Where was the Luftwaffe defeated? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Aircraft losses are certainly important but even more important are PILOT losses. As pilots are killed they are replaced but as the war progresses the replacements are of lower and lower quality which in turn accelerates the loss of aircraft and lowers kill ratios. Germany could never hope to equal the US ability to manufacture aircraft or field quality pilots. The Germans on the western front were indeed overwhelmed by sheer numers of aircraft and pilots

I agree,the two go hand in hand.

Pilot quality fell off a cliff. Josef Schmid,effectively in command of all fighters defending the Reich,wrote of the situation as early as April 1944.

"U.S. freie Jagden added to the strain on RLV aircrews. Inexperienced pilots suffered Jager-shrek (fear of fighters) owing to the realisation of their own vulnerability when forced to fly alone due to weather or damage. This led to premature bail outs"

On 27th April 1944 Galland said.

"The problem with which the Americans have confronted the fighter arm is quite simply the problem of air superiority.The situation is already being characterised by enemy air superiority.
The numerical ratios in daytime combat at present fluctuate between approximately 6:1 and 8:1 in favour of the enemy.The enemy's standard of training is astonishingly high.The technical capabilities of his aircraft are so manifest that we are obliged to say that something must be done immiediately...

It is unfortunate that the Jagerstab's efforts to increase fighter production must be carried out under the pressure of bombing and very heavy losses...

In the past four months our day fighter forces have lost well over 1,000 pilots,including many of our best Geschwader,Gruppe and Staffel commanders. We are having great difficulty in closing this gap,not in a numerical sense,but with experienced leaders."

My italics

Cheers
Steve
 
Indeed Steve, they could move as much as they could underground in fact my understanding is that Germany was littered with many of the latest brand new a/c types Germany had at wars end but without trained pilots to fly them, or fuel to power them - and they had neither, there really wasn't much point in that (astonishing under the circumstances) production.

But one can't help coming back to the delusional mindset of the disintegrating state back then, they ended the war calling up 13yr old children, it simply beggars belief.....and they and their slightly older brothers were meant to fly Heinkel 162 jets.....and God only knows where they were supposed to get the rudimentary glider time that was supposed to be the training for the jets!?
It's simply staggering.....but in its own way as indicative of the total destruction of the (as someone once coined the phrase) 'whole rotten edifice'.
 
Indeed Steve, they could move as much as they could underground in fact my understanding is that Germany was littered with many of the latest brand new a/c types Germany had at wars end but without trained pilots to fly them, or fuel to power them - and they had neither, there really wasn't much point in that (astonishing under the circumstances) production.

The allies certainly found plenty of the latest aircraft in various states littering German airfields at the end of the war.
There is a common misconception that the ramming attacks of Sonderkommando Elbe were carried out using old and tired aircraft. This is not so. I was recently reading an account by Werner Zell of his one and only special mission and he had selected a brand new Bf 109 K-4 for the job. His only modification was to remove the rear/head armour (Galland panzer) as he had heard that this could hit you on the head when the canopy was jettisoned.
He survived despite being badly injured in the ramming and then being machine gunned in his parachute by a P-51. He later counted 19 holes in his parachute.
Cheers
Steve
 
Indeed Steve, they could move as much as they could underground in fact my understanding is that Germany was littered with many of the latest brand new a/c types Germany had at wars end but without trained pilots to fly them, or fuel to power them - and they had neither, there really wasn't much point in that (astonishing under the circumstances) production.

But one can't help coming back to the delusional mindset of the disintegrating state back then, they ended the war calling up 13yr old children, it simply beggars belief.....and they and their slightly older brothers were meant to fly Heinkel 162 jets.....and God only knows where they were supposed to get the rudimentary glider time that was supposed to be the training for the jets!?
It's simply staggering.....but in its own way as indicative of the total destruction of the (as someone once coined the phrase) 'whole rotten edifice'.

13 year old??? Even in 1945 boys had to be at least 16 to join the army. My uncle just reached age 16, wanted to join in spring 45 but was rejected because already three of his brothers had died in the war in the East. This is what my mother (born 1931) told me some years ago.
cimmex
 
True,but how many enlisted underage.
My own Grandfather enlisted underage in the latter stages of WW1. I only found out,after his death,when I noticed a discrepancy of two years between his recorded DoB and that given in his Army records.
He gave his age as 18 in 1916 when he was infact only 16.

underage.gif


We forget in this digital age how much easier it was to get away with this sort of "economy with the truth". Records were much more difficult to check.

Cheers
Steve
 
in every time and even more during the NAZI regime Germany had a very strong bureaucracy and you need documents and papers for all and everything so claiming a wrong age during recruiting is not easy but could occur in some few cases.
cimmex
 
in every time and even more during the NAZI regime Germany had a very strong bureaucracy and you need documents and papers for all and everything so claiming a wrong age during recruiting is not easy but could occur in some few cases.
cimmex

I don't doubt it and I wouldn't compare late WW2 recruiting with the mass volunteers of 1914-16. Nonetheless desperation can certainly cause a blind eye in the recruiter.

We know that the British and French Armies recruited hundreds of thousands of under age boys in WW1.I don't know but would be surprised if Germany was different.

I'm sure that at least some young lads (and girls) in a National Socialist fervour were recruited in late war Nazi Germany.

Cheers
Steve
 
The allies certainly found plenty of the latest aircraft in various states littering German airfields at the end of the war.
There is a common misconception that the ramming attacks of Sonderkommando Elbe were carried out using old and tired aircraft. This is not so. I was recently reading an account by Werner Zell of his one and only special mission and he had selected a brand new Bf 109 K-4 for the job. His only modification was to remove the rear/head armour (Galland panzer) as he had heard that this could hit you on the head when the canopy was jettisoned.
He survived despite being badly injured in the ramming and then being machine gunned in his parachute by a P-51. He later counted 19 holes in his parachute.
Cheers
Steve

I have often speculated that the bulk of shooting at guys in chutes (on Allied side) might have been ;love taps' from bomber gunners. In the example above the guy would probably be dead had a P-51 pilot been shooting at him.. I have no doubt that German pilots were shot at after bailing out, as Allied crews suffered the same fate.

It is an interesting question. There was no mercy given on the ground by a sniper shooting a soldier eating a K-ration, or a tank gunner shooting soldiers running away from him in the back. Is the guideline to wait until chow is over and he GI picks up his M-1? Or wait until the soldiers running away decide to stand and fight? Different from killing a guy hanging in a parachute after trying to kill you and failing? I don't know how to make that distinction.

I know there was dialogue and discussion about 'just when do you stop shooting?" When the German pilot ejects his canopy, when he is trying to climb or drop out of his ship"? Is there a problem strafing a crash landed fighter? or catching the guy as he tries to run from his airplane?

He didn't (couldn't) surrender. The pilot was trying to save his own life in the immediate moment but certainly would be back in a new fighter later if we are talking about a German pilot over his own territory, or RAF pilot during BoB.

It wasn't contrary to Geneva Convention or "Rules of War" - so where is the moral/ethical line and how is it articulated and applied? Is a fighter pilot that shoots at another fighter pilot in a parachute different morally from an He 111 pilot dropping bombs in the middle of London - or B-17 bombadier unloading on Hamburg or Dresden?

Equally interesting question. Where is the moral legal stricture valid for a citizen of a German city that has been bombed taking up arms and killing an armed American fighter pilot - who may Not have surrendered his firearm?

I can't speak for everyone here, but if we were in a war here I would have zero inhibitions about wasting a Chinese or Russian (hypothetical adversary) pilot shot down near me. If I had the shot.. I would take it.

Oh, well - enough philosopy.
 
Last edited:
The figures for the USAAF come from the "USAAF Office of Statistical Supply,HQ USAAF" and represent the total number of combat planes,by type,in both the ETO and MTO.

The RAF numbers come from the Central Statistical Office and likewise represent totals in both theatres.

Both certainly represent the total numbers in theatre,not just those operational.

Don't forget the Luftwaffe numbers,from OKL documents,which I posted represent total strength in all theatres,including the Eastern Front,also including those non operational.

Cheers
Steve

Thanks Steve - I suspected the source. It is such a huge overage from operational strength that I wonder if War Weary/Salvaged aircraft also have a tab in the inventory count. That is the trouble (for me) with the Government records I have seen when trying to figure out operational levels In Theatre. The very same issue arises when trying to break out Cause of Loss - Operations.
 
Zell was quite specific that it was a P-51 that shot at him.
Earlier he was struggling to release his hood whan another (or possibly the same) P-51 shot at him,in Zell's opinion causing his jammed canopy to release. In his original account he refers sarcastically to this Mustang as his "Saviour".
Here's the moral rather than legal conundrum,whilst still in the aircraft he would be considered a legitimate target by most combatants. Once free and in a parachute this would not be the case for most.

I've looked into this in some detail and did post in an earlier thread. There is no doubt that men in parachutes were shot at by all sides. It was not routine or commonplace. The restraining factor seems to have been the awareness of the potential attacker that "There,but for the Grace of God go I".

Dowding was of the opinion that an airman descending into enemy territory,that is a German floating down to the fields of Kent,was effectively already a PoW and as such not a legitimate target. This obviously leaves the question open regarding another pilot descending onto home territory whence he might quickly be back in action.

Bomber crew members from all sides certainly got mis-handled or worse by the civilian populations they had been attacking. Their best bet was to be taken into the charge of the local Police or Military authorities as soon as possible. Here they were usually treated correctly. For an Allied airman the sooner he was in the hands of the Luftwaffe the better.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
13 year old???

Well if 13 is not corrrect then several TV programs I've seen talking about the final 1945 situation are wrong.

I had a look wiki has this to say "By 1945, the Volkssturm was commonly drafting 12-year-old Hitler Youth members into its ranks".

I expect as the collapse began the rules may have said one thing but party zealot nutters another.
 
Last edited:
13 year old??? Even in 1945 boys had to be at least 16 to join the army. My uncle just reached age 16, wanted to join in spring 45 but was rejected because already three of his brothers had died in the war in the East. This is what my mother (born 1931) told me some years ago.
cimmex

Thats not my understanding. My father fought in the defence of Berlin at the very end. On April 23rd, battalions made up entirely of Hitler Youths all of them under the age of 16 were quickly formed to hold the Pichelsdorf bridges by the Havel River. These bridges in Berlin were supposed to be used by General Wenck's relief army coming from the south. That army, unknown to the boys, had already been destroyed and now existed on paper only. It was one of several phantom armies being commanded by Hitler to save encircled Berlin. How does my father know that....he was there, and helped to organise these battalions of child soldiers. he still has nightmares about it.

At the Pichelsdorf bridges, 5,000 boys, wearing man-sized uniforms several sizes too big and helmets that flopped around on their heads, stood by with rifles and Panzerfausts, ready to oppose the Russian Army. Within five days of battle, 4,500 had been killed or wounded. In other parts of Berlin, HJ boys met similar fates. Many committed suicide rather than be taken alive by the Russians.

In February 1945, project Werewolf began, training German children as spies and saboteurs, intending to send them behind Allied lines with explosives and arsenic. But the project came to nothing as most of these would-be saboteurs were quickly captured or killed by the Allies as they advanced into the Reich.

In his last public appearance, just ten days before his death, Adolf Hitler ventured out of his Berlin bunker on his 56th birthday into the Chancellery garden to decorate members of the hitler Youth serving in the armed forces. Admittedly may of these boys were not in front line combat roles, many were serving as as runners and messengers and the like, but they were still soldiers. One of those decorated soldiers was a twelve-year-old Hitler Youth with an Iron Cross for hisr heroism in the defense of Berlin. The extraordinary event was captured on film and remains one of the most enduring images chronicling the collapse of Hitler's thousand-year Reich, as the tottering, senile-looking Führer is seen congratulating little boys staring at him with worshipful admiration. They were then sent back out into the streets to continue the hopeless fight.

From 1939, immediately following the fall of Poland, Hitler Youth (actually Jungvolk....Hitler Youth below the age of 14) including girls, were attached to the Land Service were assigned to the acquired territory in northern Poland (Warthegau) to assist in the massive Nazi repopulation program in which native Poles were forced off their homes and farms by Himmler's SS troops to make way for ethnic Germans. Hitler Youths also assisted in this operation by watching over Polish families as they were evicted from their homes, making sure they took only a few basic possessions. These boys were armed, making them the firdst boy soldiers in the german armed forces.

By the beginning of 1943, Hitler's armies were stretched to the limit, battling the combined forces of Soviet Russia, United States, Britain and other Allies. By this time, most able-bodied German men were in the armed services. As a result, starting on January 26, 1943, many anti-aircraft batteries were officially manned solely by Hitler Youth boys. The boys manning the guns were Hitler Youth, ostensibly over the age of 16, but in reality including many as young as 14.

At first they were stationed at flak guns near their homes, but as the overall situation deteriorated, they were transferred all over Germany. As the situation worsened, the younger boys of the Jungvolk were brought into help and were were assigned to operate search lights and assist with communications, often riding their bicycles as dispatch riders. In October 1943, a search light battery received a direct bomb hit, killing the entire crew of boys, all aged 14 and under.
 
I agree, Volkssturm was a different matter and HJ boys were used to assist the Flak crews or for similar tasks but never were chosen to fly the He162. This plane was to valuable and nobody would risk to destroy property of the Luftwaffe by children.
cimmex
 
It seems perverse to put a 'like' to your comment parsifal, but you know what I mean.
Children as soldiers, such a tragedy wherever it happens.
The awful shame is it goes on in many African conflicts to this day.
 
I agree, Volkssturm was a different matter and HJ boys were used to assist the Flak crews or for similar tasks but never were chosen to fly the He162. This plane was to valuable and nobody would risk to destroy property of the Luftwaffe by children.
cimmex

But surely it is well known understood that the plan was for Hitler Youth (and any other barely trained unfortunates they could scrape up) to fly these jets?
 
I'm sure you're right.....and there is some merit in this opinion, no doubt, it was a serious set of losses (as in fact were all the losses from Poland and on to France) that would later reveal themselves as very costly.
But it also has to be bourne in mind on any discussion of the German view of the eastern front that despite the obvious results some Germans were loath to admit they had actually suffered defeat on the EF at all.
It was always due to losses demands elsewhere and not really down to any significant defeat at the hands of the Russian forces.
Nazi ideology at work I think.

What about the Russians saying they didn't needed allies? Communist ideology at work?
 
But surely it is well known understood that the plan was for Hitler Youth (and any other barely trained unfortunates they could scrape up) to fly these jets?

Not really. This originates with comments made by Ernst Heinkel after the war. He suggested that the original intention was that the craft should be flown by inexperienced pilots. This is reinforced by the confusing name "Volksjager". There is no evidence that I've seen from Luftwaffe sources that this was ever contemplated by the Luftwaffe itself. Infact the handling made it a difficult machine to fly,even for experienced pilots.
The He 162 was operated only by JG 1,by qualified Luftwaffe pilots.
Cheers
Steve
 
What about the Russians saying they didn't needed allies? Communist ideology at work?

Probably.....and?

Not really. This originates with comments made by Ernst Heinkel after the war. He suggested that the original intention was that the craft should be flown by inexperienced pilots. This is reinforced by the confusing name "Volksjager".

Perhaps, but he must have gotten that from somewhere.
Besides by 1945 they really were scraping up 'manpower' from anywhere they could that was left.
However you define it children were being recruited into the ranks, the Hitler Youth SS army units were well documented, why would a HY air element be far-fetched, especially with the SS involved.
Cue the lunatic 'with enough determined will and true national socialist spirit one can overcome all' nonsense.

There is no evidence that I've seen from Luftwaffe sources that this was ever contemplated by the Luftwaffe itself.

I've no doubt the LW itself never lost sight of the need for proper trained aircrew, I don't think this would have been coiming from them.....but as I said they were already throwing the children into the grinder on land, I'm not sure I'd see those same types baulk at hurling them into the air.
As it was even Goring's LW leadership had all sorts of stupid ideas about combat (re the swearing to fight in the air end up doing a ramming attack)....even if some sanity was retained further down the food chain.

Infact the handling made it a difficult machine to fly,even for experienced pilots.

It's an interesting one, I've read reports of awful handling.
Yet there are reports (from Cap. Eric Brown) that it was "delightful to fly".......but then went on to say "although the very light controls made it suitable only for experienced pilots".

The He 162 was operated only by JG 1,by qualified Luftwaffe pilots.
Cheers
Steve

Yes, absolutely agreed, I've never seen anything contrary to this.
 
Last edited:
I think the idea of barely trained men and boys flying the Volksjager is another illustration of the gulf between political rhetoric and military reality. This gulf was particularly large in the twilight of the Third Reich.

These aircraft were accepted by the Luftwaffe which never had any intention of having untrained crews fly them.

It's not just the flying. The Luftwaffe was perfectly well aware that the majority of its trained pilots were barely capable of hitting anything in air to air combat (a problem not unique to it). How on earth would someone who could barely fly the aircraft be of any use in a combat situation?

It is entirely possible that Ernst Heinkel was merely repeating,post war,something that had been an intention of the Nazi political leadership.This does not mean it was ever a realistic military objective.
There was mileage to be gained by someone like Heinkel in portraying the Nazi leadership as inept,the sort of "carpet biting madman" image of Hitler or the fat drug addled image of Goering. These were very much promoted by many senior "non-political" figures after the war as they tried to distance themselves from the regime which most of them had enthusiastically served.

Cheers

Steve
 
To get back to the main thrust of this thread, I think it important to try and understand the the theoretical basis of the various air forces involved, and then to determine how closely each of the combatants came to achieving those aims. Not every air force had as its primary aim the winning on a front wide basis air superiority. some, like Germany and the soviets had as their primary mission, support of the army....direct support if you like. The Germans took a slightly more balanced view of the air battle as they saw it....they used their fighters to take control of the skies in the sectors of the front where they needed it, they used their level bombers to suppress enemy airfields, interdict communications and interfere with supply lines and inhibit the movement of reserves. They were never a force designed or equipped to fight a purely strategic air campaign, as their experiences in the BoB clearly demonstrate. Lying side by side with that failure, is their moment of greatest success, and the best illustration of how their concepts of air warfare could be applied. `The BOF probably represents the best example of their theories of air power successfully applied.

In other words the LW was primarily designed as a tactical extension of their land forces. it was where the germans excelled and where they enjoyed their greatest success

The Russian concepts of air warfare were very similar, but if anything, their doctrine stressed even more the concept of direct support. There was a reason why the russians built 37000 Sturmoviks....they suited exactly the type of air warfare the russian believed was appropriate. In the end, for the russians, winning the air battle was meaningless. what their air power had to do was help their ground armies win battles and retake ground. They were very successful at that, as were the germans, but the russians did prevail in this kind of warfare so, by definition, one has to conclude that the russians turned the corner and won their air battle. Opinions do vary, but in my opinion the first successful air campaign were the operations in the kuban. Operations over kursk were a qualified, but limited success, thereafter things only got better for the russians.

For the british, their 1939 vision of air warfare underwent an almost total transformation. Their ideas that large fleets of daylight bombers operating unescorted to cause the defeat of an enemy were proven very early to be unsound. They transformed to night bombing, which helped, but carried with it their own problems. These were eventually solved, but it took a long time. At sea, the use of VLR a/c in ASW warfare was a critical defensive move, ut one that took a long time to sink in. The need to provide direct support....tactical airpower was another concept the british took a long time to develop. on the other hand, by the narrowest of margins, the british development of defensive fighter techniques, were easily the most advanced in the world at the beginning of the war, and is probably the one thing that worked as designed and avoided surrender for them.

The US entered the war with similar concepts to the british in 1939....the unescorted bomber would destroy the enemy ability to fight. it took the Americans considerably longer to realize the folly of sending unescorted bombers over enemy territory, but they at least knew that this was what was needed to win the war, and eventually they came up with the targets, the weapons and the fighters needed to destroy the LW, and from that, win the war. Whilst germanys petrochemical industry was a good target choice, i dont believe its the only one that could have delivered victory. Provided the target choice was reasonable, putting a large number of bombers over germany, with a heavy and effective fighter escort, backed up by a good pilot and airframe supply was going to produce victory. The germans were not really in a good position to counter this....their late war decision to concentrate on fighters alone was a strategic blind alley bound to deliver them defeat

In summary, I dont the answer of 'where the LW was defeated" can be all that easily answered. it was defeated in many ways, and at many levels, and no single point of time, or geographical location or event can be pinned down as THE moment where the LW was defeated....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back