Luftwaffe Myths

[RT]

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... ?

Soviet victory because of Normandy Landing without it the war on Ost not finished before the fifties, strategic vs tactic if your scope is to beat France polen nd even Russia you can go tactic, necessary to put some strategic against England, but for sure England was very not the goal at the beginning just "collateral" adversary..
Strategic-bombing is interesting to starve fighter opposition, with in mind the landing, nd attack benzin facilities, all other is quite just to occupy the force

rémi

[Csaba B. Stenge]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

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... ?

Even a medicore economist would be able say to Hitler that he is not able to win the parallel war against the Soviet Union and the USA (+GB). It is not a question. The mental problems of the leaders of the Third Reich is one thing, while the performance of the Luftwaffe's bomber arm is another. Without proper aircraft they were not able to make a strategic air war. But it is not their failure. Even if they would have a proper heavy bomber, the result of the war would be the same. The industrial capacity of the Soviet Union was heavily underestimated both by the Third Reich and by the Western Allies. The Luftwaffe would not be able to ruin it with several hundred heavy bombers.
The series of raids against Moscow were not any kind of real strategic bombing campaign, so wrong example. It was again Hitler's brainchild, political decision not against industrial targets and such pointless attacks were just waste of resources (like the baby blitz).

[Csaba B. Stenge]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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.

Even the failed campaigns had some effect on the other side, no one questioned that, but comparing it with the huge efforts of the British side, it is very poor exposition.
As for who was "blinded by propaganda" (maybe 100000th time about the same topic). BC attacked Berlin and few other German cities in the same time, 1940/41 (with smaller forces, but only because they had not enough aircraft to conduct larger raids, not because their leaders were so humane). Even Poles would attack Berlin with considerable bomber forces, if they would have enough force to conduct such raids. I have never questioned, that the Luftwaffe conducted attacks, which are describable only as terror attacks to kill civilians. The German leaders, who ordered such attacks, were called as war guilties. Incidentally, what about the Allied politicians, who ordered the same? Are they the 'heroes' for the same?
I hope, that you don't suggest, that the 100 000's of German civilians, killed by air raids "well deserved" their fate, because "they had started it".
But is is pretty off topic here (and a never ending story...)

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Since 1941 in ETO the initiative was British (Allied) and Jagdwaffe did not took opportunity to learn to achieve goals and not kills.

Perhaps the "strategic" initiative in was held by the RAF, but tactically it was the Jagdwaffe.

Initiative to be a nuisance.

In the ETO, certainly in 1941 and arguably even 1942, however from 1943 onward you have a point.

But I am not starting an argument for the sake of a "challenge". Certainly not willing to start another endless tit for tat debate...

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Csaba Becze

Even the failed campaigns had some effect on the other side, no one questioned that, but comparing it with the huge efforts of the British side, it is very poor exposition.
As for who was "blinded by propaganda" (maybe 100000th time about the same topic). BC attacked Berlin and few other German cities in the same time, 1940/41 (with smaller forces, but only because they had not enough aircraft to conduct larger raids, not because their leaders were so humane). Even Poles would attack Berlin with considerable bomber forces, if they would have enough force to conduct such raids. I have never questioned, that the Luftwaffe conducted attacks, which are describable only as terror attacks to kill civilians. The German leaders, who ordered such attacks, were called as war guilties. Incidentally, what about the Allied politicians, who ordered the same? Are they the 'heroes' for the same?
I hope, that you don't suggest, that the 100 000's of German civilians, killed by air raids "well deserved" their fate, because "they had started it".
But is is pretty off topic here (and a never ending story...)

Let's not talk about moral side of the war, but please remember, that the law knows such words like repercussions or reprisals. Thus said, Poland DID NOT conduct any reprisal attacks, despite having the force allowing to do so. There were clear orders for that. Otherwise I do not understand, why do you extract bits and pieces to prove that a five year long campaign was a failure. It is obvious that at times it did not went according to the plan nor achieved estimated goals, but it was constantly improved. Tell me, was Peenemuende a failure or a success?

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

Perhaps the "strategic" initiative in was held by the RAF, but tactically it was the Jagdwaffe.

Initiative to be a nuisance.

In the ETO, certainly in 1941 and arguably even 1942, however from 1943 onward you have a point.

But I am not starting an argument for the sake of a "challenge". Certainly not willing to start another endless tit for tat debate...

I am not sure what do you mean, but even on a single raid level, Jagdwaffe was unable to prevent Allied actions. Yes, they were shooting down multiple aircraft, but still they were bombed, and efficiency of the latter constantly improved, with catastrophic results in 1943. I would say it was a general shortseeing by Lw command, which resulted with pilots arriving to combat units in mid-1944 completely unprepared for anything, despite two years of training.

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I am not sure what do you mean, but even on a single raid level, Jagdwaffe was unable to prevent Allied actions. Yes, they were shooting down multiple aircraft, but still they were bombed, and efficiency of the latter constantly improved, with catastrophic results in 1943. I would say it was a general shortseeing by Lw command, which resulted with pilots arriving to combat units in mid-1944 completely unprepared for anything, despite two years of training.

There you go, perhaps catastrophic in 1943, but merely a nuisance in 1941 and 1942, albeit it night or day.

Stopping raids is a bit theatrical isn't it, we're talking attrition not dramatics.

But Franek, we've been here before and the thread can go on and on and we won't agree. OTOH our new member will have a lot of fun.

[VtwinVince]

Falke, I understand what you are saying, however, when one considers the incredible odds later in the war against Jagdwaffe pilots, it's amazing that they held out as long as they did. Sure, the RAF could mount large-scale raids against the continent, but one has to take into account the vast resources available to England at that time, both in terms of raw materials and manpower, such as the Commonwealth training plan. Germany had a few poor quality allies, most of whom dropped out of the conflict early on. When I think of my uncle, who was blind in one eye and well into his 40's, flying combat until April, 1945, I can only surmise that he must have been extremely well trained, and perhaps a little lucky. I agree that the leadership of the Luftwaffe was poor at the highest echelon, but they had many outstanding commanders, especially in the field. To simply imply that the German pilots were a bunch of overrated overclaimers is a gross simplification of the truth and a besmirching of the memory of thousands who fought and died bravely.

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by VtwinVince

Germany had a few poor quality allies, most of whom dropped out of the conflict early on.

..the original post referred to the Luftwaffe's 'mediocre' performance... My point about Bomber Command was specifically about production, not the validity of 'terror' bombing. Few Allies ?.. by 1941 Germany controlled the entire Continental European coal and steel industry, not to mention the huge French aviation industry, which had just introduced the brilliant D.520 & Amiot 351/354 - and still failed miserably to produce the aircraft that the Luftwaffe required to wage the war on which it's mediocre leaders had embarked, churning out instead thousands of He 177, Me 210/410s etc etc etc..The British on their own were indeed 'out-producing' them for long periods..(Lancaster, Mosquito etc etc) ..but does this really need to be said...

and to answer Remi's point ...

by late 1944 90 Allied divisions were facing 60 German divsions in Western Europe..in the East it was 560 Soviet divisions vs. 240 German...some have argued that the Soviets had won the war by 1944, whether the Anglo-Americans invaded or not...

[Six Nifty .50s]

There is some truth in the original post, but the author should have explained himself clearly to avoid hostile replies.

Yes, German political and military officials often made poor decisions in their use of resources and promotion of leaders (at all levels). So did their opponents. It's a matter of degree. Mediocrity is not hard to find if you look for it, but what I have read so far does not prove that the British, American or Russian air forces made better overall use of their own war-making potential.

When making these comparisons, the outside political interference must be carefully separated from bad choices made by military leaders. That there were plenty of both only adds to the complexity.

For that reason, discussions about this subject tend to degenerate into arguments over amounts of material. It is easier to count the beans than to agree on the best recipe to cook them.

[NickM]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

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.

Franek: An interesting comment; can I inquire as to which Slacht units were fighting in Poland at the time and, IF you know...their statistics: Vics, losses, etc?

TiA

nickm