Luftwaffe Myths
 

Hello Ladies & Gentlemen:

I am new to the list so perhaps I will stumble a bit while I learn how it all works. Please bear with me.

Looking at the Luftwaffe's performance during WW II, I am struck at the lack of objectivity in most descriptions of this organization. Claims made by the Luftwaffe (e.g. kills, confirmation process, world beater status) would likely not be readily believed were they have been made by American, British, Japanese or Russian air forces, yet they are accepted as indisputable fact when discussing the Luftwaffe. Leadership in the Luftwaffe was strikingly deficient, and the emphasis on single pilot victories led, in my estimation, to a poor showing by the German Air Force in its entirety. All in all it was not exactly a "world beater" air force. Rather, at least initially, it was second rung fighting organization which gave the impression of being better than it was, due to the even worse performance of its initial opponents. After going up against truly organized air forces (RAF during the Battle of Britain, and the USAAF after its initial teething problems), the Luftwaffe really performed in a rather mediocre manner.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Hi, and welcome,

I presume that this initial post is intended to get replies to every aspect of your statement in which case it could generate the longest thread ever seen! I would strongly sugest that you use the search facility provided and you will get answers or comment to everything you mention as it has all been covered previously.

I feel that the wording of your post could also apply to the RAF and USAAF at various times, it wasn't just the Luftwaffe that suffered deficiencies in various areas, including that of 'kill' claims. I feel certain that no-one on this forum sees anything Luftwaffe related as 'indisputable fact' without being able to refer to hard and conclusive evidence.

Just my two penny worth to help you!

Regards

David

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Not by many people here, they aren't. Follow David's suggestion and explore the site a bit more; matching claims to actual losses is a repeated theme.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

As my kids would say:

Lol!!

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Lol?

Sorry, I did not understand what you were "Lol-ing" about. This forum is not very easy to use.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Sure, the RAF and USAAF certainly could exagerate their claims too, but the sheer magnitude of some (actually, many) Luftwaffe "kill" claims defies all reason. For instance, if you take all of their fighter pilots with kill claims of 150 or more, you come up with 97 pilots. Now if you add up their total scores, you get an astonishing nearly 14,000 kills...! Thats a whole air force destroyed by less than 100 fighter pilots? Is it just me, or do I smell something fishy?

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Thanks David. Yes, as a matter of fact my first posting was designed to get a big response. I am trying to get a feel for what this forum is about. Is it all "Hooray for the Luftwaffe", or are members willing to take a second look?

I find navigating this forum a bit confusing. Have to work on it a bit, I guess.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Hi Kidlawyrs and welcome to forum [btw I am not authorized to say welcome to any...]

Idea of the forum is to make direct comunication betwwen users and in this way the users are aviation ethusiast of vatious form- researchers, authors, fans, modelers and so on. No doubt that it is possible to find errors in any kind of publications. Error could be made but lack of data, bad interpretation of data and by humman error [intentionally or not]. So the idea of message boards is to make very quick data available and display it for mutual benefit and comments.

Navigating of this forum shouldnot be a problem. When you get on the main page you will note that subjecys are arranged in sections separated with graphic elements. This make faster and better recognition for the visitors. Also each board could have its own sub-board and good sample is the board with publications.

But fact is that it is not easy to search all forum as well we are faces with hundred of pages and thiusand of post made by members. So use Search option given on the forum. You will find it in the top of the main page. Click on it and you will have diplay new page where you have to put in the field what you like to find. Then press Enter on your keyboard and then you will selected all topic and post where the subject you loking for is mentioned. But this is machine and can not do that perfect but definitely help.

Hope this will help you to adopt on this forum. And don't worry about the Lol used above- all those are fine people and soon or later you find find this.

Cheers :)

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Thanks for the help, Pilot.
I was not really worrying about the "Lol", I just did not understand its context. Sometimes I say funny things...intentionally or not!

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Someone is being coy. "LOL" is simply "laugh out loud."

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Assuming you are not just a troll, and you do raise these questions out of ignorance (we all start that way) rather than malice, then you deserve perhaps a better answer than some have given.

In all airforces, only a handful of pilots make the majority of the kills. In most airforces, the majority of pilots will only fly one or two tours of frontline duty (perhaps 100 sorties each) before being rested, sent back to train others, or whatever. They are rarely fully effective in the first half of their first tour. The Luftwaffe did not work that way: its leading pilots flew thousands of missions, throughout the war. The second highest-rated ace, Barkhorn, did not score a single kill before his 100th mission (or close to that, I can't quote the exact detail). The number of kills is very much a function of opportunity: the RAF aces scored at a high rate during the Battle of Britain and Greece, the US in the final months of the war. The Germans faced superior numbers almost throughout - a target rich environment for the skilled. If you regard the number of kills as a proportion of missions flown, the high numbers are not unreasonable. Allied aces flew hundreds of missions and sored in the tens: Germans flew thousands of missions and scored in the hundreds. Another way is to divide the number of kills by the number of times shot down: Hartmann was shot down some 16 times (an average of 34 - less than Pattle or Johnson). A US pilot shot down ended up in the cooler and his war was over.

As for the organisation: I think you need to read more widely into the way the Luftwaffe was established. There was little wrong with its organisation in the early years of the war. Most of the matters you touch on are discussed in the literature, which is voluminous but well worth studying. Its failings later have more to do with Germany's economic and political inadequacies than lack of skill, and require rather more exposition that a message board such as this can provide.

I would agree with one point: the Luftwaffe concentration on its aces and their scores did not always serve it best, and the role of Marseille in the Desert campaign is perhaps a good case study.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

..and talking of Hartmann, there is a thread on the board somewhere that deals with his (fanciful) victory total.....certainly his 'reputation' is undergoing some revision ..at least on the Russian side...the point being most of the hagiographic idolatry that has formed 'opinion' on the leading Luftwaffe ace(s) (in this instance Toliver's 'Blond Knight' ) was published at the height of the Cold War - or earlier. (the Schiffer/Kurowski bio of Marseille is mostly based on a 1944 text entitled 'Mein Freund Marseille' written by a PK reporter)

Russian author Dimitri Khazanov wrote recently in 'Le Fana' a propos Hartmann ;

".. For several years now Russian aviation historians have disputed Erich Hartmann's 'record' of 352 aerial combat victories, claimed over the course of 825 sorties. Nobody looking at these figures, extracted from Toliver's biography, and having some knowledge of air combat operations (….) can fail to wonder just how much truth there is in these claims (….) German archives are themselves contradictory. Only 289 of Hartmann's 'victories' were in fact 'officially confirmed' before the German claims sytem broke down in early 1945, while only 307 of his supposed claims had been officially filed before the end of the war..(..) As everyone knows, the initial months of combat on the Russian front were significant for huge losses of men and matériel on the Russian side. For each German aircraft lost the VVS (Red Air Force) lost ten, for reasons that are well known; superior training, combat experience gained in the West, and significantly superior combat aircraft performance. However none of these factors explain the phenomenal results apparently achieved by Erich Hartmann. His war began as the tide was already turning in the East, with Soviet industry turning out ever more modern aircraft and the German armies on the defensive in every sector.. (..)"

"...the majority of his victories are not supported by any corresponding evidence in the Soviet archives. Hartmann would often claim three or even five Soviet a/c shot down on a sortie. (..) This has much to do with Hartmann's tactic of catching lone Soviet aircraft unawares far behind the front lines, with only a wing man's statement to support his claim and goes some way to explaining the disparity with Soviet records (...) the evidence for his victory claims is much more unreliable than that for other pilots such as Barkhorn and Rall .."

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Hmm. I’m thinking we’re forgetting something here. The war memorial at Runnymede lists thousands of RAF crews who paid with their lives. If memory serves me correctly I think there were in the region of 50,000 British aircrew casualties. The numbers of United States AF crews killed were similarly substantial. Doesn’t this tell you something ? With Allied chop rates like these (which are difficult to comprehend) I’m astonished anyone feels able to describe the Luftwaffe and German air defence system as ‘mediocre’..

I am certain many of the RAF bombers crews who didn't return would agree with me (if they could) in describing the Luftwaffe as 'remarkably efficient' - even toward the end of the war.

No offence intended, just my two pennith.

Kind regards all, richard.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Calling the LW mediorce seems a bit naive. Undermanned and overwhelmed is probably a better description. Once the Soviet Union and U.S. entered the war, the end result, barring any huge bonehead moves on the part of the Allies, was a foregone conclusion. Germany (and Japan) did not have the manpower, resources or industrial capacity to match the Allies. The only question was how long would it take. As the previous poster said, there are a lot of dead airman who would have considered the LW 'remarkably efficient'. I'm sure that there are 10s of thousands of Allied infantrymen, tankers, etc. who would concur.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

It's a simple question of time. If my memory is correct in german concept of blitzkrieg clearly wrote if they (Germans) didn't won in Russia for a couple of months the war is lost. Because Germans had no such resources like Allies.

As war prolonged, in such circumstances, achieving the air victories in such high rates had not strategic value. It is much useful for propaganda purpose to lifted morale.

Kind regards

Newcomer

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Hi.

Well to be honest I didn't think you were more than a Aprils Fool a few months early. The reason for that is the first message you posted - all hooray for the Luftwaffe and so on...

Seemed kind of strange that you should have failed to notice that this discussion board has sections on allied and soviet aviation, as well as german and other former axis nations.

I assumed you were trying to pull our leg, and have a laugh after we went for your bait. If I am wrong, I would advice that you may try a more subtle approach - it is a bit like walking into a british pub and stating that all RAF pilots were noblemen and in the closet homosexuals with a funny way of speaking english...

I think you will find that reading a few more threads on this forum will show that what most people here do is to try to piece together information from all sides of the conflict in order to get a better and more complete picture of what really went on.

Regards,
Andreas B
(and yes I did really laugh out loud when I read the first post - it was not a negative sort of laugh - I was just humoured)

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Well gentlemen, I guess there is no better way for a new member to start out than to jump in with both feet! Even though some of the replies I received were rather... peculiar (still trying to figure out Andreas!), thanks to all for the responses. I hope this portends well for future discussions.

Graham made an interesting comment assuming that I was perhaps just "ignorant" about matters. Well, perhaps I am; I certainly make no particular claims to posessing incandescent brilliance. On the other hand, though I may be a "newbie" to this particular forum, I am hardly a newcomer to Luftwaffe history or WW II history "en toto". I am certainly well aware of the many opportunities available to Luftwaffe pilots and how this might have added to their higher scores. Additionally, the use of Luftwaffe pilots until they basically were absolutely burned out (or beyond) or killed, has not escaped my attention. I believe though, that you will find similar ill advised strategies in other air forces without the stupendous and frankly, hard to believe, results.

Falke brings up some very interesting points regarding Harmann's claims (as an aside, I should mention one thing; whether a man shot down 100, 10, 1 or zero airplanes, makes little difference to me. I have a great deal of admiration for all of them. This is all just a bit of esoteric and rather arcane interest we have in an obscure subject...put the children and the dog away). Russian sources have long disputed his claims, although in fairness, they may have their own personal reasons for doing so. But here is the main thing; the reliance of a wing man as final confirmation was hardly fool proof. There are at least two reasons for this. First, the wing man could certainly be subject to the same vagaries of viewing conditions (especially in mortal combat) as the shooter. Seeing pieces-even large pieces- detatch themselves from an airplane or seeing smoke stream from the engine is not necessarily incontrovertible proof of destruction. If you read some of Japanese ace Saburo Sakai's confirmed claims (made, I believe, in full honesty), the target aircraft was an absolute "goner", yet subsequent research showed the aircraft and pilot surviving. The second point to consider is the psychological one. A wing man (especially a junior one) would not likely be disposed to dispute his more experienced and famous leader. This could have serious ramifications for future postings and/or promotions.

The Germans were very adept at glorifying ALL of their servicemen; and why not? It was good for both troop as well as civilian morale, and the soldiers, sailors and airmen certainly deserved recognition. Fighter and bomber pilots, U boat captains and Panzer commanders were all lauded in the popular press. In many ways they were treated as we today treat (forgive the odious comparison) modern day rock stars. Did you ever notice their uniforms? Beautiful!

Bound to have an effect on the ladies too. Don't kid yourselves...

Man, I'm a windy SOB ain't I?

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Hey, Man, don't knock the rock stars, OK?

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/4...n4231aavv6.jpg

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Well...
They're ok for comic relief, but when you need someone to fight a war for you, or defend your country, I don't think that guitar will do it. An ME 109 on the other hand...

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

There were a lot of actions toward the end of the war when Luftwaffe performance might best be described as terrible. That doesn't mean that there weren't good pilots and aircraft still flying but the state of training had sunk desperately low.

And my impression of Nazi ideology is that the servicemen they really idolised were the dead ones, in my view the whole thing was a death cult.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Kildlawyrs,
Comparing apples and oranges, really. And you do lead a sheltered life if you think the only kind of music is that which comes out of comic relief.

And back on topic, if you want specific instances of 'our' side overclaiming, go check out the claims for 74 Sqdn. on 11th August 1940, mid-day action over the Thames estuary, or 1 Sqdn in mid-afternoon on 15th August... to give two examples. Of course the Luftwaffe did the same: ZG 26 for the same action on 11th August, and again for 18th August...

Rock on!

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

As the host I'd like to make a couple of comments.

Unfortunately much of this first attempt carries the hallmark of troll activity.

1. new member
2. anonymous (with a provoking name "killed lawyers")
3. calling out the community
4. presenting a "challenge"

The post isn't a question nor an effort to gather information, it is in fact a challenge. The question for us is to judge if it is worth the interest and time to answer. If YOU are genuine enough to warrant more than a raised eyebrow.

My instinct tells me that I'll probably have to ban you within a week or a month at most, but you deserve a chance like everyone does who participates in this community.

Lesson One, the Luftwaffe is more than just Jagdwaffe claims and Hartmann.

Lesson Two, distrust all propaganda from both sides of the Hill

Lesson Three, look at the war across the board, at each theatre at each stage, separate and in context of the whole.

Lesson Four, don't assume that the success formula for one combattant is automatically the same for all the others (dogma).

Final Lesson for now, don't assume anything about this forum. It is a community as varied as you'll come across, but with a higher number of experienced (research, writing, publishing) contributors and even a couple of WW2 veterans.

So "Killed Lawyers" lets see how you fare in this community. You've already lost a friend with the manner of your entry.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

I agree totally with Mr. Horta

piero

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

I can only agree with John Vasco. Over claiming was indeed a problem on both sides. If one looks at the complexities of aerial combat it becomes abundantly clear why this this is so. The confused arena of a swirling fight coupled with the not insubstatial demands of flying the aircraft and all the time trying not to get shot down, would naturally make absolute confirmation difficult if not impossible many times. Also, it should be noted that it would be easy to have two (or more) aircraft attacking the same target and yet not be aware of each other's presence. It is not that the individual pilots were liars, far from it. Conditions simply were what they were.

I previously had mentioned Japanese ace Saburo Sakai. As an interesting aside, I met this gentleman back in the early 1990s. A warmer and more friendly individual would be harder imagine. He told me some rather interesting tales about aerial combat in general, as well as some philosphical ideas he had about the whole matter. For him, personal victories were of little consequence. Rather, what was important to him was being a good leader and bringing home his wing men unscathed (which he always did). Although he was officially credited with 64 victories, he himself believed the true number to be somewhere around 25. I bring this matter up, because air to air combat, whether in the European theatre or the the Pacific one, by force tended towards similarities.

Just a thought?

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Hi kidlyrs,

You may be onto something. Here are the loss numbers for the Eighth AF in Europe, courtesy of USAF Maxwell Air University.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...b/Werrell.html

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to add the 9000 losses to the 15th AF losses. Then find and add in the Brit and Russian losses. If you come up with less than the 14,000 claims of the Luftwaffe you would be on track to find some overclaiming.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Mr. Hurta:

My apologies sir If I have some how offended you. Such was not my intention. I had heard of the 12 O Clock High forum, and thought that this would be a good place to exchange ideas. I did not intend to "challenge" any one or even to throw down a gauntlet. Rather my aim was to listen to what others might have to say about this topic. I thought that it would be an intereting and legitimate discussion point here, but perhaps I am unfamiliar with how this forum works. If so, I would be grateful if you could enlighten me; believe me, I am not looking for a fight.

My anoymous name is a take on William Shakespeare and is not "Killed Lawyers". Since I had seen other members posting here anonymously, I was under the impression that this was in fact an accepted practice. I have no problem in posting my actual name if that is what is required.

Again, my humble apologies if I am unfamiliar with how things are done on this forum. From what I have seen, it seems like a rather knowledgable lot of players. Perhaps I can learn something while contributing something in return.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Dear 'Kildlawyrs',

As you seem to have studied the subject more than what your first provocative postings would lead one to assume, you have perhaps already read this:
http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/text.html

I suppose you are familiar already to Mr. Christer Bergström's acknowledged research easily accessible in his published books on the air war over the Eastern Front. This text contains bits and pieces of what other members have already commented on earlier and also underlines some of the factors creating the huge difference between the number of claimed victories by Luftwaffe pilots and Allied pilots, also discussing the differences between the Eastern and Western fronts.

As mentioned here earlier some of the Luftwaffe pilots, later to become some of the highest scoring aces in history, achieved small or moderate achievements during their part of their early career corresponding a normal combat tour (or two) by the USAAF aces.
Would this lead to the conclusion that the RAF and USAAF claims as a consequence would be fakes or regarded as hardly being possible to achieve in such a short time period when comparing with some of the excellent Luftwaffe aces with a slow start? Hardly, as the matter is so much more complicated!

Time in battle was definitely a very important factor which allowed the Luftwaffe aces to gain the excellence needed as well as the number of target opportunities to reach the very high number of victories accumulated. Their main feat and achievement was perhaps their ability to survive long enough to give them this skill level and number of opportunities presented why even luck is also a factor to count in!

I suppose you might also have studied the Finnish pilots and their achievements already, as they can claim one of the very best kill to loss ratios in WW2. The best FAF aces also by far outperforming the very best USAAF and RAF fighter jockeys. The Finnish war archives never became destroyed or captured why with the help of the opening up of former Soviet AF archives they now and in the future will produce interesting comparison material.
Another subject I can recommend you to study is the Hungarian pilot's performance and also compare how they performed in 1944-45 compared to Luftwaffe pilots in the same area of conflict.

Over claiming was as an occurrence on both sides, the RAF over claiming can even be argued to be worse in 1940 than with the Luftwaffe. Several interesting articles have been written on the subject only in the last few years, making the over claiming an established fact as such. This can, however, not lead to the conclusion that the victories of the highest scoring Luftwaffe aces are more unreliable than any other fighter aces in the annals of WW2 pilot achievements.

I am sure we will in time find adjusted victory lists of the highest scoring Luftwaffe aces on the Eastern Front which have been painstakingly researched and matched to data found in the now accessible former Soviet Red AF archives. We will never get to a 100% reliable listing and I do not expect them to change the achievement of the top Luftwaffe pilots dramatically in relative terms when compared to their peers in the RAF and USAAF as over claiming is not only connected to pilots of only one particular air force.
You might in connection with this remark want to enjoy another thread here at TOCH:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=661

Back to the top Lw Aces:
Flying 700-1000 and even up to 1500 combat missions and by using the average of victories/flown combat mission of the highest scoring 100 German, Finnish and Hungarian fighter aces will show you that by the law of numbers some victory tallies are not completely unrealistic.

Have a nice weekend! And don't forget to have an eagles' view on the subject;)

Best regards
Göran Larsson

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

This is a joke, right? I haven't seen such a ludicrous first posting for awhile now. You might want to do some rudimentary research before belittling the Luftwaffe on a Luftwaffe forum.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Judging the Luftwaffe solely on whether or not some of its Fighter Pilots overclaimed or not seems a little unfair. One should perhaps consider that the Luftwaffe initially led the way in Paratroopers, Air Landing of Troops, Air Supply, Glider assault, Target Marking, Air Sea Rescue, Stand-off Bombing, it also controlled Flak Units and had its own Field Divisions.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

And IIRC, Alfred Price wrote that the Flak arm was the biggest element, employing far more people than the flying units.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Hello Nick:

Building further on the Flak aspect you mentioned, I recently had occassion to speak with a fellow at our local airport who, as a youngster (15 yrs, I think), was part of a Luftwaffe Flak crew towards the very end of the war. Beyond some purely fascinating stories, he also mentioned to me that he had been told at the time that approximately 12,000 shells were expended for every bomber brought down. He said he did not know for sure if that number was right or not, but a lot of the Flak bursts exploded harmlessly. Pretty interesting. Thats a lot of metal going up. Sometimes I wonder where it all came down?

His tale of being captured by the Russians was harrowing, but in some ways quite funny too. He was released after two years...thin as a rail, I might add.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

May I add a few words in response to your statement. I was a USAF fighter pilot with the 15th AF during WW2. In both the Luftwaffe and the USAF, there were procedures in place to avoid claiming victories that were not true. Nevertheless they were not fool proof and led to many instances where false claims were made. I believe if you check the German records against the American claims and vice versa, you will find that it was common for each side to claim more victories than actually occurred. The only specific instance where I know this did not happen was during an encounter on 26 July 1944 where we claimed 8 FW-190s but the German records show 9 were lost!! Some claims were outright lies but others were made in the sincere belief that the aircraft was shot down. I do not think one can surmise that one side or the other were more incorrect. From what I read, the Luftwaffe pilots on the Eastern front were confronted by scads of aircraft that in many instances were inferior in performance or flown by very inexperienced pilots. That certainly should afford the pilots more victories.
Cordially, Art Fiedler

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Hello Art:

Thats some great information, and pretty much corroborates much of what I have heard from veteran fighter pilots (American, German and Japanese) with whom I have had the good fortune to speak. I think at times it is easy to forget what you guys had to go through in actual combat. It is one thing to become an "ace" using the latest wiz-bang microsoft simulator, but the real thing is quite a bit different. The massive "G" fluctuations, the attention to remaining within allowed aircraft design performance, the maintaining co-ordination of rudder, aileron and elevator in what must be a terrifying and brutal circumstance, simply cannot be replicated in a desk top computer program. Oh, and did I mention, all the while you had to be careful that some other enemy aircraft did not sneak up and shoot you. Is it any wonder that a "kill" cofirmation had to, by force, take a back seat to survival?
My admiration and respect for you fellows is indescribable. Thank you for your service, sir. I doubt we will see a generation of men such as yours again.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

The irony of the matter is that German heavy Flak, especially radar guided, was considered pretty accurate. Keeping in mind that the Germans failed to design a proximity fuse, however that fact alone doesn't make the Luftwaffe a mediocre force.

Flak was at its best at low and medium altitudes, and forced the enemy to operate higher than he'd like to operate, which in turn influenced bombing accuracy.

The method most deployed, that is concentrated barrage fire, doesn't spare ammo either. You simply fill a quadrant of sky with shrapnell, you are bound to expend a lot of ammo on empty sky.

Keep in mind that the core of the (pre- and early war) Flak arm had been deployed at the front, fulfilling the role of air defence AND anti tank arm AND even artillery. The loss of experienced men could not miss having an effect on the general efficiency of the Flak arm even if eventually some of the batteries were pulled back.

It is easy to oversee the influence of a single technological breakthrough, like proximity fusing, when making comparisons. OTOH, it would be interesting to see real side by side comparisons: Low vs low, medium vs medium and high vs high altitude. To add some context include early, middle and late war statistics.

As for the Jagdwaffe on the Eastern Front, the pickings might have been relatively easy in the first half of the conflict, but the gap was soon filled as quality of Russian aircraft and tactics improved, achieving parity in 1943 and to some extend superiority in 1944/45. That's without the numbers game, which adds another dimension. The only luxury that the Jagdwaffe maintained for almost the entire duration of the fighting over the Eastern Front was tactical initiative.

In the ETO this initiative was generally lost during the latter half of 1943 and thus changed the manner in which the Jagdwaffe could operate significantly.

But again, the Luftwaffe is not about the Jagdwaffe alone. If you want to make blanket statements, be sure to cover the whole body with said blanket...

Side note, although this forum was once started as a place to discuss the Luftwaffe without having to defend oneself for having any interest that wasn't essentially negative, it has long since evolved in a more general direction. It may still have a specialization, but doesn't exclude the broader picture.

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Exactly. There were Flak units, which ended the war with more AFV, than aircraft claims (I have some very interesting statistics from the end of the war). The Flak has its own complex role, organisation and history as well and the generalisation is also wrong here, not just with aviation units.

Incidentally, if I remember correctly, even during WWI the overall statistic was better, than 12,000 anti-aircraft artillery projectile/one aircraft (although such overall statistics are not the best, considering the very different situations, weapons and units, i.e. are you counting 2 cm and 12,8 cm shells also as 'one' in such statistics?)

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

..the guy's post struck a chord with me...personally I'm a little tired of the focus on Luftwaffe aces and their 200+ scores, smart uniforms and exotic a/c types. Small technological advantage squandered. Me 262s deployed piecemeal. Same debate Tigers vs. Shermans. The Germans failed to make the right production choices. Lets not forget who won. Belittling the Luftwaffe ? - even Hitler himself was doing that long before the end. No, much more interesting are the experiences of the average Luftwaffe airman, the Seegers & Meimbergs or the RLV guys who braved impossible odds and died horrible deaths. I can relate to the 'mediocre' in the original post too...German bomber arm, industrial production (despite being masters of Europe), naval air power etc etc..you have a small country like the UK producing literally thousands of four-engine bombers and dispatching them on huge raids, necessitating a German civil defence organisation of millions, whereas by late 1943 the Luftwaffe can barely scrape together two hundred medium twins to raid small provincial towns in England ...

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Are you sure that this is the proper comparison? In my humble opinion, calling the Luftwaffe's bomber arm as 'medicore' only because they were not able to retaliate in 1943/44 with the same strength as the British did is entirely wrong, since these were pointless raids and just waste of resources and crews+aircraft. There was a huge pressure on them and on their leaders to retaliate but their main efforts and successes were against the Soviet Union while supporting the ground forces. They gained many important successes during the war against tactical targets. Have you ever researched deeply for example the successes of the Eisenbahn Staffeln in the Soviet Union? Or the scattered Soviet military deployments(sometimes even offensives) by air raids? Anything about the annihilated units by them? And these are not only the German claims, many times captured Soviet documents, or genuine Soviet sources confirmed them as well. Just one example: a Soviet Corps confimed, that during an offensive, 90% of their losses were caused by air raids (and only 10% by ground fight). 40% of their entire losses were suffered during only two days by heavy air raids. Is it a medicore performance?

Or if we are talking about Bomber Command (I assume, you suggest, that if German bomber arm was 'medicore', they fared much better?) In the first half of the war their night accuracy was especially bad and after they noticed their continuous fails, they had turned against larger area targets.
What did Bomber Command achieve with ruining the German cities? Did they destroy the German industry? No, they didn't. Did they cut back the German industrial performance considerably? No, they didn't. Did they broke the morale of the German citizens? No, they didn't. What they had destroyed were mostly not industrial or military targets, but residential areas with their owners (i.e. mass killing civilians) Was it a great military success? I wouldn't say that... And they paid a very high price for it (very high personnel and aircraft losses and the British economy partly crippled because of this very expensive 'experiment')
Was it a far superior performance over the Luftwaffe's bomber arm?

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Indeed, I think we're aware that the Luftwaffe was a 'tactical' force led by incompetent leaders into a total 'strategic' war. I think most commentators agree that the Soviet shifting of their production centres out of range of the Luftwaffe medium bomber force contributed in a fundamental fashion to Soviet victory..or did it not? ...or that the German air defence organisation had everything - a Flak arm and civil defence organisation of millions- except a 'roof'.. By the way have you looked at the (mediocre) Luftwaffe attempts to carry out strategic bombing on Moscow... ?

Re: Luftwaffe Myths
 

Very risky thesis. Jagdwaffe still had an edge on the eastern front, but most of the units were withdrawn for air defence. Most engagements over Poland were against ground attack Focke Wulfs.
Since 1941 in ETO the initiative was British (Allied) and Jagdwaffe did not took opportunity to learn to achieve goals and not kills.
Csaba
I suggest you to visit Nordhausen or SW Poland and inspect underground factories. They were bloody expensive and time consuming. You would not tell me they were build not because of Allied raids, would you? How about involvement of dosens of thousands Flak soldiers, but also fire fighters, medicians and all other people needed to provide help and support. Even if not all of them were fit for frontline service, it was still a 'waste' of human resources, so badly needed elsewhere. Last but not least, BC campaign was directly based on very own experience from the Blitz. Do not be blinded by propaganda.