Author Topic: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII  (Read 19114 times)

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #180 on: April 14, 2008, 08:49:58 AM »
Quote
At the end of the battle the RAF was seriously depleted of experienced pilots, and those that were still alive were exhausted and showing all the signs of combat fatigue. Most of the RAF pilots were by then greenhorns with very limited training ... just like the Luftwaffe pilots at the end of the war.

I don't know of any complete study that looks at the number of pilots the RAF had at the start of the battle who were still there at the end, but Stephen Bungay gives the figures for 501 squadron as an example.

501 was the only squadron that fought in the south east from the first day to the last. They had higher casualties than any other Spitfire or Hurricane squadron, with 18 pilots killed during the battle. Of the 18 killed, 3 (or 4, Bungay's maths doesn't add up) were present at the start of the battle, 15 were replacements who arrived after the battle started.

Of the 18 men in the squadron at the beginning, 8 were still flying with the squadron at the end, 2 had been transferred to other squadrons and were still operational. 3 (or 4) had been killed, 5 wounded and invalided out.

As I said, 501 squadron had the highest losses of any of the squadrons at 18, the average for Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons was 8.4

The average squadron had less than half the losses of 501. If you assume they lost the same proportion of original/new pilots, then the average squadron of 18 pilots at the start of the battle lost 4 or 5 to death and serious injury, and kept 13 or 14 of the original pilots operational.

As to exhaustion and combat fatigue, this applies more to the Luftwaffe, that was flying longer missions across the Channel without rotating pilots. Ulrich Steinhilper gives some examples:

Quote
What we were seeing, although we didn't realise it at the time, was our first case of KanaIkrankheit (Channel Sickness). A combination of chronic stress and acute fatigue. At first there were isolated cases but, as the battle dragged on, there were to be more and more cases of the evil disease. The symptoms were many and various but usually surfaced as stomach cramps and vomiting, loss of appetite and consequently weight and acute irritability. Typically the patient's consumption of alcohol and cigarettes would increase and he would show more and more signs of exhaustion. There was little leave and, unlike the RAF pilots, wc were not to be circulated to quiet zones for short periods of rest and refitting. There was nothing our doctors could do either. The principal of battle fatigue had not yet been established and it was felt that as soon as anyone was taken out of the line because he was showing signs of stress, there would be a flood. So the doctors resorted to diagnosing appendicitis. This minor operation ensured that at least a pilot would not be flying for about two or three weeks.
Part and parcel of Kanalkrankheit were the symptoms which affected the aircraft. Instruments would fail, motors would run hot or lose oil pressure, just to be remedied by returning to base. Ground crews would spend time chasing a fault through a machine only to find nothing amiss. Following a Werkstattflug the aircraft would be pronounced fully mechanically fit for service. A few hours later it would be back with guns that would not fire in the air, but which let loose a hail of bullets on the ground. The groundcrews were faithful to their pilots, and to their credit tried to cover for them, but when there was no chance of finding a fault the former had to speak up.
We all felt the strain but when, in the middle of August, the command reshuffle took place, there was damned near a mutiny in our Cruppe. Our Commander, Hauptmann von Eschwege was called up to Luftflotte 2
Headquarters and returned with the Iron Cross First Class. It was arranged for the pilots of the three squadrons to be paraded at their separate dispersals whilst von Eschwege made a short speech in which he explained that it was with great regret on his part that he'd been relieved of command of I/JG 52 because of a grumbling appendix. He wished us all "Good Hunting" and many victories and left for his appendix operation and thereafter on to a relatively safe seat at the fighter training centre at Merseburg.
There was almost uproar amongst the pilots, not only because of his Iron Cross, but also because he was effectively being rested whilst we were still having to remain at the sharp end of things. This wasn't the last time that the strings would be pulled for some of the more senior officers and it is significant, I think, that during the Battle of Britain our Gruppe never lost any personnel of the rank of Squadron Leader or higher. Hauptmann Wolfgang Ewald replaced von Eschwege as Gruppe Kommandcur and inherited quite a disconsolate brood of fighter pilots.

In the context of fatigue it's worth repeating that line about 501 squadron again: 501 were the only squadron to remain in the south east from the start of the battle to the end

Quote
Unlike the RAF the Luftwaffe did not replace their losses as quickly (almost not at all), so while the Luftwaffe did lose a third of their strength in the battle the remaining strength was not made up of greenhorns, but veterans. And the Luftwaffe was still a superior force in numbers.

Not in terms of fighter pilot numbers. The RAF by early September had about 900 - 1,000 Spitfire and Hurricane pilots fit for duty, the Luftwaffe just over 700.

Quote
"Contrary to general belief and official reports, the enemy's bombing attacks by day did extensive damage to five of our forward aerodromes and also to six of our seven sector stations. There was a critical period when the damage to sector stations and our ground organization was having a serious effect on the fighting efficiency of the squadrons, who could not be given the same good technical and administrative service as previously......... The absence of many essential telephone lines, the use of scratch equipment in emergency operation rooms, and the general dislocation of ground organization, was seriously felt for about a week in the handling of squadrons by day to meet the enemy's massed attacks, which were continued without the former occasional break of a day."

Report by Air Vice Marshal Keith Park - 6th September 1940.

To which I'll give you Dowding's reply:

Quote
I agree with the Air Officer Commanding 11 Group that the damage done by air attack to aerodromes has been serious, and that it was begining at one time to affect materially the efficiency of our fighter operations. Nevertheless, I must point out:

(i) That 13 aerodromes in the Group underwent a total of over forty attacks in three weeks, but Manston and Lympne were the only two that were unfit for day flying for more than a few hours

(ii) That although the scale of the attack certainly exceeded the capacity of the works orginisation existing at the outset, this was rapidly strengthened, and I do not wish to express any dissatisfaction with the measures taken to effect this improvement

The problem for the Luftwaffe is that in the last week of August they began an all out attack. They threw everything they had in to the battle. That wasn't something they could maintain indefinitely. Indeed whilst they managed 4700 fighter sorties in the last week of August, they only flew 4,000 in the first week of September.

I'd agree with you that if the Luftwaffe had maintained the same level of effort they managed in late August for several weeks, it would have had a serious effect on the RAF. But how can a force with declining strength and no reserves maintain the same, maximum, level of effort for weeks on end?

The Luftwaffe lost 111 109s in the last week of August. They lost another 129 in the first week of September. Continue that level of losses for another 3 weeks, and the Luftwaffe would have lost about 550 in a month, when production was running at about 150 a month and reserves were non existent. This wasn't something the Luftwaffe were capable of doing.

In the same period the RAF was losing about 135 fighters a week, so in a month about 600. But British fighter production was running at 470 a month, and the RAF on 6th September had 127 Spits and Hurris in storage ready for immediate issue, another 42 ready within 4 days, and 80 awaiting issue.



Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #181 on: April 14, 2008, 09:52:24 AM »
Bruv119 and Rich46yo, look at the latest posts of MiloMorai, Angus and Nashwan. That's how you pose a proper argument and rebuttal. While I may not agree with all they say their post are mature and well worded, and their arguments are reasonable and supported by logic or facts; their posts add substance to the debate. They do not demean the debate by calling people names or calling me a fool (well perhaps they are, but at least they are being subtle ;)).


As for the (never ending) Battle of Britain debate, it is off-topic and perhaps better suited for a separate thread; this thread is getting pretty long in the tooth in any case. The point that I was trying to make before this BoB distraction was that German strategic bombing of Britain did not work.
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #182 on: April 14, 2008, 01:08:42 PM »
Hat off for that wording ;)
BTW, Nash in particular, - the reduced sorties of the LW in the timeline is also explainable by weather and the day getting shorter....autumn you know! (?-here, didn't page up the weather day by day, but autumn is ...autumn)
There is a nice what-if here....what if the LW would have kept on their daylight raids on London in any good day.
My answer would be LW being butchered in the slug-out. RAF being able to focus more and more on what they already were catching up on, as well as the damage (or tonnage dropped) on London was impressive at night as well, since the distance was little enough for beam navigation as well as no fighter cover being needed.
So, logically, LW pulled back. It was not a fight they would win there.
However, IMHO, they came quite close before they switched to London. Well, close to bending 11th group, and many a historians has put up a question about how things would have ended, had front-field operation of the RAF come to a shutdown.
Manston in particular was giving an example.
And your point Lumpy:
"The point that I was trying to make before this BoB distraction was that German strategic bombing of Britain did not work."
Yumm. Well, just debateable how close it came, but it did not bring what it was supposed to.

p.s. As for the BoB and what fascinates me there, is that it didn't really give all the lessons for the years to come that it should.
Alas..the only thing we learn from history is that we....don't  :uhoh

It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #183 on: April 14, 2008, 05:02:02 PM »
Oh, a teasing bump  :devil
Lumpy:
"They do not demean the debate by calling people names or calling me a fool (well perhaps they are, but at least they are being subtle )."

Dohh, why do you think "WE" left Norway and went snapping the Briton ladies?

.



.

scroll


.


.


.


Well, so we could debate guys like you from a safe distance?

 :devil
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #184 on: April 15, 2008, 04:16:30 AM »
Oh, Btw, here's the book I was looking for:
There will be more...
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #185 on: April 15, 2008, 05:49:58 AM »
Oh, and while at it, the Wingco also recomennded Johnnie Johnson's book "Full Circle" which is on air warfare in general and has a whiff of his own experience in it.
His autobiography, "Wing Leader" is also a splendid read, and opens with a somewhat special letter from Douglas Bader to Johnny, - it has comments on the big wing contraversy as well as Johnny's book in general.
And here I am going to promote you with a teaser. The big wings.
Johnnie, being a cavalryman, strongly opposed the big wings. It is connected with cavalry. Why would that be?

 :t
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Hazzer

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 290
      • Fleetwood town F.C. Cod Army
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #186 on: April 15, 2008, 06:05:10 AM »
 Just a quick reply.It is not an extravagant claim to say stuka's conquered the lowlands and France in 1940.It is completely untrue!

 What I didn't say- in my haste- was,that their achievement's in combination with ground forces were remarkable,and as a form of aerial artillery they were more effective than the Strategic bombers.

 German Bombing of British cities,only increased the publics Defiance,and increased are will to fight on.Tactical bombing of British airfields was much more effective,but Could they have achieved Air superiority; that is open to speculation.

 Hitler lost the BoB and the war by turning his eyes eastward toward Russia in the Autumn of 1940,and attacking The Soviet Union in June 1941;the very thing that Bismarck had said Germany should never do.

 Are defeat of the Luftwaffe in 1940 was in no way decisive;we did not fight them to a standstill,and we can only speculate as to what would have happened a year later if Hitler had not made his blunder in the East

 But back to strategic Bombing.

  An extract from the conclusion of Roger A. Freeman's excellent book:The Mighty Eighth

  "The Eighth Air Force was looked upon by USAAF commanders as their prime instrument to test their doctrine of strategic bombardment.The supreme hope was that such a campaign could render massive devastation to the war industry of a highly industrialized Nation,like Germany,so it would be unable to supply and support it's armed forces;in effect, bombing into submission.In the event the combined strength of all Allied strategic forces proved unable to achieve this against germany."

 I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the Eighth's campaign over Europe in WWII,by the way. :aok

 Oh,and I wish people could keep the Discussions on these boards civil. :)
"I murmured that I had no Shoes,till I met a man that had no Feet."

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #187 on: April 15, 2008, 08:30:55 AM »
Well, a speculation of a continuing BoB in 1941 would be interesting, but I think that since the LW had to withdraw already in 1940, and as the tables turned, the RAF started poking around the Lowlands and France BEFORE the invasion to Russia, as well as there was also air warfare at the time of Barbarossa all over the med....well, the LW would have lost the "daylight BoB" much worse in 1941 IMHO.

It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Lumpy

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 547
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #188 on: April 17, 2008, 06:37:39 AM »
Oh, a teasing bump  :devil
Lumpy:
"They do not demean the debate by calling people names or calling me a fool (well perhaps they are, but at least they are being subtle )."

Dohh, why do you think "WE" left Norway and went snapping the Briton ladies?

.



.

scroll


.


.


.


Well, so we could debate guys like you from a safe distance?

 :devil

Hahahaha!  :lol


Thanks for the book recommendations, I will add them to my considerable and ever growing reading list (but I'll bump them to the top of the list somewhere ;)). Where to find the time to read everything ...
“I’m an angel. I kill first borns while their mommas watch. I turn cities into salt. I even – when I feel like it – rip the souls from little girls and now until kingdom come the only thing you can count on, in your existence, is never ever understanding why.”

-Archangel Gabriel, The P

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Humble and the failure of strategic air warfare in WWII
« Reply #189 on: April 24, 2008, 04:16:00 AM »
BTW, I wonder how the strategic air warfare would have faired if France had ben the mother country of the enemy of the British. Since they were able to muster 1000 heavies on the Cologne raid, what could they have done with a target only 100 km or less away from base?
Sort of is forgotten in the debates that for bombing Germany, the British had to fly quite far, but for bombing Britain, it was a mere "hop" for the LW. All on the map....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)