Greatest aviation related Blunders of WWII

[Elmas]

What?
You have doubts?
Didn't you know 'final victory' was imminent ......before everything unfairly stopped that little bit too early denying the world the sight of the true magnificence sheer élan of the technical wonder that was German arms in WW2.
...........

These were found on the walls of the Italian towns occupied by the Nazis, 1943-45:

They say, first page

"While the V1 repays the Englishmen for the terroristic raids over Europe, Germany has new weapons ready for getting the final victory"

second page
"Marching together will continue until the Victory......."

If they were not so tragical ( not only because millions of people were dying in those years, but also in the sense that there seems that today there are more people that give them credit than it was in those years......) they would be utterly humoristic......

 

[Denniss]

The Heinkel He 177 could carry 3 times of the load of the He 111, about twice the distance. It could so so with the same number of crew members..

No it couldn't. It was capable of carrying twice the load of the He 111H (4 tonnes) at a distance of about 2900km while the He 111H could carry two tonnes at about 2100km. It was able to carry one tonne about 4800km. All km values overall range, not penetration depth/combat range. Max speed is given as 550 km/h in 6.8km but that's just with 30min engine power rating

 

[Vincenzo]

the He 177 could carry 3 times the load of He 111H, for true more could carry 7 ton (2x1800kg and 2x1700 kg). probably could carry the same load of 111H (2 ton) for twice the distance.
link old thread on 177 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/heinkel-he-177-data-17353.html

 

[HubertCumberdale]

Hi All, my first post here.

I could add Bomber Command's failure to realise early enough that astral navigation was useless, and on the flip side, once they had excellent radar/radio navigation systems in place, to realise their potential for precision strikes at night.

I could also add the failure to equip the Fleet Air Arm with decent aircraft. Nice carriers lads, shame about the things they carry!

But really, these are small fry compared to the one big humongous failure of the Luftwaffe to learn any lessons from the attrition of the BoB.

While the western allies overestimated the Luftwaffe's strength, they recognised that even so it was insufficient to win a decisive battle. So they set about creating production targets that would see a massive expansion in their air forces.

On the other hand, the Luftwaffe, having already found a match in the air force of a small soggy island, then proceeded to go to war additionally against Russia and then the USA as well. All of this with an airforce effectively the same size as it had started the war with, but qualitatively worse off due to aircrew attrition in 1940. The Luftwaffe also learned far too late the value of the fighter, despite the fact that fighter numbers were the limiting factor in how many bombers they could field over southern England in 1940. Indeed, the fighter corps remained the 'black sheep' of the Luftwaffe family throughout the war.

All of this meant that in the crucial air battles of '41-'43, the Luftwaffe would be at a considerable quantitative and increasingly qualitative disadvantage as the war went on. So much so that by D-Day, the Luftwaffe was an irrelevance. Everything else is details.

 

[Elmas]

No it couldn't. It was capable of carrying twice the load of the He 111H (4 tonnes) at a distance of about 2900km while the He 111H could carry two tonnes at about 2100km. It was able to carry one tonne about 4800km. All km values overall range, not penetration depth/combat range. Max speed is given as 550 km/h in 6.8km but that's just with 30min engine power rating

Where the Luftwaffe was to find the petrol to refuel a couple of dozens of Squadrons of HE 177s, training included?
I'm very curious about that....

 

[Denniss]

the He 177 could carry 3 times the load of He 111H, for true more could carry 7 ton (2x1800kg and 2x1700 kg). probably could carry the same load of 111H (2 ton) for twice the distance.
link old thread on 177 http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/heinkel-he-177-data-17353.html

Yes, it could carry 3x the load of the He 111H and could have twice the range of the He 111H but not at the same time. 3x load but at a greatly reduced range of ~1100km, twice the range may be possible with a load of 2t .

 

[syscom3]

Where the Luftwaffe was to find the petrol to refuel a couple of dozens of Squadrons of HE 177s, training included?
I'm very curious about that....

Some people have wondered about that too. Heavy bomber ops are fuel intensive, and fuel was not something Germany had in abundance

 

[Elmas]

Some people have wondered about that too. Heavy bomber ops are fuel intensive, and fuel was not something Germany had in abundance

Certainly, but in the battles with this

that someone likes to play in this forum, fuel has not importance whatsoever....

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Certainly, but in the battles with this

that someone likes to play in this forum, fuel has not importance whatsoever....

I think red is about to be flanked by green!

There is a supposedly old saying about military matters: "amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics."

 

[Dcazz7606]

I haven't read every thread but... I think one of the bigger US blunders was not bombing parralell to Allied lines during operation Cobra as requested by the army. They killed a lot of American troops including Gen. McNair. Effects on german troops would have been much worse as well.

 

[pbfoot]

I haven't read every thread but... I think one of the bigger US blunders was not bombing parralell to Allied lines during operation Cobra as requested by the army. They killed a lot of American troops including Gen. McNair. Effects on german troops would have been much worse as well.

same thing here
"On August 8th, Simonds requested the US Air Force to provide aerial bombing support. At 1300, 678 aircraft flew over German positions. The German Flak countered with accurate fire and several aircraft were hit. The leader of a 12-bomber squadron being heavily damaged dropped his bomb load before reaching its target and the other aircraft, reacting automatically did the same. The bombs fell far behind the combat line but in an area that was filled with Allied troops waiting to move up to the front. Some 65 men were killed and 250 wounded from the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division and from the 1st Polish Armoured Division, not to mention equipment losses. Major-General Rod Keller, the commander of the 3rd Division was among those injured."
which is a great reason to have every reason to bomb on their own

 

[syscom3]

The 8th AF had been ordered by SHAEFto bomb parallel. But the 8th BC staff officers refused this order and changed the plans without notification. They were apparently afraid of losses due to the length of time they would be exposed to flak while on the bomb runs.

I think it was borderline cowardice by the staff officers.

 

[bobbysocks]

leaving goering in charge of the lw....

 

[Denniss]

leaving goering in charge of the lw....

AKA "The Big Fat Man" or "The Snowman"

 

[Readie]

The French's complete lack of an effective fighter to fend of the LW as the German's advanced into France.
And then the cheeky B's blame the British for not defending them..
John

 

[tomo pauk]

French did have far more problems than a lack of a really high-performance fighter.
They lacked the vision doctrine at high level that would put the planes into a good use. Eg. Germans were issuing 3 sorties per plane per day during BoF, French maybe one? They were lacking a competent system that would detect incoming enemy planes, guiding fighters to intercept them - an MS-406 at 15000 ft is a far better asset than Spit XIV on the ground. The absence of a 25 mile, water filled trench made possible for Germans to park their tanks at the airports, since the French army was also ill suitable (despite their good hardware) to forestall that.
Any blaming of the Brits for not defending them, if indeed that happened, is ridiculous.

 

[Readie]

Any blaming of the Brits for not defending them, if indeed that happened, is ridiculous.

Its still a bone of contention with the French the fact that the RAF command withdrew from France to preserve our fighters for the perceived BoB to come.

John

 

[Denniss]

The french had indeed some very good fighters but, as with the army and their tanks, they lacked proper strategy/tactics to use them.

 

[Milosh]

Its still a bone of contention with the French the fact that the RAF command withdrew from France to preserve our fighters for the perceived BoB to come.

John

Not only the RAF but also the Army which the French claim retreated opening their flank to German assault.

 

[Gixxerman]

Its still a bone of contention with the French the fact that the RAF command withdrew from France to preserve our fighters for the perceived BoB to come.

John

I can understand that to a limited extent.....I mean, when you have had such a total utter national catastrophe (which the numbers indicate ought never have happened or at least been quite so bad) then casting around for someone else to blame is not exactly unknown.

Afterall, if you can't shift at least some of the blame, however absurdly, to someone else then all that is left is to stand all alone forced to take absolutely all of the criticisms brickbats.......and as you try to rebuild recover after said total utter national catastrophe that might not be a good thing to be doing or a wise position to place yourself in.
Particularly if you have a large communist element in your body politic itching to destroy what little is left of that body politic.

Rumours during the war are one thing (and 10 a penny).
My bet is that the postwar French leadership were quite candid about this to the then British Gov too (which explains the muted reactions rather than forceful condemnations perhaps chilled bilateral affairs aone might expect).

We won - and so too ultimately did France - so we could afford to let it be let it go.