Plane losses

[enigma]

Reading through a book on the Battle of France recently the author stated that during the 6 week campaign the Lufftwaffe lost 28% of its overall strength - that being around 1400 planes.
And am sure he mentioned the RAF lost also around 1000 planes.

During the Battle of Britain, the luftwaffe losses where again over 1000 ... this time near the 1600 mark and RAF losses just over 900.

This surprised me, in a 6 month period .... thats nearly 3000 planes lost for the luftwaffe on the western front and near;y (prehaps over) 2000 for the RAF. :eek:

just astounding figures imo :eek:

[Lord Justin]

That's an average of 24 German planes per day in the Battle of France...wow. In fact, if it was 1000 British planes as well, that's 24 on each side per day on average. That's a crapload of planes. :eek:

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

When the Factory (Castle Bromwich) closed in December 1945 it had built 15634 Spitfires

its like a small city :eek:

[ApeX]

Jeesh, that's a huge ammount. I like can't imagine...

How many planes were lost in the battle of Coral Sea?

[Hyperion2010]

For some reason I think those RAF figures for the BoB are off, given that their airfields were targeted.... Hitler should have kept bombing those if he wanted to win....

[Kaos]

Jeesh, that's a huge ammount. I like can't imagine...

How many planes were lost in the battle of Coral Sea?

America only lost 74 planes. Not sure about the Japanese.

[DarkCanuck]

i think we all know what hitler, or goering rather, should have dont to win the Battle of Britian.

that number of planes is large. i think the figures may be off though.

[Kaos]

i think we all know what hitler, or goering rather, should have dont to win the Battle of Britian.

that number of planes is large. i think the figures may be off though.

Hmmm, it does it seem large, but so was the battle.

What was the book called Enigma?

[Edub]

yea those are some pretty amazing numbers.I just saw a very interesting show on the RAF during the battle of britian. forgot what it was called, but it was very interesting,

[Tough Ombre 359th]

It's their fault they lost numerous planes, because they neglected their air force. Germany believed they had the best air force in the world. They stop developing better planes and their air force became obsolete.

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

It's their fault they lost numerous planes, because they neglected their air force. Germany believed they had the best air force in the world. They stop developing better planes and their air force became obsolete.

http://www.2worldwar2.com/images/messerschmitt-me-262.jpg
The Messerschmitt Me-262
I wouldnt call the worlds first jet engine fighter stopping the development. Only hitler was stupid enough wanting to use it as a bomber when it was designed as a fighter.
The arado 234 (the first jetengine bomber) was a response on hitlers request on bombers and it was a very good machine. Unfortunatly for them, germany was already losing the war when it became operational.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_005/Arado%20234%20V13%20abandoned%20at%20a%20German%20 airfield%20apr%201945.jpg

[ThomasStewart]

The losses seem about right, an average of 24 planes a day is nothing. Also bear in mind that the planes maybe lost, but not nessacerily the pilots.

As for Germany neglecting its airforce, thats not the case at all. Whilst Germany's airforce was somewhat dated by 1940, they still retained tride and tested aircraft. You will find that aircraft such as the BF109 which are classed as "obsolete" by so many people, were in fact sound war-horses. As the years progressed many many additions to these aircraft were made, ranging from the inclusion of 20mm cannons to 40mm cannons, gunpods and rockets....How many British aircraft can you say performed such an efficient multi-tasked role? The Spitfire wasnt up-gunned till late 41/42, the RAF had to create the Typhoon as their main ground attack aircraft...And all this whilst bearing in mind the differences in tactical doctrins. The German airforce was always designed to compliment the army, Germany wasnt prepared for an air-war such as the BoB or even the Battle of Germany with the bomber forces. It is evident that if the Germans had stuck to their ground attack roles, attacking British airfields and Radar, that they would have won the air-war without actually ingaging in one.

To state that the Germans ignored their airforce is ignorant, to say that the change in tactics in 1940, created a chain reaction leading to the defeat of the Luftwaffe in 45 (some may argue earlier) is probably more accurate.

[enigma]

the BOB figures was off a BOB website, ill try and find the site and post a link later on, also the book is called The Fall Of France, ill scan through it later on and check the figures and post page referances also. :)

[Lordwatson]

Cant WAIT to fly a C47 but I am confused as to their role, what do we do once we tropped our troopers?

[Hyperion2010]

Cant WAIT to fly a C47 but I am confused as to their role, what do we do once we tropped our troopers?

get the hell up out of flak range and fly home?

[Tough Ombre 359th]

To state that the Germans ignored their airforce is ignorant, to say that the change in tactics in 1940, created a chain reaction leading to the defeat of the Luftwaffe in 45 (some may argue earlier) is probably more accurate.


Wow, you should call the historians that work with the history channel and tell them that they are wrong. No offense, but I'm going to stick with an “ignorant” professional historian than an amateur.


Eurofighter']
I wouldnt call the worlds first jet engine fighter stopping the development. Only hitler was stupid enough wanting to use it as a bomber when it was designed as a fighter.
The arado 234 (the first jetengine bomber) was a response on hitlers request on bombers and it was a very good machine. Unfortunatly for them, germany was already losing the war when it became operational.



I'm talking about 1940.

[OliverMarshall]

No offense, but I'm going to stick with an “ignorant” professional historian than an amateur.

He sometimes does documentries for the History Channel.........





the RAF had to create the Typhoon as their main ground attack aircraft

Well at the start is was built as a fighter, and a very, very good low level fighter at that, able to cope with the german low-level raiders like the fw190. After that they just fitted it with bomb and rockets and it became an excellant ground attack aircraft.
Also most of the other RAF aircraft were multi-role aswell. The Spitfire became a PR plane and the Seafire. The Mosquito became a nighfighter and fighter aswell as a bomber. The Halifax became a rader jamming plane, etc, etc.

[ThomasStewart]

Wow, you should call the historians that work with the history channel and tell them that they are wrong. No offense, but I'm going to stick with an “ignorant” professional historian than an amateur.




I'm talking about 1940.

I admit, I am no "proffesional historian", I have not written any books....I am at the moment gearing up to write one, and have written panflets.....but I would never class myself as a proffesional. HOWEVER, I do emulate the views of proffesional historians....and I am also FULLY aware that the history channel is the ladybird book of history. It is great for Jo-bloggs who knows nothing, but when you specalise in WW2 you can quite easily pick out the easy mistakes the programmes, and sometimes, the historians or so called experts, make.

I remember doing the Stalingrad documentary for History channel and watching it after, needless to say that whilst the documentary was very good, there were a few minor inaccuracies in the storytelling and operational guidelines to which the German units followed. Anyway, I am sure that somewhere along the line a proffesional historian may have said that the Luftwaffe was ignored by the Germans...but then as a training historian I can tell you that not everyone will agree with this (or these) historian(s), and that is why you will always get several interpretations upon a subject. You do not just blindely follow what someone says or writes, cross-reference it with other historians opinions upon the subject and build up an account of the different opinions, analyse them and then choose which one you think is more viable at the end. I dont expect you to agree with me, but I do expect you to show a little more decorum. :)

[enigma]

intresting debate going on up top,

anyhoo heres the BOB plane losses referance i used:
link (http://www.battle-of-britain.com/BoB2/Diary/statistics_losses.htm)

i could have used the wiki's stats which cite - 1,547 - 1,887 as the losses for the UK and Germany respectivly, but i went for the BOB site as, the last time i read through portions of the site it details what was lost each day and what was confirmed shot down each day so it easy to assume that would be the somewhat more reliable figure.

yet to re-look through the book for the eariler figures as i was a tad sick last night.


Edit: Btw isnt just a myth that, the "stray bombs" which hit london and thus caused the abononing of attacking the airfields to wast london just a myth ... as in the luftwaffe could have kept bombing the airfields all they liked ... they still would not have won.

[ThomasStewart]

The list says damaged or destroyed. An aircraft that has been shot up abit is labled as damaged and un-air-worthy until repaired, which could take a day or two.

[enigma]

ah yes, which in the end means that the overall figures for the BOB are even lower or higher as planes have been counted as "destroyed" on more then 1 ocassion.
All in all i do think it gives a better estimate then other figures, what ive currently seen.

edit: in regards to the losses during the battle of France:

The Fall of France - Julian Jackson
Pg214
"In the battle of France the Germans lost 1428 planes - 28% of the total ...."

Pg215
"The British lost a total of almost 1000 aircraft in the Battle of France"

should be noted that i have not seen anythign which would back these up, but if they are true and added with the BOB losses it still alot of planes downed and still somewhat surprising - well to me at least
(details corrected in 1st post)

[ThomasStewart]

I dont really know to be honest, I havent really looked into the BoB figures before, somewhere around 20 planes lost or damaged a day doesnt seem so bad, but then Ive not compared the figures to others.

[rAstha]

Its alot of planes as the americans only lost 70-80 planes in the battle of the coral sea.

I've actually been on Vanuatu (called New Hebrides in until 1980'es) And we saw a crashed Corsair in the jungle... Thats pretty interesting, The wreck was pretty damaged as it blew up when crashing, but you could find some intact parts, as the engine block and hydraulics. All the valuable things was of course taken away, but it wasn't many people that knew about the plane...

[Blame Canada]

These lost planes... do they only include planes that are "lost beyond repair" or also those that were later put into action again?

[sid]

Does this include planes destoyed while they're on the ground?

[Lordwatson]

get the hell up out of flak range and fly home?

Yes may be a slight problem when the map doesnt extend to England mate :D

[Hyperion2010]

Yes may be a slight problem when the map doesnt extend to England mate :D

Then we will fly it as far as we can and then when the AI takes over we choose a new unit! :D

[[FFTF]Eurofighter]

Wow, you should call the historians that work with the history channel and tell them that they are wrong. No offense, but I'm going to stick with an “ignorant” professional historian than an amateur.




I'm talking about 1940.

In 1940 German really had the best airforce in the world. Brittain and the US didnt have a good airforce at that moment. They started building it up later on in the war.
and on that history channel. Do you really think theyre talkin bs on the history channel? I think many historians would be going mad if they were. I realy think you can trust that channel mate lol.