PDA

View Full Version : This puts the eastern front into a whole new perspective.



Freiwillige
06-10-2008, 12:54 PM
I was watching a video series I have and Gunther Rall was being interveiwed and he stated that America gave the Soviets 3,000 p-39 aircobras thru lend lease. Now thats more aircraft than what was in the entire Luftwaffe!

Germany invaded Russia with 1,800 aircraft (including bombers)which was by far the Majority of the Luftwaffe VS 3,000 p-39's!

Thats not including I-16's, Mig 3's, Laggs, Hurricanes from england, P-40's etc vs russia!

K_Freddie
06-10-2008, 01:03 PM
That being the case (first time I've heard of numbers like this), it comes down to management of the military resources and as history tells us, Stalin did a good job of destroying his military, prior to Barbarossa

Klemm.co
06-10-2008, 01:29 PM
Of course they didn't have all those P-39's, P-40's and all the other aircraft at once at the start of the war. They kept coming in at a slow rate, just like the Germans produced new aircraft and sent them to the eastern front. In some areas the Germans even had the numerical advantage for some time.
Over 20000 FW-190's and over 30000 Bf-109's produced, and that's only two types of aircraft.
The Germans weren't as outnumbered as you seem to make it.

joeap
06-10-2008, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Klemm.co:
Of course they didn't have all those P-39's, P-40's and all the other aircraft at once at the start of the war. They kept coming in at a slow rate, just like the Germans produced new aircraft and sent them to the eastern front. In some areas the Germans even had the numerical advantage for some time.
Over 20000 FW-190's and over 30000 Bf-109's produced, and that's only two types of aircraft.
The Germans weren't as outnumbered as you seem to make it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Don't forget, "Lies da#### lies and statistics"

Control_Damage
06-10-2008, 01:40 PM
Freiwillige,

Remember though that lend-lease to Russia was enacted after Barbarossa had begun and that any deliveries of aircraft would have taken time to organise and complete.

It is a bit too simplistic to say that a single batch of 3000 P39's were dropped off in Murmansk on the 22nd June 1941 and were engaging the Luftwaffe in combat the very same day day.

This wikipedia page has some good information on it regarding the numbers of opposing aircraft at the start of Barbarossa. Like all internet stuff how true it is is open to argument but the author seems to have plenty of reference material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

I am sure the more knowlegeable members of the forum would be able to provide accurate figures on the types, numbers and delivery dates of aircraft supplied to the Russians during the course of the war.

Edit: Klemm.co beat me to it

SeaFireLIV
06-10-2008, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Klemm.co:
Of course they didn't have all those P-39's, P-40's and all the other aircraft at once at the start of the war. They kept coming in at a slow rate, just like the Germans produced new aircraft and sent them to the eastern front. In some areas the Germans even had the numerical advantage for some time.
Over 20000 FW-190's and over 30000 Bf-109's produced, and that's only two types of aircraft.
The Germans weren't as outnumbered as you seem to make it.

Yep. They weren`t all there in one go and certainly not at the critical start which could have won it for the Germans. You`re going to have to re-assess your perspective, Freiwillige.

Xiolablu3
06-10-2008, 01:48 PM
As others have said 1800 aircraft is what the Luftwaffe had AT ONE TIME. It is not the TOTAL planes they used up during the war.

They got through 10's of thousands through losses, wastage and accidents.

There were over 20,000 BF109's built alone.

That means the Germans were losing (20,000/5 years) around 4000 Bf109s a year.

Assuming the Russians had a lot mroe losses than the Germans, and factoring in that the Germasn were losing on the Western fron too, 3000 P39's is not even enough to sustain attrition for a year.

GUnther Rall actaully says that the Luftwaffe never recovered from the losses they sustained in the Battle of Britian. I guess he cant mean actual material losses, I mean the Germans soon seemed to recover the 1500 or so planes lost in the battle. He must mean all the great pilots and leaders lost in the battle??

Freiwillige
06-10-2008, 02:11 PM
Fighter Aircraft

P-39 5707 (4719 reached the USSR)

P-40 2397

P-47 195

P-63 2397 (21 lost in transfer)

Hurricane 2952

Spitfire 1331

Total: 14982 (Soviet production: 74,740)

Bomber and Attack Aircraft

A-20 2908

B-25 862

Hampden 23

plus a few others

Total: 3809 (Soviet production: 65,000)

Xiolablu3
06-10-2008, 02:17 PM
Most of the P39's probably arrived a bit too late (after Stalingrad) rather than at the really critical period, pre winter 1942.

Hurricanes were probably the only planes to reach RUssia in the really critiacal period, when Russia was trying to fight the Germans with biplanes.

Also it was more th esum of the parts than the actual Hurricanes which were so useful to the RUssians. For example Gunther Rall states that the Russians didnt have any gunsight technology until the Hurrricanes arrived and used to paint the gunsight on the window.

He said in this period, 'pre-Hurricane' there was no danger even if a RUssian plane got on his tail as they could never hit him.

No dounbt they also took the Hurricane apart and studied it taking the good ideas and using them for their own planes.

Klemm.co
06-10-2008, 02:57 PM
Gunther Rall states that the Russians didnt have any gunsight technology until the Hurrricanes arrived and used to paint the gunsight on the window.

He said in this period, 'pre-Hurricane' there was no danger even if a RUssian plane got on his tail as they could never hit him.
Sounds like an urban myth to me. Sure the Russians still had some ring-and-bead sights at the start of the war, but in this aspect i believe Oleg, in that most of their planes had reflector sights when the war started.
There might have been one or two instances when a Russian plane with the gunsight painted on the windshield painted had been found, but even that is unlikely.
What i read was that the Russian pilots were good fliers, but bad shooters. They could handle their aircraft well, but hadn't much of a clue about aerial gunnery. That's part of the reason why the Finns had such great successes against the Russians, thorough air-to-air combat training and air-air gunnery training.
At the start of the war between Russia and Germany, Germany just held all the cards, like pilot training, experience and technical superiority.
But all those advantages couldn't help the lack of foresight and tactical and strategical knowledge of Göing, Hitler & co., let alone their missing leadership and managing abilities.

M_Gunz
06-10-2008, 03:08 PM
The I-16's we have are supposed to be as they were by the year each is stated to be.
That includes sights.

It might also do to find out the level of pilot training given the Russian fliers rather than
relying on western myths. They had some very good training and expert pilots who put on expert
demonstrations that have been filmed as well as written about. The same men who flew aerobatics
demonstrations with colored bands tied between their wingtips gave 1 on 1 training throughout
in the late 30's.

Note the reputation of the Rata over Spain. With poor training that plane is more danger to
the pilot than to the enemy. The Russians did not lack training. More proof is the accounts
of the Russian Aces.

Golodnikov -- 2 years of military pilot school. (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm)

Kardopolysev (http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/pilots/kardopoltsev/kardopoltsev.htm)

Let's see how many people pick out details to magnify on and forget the whole picture.

Before the war, gliding was a big sport in Russia. Not as big as in Germany but then Russia
did not have restrictions placed on them so there was also sport powered flight there.

The cut-off of information between Russia and most of the west only fed the words of those who
play on ignorance. Pretty much the same was revealed in 1989 at Farnsborough.

DKoor
06-10-2008, 04:00 PM
I'm sorry but if this isn't a troll thread then it's really belongs to some of the worse threads I opened lately.

And yes, nothing to put in a new perspective.
Well anyhow, it depends on perspective you originally had.

Some would consider the great number of the aircraft received being totally non-flyable condition after 20-30-40hours of flight etc. Lack of parts and all kind of support. And that was the top of an iceberg.

VW-IceFire
06-10-2008, 04:58 PM
Good point DKoor. The numbers obviously don't tell the whole story qualitatively in terms of where those aircraft were allocated, the hours of training of the pilots, combat experience of the pilots, and so on and so forth. Also since the numbers are comparing standing force of the Luftwaffe at a specific point in time versus all of the P-39s shipped via lend lease between the start and end of the war...largely pointless.

Yes the economies of scale and the differences were huge but the numbers here are largely misleading or not worthy of comparison.

M_Gunz
06-10-2008, 07:47 PM
But be sure those planes did make a difference.

Treetop64
06-10-2008, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I was watching a video series I have and Gunther Rall was being interveiwed and he stated that America gave the Soviets 3,000 p-39 aircobras thru lend lease. Now thats more aircraft than what was in the entire Luftwaffe!

Germany invaded Russia with 1,800 aircraft (including bombers)which was by far the Majority of the Luftwaffe VS 3,000 p-39's!

Thats not including I-16's, Mig 3's, Laggs, Hurricanes from england, P-40's etc vs russia!

That's kinda incorrect, dood. Russia didn't have s single P-39 at the start of barbarossa, and when they did finally arrive, they didn't all arrive at once.

There's a whole lot more to the air war between Germany and Russia than that.

TX-Gunslinger
06-10-2008, 09:01 PM
As many have said, you cannot characterize a 3 year and 10 month campaign by the simple sum of forces.

As a matter of fact, even campaigns of smaller scope cannot effectively be compared by the sum of the equipment and manpower.

One of the most significant missing elements is the time or phase element - the other being the density, or distribution of the equipment and manpower.

S~

Gunny

rnzoli
06-11-2008, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Fighter Aircraft

P-39 5707 (4719 reached the USSR)

P-40 2397

P-47 195

P-63 2397 (21 lost in transfer)

Hurricane 2952

Spitfire 1331

Total: 14982 (Soviet production: 74,740)

Bomber and Attack Aircraft

A-20 2908

B-25 862

Hampden 23

plus a few others

Total: 3809 (Soviet production: 65,000)

And exactly what are you trying to say with these one-sided figures?

So far you seem to trying to prove that the Nazi leadership was completely blind and haven't realized that the war will be ulitmately won by production quantities. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And that the Allies were better at cooperating with each other, than the Axis powers. What's the news in that?

BWaltteri
06-11-2008, 03:52 AM
Broadly speaking, half of the total losses in any air force happened in non combat activities. Pilot losses took place even more rarely than that.

To that opinion by Rall that Luftwaffe never recovered from the losses that happened in 1940 he was referring to the pilot losses, not to planes. No pilot that came after 1940 received as good training as the old cadre.

M_Gunz
06-11-2008, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by BWaltteri:
Broadly speaking, half of the total losses in any air force happened in non combat activities. Pilot losses took place even more rarely than that.

To that opinion by Rall that Luftwaffe never recovered from the losses that happened in 1940 he was referring to the pilot losses, not to planes. No pilot that came after 1940 received as good training as the old cadre.

The ones who trained in the gliders were expert at energy management. And in Germany before
the war there was a huge glider movement. Even the best designs and first true soaring came
from there if what I had read from different sources is true.

Freiwillige
06-11-2008, 10:16 AM
Yes gliding was huge in Germany in the late 20's and 30's. Because of the Versailles treaty forbid Germany from having an airforce. So glider clubs got very popular and many Luftwaffe experts started out flying gliders in highschool clubs.

Also I just want to say that lend lease did a huge part to mechanize the Russian army. More than half of their trucks came from good ol' USA. That gave them the mobility needed to use the German blitz tactics against them in 44'.

jarink
06-11-2008, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
Fighter Aircraft

P-39 5707 (4719 reached the USSR)


17% wastage during delivery? Woah, that's really steep. Sources? Reason for such a high number?

Freiwillige
06-11-2008, 12:32 PM
High number of losses was due to the fact that not only did the equipment have to get across the atlantic passed all of the U-boats but also it had to get passed the FW-200's out of Norway
and the northern U-boat fleet just to get to Murmansk.

dirkpit7
06-11-2008, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BWaltteri:
Broadly speaking, half of the total losses in any air force happened in non combat activities. Pilot losses took place even more rarely than that.

To that opinion by Rall that Luftwaffe never recovered from the losses that happened in 1940 he was referring to the pilot losses, not to planes. No pilot that came after 1940 received as good training as the old cadre.

The ones who trained in the gliders were expert at energy management. And in Germany before
the war there was a huge glider movement. Even the best designs and first true soaring came
from there if what I had read from different sources is true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read that Luftwaffe wasn't eager to take former glider pilots to their training. Julius Meimberg wrote in his book how he did everything to hide that he had been in a gliding club.

M_Gunz
06-12-2008, 05:32 AM
A surprise to me after reading and hearing that the Hitler Youth trained on gliders just to
be ready for powered flight. Germany was preparing itself for the war long before the start.

From Rickenbacker's Seven Came Through about a conversation he had in 1922:
Goring said something I still remember. He said: Our whole future is in the air. And it is by
air power that we are going to recapture the German empire. To accomplish this we will do three
thing. First, we will teach gliding as a sport to all our young men. Then we will build up
commercial aviation. Finally we will create the skeleton of a military air force. When the time
comes we will put all three together - and the German empire will be reborn.

Perhaps the politics changed on May 15, 1929 when an Austrian Jew named Robert Kronfeld was the
first to utilize thermal updrafts to achieve true soaring glider flight. He climbed to 6700ft
and landed 102km from his start point.

In 1985, Richard Devlin notes that the USAF Academy in Colorado operates one of the largest
sailplane schools in the world, flying more than 13,000 sorties annually. Each year some 400
cadets are enrolled in the Academy's Airmanship Program.

OTOH you can ask those who fly sailplanes and power planes if they got any edge from flying the
former. We have a few such members right here.

tragentsmith
06-12-2008, 06:23 AM
Well, I'm a sailpilot in my free time. Not doing 500 hours in a year (more around 150) and I can tell you that compared to motor flight, gliding is a much funnier experience. You have to be careful on a lot of parameters if you want to stay in the air for more than 10 minutes and be able to do something. If you are not too bad, you can really do good things. If I remember correctlty, the record flight while starting from our airfield (near Paris, France) is 932 km in a day(but it's not me!). When you manage such a flight, well, non aerobatic flying in an engine-powered plane is a bit like taking the bus to travel... Way less funny.