Luftwaffe Myths

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Brian Bines

... the Luftwaffe ... also controlled Flak Units and had its own Field Divisions.

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

[Kildlawyrs]

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.

[mayfair35]

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

[Kildlawyrs]

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.

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by Kildlawyrs

Hello Nick:
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?

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.

[Csaba B. Stenge]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

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.

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?)

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by VtwinVince

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.

..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 ...

[Csaba B. Stenge]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

But I can relate to 'mediocre' too.....mediocre bomber arm, industrial production, naval air power etc etc..you have a small country like the UK (yes I know about the Commonwealth, the Canadians etc etc) producing literally thousands of four-engine bombers and dispatching them on huge raids, whereas by late 1943 the Luftwaffe can barely scrape together two hundred medium twins to raid small provincial towns in England ...

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?

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by Csaba Becze

their main efforts and successes were against the Soviet Union while supporting the ground forces.

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... ?

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

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.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Csaba Becze

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.
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')

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.