PDA

View Full Version : The Worst Air War Blunder in WWII?



DONB3397
01-15-2004, 10:58 AM
In your opinion, what was the single worst air war blunder in the European and Russian fronts during WWII? We're talking about DECISIONS, not mistakes made in the fog of battle, and DECISIONS that either prolonged the war or caused unnecessary loss of life and material.

For example, Hitler/Goering made a decision during the BoB to switch from military targets to civilian, and allowed the RAF time to recover and reorganize. It was a serious misstep that ultimately resulted in greater losses for the LW. A bad decision.

On the other hand, it was a sad mistake when a backup B-24 navigator turned his squadrons too soon on the way to Ploesti and gave the LW time to get into the air and alerted AAA before the bombers reached their targets. It was a disaster, but doesn't qualify here.

My candidate -- The decision by the German Air Ministry to hold back resources needed for development of the Me262, combined with Hitler's insistance that it be used as an offensive fighter-bomber instead of an interceptor. In Nov., '44, when the first full-fledged jet fighter wing was formed, the 262 cut a swath through the allied bomber streams with 427 victories, three-quarters of them heavy bombers. Once pilots mastered the a/c, they were seldom caught in air-to-air combat. More losses came on landing approaches and accidents.

What's yours?

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCeTtBABXdJdLZQo

DONB3397
01-15-2004, 10:58 AM
In your opinion, what was the single worst air war blunder in the European and Russian fronts during WWII? We're talking about DECISIONS, not mistakes made in the fog of battle, and DECISIONS that either prolonged the war or caused unnecessary loss of life and material.

For example, Hitler/Goering made a decision during the BoB to switch from military targets to civilian, and allowed the RAF time to recover and reorganize. It was a serious misstep that ultimately resulted in greater losses for the LW. A bad decision.

On the other hand, it was a sad mistake when a backup B-24 navigator turned his squadrons too soon on the way to Ploesti and gave the LW time to get into the air and alerted AAA before the bombers reached their targets. It was a disaster, but doesn't qualify here.

My candidate -- The decision by the German Air Ministry to hold back resources needed for development of the Me262, combined with Hitler's insistance that it be used as an offensive fighter-bomber instead of an interceptor. In Nov., '44, when the first full-fledged jet fighter wing was formed, the 262 cut a swath through the allied bomber streams with 427 victories, three-quarters of them heavy bombers. Once pilots mastered the a/c, they were seldom caught in air-to-air combat. More losses came on landing approaches and accidents.

What's yours?

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCeTtBABXdJdLZQo

yarbles67
01-15-2004, 11:04 AM
I would say Germany's decision to attack Russia before they had a fully working nuke. We know they were working on it. Most sane folks must have realized the huge , if not impossible task it was going to be to beat Russia in a war and they try to occupy her. The other blunder relating to the nuke was Germany's decision to ignore the importance of developing a long range, heavy bomber. They would have had a nuke but they may not have had the possibility to deliver it unless they were going to use a V2.

NegativeGee
01-15-2004, 11:20 AM
Haha! lets see where this one goes.....

Okay a couple, as I do no think there is one single worst decision, you have to view them in the context of the time when they were taken.

Lack of clear strategic planning on the part of the Luftwaffe in the BoB. Even with everything else that was against it (like the lack of a functional drop tank for the Bf 109), the Luftwaffe nearly had the RAF on its knees. If there had been an aim of destroying fighter defenses in the South of England from the word go, and this had been stuck to, the BoB may have had a different outcome.

The denial of permission to the NachtJagd shortly after its formation to conduct large scale Intruder missions over England to intercept RAF bombers as they formed up/returned to base. Hence night raid interception became entirely defensive and lost its important offensive element.

As the war progressed, the insistance of production of bombers over fighters for the Luftwaffe. This caused serious problems for the Jagdwaffe throughout the war. Coupled with the refusal of key figures in power to accept the increasingly defensive nature of opertaions in German airspace, this constantly handicapped the Luftwaffes efforts to contain the affects of Allied strategic bombing.

Towards the end of the war...... Operation Bodenplatte. What a waste of men a machines for the Luftwaffe. If Galland had had his way, and been able to conduct massive interceptions of the Allied bomber fleets, the Allied strategic bombing campaign would have been seriously set back (as it was in the latter half of 1943).

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

necrobaron
01-15-2004, 11:57 AM
Well,Schweinfurt(sp.?) was a pretty nasty operation for the USAAF and our B-17s.....

christopher65
01-15-2004, 12:10 PM
Hello there.I would like to disagree with the statement earlier that the basic idea of invading the USSR was a flawed one.
It was not that the concept was wrong but that it was the timing. If the invasion had begun in late April, early May then that would have allowed for two months(weather was reasonable according to records)more combat in better weather.
This would have meant that the Panzers would have been at the gates of Moscow by mid-summer rather than late Autum as was the reality.Its only my opinion but I do think that if Moscow had fallen Stalin would have fallen with it,thus ensuring almost certain victory for the Germans.
A victory over Russia could have led to the fall of Britian shortly after,which ultimatly would mean that the Nazis would have won the war.It is unlikely that the Americans would be willing to go to war with,what basicaly would be the rest of the world!What a terrifying thought!
I know this still doesnt answer the original question but I think it was the desicion to carry on the heavy bombing of German cities in the last months/weeks of the war.Its effect was purely political and the cost in human lives I can only think of as totaly unnessassary(apologies for the grammer).

MiloMorai
01-15-2004, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
My candidate -- The decision by the German Air Ministry to hold back resources needed for development of the Me262, combined with Hitler's insistance that it be used as an offensive fighter-bomber instead of an interceptor. In Nov., '44, when the first full-fledged jet fighter wing was formed, the 262 cut a swath through the allied bomber streams with 427 victories, three-quarters of them heavy bombers. Once pilots mastered the a/c, they were seldom caught in air-to-air combat. More losses came on landing approaches and accidents. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was only 2 fully operational LW units with Me262s, Kmdo Nowotny and 3./KG51, on Nov.1 1944.

During Nov. 1944 Kmdo Nowotny claimed 18 a/c for the loss/damage of 26 Me262s. That is a far cry from the 427 you say. Most of the claims were P-51s and P-47s, not bombers. With Nowotny's death on Nov.11 the Kmdo was removed from combat for re-trianing.


Messerschmitt was already working on having the Me262 carry bombs even before Hiltler's order.

buz13
01-15-2004, 12:15 PM
I'd have to go with the decision to switch from attacking airfields to bombing cities in the BoB. It was without doubt a major blunder from all accounts I have read. Another one concerning the BoB was the inability of the Germans to capture the Polish pilots and stop them from getting to England where they became an important factor in the RAF victory. A Polish squadron was the highest scoring in the battle and on some days accounted for 20% of the RAF kills. Funny...A Chek was the highest scoring pilot and flew with the Poles. Even Air Marshall Dowding said he did not know if the RAF would have been victorious if it had not been for the Poles.....

MiloMorai
01-15-2004, 12:17 PM
christopher65, the spring of 1941 was very wet, making the invasion roads basically un-travelable.

LEXX_Luthor
01-15-2004, 12:36 PM
Moscow was evacuated of important people and industry, with more planned if Germans got close, thus Moscow falling earlier than winter 1941 would not have ended the WAR in the East.

Biggest WAR blunder political purge of Soviet military leadership resulting in the disasters in Finland and in 1941 and the failure to allow the remaining Leaders to prepare for German offensive (it was not a surprise). Particular for the FB set was in spring 1941 when NKVD constructed large international FB-style airports for VVS fighters a few kilometers from the German/Soviet border.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

Fornixx
01-15-2004, 12:55 PM
Well not a war-winning/loosing mistake but nevertheless strange was the decision to make the He177 Grief capable of divebombing.

Makes you want to travel back in time to 1942, kick in the door tho the airministry, grab Goering by the ears and cry "It's a 4 engine bomber Goddamit!!!"

yarbles67
01-15-2004, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by christopher65:
Hello there.I would like to disagree with the statement earlier that the basic idea of invading the USSR was a flawed one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sort of equate Germany attacking Russia like Japan attacking the US. Sure Japan bloodied Uncle Sam's nose at Pearl but once industry switched gears from peace time production to military, a whole can of wup *** was unleashed upon Tojo's Empire. The weather excuse as you put it, just speeded up Germany's ultimate desmise in Russia and in the end, had no real impact in their eventual destruction. Germany could not touch the industrial or man power might of Russia once her war industrial complex got going full steam ahead. Russia was way too vast for Germany to reasonably supply forward troops while also remaining a significant occupying force. Germany would have been better served to keep her non aggression pact with Russia and focus it's full military might on the west. Instead, Germany really woke a sleeping Giant when it went on a campaign to slaughter some 20 million Russians. Russia was a master of packing up whole factories and moving them in very little time. Plus, Germany didn't have the resources to fight to many more Stalingrads while Russia was willing to fight as many Stalingrads as it took to either win or to be completely destroyed.

cd_jakevas
01-15-2004, 01:01 PM
To me it would have to be the German Invasion of Crete 1941. The Germans lost 170 Ju-52's as well as many men. Maybe there was a different way they could have done it, but they had very bad logistical problems when it came to transporting crews from airbases and whatnot because of the lack of transport planes that they never replaced. It made the air war in Russia harder for Germany. Might not be the greatest blunder, but has to be one of the most talked about ones.

http://members.cox.net/jakevas/sig5.jpg

Korolov
01-15-2004, 01:04 PM
Britain's decision to remove the turbochargers and counter rotating engines in their version of the P-38, as well as armanent changes, thus depriving them of a aircraft that could intercept high flying german bombers and blow them to bits with heavy armanent.

Eisenhower's poor use of tactical airpower during operation Torch, making the 12th airforce unable to mount coordinated offensives to support the ground forces.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

MiloMorai
01-15-2004, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Britain's decision to remove the turbochargers and counter rotating engines in their version of the P-38, as well as armanent changes, thus depriving them of a aircraft that could intercept high flying german bombers and blow them to bits with heavy armanent.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What high flying German bombers? The Spit V intercepted and shot down the high flying reconne Ju86s at over 40,000ft.

Don't forget there was much trouble with the GE turbo-superchargers because of the dampness of NE Europe.

DONB3397
01-15-2004, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
There was only _2_ fully operational LW units with Me262s, _Kmdo Nowotny_ and 3./KG51, on Nov.1 1944.

During Nov. 1944 _Kmdo Nowotny_ claimed 18 a/c for the loss/damage of 26 Me262s. That is a far cry from the 427 you say. Most of the claims were P-51s and P-47s, not bombers. With Nowotny's death on Nov.11 the Kmdo was removed from combat for re-trianing.

Messerschmitt was already working on having the Me262 carry bombs even before Hiltler's order.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From previous posts, I know how thorough your research is and appreciate the correction. Perhaps there are conflicting sources. Kommando Nowotny, the 1st ops unit, was set up in 9/44 and claimed 22 kills by the end of the month. Most of the Me262 losses you mentioned were due to their pilots' lack of training time. Among other things, they couldn't get them off the ground because they didn't understand the spool up problems. In 10/44, fighter-bomber missions were flown against bridgheads on the Rhine with good success.

In Nov., Jagdgeschwader 7 (Hindenburg) was set up for intercept work. My sources give them the total I quoted, and say 75% were bombers. In 3/45, Galland put together 45 of the best remaining aces and formed Jagdverband 44 around the Me-262A1a/U1, a very heavily armed (six canons)variant. In one month of operations, they scored 50 victories, but it was too late to have an affect.

This suggests that there are different interpretations at least on the effectiveness of the jet. The first jet version, btw, flew in July, '42. The two-year development in the midst of a war emergency seems long to me.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCeTtBABXdJdLZQo

Oso2323
01-15-2004, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fornixx:
...the decision to make the He177 Grief capable of divebombing. Makes you want to travel back in time to 1942, kick in the door tho the airministry, grab Goering by the ears and cry "It's a 4 engine bomber Goddamit!!!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't feel like going back in time and helping old fatty the nazi win the war. But on a non-political tack I would've told him to send the 177 over England in the daylight so that I could have some historically accurate target practive when the Spit V comes out in February.

MiloMorai
01-15-2004, 02:37 PM
Don. Kmdo Nowotny became III./JG7. The other Gruppes (I., II.) did not recieve 262s until 12.44 or later.(I. &gt; 3 in 12.44) The Nov.1 date is not the operational start date for the units.

In the I Jagdkorps area 404 German a/c were lost for only 155 allied a/c, just in Nov.1944.

The USAAF's 8th AF lost 170 heavies during Nov.'44 of which 62 were during the time Kmdo Nowotny was operational. Flak was a bigger claimer of EA than the LW. Goering even wundered why there even was a LW because of this stat.

There was only one 6 cannon Me262(W.Nr. 112355) ans designated Me262A-1a/U5 and I believe it was Bar that flew it when he was with JV44 in April '45.

tagert
01-15-2004, 02:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yarbles67:
I would say Germany's decision to attack Russia before they had a fully working nuke. We know they were working on it. Most sane folks must have realized the huge , if not impossible task it was going to be to beat Russia in a war and they try to occupy her. The other blunder relating to the nuke was Germany's decision to ignore the importance of developing a long range, heavy bomber. They would have had a nuke but they may not have had the possibility to deliver it unless they were going to use a V2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Working On? You mean Started On and Gave Up On Early On!!!

That is to say you wont see one of these at any of Germanys test sights

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/TrinityMarker7.jpg

TAGERT

OberstWileyII
01-15-2004, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
...Working On? You mean Started On and Gave Up On Early On!!!

That is to say you wont see one of these at any of Germanys test sights

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for ruining the entire thread,making us scroll left and right to read the meaningful posts, by posting your stupid huge picture...

http://imagehost.auctionwatch.com/preview/wi/wileycoyote2/IwoJimatiny2.gif (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/flightsims/oberstguncam/Movies/SandsOne.WMV)
<A HREF="http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/flightsims/oberstguncam/Frameset/" TARGET=_blank>Click on Flag-Raising to view full length 4Mb version
...Or, click HERE to Visit Wiley's WWII GunCam World</A>

tagert
01-15-2004, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OberstWileyII:
Thanks for ruining the entire thread,making us scroll left and right to read the meaningful posts, by posting your stupid huge picture...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No problem bud and thanks for your bandwidth sucking anitmated sig line and logos! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TAGERT

badaboom.1
01-15-2004, 05:08 PM
OHH!!COME NOW OBERST!!!,IT'S GOOD HAND---EYE CORDINATION http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif!!!!

http://img9.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/Blacksheeprab.jpg

jensenpark
01-15-2004, 05:35 PM
I think people are getting off topic here...

Biggest AIR WAR blunder:

I'd have to agree with the earlier post of Germany not going ahead with the development of a long range, 4 engine strategic bomber.

Would not have changed much in the west, but in east, Soviets simply moved industrial output east to the Urals, out of range. And continued the massive output of arms (and men/pilots training) out of reach.

http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg

"Death before unconsciousness" - Uncle Duke

Oblt.Emann
01-15-2004, 05:57 PM
I think Goering's decision to not look into putting 4-engine heavy bombers to real use really screwed Germany over later on. I also think the Bf.109's lack of a decent droptank in the Battle of Britain cost the Luftwaffe the whole operation, as at that time the RAF was already struggling. As late-war things go, the RLM's procrastination of the Me 262's production threw away the potential to really throw off the B-17's bombing raids, and could of given Germany a huge advantage in early 1944.

p1ngu666
01-15-2004, 06:11 PM
the 4 engine bomber thing... the british and american ones wherent that effective, best thing they did was destroying oil plants.
raf bombing cities, nearly not using the mossie

goering, in general XD

MiloMorai
01-15-2004, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oblt.Emann:
I think Goering's decision to not look into putting 4-engine heavy bombers to real use really screwed Germany over later on. I also think the Bf.109's lack of a decent droptank in the Battle of Britain cost the Luftwaffe the whole operation, as at that time the RAF was already struggling. As late-war things go, the RLM's procrastination of the Me 262's production threw away the potential to really throw off the B-17's bombing raids, and could of given Germany a huge advantage in early 1944.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Willey also caused the LW difficulties because of his 109. The success of the 109 early on lead to a layback attitude in not developing other more capable fighters. Yes the Fw190 was there and was developed into a respectable fighter but Willey's stranglehold on DB engines (and his lobbying in Berlin) slowed its development into the much more versitile Ta series of a/c. A fighter capable of carrying a heavier weapon loadout, like the Fw, would have been better in '44 and '45. The early war fighter pilot mentality also did not help. All they were interested in was shooting down other fighters.

I don't think the 262 would have been ready any sooner (or much sooner) as it was the engines that held up it introduction.

The biggest problem with the LW was that it was a tactical AF not a strategic AF.

nickdanger3
01-15-2004, 06:33 PM
I just finished reading "The Wild Blue" and while I can't claim to be the biggest student of WWII, at least from a tactical point of view (lots of more strategic posts around here) the Ploesti Oil Fields low level raid (August 1943) sounds like a pretty big mistake. Lots of planes lost - not much damage.

Red_44th
01-15-2004, 07:05 PM
I feel that Germany made a mistake by investing all that money into all of those useless jets, like the Me-163, instead of using that money to build more of the effective Me-262s.

mllaneza
01-15-2004, 08:25 PM
Ploesti was a failure, not a mistake. They'd all be heroes if they managed to knock the refinery out.

Veteran - Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force. 1993-1951.

Oso2323
01-15-2004, 08:37 PM
My vote goes for the Stalingrad fiasco. Thanks to the senior staff, the Luftwaffe not only lost quite a few men and machines, but also their entire training capability.

Of course you could always go back to organizational culture and mention the inability to accept constructive criticism from junior commanders (short supply in any tyranny), but incompetence was the Nazi's strongest quality.

horseback
01-15-2004, 08:59 PM
I can't believe that no one has picked the Japanese decision to shuttle in massive numbers of aircraft into Saipan when it was invaded, leading to the famous "Marianas Turkey Shoot."

A fantastic triumph of optimism over reality!

Cheers

horseback

P.S. Tagert appears to be feeling extra feisty today. I recommend not poking him with any sharp objects...

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

DONB3397
01-15-2004, 09:00 PM
A couple of ppl here have pointed out that the LW was tactical, not strategic in nature. I believe that's correct...and by design!

In the 30's, when Goering was Economics Minister for the Reich (among other things), he was preparing for general war by 1945 and not before. Hitler believed that war, when it came, would last no more than 18 months. And LW planners were busy working under both of these assumptions.

So what? Didn't they have the best war-machine possible at the time?

Probably. But it looks like the generals failed to prepare for a wider, longer war. They didn't create a system for replacing pilots in the quantity needed to sustain a long air war, for instance. And when a/c losses built up, they had to organize and expand production under wartime conditions. Finally, although they had a technological edge and their engineers and a/c designers delivered arguably the most advanced air weapons systems in the war, the LW was never able to develop a means of adequately testing and mass producing these weapons.

Perhaps this was also the mindset that kept long-range bombers out of the LW mix -- as several people have pointed out. The generals didn't think the war would last long enough for a strategic campaign of destroying the enemy's infrastructure and manufacturing and sources of supply. Who needed it? If they did worry about such things, who was going to tell Adolf?

So, with the perfect intelligence of hindsight, it seems that the biggest blunder may have been overconfidence and the short-term tactical plans it spawned.

Anyway, as a wise man once said: "When you're up to your a$$ in alligators, it's hard to remember that your strategy was to drain the swamp."

ucanfly
01-15-2004, 09:43 PM
Germany Blunder: The Me-110 as an escort fighter.

Allied Blunder: Unescorted bombers

MiloMorai
01-15-2004, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
Germany Blunder: The Me-110 as an escort fighter.

Allied Blunder: Unescorted bombers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 110 was forced to use the wrong tactics in BoB.

The Mosquito did not do to bad and it did not have any defensive guns.

The Brits should have scraped the heavy bombers(Lancaster, Halifax) and built more Mosquitos for they would have been more effective all round. Some Mossies even flew 2 missions to Berlin in one night(different crews though).

pinche_bolillo
01-16-2004, 02:26 AM
japan's decision not to launch a 3rd wave of bombers to destroy the fuel storage depot and repair facilities on pear harbor. also their decision not to launch an amphibious attack after their a/c were done. even if they only would have launched a 3 rd wave and attacked the repair facilities and fuel storage depot, this would have seriously crippled pear harbor, after the attack pear harbor was relatively un-damaged with the exception of ships.

I do not understand guys who think the 4 engined bombers were failures. had the americans not used day light bombing, the luftwaffe could have deployed many more fighters to the mto, russia, and africa. the american bomber war drug the germans into a war of attrition that the allies were better suited to fighting. combating endless streams of day light bombers sapped the germans of many things other than just fighters. imagine how many ground personel it takes to maintain a group of 20 fighters, also consider the logistics and men it consumes there. day light bombing by large bombers was one of many things that sapped germany's ability to fight effectively.

germany's failure to deploy a long range bomber

germany's failure to deploy a long range fighter

DaBallz
01-16-2004, 04:01 AM
Operation Bodenplatte, new years day 1945 was
the worst single air war blunder of WWII.
Hundreds of Allied planes were destroyed on the ground
and few, if any, allied pilots were killed.
A few hundred German planes and irreplacable
pilots were killed. Bodenplatte was suicide
for the Luftwaffe. Both the allies and Germans
easily replaced their lost aircraft.
But Germany lost many of it's best remaining
pilots.

Bodenplatte was an air victory for Germany but
a massive tactical defeat.

After Jan,1, 1945 the Luftwaffe ceased to exist
as an effective fighting force.

D***

MiloMorai
01-16-2004, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Operation Bodenplatte, new years day 1945 was
the worst single air war blunder of WWII.
Hundreds of Allied planes were destroyed on the ground
and few, if any, allied pilots were killed.
A few hundred German planes and irreplacable
pilots were killed. Bodenplatte was suicide
for the Luftwaffe. Both the allies and Germans
easily replaced their lost aircraft.
But Germany lost many of it's best remaining
pilots.

Bodenplatte was an air victory for Germany but
a massive tactical defeat.

After Jan,1, 1945 the Luftwaffe ceased to exist
as an effective fighting force.

D***<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mostly to the German Flak units who got the German a/c on returning to bases.

Read Six Months to Oblivion for the story of Bodenplatte.

K/MIA - 170
POW - 67
wounded - 18

LEXX_Luthor
01-16-2004, 04:38 AM
German Flak, yes, that was a HUGE expenditure in the bombing campaign. I read somewhere that most of what could have been German Army artillery was divereted to air defence of Germany. Getting those 88mm away from the front lines and Shermans and T~34s was a WAR winning move by the "allies."

And all those searchlights too.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

nicolas10
01-16-2004, 05:37 AM
War changing I'd say the switch from airfield / factories bombing to the bombing of london.

On the axis side, the decision not to proceed with the first series of Ta 152 at the end of 1943. Imagine full production of Ta 153 starting at the beginning of 1944!

Nic

The first official D12 whiner!

RAF_Lyneham
01-16-2004, 06:08 AM
Not really an air war blunder but certainly would have had an impact on it.

The Third Reich "solution to the Jewish question" effectively alienated some of the the greatest scientists of the 20th Century including Einstein. The Jewish scientists (and their colleagues) fled Europe to the US and began working on Allied war projects most notably the Manhattan Project. If Hitler had kept them he may have been able to deliver a nuclear bomb on London/Moscow and things would probably have been a lot different

P4 2.8Ghz
1024 MB DDR RAM
ATI RADEON 9700 Pro 128 MB
60G HD
Win XP HE
Audigy 2
Saitek X45

XyZspineZyX
01-16-2004, 06:53 AM
Failure to strap a JUMO 213 onto the front of an operational Fw 190 in early 1943 (as they could have done), and failure to allow Galland to execute his planned mass interception of a US air raid, instead using the masses of fighters saved up (all with pilots trained especially for interception) in Bodenplatte...

"As we saw the German pilots coming in to attack the parked planes, the flak opened up - 'Jink, you stupid bastards, jink' we thought - they obviously hadn't been properly trained, and they paid the price." Quoted from a British rocket-Typhoon pilot at a big Allied airfield that I can't remember the name of.

muffinstomp
01-16-2004, 07:47 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MiloMorai:


What high flying German bombers? The Spit V intercepted and shot down the high flying reconne Ju86s at over 40,000ft.

Don't forget there was much trouble with the GE turbo-superchargers because of the dampness of NE Europe.



I hope someone can deliver the right source for this, but if my mind serves me right the Spit V starved tryin'.

The RAF modified a Spit V to meet the Ju-86's service ceiling i.e. stripped it to the bone, dismounting anything heavy like the machine guns - it had its Hispanos for better bomber-ripping -, armour and communications(really?).

Sure the Jerries were scared when that Spit V kept climbing and gaining on them.

It was then that the Hispanos suffered one of their occasional jams and let the Junkers recon escape.

It still was a success as the OKL soon stopped sending these high-alt reconnaissance missions for London, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong but "downing" this Ju-86 was anything but easy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

Bearcat99
01-16-2004, 08:18 AM
I would have to go with Germany's failure to think ahead and produce a long range bomber and the major blunder in 262 production... too little, too late. For the US Schwienfurt loomslarge...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

johann_thor
01-16-2004, 10:30 AM
Heinkel He-100 D-1

MiloMorai
01-16-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by muffinstomp:
Correct me if I'm wrong but "downing" this Ju-86 was anything but easy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never said it was.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It was not only over GB but also in the Med. The Germans never knew what was done to the Spits only that it could reach them. The standard Spit HF IX could reach 43,000ft.

Wannabe-Pilot
01-16-2004, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yarbles67:
The weather excuse as you put it, just speeded up Germany's ultimate desmise in Russia and in the end, had no real impact in their eventual destruction. Germany could not touch the industrial or man power might of Russia once her war industrial complex got going full steam ahead. Russia was way too vast for Germany to reasonably supply forward troops while also remaining a significant occupying force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shortly after the invasion took place and after the first disastarous reports started coming in, Stalin called the Bulgarian ambassador and asked him whether he would like to mediate in possible peace negotiations. The guy looked at Stalin and said: But why? Even if you retreat all the way to the Urals, you'll still win eventually.

VonShlagnoff
01-16-2004, 03:16 PM
It was Hitlers insistance early in the war that no projects that could not be finished before 1941 could be started, delaying or destroying many advanced aircraft/ weapon systems.

johann_thor
01-16-2004, 03:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yarbles67:
The weather excuse as you put it, just speeded up Germany's ultimate desmise in Russia and in the end, had no real impact in their eventual destruction. Germany could not touch the industrial or man power might of Russia once her war industrial complex got going full steam ahead. Russia was way too vast for Germany to reasonably supply forward troops while also remaining a significant occupying force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shortly after the invasion took place and after the first disastarous reports started coming in, Stalin called the Bulgarian ambassador and asked him whether he would like to mediate in possible peace negotiations. The guy looked at Stalin and said: But why? Even if you retreat all the way to the Urals, you'll still win eventually.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


i disagree - look at a map of russian railways and roads. moscow is the center for all logistics - with moscow in german hands - what are the russians going to do ? walk !?

Wannabe-Pilot
01-16-2004, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by johann_thor:
i disagree - look at a map of russian railways and roads. moscow is the center for all logistics - with moscow in german hands - what are the russians going to do ? walk !?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two things won the war in the east: Russian men and American supplies (and perhaps idiotic Hitler's requests). Yeah, sure, the Russians produced about 40,000 T-34, but that's about all they were producing. An army is not just tanks and guns. It is also trucks and cars and tyres and rubber and cargo planes and AAA and everything else. And that everything else almost exclusively came from the US. Even oil. That is why the Russians were able to produce that many tanks and guns: they didn't worry about anything else (especially AAA). In fact, German war production was about equall to Russian in many respect, even superseeded it in some (artillery and AAA). Try finding a site called Panzerkiel (forgot the adress) it has some very interesting statistics.
The point is, as long as the Russians were able to supply the men and tanks and other domestic products, the Us would supply the rest. Moscow or no Moscow.

OberstWileyII
01-16-2004, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OberstWileyII:
Thanks for ruining the entire thread,making us scroll left and right to read the meaningful posts, by posting your stupid huge picture...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No problem bud and thanks for your bandwidth sucking anitmated sig line and logos! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, if you check you'll easily see that My animated sig line and "logo" are VERY SMALL...a mere 31Kb for the latter, and ONLY 28k for the former....

However, your One Simple, yet Huge in dimensions, JPG Image Ate Up 185Kb!!!! Three times the total of My two little gif's Combined!!!....and, as I said, Your Huge jpg image messed up the thread page...

AMF

http://imagehost.auctionwatch.com/preview/wi/wileycoyote2/IwoJimatiny2.gif (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/flightsims/oberstguncam/Movies/SandsOne.WMV)
<A HREF="http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/flightsims/oberstguncam/Frameset/" TARGET=_blank>Click on Flag-Raising to view full length 4Mb version
...Or, click HERE to Visit Wiley's WWII GunCam World</A>

[This message was edited by OberstWileyII on Fri January 16 2004 at 03:18 PM.]

[This message was edited by OberstWileyII on Fri January 16 2004 at 06:39 PM.]

Chuck_Older
01-16-2004, 05:11 PM
The biggest airblunder?

Not launching a second strike on Pearl Harbor. They missed the carriers, they should have pressed home another attack to deal a heavier blow.

*****************************
This is a public service announcement~Clash

Wizz-151
01-16-2004, 05:44 PM
You have to hand it to Hitler and his declaration of war on America, without this the only war America would have entered into would have been against Japan, and no European war could have taken place.

horseback
01-16-2004, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
Two things won the war in the east: Russian men and American supplies (and perhaps idiotic Hitler's requests). Yeah, sure, the Russians produced about 40,000 T-34, but that's about all they were producing. An army is not just tanks and guns. It is also trucks and cars and tyres and rubber and cargo planes and AAA and everything else. And that everything else almost exclusively came from the US. Even oil. That is why the Russians were able to produce that many tanks and guns: they didn't worry about anything else (especially AAA). In fact, German war production was about equall to Russian in many respect, even superseeded it in some (artillery and AAA). Try finding a site called Panzerkiel (forgot the adress) it has some very interesting statistics.
The point is, as long as the Russians were able to supply the men and tanks and other domestic products, the Us would supply the rest. Moscow or no Moscow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somehow I doubt that the US provided EVERYTHING except tanks & bodies. There were a lot more Soviet-produced combat aircraft than the few thousand we supplied, and I seriously doubt our ability to ship the food required to feed the Red Army, much less the civilian population back then, even without U-Boats. America's most important contribution to the Soviet war effort was in the form of transport-those big GM trucks were more important to Stalin than Bell's entire production run of Airacobras, the munitions and arms supplies, and the wheat all rolled into one.

No questioning that we gave them lots of stuff, and it helped their war effort, but they produced even more on their own behalf, and we should not kid ourselves about it. The Russian soldier wasn't carrying a Garand or a Thompson into battle, and the Red Army tanker who found himself in a Sherman would have been convinced that he'd offended the Powers That Be.

Wannabe, I'd recommend that you read a few books by reputable historians instead of going solely by what you get on the 'net.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

horseback
01-16-2004, 08:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
The biggest airblunder?

Not launching a second strike on Pearl Harbor. They missed the carriers, they should have pressed home another attack to deal a heavier blow.

*****************************
This is a public service announcement~Clash<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chuck, the Japanese did launch two strikes on Pearl. The second strike was the one where a few Army Air Force fighters got airborne and got their kills. A third strike was planned, but ADM Nagumo didn't feel like pressing his luck; he'd already taken almost 10% losses by the second strike, and he didn't know where the American carriers were, because they weren't at Pearl.

Enterprise returned that night from ferrying VMF-211 to Wake Island, and I believe Lexington or Yorktown was on a similar mission to Guam. Nagumo, having decided to get out of Dodge early, missed taking out the big oil farms that fueled what remained of the Pacific Fleet for the next few critical months.

It may not have been the blunder it initially seems; by the time the third strike would have arrived, the surviving US fighter inventory was in the air, according to Gabreski's autobiography. That would have been around thirty to forty fighters, mostly Tomahawks and P-36s, all expecting trouble, and in the right place to deal with it. Out of the Army fighter pilots stationed on Oahu at the time were something like 20 future aces, and the majority of them were airborne late that morning. I would have expected the Japanese to come in less cautiously than they had the first two times, and while the defenders would have taken heavy losses, so would the Japanese, who could afford far fewer losses. This might have made Coral Sea or Midway much easier for the Navy.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Aaron_GT
01-17-2004, 03:26 AM
muffinstomp, two Spitfire VCs in North Africa
were modified. AFAIK they retained the 4x20mm
armament.

Aaron_GT
01-17-2004, 03:30 AM
One of the big problems for Germany
invading the Soviet Union was the
problem of logistics. Basically never
at any point, from June 1941 onwards,
were German units supplied with what
was considered the required tonnage
of material for full scale operations.

Part of this problem was the difference
in rail guages which required that
trains be unloaded and reloaded.
Perhaps more serious was simply the
lack of a decent logistics structure.
It is almost as if the German army was
designed to be able to live off what
it carried, with the hope that engagements
would be sufficiently short (as in
Poland, France, etc) that the lack of
decent logistical support would not
be a problem.

If you contrast this to the US Army
in WW2, the logistical support was
excellent. The Pacific caused some
problems, obviously, and there were
hiccups in Europe from time-to-time,
but on the whole the troops were
well supplied.

Taylortony
01-17-2004, 03:36 AM
America Bombed the wrong country during WW2, can't remember the secifics, but it was something like they were attacking a target in Holland and dropped the Mother Load into Belguim hehehehehe

Aaron_GT
01-17-2004, 03:37 AM
Wizz-151 writes
"You have to hand it to Hitler and his declaration of war on America, without this the only war America would have entered into would have been against Japan, and no European war could have taken place."

Well for one thing, there was a European war
already going on! On two fronts!

Secondly, FDR was pulling the USA closer
to a war in Europe. Germany's declaration
made FDR's job a lot easier, but the USA
was already virtually at war with Germany.
The USA was supplying a lot of war material
and other supplies to the UK, and protecting
the convoys on the way, with orders to fire
on German vessels if sighted. Ditto German
vessels sighted off the US coast. AFAIK the
USA had also garrisoned Iceland, thus aiding
the control of the convoy area.

So sooner or later the USA would have been
at war with Germany as soon or later a US
ship would have been sunk, perhaps allowing
FDR to tip Congress into declaring war.
(Mind you, two US ships were attacked in the
2 years or so prior to Pearl Harbour without
that leading to immediate war). If the
casus belli had arrived too late, then perhaps
there would have been a call to finish the
war in the Pacific first, though, rather than
the actual plan to finish it in Europe first.

Wannabe-Pilot
01-17-2004, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:

Somehow I doubt that the US provided EVERYTHING except tanks & bodies. There were a lot more Soviet-produced combat aircraft than the few thousand we supplied, and I seriously doubt our ability to ship the food required to feed the Red Army, much less the civilian population back then, even without U-Boats. America's most important contribution to the Soviet war effort was in the form of transport-those big GM trucks were more important to Stalin than Bell's entire production run of Airacobras, the munitions and arms supplies, and the wheat all rolled into one.

No questioning that we gave them lots of stuff, and it helped their war effort, but they produced even more on their own behalf, and we should not kid ourselves about it. The Russian soldier wasn't carrying a Garand or a Thompson into battle, and the Red Army tanker who found himself in a Sherman would have been convinced that he'd offended the Powers That Be.

Wannabe, I'd recommend that you read a few books by reputable historians instead of going solely by what you get on the 'net.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, you have no way of knowing what I've read or haven't read. I recommended the site because it is easily accesible to everyone (unlike a book) and you could have found it within minutes. Furthermore, the statistics there are some of the most detailed i've ever seen (it even contains an official US Air Force assessment of the effects of strategic bombing, a massive document- you should read it, also production runs of EVERY GERMAN AFV, and monthly production of guns and ammo, comparison charts for German-USSR production etc.) and i've seen alot of statistics. Second,such a personal remark was really uncalled for and is even slightly offending. You don't know me and I certainly don't know you. Just for the record I have read a lot of books on the subject, even publications by military academies for the purpose of educating officers. Third, I think you misunderstood me.
The Bulgarian ambassador event actually took place. He was of course speaking hypothetically, and streched the point a bit, as I have when i posted that quote. The gist of it was simply that Russia could absorb a lot of punishment before it caved in and that everything that happened sofar (july 1941) could be reversed. I also posted that to show how many objective and informed bystanders at the time thought that it was folly to attack USSR, a point that escaped Hitler and his cronies (just as it happened when Napoleon attacked).
The Moscow issue was debated to death by greater mind than you or me, my friend, and no final conclusion has been made. Nobody can know what effect the fall of Moscow could have had on the population. Economically, the production could have been supplemented by other sources (Allies, Russia's own). Transport system and administration would have probably taken a serious hit. How serious (fatal?), nobody knows for sure. Psycologically...this is the crux of the issue. My point is simple- if Russians would still be willing to fight after the fall of Moscow, and with US/British backing, combined with strategic bombing and second front in the west, Russia would still triumph. It would be a Pyreaic victory (spelling?), they wouldn't reach Berlin or eastern Europe, but they would win. In saying that the fall of Moscow would end the war in the est, you assume two things: first, that the Germans actually could take it, and subsequently that the USSR would either be unable or unwilling to continue the fight. In my opinion, they would still be able (with a litle help from their friends http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif: willing is another matter, but neither you nor me knows for sure. Only one thing to be said about that. The Russian population was fighting for its very survival, and they knew that. To give in meant to be a stranger in your own country, a second rate citizen...expendable and unsignificant. Something similar happened in my country a few years back and guess what- we fought.
As for the capture of Moscow, I've given that a lot of thought and here is what I think. Barbarossa had taken place at the last possible moment. Any later (42, 43) and the Russians would have rebuilt their armies after the purges and modernized the equipment (remember what Hitler said of Mig-3's). Two dcotrines have clashed during the thirties- mobile warfare, the main strenght of which were armoured brigades, and more conventional thinking. The conventional came on top, and every armoured brigade was deleted from army lists, and many forward thinking officers either executed or demoted. Shortly before Barbarossa, the mobile warfare doctrine again took root (the Winter war lessons), and the Red Army again started to form armoured brigades. It was just beginning in 1941, but by 1942 it would have been far advanced. And then the Red Army would be much more prepared. Therefore, Hitler couldnt wait any longer for the necessary build up. He had to attack. It should have been launched a few weeks earlier everybody knows that, but that alone wouldn't be enough (of course, the next part is my opinion not some accepted truth). The Germans had 17 panzer div. in the first wave and only 2 in reserve. To little. They should have had at least 5 more, as well as other additional formations, so as to continue pressing for Moscow after the Minsk capture and the diverting of Guderians group south to Kiev. In short, full mobilization in the summer of 41 and war economy as early as 1st September 1939. Could write more about it but i have to stop.
As for the US and British supplies, they were really massive. Even tanks, in 1942 and 1943 they were crucial (Valentines, Stuarts, Churchills, Shermans...the Russians basically stoped producing light tanks after T-70/43 cos they had enough of foreign ones. As for Shermans, they were used as late as 1944 (I've seen actual footage, and recognized the year by other equipment that was unavailable earlier)and that wouldn't have happened if it was no good. There's alot more to Sherman than meets the eye. It's not just direct shipments, it's also the mighty 8th and Torch and Italy. The aerial aspect was crucial. The aforementioned site contains some nice charts about German AT and AA gun production. Go and see it, please, really it's very informative. Then try to imagine all those guns going to the eastern front as ATs and destroying at least some of the 40000 T-34. Also the manpower needed to man the homefront defences was significant. That too was an indirect "shipment of equipment" to USSR. As for russian "bodies"... I said MEN, not bodies. Believe me, i know the difference. I've seen soldiers going to the front lines with three bullets (not clips, bullets)-that is the difference. The will to sacrifice oneself is the difference. For the Russian soldier it couldn't have all been fear of the NKVD. These guys actually decided that they wanted, no, needed to fight this fight and win this war. I wasn't trying to imply that it was the US aid that won the war for Russia. I simply wanted to say that it was the US aid COMBINED with Russian blood (not Russian economy primarily-of course it played a major role) that was crucial to winning the war. This is what we should remember of the great Moterland war as they call it.

Wannabe-Pilot
01-17-2004, 05:50 AM
Sorry to go on like that i mean no disrespect. It's just that whenever i do that to my friends or family in person they all make that face "Oh no here he goes again" Nobody i know is interested in this stuff so i occasionally over do it (when i get the chance to communicate with geeks like myself)

Until we meet again Ostajte mi zdravo

Wannabe-Pilot
01-17-2004, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
The Germans had 17 panzer div. in the first wave and only 2 in reserve. To little. They should have had at least 5 more, as well as other additional formations, so as to continue pressing for Moscow after the Minsk capture and the diverting of Guderians group south to Kiev. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Smolensk not Minsk
My bad

MiloMorai
01-17-2004, 06:17 AM
No problem about "running off at the mouth".http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The ones that write, like you, and the ones who read what you write are the true 'realism freaks' unlike those here who are so bored by the history and FM discussions, yet say 'flying' "full real" is the only way to go.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif And they(fr ppl) say the WW view people are arcadish.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Wannabe-Pilot, can you post that link &gt; that site looks 'real' interesting.

Wannabe-Pilot
01-17-2004, 06:51 AM
Sorry no, the address contains some really weird symbols that i can't find on my keyboard. But do this. Go on yahoo or whatever you use and write in PANZERKIEL. That's the name of the site and you should find it in a sec. Or write STURMVOGEL (designation for ground attack version of Me-262). The panzerkiel site has all those stats, and it's about armoured warfare. Sturmvogel is like a sister site, only about aircraft. The two are connected and if you find one, you have the other as well. From there you can find links to anywhere, I suggest Achtung Panzer!, Kursk Page (has some neat graphic comparison for La-5, Bf-109 and Fw-190 as well as complete OOBs for typical Russian and German 1943 type units), Warbirds webring, Feldgrau which has the most complete listing for all German units, ships, Luftwaffe, Waffen SS etc. and a great essay on the German preparations and plans for D-Day. A great page for Japanese Imperial Navy is Nihon Kaigun (from there you can go to a cool sister site about Japanese Imperial Air Force).

Enjoy!

MiloMorai
01-17-2004, 07:10 AM
Think I found it. Is this it?

http://members.tripod.com/%7ESturmvogel/Panzerkeil.html

TOCarroll1954
01-17-2004, 08:59 AM
Wow, lots of replys. Germany's biggest blunder was starting WW2, since they could NOT win a world war. Their economy did not have the depth, and they did not have access to needed strategic materials, like chromium & tungsten. Postponing the attack on Russia from May to June does not count; they could have taken Moscow in 1941 anyway, if they had not wasted 4 weeks in July/August, deciding where the panzers were to go next. NOTE: Taking Moscow would not have cauded Russia to drop out -- they had plent of industry, and population east of the urals. The only way Russia could have been knocked out would have been to gain the cooperation of the population, which was anti-Stalin. Nazi ideology zapped that idea. I could go on and on, but it has already been pointed out that they missed out on capturing the BEF, winning the BOB, and Did not need to take on America. With the leadership they had, they were garunteed one f***-up after another. It is a miricle thry got as far as they did!

DONB3397
01-17-2004, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
Go on yahoo...and write in PANZERKIEL. Or write STURMVOGEL. The panzerkiel site has all those stats, and it's about armoured warfare. Sturmvogel is like a sister site, only about aircraft. The two are connected and if you find one, you have the other as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wannabe, this is one great site you suggested! Thanks for posting it. Among other things, this forum seems to draw people with an interest and strong opinions on events of WWII. The debates are occasionally passionate, always interesting and sometimes even instructive. The data on this cluster of websites adds to the mix. Thanks.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCDpJCAB4x9nLZQo

horseback
01-17-2004, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wannabe-Pilot:
Sorry to go on like that i mean no disrespect. It's just that whenever i do that to my friends or family in person they all make that face "Oh no here he goes again" Nobody i know is interested in this stuff so i occasionally over do it (when i get the chance to communicate with geeks like myself)

Until we meet again Ostajte mi zdravo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I too need to apologize. I assumed from the way you wrote that you were another chest-thumping American going off about how "we did it all" on the basis of information from one website (actually, I should have been tipped off by your spelling of "tires."). As an American myself, I considered it my responsibility to correct what I considered was the wrong impression given by the post. Since you didn't include a link to the site, I had no opportunity to check it.

While I don't doubt that American material aid to the USSR was massive, the consumption of material on the battlefront was quite a bit greater, particularly when you consider that the Soviets used much fewer supplies per man than the US Army. They did produce most of their own supplies, although one of my grandmothers contended that the Russians got every beet produced in America for three years (she loved the darned things, and was cranky throughout the war, which was why all the adult males in the family at that time enlisted in the Navy).

As for my comments on the Sherman, it was designed for infantry support, not tank vs tank combat, and as such, was rightly considered inferior to the T-34. A Red Army tanker would not have considered a Sherman a "plum" assignment. My comment, again, was intended to dispell the impression that the Soviets produced nothing except weapons types and ordered everything else from Roosevelt's Sears catalog.

I too suffer from the occasional fit of monomania, which causes my family to claim that they suffer from a medical condition called MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) when I get carried away.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

S77th-brooks
01-17-2004, 01:42 PM
the TA 152 been only used for cover not in attacking roll

Spinne_3.-JG51
01-17-2004, 04:07 PM
Wannabe pilot, are you Bulgarian? I'm asking because Zdravo sounded Bulgarian to me. I have a Bulgarian roommate. I'll be sure to ask him.

I feel that Germany made two important mistakes in the air war -
1) The lack of development of a Strategic Long Range Bombing Force. Needless to say, such a force would have been equipped with four engined bombers.
2) Germany failed to evaluate it's own capabilities at the start of the war. There was no plan for invading Britain, which is why there were no tools suited to the job. Had Germany forseen her successes in France and the Lower Countries, she may have developed a long range fighter capable of staying over British airspace for more than the scant 5 minutes that the 109s were restricted to. Without a base of operations in Britain, I don't think the US would have stepped in on Europe when it did.

http://www.student.richmond.edu/~vk5qa/images/forumsig.jpg

"Come on in, I'll treat you nice! I used to know your father."

Wannabe-Pilot
01-18-2004, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spinne_3.-JG51:
Wannabe pilot, are you Bulgarian? I'm asking because Zdravo sounded Bulgarian to me. I have a Bulgarian roommate. I'll be sure to ask him.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I'm from Croatia. It' really close to Italy, on the other side of the Adriatic sea.

As for strategic bombers Germany lacked, yeah, that's true, but i doubt that they would achieve results like the US/British did even if they had something similar to Lancasters and B-17. The attrition rate for those bombers over Germany was terrible, and Germany could never supplement their losses if they launched a campaign over Britain (like the Allies could). They did lack a serious long range fighter though, no argument there.

Jaws2002
01-18-2004, 09:38 AM
I think the biggest screw up belongs to MacArtur.
MacArthur had compromised the defence of the Philippines by allowing his effective air power to be eliminated on the ground despite nine hours advance warning of such a risk.

owlwatcher
01-18-2004, 01:30 PM
Goring was allowed to run the Luffwaffe..
He was just not up to the job.
Most of the bad desisions lay at his feet.
Dive bomber develoment.
Germans never had modern bombers.
Dunkirk
Preparation for BOB.
External fuel tanks should have been avaliable in the beginning.
Not working along side the navy & u-boats.
Not disrupting the shipping in the channel and Nsea area. This alone would have hurt the Brits badly.
The worse was his relationships with the other armed services.
Russian aircraft losses during the first weeks of the war. Caused by Stalin with his playing poliltcs with the russian armrd forces (up front placement) and the purge.

tagert
01-18-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OberstWileyII:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tagert:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by OberstWileyII:
Thanks for ruining the entire thread,making us scroll left and right to read the meaningful posts, by posting your stupid huge picture...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No problem bud and thanks for your bandwidth sucking anitmated sig line and logos! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif TAGERT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OberstWileyII:
Actually, if you check you'll easily see that My animated sig line and "logo" are VERY SMALL...a mere 31Kb for the latter, and ONLY 28k for the former....[/OUOTE]Did

[QUOTE]Originally posted by OberstWileyII:
However, your One Simple, yet Huge in dimensions, JPG Image Ate Up 185Kb!!!! Three times the total of My two little gif's Combined!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. HOWEVER I dont post that picture EVERY time I reply to something... unlike your sig's... So just two more posts by you and we are equal! &lt;G&gt;

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OberstWileyII:
....and, as I said, Your Huge jpg image messed up the thread page...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually you said...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What OberstWileyII actually said:
Thanks for ruining the entire thread,making us scroll left and right to read the meaningful posts, by posting your stupid huge picture...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some people like the pictures and some didnt.. Like the US Im just danged if I do and danged if I dont.. So, just to make you happy I reduced the size of them

TAGERT

Cajun76
01-18-2004, 08:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TOCarroll1954:
Wow, lots of replys. Germany's biggest blunder was starting WW2, since they could NOT win a world war. Their economy did not have the depth, and they did not have access to needed strategic materials, like chromium & tungsten. Postponing the attack on Russia from May to June does not count; they could have taken Moscow in 1941 anyway, if they had not wasted 4 weeks in July/August, deciding where the panzers were to go next. NOTE: Taking Moscow would not have cauded Russia to drop out -- they had plent of industry, and population east of the urals. The only way Russia could have been knocked out would have been to gain the cooperation of the population, which was anti-Stalin. Nazi ideology zapped that idea. I could go on and on, but it has already been pointed out that they missed out on capturing the BEF, winning the BOB, and Did not need to take on America. With the leadership they had, they were garunteed one f***-up after another. It is a miricle thry got as far as they did!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


As far as Germany winning the war, of course they couldn't do it by themselves, contained within their own borders and using only their own resources. That is why one of the worlds biggest countries, possessing large amounts of raw material and manpower, Russia, was invaded. Had Russia fell as expected (and Germany hadn't left her back door open in regards to the British, and eventually the US) Germany would have had the resources to start a steamroller effect. To say they had no chance is to show disrespect to the Allies. Of course they had a chance, that's why we fought so hard. We have the benefit of looking back with (mostly) 20/20 hindsight and recognizing the factors that prevented the Axis from winning. In 1941-'42 it wasn't so clear.

As you know, Germany rolled over 2 of the most powerful nations on Earth at the time, France and Britain. Poland was no world power, but had a decent fighting force. And they all subscribed to the tactics (modified, of course for modern technology) that had been in place for centuries. You form up, stand toe to toe, spreading your forces as wide and deep as you can and go at it.

The Blitzkrieg countered this by punching through the enemy lines, encircling and destroying. Repeat as necessary. Russia was watching the war with France and Britain, and was not stupid. Although she tried to hold some strategic places like Minsk, Smolensk, Kiev, and Stalino (which were disasters for the Russian Armies) the resultant tactic of falling back, purposeful or not and stretching the German supply lines and constant pressure on the German advance wore them out. Blitzkrieg works like a big hammer. If there is nothing big to smash, all that effort is wasted, you regroup and try again. It is not meant to drive continuously, without pausing. Thrust through, encircle, destroy and repeat. But the Germans never got any rest from this, and were continually harassed and attacked.

I believe that if the Russian Armies had tried to go toe to toe with the Germans, like England and France tried to do, the result's would have been even more horrific, with Germany coming out very bloody but victorious. An almost equal chance that it would've gone the Russian way, but I'm trying not to use the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. At the time, no one had gone toe to toe with the German war machine and been successful.

To summarize an already long post, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The biggest reason to attack Russia was manpower (slaves) and materials. My point was that Germany had rolled over the British and French with frightening ease. These were some of the most powerful forces on Earth, and the Germans ripped through them with the new Blitzkrieg. Whether Russia meant to or not, the resulting tactic of falling back and stretching out the German supply lines while keeping pressure on the German advances was about the best possible route to take. Had they tried to hold their ground at all points, with most of what they had, it's a good possibility that Russia would have been defeated. Hitler lost the gamble, pressed anyway in hopes of turning it around, and lost much more than the Germans could afford. It was "All, or Nothing" Had the gamble worked, Hitler would have had access to oil, timber, people, and Russia's burgeoning industrial base. From there, the possibilities are truly frightening.

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 20th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my T-Bolt!! It's has 8 .50cals and 2000lbs+ worth of bombs and rockets. Republic's top of the line. You can find this in the Kick A$$ department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Farmingdale, Long Island and Evansville, Indiana. Retails for about $82,997.95. It's got a turbo-supercharger, all metal control surfaces with blunt nosed ailerons, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Republic. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, E-ven TOUCHES me..... - Anonymous http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Noomen
02-22-2004, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Taylortony:
America Bombed the wrong country during WW2, can't remember the secifics, but it was something like they were attacking a target in Holland and dropped the Mother Load into Belguim hehehehehe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The allies bombed Eindhoven in Holland by mistake when due bad weather they couldnt find their targets in Germany and searched for an alternative goal (german cities near the border of Holland). It's remembered these days for exactly 61 years ago. Many hundreds died en the old historic centre was completely ruint. German propaganda exploited this to show that "the allied spared no woman and children"... btw. I don't think this was funny, but a good example of the primitieve ways pilots had to find their targets with no radar and so on...

No Paseran!

Aaron_GT
02-22-2004, 08:11 AM
" The other blunder relating to the nuke was Germany's decision to ignore the importance of developing a long range, heavy bomber. They would have had a nuke but they may not have had the possibility to deliver it unless they were going to use a V2."

Actually the Germans did develop a long
range heavy bomber, which would have been
capable of taking a bomb of the size developed
by the USA to New York. However, luckily, the
German atomic bomb effort was scaled back after
1942. Also the Germans would have had no plane
available that would have been capable of
taking the size of the atomic bomb Heisenberg
projected.

"A victory over Russia could have led to the fall of Britian shortly after"

How so? Occupying the USSR would have been a
drain on the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. It would
have taken some time to make up for the losses
in material required to take the USSR, and even
longer to retask Soviet industry, and recruit
sufficient troops from the (then former) USSR
for an attack on Britain. So any fall of Britain
certainly wouldn't have been shortly after the
fall of the USSR unless the UK chose to capitulate.
I think the USA would have concentrated on the
Pacific first, though, and then use atomic weapons
rather than ground forces to clear Germany out of
Western Europe.

In any case I think the big problem with the
invasion of the Soviet Union wasn't so much the
delayed start so much as the inadequate logistics
that hampered the German army on all fronts, coupled
with an unpreparedness for the harshness of winter.
Given the relative paucity of German supply even when
road conditions were good, the armies were already
running short of supplies before the autumn rains
cut them off even more from decent supply. Basically
the Germans needed to have one the war in the USSR
before the rains began. This probably wasn't likely
even if they had started 6 weeks earlier.

Aaron_GT
02-22-2004, 08:26 AM
"Germans never had modern bombers."

The Ju88 was fairly modern, on a par with
allied planes such as the B25, and was further
modernised during WW2, although they never
seemed to really sort this out. The Germans
also produced the first jet bomber, the Ar234.
Despite the Do17 being retired as a bomber,
the He111 was still a mainstay throughout the
war, though.

" My point was that Germany had rolled over the British and French with frightening ease."

Er... the Germans rolled over the BEF - an
expenditionary force. It didn't roll over
the whole of the UK. We went through some
tough times, and some set backs in North
Africa, but kept on fighting. France had
the disadvantage of flat plains of land
easily traversed by mechanised warfare,
much like in Russia, but the disdvantage
of not having such huge tracts of land
to absorb an advance. Given that mobile
tactics weren't well understood by anyone
apart from the Germans and Liddel-Hart, it
is no great surprise that France was overrun.
Basically it was a failure of communications
and command and control. In terms of fighting
material, the sides were surprisingly well
matched in many ways, but the Germans used
it much better.

The British (and Free French) learned the
lesson, though, as did the USA. It took
quite a while, and there was still reliance
on broad attacks backed by massive artillery
by all sides in WW2.

What the Germans never did get right was
logistics - they basically had logistical
problems that hampered fighting force
effectiveness whenever a campaign wasn't
short - for example in the USSR, or in North
Africa where it was a short hop for German
and Italian supplies via Italy, but a long
trip for British, Australian, Indian
supplies and later US supplies but somehow
the Allied forces managed to supply their
troops better.

In terms of the air war, one of the problems
was a lack of comprehensive spares production
and distribution that reduced LW servicability
rates below what they would otherwise have been.

Zeus-cat
02-22-2004, 10:42 AM
In my opinion the biggest mistake made in the air war is the same as that made in the entire war - letting Hitler make military decisions.

Hitler was a very powerful leader who accomplished amazing things economically and politically, but clearly a very sick and evil man. The German generals who tolerated his sheer incompetence as a military leader and his barbaric treatment of his enemies are as much to blame as he is. The generals should heve tried to kill Hitler sooner than they did. It would have been a suicide mission to do so, but given the inevitable fall of Germany with Hitler running things, there really is no excuse for not eliminating Hitler.

Almost every bad decision the Germans made in the war can be tied directly to Hitler, one of his political allies or his policies that reduced great military leaders to puppets who dared not do anything without permission from the top.

Zeus-cat

ajafoofoo
02-22-2004, 01:41 PM
I agree with a previous poster. If Jews were not being shipped off to death camps and were actively participating in developing new weapons for Germany, then the war could have turned out very different.

The germans could have developed the atom bomb first. That combined with a mass produced long range bomber would at the very least have made the war last much longer.

The most valuable recource they wasted/killed was humans (Jews and others they sent to death camps or murdered).

clint-ruin
02-22-2004, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
In my opinion the biggest mistake made in the air war is the same as that made in the entire war - letting Hitler make military decisions.

Hitler was a very powerful leader who accomplished amazing things economically and politically, but clearly a very sick and evil man. The German generals who tolerated his sheer incompetence as a military leader and his barbaric treatment of his enemies are as much to blame as he is. The generals should heve tried to kill Hitler sooner than they did. It would have been a suicide mission to do so, but given the inevitable fall of Germany with Hitler running things, there really is no excuse for not eliminating Hitler.

Almost every bad decision the Germans made in the war can be tied directly to Hitler, one of his political allies or his policies that reduced great military leaders to puppets who dared not do anything without permission from the top.

Zeus-cat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem with this is that it presumes that the people of Germany were wrapt in some kind of thrall thrown out by Hitler and were unable to see what a stupid little jumped up man he was.

Hitler had brought victory over the not-terribly-popular French, expanded Germanys borders, put in place a whole bunch of 'progressive' measures [surprising, but true], and appealed to others by stamping on the riff raff - bloody unions and avant gardes and jews and homosexuals and gypsies .. etc. All of this combined with a very good campaign to 'spin' events and propagandise using methods and on a scale that had never really been attempted before.

The problem was that up until the invasion of Russia, Hitler had always been right about military matters and his generals had always been wrong. The bold approaches Hitler took worked, and they worked over the objections of a great deal of the military who had to carry them out. That speaking out against Hitler or failing to meet objectives could be punished with the loss of a command is one point, but the fact that so many respected people had been proven wrong by the upstart was the critical factor in letting Hitler continue to start wars he couldn't win.

Plans for Hitlers assasination had been drawn up by members of the military around the time of the "Czech crisis", but were put on hold when it appeared that a diplomatic solution might be worked out. D'oh.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Zeus-cat
02-22-2004, 04:18 PM
Clint-ruin,

You are correct about the early war victories that Hitler planned. I tried to write a quick response to a very complicated question and ignored those early-war stunning victories.

Let me ammend my answer to say that at some point in the middle of the war Hitler clearly lost what little sanity he ever had. I think these are just a few cases that show the man was in no condition to be making military decisions.

- His absolute control over every aspect of the war. Think D-Day and the lack of any response until Hitler approved it.

- Extreme fascination with wonder weapons that were of little military value, but cost enormous amounts of money like the V-1 and V-2.

- Constantly demanding new and better and bigger weapons instead of mass-producing effective weapons. Example: The Tiger tank is a great tank, but should never have been built IMO. The Germans couldn't build enough PzKpfw III's, IV's and StuGs to keep units in the field supplied, but Hitler wanted bigger and bigger tanks as he was fascinated by them. The Germans couldn't even transport the Tiger I by rail without fitting it with special tracks and removing pieces from the side of the tank because it was too wide for the tunnels. The Tiger II couldn't be moved by rail to many places as it was wider than a Tiger I. Keep in mind that the Germans built less than 1,500 Tiger I's and less than 500 Tiger II's and they were already looking at bigger tanks to replace these. The U.S. picked a poor design and then mass produced something like 30,000+ Shermans. The Russians picked a great design and made 40,000+ T-34's. These two Allied tanks were no match for the Tiger one-on-one, but they didn't need to be. They outnumbered the German tanks ten-to-one.

- Promoting a general to Field Marshall at Stalingrad because no Field Marshall had ever surrendered. The fact that the Germans had little food, fuel or ammunition was apparently irrelevant to the situation! The loss of 500,000 soldiers rests squarely on his shoulders here. The refusal to pull back in the face of undeniable facts that these men would be lost is madness.

To me it is obvious that the man was insane by sometime in 1943 or 1944. Why his generals didn't see this and act on it is beyond me. At a certain point the generals had to realize that they were losing and with Hitler in charge the loss was certain. Not only were they losing, but they were losing to the Russians. What could have been worse than this?

AaronGT
02-22-2004, 04:59 PM
The Wehrmacht generals had
quite a love hate relationship with
Hitler. Many aristocratic,
conservative generals were not
impressed by a corporal as Fuhrer,
but enough saw the expediency
of backing him in the 1930s, much
as conservatives such as Hidenburg
did in 1933. Many expected
Hitler to be gone before the 1930s
were out, to be replaced by some
conservative Junker. This gave
Hitler time to consolidate.

By early 1940 there was notable
dissent, including against ethnic
cleansing in Poland. Ultimately this
led to army intelligence (Abwehr)
being disabanded. Sadly dissent
was too small scale and the
assasination attempts unsuccessful.
A successful assasination and a
surrender might have saved many
lives and perhaps Eastern Europe
from Stalinism.

clint-ruin
02-22-2004, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
To me it is obvious that the man was insane by sometime in 1943 or 1944. Why his generals didn't see this and act on it is beyond me. At a certain point the generals had to realize that they were losing and with Hitler in charge the loss was certain. Not only were they losing, but they were losing to the Russians. What could have been worse than this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's obviously hard to talk about Hitler or Stalins actions without going into their psychological makeup to some extent. Obviously both were quite irrational and 'mad' bastards, but this madness formed the core of their self esteem and both were able to use their madness as a tool rather than be incapacitated by it.

Unfortunately such a thing is not entirely uncommon in politics, it's hard to talk about Stalins paranoid delusions or Hitlers mad outbursts and nervous ticks and 'energy shots' of strychnine, without also mentioning Churchills manic depression .. or for that matter Reagans alzheimers, or G. W. Bushs' quite obvious aphasia. Pretty much every country in the world has had at least one leader along the way who wasn't quite right in the head, but managed to get away with it - at least for a little while.

The problem is, as you say, much more that people are willing to take orders from someone who is obviously off their rocker, than with the crazy person themselves. Concentration of power tends not to lead to good things :/

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
02-22-2004, 10:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
My candidate -- The decision by the German Air Ministry to hold back resources needed for development of the Me262, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

in an interview given in 1991 , Adolf Galland stated that if his advice was followed regarding the Me-262 then there would have been 800 in service by DEC 1943

that would have made things different over europe

DONB3397
02-22-2004, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
in an interview given in 1991 , Adolf Galland stated that if his advice was followed regarding the Me-262 then there would have been 800 in service by DEC 1943

that would have made things different over europe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As several people have pointed out, Hitler wanted this plane as a bomber...an offensive, rather than defensive weapon. The problem was that this delayed development and refinement of the a/c as an interceptor. Had the plane been available in numbers earlier (it was actually tested in '42), it could have been fully developed and pilots would have understood the special requirements of jet aircraft by the time of the escorted, deep penetration raids of '44.

I agree with Badsight; it could have made a difference.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCbi4NAB.0s9LZQo

SpookyRuben
02-22-2004, 10:46 PM
Original question: In your opinion, what was the single worst air war blunder in the European and Russian fronts during WWII?

Maybe not the worst blunder, but I think it was a big one. Allies not using long range aircraft to patrol the whole of the North Atlantic. By only using short and medium range planes, they left a gaping hole in the middle of the Atlantic, that the German Uboats were able to operate with little worry of being spotted from the air.

Like I said, not the worst blunder perhaps, but in comparison to the ships, material, and men lost to Uboats as well as the resources needed to escort the ships during transit, a comparably small number of long range aircraft would have changed the dynamic of the war in a number of significant ways.

SR

fluke39
02-23-2004, 03:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by muffinstomp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:


What high flying German bombers? The Spit V intercepted and shot down the high flying reconne Ju86s at over 40,000ft.

Don't forget there was much trouble with the GE turbo-superchargers because of the dampness of NE Europe.
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I hope someone can deliver the right source for this, but if my mind serves me right the Spit V starved tryin'.

The RAF modified a Spit V to meet the Ju-86's service ceiling i.e. stripped it to the bone, dismounting anything heavy like the machine guns - it had its Hispanos for better bomber-ripping -, armour and communications(really?).

Sure the Jerries were scared when that Spit V kept climbing and gaining on them.

It was then that the Hispanos suffered one of their occasional jams and let the Junkers recon escape.

It still was a success as the OKL soon stopped sending these high-alt reconnaissance missions for London, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong but "downing" this Ju-86 was anything but easy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The incident in question is the constant reconnaisence (or however you spell it) of the canal zone in North Africa by Ju86's at up to 42,000 feet

the Aboukir (i think) aircraft depot stripped two Spit VC's of all "non-essential equipment" including armour plating - they tuned the merlin engines, fitted 4 bladed props and swapped the normal 2 20's and 4 303 armament for two .50's (12.7mm)
within one month (august/september '42) they had destroyed 3 Ju86's thus halting any further recconnescence (god i really can't spell reconnaiscence)

as for the original question - it has probably been said many times before, but the change of bombing to london from our air bases in BOB could and most likely would, have changed the whole outcome of the war - if britain had fallen the full might of germany would have fallen on russia and quite possibly won - america would not have been able to enter the war unless the deployed troops in russia - something they may or may not have done.

http://mysite.freeserve.com/angels_one_five/flukelogo.jpg

JG26Red
02-23-2004, 09:05 AM
Oh, this is very simple... BOB... changing from miltary\airbases to cities... it just stopped their attack and allow the RAF to get back on its feet, the RAF was within a few weeks of collapse, without the RAF the royal navy would have had issues... then germany could have maybe made a seaborn attack on england...

technically, germany lost the war when they made that move and lost the BOB

or

i wont say anything about peral harbor, as that attack was known before hand by FDR... he allowed it to happen to get america in the war... every wonder why the carriers, and better new crusiers and destroyers where removed from peral harbor in the week before the attack???

[This message was edited by JG26Red on Mon February 23 2004 at 08:13 AM.]

MandMs
02-23-2004, 09:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
Oh, this is very simple... BOB... changing from miltary\airbases to cities... it just stopped their attack and allow the RAF to get back on its feet, the RAF was within a few weeks of collapse, without the RAF the royal navy would have had issues... then germany could have maybe made a seaborn attack on england...

technically, germany lost the war when they made that move and lost the BOB

or

i wont say anything about peral harbor, as that attack was known before hand by FDR... he allowed it to happen to get america in the war... every wonder why the carriers, and better new crusiers and destroyers where removed from peral harbor in the week before the attack???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Better if you said nothing for now about what you just commented about. Come back when you know more.



I eat the red ones last.

JG26Red
02-23-2004, 09:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MandMs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
Oh, this is very simple... BOB... changing from miltary\airbases to cities... it just stopped their attack and allow the RAF to get back on its feet, the RAF was within a few weeks of collapse, without the RAF the royal navy would have had issues... then germany could have maybe made a seaborn attack on england...

technically, germany lost the war when they made that move and lost the BOB

or

i wont say anything about peral harbor, as that attack was known before hand by FDR... he allowed it to happen to get america in the war... every wonder why the carriers, and better new crusiers and destroyers where removed from peral harbor in the week before the attack???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Better if you said nothing for now about what you just commented about. Come back when you know more.



I eat the red ones last.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what do you mean?

horseback
02-23-2004, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SpookyRuben:
Original question: In your opinion, what was the single worst air war blunder in the European and Russian fronts during WWII?

Maybe not the worst blunder, but I think it was a big one. Allies not using long range aircraft to patrol the whole of the North Atlantic. By only using short and medium range planes, they left a gaping hole in the middle of the Atlantic, that the German Uboats were able to operate with little worry of being spotted from the air.

Like I said, not the worst blunder perhaps, but in comparison to the ships, material, and men lost to Uboats as well as the resources needed to escort the ships during transit, a comparably small number of long range aircraft would have changed the dynamic of the war in a number of significant ways.

SR<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spooky,

Between 1940 and mid-1943, there was a screaming need for the types of aircraft you speak of in every theater of the war, at a time when America was still 'ramping up' to its full production capacity. I use 1940 because cross Atlantic shipping from the US to Britain was already under the U-boat threat, and American merchant seamen were being killed by U-boats even before the US officially entered the European war.

You also have to consider that the mid-Atlantic area is subject to some vicious weather, and the loiter time of even the B-24 or Catalina over that area would be very limited. At the altitudes necessary to still be able to visually spot a U-Boat, a tremendous number of long-range aircraft would have been required to cover the gap left from coastal patrols by medium ranged planes. We simply lacked the trained manpower as well as the aircraft to do it that way.

It really is a huge area, and until the advent of spy satellites in the late sixties, it was quite easy for huge groups of surface ships to hide out at sea. That was why the "jeep" carriers were developed, and became part of the convoy escort package as soon as the concept was proved workable.

We tend to forget how far our technology has come since WWII, and think in terms of our current or even just late-war capabilities sometimes. The problem you quoted was not a blunder as much as it was an inescapable fact of life for almost three years, a lesser of three or four evils.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

horseback
02-23-2004, 10:47 AM
JG26Red-

I think what MandMs referred to was the whole "FDR knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor" thing.

Consider this: FDR had no sources of intelligence that GEN George Marshall didn't see first. Anyone who did even a cursory examination of the kind of man Marshall was would quickly realize that Marshall would have (at the very least) resigned rather than serve under a leader who would leave a major US military installation open to an expected attack. Instead, Marshall led the Army throughout the war, and served as one of our greatest Secretaries of State post-war, under FDR's successor.

I won't even go into what Ernest King, who took over as CNO shortly after the US entry in the war, would have done once he found out. Suffice it to say that he scared the hell out of everybody in the Navy (and Marines) at the time, and he was even more straight-laced than Marshall in some ways.

Finally, give the Imperial Japanese Navy some credit. Well into the war, Japanese surface units were clearly superior to their Commonwealth and USN opponents on a unit for unit basis. Their air arms were similarly good, but we got lucky at Midway, and took out a huge chunk of their trained aviators, making them play 'catch up' from then on.

Until we mastered the use of radar and got our training and tactics in line with reality, Allied numerical advantages were nullified by the IJN. They were very well equipped, trained, and led, and flat-out feared by Allied surface units until our air power advantage had whittled them down by mid '44.

The Japanese Navy was quite capable of executing a sneak attack with a carrier task force in that age of limited radio communications (remember, their radios were notoriously bad; they used alternate means of ship to ship comms as a matter of routine) and no satellite reconaissance.

I'm no great fan of FDR's. He screwed the pooch on a number of occasions, but Pearl Harbor wasn't one of them. Before the war, FDR thought we could handle the Japanese easily, while we concentrated on the Germans. He'd made arrangements with Churchill to that effect by the fall of 1941.

If he'd known about the Pearl Harbor attack, the ENTERPRISE, LEXINGTON, YORKTOWN, and possibly the WASP would have been laying in wait for the Japanese task group to catch them after they launched, the BBs & cruisers would have been ready to sorty out of the harbor immediately, and the Army's fighter squadrons would have all been in the air for a 'major live fire exercise" that morning, and we'd still have gotten our heads handed to us.

We got lucky, that's all.

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

MandMs
02-23-2004, 11:10 AM
Red, from IJN radio traffic, the Americans knew something was in the wind. There was even a telegram sent off to Kimmel warning him. Sent civilian and not military though and it got 'lost'- no urgency to pass on.

As for BOB. At the time the Brits thought they were in deep do-do. We know now that it was the Germans that were in deep do-do. The Brits could replace a/c losses because production was increasing while German production could not keep up with German losses. trained pilots were not a problem, though trained fighter pilots could have been.

The Germans could not sank all the RN destroyers that would have traversed the Channel from both directions. The wash from those ships would have swamped the very low free-board and very slow barges the Germans were using.


Someone you can blame is Adm King, for it was he who let the 'Happy Times' off the American coast go on for ~6 months. He wanted to make sure the southern states were gung-ho. The northern states were the states that would have profited from war since most of the manufacturing was in the north. He also did not like the Brits and ignored their advice when told he should for convoys.



I eat the red ones last.

Flamin_Squirrel
02-23-2004, 11:34 AM
I think there is some credability in what Red said. I belive a British listening post picked the Jap fleet on its way to pearl, the most important ships where at sea and the B-17's that were based there were in the air ( which also provided a convenient excuse as to what the mass of blips on the radar were when the jap planes approached ). Although this is of course just speculation, as it could just be a coincidence. *ahem*

Either way...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Better if you said nothing for now about what you just commented about. Come back when you know more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...is completely unnesacary. Get off your high horse and dont be such an obnoxious know it all.

JG26Red
02-23-2004, 11:54 AM
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

MandMs
02-23-2004, 11:55 AM
rodent

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif



I eat the red ones last.

Flamin_Squirrel
02-23-2004, 12:01 PM
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives/SquirrelBeer.jpg

DynamicBass
02-23-2004, 12:02 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jensenpark:
I think people are getting off topic here...

Biggest AIR WAR blunder:

I'd have to agree with the earlier post of Germany not going ahead with the development of a long range, 4 engine strategic bomber.

Would not have changed much in the west, but in east, Soviets simply moved industrial output east to the Urals, out of range. And continued the massive output of arms (and men/pilots training) out of reach.

I agree with the 4 engine bomber part Jensen, however regards the East, a lot of people seem to forget that the Japanies were meant to attack
Russia creating a two front war for the Soviets.

If that had happened the war in Russia would surely have had a slightly, if not totally different outcome.

JR_Greenhorn
02-23-2004, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jensenpark:
I'd have to agree with the earlier post of Germany not going ahead with the development of a long range, 4 engine strategic bomber.

Would not have changed much in the west, but in east, Soviets simply moved industrial output east to the Urals, out of range. And continued the massive output of arms (and men/pilots training) out of reach.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A question for speculation:
Do you think that if the Nazis had strategic bombing capability (high-alt. heavy bombers & suitable escorts) early in the war (in time for BoB), the could have significantly impeded the RAF's ability to intercept further Nazi attacks? Would bombing of aerodromes, airstrips, and factories have been enough to cripple the RAF pre-BoB?


Also, if the Nazis did have a suitible long range, high-alt. heavy bomber on the eastern front, would the USSR have been able to effectively intercept the raids? I guess I'm thinking of the Japanese inability to counter the B-29 (although it wasn't necessary to use that plane to the peak of its abilities, and other factors hindered the Japanese as well).

I've heard the MiG-3 was designed with high-alt. (relative to Soveit doctrine) performance in mind, but at high altitudes, could it effectively intercept bombers escorted by long-range, high-alt. a/c based on the FW 190 platform?

DONB3397
02-23-2004, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JR_Greenhorn:
A question for speculation:
Do you think that if the Nazis had strategic bombing capability (high-alt. heavy bombers & suitable escorts) early in the war (in time for BoB), the could have significantly impeded the RAF's ability to intercept further Nazi attacks? Would bombing of aerodromes, airstrips, and factories have been enough to cripple the RAF pre-BoB?


Also, if the Nazis did have a suitible long range, high-alt. heavy bomber on the eastern front, would the USSR have been able to effectively intercept the raids? I guess I'm thinking of the Japanese inability to counter the B-29 (although it wasn't necessary to use that plane to the peak of its abilities, and other factors hindered the Japanese as well).

I've heard the MiG-3 was designed with high-alt. (relative to Soveit doctrine) performance in mind, but at high altitudes, could it effectively intercept bombers escorted by long-range, high-alt. a/c based on the FW 190 platform?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's quite a bit of speculation. Most people here believe the issue in Britain was the range of the 109E, not the bombers. The escorts simply didn't have the time over UK targets to keep the RAF off the bombers, even when the targets were in Southern England.

But your point is a good one, I think, because it assumes Germany would have had 'strategic bombing' capability BEFORE the conflict. In that case, their entire approach to Russia might have been different. Perhaps they would have established forward bases and made it logistically difficult for the Soviets to move their manufacturing east. Or, once established, they might have reduced the output and transportation system that allowed Russia to get heavy equipment to the front.

When Germany was fighting on two fronts (three with the Med), and suffering allied raids on their own industrial centers, it seems unlikely that they could have developed a long-range bombing capability (four-engined bombers in sufficient quantities with logistics support) to change the outcome...especially since the Soviets were willing to accept incredible losses and keep fighting.

The real blunder may have been Germany's absolute confidence that they could inflict such damage that the war would be over in 18 months. They simply didn't plan for a prolonged war, and the need for a large, long range bomber force didn't seem important.

1.JaVA_Hornet
02-23-2004, 02:35 PM
hi,

The first what came up is using the me262 as
a bomber instead of a fighter.

1.JaVA_hornet
The Netherlands

horseback
02-23-2004, 04:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flamin_Squirrel:
I think there is some credability in what Red said. I belive a British listening post picked the Jap fleet on its way to pearl, the most important ships where at sea and the B-17's that were based there were in the air ( which also provided a convenient excuse as to what the mass of blips on the radar were when the jap planes approached ). Although this is of course just speculation, as it could just be a coincidence. *ahem*

Either way...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Better if you said nothing for now about what you just commented about. Come back when you know more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...is completely unnesacary. Get off your high horse and dont be such an obnoxious know it all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. While there were numerous 'sources' who claimed they knew where the Japanese Fleet was and what they intended to do before they did it, the reality was that identifying their intermittent radio communications with Headquarters and then triangulating from multiple listening posts to determine where they were transmitting from would have been a stupendous technical feat at the time. Although there may have been some intelligence agents under British or Soviet control who had sources telling them that the Japanese intended to strike at the Hawaiian Islands, the claims would have been thought a little too fantastic to believe by most responsible contemporary military experts. I suspect that most of this is the usual 20/20 hindsight after fact.

2. There were no B-17s stationed in Hawaii in December 1941. The infamous B-17 flight that got caught in the attack was en route from the mainland to (eventually, by way of Wake and other stopovers,) the Phillippines. The radars of the time lacked directional antenna reflectors, so there was a potential 180 degree error possible every time you picked up a contact. The inexperienced (and every radar specialist in US service in 1941 could ONLY be inexperienced, because the device they were using had only just been invented in the previous two years by British scientists) radar techs who picked up what turned out to be the Japanese Strike Group couldn't determine whether the blips in question were approaching from the west or the east. The only things that had the range to reach the islands from anywhere back then were the new AAF B-17 and B-24 bombers, and a bunch of B-17s were due in "some time" that morning.

3. The most important ships to the IJN were the battleships first, and then the carriers. The importance of the carrier had yet to be proved, and both navies had to adjust their doctrines to the new reality. Prior to the festivities in the Pacific, the only combatant Navy that had or used carriers was the Royal Navy, and carrier performance was badly hamstrung by the pathetic aircraft it used, Taranto notwithstanding.

4. A member of this forum used to use a Tom Clancy quote as his sig to the effect that the difference between fact and fiction is that fiction has to make sense. Coincidence happens a lot in real life, enough so that some will see the hand of Devine Power of one sort or another, and some will blame a conspiracy involving an unholy union between International Communism, the Republican Party, and the Freemasons. Which theory do you subscribe to?

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Dunkelgrun
02-23-2004, 04:49 PM
EDIT: Ah crap, I'm editing this in case anyone thinks I'm getting at them. Not my intention, just a bit tired.

So at the risk of you all thinking that I'm anything other than well-informed, here goes:

Hitler and Goering. Goering telling Hitler that he could smash the RAF in a couple of weeks, and Hitler believing him.
In terms of the whole of 1939-45, perhaps not the all-time strategic winner, but as an AIR WAR blunder it's a Lulu.
Apologies if someone else has already put this forward, but it's late so I gave up after two pages. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
EDIT2: I've now read the entire thread. I should be in bed!

Just a thought eh? Cheers!

http://www.uploadit.org/igmusapa/tft2.jpg
www.nightbomber.com (http://www.nightbomber.com)

[This message was edited by Dunkelgrun on Mon February 23 2004 at 03:57 PM.]

[This message was edited by Dunkelgrun on Mon February 23 2004 at 03:58 PM.]