PDA

View Full Version : West was harder on the LW than the East



XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 05:53 PM
From the JG26 site

Please examine the table and draw your own conclusions, but here are some highlights

1. During the period in question, a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.

2. During this period, a constant 75-78% of the day fighters were based in the West. The turnover was enormous: 14,720 aircraft were "lost", while operational strength averaged 1364.

3. During this period, 2294 day fighters were "lost" in the East; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 14,720/2294 = 6.4 to one.

4. During this period, a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West..

5. During this period, a total of 8600 operational aircraft were "lost" in the East, while 27,060 were "lost" in the West; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 27,060/8600 = 3.41 to one.


http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrloss.gif



* "losses" are defined in this compilation as "total losses" + "damaged"

Source: O. Gr√¬∂hler, "St√¬§rke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Milit√¬§rgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336 (1978).

Groehler's article did not include data on sortie rates. If it had done so, the odds of survival faced by the pilots of JG 26 and the other units in the West would have appeared even lower. One table giving 1944 sortie and loss totals for all combat aircraft has been found in the US archives. Its loss numbers are only about one-third of Groehler's, and probably include only total losses and writeoffs resulting from combat, a more common definition of the term. The data:

1944 - All Combat Types(--)

Sorties

Total: West 182,004 - Eastern Front 342,483 - West/East 0.53

Losses
W 9768 - E 2406 - W/E 4.06

Losses/Sortie
W 0.0537 - E 0.00703 - W/E 7.66



4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 05:53 PM
From the JG26 site

Please examine the table and draw your own conclusions, but here are some highlights

1. During the period in question, a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.

2. During this period, a constant 75-78% of the day fighters were based in the West. The turnover was enormous: 14,720 aircraft were "lost", while operational strength averaged 1364.

3. During this period, 2294 day fighters were "lost" in the East; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 14,720/2294 = 6.4 to one.

4. During this period, a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West..

5. During this period, a total of 8600 operational aircraft were "lost" in the East, while 27,060 were "lost" in the West; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 27,060/8600 = 3.41 to one.


http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrloss.gif



* "losses" are defined in this compilation as "total losses" + "damaged"

Source: O. Gr√¬∂hler, "St√¬§rke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Milit√¬§rgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336 (1978).

Groehler's article did not include data on sortie rates. If it had done so, the odds of survival faced by the pilots of JG 26 and the other units in the West would have appeared even lower. One table giving 1944 sortie and loss totals for all combat aircraft has been found in the US archives. Its loss numbers are only about one-third of Groehler's, and probably include only total losses and writeoffs resulting from combat, a more common definition of the term. The data:

1944 - All Combat Types(--)

Sorties

Total: West 182,004 - Eastern Front 342,483 - West/East 0.53

Losses
W 9768 - E 2406 - W/E 4.06

Losses/Sortie
W 0.0537 - E 0.00703 - W/E 7.66



4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 06:16 PM
Here is the whole article:

http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrlosses.htm


-jippo

Buzz_25th
10-25-2003, 06:32 PM
As soon as John Wayne showed up. It was over../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.vfa25.com/sigs/buzz.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 06:54 PM
Also look how much soviet land germany advance on and the russian strips and factories that had to be pushed back until britian poland czech canada and the US came into the war.

It seems many in here think russia won the war itself but its definatly not the case it took all allied nations. Russia also planned to starve all the people in germanies many large cities and the us canada and british had to give them food aid while russia didnt. I just noticed this thru looking at territorial maps from 1940 to 46 and reading alot of books about wwii and isnt ment to start flame wars and hope it dont.

Those finds are very interesting too



<center>http://www.freewebs.com/leadspitter/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 08:09 PM
However much I value Caldwell, this is not a fair evaluation, since it skips 1941, 1942 and the first 3/4 of 1943, which were the years of offensive action in the East, when the Luftwaffe's bulk was committed against the Soviet Union.

By omiting these you skew the picture. Statistics are only helpful if they present the whole picture, not just a part out of context.

BTW, I am not stating that either front was more difficult.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

Message Edited on 10/25/0309:13PM by rhorta

XyZspineZyX
10-25-2003, 08:09 PM
nice draw milo,


just Add one thing about losses.
a more than 10 % damaged aircraft was count as lost for the luftwaffe.
according to "Deutsche Luftwaffe" motorbuchverlag


http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 12:44 AM
The Eastern Front is what devoured the German Army and hence German field forces, and LW was only a tactical support piece forced into a western strategic air war it was not engineered for.


Article::
-- (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive
-- bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because
-- they couldn't survive in the West..

Stop whining and just give us Hs~123. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 12:50 AM
S! all

For those who suggest we look at earlier in the war:

Here are some figures on Aircraft losses for the Luftwaffe. They come from "Luftwaffe" by Williamson Murray a British author. His sources for the losses were the actual German records, not Allied or Soviet claims. "Luftwaffe" is one of the best analysis of why the Germans lost the war in the air which I have come across. I have had to take the Charts and tables which he has provided, which means in some cases the figures I would be interested in were not available.

Total German Operational Strength May 1940 (Operational strength is the aircraft actually ready to fly, not including aircraft on the books but in repair or depots)

Fighters: 1369

Others: 4029

Total: 5398


Total German Aircraft losses due to enemy action May-September 1940 (Invasion of France and Battle of Britain)

Fighters: 871

Others: 1442

Total: 2313


Total German Fighter Pilot casualties. (Casualties include Deaths, Serious Woundings, and Captures. Fighter Pilot casualties are to be differentiated from Aircraft losses which can be replaced)

May-June 1940 (Battle of France)

169

July-September 1940 (Battle of Britain)

521

You will notice the big increase in German Pilot Casualties during the Battle of Britain. This was due to the fact they were flying over hostile territory at extreme range.


Total German Aircraft losses due to enemy action October-December 1940 (Night Blitz of Britain)

Fighters: 40

Bombers: 140


--------------------------------------


Total German Operational Strength January 1941

Fighters: 1339

Others: 3008

Total: 4347


Average German Operational Strength versus Soviet Union June-November 1941

Fighters: 738 (55% of Total Jan. Operational strength)

Other: 1724

Total: 2462 (57% of Total Jan. Operational strength)


Total German Aircraft Losses due to enemy action January-December 1941 (not including November, figures N/A)

Fighters: 868

Other: 1981

Total: 2849


Percentage of Total German Aircraft lost Monthly, All Fronts January-December 1941

January: 2.6%

February: 3.6%

March: 4.9%

April: 7.2%

May: 7.5%

June: 11.6%

July: 16.1%

August: 9.8%

September: 8.8%

October: 7.7%

November: 6.5%

December: 7.1%


You can see from the above chart the German losses are quite small when their only active Front is the English Channel. Losses begin to rise in April with the Balkan Campaigns in Yugoslavia and Greece versus the British Expeditionary Forces there, as well as the commitment to North Africa with Rommel. The Germans had significant losses on Crete, especially in Transport and Bombers. With the invasion of the Soviet Union losses jump very significantly in the first few months. But after the Soviet airforce is to all intents destroyed, the losses begin to reduce again.


Percentage of Total German Fighter Aircraft lost Monthly, All Fronts January-December 1941

January: 2.1%

February: 3.6%

March: 4.7%

April: 6.4%

May: 6.8%

June: 14.2%

July: 22.9%

August: 13.4%

September: 12.6%

October: 6.0%

November: N/A

December: 10.2%


This Chart shows the German Fighter losses with the invasion of the Soviet Union are proportionately a little higher than overall losses.
---------------------------------

German Operational Strength January 1942

Fighters: 1324

Other: 3809

Total: 5133


I do not have percentages of the Aircraft deployment by Front. However in November of 1941, Luftflotte 2, comprising approx. 600 aircraft was transferred to the Mediterranean to assist in the suppression of Malta.


German Monthly Aircraft Losses All Fronts January to May 1942.

January: 428

February: 415

March: 564

April: 525

May: 772


This Chart shows the heaviest losses begin March with the failed Counter-Offensive by the Soviets at Kharkov.


Total German Aircraft Losses January to May 1942

All Aircraft: 2704


Total German Monthly Aircraft Losses June to December 1942 by Front. All Aircraft

Month---------------Eastern Front--------------All other Fronts

June------------------350--------------------------299

July------------------438--------------------------386

August--------------436--------------------------371

September----------332--------------------------206

October-------------200--------------------------324

November----------224--------------------------595

December----------408--------------------------366


This is my first Chart which shows the actual breakdown of losses by Front. You can see the losses on the Eastern Front are higher during the Summer '42 offensive, but losses in the West are higher in October and November during the fighting at El Alamein and during the invasion of North Africa, "Torch". Eastern Front losses then move ahead again during December when the foolishly ordered airlift to Stalingrad was at its height. There were significant Transport and Bomber losses at that time.


Total German Aircraft Losses June to December 1942 by Front

Eastern Front

All Aircraft: 2388

Other Fronts

All Aircraft: 2547

You can see from this, that the overall aircraft losses during the second half of '42 begin to shift to the West.

----------------------------------------------------------


German Operational Aircraft Strength February 1943

Fighters: 1360

Others: 4014

Total: 5374


Distribution of Authorized German Fighter Strength January 1943 (note this is Authorized strength or Paper strength, not Operational strength)

Eastern Front: 445

Mediterranean: 280

NorthWest Europe: 1045


From this you can see 74% of German Fighter strength is cocentrated against the Western Allies.


German Monthly Aircraft Losses in 1943 by Front. First number is total Aircraft losses/Second number is Fighter losses

Month---------------Eastern---------------------Mediterranean------------------Northwest Europe

January--------------482--85------------------------282--124------------------------176--87

February------------318--63------------------------206--89--------------------------182--77

March---------------314--100----------------------308--140-------------------------256--140

April----------------238--67------------------------572--247-------------------------256--143

May-----------------331--110-----------------------333--97--------------------------331--183

June-----------------249--85------------------------235--131-------------------------313--157

July-----------------558--201-----------------------711--246-------------------------526--335

August-------------472--150-----------------------321--133-------------------------625--248

September---------338--99------------------------503--167-------------------------522--276

October------------279--94------------------------285--92---------------------------530--281

November---------194--45------------------------180--54---------------------------529--281

December---------Not Available


In January the German losses are slightly higher on the Eastern Front than both the Mediterranean and Northwest Europe combined. This reflects the continued attempted airlift to Stalingrad. But after that, losses versus the Western Allies become much more significant. Losses are very high during the close of the Tunisian Campaign, especially during the abortive attempted Air Supply phase. Even during the Kursk Offensive and subsequent Soviet Counter-Offensive, the losses are less than those suffered during the Sicily invasion. Meanwhile as the 8th Air Force Bombing Offensive begins in July of '43, the German losses in Northwest Europe begin to climb till they are largest portion of all losses. Notice especially the higher proportion of Fighters lost in Northwest Europe.


Total Aircraft Losses in 1943 by Front (excluding December)

Eastern Front

Fighters: 1099

Total: 3773

Mediterranean Front

Fighters: 1520

Total: 3936

Northwest Europe Front

Fighters: 2208

Total: 4246


Total German Aircraft losses inflicted in 1943, Western Allies vs Soviet Union

Western Allies: 8182

Soviet Union: 3773


German Monthly Fighter Pilot Casualties January to December 1943

January: 137

February: 115

March: 155

April: 206

May: 266

June: 246

July: 330

August: 333

September: 343

October: 339

November: 245

December: 252


Of these casualties, the majority have been inflicted by the Western Allies.


Total German Operational Strength January 1944

Fighters: 1561

Others: 5180

Total: 6741


Distribution of Authorized German Fighter Strength January 1944

Eastern Front: 425

Mediterranean: 365

Northwest Europe: 1650


You can see from this 82% of German Fighter Strength is concentrated against the Western Allies at the start of 1944.


Unfortunately Murray's book does not include figures which show losses by Front during 1944. However eduacated guesses can be made.


Total Monthly German Aircraft Losses January-May 1944. First number is total Aircraft losses/Second number is Fighter losses.


January: 991----473

February: N/A

March: 1770----985

April: N/A

May: 1882----831


You can see the monthly losses are much higher than in earlier years.


Monthly Percentage of Total German Aircraft Strength Lost January-June 1944


January: 14.7

February: 20.5

March: 25.6

April: 28.2

May: 27.8

June: 22.7


Monthly Percentage of Total German Fighter Strength Lost January-June 1944


January: 30.3

February: 33.8

March: 56.4

April: 43

May: 50.4

June: 48.3


Since 82% of the German Fighter strength is concentrated against the Western Allies, the overwhelming majority of the fighter casualties are likely inflicted by British or U.S. Pilots.


German Fighter Pilot Casualties January to May 1944

January: 292

February: 434

March: 511

April: 447

May: 578


Compare these Pilot losses with the previous tables showing Pilot losses during 1940 and 1943. You can see the attrition has become enormous.


Distribution of Authorized German Fighter Strength July 1944

Eastern Front: 475

Balkans (Mediterranean): 65

Northwest Europe: 835


Compare this table with the Authorized German Fighter Strength in January 1944. You can see the Eastern Front totals are much the same. But the strength facing the Western Allies has shrunk to 45% of what it was in January. This reflects the tremendous losses in the Battle for Germany.


Jagdgeschwader 26 Pilot Casualties by Year. (JG26 were based in France and Germany versus the Western Allies. Sometimes called the Abbeville Boys)

1939: 2
1940: 51
1941: 64
1942: 69
1943: 149
1944: 249
1945: 110

You can see from this table that during the years when JG26 was only facing short range Spitfires and ineffective British medium bombers, it could pick its time to fight or not to fight, and so casualties were very low. But with the advent of the B-17 daylight offensive, and the nessesity to intercept these destructive and accurate formations, casualties skyrocket.



Average Newly Operational Pilot Training Hours Flight Time

Number before slash indicates hours on low performance training aircraft. Number after slash indicates training hours on first line aircraft.


------------------------------------German--------------------British-----------------------U.S.


1939-Sept. '42------------------240+/80+----------------200+/40+---------------------N/A

Oct 42-June 43-----------------200+/40+----------------340+/75+---------------------270+/70+

Jul 43-June 44------------------180+/20+----------------340+/80+---------------------330+/130+

July 44-End---------------------125+/15+----------------340+/90+---------------------400+/150+



This is self-explanatory. Shows the quality of the pilots who were coming into service with the various airforces during different periods of the war. Unfortunately the Soviet not included.

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 12:55 AM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- Also look how much soviet land germany advance on
- and the russian strips and factories that had to be
- pushed back until britian poland czech canada and
- the US came into the war.
-
- It seems many in here think russia won the war
- itself but its definatly not the case it took all
- allied nations. Russia also planned to starve all
- the people in germanies many large cities and the us
- canada and british had to give them food aid while
- russia didnt. I just noticed this thru looking at
- territorial maps from 1940 to 46 and reading alot of
- books about wwii and isnt ment to start flame wars
- and hope it dont.
-
- Those finds are very interesting too

Leadspitter, you need to read alot more books and stop posting in history discussion threads until you do so. You inevitably embarass yourself.

For example, if you read just about any book on WWII, you would know that "britain poland czech canada" were all in the war BEFORE Germany invaded Russia.

Anyways, I didn't see anyone claiming that "russia won the war" in this thread, so what's the point of this inept rebuttal?

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 12:56 AM
Interesting post Buzzsaw. Thanks!


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 01:01 AM
Didn't the Luftwaffe mostly pull out of the East after Stalingrad and Kuban, with the Italy and the western bombing and all? That LW could still organize competitive local air strength to combat VVS shows the tenacity of the German eastern defensive, but if German losses (air) were greater in the West, its partly cos the Germans put their largest air effort in the West, unlike its ground efforts. Or am I making this up? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 01:39 AM
I hope this thread isn't going where I think it is....

<center>47|FC <img src="http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg"<

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 12:57 PM
Lot of work to get Murray's figures on the board Buzz, but it shows the ebb and flow of war nicely. Thanks for your effort to share it with the community. Words are nice, but sometimes hard statistics are needed to show their true meaning.

=============================

On the other hand, hard is a relative terms.

Look at JG 2 and JG 26 in the West for the second half of 1941, their losses might have been few in relative terms, but in absolute terms they meant a 90% attrition rate compared to the established figures at the beginning of that period!!

There is also the fact that statistics do not show the VALUE of the losses.

Losing one hundred green fighter pilots in 1944 is a statistic, loosing fifty experienced pilots in 1942 is however much more dramatic.

Since the Luftwaffe started the war with no real reserves and relied heavily on their experienced aircrew (not only fighter pilots!), its clear that the losses amongst these experienced aircrew had a much larger impact than the loss of the Nachwuchs aircrew.

The early Western campaign already cost the Luftwaffe dearly, the Battle of Britain indeed increased the loss percentage because there was not the slightest chance for aircrew to come back if shot down over the British isles, the first months of Barbarossa were a real carnage, although there is a difference between lost air crew and servicable aircraft.

Those reserves that could be used (instructors) were thrown in more and more (especially during the Stalingrad airlift).

This essential cadre of pre-war and early war Experten was growing thin by the middle of 1943 and the last batch of well trained recruits were entering combat (school of 42/43), from the second half of 1943 the combined allies were facing an enemy that was perhaps growing in absolute terms, but was in fact becoming ANEMIC.

We tend to focus on the fighter pilots, but the Battle of Britain and first two years of fighting on the Eastern Front were catastropic for the Bomber force, especially the Stalingrad airlift, which depleted the last reserves in experienced instructor and transport crews.

In the end I think it is very difficult to point out which front was harder, although the PACE in the west, where the western allies were putting a lot of their effort in the air war, was much higher and the tactical situation demanded a different approach which cost the Jagdwaffe dearly (the decree to focus on the bombers at all cost for instance, or not to drop droptanks, or using Zerst√¬∂rer and even nightfighters against day bombers WITH escorts), much of its emphisis lies after the cream of the Luftwaffe had been lost in the daily attrition of the Eastern Front.

Finally, much depends on the simple fact that the Luftwaffe, with no reserves, was spread to thin in order to combat on either front with effect. Perhaps two Jagdgeschwader were effective against England in 1941, it did enable the RAF and later AAF an unhampered build-up (those who play RTS game know the concept of building up for the final rush). The way the Luftwaffe was running behind the facts on every front (as a fire fighter) removed all initiative. Malta, North Africa, Italy, the Normandy Invasion, even the Battle for the Reich. The simple logics behind the air war are indeed clear. The Luftwaffe did not have the strength to fight on three fronts (and that means I do not even add the Battle of the Atlantic as a seperate front).

Fire fighting, ebb and flow of numbers, but with the initiative always with the attacker. Indeed the tactical situation on the Eastern (like that in the first phase of North Africa) was more sympathic to the german plea, but even there theu were spread to thin to be effective.

But now I am drifting...

To go back to the topic at hand, maybe the answer does not lie in numbers alone, but in WHEN, WHAT and WHO was lost and compare those figures.

Experten vs Nachwuchs, or even the average veteran vs the rookie pilot. It may sound harsh, but the rookie is unimportant until he becomes a veteran (that might be misunderstood, but I'll take that chance). Since most of you have seen Band of Brothers I'll refer to the second (or third?) episode dealing with the attitude towards the "replacements".

Maybe I'll try this myself one day, but I am definitely too lazy at the moment (or picky with my spare time).

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 01:19 PM
necrobaron wrote:
- I hope this thread isn't going where I think it
- is....

Only the dumb will make this a flame war, since there is no need to jump either way if you look at the dry text being presented.

IMHO the more you try to understand the air war in Europe and the Med. the more you'll see the ebb and flow of war and the difficulties faced by the Luftwaffe fighting a three front war without the industry and trained aircrew to do a good job.

The harsh realities of logistics - the war of numbers.

Both the Germans and Japanese waged a war of total gamble, knock out you opponent early before he can mobilize...period, they even failed to make a contigency if things turned out differently - hence gambling EVERYTHING.

BTW, the Germans did have PLANS on how to wage a protracted war in the West and even in the East, but the three front war made those plans impossible, by 1942 they lost all initiative.

Of course I am using generalizations, since the subject requires multiple volumes to do any justice.

The Japanese probably had similar plans, although AFAIK their whole Naval philosophy was based on the Big Battle concept (similar to Tsu-Shima in 1905, even Pearl Harbor can find its precedent in the attack on Port Arthur in 1904) where they take out the enemy in one huge naval battle and force him to negociate peace favorable to the Japanese. Midway was an attempt at forcing the USN to battle and so was Leyte Gulf, but by that time there was little or no chance at succeeding.

========

Back to the subject.

The Eastern Front cost the Luftwaffe dearly in terms of experienced air crew, but tactically the Luftwaffe retained some operational freedom, especially for the Jagdwaffe, in the West the Jagdwaffe had lost ALL initiative after 1943 and were forced to fight the battle on Allied terms, under unfavorable circumstances (mostly through stupidity of the RLM, but also because of the logistical issues mentioned earlier).

Both fronts had their hard times, both fronts had their disasters...but I'd agree that tactically the Eastern Front was easier for the Jagdwaffe (though I'd be careful to translate that to the realitive quality of the opposition).

In the East the VVS was mainly engaged in protecting the army, in the West the relative Fighter Commands were mainly engaged in running down the Jagdwaffe, while the latter was operationally tied to combatting the bombers...tied between a rock and a hard place.

Ironically, JG 26 didn't do so badly against the US T-bolts in the first half of 1943 (when they still had tactical iniative).

But otoh, shooting down fighters (as happened on the EF) does not protect your industry, thus the German High Command did have a point.

End of the matter remains that the Jagdwaffe did not have the strength to fight both escort AND bombers...their choice dictated by necesity had dramatic consequences for the aircrew as RAF and AAF escort gained the initiative and finally complete superiority.

The air war in the west might have been waged more effectively by engaging the escorts, but would it have changed the outcome? IMHO, hardly...

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 02:12 PM
The air war on the Eastern Front differed greately from air war on the Western Front.

There were no significant ground operations untill 1944 on the Western Front. So air war was the only way for Britain and US to actually be at war.

Eastern Front is characterized by enormouse ground campaines each of which were supported by air forces. 80 % of German human casualties were on the Eastern front.

http://www.uploadit.org/files/131003-361067-med.jpg


"One day there is certain to be another order of the Soviet Union. It will be the Order of Zhukov, and that order will be prized by every man who admires courage, vision, fortitude, and determination in a soldier". -Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1945

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 02:21 PM
your chart is not a good one... where's the 1941, 1942 etc? You call that good statistics?

It is a fact that most people, by far, died in Russia... that includes Germans soldiers also!

Russians were very tough on Germans becuase the Germans were the most ferocious on them then any other nation! It was simply anger and revenge which is quite human and understandable by me!

The eastern front was the toughest place to be in WWII and German soldiers were really scared of being sent there. Yeah surely while they were advancing in the begining it was them who had a good morale and victories, however the picture started changing in winter 1941/1942. Once the Russians got on their feet and started full military production in the Siberia the ferocity of the war and toughness of Russian people and russian winter was felt by the Germans. Then it was really tough on them then anywhere else in the world.

I must also say that some battles fought in the Pacific were really terrible as well. US had massive losses taking Iwo Jima, Okinawa etc... oh and the Normandy was no piece of cake either! But I must say... overall... Russian Front was the toughest place to be in WWII /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky‚ģ</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 02:22 PM
Desant_CCCP wrote:
- The air war on the Eastern Front differed greately
- from air war on the Western Front.
-
- There were no significant ground operations untill
- 1944 on the Western Front. So air war was the only
- way for Britain and US to actually be at war.
-
- Eastern Front is characterized by enormouse ground
- campaines each of which were supported by air
- forces. 80 % of German human casualties were on the
- Eastern front.

Granted I have clouded the issue by drifting away from the subject, but as the thread mentions, it does compare the Airwar, not the ground war.

READ ... LW = Luftwaffe

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

Message Edited on 10/26/0302:23PM by rhorta

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 02:37 PM
Also... excellent post Buzzsaw

<center><font color="lightblue">''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
RAAF Kuky‚ģ</font>
Get my skins @ IL-2Skins ('http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Edin%20"Kuky"%20Kulelija&comefrom=top5&ts=1064037392')

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 02:57 PM
Desant_CCCP wrote:

- There were no significant ground operations untill
- 1944 on the Western Front. So air war was the only
- way for Britain and US to actually be at war.


I suppose you've never heard of North Africa or the Med Theater of Operation?

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

Hawgdog
10-26-2003, 03:04 PM
Buzz_25th wrote:
- As soon as John Wayne showed up.


Most intelligent post in here.

IBTL

<center></script>When you get to hell, tell 'em HawgDog sent you!
http://users.zoominternet.net/~cgatewood/assets/images/sharkdog.gif

http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/_derived/default.htm_txt_bt_green_rec2_3.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 03:05 PM
in Black Cross & Red Star ,
Forword from General-Leytenant Arkadiy F. Kovachevich :

......but it was war, and we shot down exactly as many german aircraft as war required for victory.
after all, the german airforce lost 44000 combat planes in the aircombat on the soviet-german front alone,and more than 39000 of them were shot down by the fighterpilots of the soviet VVS.

the increasing power of the soviet airforce is demonstrated by the fact that the luftwaffe increased its share of fighters on the eastern front from 35% in 1941 to 69 % in 1945.



so , who won the airwar against germany ? both ? or who did more for the victory?
did the VVS shot down much more german planes than the westallies ?
i know , not an easy question . not for USAAF/RAF guys , nor for the VVS guys.




http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 03:08 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Desant_CCCP wrote:
-
-- There were no significant ground operations untill
-- 1944 on the Western Front. So air war was the only
-- way for Britain and US to actually be at war.
-
-
- I suppose you've never heard of North Africa or the
- Med Theater of Operation?

Both these theatres were on a different scale compared to the ground war on the Eastern Front, just look at the number of divisions involved on the German and Soviet side.

In that regard Desant is right, although starting with the second half of 1943 the Germans started to pull out more and more troops from the East to counter the Allied treat in the West (incl. Italian front).

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 03:08 PM
skychimp i am sure he know about the northafrican operations.
but in the former sovietunion were almost 20 times more germans as in africa.

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 03:09 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Desant_CCCP wrote:
-
-- There were no significant ground operations untill
-- 1944 on the Western Front. So air war was the only
-- way for Britain and US to actually be at war.
-
-
- I suppose you've never heard of North Africa or the
- Med Theater of Operation?
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-
<img
- src="http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.j
- pg">
-

I said significant operations.

http://www.uploadit.org/files/131003-361067-med.jpg


"One day there is certain to be another order of the Soviet Union. It will be the Order of Zhukov, and that order will be prized by every man who admires courage, vision, fortitude, and determination in a soldier". -Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1945

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 03:13 PM
The *total* number of German aircraft lost in east vs west is open for debate. But there is no question that fighters are the most important aircraft to achieve and maintain air superiority or effective air defense. And, there is no question that the prinicpal portion of the LW's figher force was lost in the west, not east.

As the article Jippo points to states, "During this period, a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West.." These type of aircraft make up the majority portion of aircraft lost in the east. In fact, the LW was able to maintain air superiority in portions of the east all the way to the end of the war. Not so in the west.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 03:23 PM
Boandlgramer wrote:
- in Black Cross & Red Star ,
- Forword from General-Leytenant Arkadiy F.
- Kovachevich :
-
- ......but it was war, and we shot down exactly as
- many german aircraft as war required for victory.
- after all, the german airforce lost 44000 combat
- planes in the aircombat on the soviet-german front
- alone,and more than 39000 of them were shot down by
- the fighterpilots of the soviet VVS.
-
-
- the increasing power of the soviet airforce is
- demonstrated by the fact that the luftwaffe
- increased its share of fighters on the eastern front
- from 35% in 1941 to 69 % in 1945.

BC/RS is a good work, but not flawless, and in this quote you have a Russian claim as being an absolute, which is a dangerous assumption.

Its even more faulty if you look at the war in a whole, just to mention the tide of war again, from July 1941 (not verifying) when the bulk of the Luftwaffe and the was on the Eastern Front (more than 35%) and than simply jumping to the spring of 45 when the bulk of the remaining Jagdwaffe was yet again committed against the Red Army in a hopeless bid to slow their advance into Germany.

Where is Bodenplatte, where is the 1943/44 RVT campaign (day AND night), where is the Normandy campaign?

Even Buzz his excellent post (stats taken from Williamson Murray's Strategy for Defeat) isn't as absolute as the figues might appear at first glance.

For one Buzz makes some assumptions (we all do) and is forced to make choices (he could not copy all of the statistical data), and with these choices might have put a little more emphasis on the western air campaign and fighter losses.

Its not always clear (and I am to lazy to double check) if the given figures are combat or all losses either.

But that is NO CRITICISM of Buzz, since he made an effort to illustrate the level of combat on either front.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 03:25 PM
and a further question

how many german planes were lost in accidents , trainingflights , transfers ,
without enemy contacts ?

just to count it to the 44.000 planes.
then the number must be higher than 50.000 IMO.





http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

Message Edited on 10/26/0302:30PM by Boandlgramer

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 03:29 PM
Boandlgramer wrote:
- and a further question
-
-
- how many german planes were lost in accidents ,
- trainingflights , transfers ,
- without enemy contacts ?

A rough glance at Murray's shows that on average these non-combat losses are higher than the combat losses (purely on eye eval. I'd say resp. 60% and 40%).

Maybe Buzz would like to give the exact figures from the appendix tables.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 03:46 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- Also look how much soviet land germany advance on
- and the russian strips and factories that had to be
- pushed back until britian poland czech canada and
- the US came into the war.
-
- It seems many in here think russia won the war
- itself but its definatly not the case it took all
- allied nations. Russia also planned to starve all
- the people in germanies many large cities and the us
- canada and british had to give them food aid while
- russia didnt. I just noticed this thru looking at
- territorial maps from 1940 to 46 and reading alot of
- books about wwii and isnt ment to start flame wars
- and hope it dont.
-
- Those finds are very interesting too

Not meant as the start of said flaming, but this presents a bit of over simplification.

The Soviets were able (by sheer geography) to absorb the initial thrust of the Germans, this made defense easier and attack harder, to the point where the german forces were quite annemic once reaching the gates of Moscow. They would have been hard pushed to retain their position WITHOUT a Soviet counter offensive.

The same goes for the summer offensive of 1942, which again spread the Germans thin and the lines vulnerable to the point where relatively weak Rumanian and Italian infantry units were protecting much of the flanks, with dramatic consequences in Stalingrad (although this is also a simplification of events!!).

1941/42 are about initiative, and the Germans finally lost initiative in 1943. That is also the time when the Western allies make their real push. Although the Western Allies contributed to the Eastern Front and they did manage to take some pressure of the East, it looks like the Soviet 1944 campaign would have been waged without Italian or Normandy invasions. Granted that they would have been bloodier and slower, but by than the Soviet juggernaut was at full war footing.

Initiative and logistics...

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-26-2003, 09:03 PM
Many interresting posts in this thread but I think there are two points worth noting which were not pointed out yet :

- From mid-43 onwards, the LW was not only more numerous in the West, it was also more active, as during operation Bagration (russian offensive started on the 27/06/1944), the LW ressources were often grounded because of fuel shortages (and,of course, most possible missions were flown by a handfull of highly experienced expertens), which was not the case over Normandy at the same time (and a lot of sorties in the East were not fighter nor bomber ones, but liaison and nachtslacht ones which are far less dangerous).

- While the loss records of the "western" units (JG2, JG26, JG27, III/JG54,...) are largely available, those of the "eastern" units are most often incomplete, if not completely lost because lots of documents were lost or destroyed in 1944-45 during the great russian offensives (some units had to move as often as 3 or 4 times a week by the end of 1944 or early 1945).

Finally, it must be said that while the LW had most often air superiority (on both fronts), it was concentrated in the East, while when it began to lose it (on both fronts), its main focus shifted to the West and didn't return to the East until the final weeks of 1944 (when it wasn't able anymore to display a large scale intensive activity).

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 04:05 AM
All in all its not suprising the USAF pwned the LW.

1: Geographic isolation allowed the US the time to train its pilots to its very high standards.

2: No pressure, no cities being bombed or infantry being strafed by flying tank etc.

3: Fuel TO train.

4: Technological parity.

5: Numbers.

6: Manpower.

Sum total is a wonder the LW lasted as long as it did.


<bgColor="green">

<center>http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/small/john001.jpg</p>


I complained that my radar hums so the mechanics taught it words.
</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 07:16 AM
Salute Buzzlaw,
always a pleasure to read a list posted by you. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
do you know some numbers about the eastern front too ?
or milo .

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 09:54 AM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- Also look how much soviet land germany advance on
- and the russian strips and factories that had to be
- pushed back until britian poland czech canada and
- the US came into the war.
-

IIRC, Czechoslovakia was the second country taken over by the Germans (Austria was first).

The Germans invaded Poland before the British (and British Empire - including Canadians) joined in (1939). The French joined at the same time.

The Russians were invaded by Germany before the US came in.

<div align="center">

http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/il2/signature/paint_sig_003.jpg

I've given up correcting my own spelling
Unless I've corrected it here <MAP NAME="paint_sig_003"><AREA SHAPE="rect" COORDS="0,159,199,199" HREF="http://www.il2airracing.com" TARGET="_blank" alt="Air Racing" title="Air Racing"><AREA SHAPE="rect" COORDS="0,0,199,159" HREF="http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/" title="Painter's home page" alt="Painter's home page"><AREA SHAPE="rect" COORDS="199,0,399,199" HREF="http://www.robert-stuart.me.uk/il2/index.html" TARGET="_blank" alt="Painter's IL2 Pages" title="Painter's IL2 Pages">
</MAP></div>

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:57 AM
Boandlgramer wrote:
- Salute Buzzlaw,
- always a pleasure to read a list posted by you.
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
- do you know some numbers about the eastern front too
- ?
- or milo .

Not Buzz or Milo, but if it appears that there is no list in the coming, I'll try to produce one from the following sources:

Murray - general stats
Gr√¬∂hler - general stats
Prien - JG stats for Barbarossa
Haywood - specifics on Stalingrad
Muller - stats on EF
Claessen - some numbers on Arctic front

At this moment I am at work so I cannot scan the source material. OTOH, the short term value of these forum posts does not stimulate one to give a really big effort.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 12:51 PM
A.K.Davis you never have anything positive to say except bash users of the forums, you really make yourself look ignorant and I see clearly you don't follow history.

People like you should be removed from these boards because your just here to troll and hijack threads. Do me a favor I asked you before PLZ DO NOT RESPOND TO MY POSTS SINCE YOUR JUST HERE TO BASH PEOPLE IN THESE FORUMS. AND I DONT HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR SOMEONE LIKE YOU WHO DISAGREES IT TOOK ALL ALLIED SIDES WORKING TOGETHER TO DEFEAT THE GERMAN ARMY.



<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 12:57 PM
IAFS_Painter, yes I know Im talking about the units that fought with the allied side after thier countries were over run

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 04:47 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- A.K.Davis you never have anything positive to say
- except bash users of the forums, you really make
- yourself look ignorant and I see clearly you don't
- follow history.
-
- People like you should be removed from these boards
- because your just here to troll and hijack threads.
- Do me a favor I asked you before PLZ DO NOT RESPOND
- TO MY POSTS SINCE YOUR JUST HERE TO BASH PEOPLE IN
- THESE FORUMS. AND I DONT HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR
- SOMEONE LIKE YOU WHO DISAGREES IT TOOK ALL ALLIED
- SIDES WORKING TOGETHER TO DEFEAT THE GERMAN ARMY.
-

No offence but you are the only one who's screaming and bashing right now in this thread

http://www.uploadit.org/files/131003-361067-med.jpg


"One day there is certain to be another order of the Soviet Union. It will be the Order of Zhukov, and that order will be prized by every man who admires courage, vision, fortitude, and determination in a soldier". -Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1945

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 05:34 PM
Here is another statistics....

The fighting in the air over the eastern front was conducted on such an enormous scale, in terms of the aircraft lost in combat, that it dwarfed events in both the Pacific and European theatre of operations. A conservative estimate of the number of Soviet aircraft lost exceeds seventy thousand, and may have been as high as eighty thousand aircraft! By way of contrast, the combined war losses of USAAF and RAF aircraft was in the order of forty thousand. You get an impression of the scale and intensity of the air combat, when you consider that the total British and American aircraft losses for the entire war was only about 50% of the Soviet aircraft losses over the Eastern front.

It is also important not to get the wrong impression from those figures. Aircraft loss figures alone can't tell the whole story, and it would be easy to imagine that Soviet losses may have been high because the Russian pilots were less skilful or were easy to shoot down, but that simply was not the case. The high initial losses suffered by the Russians has been attributed to many factors, including the timing of the German attack, the fact that many Russian airfields were too close to the border and that re-equipment was taking place at the time of the attack. Other factors include Russian negligence in the disposition of aircraft at airfields that enabled the Germans to destroy large numbers (1,811 Soviet aircraft were claimed on the first day alone) of aircraft on the ground and other failures of Soviet command. None of those factors can detract from the ability or courage of the Russian pilots of that day! Indeed, the scores of top Russian Aces far exceeded those of their allied counterparts. For example, the number one and two top scoring Soviet Aces, Ivan Kozedub with 62 kills, and Alexander Pokryshkin with 59 kills can be compared with the American and British top scoring Aces, Richard Bong with 40 kills and Johnnie Johnson with 38 kills. Not to mention that many notable German Aces were shot down or forced down by Russian pilots over the eastern front, even though many of them bailed out safely, or crash landed and survived to fight again. The list includes such well known names as Erich Hartmann with 352 kills, Gerhard Barkhorn with 301 kills, Guenther Rall with 275 kills, Otto Kittel with 267 kills, Erich Rudorffer with 222 kills. and the list goes on. Of course, looking at pilot victory totals like this doesn't explain what was really happening, but it does indicate quite clearly that the air combat was anything but easy. It is also clear that it was conducted on a huge scale and fought with such ferocity that it is perhaps surprising that it has generally received so little coverage in the west.

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 06:33 PM
maxim26 wrote:
It is also clear that it was
- conducted on a huge scale and fought with such
- ferocity that it is perhaps surprising that it has
- generally received so little coverage in the west.
-
-
..... And perhaps the reverse is true as well. How well has the scale of the air war over Europe been appreciated and understood in the East?

My personal opinion is that neither the Western allies nor the Eastern allies would have succeeded without the other. This, of course, can be argued to death, and probably will be. But, it is an impossible task to fully grasp and properly understand the vastly complex interrelations, influences, and interactions between the Eastern and Western fronts - way too many complex questions which will never be satisfactorily resolved, even assuming that we in fact have the full historical truth before us in terms of raw data.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 07:05 PM
The beginning of Cold War messed everything up. Former allies became enemies. And it was naturally that both sides tried to emphasize their contribution into victory.

Bad thing is that now, when Cold War is over people from both sides haven't get rid of this biased perception. Just take a look at the posts in this thread. Some people point out the fact that Soviets didn't provide the food to the civilians on occupied territory. But they are forgetting that their country was destroyed as well and soviet people were starving as well. And they are forgetting the fact of Allies bombing of Dresden and other German cities where were no military objects and only civilian population got hurt. So let's stop divide a victory. It was earned by all nations who resisted to the fascism.

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 07:11 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:

- My personal opinion is that neither the Western
- allies nor the Eastern allies would have succeeded
- without the other. This, of course, can be argued to
- death, and probably will be. But, it is an
- impossible task to fully grasp and properly
- understand the vastly complex interrelations,
- influences, and interactions between the Eastern and
- Western fronts - way too many complex questions
- which will never be satisfactorily resolved, even
- assuming that we in fact have the full historical
- truth before us in terms of raw data.

As personal opinions go, its a fine one, and indeed its not my aim to start a debate, however one has to take into account that the German army went into Russia in 1941 as a well trained veteran army with relatively good to even superb equipment, and they were swallowed up by the fast lands that made up the Soviet west. By the time they reached Moscow the offensive had literally lost its momentum.

If the Germans couldn't beat the Russians in 1941, they could at best manage a draw later in the war, even the gains of 1942 are strategically different from those in the previous year.

From that point onward it was simply matter of logistics, the fight in the East had been decided - it would have taken longer without the Western pressure and help and it might not have ended with the total defeat of Germany, but the Soviets would have ended the fight on THEIR terms, period.

I think the problem is emotional rather than material.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 07:21 PM
Oh maxim, who is calling the kettle black?

Dresden was bombed at the request of the Soviets. It also had many military targets. What other German cities with no military targets were bombed by the Allies?

What do you know of the Berlin Airlift? This was a deliberate ploy by the Soviets to starve the citizens of Berlin by blockade. The Russian 'breadbasket', the Ukraine, had been liberated for a year.


maxim26 wrote:
- The beginning of Cold War messed everything up.
- Former allies became enemies. And it was naturally
- that both sides tried to emphasize their
- contribution into victory.
-
- Bad thing is that now, when Cold War is over people
- from both sides haven't get rid of this biased
- perception. Just take a look at the posts in this
- thread. Some people point out the fact that Soviets
- didn't provide the food to the civilians on occupied
- territory. But they are forgetting that their
- country was destroyed as well and soviet people were
- starving as well. And they are forgetting the fact
- of Allies bombing of Dresden and other German cities
- where were no military objects and only civilian
- population got hurt. So let's stop divide a victory.
- It was earned by all nations who resisted to the
- fascism.
-


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 07:29 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Oh maxim, who is calling the kettle black?
-
- Dresden was bombed at the request of the Soviets. It
- also had many military targets. What other German
- cities with no military targets were bombed by the
- Allies?
-
- What do you know of the Berlin Airlift? This was a
- deliberate ploy by the Soviets to starve the
- citizens of Berlin by blockade. The Russian
- 'breadbasket', the Ukraine, had been liberated for a
- year.

Lets not loose focus in this thread, would be a shame if this became just another flamebait P.O.S.

The questions are

1. Did the Luftwaffe have a harder time in the East or the West?

2. Why either option, in figures and arguments.

and a little of

3. Eastern vs Western Front contribution to the War, although this is already out of focus.

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 07:38 PM
rhorta, I agree but could not let him away with his form of bias./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 07:42 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- rhorta, I agree but could not let him away with his
- form of bias

Thanks Milo, although I must admit that I can hardly blame you for your reaction, certainly if I take into account my past posting record! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 07:44 PM
Salute Rhorta

My source is Murray's book: "Luftwaffe", not the other books by him I have mentioned and I have included all tables relevant.

In regards to Maxim2's comment about Soviets losing 80,000 aircraft:

The figures are:

---------------Lost in Combat----------Lost Total

1941---------------10.300---------------17.900

1942---------------7,800----------------12,100

1943--------------11,200----------------22,500

1944-------------- 9.700----------------24,800

1945---------------4,100----------------11,000


Total-------------43,100----------------88,300

On the other hand, the official Soviet claim that they destroyed 60,000 German aircraft is not as can be seen by my charts.

The Soviets had huge losses in the air due to the initial surprise, and then following that, the fact that they had lost most of the experienced pilots, and their replacements were trained very poorly.

Tactically the Soviet Air Commanders, (and also the performance capabilities of their aircraft) forced their flyers into operating at low altitudes, which meant they were always at a disadvantage and subject to bounces.

There never was a concerted effort by the Soviets to gain air superiourity up high, and thus deny the Germans Jagdfliegers their ability to operate with impunity over the VVS.

I think if they had deliberately started to operate with Yak-3's and La-7's at higher altitudes, they could have succeeded.

Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 07:51 PM
From the LW OoB Jan '45 http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LWOB45.html

Courland > 215 a/c
Poland > 597 a/c

total > 812 a/c

In the west > 4069 a/c.
(Italy, Luftflotte 3, Luftflotte 5, Luftflotte Reich)

Austria, Hungary and the Balkans (Luftflotte 4) not included as was common to east and west.

Draw your own conclusions as to who the LW thought was the more dangerous opponent ./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:01 PM
Oh god so much emotional stuff in here /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif please don't start a discussion about the bomb raids on german towns in here now cause then this whole thread which is actually quite interesting will get spoiled. Just something i have to add to milo's post: it should be known by most ppl nowadays that the bomb raids on many towns(I'm mainly talking about the british night attacks here planned by Harris) had more or less the opposite effect of what he thought they'd have besides from killing civilians. and don't tell me this is not true, btw Harris was the only high rank british officer who didn't get an award after the war and Dresden was not of any military importance(which was admitted by the US itself btw)

anyway back to the topic:

You can;t say the LW was defeated in the west or east IMHO. Don't forget that the LW's losses in the western campaigns 39-41 were already very high not only in BoB but the attack on Poland, Weseruebung, the campaigns in Belgium and the NL and France. then Greece and Africa! The Lw was already weakened when it attacked Russia although it was the strongest airforce at theat time imo. They had great victories in the East for sure but they had really high losses there as well, especially the high losses of Transports and Bombers in Stalingrad. those were things the LW never recovered from. Then the allied offensives with bomber streams day and night caused the complete collaps of the LW. So you can't really say this or that was "harder". (i left out the fact that the RLM was too stupid to think of supporting development of new planes and other tactical mistakes like giving minor priority to "Reichsverteidigung" until it was too late) THE ALLIES!!!! won it not the US or GB or USSR or ...or...!!!!!!! I always think such arguments like "the russians only made it cause WE sent them trucks" are stupid. Surely it was a real help for the russians who knows what would have happened without those trucks and tanks? but on the other side, what would have happened if the russians wouldn't have defended their home at any cost as good as they could with inferior equipment??? I'm not so sure if there would have been any landing in the Normandy or anywhere else. The Allies won and that's good cause otherwise I'd be living in a dictatorship here and believe me I really don't like that idea. but let's not forget to be objective and don't stick to any stupid cold war ideas, thanks

2 things we need in FB:
The 110 and the desert!!!
http://exn.ca/news/images/1999/04/23/19990423-Me110coloursideMAIN.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:04 PM
Salute

Couple more comments:

Most of the Soviet losses in '43/'44/'45 were due to enemy Flak, in particular light flak.

If there is one aspect of warfare in which the Germans excelled, it was in their developement of AA to protect their ground units once they had lost air superiority. The Quad 20mm mounts, (most were not mounted in tracked vehicles, they are not represented in IL-2) were extremely effective against low altitude aircraft.

A lot of the VVS losses, were ground attack Squadrons, ie. IL-2's.

In fact in '44 and '45 the Soviets began to wholesale convert Fighter Squadrons into IL-2 Squadrons since they had a surplus of the first and a shortage of the latter.

By '44 and '45, German Fighter Aircraft were not seen very often, (only 450 based on the entire front) and it was deemed more important to bolster the ground support.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:18 PM
Apples and oranges. You may also find that there were a hell of a lot more flack and AAA losses for the Germans in the east. While the Germans on the western fromt enjoyed attacking bomber groups when the western fighters had to turn back for England. Way too many logistical variables for this data to be used to analize actual air to air superiority (East vs West), pilot skills or aircraft capabillities. Of coarse, given even numbers, I would put my money on the Luftwafe over either side.

The United States Air Force....
When you absolutely, positively, have to have it blown up over night.

492FS 48th FW Lakenheath England
http://www.raflakenheath.homestead.com/files/F_15TaxingTakeoff.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:22 PM
according "deutsche luftwaffe 1939/45" motorbuchverlag

date 06.06. 1944

eastern front
total 550 fighter , operationally 282


reichsverteidigung
total 1179 fighter , operationally 656

france/holland/belgium
total 288, operationally 156


balkan, greece
total 100 , operationally 44

italy, med.
total 171 , operationally 103

norway
total 79, operationally 51




http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:22 PM
maxim26 wrote:
- The beginning of Cold War messed everything up.
- Former allies became enemies. And it was naturally
- that both sides tried to emphasize their
- contribution into victory.
-
- Bad thing is that now, when Cold War is over people
- from both sides haven't get rid of this biased
- perception. Just take a look at the posts in this
- thread. Some people point out the fact that Soviets
- didn't provide the food to the civilians on occupied
- territory. But they are forgetting that their
- country was destroyed as well and soviet people were
- starving as well. And they are forgetting the fact
- of Allies bombing of Dresden and other German cities
- where were no military objects and only civilian
- population got hurt. So let's stop divide a victory.
- It was earned by all nations who resisted to the
- fascism.
-
-
-
Quite so. IIRC, the USSR itself suffered near famine in the immediate post-war years.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:38 PM
MiloMorai wrote:

- What do you know of the Berlin Airlift? This was a
- deliberate ploy by the Soviets to starve the
- citizens of Berlin by blockade. The Russian
- 'breadbasket', the Ukraine, had been liberated for a
- year.

2 milion civilians died as a result of a blockade of Leningrd (no St. Petersburg). So maybe that was an adequate response. As to Ukraine being liberated for a year already and not feeding hungry Europe. Maybe you come from Florida where they harvest twice a year or more. But in Ukraine we harvest only once a year. So with all the mighty workforce of women and children who already were pulling 14 hours shifts a day Ukraine couldn't feed even itself.


http://www.uploadit.org/files/131003-361067-med.jpg


"One day there is certain to be another order of the Soviet Union. It will be the Order of Zhukov, and that order will be prized by every man who admires courage, vision, fortitude, and determination in a soldier". -Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1945

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:57 PM
No I come from a country that ONLY has ONE harvest per season./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif We still send 'grain' to other countries, INCLUDING the former USSR, from our surplus.


Desant_CCCP wrote:
-
-
- 2 milion civilians died as a result of a blockade of
- Leningrd (no St. Petersburg). So maybe that was an
- adequate response. As to Ukraine being liberated for
- a year already and not feeding hungry Europe. Maybe
- you come from Florida where they harvest twice a
- year or more. But in Ukraine we harvest only once a
- year. So with all the mighty workforce of women and
- children who already were pulling 14 hours shifts a
- day Ukraine couldn't feed even itself.
-
-


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 09:04 PM
Boandlgramer wrote:
- according "deutsche luftwaffe 1939/45"
- motorbuchverlag
-
- date 06.06. 1944
-
- eastern front
- total 550 fighter , operationally 282
-
-
- reichsverteidigung
- total 1179 fighter , operationally 656
-
- france/holland/belgium
- total 288, operationally 156
-
-
- balkan, greece
- total 100 , operationally 44
-
- italy, med.
- total 171 , operationally 103
-
- norway
- total 79, operationally 51

Of course one must keep in mind that the focus on fighters alone skews the picture somewhat.

Also by the the time shown here (D-day) the Germans were already long aware of the immenent danger of an invasion in the West and had been deploying fighters accordingly, to be able to fight over the invasion front once it formed up. Most of the units had been deployed in depth - the Reich - for two simple reasons.

1. They did not know the exact location.

2. The forward airfields were under almost constant air attack, not a place to hold a strategic reserve.

But of course ALL numbers and OOB stats are welcome.

Have been looking at my own stuff, but only at a glance, maybe I'll try to fill some gaps tomorrow, since I'm about to catch some early Zs /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ruy "SPADES" Horta
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta
-----------------------------
Il-2 - VEF JG 77
-----------------------------
'95-02 - WB Jagdgeschwader 53
'99-00 - DoA Jagdstaffel 18
-----------------------------
The rest is history...

http:\\www.xs4all.nl\~rhorta\brother.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 09:18 PM
rhorta wrote:
- Boandlgramer wrote:
-- according "deutsche luftwaffe 1939/45"
-- motorbuchverlag
--
-- date 06.06. 1944
--
-- eastern front
-- total 550 fighter , operationally 282
--
--
-- reichsverteidigung
-- total 1179 fighter , operationally 656
--
-- france/holland/belgium
-- total 288, operationally 156
--
--
-- balkan, greece
-- total 100 , operationally 44
--
-- italy, med.
-- total 171 , operationally 103
--
-- norway
-- total 79, operationally 51

German planes in Finland(Lappland) in the end of the 1944 (Komm. Gen.d.Dt.Lw.i.Finnland):

September
Close recon single seater 10/9
- " - others 9/8
long range recon 16/14
Fighters 54/50
Nightfighters 11/8
Night attack 39/34
Transport 4/4
Maritime 8/7
Weather recon 8/6
Sea rescue 11/10


November
Close recon single seater 7/5
- " - others 6/6
long range recon 14/8
Fighters 54/45
Nightfighters 4/2
Night attack 39/31
Transport 31/28
Maritime 15/10
Weather recon -/-
Sea rescue 5/5



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 09:39 PM
Milo,

I can't speak to agricultural science issues. But, the Ukraine, which had been long known as the "breadbasket of Europe" was a depopulated wasteland by 1945. The Germans had destroyed everything possible during their retreat, and the Red Army had swept up every able-bodied man they found for military service. Add to this the fact that the USSR then had to prosecute a (little-publicized) ten year war against Ukrainian partisans after the 1945 end of official hostilities.

It's not hard to believe that Soviet crop yields were poor in the immediate post war years. Germany suffered similar post-war harvest problems.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 09:40 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- No I come from a country that ONLY has ONE harvest
- per season./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif We still send 'grain' to other
- countries, INCLUDING the former USSR, from our
- surplus.


Canada is it? Ok so you are saing that Ukraine that was just liberated, that had 90% of its male popluation fighting in the Red Army, that lost millions of civilians as a reslult of artificial hanger inflicted by Stalin in 20's, when the whole villigies where burned to the ground and farmers hung and shot all over, shouldve compared with Canada by its agricultural production?

This is more that rediculous comparison.

http://www.uploadit.org/files/131003-361067-med.jpg


"One day there is certain to be another order of the Soviet Union. It will be the Order of Zhukov, and that order will be prized by every man who admires courage, vision, fortitude, and determination in a soldier". -Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1945

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 12:42 AM
Well we didn't butcher our civilians, nor send our soldiers to the slaughter either. We had more respect for human life./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Just be thankful the west was there for you with L-L.

Aviation Fuel(thousands of tons)

Allied Deliveries 2586 - 59%
Soviet Production 1810 - 41%

Railroad rails

Soviet Production 48,990
Allied Deliveries 622,100 - 92.7%

Locomotives

Allied Deliveries 1966 - 81.6%

Soviet Production 2635
Allied Deliveries 11,075 - 80.7%

Copper Ore(in tons)

Soviet Production 470,000
Allied Deliveries 387,600 - 45.2%

Aluminum(thousands of tons)

Allied Deliveries 328.1 - 55.5%

Machine Tools

Soviet Production 115,400
Allied Deliveries 44,704 - 27.9%

Note: If complexity is accounted for than the Allied contribution is considerably more important than the figures would suggest. Allied machine tools were considerably more complex and versatile than Soviet machine tools.

Sugar(thousands of tons)

Soviet Production 1,460
Allied Deliveries 610 - 29.5%

Meat(thousands of tons)

Soviet Production 3,715
Allied Deliveries 664.9 - 15.1%



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"