If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 8, 2:36*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: ... While 11 group was undoubtedly under great pressure fighter command as a whole was at full establishment with 670 fighters available for combat. Dowding was concerned because he believed , rightly IMHO, that he should have 2 pilots for each aircraft and by Sept 1st he only had 1100 pilots available. Even so throughout the BOB the RAF was able to take pilots out of the line for rest and leave. The worst case scenario for Dowding was moving squadrons to airfields north of London. .... Keith Bader wrote as if 12th Group could fill the gap any time they were invited. jsw |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 7, 11:00*am, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:
"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... William Black wrote: "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message .. . Ray O'Hara wrote: {snip} you like the author are judging the future *by todays standards. do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future? {snip} Next wars - Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields. Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works... Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short. USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. *They usually just forment a coup and deal with the military. The coup in Venezuela appears to be a very long time coming. West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation of the current war) The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't amtter who the government is or what they say. Some governments fight along side the Americans others against the Americans. USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil Possible. *What will Iran use for weapons? Iran has its own armaments factories. *As well as IEDs Iran can now launch satellites on its own rockets. China vs African countries for African raw materials. *(The West may decide to stay out.) Interesting idea. How does China get their army there? Guess. *On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state security guard as occupation. Andrew Swallow *we need F-22 to defeat the Iranian air force? We need it to survive Iranian air defense so we can defeat its air force. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
Typhoon502 wrote:
On Mar 7, 11:00 am, "Ray O'Hara" wrote: "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... William Black wrote: "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... Ray O'Hara wrote: {snip} you like the author are judging the future by todays standards. do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future? {snip} Next wars - Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields. Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works... Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short. USA vs oil states over insults by their leaders, including South America Not unless there's a major change in US foreign policy. They usually just forment a coup and deal with the military. The coup in Venezuela appears to be a very long time coming. West vs Muslim countries that hide and support terrorists (continuation of the current war) The US relationship with Pakistan seems to indicate that it doesn't amtter who the government is or what they say. Some governments fight along side the Americans others against the Americans. USA vs Iran - they have not forgiven each other plus all that oil Possible. What will Iran use for weapons? Iran has its own armaments factories. As well as IEDs Iran can now launch satellites on its own rockets. China vs African countries for African raw materials. (The West may decide to stay out.) Interesting idea. How does China get their army there? Guess. On civilian passenger aircraft with passports that state security guard as occupation. Andrew Swallow we need F-22 to defeat the Iranian air force? We need it to survive Iranian air defense so we can defeat its air force. At present we have no business in Iran. If the Jews do not like Iran, let them do the attacking and with us as a neutral nation..Providing nothing in materials, money, training or support of any kind to either. No more of Israels mantra of " Onward Christian soldiers". Diplomacy might just be in our national interests for a change. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ... On Mar 8, 2:36 pm, "Keith Willshaw" wrote: ... While 11 group was undoubtedly under great pressure fighter command as a whole was at full establishment with 670 fighters available for combat. Dowding was concerned because he believed , rightly IMHO, that he should have 2 pilots for each aircraft and by Sept 1st he only had 1100 pilots available. Even so throughout the BOB the RAF was able to take pilots out of the line for rest and leave. The worst case scenario for Dowding was moving squadrons to airfields north of London. .... Keith Bader wrote as if 12th Group could fill the gap any time they were invited. Bader never lacked confidence in his own abilities. From a purely technical point of view he may have had a point but in a democracy there is a political aspect. To have abandoned London and the SE could have lead to the replacement of Churchill with a leader more likely to make peace. Keith |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Paul Saccani" wrote in message
... On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:36:22 -0600, Dan wrote: Ray O'Hara wrote: "Alan Dicey" wrote in message o.uk... Paul Saccani wrote: wrote: British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. Indeed, to say the least. *Were* exaggerated, at the time, because of confusion (even though both sides were quite rigorous in their verification) and to help morale. We still won. The Germans also overclaimed - their intelligence system several times reported that the RAF was down to its last few aircraft. It's one reason why the appearance of the formed-up Big Wing on September 15th was such a shock. "Here they come again, the last 20 Spitfires..." won? the British bombing German cities causing retaliation against London "won" the battle. Check your history. He's right. No he is wrong. The Luftwaffe acidently bombed London, so the British carried out a larger strikes against German cities. Central London was hit on 24 August at night, day strikes on targets in the Greater London area had begun on 16 August. The RAF flew its first mission against Berlin on 25 August, and the reason was partly the German bombs on London and partly German bombs on other UK cities. It should be noted the RAF had been attacking targets in Germany for weeks with quite bad accuracy, so the Germans already had plenty of examples of inaccurate bombing. As did the British from German night bombers that had been operating over England for about the same amount of time but in larger numbers once the battle began. From July to September the Luftwaffe launched around 2 night bomber sorties per 3 day bomber sorties, the week of 1 to 7 July saw around 275 day and 75 night sorties, the next week 400 day and 100 night sorties. The 25 August raid managed to destroy a summer house and injure 2 people in Berlin, most of the "Berlin" bombs hit country areas to the south of the city. The hits on the farms lead to the joke "They are trying to stave us out.". The raid of the 28th killed 4 people, that changed the mood. The symbolism of the enemy capital is quite high, the 8th Air Force struck Berlin for the first time on 6 March 1944, (though there was a raid on the 4th on targets in the Berlin suburbs) then did it again on the 8th and the 9th. One reason for the repeats was the weather, another the way the Germans opposed the strikes, another was it being the German capital. This enraged a certain vegetarian nut case into ordering the main effort against London, instead of Fighter Command and aircraft factories. No, the Luftwaffe was having an internal debate about the best way to quickly break the RAF resistance. The two options were to continue the direct airfield attacks, plus the aircraft factories, which had the problem of leaving very little to nothing for pre invasion support, or attack a vital target that the RAF felt it had to defend, but London had the disadvantage of longer flight times over England. Hitler came down on the decisive blow side. If that had not of happened, Fighter Command was on the verge of collapse (in their own assessments), Again no. Keith Park noted the damage to the airfields was a problem, but given most were large grass fields at the time only Manston had been knocked out for over a day. The bigger problem was the control rooms, located above ground on the airfields, the control system was being degraded as they were hit. the Germans would have achieved air superiority, perhaps even air dominance, and the UK's production capability and war fighting potential would have been greatly effected. Again no, the Luftwaffe found it could only fly day bomber missions within Bf109 range, that did not put a large amount of the UK war economy within reach. The results of Luftflotte 5 missions made it very clear what the limits were. The reality was the best result for the Luftwaffe would have been the temporary abandonment of some RAF airfields to the South East of London. On 3 August the RAF had over the previous week an average of 1,052 fighters in operational squadrons, with 708 of these operational. Week ending 14 September the figures were 1,046 and 725. The greatest fighter strength of the battle was the week ending 31 August, 1,181 aircraft, 764 operational. In terms of pilots strength on 3 August was 1,434, on 14 September 1,492. According to Williamson Murray the Luftwaffe had 1,110 fighter pilots available on 1 May 1940, of which 1,010 were operationally ready. On 1 July it was 1,126 and 936, on 1 August 1,118 and 869, on 1 September 990 and 735. Murray thinks the Luftwaffe lost 229 fighter pilots in September, versus 168 in August and 124 in July. Replacement Bf109 pilots were being rushed into units, some had not to have actually fired 20 mm cannons in training. On the bomber crew side as of 20 August the limit became one officer per crew. On 7 September Luftflotte 2, 3, 5 had 831 Bf109s of which 658 were operational, along with 206 Bf100s of which 112 were operational. This is not counting the 26 Bf109 and Bf110 fighter bombers in SKG210 or the Bf110s in reconnaissance units. On 10 August for units "deployed against England" there were 934 Bf109s of which 805 were operational and 289 Bf110s of which 224 were operational. The Luftwaffe tended to have a spare parts problem or most of the war. The RAF was not much better in 1940. As is known Fighter Command was forced into classifying its fighter squadrons onto class A, fully operational, class B able to replace a class A squadron, and class C suitable for attacks on unescorted bombers and training. The Luftwaffe fighter force was actually under more strain. As the Bf109 force declined so did the Luftwaffe offensive power. Simply put both sides were wearing each other down, the Luftwaffe had fewer replacements. It seem there was an idea to re-equip JG77 with captured French fighters to free up Bf109s for the fighting for example. London was first bombed on 7 September. Not much activity on the 8th, some airfield raids, on 9 September a strike against London, Brooklands and targets in the Thames estuary was largely broken up before the targets were reached. Bomber formations were ordered to break off attacks "if the defences are too strong, or if fighter protection was weak." Not much activity on the 10th. The 11th saw raids on London, plus 4 major airfields, also Portsmouth and Southampton. Plus an attack on a convoy. Not much activity on the 12th. Small raids on London on the 13th, basically single machines, plus attacks on Biggin Hill and targets in Kent. On the 14th large raids on London but mainly composed of fighters. The Germans had rated the RAF response on the 11th and 14th as poor, so time for a big strike. So it was not the case the Luftwaffe gave up bombing RAF airfields to only attack London. Also I am very interested in the idea that the raids on London 7, 9, 11 and 14 September were the difference between defeat and victory. Why? Especially as the Luftwaffe over rated the effects of bombing, reporting on 4 September it had destroyed 18 airfields. The relief for the defenders caused by bad weather was a reason the allies accepted using radar bombing aids, so they could attempt bombing raids on days of bad weather. The 8th Air Force operations in the period November 1943 to February 1944 were important as they did not allow the Luftwaffe fighter force its usual winter rest and rebuilding period, as well as for the losses inflicted. Total Luftwaffe day bomber sorties 9 to 15 September 1940 are put at 975, along with 1,875 fighter sorties. Luftwaffe Battle of Britain estimated sorties, date, day bomber, fighter 22 Jul - 4 Aug / 200 / 700 5 Aug - 11 Aug / 575 / 1,950 12 Aug - 18 Aug / 1,650 / 3,825 19 Aug - 25 Aug / 750 / 1,975 26 Aug - 1 Sep / 875 / 4,700 2 Sep - 8 Sep / 1,225 / 4,050 9 Sep - 15 Sep / 975 / 1,875 16 Sep - 22 Sep / 750 / 1,200 23 Sep - 29 Sep / 1,175 / 1,325 30 Sep - 6 Oct / 575 / 1,250 The big German fighter sortie push was largely over by the time the Luftwaffe turned to bombing London. According to the listings in the Battle of Britain Then and Now around 73% of Hurricane and Spitfire losses on operations could have been caused by German fighters, that is losses listed to enemy fighter, to enemy aircraft and to unknown causes. The RAF lost something like 580 Hurricanes and 370 Spitfires on operations 1 July to 31 October 1940. Or around 700 Hurricanes and Spitfires to enemy fighters, assuming all unknown cause losses and all losses to enemy aircraft were in fact due to German fighters. The minimum number of kills the Luftwaffe fighters achieved is around 500 according to the listings. Luftwaffe bomber gunners are credited with around 100 Hurricanes and Spitfires versus around 500 credited to fighters. "Enemy aircraft" shot down around 190 aircraft, so say 160 to fighters, 30 to bombers, giving the Luftwaffe fighter pilots around 650 to 660 kills versus claims of slightly under 2,000 such kills. In the period 10 July to 31 October 441 Bf109s are credited to RAF fighters in the loss listings, versus 465 Hurricanes and Spitfires credited to Bf109s and Bf110s (at least 44 to Bf110s) remembering of course the losses listed under other categories (36 Bf109s and Bf110s lost on operations to unknown causes, 55 to enemy action). Some 922 Spitfires and Hurricanes lost on operations, versus 600 Bf109s and 248 Bf110s. You can add another 49 Bf109s, 22 Bf110s, 17 Hurricanes and 11 Spitfires lost on non operational sorties. The British built some 1,025 Hurricanes and 638 Spitfires July to October 1940. Bf109 production averaged around 150 per month in 1940, specific figures I have are 180 in June, 195 in September, 144 in October, 60 in November and 115 in December. Though the Germans would have received a hiding if they attempted an invasion. Correct, the major under estimation of the problems of such an invasion is probably best seen in the German estimates of allied capabilities in 1944. AFAIK, Sea Lion was always a high level deception against Russia in any case. No, Sea Lion was a major and real effort. The cost to Germany of taking that many barges out of service and fitting them for invasion duties for example. It all came down to what people believed air power was capable of doing. The Germans knew they only had a fleeting chance of invading England in 1940, any such invasion in 1941 would meet much stronger land and air defences and so would require much more effort. As of June 1940 it seemed the pre war ideas on air power had been proved largely correct. Plenty of material about how enemy air power had been decisive. The air men of course believed the best stories. Think of it this way, the Luftwaffe helped the Heer to advance, in turn the advance disrupted allied air power as it was not set up to be very mobile. That made the Luftwaffe's job easier, the Luftwaffe of course tended to ignore the effects of the advance on the opposing air forces. It also appears to have ignored the large cost in aircraft during the fighting, the return of men captured by the French meant the personnel losses were not as serious. So if the pre war theories were correct then it was quite possible for the Luftwaffe to do all the necessary duties. That is defeat and keep defeated the RAF, interdict the RN and provide battlefield support for the invasion. Of course what it did prove is defeating the enemy air force is a rather hard to do if the front line does not move. The replacement pipeline keeps feeding new men and aircraft into the battle. You can degrade the effectiveness as experienced men become casualties, but not stop the enemy force from being maintained. In effect that was what was happening in 1940, and the RAF could sustain the effort for longer, thanks to a mainly defensive posture and better supply lines. The Luftwaffe fighter force grew significantly in 1944, but it declined even more significantly in quality but that quality decline required sustained allied air operations. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message
... The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically equals. the Spit is prettier British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1. If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of 3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count bomber claims, rate as? The RAF fighter force over claims over France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? The USAAF heavy bomber gunner over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is the description for the bomber gunners? Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the claims. Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive at the time than it was. The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October 1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719 Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message . au... "Ray O'Hara" wrote in message ... The 109 was better than the Hurricane and the Spit and 109 were basically equals. the Spit is prettier British aerial victory claims are vastly exagerated in the BoB. During the Battle of Britain the RAF over claimed by about 2 to 1. If that is vastly exaggerated what does the Luftwaffe over claim of 3 to 1 for fighter kills and overall up to 5 to 1 when you count bomber claims, rate as? The RAF fighter force over claims over France in 1941, also up to 5 to 1? The USAAF heavy bomber gunner over claims were even higher, if 2 to 1 is vastly exaggerated what is the description for the bomber gunners? Generally the rule was the fewer the number of aircraft the more deadly the fight and the more accurate the claims, the larger the number of aircraft the safer the fight and the less accurate the claims. Hence the 12 Group Big Wing looked far more impressive at the time than it was. The reputation of the Spitfire started early, 1 July to 31 October 1940 the German fighter pilots claimed 1,266 Spitfires and 719 Hurricanes, something approaching the reverse of the 2 Hurricanes to 1 Spitfire present in Fighter Command. Geoffrey Sinclair Remove the nb for email. Bombers would overclaim because several bombers would claim the same kill. one wonders how much damge B-17s did to each other. especially the waist gunners. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 9, 9:55*am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote: ... No, the Luftwaffe was having an internal debate about the best way to quickly break the RAF resistance. *... What do you think would have happened if the Germans had stayed with their airfield plan? jsw |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 9, 11:14*am, "Ray O'Hara" wrote:
"Typhoon502" wrote in message ... On Mar 7, 11:00 am, "Ray O'Hara" wrote: "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message ... William Black wrote: "Andrew Swallow" wrote in message .. . Ray O'Hara wrote: {snip} you like the author are judging the future by todays standards. do you see any war in the near {next 2 decades} future? {snip} Next wars - Britain vs Argentina over Falkland Island oil fields. Not unless Argentina buys some equipment that works... Poor Argentinian equipment may not prevent the war, just make it short. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Vanishing American Air Superiority"
On Mar 9, 1:26*pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Mar 9, 9:55*am, "Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote: ... No, the Luftwaffe was having an internal debate about the best way to quickly break the RAF resistance. *... What do you think would have happened if the Germans had stayed with their airfield plan? jsw That might have ironically boosted the fighter pilots in 12 group's morale. They disliked being the baby sitters for the 11 group's fields and wanted to get into the action. Bringing more German bombers in to attack the airfields would have provided them targets and disabused their concept of who was getting a free ride. Len Deighton, Fighter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1.The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of ironflowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by"Lawless" Bushite | frank | Naval Aviation | 1 | August 30th 08 12:35 PM |
American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushite Grunters - 1. The ISI's General, Mahmoud Ahmad funded 911's Atta - 2. We have video of iron flowing like water from the towers - American Women Raped in Iraq by "Lawless" Bushi | Charlie Wolf[_2_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | August 29th 08 03:19 AM |
Corporate News Whores are Evil to All Humans Being - PentagonWon't Probe KBR [GANG] Rape Charges - "Heaven Won't Take [bushite] Marines" -American corporations actively attempt to MURDER American women, and American"Men" refus | WiseGuy | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 9th 08 02:50 PM |