Bf 109F info

[Angus]

I agree with you on the idea of topcover as something that made sense. And the topcovering aircraft could even make a slash if such was the case.
After all, the 190's with their heavy versions could not have an altitude advantage over the allied escorts (who had several brilliant high alt fighters as a "stock"), close escort had turned out bad, so there is only one thing left, - everyone attacking the bombers, preferrably head on, and then diving for the ground...

I'd have tried top cover...

BTW, the RAF used vertical "stacking" in N-Africa as a response to the 109F being good at alt, as well as the 190's being faster at medium-low alt. The high alt cover (the "top of the stack") was there to intervein. However, that was with more similar odds, as well as fighter-to-fighter. But it worked quite well. I can dig up the story if you like.

But then the Ta 152. I mean that one had incredible alt performance and packed a punch. Why would it have to fly below the escorts? It would rather dive through the escorts? And it's top speed at high alt was quite good right? And as a top cover, nothing would beat it!
As for the G.55, it has better high alt performance than the 190 and possibly the 109 as well?

[gripen]

Originally posted by Knegel
my arguments got prooven by the successful usage of topcover(escort) everywhere and by all nations, if the escorted planes had to operate in an
tactical disadvantage against the enemys fighters.

Everyone used top cover but it means usually just that part of the formation is located higher than other planes. My original point was that for the LW 1944-45 fighting against escorts was waste of men material. At spring 1944 the LW sent large and relatively slow moving (compared to P-51s) formations of heavily armed planes (Fw 190s, Me 410s etc.) escorted by large number of G-6s (which was generally in disadavantage against the P-51 at high altitude) as top cover against US heavy bomber formations which were escorted by large number of fast moving escort fighters. The results were not good for the LW, according to Galland the LW lost about 1000 pilots in the defence of the Reich during spring 1944. Basicly the LW used the tactics which maximized their own losses in other words they gave the US escorts lot of targets.

Originally posted by Knegel
The success of this tactic while the intercept over the Reich only can been seen in a relative way. There was no way to be realy successful at all, but without a topcover, to bind the enemy fighters, the losses would have been even more big, with less succsess.

What if the LW had chosen to use large number of smaller and faster moving formations which were looking for oppurnity to hit and run? Also these smaller formations could have a top cover but whole point is to avoid fighting against escorts. Note that in the most succesful cases the LW could avoid the escorts.

Originally posted by Knegel
The statistics only say that the Luftwaffe wasnt successful in 1944, the reason for this is for sure not the used topcover tactic and for sure not the german airframes.

Statistics actually say that used tactics were certainly wrong. Regarding the airframes; the G-6 was the mainstay of the LW during spring 1944 and the G.55 could have done practically everything better. Note that Willi Reschke claimed majority of his heavy bomber claims in the Bf 109 (apparently most in the G-6?).

[Angus]

"What if the LW had chosen to use large number of smaller and faster moving formations which were looking for oppurnity to hit and run? Also these smaller formations could have a top cover but whole point is to avoid fighting against escorts. Note that in the most succesful cases the LW could avoid the escorts."

Like Park's tactics ,- for he had no time. Turned out just fine, because when the big LW formations were jumped all the time, the escorts were scattered, and sometimes forced low, and forced to burn a lot of fuel.
Imagine what the Allied faced flying to Berlin in daylight, from Britain. They spend HOURS over enemy territory, something like 2x3!
Interesting thought, - I mentioned it before anyway. How would you have played the LW's resources as "King of the LW" Gripen?

[gripen]

Originally posted by Angus
How would you have played the LW's resources as "King of the LW" Gripen?

I have two different ways to answer:

Purely tactical view: Do exactly what I described above; large number of small formations looking opportunity to strike fast and hard to harasse escorts as well bombers. Head on attacks preferred to avoid losses due to defence armament of the bombers.

Purely sensible view: The war was allready lost spring 1944, every day fighting continued resulted just more loss of human life and destruction of country. So anything which wasted maximum amount of LW resources to shorten the war. In additon full support to true german patriots like Stauffenberg and Bonhoeffer who at least tried to end the madness.

In a way there is some irony in the fact that the LW actually chose the tactics which wasted maximum amount of their resources.

[Viking]

"Purely sensible view" lol ... "purely traitorous way" is more like it. Human life or destruction of property is inconsequential to your duty as a soldier. The duty of a soldier to give his utmost effort in combating the enemy is at its most important when your side is losing.

A war is never lost until someone capitulates and in the spring of 1944 Germany might very well have succeeded in obtaining a bargained peace if the German leadership had sought it. That Hitler never did so is not something you could have known at the time.

If you had destroyed the Luftwaffe by spring of 1944 Graf von Stauffenberg would have nothing to bargain with if he had succeeded in replacing the German leadership.

You would be a traitor, noting more.

[gripen]

Viking,
After year 1943 pretty much any one with a bit of common sense knew that Germany was going to lose. As an example Finnish leaders started secret contacts with Soviets spring 1944 to reach the peace which eventually happened autumn 1944 (after major battles in Carelian Isthmus) once German military existence in Scandinavia has weakened enough. Also large part of higher German officers knew that the situation was hopeless, particularly after Casablanca the negoatiations were not an option. Real traitors were the Nazi leaders who were willing pull everything with them to the Hell.

Nowadays Stauffenberg is seen as a hero in Germany and I'm a bit curious if you see him as a true patriot as me or as a traitor?

Note that Bonhoeffer was not a soldier but a theologian and worked also for the Abwehr. His main subject of study was ethics.

[Viking]

Graf von Stauffenberg was both a traitor and a hero. He is a classical example of the old saying "one man's hero is another man's traitor". He is a traitor to the people he swore allegiance to, and a hero to modern Germans for turning against the Nazis.

However ... Graf von Stauffenberg would NEVER have done what you proposed. The German "rebels" would NEVER have handed the allies the victory like you propose by squandering resources or otherwise giving in. They were after all German patriots. They tried to grab power from the Nazis and negotiate an armistice with the allies using the remaining strength of the Wehrmacht as a bargaining chip; threatening to fight "to the last man". And I think they would have if it came to that. You see Graf von Stauffenberg was a soldier. He understood his duty. You clearly do not.

Graf von Stauffenberg did not disagree with the Nazi's expansionist politics, nor did he disagree with the Nazi's nationalistic politics. He even supported the use of Poles as slave workers in German agriculture, and the systematic German colonization of Poland. However he was a Catholic and strongly disliked the mistreatment of religious groups, especially Jews, under the Nazis. If not for the Nazis racial and anti-religious aspects Graf von Stauffenberg would probably have been a die-hard Nazi.

[Angus]

Viking, - I would say that Stauffenberg was a hero in his attempt to release the German nation out of a no-sense-of-realism-war-of-thugs.
I remember what Rall told me of going back to the high command of Germany (incl. Hitler), - "They were living in luxury and having no idea of what was going on at the fronts" and adding, after the war, when the truth about the whole business unfolded, "We had, as soldiers and fighter pilots for our country, been BETRAYED".
No less.
Stauffenberg had his feet on the ground, his heart for his nation, and quite some balls.
BTW, - along with others. The attempt to kill Hitler lead to some quick 5.000 executions. All Germans.

Gripen:
"Purely sensible view: The war was allready lost spring 1944, every day fighting continued resulted just more loss of human life and destruction of country. So anything which wasted maximum amount of LW resources to shorten the war. In additon full support to true german patriots like Stauffenberg and Bonhoeffer who at least tried to end the madness."

Well, you had the propoganda of magic weapons, as well as the thug's grip on your throat. The allies were bombing Gemany flat wherever you wanted. How do you want to leave the party?

This

[Angus]

And Viking:
"However ... Graf von Stauffenberg would NEVER have done what you proposed. The German "rebels" would NEVER have handed the allies the victory like you propose by squandering resources or otherwise giving in. They were after all German patriots. They tried to grab power from the Nazis and negotiate an armistice with the allies using the remaining strength of the Wehrmacht as a bargaining chip"

Which Allies? I think you should understand what I refer to?

[gripen]

Viking,
So what is actually your opinion; a patriot or a traitor?

How about Canaris? He directly gave information to British intelligence so was he a traitor or a patriot. Note that Canaris, Bonhoeffer as well as Stauffenberg were part of the same movement of German resistance.

You don't seem to say your opinion.

My opinion is that anything which helped to shorten war - including direct sabotage of German war machine - was indeed a patriotic action by a German citizen that time, sensible in other words. Sad thing is that so few Germans realized the situation.

Angus,
I think that most higher rank German officers could see the reality behind the propaganda.

[Angus]

Hehe, nice meeting you Gripen, in this form, you've studied much.
On the topic of Canaris, his turn against his "nation" started on an intelligence tour in Poland, where he was horrified about what he saw (already mass executions and villages being "raized&burned").
Anyway, Canaris carried some evedence to the top, he probably beliving that this was the fault of troops going ape rather than the command of brutality.
Well, he was stopped by Keitel (Canaris was heading for Hitler), with an advice, - don't go further, these were fuhrer orders.

Canaris was hanged, close to the allied lines, if I remember correctly it was after the Allies had passed the Rhein. He was found by allied troops.
And if my memory serves me, Keitel was hanged after the Nurnberg trials.

Not much to do with the 109F though.

BTW, my history text there is absolutely from memory. Would be nice to know if I made an error there, since the "backland" is both from books, internet, discussions, and more books. I didn't look up on this, so I am curious if it will hold up for scrutiny.

[Angus]

Oh, may I add that Canaris was in Poland in 1939. Already in 1939 he wanted to see Hitler about the thing. Out of memory again, - but this:

 One has to realize that Germany was just as civilized (if not more) as anyone else in Europe at the time. Well, "Civilized".
You know, I have met and got to know a few people that were on the German side in WW2. They normally shake their heads when Hitler's name comes around. Most or all would have it ended before.

And Viking, "The German "rebels" would NEVER have handed the allies the victory like you propose by squandering resources or otherwise giving in"

Okay, enlighten me what the whole plot(s) was/were about.?????

[Viking]

Originally posted by Angus
Which Allies? I think you should understand what I refer to?

The western allies. If a peace settlement could be made with them, then perhaps the reds could be persuaded too. At least the war would be reduced to one front.

[Viking]

Originally posted by gripen
Viking,
So what is actually your opinion; a patriot or a traitor?

How about Canaris? He directly gave information to British intelligence so was he a traitor or a patriot. Note that Canaris, Bonhoeffer as well as Stauffenberg were part of the same movement of German resistance.

You don't seem to say your opinion.

To me he is neither. I'm not German. If I was German I would probably view him as a hero. In fact I'm glad he didn't succeed. If he had succeeded the German people might not have been made to suffer as greatly as they surely deserved. In my opinion the German people forfeit their right to exist when they allowed the Nazis to commit such horrors in their name. I would not have been as merciful as uncles Sam and Joe.

Originally posted by gripen
My opinion is that anything which helped to shorten war - including direct sabotage of German war machine - was indeed a patriotic action by a German citizen that time, sensible in other words. Sad thing is that so few Germans realized the situation.

Sabotaging you own troops ability to fight, just to shorten a war is an act of treason and insanity. If what you say is sensible why didn't you Finns sabotage your own military in '39 surely you could see that you would eventually lose? Oh ... that's right .... you fought on and made the Russian pay so dearly for every kilometer that in the end they were willing to make peace.

Q. E. D.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Viking
The western allies. If a peace settlement could be made with them, then perhaps the reds could be persuaded too. At least the war would be reduced to one front.

There was no such option after Casablanca, the policy of unconditional surrender was declared public there. British intelligence also made this clear to Canaris.

Originally posted by Viking
In fact I'm glad he didn't succeed. If he had succeeded the German people might not have been made to suffer as greatly as they surely deserved. In my opinion the German people forfeit their right to exist when they allowed the Nazis to commit such horrors in their name. I would not have been as merciful as uncles Sam and Joe.

I don't agree. Large part of the people who died in the last year of war were not Germans. And I don't support collective punishment.

Originally posted by Viking
Sabotaging you own troops ability to fight, just to shorten a war is an act of treason and insanity.

That is exactly what Canaris did and so indirectly also Stauffenberg.

Originally posted by Viking
If what you say is sensible why didn't you Finns sabotage your own military in '39 surely you could see that you would eventually lose?

Our Military was eventually succesfull enough and supported by sensible leaders and solid nation. Same can't be said about the Third Reich.

Originally posted by Viking
Oh ... that's right .... you fought on and made the Russian pay so dearly for every kilometer that in the end they were willing to make peace.

The Russians made peace only to finish the business later due to risk that war might expand.