Allied '39 air superiority ???

[AlbertN]

That France is not to be steamrolled with a rush it is fine - more French units, beefer Belgium too.

But how come France and UK have more fighters than Germany? (Actually at a 3:2 ratio)
Isn't that -very- generous for them?

[apec]

Actually the allies had more aircrafts than Germany, although some of them were older and less effective.

[Numdydar]

These links might help you out [:)]

German

France

Britain

The UK had about 450 Fighters and 1,000 bombers in 1939

France had about 2,500 fighters and 1,100 bombers in 1939

Germany had around 600 fighters and less bombers than either France or the UK at around 900.

So the Allies should have more AC than Germany. Of course a lot of the quality was missing from the Allies but in sheer numbers the Allies had a total of 3,000 fighters versus 600 for Germany. Bombers were better at 2,100 compared to 900 but still very lopsided to the Allies.

Just France alone had more planes than Germany in both groups. So even adding just a small part of the UK AF makes it even worse.

People today just do not understand how big of a risk Hitler took with both Poland and France. Both campaigns were run on a shoestring by Germany. If Poland and France had done a better job on using their forces properly, it is entirely possible that Germany would have lost the war in 1939 or 1940.

[AlbertN]

Ugh ... Aircraft produced = We have more planes.
NO!

A- Germany had a -modern- airforce (intrinsically reborn a few years earlier).
B- Germany had omogenous types of airplanes (ie a fighter pilot only had the Bf109 by then, or the Bf110 which required entirely different training)
C- Germany had way more efficient ground crews, operational doctrines and kept airbases closer to the front (More sorties per fighters and less distance covered there)
D- Airplanes produced does not mean that all airplanes had trained pilots for (People who reads Wikipedia tends to miss out for instance that Germany was about on the brink to win Battle for Britain in the air, simply because whilst UK outproduced Germany with fighters, by then they were entirely short of trained pilots whereas the Luftwaffe had ample reserves of that. Weather saved UK more than fighters that by then were using pilots coming from Poland, to USA volounteers and the like)
F- Germany had the whole of their airforce there, whereas France and UK had colonies. It's not that suddenly the whole of their airforces were brought back to the homeland. (Albeit they kept the more modern planes in homeland)

Sadly none of all of that - which impacted to quite a degree - is present in a game like Warplan.
You just have German fighters that have a 1 point extra in defence due to being '40 model (that I do not really see making a difference in the losses inflicted / suffered) vs way more pratically on par (in terms of quality) enemy fighters.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Cohen_slith


D- Airplanes produced does not mean that all airplanes had trained pilots for (People who reads Wikipedia tends to miss out for instance that Germany was about on the brink to win Battle for Britain in the air, simply because whilst UK outproduced Germany with fighters, by then they were entirely short of trained pilots whereas the Luftwaffe had ample reserves of that.

I did say that "... the quality was missing from the Allies..." but you broke it down much better. [:)]

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

People today just do not understand how big of a risk Hitler took with both Poland and France. Both campaigns were run on a shoestring by Germany. If Poland and France had done a better job on using their forces properly, it is entirely possible that Germany would have lost the war in 1939 or 1940

Absolutely, the gamble did work. But it did not against USSR. [:)]