LUFTWAFFE EXPERTEN, Fact or Fiction?

[Brano]

You cant win the war by entering combat,only when it suits you (Freie Jagd).

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Very true, but if you gain local air superiority it will help the troops on the ground. 

[=LD=dhyran]

well,

 

Steinhoff once said, they scored that much because, well trained, great tactics, good fighters, and the Luftwaffe was outnumberd, so they had allways a target rich environement, additionel as some also remarked, they flew til they were shot, call it a natural selection by death! So these guys who got more than 100 kills was a group of top notch pilots, simple as it is

Edited September 23, 2014 by =LD=dhyran

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

You cant win the war by entering combat,only when it suits you (Freie Jagd).

Actually you can win the war only when you enter the combat when it suits you. To win a war, you have to be always in a position where you are proactive. When you loose this position and can't reobtain it than you loose the war.

 

Furthermore, Freie Jagd doesn't have anything with aerial combat tactics to do. It is just a german term for Fighter sweeps. When German Pilots talked about freie jagd missions they simply mean, they only had the objectiv to patrol an area and hunt enemies. The background for that is, that the 109 was designed to be fast and a great climber and to have the uphand easily against enemies. Based on those facts, the german pilots loved those freie jagd missions, they could decide what to do on those missions. The Luftwaffe got hitted really hard above england because the fighters had to change from fighter sweeps to escort missions for the bombers. That mission didn't suited the 109 because it couldn't use its perks.

[Finkeren]

Regardless if the LW fighters and their pilots really were at their most effective doing fighter sweeps and shooting down scores of enemies, it baffles me, that noone in the high command realised, that this was precisely the sort of war-of-attrition Germany had no hope of winning. It litterally didn't matter how many casualties they were able to inflict on the VVS and the Red Army. Once the Soviet heavy industry was safe beyond the Ural and the Lend-Lease supplies were flowing, there was no way Germany could simply have ground down the Soviet forces.

[=LD=Hethwill]

Plus war means you going to deny the opponent its strength and concentrate on their weakness.

 

Allied ( east and west ) campaign into blazing luftwaffe infrastructure paid off. Nothing like catching them pants down after a successful fighter sweep and arriving at base and being jumped by a score of IL-2 and similar attackers. The amount of planes destroyed in the ground by the VVS is immense but as per their scoring system they didn't count as shot down.

 

IIRC only the USA and Germany ( have to check italian and japanese army and navy ) counted ground targets towards the overall score. But I am sure there are a few guys around that can shed light into the scoring systems. And on top of that VVS had the most "communist" scoring system, given the collective kills awards. Some of the aces have triple collective kills than they have personall kills.

 

The shared kills is a doubtful system IMO. Even the Squad Score that the USA used was way more beneficial to the group in the event a important ace got show down.

 

If you look at many german squads, once they lose their flagship aces the proficiency drops a lot suffering from morale.

[Lusekofte]

Luftwaffe had resourses to ground support of all the Blitzkrieg tactics they was equipped to do. They was not equipped with pilots nor planes for all theaters of war.

They had no defensive plans, REF: look at the way Hitler treated ME-232 .

They really lost Easternfront already whenBOF and BOB ended, Luftwaffe was never able to resupply those losses. Many Luftwaffe pilots said after the war, They already at the start of the war did not have resources for more than a year of war, Even Hitler can be quoted on this just before he took Poland 

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Regardless if the LW fighters and their pilots really were at their most effective doing fighter sweeps and shooting down scores of enemies, it baffles me, that noone in the high command realised, that this was precisely the sort of war-of-attrition Germany had no hope of winning. It litterally didn't matter how many casualties they were able to inflict on the VVS and the Red Army. Once the Soviet heavy industry was safe beyond the Ural and the Lend-Lease supplies were flowing, there was no way Germany could simply have ground down the Soviet forces.

Well, the bad fish always smells from it head.

The High Command was so blinded by their idiocracy that they didn't realised the problems.

Before I explain that point, just a second hint.

Hitler wanted to attack the USSR earlier than he did, but because of Italy and their offense against Greece and so on he had to delay babarossa. Later in 1941 he also had to delay Babarossa again for some weeks because of bad weather. Those weeks gave the USSR enough time to find out the plans of the third Reich and to react to them. The USSR could react and it is pretty much shown what this delay did, the Wehrmacht was up to 12/20 km near Moscow when the winter came. If they had attacked earlier to a much more unprepared USSR they would have been in Moscow, and that would have changed a lot at the war in the east.

 

Now to the high command, well a lot of them licked Hitlers shoes, or were incompetent. Look at Goering, every Fighter-Commander knew that Goerings-Orders are just stupid but nobody could argue against him because he was one of Hitlers closed. Look at how many of the german high command was drug addicted, a lot of them were addicted to "Pervitin" or other drugs. They simply didn't realised what happened and steered the ship into the cliffs whereas the Crew (Generals of the Army, Navy and Airforce) realised what happened. But in a system suppressing every other opinion except the one from Hitler you could do nothing. Look at Rommel, he tried to convince Hitler after the D-Day but what was his reward? He had to chose between suicide or get shot by the SS.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Rommel had to choose "honorable" suicide or facing court and execution due his part in trying to assasinate Hitler aka Valkyrie. He was recovering from wounds caused by a strafing aircraft at his home when he got his choices. Nothing to do with his abilities to command an army.

[Wulf]

Well, the bad fish always smells from it head.

The High Command was so blinded by their idiocracy that they didn't realised the problems.

Before I explain that point, just a second hint.

Hitler wanted to attack the USSR earlier than he did, but because of Italy and their offense against Greece and so on he had to delay babarossa. Later in 1941 he also had to delay Babarossa again for some weeks because of bad weather. Those weeks gave the USSR enough time to find out the plans of the third Reich and to react to them. The USSR could react and it is pretty much shown what this delay did, the Wehrmacht was up to 12/20 km near Moscow when the winter came. If they had attacked earlier to a much more unprepared USSR they would have been in Moscow, and that would have changed a lot at the war in the east.

 

Now to the high command, well a lot of them licked Hitlers shoes, or were incompetent. Look at Goering, every Fighter-Commander knew that Goerings-Orders are just stupid but nobody could argue against him because he was one of Hitlers closed. Look at how many of the german high command was drug addicted, a lot of them were addicted to "Pervitin" or other drugs. They simply didn't realised what happened and steered the ship into the cliffs whereas the Crew (Generals of the Army, Navy and Airforce) realised what happened. But in a system suppressing every other opinion except the one from Hitler you could do nothing. Look at Rommel, he tried to convince Hitler after the D-Day but what was his reward? He had to chose between suicide or get shot by the SS.

 

 

It's true that German operations against Russia were delayed, because Hitler felt compelled to assist his Axis partner in the Med.  However, it is would be incorrect to suggest that this delay enabled the Soviets to re-deploy their forces, prior to the commencement of Barbarossa, and in so doing, save Moscow.  Russian military intelligence had identified the impending threat from Germany, that's correct.  However, Stalin steadfastly refused to believe the advice he received regarding the build-up of German forces along the frontier.   What is more, he categorically refused repeated requests from his military for the re-deployment of the Red Army in the West,  into anything like defensive positions.  Even after the commencement of the German assault, Stalin initially refused to accept that the Soviet Union was actually under attack and what is more, placed an outright prohibition on any offensive operations against German forces.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Wulf

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

It's true that German operations against Russia were delayed, because Hitler felt compelled to assist his Axis partner in the Med.  However, it is would be incorrect to suggest that this delay enabled the Soviets to re-deploy their forces, prior to the commencement of Barbarossa, and in so doing, save Moscow.  Russian military intelligence had identified the impending threat from Germany, that's correct.  However, Stalin steadfastly refused to believe the advice he received regarding the build-up of German forces along the frontier.   What is more, he categorically refused repeated requests from his military for the re-deployment of the Red Army in the West,  into anything like defensive positions.  Even after the commencement of the German assault, Stalin initially refused to accept that the Soviet Union was actually under attack and what is more, placed an outright prohibition on any offensive operations against German forces.

Thats not true,

on the 13th June 1941 the USSR deployed 237 divisions to the western front as a reaction to the plans from germany. They knew when the Germans are coming and reacted way before the initial attack. They even had plans for a first strike war instead of waiting for it. Furthermore, the Soviet Army was in Defcon 1 at midnight a couple of hours before the germans started their attack.

[Wulf]

Thats not true,

on the 13th June 1941 the USSR deployed 237 divisions to the western front as a reaction to the plans from germany. They knew when the Germans are coming and reacted way before the initial attack. They even had plans for a first strike war instead of waiting for it. Furthermore, the Soviet Army was in Defcon 1 at midnight a couple of hours before the germans started their attack.

 

 

Unfortunately, I suspect we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.  

 

I fully acknowledge that some people have suggested that the disposition of Soviet forces prior to Barbarossa was essentially 'offensive' in nature and indicative of an underlying intention on the part of the Soviets to attack Germany.  I also understand that there is even some documentary evidence in existence that suggests the Soviets were indeed, preparing to attack.  Not clear evidence as I understand it, but somewhat indicative.  However, I don't think you can have it both ways.  You can't be preparing to attack but at the same time assume an effective defensive posture.   Generally speaking, there were far too many Soviet units in forward positions along the frontier to maintain the fiction that the Red Army was positioned in advance to receive the German onslaught.  Of course, being aware of an impending assault and being allowed to do something about it are two different things entirely.  If what you say is true, that the Soviets were ready and waiting for the German assault, then the resulting catastrophe that was visited on the Red Army was all the more extraordinary.  

 

Post war Soviet disinformation may well suggest that Stalin was fully in control of the situation and, if it had not been for the incompetence of others, may well have saved the Soviet Union from an unparalleled military disaster.  But then he would say that wouldn't he.  

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Unfortunately, I suspect we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point.  

 

I fully acknowledge that some people have suggested that the disposition of Soviet forces prior to Barbarossa was essentially 'offensive' in nature and indicative of an underlying intention on the part of the Soviets to attack Germany.  I also understand that there is even some documentary evidence in existence that suggests the Soviets were indeed, preparing to attack.  Not clear evidence as I understand it, but somewhat indicative.  However, I don't think you can have it both ways.  You can't be preparing to attack but at the same time assume an effective defensive posture.   Generally speaking, there were far too many Soviet units in forward positions along the frontier to maintain the fiction that the Red Army was positioned in advance to receive the German onslaught.  Of course, being aware of an impending assault and being allowed to do something about it are two different things entirely.  If what you say is true, that the Soviets were ready and waiting for the German assault, then the resulting catastrophe that was visited on the Red Army was all the more extraordinary.  

 

Post war Soviet disinformation may well suggest that Stalin was fully in control of the situation and, if it had not been for the incompetence of others, may well have saved the Soviet Union from an unparalleled military disaster.  But then he would say that wouldn't he.  

 

What we have to take into account is, that there were some major issues between the Headquarter and Stalin.

The Red Army wanted to have a defence based on a preventive strike, so instead waiting for the attack they wanted to have the inititive. Stalin however said no to this plans, I think we talked a little bit by. I only wanted to show, that the Sovietunion was in charge of a defence and knew that the Germans were coming, instead of being comepletly unprepared. They just decided for a elastic defense instead of a preventing strike or a bunker line. Maybe because they didn't finished their positions in the south of the Front.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Stalin's purges nearly became fatal to Soviets at the beginning of war. A lot of competent officers were killed or sent to forced labor in 1937 purges, leaving the "brown noses and yes men" in charge, those Staling felt were not a threat to his reign. It was not until competent leaders like Zhukov and others took charge, beginning to turn the tide of the onslaught. And in this helped the industry being able to produce immense amount of equipment from behind Ural + the Lend Lease with fuel and other things supplied. US trucks and M3 half tracks were one of the biggest help, making Red Army far more mobile and mechanized than Germans. Kind of an irony there.

[MiloMorai]

Trucks in Russian service. The impact of lend lease on the red motor park.

 

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

What book does not exist?

 

The article was updated.

 

Jeff Kenneday does exist, http://www.pacificairfields.com/af_show_airfield.php?id=5438

Jeff Kenneday is a blogger only !!, ..he is not a writer or journalist or historian. He has not written any books, or rticles in magazines, He only cutting and pasting into a web page.

A website holds all kinds of nonsense you want to write in it.This things no need be true, it could be lies, that he likes spreading 

You must be search other more serious arguments for affirm that The Experten´s are a myth. That guy says, is not valid .

 

 

It was mass produced because the Germans couldn't, not that they didn't try, develop a better fighter.

The Messerchmitt Bf-109 was one-of-best fighter of WWII. General Galland says in his book "The_First_And_The_Last " that Bf-109 was "The best fighter of the world from 1935 to 1941" It was the main reason for it was mass produced.

In 1941 Germans developed a best fighter than the Bf-109. it was the Me-262, wich was 200km/h faster than any other allied fighter. 

Do you want a better one?

[DD_Arthur]

This is my new favourite thread

[MiloMorai]

In 1941 Germans developed a best fighter than the Bf-109. it was the Me-262, which was 200km/h faster than any other allied fighter.

 

So it could run away faster.

 

The Me262 was a little to late.   Some 1400 were produced but it was lucky if 100 were in service (not necessarily operational) at any one time. They were split between JGs and KGs.

 

The main reason the 109 was mass produced is that there was no replacement for it. Mtt tried with the Me209 and Me309. Fw tried with the 190A.

 

So what happened between 1941 and mid 1944 when test units of 262 flew and early 1945 when 262 JGs and KGs began operations?

[LukeFF]

 

 

General Galland says in his book "The_First_And_The_Last " that Bf-109 was "The best fighter of the world from 1935 to 1941"

 

Something tells me he was just a little bit biased.  

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 In raw numbers the Bf109 was the best in some areas: produced most aces, most aerial victories(over 50,000) and was 2nd most produced(33,984 ac) after IL-2. In competent hands the Bf109 could offer a very dangerous opponent up to the end of the war.

[JtD]

Where did you get the 50000 victories from?

 

FWIW, I'd agree with Galland to some degree, the 109 was certainly one of the best fighters in the world in its first half of Luftwaffe service. In its early days (Spain) the only truly competitive fighter was the I-16, the rest of the world essentially still flew around in biplanes, and in 1940/41 the only truly competitive fighter was the Spitfire. It did, however, have some design parameters other fighters were clearly better at, take for instance range, and look at a P-40. Still, once in the air and the objective being the destruction of airborne enemy aircraft, in 1935-1941 it would be hard to find an aircraft clearly better than the 109.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I have to dig it up, but the Bf109 had most kills when you include all models.

[Wulf]

Trucks in Russian service. The impact of lend lease on the red motor park.

 

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlelendlease.htm

 

 

Exactly.  Could the Russians have succeeded without lend-lease?  I doubt it.  When you consider the monumental quantities of processed and unprocessed material transferred to the Russians by the Western Allies it seems hard to imagine how the Russians could possibly have made up the shortfall.   240, 000 trucks, for example.  The quantities involved are simply mind boggling.  

[JtD]

S!

 

 I have to dig it up, but the Bf109 had most kills when you include all models.

Yes, I just find the number pretty high. I'm wondering if these are Luftwaffe claims or something. I'd appreciate if you could clarify, so I can put the figure in a context of some sort.

[Stig]

We'll never know how many aircraft were destroyed by the Bf 109, the best we'll get is guestimates.

 

Allied combat / operational losses in theatres against Germany :

 

VVS               46000 +(may include losses against the Japanese, not sure)

USA AF         18000 +

RAF               22000 + (incl Commonwealth airforces, as far as I can tell)

 

Total     app. 87000

 

Add to that losses of various smaller airforces 39-40 and SCW. Germany's allies accounted for some of the inflicted losses but the bulk were lost against the German  armed forces, probably 80000 +.

 

However those losses include all causes, AAA. friendly fire, accidents, mechanical failure, weather, unknown causes, etc. So how many were shot down by Luftwaffe day fighters? A ball park estimate would be 30 something thousand, and of them the 109 would have got the lions share, no doubt.

 

Luftwaffe combat/ operational losses are more uncertain bur probably 40-45000, again to all causes.

 

The figures are gleaned primarily from http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/. 

 

 

[Wulf]

Yes, I just find the number pretty high. I'm wondering if these are Luftwaffe claims or something. I'd appreciate if you could clarify, so I can put the figure in a context of some sort.

 

 

Claes Sundin and Christer Bergstrom, in their book,  More Luftwaffe Fighter Aircraft In Profile, maintain that the German fighter force destroyed approx. 45,000 enemy aircraft during WW 2 for the loss of approx. 18,000 German fighter aircraft. 

 

Those figures are made up as follows:14,000 enemy aircraft in the West (for the loss of 13,000 German fighter aircraft) and 31,000 enemy aircraft in the East for the loss of 4,000 German fighter aircraft.

 

Unfortunately, the authors make no attempt to divvy-up the Allied losses by German fighter aircraft type.   Aircraft shot down by German FLAK units are not included in these figures (approx. 20,000 aircraft)

[MiloMorai]

Exactly.  Could the Russians have succeeded without lend-lease?  I doubt it.  When you consider the monumental quantities of processed and unprocessed material transferred to the Russians by the Western Allies it seems hard to imagine how the Russians could possibly have made up the shortfall.   240, 000 trucks, for example.  The quantities involved are simply mind boggling.  

 

tonnage shipped to the Soviets

 

Year Totals

 

Persian Gulf - Pacific - Atlantic - Black Sea - Arctic > total

1941-- 360,778 - 13,502 - 193,299 - 153,977 > 721,556 > ~2.4%

1942--2,453,097 - 705,259 - 734,020 - 949,711 - 64,107 > 4,906,194 > ~16.1%

1943--4,794,545 - 1,606,979 - 2,388,577 - 681,043 - 117,946 > 9,589,090 > ~31.5%

1944--6,217,622 - 1,788,864 - 2,848,181 - 1,452,775 - 127,802 > 12,435,245 > ~40.8%

1945--3,673,819 - 44,513 - 2,079,320 - 726,725 - 680,723 > 2,804,556 > 9.2%

 

As can be seen, 50% of L-L was received in 1944 and 1945.

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

So it could run away faster.

 

The Me262 was a little to late.   Some 1400 were produced but it was lucky if 100 were in service (not necessarily operational) at any one time. They were split between JGs and KGs.

 

The main reason the 109 was mass produced is that there was no replacement for it. Mtt tried with the Me209 and Me309. Fw tried with the 190A.

 

So what happened between 1941 and mid 1944 when test units of 262 flew and early 1945 when 262 JGs and KGs began operations?

 

Ehh, you got something wrong. I know that this doesn't matter for you because you have your opinion about the Luftwaffe-Fighters and you won't change it but:

The FW190 wasn't a replacement, it was a Plane which should be additional to the 109 simply because the Luftwaffe wanted a second workhorse. The Me 209 was only a World-Record-Plane nothing more. They tested it because it was until the 60's the fastes piston powered plane but it never was a replacement for the 109. The Me 309 the same, it wasn't a good enough replacement and funnily only a couple of Month later in 1943 the germans wanted from Messerschmitt that they fully concentrate on the 262.

 

What happened between 1941 and 1944? Simple, the Germans wanted to focus on the Jet-powered planes and thought they could upgrade the 109 good enough. Furthermore the FW 190 D-Series and the Ta-Series showed enough improvement, that they simply didn't wanted a new Piston powered Fighter.

Was it the wrong decision? Maybe, maybe not it depends. But again, it was not the problem to bring new projects and follow up's it was mostly the problem of the thrid reich politics.

[MiloMorai]

Me209

 

 

I got what wrong? Seems someone doesn't know their Luftwaffe a/c very well.

 

Didn't want any more piston engine a/c? Then why was there a Bv155.

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Me209

 

 

I got what wrong? Seems someone doesn't know their Luftwaffe a/c very well.

 

Didn't want any more piston engine a/c? Then why was there a Bv155.

I know my Luftwaffe a/c better than you, and as I told you the Me209 was never really considered as a fighter. It was build as a Prototype for tests and to brake the world record for the piston engines. Messerschmitt wanted to deliver a follow up for the 109 but the RLM didn't wanted the Me 209 or the Me 309, furthermore they saw enough potential in the 109 and the 190 upgrades. The Bv155 was just an concept, come on it is well known that at the end of the war a lot of funny planes were designed but never saw any real focus on them.

If you now want to post stupid designs, we can do this for the next year, because the industry and designe offices delivered more than enough. Look at the whole "Volksjäger" programm and how many designes it delivered. For example the Ta 183, the Messerschmitt P.1101 or the Bachem Ba 349. There were more than enough never realised designes at the Luftwaffe. But nearly all of them concentrated to Jet-Engine/Rocket-Engine simply because they didn't wanted to focus anymore on piston engine fighter.

This was, in my opinion, a big mistake which we saw in the fact that the 109 and FW 190 A couldn't get updated good enough and in 43/44 they were roughly on the same performance level as the Allied planes.

[LukeFF]

Keep also in mind that any full-scale replacement for the 109 would have meant downtime for the factories as they retooled for the new aircraft. The German war machine could ill-afford such delays once the fortunes of war turned against them.

[Crump]

Wonder why some people do not realize some aircraft such as the Spitfire for example were also designed before the war and continuously upgraded.  In fact very few frontline aircraft that saw action during the war were not pre-war designs. 

 

Does that make it a bad design or even obsolete? 

 

No, not at all.

 

http://www.stripes.com/35-years-after-their-arrival-at-kadena-air-base-f-15-fighters-remain-potent-1.305485

[Crump]

 

 

This was, in my opinion, a big mistake which we saw in the fact that the 109 and FW 190 A couldn't get updated good enough and in 43/44 they were roughly on the same performance level as the Allied planes.

 

That has more to do with the fact all piston engine fighters were reaching the limits of piston engine propeller aircraft technological development.  There is a technical barrier for performance that limited everybody.  It is the nature of a power producer aerodynamics.  The faster it goes, the more power it requires to realize a thrust increase.  It is not a linear progression either.

 

It varies with zero lift drag or parasitic component at the cube of velocity.  That means at high speeds, the curve is almost a wall requiring colossal increases in power for very little gain in performance.

 

http://www.analyzemath.com/Graphing/graphing_cubic_function.html

 

Combine that with fact thrust production in a propeller is divided by the velocity which means our propeller produces less thrust the faster it goes means the that curve is even steeper.

 

That is why there is little to choose in fighter aircraft performance by the end of World War II.

[Wulf]

Wonder why some people do not realize some aircraft such as the Spitfire for example were also designed before the war and continuously upgraded.  In fact very few frontline aircraft that saw action during the war were not pre-war designs. 

 

Does that make it a bad design or even obsolete? 

 

No, not at all.

 

http://www.stripes.com/35-years-after-their-arrival-at-kadena-air-base-f-15-fighters-remain-potent-1.305485

 

 

Yeah, but in reality, some aircraft, whether by accident or design are more easily upgraded and updated than others.  The Spitfire and the Bf 109 provide a case in point.  The 109 is a little older, true, but in the great scheme of things, not by much, and yet it was the Spitfire's air frame that was without doubt the better of the two for the purposes of continuous development.  By 1945 the Spitfire was a much better fighter than it was in earlier years, whereas the 109, while still competitive, was no longer as threatening as it had been in 1940-41.  I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that the Spitfire was probably the most potent single seat piston fighter in the Skies in 1945, which, considering its age, was quite something.  In 1940 the Spit and the 109 were pretty much even in terms of performance yet in 1944-45, the Spitfire was in a different league altogether. 

Edited September 29, 2014 by Wulf

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

The French had equipment that was as good (and in some respects better) than the Germans and certainly more of it.   But unfortunately for the French, the initial deployment of their forces, the failure of their military organisation to adapt to the escalating crisis in the French rear and a critical failure of 'will' on the part of the French Government doomed them to defeat.     

 

Thanks for pointing this out!

 

This is nothing new of course. In 1877 the Franko-Prussia war raged, much to the detriment of the French, who were soundly beaten. One factor often mentioned was the Dreyse "Needle gun" used by the Prussians. The Dryse was one of the first effective breech-loading rifles. This however ignores the French Chassepot rifle, a similar breech loader that was vastly superior to the German gun, who was prone to leaking gunpowder gas at the shooter and had a short range. In fact, a number of German regiments rearmed themselves with French guns. The French still lost though, and form much the same reasons as in 1940.

 

That is not to say equipment can't be "magically" better. In the Second Schleswig War a decade earlier, the Prussians used their (then) new Needle guns against Danes, who were armed with mussel loaders. I guess we can assume the German guns, no matter how leaky, must have seemed miraculous to the poor Danes, 

[MiloMorai]

as I told you the Me209 was never really considered as a fighter. It was build as a Prototype for tests and to brake the world record for the piston engines

 

 

The Me 209 of 1943 was a proposal for an enhanced version of the highly successful Bf109 which served as the Luftwaffe's primary fighter throughout WW2. The Me 209, despite its designation, bore no relationship to the earlier Me 209.

 

This is your record setting 209.

 

[Crump]

 

 

Yeah, but in reality, some aircraft, whether by accident or design are more easily upgraded and updated than others. The Spitfire and the Bf 109 provide a case in point. The 109 is a little older, true, but in the great scheme of things, not by much, and yet it was the Spitfire's air frame that was without doubt the better of the two for the purposes of continuous development.

 

See I would not agree from a design standpoint.  The Bf-109K was very competitive and outperformed the Spitfire Mk XIV in many areas.  That being said, the differences between the two were so small as to be unnoticeable in the air and tactically irrelevant. 

 

Why?  They were both piston engine propeller aircraft at the design possibility frontier.

[MiloMorai]

See I would not agree from a design standpoint.  The Bf-109K was very competitive and outperformed the Spitfire Mk XIV in many areas.  That being said, the differences between the two were so small as to be unnoticeable in the air and tactically irrelevant. 

 

Why?  They were both piston engine propeller aircraft at the design possibility frontier.

These areas would be .........

[Brano]

Actually you can win the war only when you enter the combat when it suits you. To win a war, you have to be always in a position where you are proactive. When you loose this position and can't reobtain it than you loose the war.

 

Furthermore, Freie Jagd doesn't have anything with aerial combat tactics to do. It is just a german term for Fighter sweeps. When German Pilots talked about freie jagd missions they simply mean, they only had the objectiv to patrol an area and hunt enemies. The background for that is, that the 109 was designed to be fast and a great climber and to have the uphand easily against enemies. Based on those facts, the german pilots loved those freie jagd missions, they could decide what to do on those missions. The Luftwaffe got hitted really hard above england because the fighters had to change from fighter sweeps to escort missions for the bombers. That mission didn't suited the 109 because it couldn't use its perks.

It is like squeezing ants instead of burning their anthill to the ground.Main task of any airforce is to support ground troops.They are fighting battles and gain/occupy territory.Not planes.Role of fighter planes is to support both fists of an airforce = bombers and ground attack planes.This is done by escorting them.Yes it is very anoying and dangerous job for them fancy fighter pilots.It does not allow them to enter fight only when it suits them.But thats the way to do it.Freie jagd or fighter sweep are just secondary tasks (when you are done with your primary job).And devouting most of your time to secondary task will distract you from your main goal and you inevitably fail at the end.

[=LD=Hethwill]

In the German forces case Brano, I think it happened the opposite in the sense that the Army was so used to having the Air Force support their thrusts ( aka. first 2 years of lighting war ! ) that when the LW started to be spread thin with no real concentration the Army really really found itself "at a loss".

 

Mind you this is just an aspect of combined forces warfare and this was actually testified and written by the commanders ( the army being... under condition of being supported or not by the LW so performance was very different ), you can go through the Red Star Black Cross books and read it and how it affected some of the battles, even the strangely unknown ones but that changed the big picture a lot.

 

VVS was an extension of artillery, as a basis of comparison. The Army was no so dependant on it but damn if the foot sloggers didn't cheers when the engines roared above. Now, see the VVS going strong as a preliminary barrage before a large scale attack. The LW boys will have some field hours. Ultimately the Red Army will still go through while the German Army boys will be cursing at the LW ( which is refueling and rearming after fending off VVS attack ) for not giving them the support they were used to...

 

Western Allies is not even comparable given their multitude of air power use and some quite controversial, but ultimately it worked and you can see the breakthrough in France how the air force, when fully concentrated on a "small" area and in full force can simply vaporize any mechanized formation no matter how hardcore.

 

Free hunt is nice and worked excellent in North Africa where the flow of movement was constant, so the hunt served two purposes, reccon & candy opponents to flame.

Edited September 29, 2014 by =LD=Hethwill_Khan