Still no credential I see, I don't think that you have any, including any brains, morals, manners, or education
Outrageous claims by Kurfurst….lets have a look at just few from this thread alone.
I would say that German AFV production was far more standardized - a couple of basic chassis and two powerplants were found almost all of their tanksSources, supporting information, oh I forgot we are talking about things german, we don't need to do that do we
Its difficult to see why are you are switching the subject to the 'Allies'. The subject was specifically the RAF lack of modern (fighter) equipment through the war.
Incorrect. My position was this…the Do335 was unnecessary, and an example of poor German management of their resources. German technical research was impressive, and produced some amazing pieces of equipment, but failed to be co-ordinated. The examples I quoted was the relative overproduction of fighters, the relative underproduction of pilots, the total lack of co-ordination with oil output and force projections for the luftwaffe, and finally, the lack of spare parts production, which exacerbated the relative lack of sustainability in german operations, and their relatively low serviceability rates, particulalry after 1942. The reaction of you, and your mate the Idiot Gerry was to try and attack the british, for some reason, as if that was relevant to the thread, or in some way vindicated german stuff ups
They should have mobilized the economy in early 1942, after the first failures on the Russian front; there have been plans for this, but eventually the top brass has changed their mind and needed Stalingrad and Tunisia to happen to shake them up. You cant really blame them for not mobilizing before 1942, after all, it seemed to everybody back then they are winning the war even with a limited mobilisation of the economy. There is no point in waging a war at the cost of ruining the economy, see the UK`s example on that.
This is breathtakingly innaccurate summary of why the germans did not mobilize earlier, and a patently outrageous claim to make. Anybody with any academic training would immediately realize that this sort of comment needs to be supported with expert opinion, but this is evidently not required if it is a german propaganda piece
Especially as the RAF was barely even up in the air to go against the Luftwaffe after 1940.
Any evidence thought necessary to make such an outrageous claim, no of course not, because there isnt any, is there. Just more Kurfurst Bullshit
However if you look at the entire Luftwaffe, rather than just Luftflotte Reich, which was undergoing its most severe period of combat with the USAAF at the time, servicabilty rates were around 70%. Its also rather important whether these servicibility statistics refer to the status in the morning, before the battles, or were taken in the evening, when a lot of planes were around with a couple of holes in them, unservicable, but overall only having light damage that would repaired by the morning.
As such of the statistics above are misleading.
You then launch into an apology based mostly on fantasy and irrelevant fictions, and DON'T tackle the issue at all. None of the credible sources that are available support the claim of serviceability rates of 70%, an absolutely outrageous claim, but one that just effortlessly rolls of your tongue. Anybody else would feel it necessary to very carefully document suchg a claim, but not you….we others are exepected to just accept such lies as gospel truth…yeah right
Phrases like 'Goring's and Hitlers fascination' certainly do not raise his credibility, as it only addresses the reader`s emotions but not his mind. Stuff like 'Instead the Germans assigned production almost exclusively to first line strength' is also funny and it is easy to disprove
It would perhaps help if you actually read a little, like Murray for example, because if you did, you would see he has some very credible sources. You then launched into an unsubtantiated claim about the numbers of aircraft produced, and truied to claim that whole units wa more efficient than having a proper spares reserve, obviously ignorant of the fact that OKL itself had repeatedly recommended that the spares reserves be built up, for precisely the reasons explained in Murray. You decide that Gorings approach was superior to that of his own air staff. Increadibly stupid, and totally lacking in any sort of understanding of the problem
Yet Murray claims there were not enough spares.. it would seem to me that there were always plentiful of whole replacement aircraft around, which would appear to be a much more straightforward means of increasing servicibility than to perform repairs of damaged aircraft on site.
If you read a little more widely, and were a little better informed, you would know that Murray is referring to comments that originated from the german air staff, not making any opinionated observations. But then, that doesn't matter, does it. I suspect, that anyone, including german, that make disparaging remarks against the glorious third reich is going to attract your ire.
Hayward apparently picks certain periods of low serviceability rates, at certain times and certain locations to support his conception, instead of providing an overall picture how serviceability went through the war.
Cherry picking, however, is not convincing.
You obviously have not read Hayward either. I suggest you learn to read, then once you have mastered that, actually read the books first before making any comments about them. If you did, you would know that Hayward has quite detailed accounts of serviceabilty rates, is quite pro-german in his biases, and certaihnly does not cherry pick. There is some cherry picking going on here, but its neither of these gentlemen
That`s a remarkable funny fiction, in view of the reported sorties flew over the Eastern front by Luftwaffe`s non-operational phantom planes. IIRC 10 000 or so fighter sorties were flown in the East in February 1945 alone. Over Berlin in April, a very high number of sorties (a few thousend a day, from memory) were flown.
I guess *IF* Hayward makes such a blatantly stupid claim that towards the wars end the Luftwaffe was non-operational on the East, I guess his book can go straight onto the lower shelf of the 'Fiction' shelf in remote book stores.
Not a shred of evidence to support this outrageous claim, particularly since no other source would support this. You yet again feel no great need to support a statement that most would find quite ridiculous
Yet I still have to wonder how the Luftwaffe, despite your claims, maneged to keep up on avarage 60-70% servicibility with its fighter units late in the war, despite the railways, roads being regularly attack by medium bombers and fighter bombers, the airfields strafed by escorts and bombed by heavies.
What about a source??/ This is a claim most people would see as quite outrageous, and certainly deserving of some supporting information. But yet again, you blithely believe you are a member of the master race, and don't need to worry about such petty things as factual support
Oh I see now. You describe a fiction, born a few minutes ago in your mind, and then say that this is how exactly it happened 60 years ago. No supportive evidence, nothing.
Because you want it to have been happening that way, because you argued earlier it did, then it must have happened that way.
Didn't seem to register that I had produced three separate sources, which you chose to discredit, without having actually read them first, and then even had the temerity to poo bah an actual veterans observations. And all of this without any evidence of your own. It was me who had provided any supporting argument, it was you, yet you attempt to post the fiction that I had personally dreamt the case against you all by myself, when in fact the case was presented from three sources, to which you provided not the slightest rebuttal in evidence, just bullshit opinion
The burden of proof is on you, you make the claims here
Well, actually, if you had any education, and could actually read, you would know that I had presented a case, and some supporting evidence. You would also realize that in order to rebutt those arguments, you should start presenting some supporting evidence of your own. But this fails to register for you does it, because of your lack of education and knowledge. All you can see are the swastikas marching through your head, and the glory days of the third reich, as the cheers of the crowd sweep you away
The matter has been concluded IMHO. It appears neither the original poster nor the two unquestionable authorities he calls upon to support to dogma has anything to offer as evidence.
It is of course also possible that Hayward, with whom I am not familiar with, is only used selectively to support the dogma, and the way he is being quoted here by some is not representing Hayward`s actual opinions.
Yet again youo pass judgement on creditable secondary sources, without having actually read them. Evidence is evidence. If you have better, produce it. These guys are considered creditable and authoritative, yet you continue to dismiss them, without havuing read them, and worse, without bothering to produce reduttal authority yourself.
There is one thing we do agree on, though the end point is vastly different. I agree with you the matter is concluded IMO. Evidence has been presented from internationally recognized and well respected sources, to support my position. Not one piece of evidence in rebuttal has been presesented by yourself to oppose that, making you look incredibly stupid, dogmatic, and very ill informed