The Best Bf - 109 Variant ?

[lesofprimus]

I cant tell u how many pics Ive seen of fighters that crashed due to engine failure on take off...... The Mustang went through some problems in 1944... Following the changeover from 100/130 grade fuel to higher performance 100/150 grade during the summer of 1944, 8th Air Force P-51 groups reported an alarming increase in the number of take-off crashes due to engine failure, mostly caused by spark plug fouling......

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

including crashes and mechanical failures. I can't think of any other non-combat losses aside form maybe act of god kind of things.

captured aircraft??

 

[delcyros]

I took this number (40-45%) from Yacolevs book. There are some interesting other statistics in it. According to him the VVS had a big problem weeks before operation Zitadelle with the wrong glue agent on their LaGG planes. That agent destroyed the wooden structures after a while when facing the textile layer, forcing them to ground all LaGG planes in order to fix the problem. Some accidents are resulted in the same problem, also (but he gives no concrete number for them, who knows?)...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think it is safe to say the Russians lost a lot of aircraft to accidents. The weather sucks there, landing in unimproved fields sucks really bad, and in war time like that you tend to outfly your maintenance.

 

[plan_D]

Are you joking, del? The British fight wasn't as intense after the Battle of Britain!?!

Of course because there was no fight over North Africa, no fight over Sicily, no fight over Italy, no fight over France. The RAF took the fight to the Luftwaffe, that is why the skies over Britain were practically clear!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I am not so sure about that. Sure they bombed the hell out of Germany at night but most of there fighters did not have the range.

 

[plan_D]

The RAF still took the fight to the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe were put on a defensive in 1941-'42 by the RAF.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would not quite say the defensive. The Luftwaffe was still on the offensive to late 1943 and they were not beaten until mid to late 1944.

 

[plan_D]

Who was bombing who? The RAF started the bombing offensive in 1941. It was not a case of being beaten, over Europe the Luftwaffe were on the defensive with all their offensive capability being sent to the Soviet Union.

The only thing the Luftwaffe would really do against Britain was nuisance high-speed raids with Fw-190s.

 

[Erich]

well at least over the Reich it would seem in the fall of 43 with Schweinfurth/Regensburg, Münster and others and then in the winter December 43-January 44 over Oschersleben, etc..........Big week.

Summer of 44 was the clincher where the Luftwaffe knew after loosing it's forward radar systems in Normandie that it was all a matter of time and then Kaput !

 

[Erich]

Plan:

the useage of Ju 188's over Britain in 44-45 at night and then the Unternehemn Gisela which although England had been forewarned the March 4, 1945 raid really did shakae up alot of RAF personell from the lower ranks through the hierarchy. 3 more very small Ferne-nacht raids by German night fighters were performed and did not yield really any type of success, but did show even with all the AA defences and loads of Mossie nf's the Luftwaffe could still come over at will during 1945.........

 

[plan_D]

Being on the defensive doesn't mean you're losing though. I'm just saying the RAF took the fight to the Luftwaffe, starting with the 1000 bomber raids in 1941.

dels' comment got me started by saying "The fighting the RAF had to carry out was very intensive at BoB only" - when it wasn't because the RAF was fighting all over Europe and South-East Asia.

As well, the RAF supplied the VVS with 3000 Hurricane Mk.IIBs and Cs along with 1,300 Spitfire Mk.Vb.

 

[Udet]

Delcyros:

While I do get your point very clearly I think you are not putting your stuff together here.

Let´s put the focus where it helps:

(a) The airforce of any nation, can not grow a professionally organized and skilled branch a mere 2 years year after taking the kind of blow the VVS did from June 22, 1941 until virtually early 1943.

See the losses of the VVS during the cauldron at Kursk, July 5th 1943, -the soviet propaganda claims such battle to have been the time when them russians "defeated the Luftwaffe for good"- and you might understand what i am talking about. If losing nearly 400 combat planes to enemy fighter only during the first day of the offensive is not a helpful hint so be it.

With point (a) i am trying to say the soviet version of a "superb" soviet air force in 1944 is a tale. Yup, some capable fighters were being fielded and there were a fistful of excellent red pilots.

However, the bulk of the soviet airmen were undertrained and hastily sent to the fronts where the continue to perish by the thousands in 1944 and 1945.


(b) Soviet propaganda worked hardly processing the news of victory in Stalingrad. That the Werhmacht got defeated in Stalingrad is true; the same did not happen in the air though, where the Luftwaffe inflicted breath taking losses to the VVS. It was the winter that hindered the Luftwaffe fighter and bomber support in the area.

That does not put down at all the effort of the soviet soldiers that ended in the destruction of the 6th army there; they simply took advantage of the foolishness of the German high command and won the battle. A very valid point.

A different thing is to come and say that just like in the ground, your guys in the clouds had managed to "defeat" the Luftwaffe. The VVS never came nowhere near defeating the Luftwaffe in the Stalingrand-Don bend region.


(c) The efforts conducted by General Aleksandr Novikov to reorganize command, training and structure of the VVS have been overinflated.

The Kuban air battles of 1943 are a clear example: the VVS proved uncapable of gaining air superiority over the area; the Luftwaffe simply retreated from the area when the front in southern Ukraine began crumbling.

(d) Losses of combat planes for the VVS -to all causes- in 1945 only (january 1st-may 9) amounter +/- 11,000 machines. Does that tell you something delcyros?

While i do not have any stats at hand, i ve been told the highest casualty rate due to accidents belongs to the soviet comrades.


(e) Now, i introduce you a soviet phrase, common in soldiers of the 1944-45 period:

Enemy number one is in Moscow.
Enemy number two is the VVS.
Enemy number three is the hatred Germany.

 

[plan_D]

I'm not saying that the Luftwaffe didn't attack Britain ever again after 1940. What I am saying is; the Luftwaffe was largely on the defensive after 1940. The RAF had took the fight to them and were in control of the Luftwaffe by way of dictating what kind of war was going to be fought.

Sure, the Luftwaffe attacked but what was the point? It would have been more sensible to hold on the West and attack in the East with the Luftwaffe but they diverted resources to the West to cause a nuisance.

I always see after the Battle of Britain, the U.K was dictating the war on the West. We were forcing Germany to take up arms in North Africa, then Western Allies forced Germany to take arms in Italy.

On the Soviet side, Germany was dictating the war until 1944. The battles were fought where Germany wanted them to be fought.

 

[lesofprimus]

Good points planD...

We were forcing Germany to take up arms in North Africa

Werent the Germans already there tho with their arms and planes and tanks???

On the Soviet side, Germany was dictating the war until 1944. The battles were fought where Germany wanted them to be fought.

100% aggreed.......

To think what would have happened, tho, had the Germans never invaded Russia, and the Russians never attacked Hitlers Eastern Front....

All that airpower focused on Ur little Island.... Im EXTREMELY glad that wasnt the case...... Very scary What If..........

 

[plan_D]

No, Germany sent the Afrika Korps after the British with inferior numbers captured 120,000 Italians with a loss of 1,000 men. The Italian (and Axis) hold on Libya was about to be lost, so Germany had to step in to secure their left flank of Europe.

The British were quickly building their RAF though, so a continued offensive against Britain would have been horrific but the Luftwaffe would have had to get a new longer range fighter to bring to bare to defeat us.

 

[lesofprimus]

Thanks for the lesson on Africa....

so a continued offensive against Britain would have been horrific but the Luftwaffe would have had to get a new longer range fighter to bring to bare to defeat us.

The -190 with drop tanks was sufficient for long range duties, had it been required to do so, but i agree that no matter what, it would have been horrific like u said...

 

[plan_D]

They'd have had to keep it up the offensive almost straight after what is known as the Battle of Britain today. I've heard that Britain was producing 1000 Spitfire and Hurricanes a week, at it's peak!

That's a lot!

 

[Nonskimmer]

Not to mention the thousands that were being built in Canada as well.
Sorry, just had to get that in there.

 

[mosquitoman]

It's true though, as long as the convoys got across the Atlantic, we could hold out. The problem for the Luftwaffe was that they didn't follow up their raids with more so a factory would be operational a few days after the original bombing. That's part of the reason why round-clock-raids were effective