Luftwaffe Myths

[Graham Boak]

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.

[FalkeEins]

..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 .."

[Oxby R]

Originally Posted by Kildlawyrs

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.

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.

[Jim P.]

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.

[newcomer]

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

[Andreas Brekken]

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)

[Kildlawyrs]

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?

[John Vasco]

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

[Kildlawyrs]

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...

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Oxby R

I’m astonished anyone feels able to describe the Luftwaffe and German air defence system as ‘mediocre’.. ... even toward the end of the war.

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.