They didn`t lie. The RAF was spanked over London on the 7th of September, by Bf 109s. It appears even those few minutes were enough
If you call Luftwaffe losses of 37+, RAF losses of 27 the RAF being spanked. (The lowest source for the Luftwaffe gives 37, most are higher)
Indeed you are right. The much longer ranged 109s could have spent a lot more time than Spitfires over enemy territory. I always wondered why didn the RAF just copy the 109 and scrap the Spit... But it`s really not hard to understand. The Bf 109G had a still air range of 615 mils on internal fuel, the Spit IX 434 miles under the same conditions. You don`t have to be a math genius to get that 615 > 434.. I am not sure about the 109E, it was far worser aerodynamically, and the DB 601s had were thirstier than the more advanced DB 605s. The range given for it on internal tank is 460 miles, however I don`t know if it`s the same conditions.
I've asked you repeatedly for a source for your 109 consumption figures, I don't think one has ever been forthcoming, has it?
It could be a problem if you don`t have enough ships for it, and even the "ships" you have are mostly river bargues, unsuited for a stormy channel.
How many ships does it take to support your "1 panzer division"?
The Germans had enough ships to support an invasion, the barges were necessary for landing troops on the beaches. Resupply through a port is much easier, and the Germans were confident they could capture a port.
Interesting. It appears the German High command is on the same opinion as the British High command : Bad weather in the 2nd week of September is restricting air operations.
Isegrim, if you go back you'll notice I was talking about the Luftwaffe sorties dropping in the
first week of September.
Tony Wood's site:
http://tonywood.cjb.net/ It's a list of claims from the OKL microfilms.
... and not very surprisingly, the 2000+ claims by the LW don`t turn up anywhere. Thanks Naswan for admitting it.
Try clicking the link, Isegrim.
You refer to Tony Wood, however, NO-WHERE can I see ANYTHING on his site even slightly resambling your statements...
OK, if you really can't see it.
It's halfway down the page, the first file under the heading
O.K.L. Fighter Claims : Chef für Ausz. und Dizsiplin Luftwaffen-Personalamt L.P. (A) V Films & Supplementary Claims from Lists
the file is called
West 1939-41, Issue 1
You have to click on the little Doc or PDF icons to the right of it.
As an example of the detail, the first listed claim on the 1st of sept is Ofw. Erich Rudorffer, 2./JG 2 over Dover at 12:45.
Don't bother reading the introduction, it says it covers claims up to the armistice with France, but it's been updated recently. (You'll notice it has little red dots beside it, which the key on the site says means it's new on the 7th or 24th of January.)
Groehler never claimed such BS (his numbers in the book prove the exact opposite my dear... Of course you haven`t read the book you comment on...), and you have never read anything from him. Regardless of you unfounded opinion, Groehler did so far the most detailed analysis and research on LW strenght
Sorry, I was going by what Les Butler and Don Caldwell have to say on their web page:
"It is clear from his text that Groehler's objectives were: (1) to show that the German-Soviet front was the most significant source of the Luftwaffe losses that ultimately led to Allied air supremacy, and (2) that the Luftwaffe could not afford to weaken its forces in the East, even when pushed hard by the USAAF strategic offensive and the Normandy invasion. Groehler did make these claims, to the undoubted pleasure of his Soviet masters, but his data, when examined carefully, don't back him up. "
http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrlosses.htmNo, they lost around 600 on OPERATIONAL missions,
Source?
Wood and Dempster, The Narrow Margin. Hooton, Eagle in Flames gives similar figures.
plus hundreds of 110s, which the Germans did (laughably) call a fighter.
BS again, they never called it a fighter, they called it a Zestorer, or Destroyer, a multi purpose heavy fighter.
No other answer needed, really.
As for how laughable it was, ask those 55 000 dead corpses buried under the molten aluminium of Lancesters.
Tastless, even for you.
Another of his Bf 110 college, Major Groth, knocked down 13 of the RAF in the BoB alone in his 110.
Of course he did.
According to the Tony doc that you claim doesn't exist, Groth got 2 Spits and a Hurricane on the 30th August, a day when the Jagdwaffe claimed 59 and the RAF lost 25, (including those lost to bomber fire). So, if Groth was typical, he probably got 1 on the 30th of Aug.
He got 4 Spitfires on the 4th Sept, a day when the Jagdwaffe claimed 52 and the RAF actually lost 17. So divide by 3 if you assume NO RAF aircraft were lost to anything other than the Jagdwaffe that day, but more realisticly divide by 4. Another 1 for Groth.
I can't find any other claims by Groth during the BoB, but he did claim another 6 over Poland and France before the BoB. I think Tony Wood says the files are incomplete, so either you've got it wrong, and Groth's 13 victories include Poland or France, or the Jagdwaffe claimed even more than the 2000 figure during the BoB suggested by Tony Wood's docs.
So Groth's 13 kills during the BoB actually become 2.
What was the highest score among Spitfire aces during BoB, again?
Not a clue, but I'm pretty sure it was more than Groth's 2
Incidentally, Groth looks pretty typical for the Jagdwaffe during the BoB. They claimed 2000 single engined fighters, for total RAF single engined fighter losses of less than 1,000, and probably less than 700 lost to the Jagdwaffe. 3 to overclaiming looks about typical for the Jagdwaffe during the BoB.
What's the source for this 1960 claim?
'Fighters' by Deighton, but alternatively you can go through of the Daily reports of the RAF, which lists all causes. Be sure to read what was lost in the hangars, to Stukas and co. British authors seem to "naturally" leave out the Spits that disappeared in a bomb crater, but counting 109s that was lost in a training field in East Germany.
I wouldn't exactly describe a 109 lost in a training accident in Germany as an operational loss, and I don't think any of the historians mentioned would earlier.
RAF
wastage might have been close to 2000, but that doesn't mean losses. Old planes being written off for fatigue reasons, fabric winged Hurricanes being sent back for scrapping/upgrading, old aircraft being sent to the maintenance schools for trainee fitters to practice on, all are counted into wastage. And when your factories are churning out a surfeit of planes, wastage is higher than when you haven't got enough planes to go around.
As an example, the Luftwaffe had 1024 109s on strength at the begining of 1940. by the end, they had 829. 1,870 were produced in 1940, which puts wastage at something over 2,050. That doesn't mean 2050 losses, it means a turnover of 2,050 aircraft.
You have no idea about how German air units are built up. That`s why you fail/refuse to understand that in the British system, the reserve planes/pilots were issued to the firstline Squadron,
That's what I said, Isegrim.
whereas in the German system the replacements pilots came to the Jagdgeschwader from different named reserve units, which are of course are not counted in the first line strenght.
Isegrim, where were the German reserves?
These are the figures from the Luftwaffe OOB at
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/gob.htmwhich are taken straight from the Luftwaffe records. Click on the Introduction at the top of the page and you will see the references.
The pilot strength of the sigle engined fighter force
Established Available
Dec 39 - 960 - 957
March 40 - 1160 - 1101
June 40 - 1171 - 1126
Sept 40 - 1132 - 917
Dec 40 - 1162 - 915
As you can see, the Jagdwaffe were decidedly under stregth by the end of 1940. You'd think that all these reserves would have been issued, if they existed. What numbers do your sources give for Luftwaffe reserves, Isegrim?
You count British Squadrons, which included the reserves in their structure, but only count the German first line units, that don`t include the reserves in their structure.
You're the only person I've ever seen claiming German reserves still existed by late 1940. Perhaps you can give us some figures, and a source? An explanation of why they remained in the reserves when the Jagdwaffe was so seriously under strength would be nice, too. Especially why reserves weren't sent to squadrons in Sept and Oct, when the Luftwaffe was engaged in combat and had only approx 50% of it's established strength fit for duty.