Luftwaffe lost

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
Post Reply
Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#136

Post by Andreas » 01 Aug 2005, 20:12

In any case, the discussion as it currently goes strikes me as not particularly useful, because it appears participants are talking about different things. It is self-evident that the Luftwaffe lost - it was a part of the Wehrmacht, and as such it surrendered at Reims and Berlin. To analyse the performance it would in my view be far more interesting to look at specific strategic tasks, and see how it did in achieving them. Defining them may already point towards the result of the analysis. This would also have to be dynamic in some aspect, since the Luftwaffe was affected by the changing fortunes of the Wehrmacht as a whole, so things it did well in 1940 it could no longer do in 1944, not necessarily only due to its own failures as an insitution.

Not all of these failures and successes will be unique to the Luftwaffe - e.g. conducting a strategic air offensive was pretty much a failure all round. This was because in my view the theories underlying the doctrine were not sound.

I'll take a stab at it anyway, in no order of importance.

1) Institutional co-operation at highest level - failed, right from day one
2) Defense of the Reich against air attack - failed
3) Conduct offensive strategic operations to support the major effort of defeating the enemy - failed (think bombing offensive)
4) Conduct defensive strategic operations to support the major effort of defeating the enemy - failed (think destruction of Anglo-American landing fleets before they set out, or denial of Soviet transport capacity in preparation for Bagration)
5) Protection of German industry against bombing attacks - I leave that to the experts
6) Provision of tactical combat air support to ground forces - great success (to 1943, say) followed by abysmal failure in the west, and slightly less embarassing failure in the east
7) Provision of tactical combat air support to sea forces - leave that to the experts
8) Provision of strategic reconnaissance - success early in the war, failure later in the war
9) Provision of tactical reconnaissance - success early in the war, so-so later in the war
10) Provision of air transport capacity - I leave that to the experts
11) Provision of air assault capacity - very good early in the war, none later in the war

In terms of doctrinal development, the Luftwaffe had a mixed performance. A notable success in terms of doctrine was to provide the proof of the air assault doctrine in the West and the Med, in my view. Another one was the development of fairly reliable close air support of ground troops, with Stukas being able to work as artillery, early in the war. The most notable failure in terms of doctrine was the idiotic insistence to meddle in ground forces, and to deny the navy its air arm.

It would also be interesting to compare this to the RAF, since it was in a similar situation in terms of institutional arrangements, and had similar tasks at a different point in time. The missions would presumably be similar.

All the best

Andreas

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#137

Post by Andreas » 01 Aug 2005, 21:37

JonS wrote: Yes, because of course the RN and USN would never have thought to deploy picket ships with radar around the convoys. And they would never have used RDF to locate the broadcasting subs. And they would never have used carriers, or CAP. And they would never have thought to try jamming the glider/missiles or screening the ships. Or just shoot the gliders/missiles down. In fact, of course the British and the Americans would have done nothing different at all when when presented with a different situation.
The launch/hit obtained by KG 100 for Hs.293 guided missile was 65% !!! Hs.293 had a 500kg warhead, convoy ships had very little chance of survival after being hit.
from: http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/missiles/hs293b.htm
A translation of a Luftwaffe report on the operational use of guided missiles by KG 100 listed a total of 65 operations with 487 aircraft (both Fritz X and Hs.293). A total of 500 rounds were carried, but a number were lost with their aircraft, or returned to base. At the target, 319 bombs were dropped, of which 215 correctly functioned, with a 49.3% hit rate.

In all, 79 enemy naval units, including 40 warships and 39 merchant ships of a gross registered tonnage of 291,000 tons were either partially or totally put out of action, for the loss of 48 aircraft.
Jon

Use arguments, not personal attacks please.

Your point is quite correct though - the Allied navies defeated the submarine thread through a relentless technology war, including ULTRA, modern detection, and the development of advanced tactics for hunting the subs. I see no reason to believe that they would not have countered a new threat by developing new counter-measures. They had proven themselves to be competent to do so already.

The hit rate of the HS293b according to the quote provided by Jon is 63.8% of bombs launched (319/500) and a 21.2% success rate (106/500). Some of these must have been multiple hits or duds, since only 79 targets were claimed hit and damaged/sunk. That would equal a success rate of 15.8% (79/500), almost exactly half of these on the ships that mattered, the freighters. Not bad - but then again, there are likely overclaims, and in some cases 'damaged' may just be minor damage, and we don't know how damaged/sunk was distributed amongst freighters/warships. Was this a year-round effort? How did it work in bad weather (think winter/North Atlantic)?

All the best

Andreas


JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#138

Post by JonS » 01 Aug 2005, 23:27

Andreas,
the quote bears closer scrutiny.

1) missiles/gliders sortied: 500
2) missiles/gliders dropped: 319 (63.8% of those sortied)
3) missiles/gliders dropped that worked correctly: 215 (43% of those sortied, or 67% of those dropped)
4) missiles/gliders dropped that worked correctly that hit a target: 106 (21.2% of those sortied, or 33.2% of those dropped, or 49.3% of those that worked correctly)

Ships sunk or damaged: 79
Aircraft lost: 48

Missiles/gliders per sinking/damage: 6.3
Sinking/damage per a/c lost: 1.6

From 2) it is clear that 181 missiles/gliders either returned to base for some reason, or were lost when the parent a/c was lost.
From 3) it is clear that 104 missiles/gliders dropped failed to work correctly, possibly due to jamming or screening.
From 4) it is clear that 109 missiles/gliders that were dropped and worked correctly still missed their target.

Two issues with the numbers are that:
1) it includes both Fritz X and the Hs.293, so reasonable conclusions can be made about the the program, but not so strongly about either weapon in isolation.
2) being a German wartime doc it makes no consideration of successful countermeasures. The numbers of missiles/gliders that failed due to countermeasures are buried in those that weren't dropped, those that were dropped but didn't work properly, and those that worked correctly but still missed the target. All we can really say is that the counter measures were successful somewhere between 0% and 78.8%* of the time.

Regards
JonS

* 100 - 21.2 = 78.8
Last edited by JonS on 02 Aug 2005, 11:36, edited 2 times in total.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#139

Post by Andreas » 01 Aug 2005, 23:48

Thanks for that Jon. It would also be interesting to see the split in performance between the Med and the Atlantic. The use against the packed shipping at Anzio and Salerno would presumably make the weapon look better, as would the generally better weather conditions.

Reading through the link you provided, I have trouble identifying this as the weapon with which the battle of the Atlantic could have been turned.

All the best

Andreas

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#140

Post by JonS » 01 Aug 2005, 23:55

... especially when mated to the gremlin-ridden He.177.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

Re: 6

#141

Post by Andreas » 02 Aug 2005, 12:00

MARABA wrote: Germany rested its
(always doubtful) hopes for a successful invasion of Britain entirely
on an air offensive (the Battle of Britain) that was intended to
reduce a demoralized British people to surrender, or at least to
destroy Britain's defenses against invasion. The Luftwaffe's campaign
(including the Blitz) killed about 43,000 people but unified and
strengthened British will rather than crushing it, and never came
close to wrecking Britain's air defenses.
MARABA: this text was not written by you. You are violating forum rules - in the future, provide a source for the text you copy from elsewhere. Also, posting cribbed text with no further comment is not advancing the debate, it is a waste of bandwith. If Shrek wants to find out what Atlantic Monthly thinks of his post, he can pick up a copy. He does not need you to provide it.

Thank you.

Andreas

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#142

Post by Andreas » 09 Aug 2005, 09:58

Andreas wrote:
Larry D. wrote:For those seriously inclined in learning about the Luftwaffe's involvement in the war in the Atlantic (or non-involvement), the very best work on the subject is:

NEITZEL, Sönke. Der Einsatz der deutschen Luftwaffe über dem Atlantik und der Nordsee 1939-1945 (Bonn, 1995).

The title is an award-winning Ph.D. dissertation that was then published as a book. If you can read German, it's a far better choice that the Isby title, which is a reprint of some FMS studies written from memory by former German officers in 1946-48. Regretably, the gentlemen get many of their dates and facts wrong and omit a great deal.

If the thread's participants (moderators excluded) will digest these two works, they will see just how correct WalterS has been in his postings.
Thanks for the tip Larry, I look forward to reading it (despite being a moderator).

All the best

Andreas
Just a heads-up and a plug for the book. Got it yesterday and had a quick peek through it - it looks very good indeed. Thanks again for the tip Larry.

Interestingly, there is a graph based on BA-MA documentation showing the penetration depth of various German planes. He 177 are given as 1,500km Eindringtiefe. That does not carry them further north than Donegal, and does not allow them to cover the northern approach into the Irish Sea at all. Clearly a bit of a drawback if you try to stop convoys into Britain.

All the best

Andreas

Larry D.
Member
Posts: 4103
Joined: 05 Aug 2004, 00:03
Location: Winter Springs, FL (USA)

#143

Post by Larry D. » 09 Aug 2005, 13:14

Just a heads-up and a plug for the book. Got it yesterday and had a quick peek through it - it looks very good indeed.
That was jiffy quick for what most certainly must be an out-of-print book! The author pretty well covered all the bases, so you'll be the reigning expert on the subject when you finish. If you are up to a chuckle or a short laugh, I had never run across the author's first name before and until two years ago I thought "he" was a "she"! I had thoughts of a curvacious young co-ed Ph.D. candidate name Sönke! But you have to admit, that's a really uncommon first name.

--Larry

User avatar
Acolyte
Member
Posts: 1381
Joined: 07 Jul 2004, 14:55
Location: Festung Europa

#144

Post by Acolyte » 18 Dec 2005, 04:31

poor_bloody_infantry wrote:Hitler's vaunted military wiped the boards with the blood of those unfortunate enough to have to fight them at a disadvantage, like the French, the Poles, and the Dutch.
And does that make Hitler stupid or smart? Fighting those rivals who have a disadvantage is one of the oldest tactics in war, politics and life in general. It is immoral, but it sure as hell works. If you pick on weaker rivals, you're smart. If you attack as powerful as you, it is heroic and virtuous, but stupid (you1ll eventually end up draining your resources too much). Attacking and conquering those unable to put up serious resistance - that's how all empires in human history were built. It makes a lot of sense. I might as well mention that since the end of WW2 the US only attacked countries that had an almost immeasurable military and economic disadvantage, which is an immoral yet brilliant strategy, but I won't mention that since everyone would start accusing me of being anti-American.

By the way, the French did not have to fight the Germans at a disadvantage in 1940. The were on the defense, which is usually easier than offense, they fielded a superior number of tanks and generally an army of decent size and equipment, not to mention the Maginot Line. They had their chance.
But when facing an enemy force capable of meeting them strength to strength this same invicible NAZI war machine was crushed like an empty sardine can.
I would accept this argument if

1. the Luftwaffe had been crushed like an empty sardine can in the BoB
2. the Wehrmacht had been crushed like an empty sardine can during the early months of Operation Barbarossa
3. the Wehrmacht and W-SS units that took part in Operation Zitadel had been crushed in the same way during the Battle of Kursk

etc.

For some reason all of these events failed to materialise. Moreover, the US, the UK and the USSR had to combine their resources and actively cooperate for more than 3 years to vanquish Germany. In the end, the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht as well were crushed like an empty sardine can not by a force that was in any way their equal but by an alliance which, shall we say, outnumbered them completely. Moreover, the Anglo-Saxon democracies could only defeat one mass murderer with the help of another mass murderer, and this renders all claims of Allied moral superiority in WW2 at least somewhat baseless and hypocritical. End of story.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#145

Post by Andreas » 05 Sep 2006, 17:47

An off-topic post by Steenvalk was removed.

Please stick to the topic, which is the performance of the Luftwaffe, and not the morality of the Allied bombing campaigns everywhere.

Thank you.

All the best

Andreas

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

#146

Post by LWD » 05 Sep 2006, 18:57

JonS wrote:.... All we can really say is that the counter measures were successful somewhere between 0% and 78.8%* of the time.
Not even that really. Initially there were (probably ) no counter measures. As time went on these likly increased significantly. Interdiction of the attacking aircraft was probably a major component. I think I recall reading of one or more raids that were defeated by allied CAP. ECM also was likely pretty good once it was realised what was happening an appropriate hardware deployed.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#147

Post by Andreas » 05 Sep 2006, 23:20

A discussion on the bombing of Wielun, Frampol, and Luebeck was split out into this thread.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=107449

All the best

Andreas

User avatar
thor-jg51
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 08 Sep 2006, 12:54
Location: nyc, usa

#148

Post by thor-jg51 » 08 Sep 2006, 14:23

it seems to me that in the 1980s either the l.a. lakers or boston celtics lost as well ...

does that take away from the quality of either team?

do not dismiss the quality of the luftwaffe as a fearsome foe.

(the "mighty 8th" suffered more casualties than the entire usmc)

the luftwaffe nearly (very nearly) secured europe for the 3rd reich.

the battle of berlin and big week were very, very close to peric victorys(or defeats even),

and had fortune slid a little east there would have been no answer to fortress europe short of nuclear,

if the usaf was still around at all in europe,

after the complete transistion to the ta152/09k/me262 had taken place.

be grateful for the circumstances that led to the defeat of germany ...

but do not boast, it's disrespectful to all the veterans, who to a man consider themselves

fortunate to have survived, whichever side they fought for.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

#149

Post by LWD » 08 Sep 2006, 15:18

This thread is as far as I can tell a response to those who seam to be claiming the LW was the best AF ever. At least on the part of most here the intent was not to say that the LW was worthless.

Now as to a few specifics of your post:

"(the "mighty 8th" suffered more casualties than the entire usmc) "
According to: http://members.aol.com/usregistry/usmclife.htm
The Marines suffered ~87,000 casualties
According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Air_Force
The 8th AF suffered ~47,000

"the luftwaffe nearly (very nearly) secured europe for the 3rd reic"
The only case I can think of in recorded history where an airforce could even claim with any sort of believability that it secured anything was the RAF and the BOB. In some alternate history the LW may have helped the German army secure Europe but it wasn't going to on it's own.

I'm not sure I've seen much of what I would call boasting on either side of this debate. We're too far removed from them in time for it to make much sense. We do on the otherhand have some who are very passionate about some organizations and machines.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#150

Post by Andreas » 08 Sep 2006, 16:23

The article by Air Commodore Dye on Logistics and the Battle of Britain looks relevant:

http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/lgj/vol24_no4_main_body.pdf

Found by Redcoat.

All the best

Andreas

Post Reply

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”