Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

This may be an misunderstanding from language differences: the phrase "8 tonnes hit Plymouth" does not imply the city as opposed to the dockyard: it would be rather difficult to separate the two. Whether it excludes bombs that fell into the harbour I cannot say, but I would assume it includes all observed bombs falling there. Perhaps a relevant question would be how many ships were sunk (none, I believe) and how much damage was done to harbour installations?

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

It depends how the statistics are made, and this one appears to narrow it down to the city (wheter or not it includes the dock areas).

What would be of some use asserting the Operation as a whole, and not based on a few selected examples, would be IMHO a database gathering, on a given day :

- amount of sorties flown by the LW bombers on given date (breakdown if there were several targets)
- similiarly, defensive sorties flown by night fighters
- that night`s target/aim points for the Luftwaffe
- damage done to the target
- colletaral damage done on that evening to other targets due to misses, misnavigation (bombing other cities/ports by mistake).
- losses of aircraft and aircrew, broken down to enemy action, accidents, non-operational accidents, due to intruder missions and strafings.

The dangers with half-complete statistics are IMHO obvious. Sadly, I have not yet came around of a publication that would dig the subject in such professional manner. Take a look at the Nürnberg Raid for example. Note the

number of bombs dropped on Nürnberg (marginal, of course other cities were mistakenly hit, too),
casulties caused in Nürnberg (ie. a dozen or so, but again, some occured in other cities),
note the loss of aircrew (545 lost) ,
and aircraft (can give either 96 lost directly to enemy action, or 106 if you include bombers written off in Britain),
and sorties flown (795).

Now assess the effects of the Battle of Berlin based on that raid`s statistics, which would be rather unflattering of course - and false.

Again, I refer to the Disraeli quote.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Kurfürst
I just typed one month "major" operations, there were no "major" operations in first 2 weeks of May. No selection on my part other than the timeframe. As simple as that. Targets were ports. Nothing significant hit on other places except during the Falmouth raid when casualties in Torquay is mentioned. Maybe difficult to believe by you but I recommended that you try to get the book and read the article and draw your own conclusions. There were earlier at least two attacks on Hull and one on Bristol which completely missed the target but on the other hand all four attacks on London in late Feb were clearly more successful than that/those in Jan and those May raids listed in my earlier message.

Juha

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

To give a mit more grain, nd to explain the "few", pls note,

Brian stated the losses at 335 planes nd 250 crew casualties they hv to be compared, even if comparaison is not raison, with the total losses of Luftwaffe for 1943, they amount to
22839 planes + 5000 for the second-lines units so gross total of 28.000 among them 7.700 of the type that interest us for Steinbock , 1944 hv not to be lower even if we found less multi-engines planes, so 335 is a bit more that 1% of total loss, considering the crews 19.000 hv been "damaged" to any extand so we hv comparable %, so 1+% FOR THE MAJOR OPERATION OF THE FIRST HALF OF 1944 not too costly.., but for sure its difficult to know if goals are achieved because there is no goal. Maybe the sole goal was to regain initiative..

Considering the position of England in 1940 everybody knows that She is rulling half part of the world at that time , more powerfull that the USA today, so if in the first 3 years of war we hv to be satisfied because they hv put aside Italy.....No sure at that time that England consider better the italians than anyone of her colonial-subjects

Concerning the number of bombers engaged in the Italian raids , a part the one over Bari, the 100 pcs figure surprise me how many hv been flown with this type of strength ??

Remi

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

They demonstrate that in 1944 the Luftwaffe lacked the means to sustain a large force of bombers on any front for long. Contemporaneous strengths and losses on other fronts also demonstrate that losses over England could not readily be made good from elsewhere.
Well yes, so why were they not bigger (even adding up all the sorties on every front on any given night)? I would say because the Luftwaffe, the training organisation and the industry behind them were incapable of achieving more. If Steinbock didn't hurt the force, then it's still a fact that over Normandy the nightly effort was seldom more than 100 sorties.

Finally: Brian refers to "going through the lists." Which ones, Brian - you haven't found the Gen.Qu. 1944 loss lists have you? (I know … too much to hope for, but I can dream!)

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Well yes, so why were they not bigger (even adding up all the sorties on every front on any given night)? I would say because the Luftwaffe, the training organisation and the industry behind them were incapable of achieving more. If Steinbock didn't hurt the force, then it's still a fact that over Normandy the nightly effort was seldom more than 100 sorties.

I still wonder why so few, nd why hv'nt not be able to hv train the force in this particuliar eventuallity I mean the Landing, with no succesful landing in 1944 the war last one more year, if no succesful landing in 1945....

Remi

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Nick sorry I have not found the 1944 QM lists, I just have the NVM's for most of the units involved, plus a list of aircraft with technical problems for the first three raids supplemented by some unit histories and help from other enthusiasts. I have just made up my own hand written lists ( typing takes me a while) if I had the 1944 QM's list I would pay someone to type for me from the proceeds.
Looking at Kurfursts last post from damage reports, NVM's, combat reports plus various PRO files perhaps this will help:-

Two wave attack on 21/22-1-1944 - first wave reported as 227 bombers carring 230T of bombs, second wave 217 bombers carrying 245T of bombs. the RAF put up 96 fighter sorties to oppose both attacks ( from Dr. Prices book) with 29, 85, 96, 151 and 488 Sqds. claiming 8 shot down 1 probable and two damaged additionally AA claimed several more.
Target given as the Waterloo area. PRO reports show that in the first wave around 100 crossed the South coast between Hastings and Dungeness with only 15 attacking London, of the second wave only 13 were reported over London other incidents in Essex and Sussex, and over 100 incidents in Kent. From the two wave attack only some 30T of bombs hit London. A Home Office report compares to the Birmingham raid of 29/30-7-1942 as follows:-

London 21/22-1-1944 4 killed 76 serious inj. 12 Key Points hit, 91 fires

Bimingham29/30-7-42 95 killed 289 serious inj. 35Key points hit, 333 fires

Luftwaffe losses for this night were 1 Me410. 6 Do 217's, 6 Ju 188's, 14 Ju88's, 8 He 177's and 1 Fw 190 - 9 of these fell on or near the UK, 14 crashed on the Continent and 13 were missing three of those crashing on the UK fell to AA and three more returned with AA damage. Aircrew losses from these were 44 killed including two who bailed out over the channel but whoes aircraft returned plus two Beobachter of KG66 one given as Hohenkrank and the other as Hohentod, 58 men were missing, 11 injured and there were 16 POW's. In addition another 39 aircraft suffered some form of technical problems ( those with crew losses are included above).
So the majority of losses do not seem to have been to the UK Defences.


For the raid on 24/25-2-1944 it was reported 170 bombers were available with 195T bombs to attack Goverment Buildings in the Westminster area. From the British side over 100+ bombers crossed the South Coast flying to a turning Point near High Wycombe then making for London where 80T of bombs were scattered over the capital with another 25T in the Home Counties. In London 75 people were killed 2 serious fires started with another 29 medium and 210 smaller fires (Home Office Figures).
Against RAF claims by 29, 85, 96 and 488 Sqd's. for 2 He177's, 2 Ju 188's a Ju88 damaged and another probable, a Me410 damaged, three D0217's and another probable the Luftwaffe lost 2 Do217's, 3 Ju 188's, 3 Ju88's plus one damaged, and a He177 ( six crashes on the UK, 2 aircraft missing and two crashing on the Continent with N/F damage ). In addition an Intruder of 605 Sqd claimed an enemy aircraft damaged at Melsbroek. Luftwaffe aircrew losses were 18 killed, 7 missing, 2 inj. and 14 POW's.

Hopefully this compares a raid with poor results to a more successful one.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Thank you Nick.

Any know what happened to the JG26 site that had Groehlers loss numbers?

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Two wave attack on 21/22-1-1944

Average bomb load
- 2026lb
- 2258lb

raid on 24/25-2-1944

Average bomb load
- 2294lb

This looks well below the published numbers for the a/c taking part in the raids. (~21% of average load capacity)

He 111 H-6 - 4,409 lb (internal) and 5,512 lb (external)
He 177 A-5 - up to 23,760lb
Ju 188E - 9,900lb
Ju 88 - 5,511 lb
Do 217M-1 - up to 8,818 lb

Average - 10,700lb

Any numbers for the actual bomb loads carried by each type of bombers?

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

For 20/21 feb. raid we hv the figures stated in ADI/k

Ju88a-4 2xSC500 + 10x50 kg brandbomben
Ju188 2xAB 1000 + 10x 50 kg

So well above the 21 % mark, on these raids the pathfinders don't carry bombs

remi