"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

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.

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.

"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

"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.

"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.

"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.

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

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.

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