Luftwaffe losses orientate on history?

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Oct 30, 2001 2:08 pm

Recently I have read in the book "Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion" (The Attack on the Sovietunion). This book is based on the researches of the "Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes in Freiburg" (military history research department Freiburg).

On page 737 it says (freely translated):
"...
Till the end of June(41) at 330 own total aircraft losses , 4614 soviet aircraft were reported destroyed. 1438 in the air, 3176 on the ground. Till the end of the border fightings on July the 12th, the numbers increased to 6857 destroyed soviet aircraft, compared to 550 total losses and 336 damaged aircrafts on the german side..."

And later on page 775 and 776:
"...Till december(41) 27th german losses on the east front count 2505 total losses(therefrom 327 without enemy impact) and 1895 damaged aircraft...
...
Since the begin of the east campaign the losses on all fronts were 5730 front aircraft (? Frontflugzeuge)...
...
On the other hand the production of front aircraft (without Seaplanes, Glider, Connection- and Messengerplans ) was from June till including December 1941 only 5147...."

The luftwaffe never regains its supermacy in the air that it have had at the beginning of the east campaign. Later "only" "local" (eg. the south of sovietunion in 1942) air superiority could be achived, leaving some regions with only few airsupport. Later the russians were able to profit from this.

Maybe we increase the experience of the russian airgroups to give germany more historic losses.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 3:21 pm

Originally posted by Harry:
Recently I have read in the book "Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion" (The Attack on the Sovietunion). This book is based on the researches of the "Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes in Freiburg" (military history research department Freiburg).

On page 737 it says (freely translated):
"...
Till the end of June(41) at 330 own total aircraft losses , 4614 soviet aircraft were reported destroyed. 1438 in the air, 3176 on the ground. Till the end of the border fightings on July the 12th, the numbers increased to 6857 destroyed soviet aircraft, compared to 550 total losses and 336 damaged aircrafts on the german side..."

And later on page 775 and 776:
"...Till december(41) 27th german losses on the east front count 2505 total losses(therefrom 327 without enemy impact) and 1895 damaged aircraft...
...
Since the begin of the east campaign the losses on all fronts were 5730 front aircraft (? Frontflugzeuge)...
...
On the other hand the production of front aircraft (without Seaplanes, Glider, Connection- and Messengerplans ) was from June till including December 1941 only 5147...."

The luftwaffe never regains its supermacy in the air that it have had at the beginning of the east campaign. Later "only" "local" (eg. the south of sovietunion in 1942) air superiority could be achived, leaving some regions with only few airsupport. Later the russians were able to profit from this.

Maybe we increase the experience of the russian airgroups to give germany more historic losses.

I remember an article about Soviet air forces late in the war. Even towards the end, Soviet air formations could not handle combat with an equal or slightly smaller German force and sometimes actually broke off and fled. This doesn't suggest to me that the Soviets deserve a greater experience level. I think Soviet air supremecy later in the war depended significantly on the Luftwaffe being bled white in the West.
The Soviet player has to wait until '43 or so, before new formations in large numbers with reasonably decent aircraft can be formed and used, as virtually the entire Soviet Air Force was destroyed in the beginning of Barbarossa (some attacks can get through in bad weather so the Soviets did try this in their winter counteroffensives). The Soviets didn't have superior or equal planes or pilots, so they had to depend on superior numbers, which means they can't commit air forces until they comfortably outnumber the Germans. A build up of such forces takes awhile.

So even though Luftwaffe losses were heavy as the numbers point out, the Soviet losses were staggering in comparison, meaning the Germans could still hold air supremecy everywhere they flew. As for local supremecy, the army in the north didn't need much air support since the fronts in the north in '42 were largely static. If they had decided to attack in the north, I believe the Germans could have held air suprememcy there as well, although it might have required reinforcements from the south and or the West. The Germans would be outnumbered, but against an inferior air force this was not a problem for them. Also, a loss of 5730 aircraft with replacements of 5147 does not sound devastating to me. It shows that the slow attrition the Luftwaffe suffered from late '42 onwards by Western air forces and numerically superior Soviet air forces is what destroyed the Luftwaffe, but not in '41 or '42.

[ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Wed Oct 31, 2001 4:15 pm

I think German airsuperioty in the game is relative to what the what the player does in terms of training and use in attacks.

Its hard to be too historical when a new human factor is brought in ie the player.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 2:50 am

I think you are right. In my first engagement with Yogi I have done some mistakes. We introduced the "Ural" on turn 2 or 3. We have played with his first version of new aircraft data. When playing with this rule from the beginning then there are some airgroups that can be put into the line to engage german aircraft resulting in some more losses in week 2 or 3.

What I do not understand is that you think that:
"...The Soviets didn't have superior or equal planes or pilots, so they had to depend on superior numbers, which means they can't commit air forces until they comfortably outnumber the Germans. A build up of such forces takes awhile..."
You are thinking of the years 41,42 ?
In 43 this was changing. For the Kursk battle germany deployed airgroups from different fronts to assist the attack. Soviet airlosses were heavy but russian production easily was able to recover the losses, germany was not able to form reserve airgroups from that day on.
The Yak-3 and La-5FN were better planes than the Me-109 on low altitudes and the later La-7 performes better than the FW-190A on low altitudes.
I have read that the Yak-3 was considered "the best russian fighter" and the La-7 was called "the russian Focke Wulf". There was still a gap in training, what was an andvantage of germany. But later this was declining rapidly, due to the aircampaign of the western allies.

One funny thing regarding early quality of russian pilots: The Yak-1 have had very simple instruments. A russian engineer asked about that told, that more instruments would only disturb the pilots and are therefore unnecessary. The Yak-1 was easy to fly compared to the MiG-3. The LaGG was a hated plane often compared as a "flying coffin".

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 11:32 am

Just imagine the additional damage the Luftwaffe would have inflicted on the USSR if they hadn't lost some 1,900 aircraft to at the hands of the RAF fron July- Nov 1940.

Also rememember that Germany was not on a total war footing until 1943. Aircraft production increased steadily through mid 1944.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 4:23 pm

Originally posted by Harry:
I think you are right. In my first engagement with Yogi I have done some mistakes. We introduced the "Ural" on turn 2 or 3. We have played with his first version of new aircraft data. When playing with this rule from the beginning then there are some airgroups that can be put into the line to engage german aircraft resulting in some more losses in week 2 or 3.

What I do not understand is that you think that:
"...The Soviets didn't have superior or equal planes or pilots, so they had to depend on superior numbers, which means they can't commit air forces until they comfortably outnumber the Germans. A build up of such forces takes awhile..."

You are thinking of the years 41,42 ?

Yes.

In 43 this was changing. For the Kursk battle germany deployed airgroups from different fronts to assist the attack. Soviet airlosses were heavy but russian production easily was able to recover the losses, germany was not able to form reserve airgroups from that day on.

Agreed, by '43 the numbers shifted in favor of the Soviets, but keep in mind this also includes the German committments in the West to combat the strategic bombing campaign.

The Yak-3 and La-5FN were better planes than the Me-109 on low altitudes and the later La-7 performes better than the FW-190A on low altitudes.

I have read that the Yak-3 was considered "the best russian fighter" and the La-7 was called "the russian Focke Wulf". There was still a gap in training, what was an andvantage of germany. But later this was declining rapidly, due to the aircampaign of the western allies.

Yes, Yogi's version of the OOB does make some Soviet fighters much better, but note that the F190D is an equal for the Yak-3 and the La-7, and as you mention above, the experience and training gap between to the two air forces was substantial.

As for a "flying coffin", Yanks said something similar about their Sherman tanks. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Barbos · Post by **Barbos** » Thu Nov 01, 2001 5:58 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

I remember an article about Soviet air forces late in the war... I think Soviet air supremecy later in the war depended significantly on the Luftwaffe being bled white in the West.
[ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Sounds pretty strong. Ed, you probably better rely on impartial stats rather than on suspicious articles. So I quote German archive sources only. The data:

1. Luftwaffe aircraft deployed:
August 1943 November 1944
East front 2896 2675
West front 744 1356

2. Luftwaffe losses (destroyed aircraft)
22.06.41-14.03.42 1-31.08.42 9.43-10.44
East 2687 2087 4769
Total 3773 4161 20719

The data indicate that the Eastern front was the most costly for the Luftwaffe until mid-43, when skill level of German pilots began to decrease dramatically. Therefore the Allied air offensive joined the battle in mass at the moment when the Luftwaffe was bled (o-ops, I quote Ed!) in the East.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Even towards the end, Soviet air formations could not handle combat with an equal or slightly smaller German force and sometimes actually broke off and fled.
[ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

I leave this uncommented for trivial reason.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Fri Nov 02, 2001 7:41 am

Originally posted by Mike Santos:

Just imagine the additional damage the Luftwaffe would have inflicted on the USSR
if they hadn't lost some 1,900 aircraft to at the hands of the RAF fron July- Nov 1940.

Just imagine how much easier would it be for Soviets to wrestle air supremacy from Germans,
IF NOT the experience, that Luftwaffe got during the victory in France and Battle of Britain!

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Fri Nov 02, 2001 9:15 am

Originally posted by Barbos:

The data indicate that the Eastern front was the most costly for the Luftwaffe until mid-43, when skill level of German

Interesting numbers, do they break down the categories, separating out the fighters from the bombers, recon, etc.? Are these combat kills only or a combined number with A/C lost in other ways? I ask this because my unspoken emphasis was on fighters, and its the strategic bombing with escort fighters going on in the West that broke the back of the Luftwaffe *fighters*.

From 'Black Cross Red Star': "On Nov. 3, 1943, 539 bombers attacked Wilhelmshaven, escorted by P-38s. Only 3 bombers were lost to the fighters (and four more to flak). German fighter losses to the P-38s were so heavy that Adolf Galland held a special meeting with 1 Jagdkorps division commanders the next day. They decided to pull "wild sow" nightfighters out of their attacks on the RAF and throw them against the USAAF."

(o-ops, I quote Ed!)

Are you trying to start a flame war? <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

I leave this uncommented for trivial reason.

Why leave it uncommented? You obviously think I made it up, otherwise you wouldn't be acting like a ...... well, I'll leave this uncommented for trivial reason.

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Fri Nov 02, 2001 4:19 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
Why leave it uncommented? You obviously think I made it up, otherwise you wouldn't be acting like a ...... well, I'll leave this uncommented for trivial reason.[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

ROFLOL! <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Barbos · Post by **Barbos** » Fri Nov 02, 2001 5:08 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Why leave it uncommented? You obviously think I made it up, otherwise you wouldn't be acting like a ...... well, I'll leave this uncommented for trivial reason.

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Why not, I find it really trivial: the best tactical decision is to avoid (if possible!) engagement if favour on enemy side. That was a cause of additional losses for Soviet pilots in early war when they tried to attack outnumbering Germans. Soon both sides issued the order to avoid battle contact if odds are on enemy side. The best Luftwaffe aces almost always did this as well. And it is quite normal from combat effectiveness viewpoint.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sat Nov 03, 2001 3:33 am

Originally posted by Barbos:

Soon both sides issued the order to avoid battle contact if odds are on enemy side. The best Luftwaffe aces almost always did this as well. And it is quite normal from combat effectiveness viewpoint.

If this was 100% correct, there would have never been a Barbarossa invasion. German fighters were outnumbered from the very beginning, and remained outnumbered because the Soviets (at least by '43 if not earlier) could outproduce Germany in fighter planes (never mind the West). Of course, the lack of training and inferior planes (until later models) of the Soviets meant that even with numerical superiority victory in the air was not assured, because the Germans proved that time after time. I'm not saying this applied to all Soviet pilots though. For one example, the Soviets had their own fair share of combat aces who were not afraid to attack the Luftwaffe.

Barbos · Post by **Barbos** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 9:16 am

There were various missions for aircraft. Free sweeping principally differs from escorting when fighters have no right to abandon bombers. However fighter pilots of ALL nations did it regularly although their commanders were heavily punished for that. Everyone wants to survive. Sure, practice of real war is a very unpleasant business, and any troops tend to retire earlier or later. One old English medieval general said: "I've never seen truly brave soldiers."
I just misunderstand the phrase

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

I remember an article about Soviet air forces late in the war. Even towards the end, Soviet air formations could not handle combat with an equal or slightly smaller German force and sometimes actually broke off and fled.
[ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

as if Germans/Brits/Americans never did it.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

This doesn't suggest to me that the Soviets deserve a greater experience level.
[ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

Is it implied that Soviets fled more often than others? Maybe, but please prove this rather strong idea other than referring to "an article". I do not refer here to dozens of articles which state exactly the contrary - this is no good way for discussion, yea?

PMCN · Post by **PMCN** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 1:39 pm

There were problems with the pilots in the Red Airforce, this is hardly surprising given the overall low level of education they had.

The Luffwaffe was nearly always able to obtain local air superiority for a battle it wished to have at but this inevitably required conceeding the air someplace else. After 42 they were never able to obtain total air superiority over the whole front.

But the real problems the soviets had were mainly equipment related. Their planes lacked radios for one thing and when coupled with the poor training of the pilots in piloting skills (not necessarily ground attack or dog fighting but the other more mundane stuff) limited their utility. The Red Air force never conducted deep raids (other than the one launched on Berlin shortly after the start of Barbarossa...and only a small fraction of that force ever even arrived on target) and generally limited themselves to flying near there own lines. I have never read of many airbase raids. Not surprising since that would require long range navigation something that again requires both good maps and training in how to navigate by them. Both were lacking in the Red Airforce.

The other question would be the skill of the mechanics. Again I would expect that this will improve from practice but at least initially it would have been very low. The same is true across the board since a major soviet problem was the lack of skilled manpower.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 4:49 pm

Originally posted by Barbos:
Maybe, but please prove this rather strong idea other than referring to "an article". I do not refer here to dozens of articles which state exactly the contrary - this is no good way for discussion, yea?

If I could remember where I read it, I would have attributed it in my first post. If you want to ignore me because I read something years ago and now can't remember when and where I read it, then fine. I'll just automatically reject anything you say unless you provide a URL to a reputable source that thoroughly verifies your comments. If its a book, the title, author, chapter, page number, and ISBN are required.

This will be just for you though. I'll go on making comments where appropiate without attributing if I can't remember the source, but am confident of its accuracy. Most of us here Barbos aren't lying, and most of us have no problem participating in a discussion where some/many things go unattributed.

As for "this is no good way for [a] discussion", you're completely wrong. If you don't trust anyone and demand attribution for nearly everything, you'll quickly find many people will just ignore you in discussions, because they don't want to spend 2 hours with Google, or an hour going through their own reference materials just so they can attribute everything they say to meet your requirements of a "proper" discussion.

I don't remember seeing your name here before, so it appears that your first post to this forum was to call someone a liar. If you're looking for friends here, this was not a good first step.

czerpak · Post by **czerpak** » Mon Nov 05, 2001 5:24 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
[QB]

As for "this is no good way for [a] discussion", you're completely wrong. If you don't trust anyone and demand attribution for nearly everything, you'll quickly find many people will just ignore you in discussions, because they don't want to spend 2 hours with Google, or an hour going through their own reference materials just so they can attribute everything they say to meet your requirements of a "proper" discussion.

Hello Ed,
Barbos was right about "proper" discussion, if he wants academical one, but I hope this forum is not set for academical ones.

czerpak

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Nov 06, 2001 10:40 am

Originally posted by czerpak:

Hello Ed,
Barbos was right about "proper" discussion, if he wants academical one,

but I hope this forum is not set for academical ones.

I don't understand why you think he's right. The first part of your sentence above is contradicted by the second part of your sentence. I too, hope academical discussions are not required for membership in this forum, but Barbos seems to want just that. In fact, the second part of your sentence is basically the point I'm trying to make: most of us here do not want academic requirements imposed for participating in discussions here.

Barbos · Post by **Barbos** » Tue Nov 06, 2001 4:01 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

As for "this is no good way for [a] discussion", you're completely wrong. If you don't trust anyone and demand attribution for nearly everything, you'll quickly find many people will just ignore you in discussions, because they don't want to spend 2 hours with Google, or an hour going through their own reference materials just so they can attribute everything they say to meet your requirements of a "proper" discussion.

Well, how to help you understand the principal moment... If I write here: "Americans used to flee from field of battle, therefore their air groups do not deserve high experience level" - would you take it easy and serious? I think no. But now take the same sentence, replace Americans by Soviets and it goes OK with no proof at all.

[QB]
There were problems with the pilots in the Red Airforce, this is hardly surprising given the overall low level of education they had...But the real problems the soviets had were mainly equipment related...

Please do not replace the initial question (morality) with another (education, skill, equipment). I am not against low experience level for Soviets, but I confront the way Ed treats the morality question.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
[QB]
I don't remember seeing your name here before, so it appears that your first post to this forum was to call someone a liar. If you're looking for friends here, this was not a good first step.[/b]

Sounds like I tried to make a career here and failed...
I do not make friends via net. What I want (wanted?) here is to learn more about the game and possibly about military history. However the discussion became hardly informative. "You are completely wrong", "call someone a liar" - don't you find that my phrases are a bit more parliamentary? Probably emotions of my opponent begin to prevail, so my interest for this topic is nearly over.

czerpak · Post by **czerpak** » Tue Nov 06, 2001 7:24 pm

quote
In fact, the second part of your sentence is basically the point I'm trying to make: most of us here do not want academic requirements imposed for participating in discussions here

Ed,
that exactly what I was trying to say.
English is not my native language, which causes problems every now and then

Grisha · Post by **Grisha** » Tue Nov 06, 2001 7:52 pm

Actually, to think that Soviet fighter formations could not handle the Luftwaffe in 1944 is incorrect. Yak-3 IAP's with 50% new pilots and some advanced combat classes were able to defeat superior numbers of 109s and 190s in 1944 with little loss(this is recorded archival material). With La-7 is was even better, and same for Yak-9U. In 1943, the La-5FN was an equal to anything the Germans put out. What many people don't realize is that:<ul type="square">[*] Even in 1944 there were still many IAP's with Yak-1B/9D/9M, La-5/5F, even LaGG-3s![*] Soviet air fighter doctrine did not place prime importance in pure anti-fighter activity. The primary purpose of fighter forces was to support ground actions, just as all VVS units were. Thus, the VVS did not actively hunt down German fighters as operational policy, but only engaged them when they threatened ground operations. This is completely contrary to Luftwaffe doctrine, which tasked its jagdfliegeren with primarily anti-fighter missions. The Luftwaffe created many more opportunities to engage VVS fighters than the VVS did.[/list]

It's my firm belief that had the VVS adopted a pure anti-fighter role for its fighters, the Luftwaffe would've been swept from the skies, just as the USAAF did with its P-51Ds.

The Soviets were no dummies. They made a conscious decision before the war that since war was ultimately won on the ground, all facets of their military forces should be in support of ground operations.