming I made a mistake. I didn't mention 1939 - 1941 at all, you did. If you want to discuss 1939 - 1940, say so, Don't assume everyone else doesn't know about it, we do. You'll do better if you refrain from using the phrase "Bourgeois Falsifiers." Calling people names never changes the facts.

Click to expand...

Hey mate, calm down, I was being ironic joking with the text I posted, I didn't want to offend you. Sorry for anything.

michaelmaltby said:

What is your fascination with revisionism .... ?

Click to expand...

Well, revisionism is always present in history. Usually, I'm not a reviosinist. In fact, WWII is the only area of history were I'm very critic.

My perception is that today we are having a distorted view of WWII in the West, just changing D-Day for Stalingrad or Kursk. The fact it was a global conflict, fought from islands in the Pacific to deserts in Africa, just let clear how GLOBAL this conflict was. Even so, there's an incresing obcession among historians to say that the real war was fought in the Eastern Front, with all the other fronts being secundary. I don't agree with this by several reasons. The casualities figures in the Eastern Front for example, there's no way to desconsiderate them from the other fronts, from the naval blockade, the bombing, etc, because it was the same Germany that was at war with the Soviets and was being restricted by their Allies. When people say the D-Day didn't decided the war, I'm inclined to think like them, if consideration is only given to the superficial form I belive they think. But actually, D-Day and all the other operations, only happened for certain because other actions were being conducted by the Western Allies AND the Soviets before, and they all "decided" the war. Also, with the political factors out, we can say that not necessarily the D-Day was the last hope from the Allies, and neither an Allied (Soviet) defeat in the East would necessarily meant an Allied defeat or not defeat of the Axis.

In my view, the conflict was as it name says, global, and should be treated on this way. The goal of history is learn lessons to not repeat them, not use or distort such lessons for political interestes, what is done a lot. In my understanding, the greatest lesson of WWII is that a united force can defeat (and preferably avoid) a serious treat to their peoples and interests. Unfornately, like Gunther Rall said in an interview: "mankind didn't learned with WWII". And, like the mis-quotation by George Satayna says: "Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it". Unfornately, the UN really is not always succesfull.

"mankind didn't learned with WWII"

Mankind did't learn anything from WW1 either, or from any post WW2 conflict....
We seemed fated to repeat the lessons from the past.

John

Thank you for your prompt and thorough explanation of your "fascination with revisionism ...."

Thought provoking. From a young age I have always appreciated the difference in scale between the Eastern Front and the Western Europe - Mediterranean Front .... so revisionist narratives only interest me if they contain NEW DATA from the ex-USSR (for example). Hearing a former party loyalist retired comrade tell me how he won the war against the Nazi Devils is NOT new data .

Russia required a massive and well co-ordinated attack by Hitler ... to have a hope of succeeding. Hitler and Napoleon both took the same gamble and lost. Weather called time out, in both cases. Once up-to-speed, the USSR was able to muster vast resources and accept HORRENDOUS casualties.

So I don't think in terms of "Did Russia Win The War "- but rather the statistical reality that Russian ground forces tore the guts out of the German nation. In large part - much the German attack achieved was soldiering at its best - moral and front line leadership. But it was "Bridge Too Far" on a continental scale .... from Day One.

MM

No problem, Jenisch. Perhaps I DID react a little too harshly. You make very good points.

My main point is that WWII was, inf act, a WORLD WAR, and almost everywhere was affected. If the events in, say, Croatia, were not as I learned, that doesn't mean my facts about, say, the battle of the Kasserine Pass, are wrong. Your posts are good and entertaining. I don't have the volume you were quoting, nor do I have accerss to one. I DO have access to my own books and local resources.

I have not checked your fact, nor do I expect to do so within a few days. I am assuming you have opinions based in fact and are therefore, not spouting fallacies. Iy brings new light to the war and I will investigate.

Meanwhile, I have no ax to grind with you at all, and apologize if my replies sounded acerbic. They were intended to convey that I didn't mention 1939 - 1940, and would be glad to discuss the era, but since I didn't ... it doesn't mean I made a mistake in my assumptions. All it means id you want to discuss a time period I didn't mention. Sorry for the apparently hard words ...

All the counties involved in WWII, including the Balkans, were heavily afffected. We in the U.S.A. don't hear a lot about WWII before we entered it unless we dig it up ourselves. That does not change the horrors that occurred in the eastern European countries in the 1939 - 1940 timeframe. They still suffered under German conquerors, sometuimes silently and horribly. Cavalry doesn't stand a chance against armor. There were war crimes committed in that timeframe that never came to light in the courtroom. That was mostly due to the nature of later crimes committed by the Nazis in concentration camps. The earlier crimes were never suitably addressed, legally, after the war.

As for the Luftwaffe, we pretty much know what happened to them, even early in the war. Later, they suffered heavily and were beaten. But, for a while, they ran pretty wild, but suffered losses against relatively unknown opponents in the early timeframe.

michaelmaltby said:

Russia required a massive and well co-ordinated attack by Hitler ... to have a hope of succeeding.

Click to expand...

The actual attack obtained many of the most rich regions of Russia. The Nazis couldn't hold such regions because they were fighting in other fronts and suffering the consequences.

Jenisch - I believe the thesis was 'Defeat of the Luftwaffe'. Key point to consider. The LW drained experienced figher Squadrons from Ost and Sud fronts in mid 1943 to deploy to Germany and form LuftFlotte Reich. The Battle for Germany was conducted by the RAF (I'm counting all the Commonwealth AF) and USAAF from the West (England) and the South (Italy). The threat to German forces fighting Soviet forces was not only loss of men and material - but the ability to build weapons and defend the factories and refineries.

The USSR contributed nothing to stop the factories and refineries and the critical mass of the LW fighter arms' ability to defend them.

From mid 1943 through may the LW transferred 33 squadrons into LuftFlotte Reich to defend against day and night bombing - the bulk of which were s/e day fighters from JG3, 5, 11, 26, 27, 53, 54, 300, 301 from other fronts into Germany. When the 8th acquired long range capability the t/e fighter (day and night) became easy prey instead of bomber destroyers and the 8th AF started the devastation of the LW fighter arm from December 1943 through May 1944 when it took (KIA) out approximately 3,000 of the total of 20,000 fighter pilots trained by the LW from 1935 through 1943.

Combined with the initiation of daylight attacks on German/Poland/Czech oil and chemical plants to match strikes on Ploesti - the 8th, 9th and 15th AF not only dealt the LW a critical blow relative to experienced fighter pilots but also the means to train them, fuel mobile infantry and armor, provide fertilizer fo crops.

The LW losses were FAR higher over Germany from December 1943 through D-Day when it was critical to eliminate LW over the invasion beach heads - and oh, yes it WAS P-38s and Mustangs doing the killing over Germany... not Yak 3, Laag 9's etc.

I don't know what the overall loss totals are between Ost and Reich for the war - but the Soviets did not grind up the LW like the western Allies did.

Regards,

Bill

My thesis is valid, the problem is I would need a research team to give a picture of it's potential.

It would be necessary to calculate:

* The impact of the naval blockade of Germany

* Impact of the U-boat production

* Impact of the Lend-Lease for the Soviets (this is still impossible totally, because not all archives are not open)

* Impact of the bombing

* Impact of Axis troops (including the LW) deployed in other fronts

All those factors calculated against the Soviet potential. This, by no means, can provide a definitive answer, but certainly would show how the Reds would face an enemy far more stronger than they think they faced. Of course, if not already done, this would be a mammoth task, and one that I cannot perform.

Jenisch said:

My thesis is valid, the problem is I would need a research team to give a picture of it's potential.

It would be necessary to calculate:

* The impact of the naval blockade of Germany

* Impact of the U-boat production

* Impact of the Lend-Lease for the Soviets (this is still impossible totally, because not all archives are not open)

* Impact of the bombing

* Impact of Axis troops (including the LW) deployed in other fronts

All those factors calculated against the Soviet potential. This, by no means, can provide a definitive answer, but certainly would show how the Reds would face an enemy far more stronger than they think they faced. Of course, if not already done, this would be a mammoth task, and one that I cannot perform.

Click to expand...

The difference between opinion and thesis is that a thesis is backed up by research. If you are unable to do the research you then have an opinion.

Mode O.T. on


A dear Friend, who died a few years ago, in 1943 was seventeen and he was doing the training as Pilot (first stage: sailplanes) in the Aeronautical College in Forlì, Northern Italy.

After 8th of September and the Armistice he voluntarily joined the Repubblica Sociale Italiana, where he served in a battalion (Xa Flottiglia Mas) fighting side by side with the Wermacht.

He told me this story:

"After the German surrender, the 25th of April 1945, I tried to return to Sardinia, trying to get to some southern port where I hoped to find a ship to bring me back home : La Spezia, or Civitavecchia perhaps, if I could get there. My family was two years without receiving news from me.

Of course I was travelling with the means of transport that were then: mostly on foot and sometimes, rarely, with a truck going south.

One evening, at dusk, I found myself on the Apennines at the Cisa pass: a convoy of U.S. artillery was passing along the road going north, with guns that seemed to come from science fiction to me.
(these)

I camped the best I could to the side of a wrecked house to spend the night there, while the guns were uninterruptely continuing to go .....
The next morning at dawn the guns were continuing to go ......

Maybe I was not very conscious at that age, or perhaps it was for that ideal of "hero" of which we were all soaked in those times, but during the raids in the mountains against the "Maquisards" , when I was shot several times at, or at other very dangerous occasions, I must say that I didn't prove a real fear.

But, seeing what were the disparity of the real forces we had against us, I was scared to death..... I did suddenly realized that if all those guns just fired a single shot, only just one each simultaneously, they would have sent us to pieces.
The fear was so great that I had to lean against the wall and throw up my poor breakfast ......

For years after the war I asked myself why they have not done. "


Mode O.T. off

IMHO, the disparity between Luftwaffe and USAAF was the same, even the former had some outstanding aeroplanes in the sky...

stona said:

Take the advice of the second poster and read "Williamson Murray's seminal work" by which he means 'The Luftwaffe 1933-45-Strategy for Defeat'.
It will save us all a lot of typing
Mine is well thumbed but I think it is still in print.
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

Thanks for the "props" Steve!

It just so happens that I may "resemble" that "second poster" at that "other website"...

Just another "Pseudo Intellectual", with a Communist axe to grind...LOL!

Cheers, Ron

I have a copy of the written German order to all Geschwadern for July of 1943 that any and almost all - I paraphrase here - that they the S/E and T/E not involved in ground attack and regular bombing duties and not serving on the Ost front originally be returned to the Reich for defense duties against RAF and US formations. Gents from this order it is quite clear what happened to the LW they were wrecked from head to foot on the western front even after being sent back as depleted fighter Geschwadern for the last final battles over and near Berlin in Winter of 1945. It cannot be denied..............

iron man said:

Thanks for the "props" Steve!

It just so happens that I may "resemble" that "second poster" at that "other website"...

Just another "Pseudo Intellectual", with a Communist axe to grind...LOL!

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Russians and their invencible war machine would defeat Hitler alone. Even with the latter being able to outproduce and outclass them in most areas.

They may have outclassed them in several areas. But In what areas did they outproduce them ? Aircraft ? Tanks? Firearms?

Russian war production, without lend lease, is very hard to judge. The Russians were able to concentrate on certain items and leave other items unbuilt and provided by the allies, the most famous example being the trucks. The allies also supplied thousands of tons of HE and propellent, without which those Russian artillery barrages would have been a lot less effective. Thousands of miles of telephone wire, hundreds of thousands of vacuum tubes (valves) also helped Russian communications considerably even if the complete radio or telephone was assembled in the USSR. I believe there were also considerable food stuffs imported?

Not just weapons....
More than 1/3 of the calories that a Red Army soldier did actually eat every day was produced in Iowa or somewhere near.....

Italo Balbo, whose name is certainly known by air enthusiasts, in 1940 was strongly against the war.
When the war was almost to start for Italy, he told disconsolately to the officers of his staff:

"Unfortunately, Mussolini has never seen how thick is the telephone book of New York".

Neither Hitler did, I think.

Shortround6 said:

Russian war production, without lend lease, is very hard to judge. The Russians were able to concentrate on certain items and leave other items unbuilt and provided by the allies, the most famous example being the trucks. The allies also supplied thousands of tons of HE and propellent, without which those Russian artillery barrages would have been a lot less effective. Thousands of miles of telephone wire, hundreds of thousands of vacuum tubes (valves) also helped Russian communications considerably even if the complete radio or telephone was assembled in the USSR. I believe there were also considerable food stuffs imported?

Click to expand...

Now someone is talking my language. =D

Unfornately for the Russians, it would not be only this, it would be Germans being able to import fuel and all other raw materials they needed to put Festunga Europa at the full steam production, which would certainly improve significantly the Whermatch's fighting capability; it would be the non-need of the Germans to built very expensive and time-demaning submarines, which reduced 10-15% the German tank production in 1942; it would be the German industry, without bombing, being able to produce much more stuff and also transport it to the front without the Anglo-American air attacks in the transport system; it would be more than a million personal involved in the civilian defense to clean the mess of the bombings free to be dedicated to the industry; it would be thousands more of German tanks, mainly the Panther and Tiger models, that despite what Red Army fanboys claim, just one of such machines usually destroyed 10 or more of the Russian T-34 before was destroyed, and the Germans would have plenty of fuel to keep those armored beasts with well trained crews and air support. And there would be also the Luftwaffe, which by 1942 would start to use the full Fw 190 against the Russians to substitute many obsolete attack planes the Russians destroyed more historically. They certainly would not destroy as many attack planes as they did historically, and in overall it would be very hard for the Russians inflict the casualities they inflicted historically in the German forces if the latter would be at a single front due to fact they would be much better served in more areas.

Key point: Chaos Theory.

The defeat of Nazism is a product the Russians can certainly claim more direct participation in the ground war, only this.

Arguments such as "it would be hard to view the democracies defeat Hitler without Russia" are totally partial, and also can be used in the other way around, such as saying "it would be hard to view the Communism defeat Hitler without the British resistance", precisely what I'm providing arguments in my last posts.

I just don't see a relistic scenario where Germany and Russia can be at war without the western powers being involved. To get to Russia, how else can Germany get there but thru Poland? That will bring in France and Britain.
If Britain and France had been spineless, and ignored their treaties. Germany would have never had the excuse for invading France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, etc.. He wouldn't have access to the resources he stole after he invaded them. These countries might sell them to Germany, but at a much higher price than what Germany paid in the real world.
So both sides of the conflict is going to be short of some of the resources they had in the real world. So it's still not a easy win for Germany.