The Best Bf - 109 Variant ?

[delcyros]

True. The Luftwaffe did not carried out major operations in the west after jan 45. Focus was on the east in order to delay the advance of the soviets. Even Me-262 have been involved in order to stop tanks on the street from Beeskow to Erkner....

 

[Udet]

Mr. Delcyros,

It is always an interesting thing to have someone whose opinions seek balance, fairness and objectiveness. I do appreciate the insight of your comments very greatly.

No one has denied the VVS made its contribution for victory. In the end every branch of all allied nations made a contribution for victory.

As to bravery, it is not an issue in my comments. All pilots of all nations were brave. The idea was to "show" guys like this alleged "historian" that his arguments can be shattered with ease. He attempted making a "case" of Erich Hartmann being too concerned about "his own personal safety"...the statistics could certainly help him understanding the same dose could be prescribed to the soviet heroes.


Now, there are problems with your assertion though:

(i) The lowest casualty rate for the Luftwaffe, throughout the entire war, happened precisely in the eastern front. This is proven unless you want to stick to something different.

I am sure there are some statistics available on the net regarding this matter. I have some stuff printed around here; the case was analyzed in depth. The place where the Luftwaffe loss less planes was the east in spite of the furious soviet claim they "broke the Luftwaffe´s back all by themselves as early as in 1943"

i.e. Kursk, the Cauldron of july 1943, the so-called "turning point in the east", soviet mythology has it the thing turned out a complete "massacre" of Germans both in the air and the ground. Evidence surging has suggested quite a diametrally opposed thing took place in the famous salient- both in the air and the grond-. The Luftwaffe shot down -confirmed kills- about 360 soviet combat planes in the first day of the offensive. Repeat, 360 kills, this does not include Flak victims and accidents.


(ii) "In average spoken, more Luftwaffe planes have been deployed over the years to the eastern fronat than to all other theatres." Very hardly so.
This would require a further scrutiny.

From June 22, 1941 to mid/late 1943, in fact, the bulk of the Luftwaffe was based in the east. Then the late 1943-early 1945 "gap" when the Luftwaffe ost was stripped of his fighter force to deal with the heavy bomber menace.

 

[KraziKanuK]

Some might find this intresting, http://jg26.vze.com/

Go to the section headed: Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre September 1943 - October 1944

 

[delcyros]

According to the Generalquartiermeister der Luftwaffe and other sources the VVS took the bulk of the airwar until 1944 against the Luftwaffe.
Important are the combat sorties flown 1941-1945:
USAAF (europe): ~1.7 million, 235.000 till 31.12.1943.
RAF: ~1.6 million from 1939-1941.
VVS: 3.223.000 (not included transportation, coastel and distant sorties), around 1.5 million till 31.12. 1943.
Luftwaffe (east): ~1.8 million, around 1 million till 31.12.1943.

Losses of the Luftwaffe (planes, included damaged more than 10%):
1.7.41-31.12.41: 4784 (3827 on the eastern front= 80%)
1.1.42-31.8.42: 8288 (4660 on the eastern front= 56%)
1.9. 42-31.8.43: 12438 (7645 on the eastern front= 61%)
1.9.43-31.10.44: 35660 (~8600 on the eastern front= 24%)
1.11.44-8.5.45: not enough datas avaiable

Losses of Luftwaffe crewman and ground crews:
1.6.41-30.11.44: 92406 KIA (50883 KIA on the eastern front=55%)
1.6.41-30.11.44: 181738 wounded (110785 on the estern front=61%)
1.6.41-30.11.44: 122333 MIA (43361 MIA on the eatsern front=35%)
It is true that the loss to sortie ratio on the eastern front is better than it was on the western, but most losses suffered the Luftwaffe on the eastern front (keep in mind that not all are inflicted by the VVS, a number was done because of advancing soviet ground forces, also), except for the planes, which can be given for the western allies due to intensive air battles over central and western europe from late 1943/early1944 on. However, while many Experten could claim a really great number of planes and destroying large parts of ground forces, the Luftwaffe failed to provide proper air cover for their bombers and -more important- for their transports at the russian front. In nine weeks the VVS destroyed 495 transport planes at the air battles over Stalingrad, that are almost enough planes to build 5 Transport Geschwader! If you count the 233 planes lost on the ground to them these actions broke the backbone of the german air transportation arm.
I can also prove that more planes have been deployed to the east front (in average spoken) than to any of the western theatres, if needed.

 

[Udet]

Delcyros:

Something is not correct in your aguments.

First off, your Stalingrad referral is partially correct.
In fact, the Stalingrad battle proved a massive disaster for the transport branch of the Luftwaffe. Repeat, for the transport branch mainly; losses of fighters and bombers were moderate for the Luftwaffe.

Yes, nearly 500 transports -and some He111s, Fw200s and Ju86s pressed into transport service during the airlift- were lost.

The incorrect point comes when you credit the VVS with the destruction -or the destruction of the biggest part- of all these transports. A huge number of those were lost to accidents due to the miserable weather they had to fly in during most days of the airlift period. The sides of the runways were flooded with remains of the planes which crashed upon landing and were removed by ground crews to clean the path for those planes following.

Another big part of those lost transports were due to soviet anti-aircraft batteries placed right outside the ever shrinking perimeter of the trapped German army which had a great time shooting down the crammed slow transports taking off.

It is not daring to say the VVS had the lowest impact in the losses of all those transports. Why?

(i) Because they had taken insane losses before the winter in the area, and,
(ii) because miserable weather also played against soviet pilots.

Quite actually the performance of the VVS during the stalingrad battle, being generous, was wanting.

Most acounts show an indeed brave stubborn VVS launching swarm after swarm of fighters and bombers here and there to conduct messy and poorly coordinated attacks on German ground positions and take prohibitive losses at the hands of both flak and the Luftwaffe.

Yup, sometimes some soviet bomber crew could hit the mark, and some fighter pilots scored kills in combat against Bf-109s; the point rather is the effect of soviet military aviation in this area of the front in 1942 was far from being outstanding.

Read as many books and accounts of the battle and you can notice the Luftwaffe reigned over the city. The soviets launched their offensive that would trap the 6th army when the winter entered into force, depriving the Wehrmacht of critical air support -aircraft available in more than significant numbers-. The logs of General Wolfram von Richtofen show how bitter he felt knowing his powerful Stuka fliegerkorps would now be grounded in view of the miserable weather.

Or do you believe the VVS pilots had some special abilities that would allow them to fly unhindered in the miserable winter weather of the russian steppe?

In fact the records of Luftwaffe fighter units across the Don bend and the city itself show during some weeks dramatically low losses reported in their ranks. Knowing your style, do not interpret this as if i was suggesting "the fight was piece of cake", much less "making fun" on the soviet airmen. It is rather a mere referral.

While i do not have the info at hand, i will come back later with the list of Jagdgruppen that a few weeks after the Kurk battle salient of July 1943 began the process of moving west to face the heavy bomber menace.

That could help clarify the atmosphere regarding the sorties flown stats you posted here.

 

[delcyros]

I do not denie that the VVS took heavy losses, Udet. However, I believe it´s importance is a bit underrated here. The losses have many reason, so I must admit that you may be correct here. However, the Luftwaffe was far away from ruling the skies over Stalingrad, according to General Hans Hube, who said that "...die sehr starke sowjetische Luftwaffe (machte) über der Festung was sie wollte...". it´s a tribute to VVS or isn´t it?
According to Lothar Hähne, a friend of mine, who survived Stalingrad (he lives still), the Il-2 were moving freely around over german troops, many have been intercepeted but mostly after they fulfilled their strikes. He also saw intensive airbattles and lots of wreckages of both, VVS and Luftwaffe planes. Unlike the Luftwaffe, the VVS did regularly night bombing attacks with obsolete U-2 biplanes against airfield, no matter how the weather was. losses have been high of course.
Maybe we can find some numbers of combat sorties in the equally timeframe (1941-1944) for the Luftwaffe at the western theatre also? This may verify or not my thesis but I still believe that the eastern front saw more activity of the Luftwaffe than any other single theatre and therefore the VVS had to deal with more than UK or US flyers had to (exception granted for 1944) over the years. It should be noted also that they took the intensive fightings in a timeframe where the Luftwaffe had also a numerical advantage as well as the quality advantage. Indeed the years 1941, 42 and 43 represent the middle of the war, the turning years I would say...

 

[plan_D]

Why miss out 1939-1940?

That is right delcyros, the war started on 1st September 1939. The USSR didn't get involved until 21st June, 1941. In between those times against Western Powers, there was the Battle for Narvik, Battle of France, Battle of Britain and Battle of North Africa.

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm not, but weren't the RAF fighting the Luftwaffe during all the time?

 

[lesofprimus]

U are indeed correct, Sir PlanishD.........

 

[delcyros]

I don´t want to be misunderstood thats why I wanted a timeframe with a comparable solution, involving both, the US and the SU.Both major ww2 nations entered the war in 1941, that´s why it is reasonable. But you are right, there are other theatres right prior to this. In case you trace it back to 1939 I would like to include the spanish civil war, also (since pilots from Russia AND Germany have been involved in this conflict).
However, the numbers for RAF combat sorties of the whole time of 1939-1945 are only half as much as those flown by the VVS in 1941-1945. And while the RAF lost around 20.000-24.500 planes in combat (with a given uncertainity thanks to less reliable publications) the VVS lost around 45.000-60.000 (again, not enough datas to give a better number). If you factor that the RAF lost only half as much planes as the VVS in only half as much sorties you come to the solution that the higher losses of the VVS are resulting from a more intensive fighting at and not because the Luftwaffe was three times more succesful than it was against the RAF. In fact the soviets lost around one plane for each 63-84 combat sorties (all included), while the RAF lost one plane for each 65- 80 combat sorties. This is a very comparable loss rate and keep in mind that most soviet planes are really soft and small planes unlike the British (the soviets also fielded no heavy bombers except for the Pe-8 unlike the RAF). But of course I don´t want to denie the efforts made by RAF, in fact they had the very hard task to deal with the Luftwaffe at a time when other nations simply collapsed. They had to deal with it for the first very hard years, no doubt, this makes the RAF records very impressive.
I originally wanted to denie that the VVS was only a minor player in ww2 and by far inferior to the Luftwaffe (and in comparison to any other allied airforce) in their combat records. This may be a very misleading opinion.

 

[plan_D]

Keep in mind that the RAF were on the receiving end of a massive onslaught. Heavily out-numbered in both the Battle of France and Battle of Britain.

In fact, the majority of the RAF planes lost in the Battle of France were on the ground. The RAF also began the BoB with a mere 704 aircraft in servicable condition, the Luftwaffe attacked with 3,700.

From 1939 - 1941 Britain didn't commit itself to a massive strategic bombing campaign. It also was on it's own, the VVS had the support from the west from the RAF and USAAF.

When the Soviet Union entered the war the VVS was the largest air force in the world. The RAF was out-numbered in every encounter, so you can hardly compare losses as a basis to make the argument that the VVS were comparable to RAF.

 

[delcyros]

Well, after the numbers I know, the VVS made a more intensive battle than the RAF to comparable loss ratios. You are also wrong that Britian was on it´s own, it always had its ex commonwealth nations, where they got supply and fresh aircrews from. And they always had the backing of the US (even in a time when they haven´t entered the war already they allowed UK acces to their research and provided non militaric supply on a large scale...). The UK had also a impressive aircraft industry and ressources to build quantitys of excellent engines and airframes. The SU had how long an numerical advantage? For hours. After intensive attacks on 66 known airfields, the VVS lost around 70% of their planes in the baltic, western, Kiev and Odessa region. Most on the ground (as did the RAF in France). The SU had to upbuild their aircraft industry on their own from almost zero in Sibiria, in a time when new planes have been needed urgently. Not to speak of training for new pilots. And they still continued to carry out air operations against the Luftwaffe, this is what I find very impressive.

 

[lesofprimus]

The Soviet Union also had a higher population and more aircraft manufacturing facilities.... They could replenish thier losses far faster than the Brits could...

Even with losing 70% of their aircraft in the opening days of the War, the Russians still had more aircraft at their disposal, albeit they were inferior aircraft to what the Brits had to defend with.....

 

[plan_D]

It takes a long time to get new pilots from the Commonwealth countries to Britain. The British Empire was far reaching.

The U.S didn't begin it's lend-lease until early 1941. Britain was on it's own in combatants and mostly in supply. This takes nothing away from the U.S of course because they were risking neutrality by allowing us to buy goods off them.

The Soviet Union, as les said, still had more aircraft than the U.K. The RAF fought off a much larger superiority in enemy planes than the VVS did.
The RAF had also been fighting the Luftwaffe longer. The RAF was in a much more dire situation than the VVS. As I've already said the RAF was on it's own, the USAAF wasn't present when the RAF was fighting wave after wave of Luftwaffe bombers and fighters in the spring of 1940. However, the RAF was present in June 1941 when the Luftwaffe attacked the VVS. Hell, the RAF even sent pilots and planes over (3,000 Hurricane IIBs and Cs and 1,300 Spitfire Mk.Vs). RAF pilots training the VVS even got 16 kills while out there.

You might find the VVS an impressive force to keep it up but it wasn't. The Soviet Union was willing to sacrifice, that is all (brave or insane men were needed).

On top of that the Eagle Squadrons were in Europe by the time the Luftwaffe had started on the Soviet Union and the RAF had started taking the fight to Germany.

 

[delcyros]

I will agree with most what you said here.
However, the VVS could not easily replace the losses of planes and factorys in 1941 or 1942. The industrial capabilitys of the SU are also overstated by you in 1941 and 1942. All in all the SU builded in 1941 15735 planes (65% prior to jule), 1942 it produces 25436 planes. This is quite a huge number but keep in mind that most designs are feitherweighted, wooden planes. Quality is also comparably low, since approx. 40-45% of VVS losses are not originated in enemy actions but structural and mechanical failures. Of these planes only some 50% get to VVS operational units. And losses in this timeframe are high. Britain kept on to produce high quality fighter as well as a number of medium and heavy bomber (which take a good deal of manpower and ressources). And RAF operated from an unsinkable aircraft carrier, not fearing an advancing Panzedivision unlike the VVS. And afte post war analysis of Luftwaffe loss listings, the whole Luftwaffe lost 2376 planes (including damage over 10%) while operating against England in the (10.7.-31.10.)BoB due to enemy actions. In a comparable timeframe from 22.6.-27.9. the Luftwaffe lost 2631 planes over Russia. The fighting the RAF had to carry out was very intensive at BoB,only- while the VVS had very intensive fighting in the whole timeframe till wars end.

 

[lesofprimus]

The fighting the RAF had to carry out was very intensive at BoB only - while the VVS had very intensive fighting in the whole timeframe till wars end.

That Im not too sure about...... There may be some Brits here that are gonna jump all over that one.....

And RAF operated from an unsinkable aircraft carrier, not fearing an advancing Panzedivision unlike the VVS.

I agree 100%....

40-45% of VVS losses are not originated in enemy actions but structural and mechanical failures.

That # seems to be a bit high.... I seem to remember that it was more like 20-25% loss rate due to non-combattant operations.....

But if it is 40-45%, then Jesus, the Russians sucked at building and designing aircraft alot worse than I thought...

 

[evangilder]

I seem to recall reading that the non-combat losses for the VVS was somewhere like 50%. That was mechanical and structural failures combine with accidents.

 

[Erich]

Eric is that for the whole war ? Luftwaffe claims for the Soviet a/c is high and dservingly so.....the Soviet a/c was just pure garbage both for fighter and bomber. The Il-2 was the standard if you can call it one of achieving something ugly but yet useful

 

[evangilder]

From what I recall, and I read this a while back, it was for the whole war. I have not tried to verify that number, so it could be wrong. It is just something that I remember reading.

 

[lesofprimus]

If that # INCLUDES flying accidents, then I can believe it....

 

[evangilder]

Yes, I do remember that it was all non-combat losses, including crashes and mechanical failures. I can't think of any other non-combat losses aside form maybe act of god kind of things.