Operation Steinbock question
 

Any statistics for Operation Steinbock? The inet is hit and miss.

- number of sorties flown
- number of raids
- losses - enemy and other causes - total and per raid
- weight of bombs dropped - total and per raid
- was the operation considered a success or a failure

Thanks for any info.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Between 1 Jan and 31 May '44 the Luftwaffe launched about 4,426 bomber sorties and lost 243 of these (to enemy action). In addition, 227 Jabo sorties were launched (10 losses) while the RAF put up at least 4,400 night fighter sorties to counter these operations during the five months.

As to whether it was worth it or not - depends entirely upon which side you a referencing for an answer. For the Luftwaffe it killed civilians and military personal alike (satisfying Hitler's call for vengence), it disrupted to a degree the British production base and diverted a/c otherwise useful in offensive operations away from such operations. For England it was a minor inconvenience that did well to sap the already over-taxed kampfwaffe in the build up for Overlord and at the same time diverting units away from the Russian and southern theatre of operations.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

During the period stated, losses by the Jabos of I/SKG 10 for operational reasons was 20 not 10

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

oh - but is that entirely to defensive fire over the UK/Channel and not including RTBs/Ditching? (ie 100%)

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

12 due to Flak, fighters, missing; 7 crashing on return (100%), 1 friendly fire. If the chap was unwounded, this is not recorded so figures could be higher again

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Thanks guys.

Any info on the number of missions flown by each multi engined bomber type and their losses?

Again, weight of bombs dropped and if possible by a/c type.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Hi Chris

May I ask for details of the I/SKG10 loss to friendly fire that you idicate, please.

Cheers
Brian

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Brian

This unit suffered quite a number and a cursory look show dthe following:

8 May 43-3/SKG 10, Ar 96 B-2 4784, shot down by Flak Beauvais, Uffz Paul Ebbinghaus killed
4 Oct 43-3/SKG 10, FW 190 A-5, 1733, damaged by Flak & crashed off Ste Nazaire, Fw Nils Petersen killed
4 Oct 43-I/SKG 10, FW 190 A-5, 1526, 20% damage by German Flak off Ste Nazaire
6 Oct 43-1/SKG 10, FW 190 A-5, 1465, 30% damage, landed St Andre
7 Apr 44-3/SKG 10, FW 190 G-3, 160640, shot down by Flak & crashed 15 km west of Doullens. FjOfw Ernst Koepcke killed

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Hi Chris

Thanks a million - I realise I have a long way to go to complete my Luftwaffe friendly fire incidents lists!

Cheers
Brian

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Kutcha
not what you asked but monthly losses.
According to Ken Wakefield's article on Oper. Steinbock in The Blitz Then and Now
in Jan 44 loss rate was 7,8%, 57a/c lost
in Feb 5,2%, 72a/c
in March 8,3% , 75a/c
in April 8,7%, 75a/c

Juha

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Thanks Juha.

The numbers you posted are slightly higher than what Adam posted. Could that number include those a/c written off?

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Hello Kutscha
Adam's figure are to enemy action, maybe Wakefield's numbers incl also operational losses. I have now very busy, so I probably will have time to check Wakefield's article during the weekend at earliest.

Juha

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

From what info. I have between Jan.21st and May 31st 1944 attacks on the UK were made on 52 nights with a total of some 4700 sorties by the Luftwaffe giving a potential to drop 8000T (approx) on the UK. During attacks on London, Bristol, Hull, Portsmouth, Plymouth,Torquay, Falmouth plus Intruder/Recon missions and during transfer flights prior to raids some 335 a/c were lost ( based mainly on NVM's where there was injury/loss of crews reported, other aircraft losses happened where the crew were safe see Ulf Balkes KG 2 history which illustrates this). By aircraft type at least the following are recorded 165 Ju 88's, 60 Ju188's, 42 Do217's, 21 He 177's, 20 Fw190's, 24 Me410's plus 2 recon. Bf109's and 1 Bf109 desertion in the period. These losses caused the Luftwaffe to lose some 1100 aircrew either killed,wounded or POW with at least another 100 injured in crashes on the Continent against some 1600 people killed in the UK,
In the period Jan.21st to Mar.25th. against a potential to have dropped approx. 3500 T. of bombs on the UK it was estimated that 1885 T. landed in this country with only 760T landing in the London area which was the main target in this period. Up untill the raid on Feb.18/19th the RAF assessment was that the bombing was poor with better results for the rest of February but falling off again after this. Raids on Brisol and Hull were judged as failures ( see PRO file WO199/912 )
I guess these figures show what people have to suffer in war when 760 T. of bombs to London in a two month period is looked on as failing, I hope this is of help and my sums are right,

Regards

Brian Bines

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

1 out of every 2 bombs did not hit the right country. Only one in five hit a target the size of London. One aircraft lost for every 2 ton of bombs that did hit London, plus whatever accuracy was obtained on the other missions. That's close to one aircraft lost for every two sorties on target.

Whatever the sufferings of Londoners, or indeed Bristolians and others, that's not a successful bombing campaign.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Dr Alfred Price in Blitz on Britain (Ian Allan, 1977, p170) says during the first 5 months of 1944 air raid casualties in Britain totalled 1,556 killed and 2,916 seriously wounded. More than half of these resulted from five concentrated attacks on London commencing with that of 18 Feb.
Losses amounted to more than 300 aircraft, about 60% of the number available at the beginning of the operation.
The Luftwaffe, he states, lost approximately one bomber and four trained crewman for every five British civilians killed on the ground.

BC

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

The more general question is hv ALL strategic bombings failed ???
Put apart the moral question, it seems..

Rémi

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Define failure. The Strategic Bombing Survey of Germany concluded that it had been a success. It is difficult to argue with the success of the B-29 against Japan.

If the criteria is the defeat of a nation by strategic bombing alone, then the answer is that it has never been tried. Wisely, I feel. It is argued that the retreat of the Serbian forces from Kosovo with no direct action other than aerial attack proved the principle. Others disagree, but then there will always be disagreements over such involved matters.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Try to get hold of a recent paperback "The Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze. It's about the economy of the Third Reich and includes an interesting discussion of the impact of Allied bombing.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

THks Nik for the hint try to get this one,

Graham when I wrote my message I think about the Serbian case, Serbia hv to lay down when International.com , read the USA, decide to put them dow, any mean they use they fail, Concerning Germany nd Japan man could think that when they decided, or forced to be defensive they hv lost the war nd by far no strategic war hv been engaged against them at that time.

"nation by strategic bombing alone, then the answer is that it has never been tried"
England tried nd failed nd without the back-up of the US this strategy to invest considerable assets in the bombers could hv been the only way to loose the War for U.K..

Remi

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Two things need to be considered.

Firstly, those 300+ plus bombers appearantly include aircraft lost in the accidents/non-enemy related causes, and one has to wonder what a bomber crashing on takeoff at France and becoming a write-off would mean 4 lost bomber crews in each and every case, like it would be if the bomber would be lost over England. I belive Price is actually quoting some Churchillian paper from the given wartime period, actually, estimates on enemy losses, with a bit of a political spin on it. It would be most interesting to see the actual figures.

Secondly, it would appear the targets included a good deal of other things than just civillians - Londond docks for example, and major seaports - so a bizarre comparison of dead civvies vs. dead aircrews is odd, and simplifies things as well.

The '60% lost' figure is also nice, save for it appears to be a smokescreen for the fact that overall, the losses were not particularly heavy by any standard - we`re speaking of a period of five months here, which works out to 60 bombers lost per month, of which about 40-50 lost per month to enemy action over Britain. That`s considerably less than the losses suffered between July-October 1940, and quite miniscule compared to the big picture. Bomber Command lost as many, or even twice as many during single raids over Germany, rather than a month..

If my Excell tables on German bombers (ie. Kampfgeschwadern only) losses are correct (I think there are some small glithces, but the number is apprx. good, certainly not less), it shows for example 191 bombers lost to enemy action, 148 to non-enemy action, and 169 were written off to overhauls and repairs. 508 in a single month to all causes, and yet the bomber force alltogether stood at some 2200 aircraft by the end of January.

From Jan-May, the figures are ~881 enemy, ~700 n-e, ~1063 to Überholung, total ~2644. It would also appear that some 150 bombers were transferred from bomber units to others during the period.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

In fact the discussion is not , at my sense , the loss are worth the damages caused ??, but is there any sense to throw bombs as near blind, just to obliged ennemy to build-up its defence, compare to WWII the qties of bombs dropped over vietnam was quite more considerable without having caused the expected results
Yes the losses suffered by the KG during the Baby-blitz were soft , more serious hv been the high consume of gasoline, to prepare nd conduct those raids, not speaking of the relatively poor response bombers gave after to the Normandy "raid",
Even Goering at the time of "baedecker" was not convince of utility of these bombings

remi

Germans were never in position to conduct a Strategic war, people could also thing that even England don't hv the means of this politic, just the US with the atomic-bomb....

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Further to the loss question on Steinbock aircraft looking through the lists shows the following - 18 aicraft on transfer flights ( including 1 which fell to fighters over the UK), 72 Steinbock aircraft falling on or near the UK ( plus the one on transfer flight and non-Steinbock related desertion ), 110 crashes on the Continent, 129 further aircaft listed as missing, 5 aircraft on recon. missions plus the 1 desertion (not Steinbock).
Transfer Flights - 17 of the 18 aircraft were lost as follows 9 to Allied Fighters, 3 to own Flak, 4 to engine/technical problems and 1 to Fighters over the UK. Of the 83 aircrew involved in the 17 incidents 50 were killed and 17+ injured/wounded. Addtionally there were casualties amongst groundcrew carried on some of these aircraft
Crashes on the Continent while on Steinbock attacks - 93 incidents with some form of loss of aircrew. Of these 25 were to aircraft returning with NF/AA damage, 23 crashed following technical/ engine trouble, 9 fell to intruders, 3 fell to own Flak, at least 15 crashed on landing/take off, and 6 crashed followng weather/navigation problems. Of the 356 aircrew in these incidents 176 were killed and over 70 injured/wounded.
Recon. Flights - a Ju 88 ( 3 POW's and 1 killed), 2 Ju188's and a Bf 109 (crews missing) lost on missions to Scotland plus one Bf 109 (pilot Killed)shot down over France returning from a mission to London/Thames Estuary (checking Steinbock bomb -damage ?)

Aircraft not included in the 335 losses, 2 Ju290's shot down by fighters while on sea-recon near Ireland, a Ju 52 of KG6 crashed on transfer flight killing 11 groudcrew passengers, Ju88S of KG66 on domestic flight, 3 Me410's of KG51 on non-op. flights, 4 Ju188's of operational staffels of KG2 on non-op. flights, a Ju88 of KG6 and a He177 of KG100 shot down by fighters while on workshop flights, a Arado 96 plus 5 Fw190's of I/SKG10 on domesic/non-Steinbock missions

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

A couple of comments.

Steinbock losses were not "soft", however they compare with cherry-picked examples from Bomber Command, as they have to be compared with the available forces and the overall loss rate. Soft or not, they did not produce results proportional to the effort, even by the standards of other bombing campaigns, even if discussed only in terms of civilian damage. As for bombing seaports, wasn't the main effect of the bombing of Bristol the destruction of the shopping centre?

The British did not attempt to win the war by strategic bombing alone, although much effort was placed behind this as the one direct means of hitting Germany between 1940 and 1944. Unable to field an Army capable of facing the German one, or indeed of transporting one to any point of contact, in the early years they did manage to defeat Germany's main ally on two different fronts. The Army was continually expanded and improved, not an effort that would have been needed had a genuine attempt at winning by bombing alone been intended. The Navy carried out a trade blockade of Germany which was successful in preventing the supply of war materials such as key metals, rubber and fuels, amongst others. Later they had to fight the Japanese as well. All in all, Britain was rather busy even without the bombers.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

The losses to all causes are important because accidents in France and in the training units were all part of the cost to Germany of conducting the Steinbock campaign. The numbers of aircraft that were sent over on the first raids could nor be sustained as the campaign progressed. The first raid involved about 400 aircraft, within a month 200 or less was more typical and in the last few raids less than 100.

Units brought back from Italy for Steinbock but had to be returned after the Anzio landing. Typical raids in Italy in early 1944 involved about 100–110 aircraft.

If the whole bomber force was 2200, a much smaller number could actually bomb targets on a given night.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

In the back of Simon Parry's excellent 1987 book Intruders over Britain it mentions that a book about Steinbock was due to be published by the same company. It never came to light.

I spoke to an aviation artist last September at the Victory Show in Leicestershire UK and he told me that - finally - he knows that somebody is writing a book about Operation Steinbock for publication. Sorry, I haven't got anymore details than that, but when I next see him, I'll ask again and post more info.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

This is weird logic as the LW didn't have the a/c to spare while the RAF did. Would say the real smokescreen is the RAF numbers shot down.

LW bomber losses:
Jan 44 loss rate was 7.8%
Feb - 5.2%
March - 8.3%
April - 8.7%

For comparison, RAF BC losses for the same months:
Jan 44 loss rate was 5.6%
in Feb - 5.2%
in March - 3.6%
in April - 2.6%

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

The Luftwaffe on the Eve of Overlord, 31 May 44

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters - 1063
Twin-engined fighters - 151
Night fighters - 572
>> Fighter-bombers - 278
>> Ground-attack aircraft - 352
>> Night harassment aircraft - 305
>> Twin-engined bombers - 840
>> Four-engined bombers - 97
Long-range reconaissance aircraft - 153
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft - 210
Coastal aircraft - 123
Transport aircraft - 719
Kampfgeschwader - 200 (misc. aircraft65
Total - 4928
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...html#Jagdwaffe

I would say that 2200 number is not so factual as includes a/c that can carry bombs but are not actually classed as bombers.

What do the number of bombers and their losses on other fronts have to do with the Baby Blitz?

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Hello
As RT wrote the main point is was the damage done worth of resources used. And IMHO they were not. The 2 late Feb attacks on London were rather successful and time to time some railway infrastructures were hit or blocked but usually bombing was very bad and the British got idea of intended targets only after interrogating PoWs and/or from maps found in wrecks.
On the attacks on harbours which Kurfürst mentioned, according to Ken Wakefield in his article on Oper. Steinbock in The Blitz Then and Now Vol 3
29/30 April on Plymouth, 101 sorties flown by LW, 8 tonnes of bombs hit Plymouth
14/15 May on Bristol, 91 sorties, 3 tonnes hit Bristol
15/16 May on Portsmouth, 106 sorties, 1,4 tonnes hit Portsmouth
22/23 May on Portsmouth, 104 sorties, 1,5 tonnes hit Portsmouth
27/28 May on Weymouth, 28 sorties, 13 tonnes hit Weymouth
28/29 Mat Falmouth, 51 sorties, missed altogether but 18 KIA, 6 MIA and 6 badly injured in Torquay

With that sort of accuracy IMHO the attcks were not worth of fuel used, even less so to crews lost. To my understanding the critical factor to LW was crew casualties, they had difficulties to replace combat ops capable lost crews.

Juha

Ps Brian Bines
Thanks a lot for Your statistics.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

What was the target that night ? Plymouth itself or dock installations and warships in the harbor ...? If I understand correctly Mr. Beale`s Kampfflieger book, it would seem that at least the Do 217s of III./KG 100 were targeting the harbor and warships on that night, and this series of raids on ports in late April/early May aimed at invasion shipping gathering in British ports and certainly not in British cities. Disraelihas a fitting quote about statistics, but it escapes me at the moment, yet it does make me wonder if your other statistics were arrived at in a similiar fashion.

There`s, of course, no arguement about that the Steinbock operation was a small operation, using very limited resources - ie. compare the ~4500 or so sorties flown in five months to the ~3700 night bomber sorties flown in September 1940 alone - yielding limited losses and limited gains.

Re: Operation Steinbock question
 

Undoubtedly, but since the practice has been, at least when it comes to Bomber Command operations to count only enemy related losses (see Nürnberg raid, where only the 96 lost over the target is counted, and not those being written off back in base, lost over the sea or to accidents), I`d go with a similiar practice when it comes to Steinbock.

The ca 2200 would of course include the entire Kampfflieger fleets, ie. all aircraft present with all KG units in all theatres. It is just to put the Steinbock losses into a broader perspective. Steinbock has been occasionally as some sort of a decimation of the LW bomber force, yet looking at the loss statatistics, and the rate of montly losses in the previous years, such statements cannot be justified.

As you`ve pointed out, the raids were of typically rather small scale.

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