Luftwaffe vs RAF

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
Post Reply
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#16

Post by phylo_roadking » 23 Nov 2011, 18:30

....a reserve of 10,000 trained aircrew during the Battle of Britain
Sid - as in, in the rest of the LW not involved in the BoB; and aircrew in total, not solely pilots of course. And conversion to type would have been required - but the manpower pool was there....while the RAF was scraping the bottom of theirs :(

I'll have to read back in Hooton, but the LW had a huge training establishment by 1940; I'll have to check if he notes if spending on it ramped up after Munich.
Interestingly in North Africa, they often used a combined escort tactic. The less well performing Italian fighters Fiat G.50 and Macchi 200 (and sometimes the Fiat CR 42) as close escort, and the high-performance 109s and Macchi 202s as distant escort
...a lesson learned courtesy of the BoB - where due to events the 109s ended up escorting the performance-compromised Bf110s who were escorting the bombers! 8O
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#17

Post by Sid Guttridge » 24 Nov 2011, 12:36

Hi Phylo,

I have the following for Aircrew State of Readiness: August 1938:

Type / Authorized Number of Crews / Fully Operational / Partly Operational
Strategic Reconnaissance/228 / 84 / 57
Tactical Reconnaissance / 397 / 183 / 128
Fighter / 938 /537 / 364
Bomber / 1409 / 378 / 411
Dive Bomber / 300 / 80 / 123
Ground Attack / 195 / 89 / 11
Transport / 117 /10 / 17
Coastal and Navy / 230 / 71 / 34

(I presume that the surprisingly low number of transport crews is because their number was to me made up by aircraft and crews mobilized from Lufthansa and other civil carriers).

This is from an article by Williamson Murray entitled German Air Power and the Munich Crisis.

Given the situation in August 1938, it would seem to me surprising if the Luftwaffe had accumulated a reserve of 10,000 trained aircew by two years later, especially as some losses had been incurred in that period and some further unit expansion had taken place.

What does Hooton say?


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#18

Post by ljadw » 24 Nov 2011, 13:37

From Hooton:
Combat aircraft :30 september 1939 :3000 30 december 1939 :3350 30 march 1940 :4000
Aircrew (for the combat aircraft) :30 september 1939 :3000 30 december 1939 :3300 30 march 1940:3750
The crews mean : 1 man in a BEF 109,2 in a BEF 110 and 4 or more in a bomber

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003, 22:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#19

Post by redcoat » 24 Nov 2011, 15:15

phylo_roadking wrote:
....a reserve of 10,000 trained aircrew during the Battle of Britain
Sid - as in, in the rest of the LW not involved in the BoB; and aircrew in total, not solely pilots of course. And conversion to type would have been required - but the manpower pool was there....while the RAF was scraping the bottom of theirs :(

I'll have to read back in Hooton, but the LW had a huge training establishment by 1940; I'll have to check if he notes if spending on it ramped up after Munich.
The Luftwaffe had nothing like this reserve of pilots, in the BoB on the 14 September the Luftwaffe's Bf 109 Geschwader possessed only 67 percent of their operational crews against authorised aircraft. For Bf 110 units it was 46 per cent; and for bombers it was 59 per cent.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#20

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Nov 2011, 17:09

In no particular order....
Combat aircraft :30 september 1939 :3000 30 december 1939 :3350 30 march 1940 :4000
Aircrew (for the combat aircraft) :30 september 1939 :3000 30 december 1939 :3300 30 march 1940:3750
The crews mean : 1 man in a BEF 109,2 in a BEF 110 and 4 or more in a bomber
..and therefore we can't tell from that how many actual personnel as in aircrew, rather than complete aircrews - without the aircraft totals being further broken down by type.
I have the following for Aircrew State of Readiness: August 1938:

Type / Authorized Number of Crews / Fully Operational / Partly Operational
Strategic Reconnaissance/228 / 84 / 57
Tactical Reconnaissance / 397 / 183 / 128
Fighter / 938 /537 / 364
Bomber / 1409 / 378 / 411
Dive Bomber / 300 / 80 / 123
Ground Attack / 195 / 89 / 11
Transport / 117 /10 / 17
Coastal and Navy / 230 / 71 / 34

(I presume that the surprisingly low number of transport crews is because their number was to me made up by aircraft and crews mobilized from Lufthansa and other civil carriers).
Sid, in this case no - because the bomber totals will at this point still include some number of the bomber-configured Ju/52mg3es; the decision was taken to replace these with Do17s and He111s in 1937, but by 1938 many were still in operational service as bombers, or at the very least "bomber transports", that strange interwar term....in fact, the term that continued in use for Ju52 units...KGrzbV or Kampfgruppe zur besondern Verwendung...throughout the war maintained the idea that 1939-45 Ju52s could theorectically act as bombers - even if they never did so!

As of September 1939, for instance, the LW transportgruppen flew 547 mg3e and mg4e "bomber transports"...

Secondly - in the first years of the war, the LW frequently assembled ad hoc transportgruppen from the LW training schools (done for Poland, Holland, and Crete) - where Ju52s performed the same role day-to-day as bomber crew multiengined trainers as the Avro Anson and Airspeed Oxford. Therefore at this point, in peacetime, those aircraft in the training schools wouldn't appear on "operational readiness" returns anyway.
The Luftwaffe had nothing like this reserve of pilots
As I noted...."aircrew in total, not solely pilots of course". Remember, in comparison the RAF had already combed through Coastal etc. several times in the weeks from the Armistice to August 12th...for attrition was high BEFORE the BoB "officially" got underway then; on the 11th, for instance, the last day of the Kanalkampf when the LW was on the eve of going over to the new strategy plan, 25 Fighter Command pilots were killed 8O

When you reckon that a Fighter Command squadron had ~22 pilots available, with 12 "rostered" per day - that's an ENTIRE RAF fighter squadron obliterated...or the rostered combat strength of TWO.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Imad
Member
Posts: 1412
Joined: 21 Nov 2004, 04:15
Location: Toronto

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#21

Post by Imad » 03 Dec 2011, 20:57

This one's probably a little harder to answer but I'm wondering how much the defensive machine guns of German bombers would have contributed to RAF fighter losses in BoB.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#22

Post by phylo_roadking » 03 Dec 2011, 21:35

I'm not sure where you'd go about finding out precise numbers in that - for of course pilots downed by it didn't necessarily survie the experience to record it :( All I can do is recommend you take a look at Bishop again and note the following -

1/ the two occasions I mentioned before when Hurricane pilots broke into Dornier formations against standing orders - and were shot down as a result; this means that A/ the RAF accepted defensive fire was effective, and B/ flying in close formation did provide overlapping fields of fire covering each other.

Of course too - war is hell, and fighter pilots put faith in their armoured windscreens etc., had their Brownings zero'd in for much closer convergence as opposed to the "official" 750-800 yards and went for it to get the kill...Number One of Sailor Malan's "ten rules for air fighting " - "Wait until you see the whites of his eyes..."

2/ take a look at some (a lot) of the raid interception details Bishop gives; relatively small losses...2-3-4 bombers...when entire fighter squadrons were put up against oncoming raids....

To me - that argues that something was stopping the RAF bringing down far more than that - escorting fighters? Running out of their 13-14 seconds' ammo without doing anything major enough to bring down a bomber? Bomber defensive fire?

Probably a combination of all those and more - but bomber defensive fire has to be in the equation....or why else did LW crews demand more of it in certain types??? :wink: if it was useless, they'd have demanded the guns stripped out and their weight (and ammo and the gunner :wink:) traded for speed....but they didn't, they wanted more guns.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Denniss
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: 26 Nov 2004, 03:52
Location: Germany

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#23

Post by Denniss » 04 Dec 2011, 03:28

Most of these gun additions were to the side so I assume they requested them to fix dead spots not covered by the usual 3-MG setup.

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

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#24

Post by JonS » 04 Dec 2011, 03:35

phylo_roadking wrote:2/ take a look at some (a lot) of the raid interception details Bishop gives; relatively small losses...2-3-4 bombers...when entire fighter squadrons were put up against oncoming raids....

To me - that argues that something was stopping the RAF bringing down far more than that - escorting fighters? Running out of their 13-14 seconds' ammo without doing anything major enough to bring down a bomber? Bomber defensive fire?
Hitting something moving in three dimensions is quite tricky. Especially when you, too, are moving in three dimensions.
Probably a combination of all those and more - but bomber defensive fire has to be in the equation ... or why else did LW crews demand more of it in certain types??? :wink: if it was useless, they'd have demanded the guns stripped out and their weight (and ammo and the gunner :wink:) traded for speed ... but they didn't, they wanted more guns.
Or perhaps the very human instinct to want to hit back. Do you think the aircrew really cared if they carried 2000kg to the target, or that they preferred to carry 1500kg and a couple of extra machine guns even if those MGs were - to external observers - objectively useless, or a couple of extra km/h when they still have to fly all the way to the target and back?

From the USAFs early missions in late 1942 and early 1943 we already know exactly how useful 'overlapping fields of fire' from hand held MGs were (hint: only slightly more useful than throwing spitballs would have been). THere is approximately zero reason to suppose that the German aerial gunners were any more effective.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#25

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Dec 2011, 15:33

From the USAFs early missions in late 1942 and early 1943 we already know exactly how useful 'overlapping fields of fire' from hand held MGs were (hint: only slightly more useful than throwing spitballs would have been). THere is approximately zero reason to suppose that the German aerial gunners were any more effective.
Except for the anecdotal evidence that it was effective to an extent in the BoB. Not wonderfully effective - but I never said it was.
Hitting something moving in three dimensions is quite tricky. Especially when you, too, are moving in three dimensions
Exactly - and the idea was that you didn't need to actually shoot down attacking fighters - just disrupt their aim for those vital 14 seconds in total....

It was hard enough for fighter pilots to ensure their bullet stream crossed the oath of a moving bomber target for enough rounds to hit the target to ensure something vital was hit - defensive fire was to prevent that happening, not rack up a total of fighters downed!
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Andrew Arthy
Member
Posts: 214
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 05:04
Location: Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#26

Post by Andrew Arthy » 10 Dec 2011, 00:30

Hi,

Here are Luftwaffe and RAF losses in the Battle of Britain for the first half of August 1940:

1 August 1940

German Losses
1 Ju 88 missing

RAF Losses
1 Hurricane of 145 Squadron shot down by a Hs 126
1 Spitfire of 616 Squadron damaged by return fire from a Ju 88

****************************************************
2 August 1940

German Losses
1 Bf 109 missing in aerial combat

RAF Losses
None

****************************************************
3 August 1940

German Losses
1 Do 17 missing

RAF Losses
None

****************************************************
4 August 1940

German Losses
1 He 111 lost

RAF Losses
None

****************************************************
5 August 1940

German Losses
1 Bf 109 crashed in the channel, pilot wounded and rescued
1 Bf 109 missing

RAF Losses
1 aircraft lost

****************************************************
6 August 1940

German Losses
1 Do 17 missing

RAF Losses
1 aircraft lost

****************************************************
7 August 1940

German Losses
None

RAF Losses
None

****************************************************
8 August 1940

German Losses
8 Ju 87s lost
5 Bf 109s lost
1 Bf 110 lost

RAF Losses
4 Spitfires shot down by Bf 109s
1 Blenheim of 600 Squadron lost
1 Spitfire lost
5 Hurricanes of 145 Squadron lost
8 Hurricanes of other units lost
1 Spitfire forced landing after combat with Bf 109s
3 Hurricanes damaged
2 Spitfires damaged
2 Spitfires damaged in combat with Bf 109s

****************************************************
9 August 1940

German Losses
1 He 111 lost
1 He 111 forced landing in friendly territory
1 Ju 86

RAF Losses
3 aircraft lost

****************************************************
10 August 1940

German Losses
None

RAF Losses
None

****************************************************
11 August 1940

German Losses
1 Ju 87 lost
12 Bf 109s lost
10 Bf 110s lost
5 Ju 88s lost

RAF Losses
6 Spitfires shot down
21 Hurricanes shot down
1 Spitfire forced landing
4 Hurricanes forced landing
2 Spitfires damaged
9 Hurricanes damaged

****************************************************
12 August 1940

German Losses
1 Do 17 lost
1 Ju 87 lost
12 Ju 88s lost
6 Bf 109s lost
5 Bf 110s lost

RAF Losses
22 aircraft lost

****************************************************
13 August 1940

German Losses
6 Do 17s lost
5 Ju 87s lost
5 Ju 88s lost
1 He 111 lost
6 Bf 109s lost
9 Bf 110s lost

RAF Losses
12 Hurricanes lost
1 Spitfire lost
2 Hurricanes made forced landings
2 Spitfires made forced landings
8 Hurricanes damaged
3 Spitfires damaged

****************************************************
14 August 1940

German Losses
5 Bf 109s lost
2 Bf 110s lost
2 Ju 88s lost
6 He 111s lost

RAF Losses
8 aircraft lost

****************************************************
15 August 1940

German Losses
9 He 111s lost
7 Ju 87s lost
3 Do 17s lost
6 Bf 109s lost
18 Bf 110s lost
12 Ju 88s lost
1 He 115 lost

RAF Losses
21 Hurricanes shot down
8 Spitfires shot down
8 Hurricanes made forced landings
2 Spitfires made forced landings
13 Hurricanes damaged
3 Spitfires damaged
1 Blenheim shot down by an RAF fighter

****************************************************
1-15 August 1940

RAF Fighter Losses: 124
Luftwaffe Bf 109 and Bf 110 Losses: 88


****************************************************
Bibliography

AWM 54 423/4/103 Part 83, Situation Reports Issued by Luftwaffe Führungsstab Ic, Part 3, 1st August – 15th August, 1940

Richard Townshend Bickers, The Battle of Britain, Salamander, London, 1997.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#27

Post by phylo_roadking » 10 Dec 2011, 02:00

5 August 1940

German Losses
1 Bf 109 crashed in the channel, pilot wounded and rescued
1 Bf 109 missing

RAF Losses
1 aircraft lost
According to Bishop - Two aircraft and one pilot lost from No.64 Sqn. This was one of the combats at the tail end of the Kanalkampf where the RAF fighters were jumped on from above and out of the sun when on standing patrol.
7 August 1940

German Losses
None

RAF Losses
None
In the air...this was the day the Peewit convoy was comprehensively trashed :( Twenty ships and nine escort, and its own barrage balloons. Nothing had been sent through the Channel since CW8 was mangled on the 28th of July...and was timed to pass through the Narrows in the dark on its way to Dorset, to avoid LW attack. Instead it was ambushed by eboats. Two ships collided trying to take evasive action, another was damaged, and two were sunk.
8 August 1940

German Losses
8 Ju 87s lost
5 Bf 109s lost
1 Bf 110 lost

RAF Losses
4 Spitfires shot down by Bf 109s
1 Blenheim of 600 Squadron lost
1 Spitfire lost
5 Hurricanes of 145 Squadron lost
8 Hurricanes of other units lost
1 Spitfire forced landing after combat with Bf 109s
3 Hurricanes damaged
2 Spitfires damaged
2 Spitfires damaged in combat with Bf 109s
Bishop has different numbrs for some of these too;
7 Ju87s lost
8 Bf109s lost...

On the British side, Nos. 145 and 43 Sqns each lost three of their Hurricanes, and No. 238 Sqn lost two more; a total of 13 were lost that day, but spread around the units differently from above.

Unfortunately - the LW's taget of their large raids had been Peewit again; only four of its 20 ships eventually reached Dorset undamaged.
9 August 1940

German Losses
1 He 111 lost
1 He 111 forced landing in friendly territory
1 Ju 86

RAF Losses
3 aircraft lost
Bishop doesn't mention any RAF losses....I wonder if Bickers' figures include non-combat losses?

The Ju86 there....should be a Ju88; intercepted by Hurricanes from Nos. 234 and 601 Sqns as it circled the remains of Peewit.
11 August 1940

German Losses
1 Ju 87 lost
12 Bf 109s lost
10 Bf 110s lost
5 Ju 88s lost

RAF Losses
6 Spitfires shot down
21 Hurricanes shot down
1 Spitfire forced landing
4 Hurricanes forced landing
2 Spitfires damaged
9 Hurricanes damaged
Bishop is again different; "just over 30" German aircraft lost...and of the 27 RAF losses, 25 pilots killed on the 11th :(
13 August 1940
German Losses
6 Do 17s lost
5 Ju 87s lost
5 Ju 88s lost
1 He 111 lost
6 Bf 109s lost
9 Bf 110s lost

RAF Losses
12 Hurricanes lost
1 Spitfire lost
2 Hurricanes made forced landings
2 Spitfires made forced landings
8 Hurricanes damaged
3 Spitfires damaged
The RAF losses there are correct, but Bishop notes that while they claimed 64 Ggerman aircraft downed - it was closer to @47 - 15 more than above.
14 August 1940
German Losses
5 Bf 109s lost
2 Bf 110s lost
2 Ju 88s lost
6 He 111s lost

RAF Losses
8 aircraft lost
Bishop has seven...but he also notes that there were plenty of aircraft destroyed on the ground that day - Hurricanes under repair at Colerne, Blenheims at Manston, Spitfires in hangars at Middle Wallop.
15 August 1940
German Losses
9 He 111s lost
7 Ju 87s lost
3 Do 17s lost
6 Bf 109s lost
18 Bf 110s lost
12 Ju 88s lost
1 He 115 lost

RAF Losses
21 Hurricanes shot down
8 Spitfires shot down
8 Hurricanes made forced landings
2 Spitfires made forced landings
13 Hurricanes damaged
3 Spitfires damaged
1 Blenheim shot down by an RAF fighter
Bishop has one more RAF fighter lost, a total of 30...he does however also say 75 German aircraft were lost, against the 56 here. This was the famous Schwarze Donnerstag, the "Black Thursday of the Luftwaffe". But those losses were againt over 2000 sorties flown acros the day by the LW, as opposed to Fighter Command's 974....

To me, that looks like the LW enjoyed a lower sortie-to-loss rate than Fighter Command did that day :(
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Juha
Member
Posts: 280
Joined: 29 Sep 2005, 11:38
Location: Finland

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#28

Post by Juha » 13 Dec 2011, 02:15

Hello
On LW air gunners
the book is Richard Hough and Denis Richards: The Battle of Britain. Coronet edition 1990 ISBN 0 340 53470 2.
Exact location p. 156 note**, in fact the study was based on opinions given in 1988 by some 100 surviving BoB pilots. 40 rated the quality of German bomber gunnery good or excellent, 32 thought it average and 30 poor. In text on that page is a short note of a combat where gunners of a tight formation of Dorniers shot down two British fighters and in the note is mentioned a combat in which 9 He 111s shot down three out of the first six attacking Hurricanes.

On pilots establishment of FC sqn during the BoB
FC sqns had the establishment of 26 pilots but the standard establishment of pilots in a figter sqn was reduced in Dec 40 to 23.

Juha

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#29

Post by phylo_roadking » 13 Dec 2011, 03:14

From Bishop - a flight from No. 610 Sqn attacked an unescorted staffel of Dorniers on the 8th of July...and P.O. ALB Raven was killed in the formation's self-covering defensive fire.

On the 24th, Spitfires from Nos. 54, 65 and 610 Sqns were vectored onto a tight formation of 18 Do17s over Margate; the bombers were escorted by 40 bf109s; the 65 Sqn spitfires went after the bombers while the others engaged the newly promoted Major Adolf Galland's escorts....but were unable to penetrate the formation's defensive fire at all.
FC sqns had the establishment of 26 pilots but the standard establishment of pilots in a figter sqn was reduced in Dec 40 to 23.
The numbers allowed Dowding to order on the 27th of July that each pilot should have a minimum of 8 hours off duty in every 24, and a continuous 24-hours-off period every week. In July, he had lost 80 flight commanders and squadron leaders, and only half the pilots left in Fighter Command had any combat experience as yet. Due to the positioning of squadrons and lack of rotation at that point, those involved in the heaviest fighting of the Kanalkampf were approaching physical and mental exhaustion.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
sunbury2
Member
Posts: 203
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 09:35

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

#30

Post by sunbury2 » 08 Jan 2012, 05:40

Post BoB circa 1941 should be examined more, it seems its always glossed over as it was a major defeat for RAF Fighter Command.

Over 600 Spitfires were shot down over Northern France in 1941, the Luftwaffe lost approximately 120 fighters, meaning a 5 to 1 exchange rate. 5 Spitfires lost for every Me 109/FW 190. Leigh-Mallory and his aggressive missions cost the RAF and the British war effort dearly. If a few hundred of those Spitfires lost in 1941 had instead been sent to the Middle East and the Far East, perhaps those War theatres may had different outcomes.

The next big battle of the RAF vs the Luftwaffe was Dieppe, 19th August 1942, "Operation Jubilee".

100 RAF aircraft were lost and 54 damaged in combat and 12 more damaged in accidents. As an aside the Royal Navy shot down three RAF aircraft.

A breakdown of losses are 59 Spitfires shot down, 20 Hurricanes, 10 Mustangs, 2 Typhoons, 4 Bostons and 2 Blenheims total 100.

Luftwaffe losses were 48 aircraft shot down and 24 damaged. 23 Fighters and 25 bombers shot down.

In the Fighter to Fighter air battle 59 Spitfires lost to 23 Luftwaffe. The Hurricanes, Mustangs and Typhoons were for ground attack and not for air to air combat roles specifically.

(Reference source is "The Greatest Air Battle" by Norman Franks IBSN 1 898697 74 4)

It is fair to say in 1941 the Luftwaffe won the air battle against Fighter Command over France. Dieppe is more complex, the RAF lost double the aircraft, but greatly hindered the German bombers trying to attack the multitude of ships off Dieppe. As that was Fighter Command's primary mission, they achieved it at a great cost.

(Edit Once to clarify my thoughts :)

Post Reply

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”