quote:

D-Day was mid 1944, was there any doubt about Germanys ultimate defeat at that stage? Regardless of Air Superiority over the Normandy battlefields?

Yes plenty of doubt. Read June 1944. That book claims that pre 6/44' the axis powers were far from beaten but after 6/44' their fate was sealed! Japan too had lost some major battles in June of 44' that were irreversible. But prior to that it was quit possable that the allied landings in Normandy could have turned into another Dieppe. If the Allies failed then another assault would be a ways off and Germany could have fortified its eastern front. Even in the end when Germany was beaten somebody failed to notify the Germans! Seelow heights an undermanned German defensive position stopped Zhukov in his tracks for 24 hours and the losses were 30,000 Germans for 100,000 Russians.

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

quote:

Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just one point, that I have never really been able to understand.

According to the numbers of planes built, from the end of 1944 there were 2000 Fw190D's produced and 1800 109K4's. But just where did all these planes go?

Did the Allies really destroy 4000 planes *just of these 2 types* in the last 3 months of the war?

SOmething doesnt add up there, as far as I can see, unless most were destroyed on their way to the factories or before being used.

The US produced over 300 000 aircraft during the war. They had very roughly about 30 000 by the wars end.

Following your logic...

But I think this was discussed a couple of dozen times.

I brought it up a couple of times but I never receieved a satisfactory answer apart from 'They all went into storage', which is incredibly vague IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

Can you explain why the graphs answer my question? Maybe I am being stupid here, but I dont connect the two.

By the way, I am not doubting that that many were built, just that most/many never got into the sky, or were destroyed right away. Otherwise the Allies would be realing from German air attacks in 1944/45, but this just didnt happen. The motto at that time was 'Wo ist der Luftwaffe', because they never had any air support. Also the Germans on the Western front fired on EVERY plane they saw because they could be 99% sure it was Allied. See what happened on Bodenplatte, many many planes lost to their own AAA, they were just convinced that a large group of planes MUST be Allied.

My argument is that, although many, many 1000's of planes were built, that it is quite irrelevant because most of them never even got into the sky.

Also can you tell me what Umbau and Neubau are please?

quote:

Originally posted by Gumtree:
It was mainly the air power from Malta that sank the convoys and the air power that disrupted the German movement and command on the battle field and on the rail system that supplied the same.
Tactical attacks have a far greater effect than pure damage.

If you want proof from a direct source read the Rommel papers fro a start then any of the many books on Normandy will I feel lead you to the same conclusion.

agreed wholeheartdly and...

...people always seem to forget the importance of reconnaisance. (although they may be able to spell it better than me)

Airpower enabled the Med convoys to be found and engaged by the RN. Ok, they had Ultra but that only gave an indicaton of when and roughly where to look...the recce pilots on Malta still had to go out and find the convoys.

I agree about the Med, people tend to remember North Africa and D-day, but forget about the drive up Italy and think that the Western Allies were just sitting around until mid-1944.

There was some incredibly hard fighting done in the drive up Italy, which needed air power/support.

quote:

Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

I brought it up a couple of times but I never receieved a satisfactory answer apart from 'They all went into storage', which is incredibly vague IMO.

I cant help it if you simply want to refuse the most logical explanation and instead keep repeating the same story about how hundreds of planes 'must have been' disappeared without a trace.

quote:

Can you explain why the graphs answer my question? Maybe I am being stupid here, but I dont connect the two.

Well you seem to suggest the Luftwaffe`s strenght was declining in frontline strenght - the graphs compiled from the frontline strenght reports made by the LW between 1942-1944 seem to disagree.

quote:

By the way, I am not doubting that that many were built, just that most/many never got into the sky, or were destroyed right away.

The same must have happened then to a lot of Mustangs, Spitfires, Tempest, Hurricanes, P-47s through the war. 'They never got into the sky or were destroyed right away.'

As curiously, just like in the case of the Luftwaffe, we find that only a fraction of the produced aircraft were doing active service at a time. The others waited in storage - for a pilot to fly them, a unit to be issued to, or a worn or heavily damaged airframe to replace.

quote:

Otherwise the Allies would be realing from German air attacks in 1944/45, but this just didnt happen.

Again, where were those ca. 500 000 American, Soviet and British aircraft produced during the war in 1945? Can you answer that question?

Certainly they were not up in the sky.

quote:

The motto at that time was 'Wo ist der Luftwaffe', because they never had any air support. Also the Germans on the Western front fired on EVERY plane they saw because they could be 99% sure it was Allied. See what happened on Bodenplatte, many many planes lost to their own AAA, they were just convinced that a large group of planes MUST be Allied.

Again we enter the realm of gross generalisations and wishful thinking. I wonder what GIs being strafed in April 1945 on the Autobahn in Bavaria has to say on the subject.

quote:

My argument is that, although many, many 1000's of planes were built, that it is quite irrelevant because most of them never even got into the sky.

It must hold even more true to aircraft of which not even 1000 were built.

quote:

Also can you tell me what Umbau and Neubau are please?

Neubau is an airframe produced fresh new - typically 109Ks and G-10s in 1944.
Umbau aircraft are converted/upgraded existing aiframes - typically early production G-6/AS and G-14.
Its just a note that about half of the G-6/AS 'production' is missing from my graphs, because we dont know how many were converted exactly.

quote:

Also can you tell me what Umbau and Neubau are please?

EDIT: Ok nevermind

Kurfy, you MUST have read 'I flew for the Fuhrer', the book gets extremely depressing at the end, around 4 battered 109G's being thrown desperately at 1000's of Allied planes. And this is late 1944, not even 1945.

By the end of 1944 when Knocke is wounded he absolutely knows the air war is lost and its all over. He knows the planes are unsafe to fly in his last missions, but he does it anyway, through duty.

Why did they not just grab one of the 1000's of brand new, pristine FW190D9, Me262 or 109K4 from 'storage'?

If you are convinced there was absolutely no shortage of top notch planes, did they just deny them to KNockes squadron? Is he lying? This is why I say 'something doesnt add up here' when you try to tell us there were many 1000's of these late war LW planes available. Knockes squadron is basically out of decent planes in late 1944 and resort to flying unsafe birds.

If you have a good explanation then I am definitely all ears and willing to change my mind.

PS. I dont have the book to hand, I have lent it a friend, so if I get details wrong, dont crucify me

quote:

Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Here is a small list of what U.S. gave the Russian's.

Hurricane 2952
Spitfire 1331

Do I have to point out whats wrong what that?

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


The same must have happened then to a lot of Mustangs, Spitfires, Tempest, Hurricanes, P-47s through the war. 'They never got into the sky or were destroyed right away.'

Not nearly as many. In fact hardly any Tempests were destroyed on the ground, most were taken down by flak. C'mon Kurfy, its well known that a large amount of LW aircraft were destroyed on the ground late in the war.

Luftwaffe Order of Battle
10 January 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1462
and a total of 4566 a/c.

And if one looks at the units one will find they are not up to establishment strength. Hard to understand that with so many a/c 'sitting around in storage'.

At the same time in the ETO/MTO the USAAF had 17,575 a/c.

see http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/aafsd/aafsd_pdf/t088.pdf

And a total of 71,430 a/c.

In the begining, the Russians were unorganized, unskilled and flew aircraft of inferior quality. These undisputed facts, unwittingly to the Germans, covered up a great number of tatical, leadership and design defiececies. True to the proverb, Germany only rose to the level of its adversary. Nothing the Germans experienced in the East could have prepared them for the airwar with the west. With the possible exception being their fighter's were woefully defceint in range. Had they developed a long range heavy bomber and its complementry escort fighter. They may have been able to reach the Russian production facilitys in the critical early stages of the war.

The Germans and Russians fought a short range tactical airwar. Each side trying to defend/ attack a fluid concentration of air and ground military assets. Neither side produced a long range fighter so these assets by necessity were close to the action and in harms way. Even the largest concentration of aircraft airborn and engaged, for one " battle " paled in comparision to what was on the Western horizon .

Moving West, Germany did not posses nor develop the leadership necessary to coordinate its efforts on the scale to compete, let alone defeat the western strategic bombing doctrine. The organizational, logistical and industrial skills the west developed for the this doctrine explotied every weakness the Luftwaffe had.

Technically they had no answer for the high altitude, long range bombers and escorts. They could not effectively move thier stationay production and fuel facilities. There leadership was not equiped to organize and coordinate the resistance necessary to repell the miles of bomber streams operating high over their very homeland. Even if the could have produced on par with the US, the self-fulfillig profecy of destroying Germany's ability to wage war rendered this moot. The destruction of these facilities meant less aircraft could be produced and sent East,. Combine this with the shifting of their air assets west, life is now easier for the VVS and ground forces.
The high altitude strategic bombing as evinced by the losses in both aircraft ( total west vs. total losses in east) fuel prodution and other critical assets. Was the primary reason the allies defeated the Luftwaffe and Germany.

quote:

Originally posted by leitmotiv:

quote:

Originally posted by Hoenire:

quote:

Originally posted by Blindman-:

quote:

Originally posted by Hoenire:
Stupid question.

You don't defeat an air force, you defeat a country. You can minimise the effectiveness of an air force but that doesn't much if you can't beat the army on the ground.

Being a teacher by profession this type of comment really irritates me, as I bend over backwards trying to get my students to feel free to ask any question, telling them that there really are no stupid questions (only stupid answers).

If you have a question, always feel free to ask it, and most often the answer will benefit many of those hearing it. If it is a question that everyone else knows the answer to does not make it stupid or less worthy of asking.

I presume that you do not teach your students to think first before opening their mouths, or do you just spoon-feed the curriculum? And before anyone spouts the rubbish about there being "No stupid questions, only stupid answers", I'm pretty sure that most of us can remember asking a stupid question at some point. I ask a couple every week but I don't blind myself to seeing it, I'm just embarrassed.

Being a lawyer by profession it always amazes me that people do not think before acting. A moment's thought would have brought the realisation that air forces aren't defeated, just rendered less effective (and this isn't the same thing at all).

Maybe there are no stupid questions, just stupid people? No Avro, I don't think you're stupid, just lazy in your thinking or phrasing! If the question had been phrased differently then you'd probably have had a constructive comment from me instead of a withering critique.

Rarely on these forums have we had the honor of being visited by such a preening hubristic ego. We are not discussing semantics. This kind of churlish parsing, most common to the blighted profession of law or, sometimes, English teachers, is "not done" among fellows having a general discussion. Perhaps you wish to announce your profession in order to let us know you think you have special qualifications for discussing the doom of the German air arm? In which case I, a history person by training, would say "tosh"---lawyers can't bear a fact which has not been subjugated to their meretricious embellishment until dawn is sunset and sunset is dawn.

Hehe talk about preening hubristic ego... If you look carefully you'll note I was parrotting the person I was replying to. As you're a history person (what on earth is a history person? A historian or someone who once took some history exams and now does something else?) by training obviously everything you say or write follows research that is open to interpretation by whoever wants to question your conclusions.

Oh, I forgot you're also a professional on professionals. Take the blinkers off, there's a good fellow. What you really should have done was ignore the posts and thus proven yourself so much more mature.

This is fun!

ps Without semantics the meaning of the question is entirely lost. Look at the replies in the second and third pages and perhaps, just perhaps, you'll understand what I mean.

quote:

Originally posted by Hoenire:
Hehe talk about preening hubristic ego... If you look carefully you'll note I was parrotting the person I was replying to. As you're a history person (what on earth is a history person? A historian or someone who once took some history exams and now does something else?) by training obviously everything you say or write follows research that is open to interpretation by whoever wants to question your conclusions.

Oh, I forgot you're also a professional on professionals. Take the blinkers off, there's a good fellow. What you really should have done was ignore the posts and thus proven yourself so much more mature.

This is fun!

ps Without semantics the meaning of the question is entirely lost. Look at the replies in the second and third pages and perhaps, just perhaps, you'll understand what I mean.

..... You may recall that Churchill referred to himself as a "former naval person", so the self-appellation of "history person" is hardly the awkward phrase you so slyly imply it to be. But then I understand that you're just out for a bit of fun.

You're correct that a trained historian understands that "everything you say or write follows research that is open to interpretation by whoever wants to question your conclusions." History persons do engage one another in the manner you describe. In that sense, they are much like attorneys, but are accustomed to do so with less resort to rhetorical device.

Frequent Flyer, do you know how what happened when and where in the air war over Europe in WW2?

quote:

Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kurfy, you MUST have read 'I flew for the Fuhrer', the book gets extremely depressing at the end, around 4 battered 109G's being thrown desperately at 1000's of Allied planes. And this is late 1944, not even 1945.

I am not sure what are you talking about - Knoke was heavily wounded when his car went on a mine in October 1944. He was commanding III/JG 1 between August - October 1944. In the last 6 months his unit sustained severe losses was re-filled several times with pilots and equipment.

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg1.html

Records of his unit indicate they received 69 new aircraft (G-14s) in October 1944, reaching maximum strenght again. Undoubtfully JG 1 was very severely mauled during 1944.

quote:

Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Why did they not just grab one of the 1000's of brand new, pristine FW190D9, Me262 or 109K4 from 'storage'?

They did.

In June 1944, 63 aircraft received from factories, 12 from repair centres, 14 transferred from other units. By July they were actually above authorized strenght.
In July 1944, 41 aircraft received from factories, again they are near autorized strenght.

During Augst they receive a couple of aircraft, but loose most in the general retreat from the West.

The unit is withdrawn for rest and refit for September.

In October the unit is rebuilt with 69 new G-14s (again they are above authrozed strenght, now authorized Gruppe actually increased to 68 aircraft. Each Wing (Gruppe) gets an extra Squadron, and each Regiment (JG) gets and extra Wing in its order of battle).

During December again they take heavy losses and by end of the month the unit only reports 18 aircraft - again they are refitted with 109Gs and Ks in January 1945. And so on.

You can check III/JG1`s equipment status here : http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biiijg1.html

quote:

If you are convinced there was absolutely no shortage of top notch planes, did they just deny them to KNockes squadron? Is he lying? This is why I say 'something doesnt add up here' when you try to tell us there were many 1000's of these late war LW planes available. Knockes squadron is basically out of decent planes in late 1944 and resort to flying unsafe birds.

Denied? His unit received alone in the last six months of 1944 some 200 brand new fighter aircraft in six months, some 28 from repair centres and 23 from other units. III/JG 1 received more new aircraft alone than the entire RAF got Mk XIV Spits in 1944.

This doesnt sound 'denied of reinforcements' to me. In fact, there was such a surplus of planes resting in the depots that usually they did not even bother to repair even the slightly damaged ones - it was much simplier to just grab a new one from a nearby depot.

'Leutnant Hans-Ulrich Flade, a Bf 109 pilot with II./JG 27. recalled that if a fighter were damaged it was simplier to get a new one than to make repairs:

We simply went to the depot nearby, where they had hundreds of brand new 109s - G-10s, G-14s and even the very latest K models. There was no proper organisation anymore: the depot staff just said, 'There are the aircraft, take what you want and go away'. But getting fuel - that was more difficult'.

See Alfred Price: Last year of the Luftwaffe Page 130.

quote:

Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


The same must have happened then to a lot of Mustangs, Spitfires, Tempest, Hurricanes, P-47s through the war. 'They never got into the sky or were destroyed right away.'

Not nearly as many. In fact hardly any Tempests were destroyed on the ground, most were taken down by flak. C'mon Kurfy, its well known that a large amount of LW aircraft were destroyed on the ground late in the war.

Of course. I just demonstrate how much of a nonsense it is to argue that if only a portion of the produced planes are actively serving with the units, the rest must have been bombed or something. By the end of the war, something like a hundred Tempest were in service, which includes the immidiate reserves of the Squadrons (ie. 12 + 8-10 spares). Yet something like 6-800 were produced by the end of the war. Most of them were in storage, waiting to be issued, just like Luftwaffe fighters.

Transition is not a simple thing and it is simplier to build planes than to train pilots. All air forces had more planes at hand than pilots to fly them.

quote:

Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kurfy, you MUST have read 'I flew for the Fuhrer', the book gets extremely depressing at the end, around 4 battered 109G's being thrown desperately at 1000's of Allied planes. And this is late 1944, not even 1945.

By the end of 1944 when Knocke is wounded he absolutely knows the air war is lost and its all over. He knows the planes are unsafe to fly in his last missions, but he does it anyway, through duty.

Why did they not just grab one of the 1000's of brand new, pristine FW190D9, Me262 or 109K4 from 'storage'?

If you are convinced there was absolutely no shortage of top notch planes, did they just deny them to KNockes squadron? Is he lying? This is why I say 'something doesnt add up here' when you try to tell us there were many 1000's of these late war LW planes available. Knockes squadron is basically out of decent planes in late 1944 and resort to flying unsafe birds.

If you have a good explanation then I am definitely all ears and willing to change my mind.

PS. I dont have the book to hand, I have lent it a friend, so if I get details wrong, dont crucify me

Xiolablu3.

I have read many instances of End of War situations where Luftwaffe pilots. who were shot down. and who contacted their Home bases of their predicament. Were instructed to go to the closest Either production, repair or holding facility and pick up a plane and fly it back.
There were many of these fascilities dotted around.Germany Austria and Czechoslovakia.
There were many airframes but few delivery pilots available.Even less fuel to fly them all the way to where they were required at the front
If you look at many of the pictures of late War Luftwaffe fighter Units you will recognise the relative jumble of fighter marks contained within what once was a coherent strong force. But now had descended to what was essentially. A Fly what you find situation. With many planes not having been given the Unit markings. It becomes a bit of a minefield trying to recognise what Unit was actually flying what towards the end.

I am aware that this is meerly a Generalisation.

But Knokes situation( Was it in Oct '44?). Was In my opinion probably born about by the fact that there was nobody available to transfer planes to IIIJG1 (Based in Belgium and under constant attack) at that time and that the Unit was better dealt with being transferred to Fels am Wegram in Austria where they would be refitted.

quote:

Of course. I just demonstrate how much of a nonsense it is to argue that if only a portion of the produced planes are actively serving with the units, the rest must have been bombed or something.

Those airframes are probably in maintenance stocks. Most Air Forces maintain around a 3: 1 ratio for maintenance stocks.

All the best,

Crumpp

You are missing my point, and I dont have Knockes book on hand right now, so I am at a bit of a disadvantage, however...

I am not CLAIMING any certain thing happened to all these planes, just that most of never got into the air or did hardly any flying before they were destroyed or grounded through lack of fuel. You state yourself in your quote that it was extrememly hard to find fuel, so this emphasises my point even more.


You cite the 5 Spitfire XIV squadrons in the 2nd TAF as an example, they barely lost any aircraft, needing only the number you suggest were built before the nd of the war to keep their squadrons up to strenth of 100-120 aircraft. These aircraft were constantly active, no shortage of fuel, squadrons at full strenth most of the time.

Meanwhile the Luftwaffe's many 1000's of planes which were built are not being flown as they are in 'storage', or are grounded through lack of fuel, or are only flying 2 or 3 sorties before they are destroyed.

Therefore even though there may have been 1600 109K4's produced, I am willing to bet that even the RAF SPitfire XIV's performed as many, or even more meaningful sorties than the whole of the 1600 109K4's did in total.

I will reiterate my point again. That even tho there were 1600 109K4's, for example, built, most of them never got off the ground through lack of fuel, or were destroyed on the ground, or were destroyed after a couple of sorties.

As you state SPitfire XIV's as an example, I would like to add up all the SPitfire XIV's sorties in the 2nd and compare them to the total number of Bf109K4 sorties made. At a guess, I would say that the Spitfire XIV, even tho far less were built, flew more sorties and did more 'war work' than the Bf109K4 did.

It wouldnt be too hard to get a rough idea if we know how many German squadrons were eqquiped with the Bf109K4 and how many were to hand on each given day. But of course that wouldnt take into account the very, very bad fuel situation, as it states in your source.