[Berkut76]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Have any of your educators mentioned the significant role the Russian Airforce and Army played in the defeat of Germany? Most German servicemen were used against the Russians, not the USAF or RAF etc.

According to the German sources that I've read, Luftwaffe lost altogether about 100,000 planes in WWII. About 70,000 were lost over the Eastern Front. Due to the harsh weather conditions and lack of infrastructure, 30% of those were either non-combat losses and/or losses to AA gunners. All in all Luftwaffe lost about 49,000 aircraft in air to air combat vs the VVS.

The Soviet aircraft losses for that period are whopping 106,000. Due to poor training early in the war, the Soviets managed to lose 46,000 aircraft to accidents.

Perhaps the most telling statistics is that between 06/22/1941 to 12/31/1943 Germans lost about 15,000 fighter aircraft of which only 2,581 were lost over MTO, Africa, and the Western Front.

Funny thing is that the current Russian historians are not even disputing Luftwaffe top aces scores of the war, noting that the combat over the East was a "bar brawl" affair when it wasn't uncommon for the flyers of opposing sides to fly as many as nine sorties a day.

While it's undisputed that it was much tougher to bring down a B-17 than any Soviet aircraft of the period, it also should be mentioned that a fast pace and sheer intensity of air war over the East seemed to even or should I say deadened the odds of Luftwaffe pilots to survive in the air.

From myself, I would like to add that despite shooting down an immense number of the Soviet aircraft, much like the case with Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe failed miserably on strategic level proving incapable of stopping the flow of Lend Lease supplies from the Artcic route, halting armament production in the besieged Leningrad, or even doing any damage worth of note to Moscow.

Regards,

Sergey

[bsmith13]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

bsmith, I feel there are a few facts that have been omitted from your post.

LOL! There are plenty of facts that I omitted from my post. I love discussing the development of airpower, but this post was mainly meant to be a clarification of issues with western ally bombing styles, rather than a comprehensive bombing survey of the whole war.

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

The Germans were not overly impressed with the accuracy of strategic style bombing via vertical delivery and this was proved correct by the poor accuracy of both the RAF and USAF strategic methods.

Can you clarify this statement for me? I'll agree that Germans were not impressed initially by the high-altitude level bombing method during the development of the Luftwaffe (with the exception of Generalleutnant Walther Wever, killed in a plane crash in 1936. He was Germany's sole Strategic Bombing advocate). However, accuracy was not the sole aim of Strategic bombing. The range of the bomber had at least as much to do with the strategies employed as the accuracy or lack thereof. Germany never had anything operational that could approach the operational radius of a Lancaster, Fortress or Liberator.

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

The accuracy of the USAF in daylight being not much better than the RAF/RAAF/RCAF at night. Saturation with large numbers of bombs being their only answer to this inaccuracy..

I think I have to disagree with this. While neither method was very accurate, especially by dive-bomber or low-altitude medium bomber standards, USAAF accuracy was slightly higher due to the fact that when an area was bombed, the impact zone was limited to the lateral dimensions of a single bomber box which was aimed by the lead bombardier with a Norden bomb site. RAF night bombing (initially, at any rate) depended on hitting a target with a larger aim point, like a harbor or a rail center. So it became a matter of throwing a lot of bombs simultaneously at a small target while trying to aim accurately (USAAF) or throwing a lot of bombs a few at a time at a large area over a large amount of time (RAF Night Bomber streams).

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

It was also proved that smaller twin engined aircraft as championed by the Germans were not as accurate as dive bombers but more accurate than larger four engined bombers. For example the Mosquito proved to be very accurate in bomb delivery compared to RAF and USAF heavies. And although it could not carry as much as the heavies it proved to be more effective and less vulnerable. In fact there is much to support the view that a switch to mainly Mosquito based bomb delivery would have been a better solution...

If memory serves me, the light and medium bombers were phenomally accurate. After the war, many german troops testified to the terrifying accuracy of Mosquito and B-26 bombers. However, they also operated at a lower and more dangerous altitude. Speaking for the Americans, I can say that most medium and light bomber raids were not deep-strike missions, which would mean that they didn't encounter the same quantity of fighters and flak after 1st quarter 1944 that the Heavies did. So effectiveness is not only a function of accuracy and range (which both the Marauder and Mossie had), but also of where/how the airframe is employed.

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Have any of your educators mentioned the significant role the Russian Airforce and Army played in the defeat of Germany? Most German servicemen were used against the Russians, not the USAF or RAF etc.

It must seem to some that I am an Ameri-centric historian from what I have already posted. I'm not. I realize that far more blood was shed on the eastern front than in the west. My appreciation of Russian military power extends a bit beyond "There were tons of Russians and they steam-rollered the Germans." However, as someone who has to deal with american airpower doctrine on a daily basis, my official education is somewhat skewed in that direction. And speaking on the subject of strategic bombing (whether it was as effective as its advocates hoped or not), the Russians didn't contribute anything to the Strategic Bombing campaign. Things might have been different if Stalin hadn't purged all his aviation experts in the mid '30s, but that's another topic.

[Aircrafty]

Wow, that's a lot of queries bsmith, and beyond my pre Christmas beer sodden brain

Suffice to say saturation/pattern/carpet bombing is no longer used, being supplanted by precision bombing by aircraft carrying relatively small bombloads. So who was right, the Germans or Bomber Harris and co

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

Wow, that's a lot of queries bsmith, and beyond my pre Christmas beer sodden brain

You Aussies take all the fun out when you reinforce the 'beer-pickled' stereotypes that abound regarding yourselves - what's left for the rest of us to make fun of ... ?

[Captain Eddie]

bsmith, enjoyed your post! Perhaps you or anyone else could comment on something I read some time ago-that the percentage of losses for the USA daylight bombing was, over the course of the war, less than it was for the Brit's night time bombing. Is that true?

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by Captain Eddie

bsmith, enjoyed your post! Perhaps you or anyone else could comment on something I read some time ago-that the percentage of losses for the USA daylight bombing was, over the course of the war, less than it was for the Brit's night time bombing. Is that true?

USA daylight bombing did not occur until mid-way through WWII. However the US contribution in men and material steadily increased as the RAF and Commonwealth Airforces were steadily bled dry. Therefore by the end of the war the losses were similar, here are some stats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...g_World_War_II

[Aircrafty]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

You Aussies take all the fun out when you reinforce the 'beer-pickled' stereotypes that abound regarding yourselves - what's left for the rest of us to make fun of ... ?

OK, to be honest I actually haven't drunk any beer today, I was just to lazy to answer each question. Btw, is there a smiley for 'sheepish grin' or is that purely for New Zealand computers

[bsmith13]

Originally Posted by Captain Eddie

bsmith, enjoyed your post! Perhaps you or anyone else could comment on something I read some time ago-that the percentage of losses for the USA daylight bombing was, over the course of the war, less than it was for the Brit's night time bombing. Is that true?

Lol again. Captain Eddie, I'm afraid I will have to dive into some research to answer your question, and I admit that I don't know the answer off the top of my head. Aircrafty's link is a good place to look in answering your question.

And Aircrafty, I think you misunderstand my intent. I am merely describing Strategic Bombing in World War II, not trying to decide which Air Force's Doctrine was most correct. Also, anyone who attempts to put modern interpretations on historical events falls into a trap, mainly because most people don't have the gift of foresight. They can only make the decision that seems best at the time. Thus, in WWII, Precision Bombing was in its infancy, and difficult to pursue on the kind of scale that would intentionally or unintentionally contribute to the defeat of Germany. 617 Squadron is perhaps the most outstanding example of a precision bombing squadron during WWII. Yet the Dambuster raid didn't cripple the German war industry in the way that was hoped by Barnes Wallace and Bomber Harris. Toward the end of the war, the Grand Slam raids had amazing results, and it is too bad that no one listened to Barnes Wallace earlier.

I repeat that the Germans had no coherent Strategic Bombing strategy. Hitler and Goering were only concerned with destroying cities, and I doubt either one of them ever read Douhet. Their ideas about pinpoint accuracy would eventually merge with strategic bombing theories theories, but this convergence of ideas required another 30-50 years of technological advances to make this happen. Warden's doctrine of concentric rings and centers of gravity marries the seemingly strategic with the seemingly tactical, and after the first Gulf War, USAF did away with Strategic Air Command and Tactical Air Command, merging the assets of both into the Air Combat Command.

So now we are in the day and age of targets per aircraft instead of aircraft per target.

[jim]

That is one of the best discussions I have seen on the Hanger. Good arguments and sensible counter points. For any young person new to Diecast and their history they will have found much to learn from the accurate and interesting posts made on the subject. Great stuff.

[Aircrafty]

Hi Jim, this is fun isn't it, do you want to join in

Hi bsmith, with all due respect, please don't let propaganda (intentional or otherwise) confuse your education. The Germans used precision bombing from a very early stage in World War Two and were the pioneers of Pathfinder bombing methods using radio direction beams. Of course the British jammed these beams and subsequent aiming methods causing less than accurate bombing by the Germans. The Germans also had superior RADAR equipment but were unable to crack the short wave lengths which was VERY lucky for the allies. I recommend you read "Most Secret War - British Scientific Intelligence 1939-45" by the UK WW II scientist, R V Jones for the full story.

Btw, just for the record, I'm not pro Nazi. In fact my father flew in Lancasters and served as an RAAF Observer/Navigator with the RAF Pathfinder Force.