Bf 109F info

[Angus]

Humble:
"There are dozens of white papers from just about every major world powers military aviation historians on the causes surrounding the decline of the luftwaffe, why not read one or two. "

I did read some...books. Then I met some aces. Then I browswd the net. Then I read the forums. And just now, I looked at Meyer's graphs.

My conclusion still sits, the LW got busted by the W allied. Not on the eastern front.

[humble]

Graphs are wondeful things aren't they....

Without any underlying documentation and out of context its not worth pursuing a dialog on but i'll certainly look at the source (book that is). It's certainly a better reality then "28" combat losses over 50 some days...

Using the "graphs" we have a total of 272 fighter losses in theater for april thru june. So if nothing else its relatively easy to conclude that the "28/45" number is obviously fiction.

Statistically the numbers dont add up in my mind for april/may. We know the germans were flying 1500+ sorties a day early and the russians were flying 1500+ sorties a day late (within that time frame). Those types of sorties levels are obviously not sustainable however this was a battle that had relatively limited lulls and air action was constant.

Now if we look at the numbers for the Med we see 247 fighter losses and a total of 572 for april alone. The main focus of fighting in the Med was obviously Tunisia and the convoy routes from Italy. I'm not aware that the german order of battle for the area could even field these numbers...let alons sustain those losses. II/JG 51 and II/JG 2 were the 1st luftwaffe units deployed to tunisia in response to torch. JG 27 had been moved back to Sicily after it got mauled at El Alamein leaving JG 77 as the only unit actually in N africa before the above mentioned arrivals. From my recollections March was actually the worst month for the luftwaffe with the fighting dragging on thru april and the last luftwaffe {JG 77} unit leaving for Sicily in May 1943.

Given the focus on the Kuban/Kursk battles in the East and the emerging threat of the 8th airforce in the west the claim that the luftwaffe (which I assume is the actual german not axis totals) lost more planes in the Med then in either the east or west during mid 1943 does not apprear factually sustainable under the german deployments. According to the charts the luftwaffe suffered just under 2000 combat losses from April to July in the Med?

Further the graph shows very low #'s for may/june in the east when we know for certain (historically) that the luftwaffe issued a general standdown order on June 7th due to heavy losses around Kuban. No question that Kursk was another blood bath. Historically the migration of luftwaffe fighter units west occured AFTER Kuban not before.

One of the real problems here is the unquestioned acceptance of relatively suspect source material. alot of whats been written for consumption is tailored to a specific audience. Here is a quote from a respected military historian on this issue "And, unfortunately, most of the monographic literature on the Russo-German air war reflects Germany’s point of view."

This comes from an interesting and unbiased "review" of a book on the subject at hand  source

BTW, take a look at the footnotes....

Alot of the "real" analysis is available thru maxwell and other online sources. Its a much more even handed and analytical overview of a complex subject. not just a "historian" who wants to sell guys like Viking a book.

[Viking]

It's like watching a fly with no wings. It flaps and flaps its little stumps trying to fly ... but can't. While slightly amusing to watch I can't help feeling sorry for the poor little sod.

[humble]

Here's a link to one of the articles above

The Russian Air Force in the Eyes of the German Commanders

Here is a link to the numbered articles available via maxwell...

Archives

[humble]

Originally posted by Viking
It's like watching a fly with no wings. It flaps and flaps its little stumps trying to fly ... but can't. While slightly amusing to watch I can't help feeling sorry for the poor little sod.

I'm still waiting for you to show me something....anything at all. An original source, an intellectual arguement, an actual point of debate. I'd call you "3rd rate" but I'd be insulting a lot of people in the middle of the bell shaped curve. As I stated the luftwaffe formally requested the cancellation of all production of the 109 in favor of the G.55 in 1943. They concluded that the G.55 and the C205 were clearly superior to the 109 and either would be an improvement. This is in direct conflict with your beliefs on the 109s "superiority".

I'm formally asking you again for your views and couterpoints on this specific subject. Since I'm "amusing" you should have no problem with a reasonable and articulate analysis of the luftwaffes position in this matter and a rational explanation for such an obvious error.

You wont respond becuase you cant. In fact you never respond to anyone's....

what I seem to get is snipets of info that support a specifc view. Often without contect or actual source. If a source is given its normally (but not always) from the "pulp fiction" section of aviation history.

My views ar just that, I'm certainly not omnipotent. They are however based on a fair amount of "research". Are they infallable of course not...but I'm right awhole lot more often then I'm wrong. Lets look at your whine on the 109 comments earlier...

I stated the 109 had a technological advantage with regard to forced fuel flow under neg G's. I also stated that the 109 was the 1st fighter designed from the protoype to field a mixed armorment backage of cannon & machineguns. given the relative overall performance (even) vs the spit I these two points make the 109 a significantly better plane IMO. you ignore the factual merits and attack a "typo". This is typical of someone with limited abilities who has to look for a way to discredit a source since you cant actually handle an intellectual debate.

So...we're back to the real point.


You are a proponent of the 109, you constantly champion the plane agaisnt all comers. The fact that the luftwaffe itself lost faith in the 109 and reached a point where it felt it had to find an alternative in late 1942 (actual trials were conducted in early 43) directly contradicts every position you have on the 109. So.........?

[humble]

Now what this has done is raise some questions (for me) regarding the air war in the med in 1943. I've always viewed it as a bit of a sideshow to the "big wars". I'm unaware of any luftwaffe deployments on par with the east/west yet according to the graph the luftwaffe lost more planes in the Med then they did in either the east or west over the 1st 9 months of 1943.

If we look at the 1st 9 months of 1943 (recognizing that the germans did in fact move many units west) we see the following...

3,471 total losses in the MTO
3,300 total losses in the east
3,166 total losses in the west

At this point I dont know how accurate those numbers are (both graphs) but even so its alot of losses for the MTO (even if alot was transport/cargo)

[MiloMorai]

Wiki article on the G.55, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55#German_interest

[Meyer]

Originally posted by humble
Graphs are wondeful things aren't they....

Without any underlying documentation and out of context its not worth pursuing a dialog on but i'll certainly look at the source (book that is). It's certainly a better reality then "28" combat losses over 50 some days...

Using the "graphs" we have a total of 272 fighter losses in theater for april thru june. So if nothing else its relatively easy to conclude that the "28/45" number is obviously fiction.

Kuban was not the entire east front.. one would think that such thing is obvious....

Now if we look at the numbers for the Med we see 247 fighter losses and a total of 572 for april alone The main focus of fighting in the Med was obviously Tunisia and the convoy routes from Italy.

Wrong, all aircraft, not just fighters

According to the charts the luftwaffe suffered just under 2000 combat losses from April to July in the Med?

Total losses, not just combat

.

Without any underlying documentation and out of context

You already have that, the documentation and the context.. "archival source: BA-MA: Gen.Qu.Mstr. 6. Abt.;'Flugzeugverluste und Unfalle bei fliegenden Verbande" (3.4-2.7.1943) Rl 2 III/1188-1190.", remember?

This should be regard as the ultimate proof.

[Angus]

So 6387 of LW losses against the western allieds against 3300 in the east.
From your numbers Humble in the months you cut out.
In that period BTW there were transfers from the east towards the west/med. That goes all the way back to Stalingrad, where the supply lines were transporters, and due to the happenings in N-Africa were shipped away from Stalingrad in the very most crucial point.

[humble]

Originally posted by Angus
Humble:
"There are dozens of white papers from just about every major world powers military aviation historians on the causes surrounding the decline of the luftwaffe, why not read one or two. "

I did read some...books. Then I met some aces. Then I browswd the net. Then I read the forums. And just now, I looked at Meyer's graphs.

My conclusion still sits, the LW got busted by the W allied. Not on the eastern front.

No question you can argue the point alot of different ways. As I've stated before I feel the reliance on the 109 was the biggest factor. If the "allies" had just relied on the spit/hurricane or spit/tiffie you'd have the same problems. The allies would have been unable to successfully prosocute a strategic airwar (or even a good tactical one) with just spitXIV/XVI and tempests in 1944. Just not enough "airtime" or payload for the job...especially in an escort or defensive role. In the ned it goes back to the qoute on the mustang....

"It's not the mustangs performance, its the fact it could do it over Berlin that made the difference".

Buried somewhere in all the archives at maxwell are a couple of very interesting reads on the luftwaffe and events in the east. Basically it looked at the cadre's that were moved west in 43 and forwarded the view that the leadership, training, morale issues that plaqued the performance of these units after the move (most of them were very soundly trounced) had origins in the east. Basically the view was that these units were to a degree combat ineffective before the move. Seperate from the loss of high profile aces the germans took a beating in "seasoned" pilots that were the backbone of the various units. The overall quality of "OJT" training in these units was already suffering immensely before they went west.

[humble]

Meyer...

1st, I appreciate your response....

a) While kuban wasnt the entire russian front it was the focal point for a major german offensive. The luftwaffe flew 1500+ sorties on the 1st day alone. I dont feel its unreasonable to stipulate that the bulk of losses (on both sides) were in that area over the time period in question.

b) I gave both numbers...247 fighter and 572 total. Now JG 27 had been moved back to Sicily in 12/42. JG 77 was in Africa and a couple of other units were sent in early 1943. Again I'm unaware of actual luftwaffe units in the MTO that could absorb 272 losses (or even field that many fighters). Now its possible more units were actually in Italy then I'm aware of...but I dont recall allied bombing of Italy being heavy enough to force those kind of losses on the luftwaffe.

c) I recognize that, I think I had 28/45 listed...

d) Is that an initial list, a revised list or an audited "source". It's obviously incorrect on its face. As you noted a single unit claimed more 109's then it has as lost. No question that claim records are always overstated...but by what factor? Historically russian claim records are closer then german records (from 1943 on), primarily since the germans were outhumbered and retreating. If you look at the claims for th units I posted (and look at the underlying documentation) you'll find most if not all actually have engine plate #'s etc.

Now obviously not all planes involved were german (dont think any luftwaffe units still flew the 109E for example). When you actually read the wealth of information available now from the soviets its apparent that aside from some obvious "politically correct hyperbole" they are even handed pragmatic accounts of events. That doesnt make them factually correct but it lends overall credence as a good faith rendition of events from one sides perspective.

They also have alot of detail...so your willingness to simply discount a well researched articulate narrative that highlights both good and bad simply because a singular source of questionable value and obvious error says it wasnt so?
Viewing this from the other side, the germans claimed over 350 kills on a single day (late May{26th I believe}). Would I argue that number is high....sure. However you can't argue that the russians launched a major attack and suffered severe losses.

Now the flip would be that the 16th claimed more 109G's in april then your source states the germans lost. Disregarding the fact that all kill claims accepted were on the russian side {and that specific documentation exists} it would appear that a claim of 28 total combat losses over a period of almost 2 months is clearly incorrect. If we accepted the 272 # as correct (i'm questioning that both as a total and the "reporting" dates). We know all the "big guns" on both sides were there so assuming 65% was kuban related we have ~175 german losses.

[TimRas]

Originally posted by humble
I'm still waiting for you to show me something....anything at all. An original source, an intellectual arguement....the luftwaffe formally requested the cancellation of all production of the 109 in favor of the G.55 in 1943..

Original source on this would be nice (and Wikipedia is not original source..)

[humble]

Originally posted by TimRas
Original source on this would be nice (and Wikipedia is not original source..)

I didnt post that link, however factually its pretty accurate. I posted sources in an other thread you should be able to find. Again dont attack the source (underlying facts are easily documented)...deal with the issue...which is that the luftwaffe wanted the 109 replaced.

[TimRas]

Originally posted by humble
I'm still waiting for you to show me something....anything at all. An original source, an intellectual arguement..
...didnt post that link, however factually its pretty accurate. I posted sources in an other thread you should be able to find..

OK, no intellellectual and honest argument from you, buh, bye.

[humble]

Originally posted by Angus
So 6387 of LW losses against the western allieds against 3300 in the east.
From your numbers Humble in the months you cut out.
In that period BTW there were transfers from the east towards the west/med. That goes all the way back to Stalingrad, where the supply lines were transporters, and due to the happenings in N-Africa were shipped away from Stalingrad in the very most crucial point.

No question units were moved...again the arguements arent all numbers based. If you look at just one unit (JG 77) they had over 2000 kills just from I/JG 77 and II/JG 77.

But if you look at those numbers they dont make sense. JG 77 was the only fighter unit in N Africa (from what I can find) by 23/april. The main german offensive in 1943 was in Feb. The germans flew a tremendous number of sorties in support of axis attacks at Kasserine. By April the german were in full retreat and evacuating N Africa. Most units had been moved and the logistics flow had slowed. Significantly more combat took place in Late Feb thru March then did in April.

Again the lack of underlying source material makes it tough to examine. At this point i'd say you have some "lag"...the MTO "spike" for april is actually for losses incurred earlier but not "entered in the system" till later. so from a book keeping point they are april...but they occured earlier. This would also help explain the discrepancy in the Kuban timeframe. The "spike" for Kursk actually being numbers from earlier. No way the losses at kursk over "3 days" came close to the losses (on either side) at Kuban.

I'd speculate we have a "date of record" logged on the recieving end....not the actual date of loss....

If we look at the unit histories it would seem to support this "lag". JG 27 was rotated to Sicily in 12/42. Other units were rotated in to support the Kasserine offensive but only stayed for a few months. Most german claims for victories were during this time frame (and you would assume corresponding losses). By april these units had been or were being withdrawn from combat and have zero or significantly fewer claims/sorties.

The historically documented facts on unit histories and losses just don't support the time line in the MTO (not questioning the raw numbers just the reporting).