Defeat of the Luftwaffe

[Readie]

Thats exactly it, it takes much more then the Allied airforces combined. Take a unit like say JG 52, they didn't follow Oberkommando Der Luftwaffe 'doctrine' as outline, and were very sucessful, even right to the very end. Others, mostly in the west mind you, followed OKL and were much less sucessful.

Now if they had the proper fighter pilot training, and dedicated night fighter force, and enough pilots dedicated to home defence, before the BOB, I shutter to think of what the results may have been.

Even with all that lacking, they did on hell of a job, you must admit.

Cheers.

Kesselring showed Germany ingenuity in Italy, and I would not expect anything less of the LW,
Resilience, discipline, a sense of honour and ingenuity are great traits to have.

All of which have served Germany well in war and peace.

John

 

[Ratsel]

Uncle Albert saved Italy from total destruction, well in my opinion anyways.

 

[Jenisch]

The document Stona suggested at the start of this thread is very clear: Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945

I also would like to say that some people, including myself, objected the idea that the Eastern Front proved to be the decisive theater of WWII. However, this is a fact. And as a matter of fact, Hitler's strategy to deal with Britain and the US necessarily needed the USSR conquered and it's resources obtained - which as everybody knows, failed.

This don't necessarily meant that had the Soviets been defeated, Hitler would won or not be defeated. What this means is that the Fuher's plans for sure stopped in Russia.

I think many people who used to think like me, were "victims" of the Leftist historical views, such as "the Soviet Union won/would have won WWII alone", or "without the Soviet Union, the West would be doomed". The Soviet Union, without doubt, played the main role in Hitler's defeat. But without Britain's resistance in 1940, or the US government with the Lend-Lease for the Allied nations and it's hard line against Japan, among many other actions from them, it's success would be by no means certain. So, in the end it was an Allied victory in which the Soviet Union was the Allied nation that played the most important role in the context the things happened. This serves as one of the history lessons of WWII. However, of course people are free do do their own interpretations of historical events in order to them serve as lessons to not be repeated, since it's just for this that History is intended.

Given what I wrote above, I'm not claiming it was the Soviets that were also chifely respomsible by the LW's defeat. This certainly goes to the Western Allies.

 

[stona]

There is hardly a view expressed in your post above with which I agree!
I suppose the fact that two people can read the same information and develop different conclusions is one of the things we were fighting for
Cheers
Steve

 

[stona]

The document Stona suggested at the start of this thread is very clear: Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945

I also would like to say that some people, including myself, objected the idea that the Eastern Front proved to be the decisive theater of WWII. However, this is a fact. And as a matter of fact, Hitler's strategy to deal with Britain and the US necessarily needed the USSR conquered and it's resources obtained - which as everybody knows, failed..

The other way around. Germany needed Britain out of the war,before the US entered it,in order to turn her attention to her true objectives in the East. Defeat France,force Britain to terms and have a quick and decisive war in the East. It nearly worked.

.[/QUOTE]This don't necessarily meant that had the Soviets been defeated, Hitler would won or not be defeated. What this means is that the Fuher's plans for sure stopped in Russia..[/QUOTE]

No,they stopped with Britain.

.[/QUOTE]I think many people who used to think like me, were "victims" of the Leftist historical views, such as "the Soviet Union won/would have won WWII alone", or "without the Soviet Union, the West would be doomed". The Soviet Union, without doubt, played the main role in Hitler's defeat. But without Britain's resistance in 1940, or the US government with the Lend-Lease for the Allied nations and it's hard line against Japan, among many other actions from them, it's success would be by no means certain. So, in the end it was an Allied victory in which the Soviet Union was the Allied nation that played the most important role in the context the things happened. This serves as one of the history lessons of WWII. However, of course people are free do do their own interpretations of historical events in order to them serve as lessons to not be repeated, since it's just for this that History is intended..[/QUOTE]

Germany may have defeated the USSR had help not been available,but the Anglo-American alliance would have been a step too far. Ultimately Germany would have been out muscled by the USA.

.[/QUOTE]Given what I wrote above, I'm not claiming it was the Soviets that were also chifely respomsible by the LW's defeat. This certainly goes to the Western Allies.[/QUOTE]

Neither was "chiefly responsible" but both were responsible.

Isn't it amazimg how two people can draw entirely different conclusions from the same information!

Cheers
Steve

 

[Jenisch]

The other way around. Germany needed Britain out of the war,before the US entered it,in order to turn her attention to her true objectives in the East. Defeat France,force Britain to terms and have a quick and decisive war in the East. It nearly worked.

I don't understand what you mean. Germany wanted to defeat the USSR, obtain it's resources and desmobilize the personal in the armed forces to the industry in order to defeat Britain and fight the US (if necessary).

No,they stopped with Britain.

You want to mean this with hindsight of the inadequate German situation against the USSR with the war in the West existing?

Germany may have defeated the USSR had help not been available,but the Anglo-American alliance would have been a step too far. Ultimately Germany would have been out muscled by the USA.

Yeah. One decisive area which Germany lacked was nuclear research. The Americans were years ahead with the Manhattan Project.

Isn't it amazimg how two people can draw entirely different conclusions from the same information!

Frankly, what I wrote was to try understand the widely accepted historical view. However, given what you said, I can say now that I also don't agree with it. LOL!

 

[stona]

Really it is only the first point on which we differ widely.
Germany always had her eyes on the land and resources lying to her East. A quick scan of the appalling turgid prose of" Mein Kamf " gives the game away,if you can read it without falling asleep.

On March 31 1939 Britain (the world's pre-eminent naval power) pledged her support and France's (European mainlands pre-eminent military power) to Poland as a result of Germany's defiance of the Munich agreement. In May 1939 a secret protocol was signed to the Franco-Polish military alliance of 1921. The British prevaricated.

Germany would have to attack Poland in order to reach her Eastern objectives. Even the nazis realised that the Western powers might finally honour one of their guarantees and it was to this end that the Nazi-Soviet non agression pact was signed.
The unprecedented Anglo-French guarantee of Polish independance played no small part in persuading the Soviet Union into this agreement but that is another,large,topic.
Two days after the pact was signed Britain finally got off the fence,on 25 August 1939,and the Polish-British Common Defence Pact was signed. This unbeknownst to the Poles didn't cover a Soviet invasion,another topic again.

The overall aim of the Nazi-Soviet pact was to PREVENT a situation where Germany would have to fight a war on two fronts. The German plan was to defeat or at least force terms on Britain and France before launching an assault on the Soviet Union. At this point the USA was irrelevant as the Germans envisaged a quick,or rather two quick,European wars.

It was Germany's inability to defeat or force terms on Britain and Britain's ability to hold out until the economic and military might of the USA became involved that lost the Germans the war,not their failiure to reach Moscow in 1941. It was Britain's stubborn survival that forced the Germans to fight a war on two fronts,the very thing all their pre-war "diplomacy" was aimed at preventing.

Relevant to the original thread title is the fact that the defeat of the Luftwaffe was as much due to the allies,East and West,ability to avoid fighting and losing those two quick wars and force a long war of endurance on Germany for which she had not planned and failed to plan for properly at any later stage.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Tante Ju]

It was Britain's stubborn survival that forced the Germans to fight a war on two fronts,the very thing all their pre-war "diplomacy" was aimed at preventing.

What 'two fronts'? The British left the continent in 1940. They did not come back. They could not.

Survival is one thing, but a hostile Britain that could not and had not challange the German on continent was a very different thing than a two-front war. The German force fighting the British was a mere 30 000 men of Rommel, two JGs in the West, and submarines. None of that was missed in the East - 30 000 men was a drop in the ocean of 3 million Axis troop, the LW enjoyed clear air superiority until about the mid 1943, and subs are not very good on the steppe.. it was anything like the actual two front war of WW1.

What forced the Germans into a two front war was the USA entry of war.. Britain's stubborn survival was exactly that, stubborn survival and no more. It 'forced' nobody into nothing, well maybe the Brits themselves into bankcrupt and something of role of servitude as a US proxy.

 

[parsifal]

That really is an excellent summary of what went wrong for the germans. too many wars running at the same time, too much unfinished business too many fronts opened up such that germany could no longer bring decisive power to bear on any of them.

But it goes further than that. The Germans were pioneers in the art of warfare for most of the last century, but in particular they pulled head an shoulders away from their enemies 1937-43. The german perfection of offensive warfare gave themn an invaluable edge that nearly won them the war. part of that near victory was their use of airpower. German technique did not envisage the air arm seeking victory as an independant, stand alone weapon. It was seen as an extension of the army, supporting ground operations either directly or indirectly. There are of course exceptions to this, for example the development in 1939-40 of dedicated anti-shipping units, but the main effort was always their army co-operation elements.

more particulalry the germans, because of their limited resources, tended to concentrate their airpower at the point of breakthrough....the schwerpunkt. once a hole had been breached, with the assistance of the Luftwaffe (who also had a mission of keeping enemy air interference to a minimum in the area of operations) it was the job of the armour to exploit that breakthrough and that of the Infantry to consolidate the gains.

There were weaknesses though in the german technique. the most acute weakness was the shortage of MT and long term air reserves. Everything was done on a shoestring. In France and the west the system worked well enough to give them victory. in the east and in Africa, their techniques delivered them largish tactical victories for a time, but strategic victory evaded them, and not just because they were outnumbered. as the logistics issues floated to the surface and began to take hold (basically as the short war(s) became long tem bogged down affairs), the wheels began to fall off for the germans. The allies developed techniques that worked to their strengths and against the germans. They werent glamorous, they werent cheap, but they were effective. It wasnt just attritional, but there were heavy costs involved in defeating what had been the best air force in the world at the beginning of the war.

For the russians they too saw their air force as an adjunct to their ground operation. That wasnt always the way. In 1941-2 they had tended to view their air assets as an independant arm, and had attempted to drive the LW from the skies, with disastrous results. at some point it was realized this was never going to work....the skills diffrence between the LW and the VVS was too great. but also at some point it was realized this wasnt necessary. All air operations come at a cost, in losses, in servicability rates. i am convinced that at some point realized the german achilles heel....sustain the pressure and they will crack. Achieving Soviet war aims was more about ground operations, and the job of the VVS was to support those operations, not duke it out with the LW so much. Marrying all this together produced a war strategy for which the germans had no answer. When the russians attacked, their air force was not tartgetting the LW so much, they were attacking the field positions of the German army. The victory over the LW came from the numerous airfields overrun capturing aircraft grounded from excessive operations. The Russian method was not so much to attack at one decisive point (though thet did happen) it was more about attacking everywherealong the front simultaneously, to stretch and break the limited resources available to the germans. In the later parts of the war, the Soviet methods worked near perfectly

So, niot only were the germans defeated from within, not only were they defeated by numbers. they were also defeated by over ambitios expansion, and further, their method of warfare were eventually countered and overtaken. strategically they were out manouvered....they were out generalled by their opponents. the masters of the trade had become one of the also rans in the deadly contest

 

[Jenisch]

The German force fighting the British was a mere 30 000 men of Rommel, two JGs in the West, and submarines. None of that was missed in the East - 30 000 men was a drop in the ocean of 3 million Axis troop, the LW enjoyed clear air superiority until about the mid 1943, and subs are not very good on the steppe.. it was anything like the actual two front war of WW1.

Ok, now put the naval blockade in the equation and things change drastically.

Also, I wouldn't underestimate the U-boat production (that was FORCED to exist by Britain). The U-Boats reduced 10-15% of the German tank production in 1942. This could have changed the outcome of many things that happened in the East.

In the end, if you sum all the things that the British survival allowed for the Allies (including the deployment of American forces against Hitler), the joint Allied effort in a GLOBAL scale of just a global conflict begins to be much more appreciable.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... What forced the Germans into a two front war was the USA entry of war.. Britain's stubborn survival was exactly that, stubborn survival and no more. It 'forced' nobody into nothing, well maybe the Brits themselves into bankcrupt and something of role of servitude as a US proxy..."

Simplistic jingoism, Auntie. Survival is survival ... and if Hitler couldn't clear the table in 1940 ( and he couldn't) he was fighting Britain in every corner of the globe that British seapower and Commonwealth reached ... from the Indian Ocean, to the Med to the South Atlantic. Hitler had a multi-front war on his hands well BEFORE June 22, 1941.

MM
Proud Canadian

 

[Jenisch]

Many people don't understand how the war in the West was draining Hitler of practically everything. By 1944, Germany was becoming much more stronger, with state-of-art equipment like Panther tanks, assault rifles and jets. However, it was the Western Allies that prevent this awesome "firepower" to be employed against the Soviets, which were resisting just like Britain. The same British resistance that allowed all this to happen.

Also, the British, by their resistance, removed some 600,000 German soldiers in Norway, Africa and the Balkans (not to mention France). This, by no means can be considerated "little". Also, casualities comparisons with the war in the East are not much valid, as this article shows: So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich? « Stuff I Done Wrote – The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

 

[Jenisch]

And about the submarines again, someone can confirm me this, from a discussion in other forum:

each U-boat cost 5 million marks to build. The Germans built over 1000. A panther tank cost 117 thousand marks. That means about 40,000 german tanks were not built so that the Germans could wage the war of the atlantic.

 

[Tante Ju]

And about the submarines again, someone can confirm me this, from a discussion in other forum:

each U-boat cost 5 million marks to build. The Germans built over 1000. A panther tank cost 117 thousand marks. That means about 40,000 german tanks were not built so that the Germans could wage the war of the atlantic.

I do not think the resources can be straight converted to make a comparison. For example, could about 1 million tons of lower grade steel for 1000 subs be converted into 1,8 million tons of armor grade steel (alloys.. industrial capacity etc.) for 40 000 Panthers? Could the diesel fuel required by sub converted to petrol to fuel tanks? Could 1000 high velocity gun of 8,8-10,5 cm calibre, large radio sets of subs, a couple of thousend large MAN diesel production converted into 40000 long 7,5cm tank guns, and 40 0000 smaller Maybach petrol engines..? Could 50 000 submariners for 1000 subs become 200 000 tank crews..? You get picture..

 

[Jenisch]

I do not think the resources can be straight converted to make a comparison. For example, could about 1 million tons of lower grade steel for 1000 subs be converted into 1,8 million tons of armor grade steel (alloys.. industrial capacity etc.) for 40 000 Panthers? Could the diesel fuel required by sub converted to petrol to fuel tanks? Could 1000 high velocity gun of 8,8-10,5 cm calibre, large radio sets of subs, a couple of thousend large MAN diesel production converted into 40000 long 7,5cm tank guns, and 40 0000 smaller Maybach petrol engines..? Could 50 000 submariners for 1000 subs become 200 000 tank crews..? You get picture..

Some comparisons you made of course cannot be done. However the work in the submarine industry, if not needed, would certainly be employed elsewhere. And in that way, you would have many results. For example, U-boat manufacture was complex, needed skill labour and was time demaning, it's industrial machinery, the U-Boats crews (that certainly a lot of them could become Panzer troopers), the refinement of diesel, etc. All this would show itself in other areas.

Can someone confirm if the submarine production caused 15-20% of reduction in German tank production in 1942?

 

[stona]

What 'two fronts'? The British left the continent in 1940. They did not come back. They could not..

They did come back in 1944,there were more British and Canadian troops landed on D-Day than U.S. I'm not disputing that this was made possible by American muscle.

What's your point,the Mediterranean theatre (Malta,El Alamein,both defeats for the Germans) The Battle of the Atlantic (another defeat) and all the other commitments that the Germans were forced to make were not a second front? You have to explain what does comprise a second front in your view.

Do you have a double personality on this forum? Your "simplistic jingoism" (thanks Michaelmaltby),and rabidly anti British prejudice are reminiscent of someone elses ill informed views.


Cheers
Steve

 

[Jenisch]

It's impossible (and offensive) to say the Western Allies didn't also played a pivotal role in WWII. Let's not forgot that while Russia was facing most of the German Army, the Western Allies were facing most of the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine, the Italians and the Japanese. And thanks to Britain and it's naval blockade of Europe, Hitler was never able to turn his Festunga Europe into a much more powerful economic zone.

 

[tomo pauk]

Jenisch, why do you lament about some people that may claim that Soviets single-handedly defeated Germans in WW2? At least in this forum the Allied victory/ Axis defeat is always pictured as a result of joint effort (rightly so).
For me, it's just knocking on the open doors.

 

[Jenisch]

Jenisch, why do you lament about some people that may claim that Soviets single-handedly defeated Germans in WW2? At least in this forum the Allied victory/ Axis defeat is always pictured as a result of joint effort (rightly so).
For me, it's just knocking on the open doors.

Tante Ju mentioned there was not a second front until 1944.

 

[stona]

It's impossible (and offensive) to say the Western Allies didn't also played a pivotal role in WWII.

It also flies in the face of the facts. Anyone is entitled to an opinion but history must be approached with an open mind. The sort of groundless prejudices displayed by some posters is merely a foundation for revisionism of the worst type.
The facts,utimately,will always speak for themselves.

Many people receive a sort of Hollywood history. "Saving Private Ryan" may be a good film,I certainly enjoyed it,but a history of "Overlord" it ain't! This is nothing new,a quick google of "Objective Burma" will show how long this has been going on for.

This has evolved into a trend in recent years to diminish the role of Britain and her allies. Some young British people,even of Indo/Pakistani origin, are completely unaware that India had any involvement in WWII at all! The Indian Army became the largest volunteer force in history with a strength of about 2.5 million.
How easily we forget,particularly when it doesn't suit us to remember.

Cheers
Steve