Luftwaffe losses France, 1940

[Kurfürst]

It certainly leads to the question of how it happened though because what did knock down 367 ME's?

I seems to be a case of 'lost in translation'. Groelher gives the LW losses in the West, between 10 May and 30 June 1940 as 1401 write-offs. Presumably this includes destroyed and those written off as scrap at base. It certainly includes both enemy related and other types of losses, as Groehler does not specify these. Total wastage (ie. including damaged aircraft) was 2073 aircraft.

Now back to the 367 MEs. I guess this comes from putting the fighters and destroyers into a single 'fighter' group. See below.

Groehrel gives the losses (presumeably to all causes):

Nähaufklärer, 190 wastage, of which 124 were destroyed (In May: 151/96).
Fernaufklärer, 134 wastage, of which 87 were destroyed (In May: 98/67).
Fighter (ie. 109) as 376 wastage, of which 250 were destroyed (In May: 209/136).
Destroyers had 171 wastage, of which 121 were destroyed or written off (In May: 118/79).
Bombers, 691 wastage, of which 477 were destroyed (In May: 512/350).
Dive Bombers, 164 wastage, of which 123 were destroyed (In May: 106/75).
Schlact, 19 wastage, of which 5 were destroyed (In May: 8/2).
Transport, 214 wastage, of which 140 were destroyed (In May: 188/122).
See, 43 wastage, of which 37 were destroyed (In May: 26/25).
Liason, 65 wastage, of which 33 were destroyed (In May: 54/26).
Misc. types, 6 wastage, of which 4 were destroyed (none In May).

As to the 75 Hurricanes lost in air combat, I have some doubts as a very significant portition of the RAF losses were over Dunkerque, and that certainly did not involve planes bombed on the ground or left behind during retreat.

Recovery on the ground by the allies,even for a couple of weeks,would eliminate Germany tactical air superiority.
This is a strategic issue which points to a fatal weakness of the whole blitzkreig strategy. There was NO RESERVE.

Source for 'no reserve'?

Simple fact is that by the end of June 1940, the Luftwaffe`s mastery of the air was complete over the Continent. There was little in the hands of the Allies that could change that. The French Air Force ceased to exists, and the RAF would soon be on the verge of disappearance, had it continued its daylight operations. After the Battle of France, as of June 29, which does include a good deal of standstill and rebuild after Dunkerque, after RAF operations died down over the continent, the RAF could muster 814 fighters, including Squadron reserves, of which 587 was ready for operation; the Luftwaffe, after all that two months of combat over France, still possessed 1107 single engined fighters, of which 856 was ready for operations. 95% established strenght and 77% servicibility hardly suggest lack of reserves, especially if this figure is to be understood after two months of heavy fighting. This does not include the Zestörer units.

People at Fighter Command's HQ had very valid reasons to be worried. The two months of respite in June and July had great importance, as it allowed for them to rebuild forces.

[Simon K]

The 376 figure is for ME109s only.
With the intensity of operations, and the German aircraft industries' low production rate, such a situation was tantamount to having no reserve.

[Wargames]

It certainly leads to the question of how it happened though because what did knock down 367 ME's?

Wargames, most of Luftwaffe aircrafts were shot down by French in 1940, recommend Peter Cornwell's "The battle of France then and now", in which details every single known losses of German, British,France, Italy,Dutch and Belgian aircrafts loss

Yes. I agree the French fighters are the obvious explanation for who shot the Germans down but not very obvious for how they shot them down. The book ($ 95.00 US) does sound like a must read to understand this.

[Wargames]

The 376 figure is for ME109s only.
With the intensity of operations, and the German aircraft industries' low production rate, such a situation was tantamount to having no reserve.

As was correctly pointed out by another poster, I assumed these 376 ME109's were shot down versus "all causes". I suppose one must consider those lost by mechanical failure and bad landings but this should be a very small number (It was during the Battle of Britain). I also suspect very few, if any, ME109's were actually lost on the ground. The Allies were flying too many defensive missions with their fighters and their bombers were totally inadequate for hitting a parked plane on the ground (just hitting the airfield itself would have been considered a successful accomplishment). I cannot recall a single Allied counterattack directed against German airfields but my sources for this are limited.

Not knowing any better, I would hazard the guess that the German blitzkrieg outran or outranged its fighter cover, resulting in unescorted bombers supportng the furthest ground advances. Initial long range attacks of bomber airfields, bridges, and railheads were probably also unescorted. I do recall (I'll have to look it up) the existence of an Allied radar type system in France which may have also been used with great effect. The German ME109 losses were probably heaviest around Sedan, where they would have had to be flown in "shifts" of limited formations in order to maintain continous area CAP. Allied fighters could achieve brief numerical superiority over these ME109 units but it would still probably require 3,000 Allied fighter missions of first rate aircraft to produce such an ME109 tally. Either that, or the Germans made some sort of tactical blunder.

If this is an accurate assessment, then I'm inclined to agree with Simon - not so much with his "no reserve" but with his statement that the Luftwaffe had an underlying problem with blitzkrieg. The ME109 was possibly a faulty aircraft for blitzkrieg purposes due to limited range. That the Germans knew this was demonstrated by their production of the ME110. The failure of the ME110 to carry out its mission, combined with the short range of the ME109, left bombers unescorted and shot down in droves. Outside of the Ju87, the Luftwaffe does not appear to be prepared to fight a blitzkrieg land war.

This explanation is offered only as a guess as I have not found most books regarding France in 1940 here in the US to give this subject only passing interest. Hence, my actual knowledge is very limited. But it's a starting point for debate while I save up my lunch money for Cornwell's book.

[Wargames]

It certainly leads to the question of how it happened though because what did knock down 367 ME's?

I seems to be a case of 'lost in translation'. Groelher gives the LW losses in the West, between 10 May and 30 June 1940 as 1401 write-offs. Presumably this includes destroyed and those written off as scrap at base. It certainly includes both enemy related and other types of losses, as Groehler does not specify these. Total wastage (ie. including damaged aircraft) was 2073 aircraft.

Now back to the 367 MEs. I guess this comes from putting the fighters and destroyers into a single 'fighter' group. See below.

Groehrel gives the losses (presumeably to all causes):

Nähaufklärer, 190 wastage, of which 124 were destroyed (In May: 151/96).
Fernaufklärer, 134 wastage, of which 87 were destroyed (In May: 98/67).
Fighter (ie. 109) as 376 wastage, of which 250 were destroyed (In May: 209/136).
Destroyers had 171 wastage, of which 121 were destroyed or written off (In May: 118/79).
Bombers, 691 wastage, of which 477 were destroyed (In May: 512/350).
Dive Bombers, 164 wastage, of which 123 were destroyed (In May: 106/75).
Schlact, 19 wastage, of which 5 were destroyed (In May: 8/2).
Transport, 214 wastage, of which 140 were destroyed (In May: 188/122).
See, 43 wastage, of which 37 were destroyed (In May: 26/25).
Liason, 65 wastage, of which 33 were destroyed (In May: 54/26).
Misc. types, 6 wastage, of which 4 were destroyed (none In May).

I agree there is a translation problem here. "Wastage" includes both damaged and destroyed aircraft? If so, there were 376 ME109's damaged, of which 250 were destroyed. Is that how you read it?

Thanks for the info but I'm uncertain where fighters and destroyers were put into one group from this. Did you add up 250 109's destroyed with 121 110's destroyed to obtain 371 fighters destroyed - and then relate that to the 367 ME figure?

If so, 250 109's lost is actually a significant difference from "367", and to lose 121 ME110's is not a surprise. I understand the Ju87's flew without escort so 123 lost is, again, to be expected.

As to the 75 Hurricanes lost in air combat, I have some doubts as a very significant portition of the RAF losses were over Dunkerque, and that certainly did not involve planes bombed on the ground or left behind during retreat.

Another poster mentioned 49 Hurricanes lost over Dunkerque. Do you agree with this?

[Kurfürst]

With the intensity of operations, and the German aircraft industries' low production rate, such a situation was tantamount to having no reserve.

No source, then. I guess there would be no source for the 'low production rate', either. Thank you.

[Kurfürst]

I agree there is a translation problem here. "Wastage" includes both damaged and destroyed aircraft? If so, there were 376 ME109's damaged, of which 250 were destroyed. Is that how you read it?

I believe Groehler understand the 376 figure as the aircraft that become a temporarily (because it was damaged and had to returned to a factory for repairs) or permanent loss (because it was either shot down, or damaged to such an extent it was written off and rebuilt/cannibalised).

I am sure he includes both aircraft shot down or damaged in non-combat related, 'everyday' accidents on operations, and accidents outside operations (ie. damaged/lost aircraft during training flights). Non-enemy related losses were typically a major portion of the losses, making up on avarage about 1/3 of all losses.

Another poster mentioned 49 Hurricanes lost over Dunkerque. Do you agree with this?

It seems reasonable given the other figures I have seen. It would be perhaps
The claim that the vast majority of Hurricanes were lost due to non-combat related reasons is difficult to believe. Why would be so many Hurricanes left behind, if they were airworthy? And if they were not, it surely had something to do with combat, as its difficult to believe that the RAF was unable maintain its aircraft to a reasonable level (70-80% servicibilty).

Its also somewhat unclear to what period these figures refer to: do they include June as well?

[phylo_roadking]

Britsh losses from 10th May to 1st June - 432 Hurricanes and Spitfires were lost over France; 106 total during Dynamo; the LW lost 147 Bf109s and 83 BF110s in the same three-week period.

During the six weeks of the campaign in total, to the French Armistice, the LW lost 247 Bf109s and 108 Bf110s. A total of 643 bombers of all types were lost.

See Air Historical branch (AHB) Translation, Volume 4, No. VII/83 German Aircraft Losses (In the West Only) September 1939-December 1940 for all the above figures. It contains British POST-WAR translation and collation of GERMAN figures.

However, the figures for CONSTRUCTION are indeed revealing;

German single- and twin-engined fighters produced in 1940 - 3382
British single-engined fighters ONLY............................- 4283

Compared to 1939 production, therefore, Germany DOUBLED fighter production...BUT Britain TREBLED hers.

MOST important for results after France however, was the fact that of that German total of 3382 fighters constructed - ONLY 2268 WERE Bf109s! In other words - Germany built almost exactly HALF the number of single-engined fighters the British did.

[Kurfürst]

See Air Historical branch (AHB) Translation, Volume 4, No. VII/83 German Aircraft Losses (In the West Only) September 1939-December 1940 for all the above figures. It contains British POST-WAR translation and collation of GERMAN figures.

Do you have a link to it perhaps?

Germany built almost exactly HALF the number of single-engined fighters the British did.

They also lost only about half as much. Its a different production structure. Germany in 1940 was on offense, and it built mainly offensive planes, bombers. Britain was on defense, and it built mainly defense planes, fighters.

[Simon K]

Kurfurst the low production rate being tantamount to having no reserve is a given!!
Or do you have a problem with that?

[Simon K]

Many of the Hurricane losses were due to the disruption and capture of the British airfield complexes.
Planes were abandoned as airfields were given up.
Your points are obtuse.

[Simon K]

Kurfurst your assumption that the RAF would soon "disappear" ?
What do you base that on?
No sources? Tut tut.
Even with Great Britains far superior production rate?
Methinks it would be the Luftwaffe that was in danger of disappearing.

[Jon G.]

I posted some figures for 1930s budget spending and aircraft production figures of selected European powers here:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1183830

...Year/Budget/AF%/#ac

Britain

1933/66.34/15.55/1,102
1934/88.15/15.48/1,108
1935/135.56/19.50/893
1936/247.16/26.10/1,830
1937/404.04/31.38/2,218
1938/669/34.89/2,828
1939/389.40/36.20/7,940

Germany

1933/18.09/10.0/368
1934/24.59/32.9/1,968
1935/422.57/37.4/3,183
1936/897.17/38.2/5,112
1937/1,313.71/39.4/5,606
1938/2,420.08/34.9/5,235
1939/1,583.13/33.1/8.295*

France

1933/5.82/12.7/??
1934/9.88/15.9/197
1935/13.09/19.02/436
1936/17.39/18.5/581
1937/18.17/18.7/743
1938/22.12/22.9/1,382
1939/97.24/33.1/1,092*

*Until September. Aicracft production figures are totals for all types, also non-military types. Britain and France tended to build more multi-engine types, which can lead one to overstate German a/c production in the figures above.
All numbers from Hooton, Phoenix Triumphant, p. 278-280...

'AF%' is the percentage that air force spending took out of total defense spending.

...German production rates don't seem low unless compared to British & French production combined - and for a high, if ultimately sustainable price in aircraft, the Luftwaffe put the French (and the Dutch and the Belgians) out of the equation in 1940.

[phylo_roadking]

Jon - have you figures for 1940???

Hooton I've only ever glanced through Does he provide a breakdown by aircraft type?

[Jon G.]

I am looking for 1940 numbers and will post them when I find them. I'm not sure if reliable French figures for 1940 are available but I'll see what I can find. It complicates things a bit that you have to add American deliveries to the Allies from 1939/1940 and on.

FWIW, Hooton's two volumes about the Luftwaffe are excellent, by far the best monography of the Luftwaffe I've read.They make an excellent companion to the PRO's The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force.