Quote:
Originally Posted by Splitter
Sternjaeger, excellent post.
I understand what you are saying, but I think that by the time the 109's got over England, they were matched pretty well by the Spits. The 109 was more versatile and with all other things being equal, I would have rather been in a 109. But if my choice was whether to fight in a Spit or a 109 in the BoB, I would rather have been in the Spit. I figure that I could fight on fairly equal terms with the 109 and if I got shot down, I stood a decent chance of living through it and going back up again in a different aircraft.
If a pilot got shot down in a 109 (or had a mechanical failure for that matter) during the BoB, chances were that the war was over for him. If he stayed too long and burned too much fuel, he may or may not make it back to friendly territory. Plus, his job was usually to protect bombers which takes away from his offensive capabilities.
|
yeah, I'm not arguing over the tactical disadvantage of the Luftwaffe, I'm just saying that they had better aircrafts.
Quote:
|
I would disagree that German bombers were adequate still in the BoB because they lost so many of them.
|
not that many actually, and turns out the Stuka had the lowest loss ratio (as I said it was counter-propaganda against the Stuka's "trumpets of Jericho" kinda fame) :
Luftwaffe losses in the BoB
(source "Kronika Bitvy o Britanii", M. Weidenhofer, Navrat 1991)
Type Losses
Junkers Ju 87 74
Junkers Ju 88 281
Dornier Do 17 171
Dornier Do 215 6
Heinkel He 56 31
Heinkel He 111 246
Heinkel He 115 28
Henschel Hs 126 7
Messerschmitt Bf 109 533
Messerschmitt Bf 110 229
Total 1562
Quote:
Part of that was tactics for sure, but the Stuka in particular was too slow all of a sudden. It had done well in previous campaigns but had not faced the combination of decent enemy fighters backed by RADAR. I think the one common plane I would not have liked to fly in most in the BoB would have been the Stuka...the loss rate was just too high.
Too bad that both sides greatly inflated their numbers of "victories" after the battle as the numbers cannot really be trusted.
|
Historians have worked hard in the last years, the numbers I posted above are apparently quite accurate.
Quote:
|
Imagine for a moment that the Nazi leadership had developed a good, fast, bomber prior to the BoB and had actually produced it in quantity. They had that ability, but they stayed with the planes that had worked in the past against more inferior forces. That's the arrogance I spoke of. With fewer bomber losses and a more focused bombing campaign, I don't think the RAF could have held out much longer. History might have been much different.
|
as Dutch_851 mentioned above, they had the Me110, helluva underrated machine.
Quote:
As for the invasion of Russia...just a bad idea lol. Hitler and the gang thought they would roll over the Russians as they had done to opponents in Europe. They under estimated the Russians and therefore the time and resources it would take to defeat them. They didn't even prepare their troops with winter gear and their vehicles were not prepared for operations during a Russian winter. But, they didn't expect the campaign to take so long.
There is a measure of arrogance there I think. Hitler thought he could do what Napoleon could not. He thought the same equipment and tactics would work against Russia like they worked against the French and others previously conquered. He did not prepare for what became a brutal winter even by Russian standards.
|
I'm sorry to contradict you again mate, but that's approximate revisionism.
Germans weren't complete fools, they well knew that they stood a chance if they made it to Moscow. Everything was going according to plans, but then Hitler had one of his typical anal fits and decided to waste three weeks in the Dnepr area to get access to the coal mines, and that's the main reason why the Germans screwed up Barbarossa. If they stuck to the according plans and pushed straight to Moscow from the start he would have decapitated the Russian bear and things could have been quite different..
Quote:
Basically, Hitler wasted a lot of resources and troops. There was a reason the Allies decided it was better to keep him in power rather than assassinating him...his decisions most often helped the Allied cause lol. Even his generals who were good military men were often left scratching their heads.
This is the cool things about history. It's not about the dates and the names, it's about what the players may have been thinking and the effects their decisions had on outcomes. The lessons, if there are any to be had, are in the "why". Historians have been debating those things since...well, sine the beginning of history  .
Good chat.
Splitter
|
The real arrogance of the Germans was in the fact that they thought that the Allies wouldn't keep up and gear up for modern warfare in time. And if one side they got their ar$e kicked by the American technology, on the other side they were overwhelmed by the sheer number of Russian troops (20mln+ of military casualties: the Jewish holocaust is a joke compared to it..).
I agree, this is a good chat indeed