New Military History Blog - first post about loss of Ju 188 in the East in 1944

[Dan History]

At long last and while addressing many other concerns, I have started a new blog where I will write about military history and aerial warfare from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present day
https://airlandbattle.wordpress.com/

My first post concerns the loss of a Ju 188 on the Eastern front in 1944. Starting with the information that Matti and Gerhard made available on this forum, I have been able to identify the Soviet fighter unit that shot it down.
https://airlandbattle.wordpress.com/...and-a-comment/

Some of the comments that I made in this post follow-up on my research paper dating from December 2016

http://www.ww2.dk/Dan Zamansky - The Study.pdf

Comments, criticism and further information from members are most welcome

Regards,

Dan

[Chris Going]

Dan, Hi

You have put a load of stuff out there.

As you doubtless know, no response is often a good response. It is like giving a dinner party and once the main course is out there, silence descends and all you hear is eating.

You'll get something soon -otherwise we've become a pack of lightweights!

ChrisG

[Almer017]

Hello! I know same russian pilot’s who shot down these planes, I wrote about them with my article on air defense in Belarus in 1944. Dmitry Kienko, Minsk Belarus, (almer@tut.by)

[Dan History]

Originally Posted by Chris Going

You have put a load of stuff out there.
You'll get something soon -otherwise we've become a pack of lightweights

Hello Chris,

Thank you for your kind response. I think it is a pity that many of the most knowledgeable members of the forum have moved further into the background. It does make things a little frustrating, but positive comments from people like you are very welcome!

Originally Posted by Almer017

Hello! I know same russian pilot’s

Hello Dmitry,

Happy to see your interest! I have replied to your comment on the blog.

[edwest2]

Hello Dan,


Your comment at the end of the article ignores many other issues. In the East, depending on location, 50 to 60 tons of supplies had to be flown in daily. The transports were sometimes shot down or crashed in reasonably good shape but were no longer airworthy, or were later destroyed on the ground. The Americans and British were not always in agreement. This was not a war of straight mathematics but a very large number of factors. Everyone was clamoring for priority of some kind: conflicts over who gets more fuel for American or British tanks and so on.

The war in the air was part of the war on the ground. Again, mistakes were made, by both sides, or depended on the changing war situation. Allocations were not made by the numbers but depended on what was available.

The Battle for France saw - with all due respect - lesser British aircraft being sacrificed to a superior German fighter force.

A bullet by bullet, engine by engine comparison is too narrow.



Best,
Ed

[Dan History]

Hello Ed,

Thank you for your response. I have to say that your comment is rather confused, because you did not select a clear main theme for your critique. I will reply to what is the central point of your argument:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Your comment at the end of the article ignores many other issues.

A bullet by bullet, engine by engine comparison is too narrow.

My comment is a reflection on a small-scale case study, but it casts a useful light on the larger issues involved. Wars are won by allocating and employing resources of equipment and manpower in a manner which is superior to that of the enemy. This is what Nazi Germany did in 1939 and 1940, until the Battle of Britain, and again in 1941 during the first stages of Operation Barbarossa. Thereafter, as Nazi strategy and operations increasingly lost focus and became incoherent, Germany began to suffer one defeat after another. The eventual collapse of Nazi Germany was caused by the Allies' ability to allocate and deploy resources in a far superior manner.

In the case of this Ju 188 loss, Germany developed a relatively advanced aircraft very late in the war and deployed it in a way which rendered it vulnerable to much less complicated Soviet aircraft. It is clear that this was an example of resource misallocation and one which reflected very broad trends within the German war effort. Instead of addressing the problem presented here, that Germany was producing the wrong aircraft for the wrong reasons and thereby weakening its own air force, you have suggested that the point I make is too narrowly drawn. I cannot agree. The Ju 188 is a small but useful illustration of the fact that the Nazi leadership did not adequately manage Germany's small resource base, which hastened German defeat.

Regards,

Dan

[edwest2]

Hello Dan,


Your analysis lacks depth. The Americans and British were quite worried about advanced German designs entering service.



Best,
Ed

[edNorth]

Did a brief look at writing. Saw no reason comment. Comparision of Fronts is quite skewed: Not same Geology, not same opponents, not same tech backup, not same support or effort etc. etc. Brute attrition on ALL fronts combined is what really happened. No, sorry, this paper seems have no practical use.

And you source Ju 188 references from Medcalf books. Which can be written hundred of pages of, of how bad it is.
On this forum was a flaming war, where most knowlegeful writers expressed their opinion: Bad. And then some of this backed away, outraged on hov some not-neutral persion attacked THE main expert. The books still are bad after three years. Having studied this subject since the 1990s, and have plowed thrugh the the same Washington Archive-fields, even worse.

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...hlight=Medcalf
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...hlight=Medcalf

Both threads have valuable points, but the author never ever tried defend his writing. Its a flop. But you may notice had had another less visible author with him. But they just exposed how bad the "Luftwaffe as an Gold Goose market" publishing scene has become.

Thinner text (no new research, endless recycling). Darker drawings. Larger photos (done over and over to death). And dosens of new experts every year pop up, but when asked on Spanish Bf 109 G-6, none exists (two knew about it but had not details, two had details). But world record in bad books still is held by Kagero. They print seemingly high quality drawings of Ju 88 A-17, and the famous "A-0", that just not were that.

[Dan History]

Ed,

Your view is not quite correct:

Originally Posted by edwest2

The Americans and British were quite worried about advanced German designs entering service.

The Western Allies were indeed worried about German jet and rocket fighters, but they were not particularly concerned about the various piston-engine designs. In the event, even the jet fighters were dealt with reasonably effectively by the late-war piston fighters of the Allies. I suggest you visit the RAF Museum in Hendon, where it becomes immediately apparent just how far advanced the P-51 and the Tempest were in comparison to German types. Allied aircraft had much more powerful engines and considerably better aerodynamics by the end of the war, so German piston engine designs were simply ineffective.

Regards,

Dan

[Dan History]

Hello Ed,

I am sorry that you did not look at Tables 13 and 14 in my longer work, they definitely contradict your judgment:

Originally Posted by edNorth

Brute attrition on ALL fronts combined is what really happened. No, sorry, this paper seems have no practical use.

The Western front and Mediterranean combined were much more important than the East. If you would like to argue the opposite, please present your evidence.

Originally Posted by edNorth

And you source Ju 188 references from Medcalf books. Which can be written hundred of pages of, of how bad it is.

William Medcalf's book is a reasonable source for general, rather than specific, information. It accounts for one of my 16 footnotes in the blog post, and the information which I used is clearly correct. I would gladly buy your book or books on the Ju 88, when you publish them. I encourage you to do so. I would be particularly happy if you included monthly summaries of Ju 88 losses on different fronts, I have a feeling that information would support my argument very well

Regards,

Dan