Spitfire IX overmodeled??

[Crumpp]

Post your Statistics....


Crumpp

[gripen]

Crumpp,
I have all ready posted a link to them and conclusions are clear: The losses of the heavies increased after march and in May losses were still higher than in March, activity  in other fronts increased in the spring, USAAF fighters claimed quite constant number of enemy planes in air through out spring and summer and increasing number in ground. Same story can be found from BBSU and USBBS with allready claimed numbers on LW activity.

I quess you will argue for ever but nothing on these statistics supports your (or your sources) statement that the air superiority was reached in May nor the statement that the LW was finished in June.

gripen

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by gripen
Crumpp,
I have all ready posted a link to them and conclusions are clear: The losses of the heavies increased after march and in May losses were still higher than in March, activity  in other fronts increased in the spring, USAAF fighters claimed quite constant number of enemy planes in air through out spring and summer and increasing number in ground. Same story can be found from BBSU and USBBS with allready claimed numbers on LW activity.

I quess you will argue for ever but nothing on these statistics supports your (or your sources) statement that the air superiority was reached in May nor the statement that the LW was finished in June.

gripen

How many sorties flown in March to go with the losses Gripen?

How many sorties flown in May to go with the losses?

I'll tell ya.  

9,678 bomber sorties in March by the 8th AF

17,848 bomber sorties in May by the 8th AF.

Wonder if that had something to do with the numbers of losses increasing that you want to use out of context? Almost twice as many sorties. Where there twice as many losses? Or did losses actually drop percentage wise?  Hmmm  178 Heavy bombers lost to fighters in March.  211 Heavy bombers lost in May.  Looks like losses vs total number of sorties dropped to me.  My math shows it to be a 1.8% loss in March vs a 1.1% loss in May.  Losses actually dropped then didn't they?

Did the Luftwaffe ever dictate the battle in 44?  Did they have any impact on the ground war in 44?  Did they ever turn back the bombers?  The answer is no.

The Allied Air forces were dictating the where, the when and the how of the air war.

As Gunther Rall said tonite on a special about the 357th FG and the long range Mustangs and the airwar in 44.

"They taught us a lesson".

Why were the fighter claims on the ground higher? Cause the increasing number of Allied fighters were having to go down on the deck to find them and were hitting the airfields.

"In the air and on the ground."

You keep wanting to somehow imply that the Luftwaffe was still and effective force late in the war.  It wasn't.  It was trying to put up a fight, but it didn't stand a chance against the might of Allied airpower, no matter how many ways you want to spin it.

That's not an insult to their courage, character, whatever.  

No matter how you spin the numbers, the Luftwaffe dominated the Polish Air Force in 39.  Did German planes still get shot down by the Poles?  You bet.  Did the Poles have couragous and talented pilots?  You bet.  Was the issue ever in doubt?  Not a chance.

You are so caught up in somehow finding a number in some table somewhere that will convince us that the Luftwaffe was making a difference in 44 and it just isn't going to happen.

Once again, quoting from the "Luftwaffe War Diaries", referencing May of 44 and conclusions drawn about the Luftwaffe at that point.

"1-The increasing strength of the enemy was not matched by any increase in defensive operations.

2-The percentaqe loss to the enemy became so minimal that the defense ceased to have any deterrant effect.

3-Losses suffered by the defence in the long run pased the limit of endurance."


Show me somewhere in 44 where that doesn't ring true?

Dan/Slack

[gripen]

Guppy35,
Well, in absolute scale the losses of the heavies increased in April and May if compared to March. In relative scale losses increased in April and decreased in May. It should be also noted that in May the transportation plan resulted more missions to France and also in May the P-51 became most numerous escort fighter (fighter claims increased).

Otherwise Crumpp and SCholz defined term "air superiority" above and based on losses and claims it can be easily seen that the allies did not have it March nor April nor May. And again based on losses and claims it can be easily seen that the LW was far from finished in June or summer. As an example study air war over Ploesti (Two P-38 squadrons doing defensive circle).

Why don't you read what I wrote above?

"Well, if the allies had had reached air superiority over Germany in March then the losses of the heavies should have reduced in the deep penetration raids. That was not the case; losses increased in April and stayed higher than in February until invasion started. Basicly the Big Week proved that the 8th AF could do suistained high altitude deep penetration raids with tolerable losses and causing simultaneoysly untolerable losses to LW. This was pure material war, both sides suffered extremely heavy losses between February and June. But due to superior production capacity and training USAF could sustain this and actually their numbers increased most of this period. In the case of the LW number of planes and experienced pilots slowly decreased during this period; the LW was losing but was still far from finished when invasion started as losses over Normandy prove. Again it should be noted that LW fought on several fronts simultaneoysly. "

I don't see much contradicts with Luftwaffe War Diaries. Do you?

gripen

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by gripen
Guppy35,
Well, in absolute scale the losses of the heavies increased in April and May if compared to March. In relative scale losses increased in April and decreased in May. It should be also noted that in May the transportation plan resulted more missions to France and also in May the P-51 became most numerous escort fighter (fighter claims increased).

Otherwise Crumpp and SCholz defined term "air superiority" above and based on losses and claims it can be easily seen that the allies did not have it March nor April nor May. And again based on losses and claims it can be easily seen that the LW was far from finished in June or summer. As an example study air war over Ploesti (Two P-38 squadrons doing defensive circle).

Why don't you read what I wrote above?

"Well, if the allies had had reached air superiority over Germany in March then the losses of the heavies should have reduced in the deep penetration raids. That was not the case; losses increased in April and stayed higher than in February until invasion started. Basicly the Big Week proved that the 8th AF could do suistained high altitude deep penetration raids with tolerable losses and causing simultaneoysly untolerable losses to LW. This was pure material war, both sides suffered extremely heavy losses between February and June. But due to superior production capacity and training USAF could sustain this and actually their numbers increased most of this period. In the case of the LW number of planes and experienced pilots slowly decreased during this period; the LW was losing but was still far from finished when invasion started as losses over Normandy prove. Again it should be noted that LW fought on several fronts simultaneoysly. "

I don't see much contradicts with Luftwaffe War Diaries. Do you?

gripen

The two 38 Groups that hit Ploesti at low level were the 1st and 82nd.  They were intercepted by Rumanian IAR 80s.  They took them to be 190s but that was not the Luftwaffe involved that day.

The Allies were fighting on several fronts too.  Your point?

No one has claimed that the LW couldn't put a plane in the air or that they didn't fight.  But when they fought it had little to no outcome on the battle.

Once again.  Did they ever turn back the bombers in 44 or ever for that matter?  Did they ever impact on the ground war in 44? Did they ever dictate the fight?

Does this mean that Allied planes weren't going down? Nope.  But many more of these were to flak as they were down low supporting the ground war.

And yes this was a war of attrition and Germany couldn't keep up. The Allies had the production and the trained pilots to do the job.  

How isn't all of that Air Superiority?  Where was the Luftwaffe having any sort of significant impact on the Allied war effort?

Dan/Slack

[gripen]

Guppy35,
Luftwaffe was also present in  Ploesti (JG 53) and  took part on combat  June 10th (and also other combats in Ploesti). But  check the 492nd BG in July 7th if you want another example.

Otherwise I don't know what are you trying to argue? I have not stated that the LW could turn bombers back nor that 13800 sorties LW did around Normandy impacted ground war. I have just pointed out that statements like the allies reached air superiority in March or Luftwaffe was finished in June are not supported by statistics. Generally all efforts the Germans did after say Stalingrad or even earlier had no significant impact on outcome of the war; the allies were capable to beat them in all areas. It just took some time and effort and in the case of the LW certainly more of them than some people want's to believe. And not only USAAF effort..

gripen

[Crumpp]

Gripen,
The Allies had Air Supremacy over Normandy.
That is supported and is a Fact.  Not one single Historian or Luftwaffe/USAAF veteran will say otherwise.  You might get Saddam's late Minister of Information to back you up.

"Der Luftwaffe will scrend dem back into der see...Right now dis very minute de pie-lots are kkeellin dees Allied Infandeils as we speck!"





Crumpp

[gripen]

Crumpp,
IMHO the allies certainly had local air superiority over Normandy in a form as I understand it and I don't mind if someone wants to use term air supremacy on it.

But the problem is that you, GScholz and apparently USAF define the terms "air superiority" and "Air supremacy" so strict that even local air superiority is somewhat questionable and air supremacy is about out of question. The LW could launch those about 13800 sorties with 5,84% loss rate per sortie.

At least your main source uses just term superiority about the battle, supremacy is claimed just as target on planning stage. Note also this part of the text: "For USSTAF, the issue was diversion of the heavies away from the critical battle for Germany and air superiority that was yet to be decided."

gripen

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by gripen
Guppy35,
Luftwaffe was also present in  Ploesti (JG 53) and  took part on combat  June 10th (and also other combats in Ploesti). But  check the 492nd BG in July 7th if you want another example.

Otherwise I don't know what are you trying to argue? I have not stated that the LW could turn bombers back nor that 13800 sorties LW did around Normandy impacted ground war. I have just pointed out that statements like the allies reached air superiority in March or Luftwaffe was finished in June are not supported by statistics. Generally all efforts the Germans did after say Stalingrad or even earlier had no significant impact on outcome of the war; the allies were capable to beat them in all areas. It just took some time and effort and in the case of the LW certainly more of them than some people want's to believe. And not only USAAF effort..

gripen

You were speaking specifically of the P38 raid on Ploesti.  For one, it didn't turn back, for two, the combat down on the deck was with the IAR 80s.

The bottom line is that finding numbers that say the Luftwaffe was still flying, doesn't change the fact that they were a non factor in the war in terms of stopping the strategic bombing campaign or in flying any sort of interdiction, ground support for the German Army.

The Allied Air Forces were in control of the skies.  They dictated the air battle regardless of where it was.  If that isn't air superiority/supremacy, then I don't know what is.

Did Allied planes still go down? Did people still get killed? Did the Luftwaffe still get in the air? Yep.  But while that may have added to the 'statistics', it doesn't change the fact that in 44, in particular from May on, The Luftwaffe was left to make feeble attempts to stop the Allied onslaught, and in the end, they didn't do it.

There is no arguing that.  

Dan/Slack

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Crumpp
JThank you.  The support of the civilian populace means the world to a soldier.

Crumpp, you do know that Pongo served his country as a soldier in the Canadian Forces right?

[gripen]

Guppy35,
There were several air combats during June 10th and JG 53 claimed 5 for one loss. But actually that defensive circle thing happened in June 14th (five P-38s lost) and overall the LW and Romanian AF could put up strong resistance in Ploesti during summer until Russians arrived. And as the case of the 492nd BG proves similar things happened elsewhere too (without support of Romanian AF).

The allied bombers did not turn back in the case of the Schweinfurt nor did 492nd BG; loss rate just was untolerable.

By using statictics (losses and claims by USAF) I have pointed out that there were no large changes in the activity of the Luftwaffe fighter forces in the ETO during spring and summer 1944 despite large losses. There were no signs of collapse and they could cause losses to allies through out this period. What changed during this period was that the allies created effective escort fighter force and the invasion forced LW to fight against  numerically far superior tactical airforces. The LW was not finished but facing increasingly strong enemy which was capable to reduce the efficiency of the LW considerably (against bombers and ground forces or what ever). All this is response to Crumpp's statement that it took a week or bit more and the LW was finished in June; both statements are not true nor supported by statistics.

Otherwise the definitions of the air superiority and supremacy are discussed above and I can say only IMHO that allies reached real air superiority around autumn 1944 when the tactical AFs reached borders of the Germany and fuel shortage restricted operations.

gripen

[Crumpp]

No thrawn I didn't know that.


My unit worked pretty closely with some Canadian Forces.  In fact We shared the same shoothouse.  Our Compound was co-located with them, the Germans, and the New Zealanders.  Great group of guys.

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by gripen
Guppy35,
There were several air combats during June 10th and JG 53 claimed 5 for one loss. But actually that defensive circle thing happened in June 14th (five P-38s lost) and overall the LW and Romanian AF could put up strong resistance in Ploesti during summer until Russians arrived. And as the case of the 492nd BG proves similar things happened elsewhere too (without support of Romanian AF).

The allied bombers did not turn back in the case of the Schweinfurt nor did 492nd BG; loss rate just was untolerable.

By using statictics (losses and claims by USAF) I have pointed out that there were no large changes in the activity of the Luftwaffe fighter forces in the ETO during spring and summer 1944 despite large losses. There were no signs of collapse and they could cause losses to allies through out this period. What changed during this period was that the allies created effective escort fighter force and the invasion forced LW to fight against  numerically far superior tactical airforces. The LW was not finished but facing increasingly strong enemy which was capable to reduce the efficiency of the LW considerably (against bombers and ground forces or what ever). All this is response to Crumpp's statement that it took a week or bit more and the LW was finished in June; both statements are not true nor supported by statistics.

Otherwise the definitions of the air superiority and supremacy are discussed above and I can say only IMHO that allies reached real air superiority around autumn 1944 when the tactical AFs reached borders of the Germany and fuel shortage restricted operations.

gripen

We are clearly going to have to agree to disagree gripen

If I'm in an air race and my plane is going 150 MPH and the other guy is doing 500mph, the fact that I show up and start the race is irrelevant.  I may be determined and unwilling to quit trying, but the fact the the other guy is that much more capable makes my presence somewhat pointless despite the fact that I'm there.

In essence that's the LW vs the Allied AF in 44, in particular from May on.

Dan/Slack

[Guppy35]

Of course this is from the Allied Supreme Commander so it probably doesn't count as I would imagine the argument would be made that he wasn't the Supreme Commander, just the Superior Commander, but what the heck

Dan/Slack


http://www.ehistory.com/wwii/books/d-day1944/0044.cfm

No stronger endorsement of the air support in Normandy can be found than Omar N. Bradley's letter to AAF Commanding General "Hap" Arnold at the end of September 1944. "I cannot say too much for the very close cooperation we have had between Air and Ground," Bradley wrote. "In my opinion, our close
cooperation is better than the Germans ever had in their best days."

Over the decades, the Normandy invasion and breakout has become the classic example of Second World War combined-arms, mechanized, air-land, coalition warfare. Fortunately, the Allies possessed not merely air superiority, but air supremacy, making victory on the ground that much easier. The Allies had won the critical battle for air supremacy, not over the beachhead, but in
several years of air war that had gutted the Luftwaffe. To those inclined to minimize the value of air to the Normandy operation, the final word must come from Eisenhower himself.

In June 1944, John S. D. Eisenhower, Ike's son, graduated from West Point-ironically on the same day that Allied forces stormed ashore at Normandy. June 24 found the new lieutenant riding through Normandy with his father, observing the aftermath of the invasion:

The roads we traversed were dusty and crowded. Vehicles moved slowly, bumper to bumper. Fresh out of West Point, with all its courses in conventional procedures, I was offended at this jamming up of traffic. It wasn't according to the book. Leaning over Dad's shoulder, I remarked, "You'd never get away with this if you didn't have air supremacy." I received an impatient snort:

"If I didn't have air supremacy, I wouldn't be here."

[gripen]

Guppy35,
Yes, we have just a bit different way to see things. Germany lost initiative in war sometime 1942, after that it was just matter of time (in fact I agree with Crumpp on this). Allied were going to be better in every field but the germans just keep trying until the end.

The analogy to the BoB is that I doubt if the LW had any possibilities to reach some kind of air superiority in short run because the RAF had more fighters and pilots in reserve. The comparison to spring 1944 is therefore unrelevant because the allies certainly had far more resources than LW, still they (LW)  could put up strong resistance and keep on fighting. The long run scenario for BoB might have been something else but that's pure speculation.

gripen

edited: No comments on air superiority/supremacy