Germany's Doomed Plan: Operation Bodenplatte and the Battle of Y-29. Thoughts?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Germany deployed about 1,000 aircraft for the operation. 66 kills = 6.6% loss rate. IMO that's not a terribly impressive performance by Allied fighter aircraft who had the benefit of ground control radar.
Bodenplatte lost 270-274 Luftwaffe aircraft, and in the great confusion of battle there's no way for sure what shot down each aircraft, they didn't have time to call in CSI to investigate, though, no doubt AA got the majority.
Seeing as how 11 of the 34 strikes did achieve surprize, and the attackers came in below radar, I'd say the allies done pretty well.
 
A number of German engines were to receive turbine blades of mild carbon steel to overcome the looming chromium shortage. There was the BMW P.3307 (a 1900kg thrust engine ordered as a backup to the HeS 011), the HeS 011 itself and (from memmory) the disposable Porsche 005 for the V1.
..................

Chrominum serves not only for the turbine blades, but for the gun barrels, for the piercing armor bullets etc....
 
Chrominum serves not only for the turbine blades, but for the gun barrels, for the piercing armor bullets etc....

There seem to have been a number of programs to eliminate the requirement for chromium entirely for some weapons: For instance various techniques (anealing, tempering etc) were developed to produce High Velocity Anti Tank ammunition quite succesfully I might add. The BMW 801 was being developed into an engine made of heimats material while the important 55mm Geraet 58 FLAK gun was also being developed in this way not to use any alloy steels at all: and this weapon had a muzzle velocity of 3,350 fps (1,020 mps). I would say they would be able to work around their alloy shortages. I might add the Germans were even working on replacing molydenum and tungsten on the filaments of their light bulbs and vacuum tubes with titanium which they seemed to have indigenous supplies of, from Cuxhaffen. Uranium cores were even used to replace tungsten in some PzGr 40 rounds.
 
Last edited:
Only at high altitude where American heavy bombers operated.

Most air combat (and all CAS) took place below 6,000 meters. The Me-109G6 was as good or better then the P-47 and P-51 below 6,000 meters.

I would tend to disagree, the P-51B/C/D was significantly faster at any altitude, the gap was only closed off at and only at alitude with the Me 109K-4 and perhaps G-10 from October 1944, this is too late. These aircraft could it seems out turn a P-51. At low altitude the P-51 was faster. Having said that an Me 109K4 running at 1.98 ata could outrun a Spitfire Mk XIV usiing 100/150 octane and 25psig at sea level. The Luftwaffe would need something better than the Me 109G6 when the USAAF introduces the P-51B in December 43. The plane Jane Me 109G6 did have some tricks, for instance a steep corkscrew climb that no allied aircraft could follow. The P-47, despite a modest climb, was still fast, and came into its own at altitude.
 
losses for Bodenplatte :

Allies

S/E 143 destroyed, 139 damaged
T/E 74 destroyed, 12 damaged
4/E 232 destroyed, 156 damaged

LW losses

9 Ju 88 destroyed, 4 damaged

271 109/190's destroyed, 65 damaged

claims by Allied 2nd TAF 57
claims by 9th AF 40

total AAA claims 129

reasons for LW failure:

47 % by Allied AAA
23 % by Allied fighters
5 % by German Flak
5 % by accidents
5 % by Allied Flak or Allied fighters
3 % by tech probs
1 % by fuel starvation
11 % to unknown causes

R. Pütz and J. Manhro tome, anyone care to share more about the original title of this thread: Y-29 ?
 
the authors names are at the bottom of my posting, the most authoritative volume on the subject besides the many US 8th fg histories published and yes I have a few plus knowing some of the US Mustang pilots flying this very mission..........

"Bodenplatte" published through Hikkoki publications. all books are second rate to this single volume
 
sorry i explain wrong, i've understand that losses came from Putz and Manhro book, but they used luftwaffe source for the luftwaffe losses and allied for allied losses or used allied sources alone?
 
sorry i explain wrong, i've understand that losses came from Putz and Manhro book, but they used luftwaffe source for the luftwaffe losses and allied for allied losses or used allied sources alone?
They used both LW and Allied sources, a book worth of having if you are interesting 1944-45 actions in ETO.

Juha
 
The performance of the individual aircraft had very little to do with the failure of operation Bodenplatte, It was the faulty planning based on poor intelligence, and having too few experienced pilots to perform the mission. The attack was doomed before the first aircraft took off.

The Luftwaffe never before lost as many pilots in a single day, they never recovered from the losses. The allies lost a lot of aircraft in the attacks also, but few pilots.

The allies easily replaced the aircraft lost. The Luftwaffe lost experienced pilots they could never replace, and inexperienced pilots who with a little more experience might have made some difference later.
 
There seem to have been a number of programs to eliminate the requirement for chromium entirely for some weapons:
..................

The development of all these programs required the most scarce raw material of the Third Reich: time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back