Talk:History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dapi89 (talk | contribs) at 11:03, 3 June 2008 (→‎Poland). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

WP:NOR

I believe that the following statement is unsatisfactory at present: "The greatest failure in terms of technological development was not to develop a long-range bomber and capable long-range fighters during this period leaving the Luftwaffe unable to conduct a meaningful strategic bombing campaign throughout the war".

According to whom? I could live with "According to AJP Taylor..." as a referenced opinion for a claim like this, but to state it in prose like this is unencyclopedic in my opinion and looks like dumbing down to me. Any suggestions? --John 17:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation has been added. Discourse is over.Dapi89 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. --John 18:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source does.Dapi89 21:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to have a big problem inspite of the added source, then i will add more ShortlyDapi89 21:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

With respect to omissions and failures I'd like to point the editors to the following book.

Isby, David C. The Luftwaffe Fighter Force The View from the Cockpit. Greenhill Books, 1998. ISBN 1-85367-327-7

The book is a collection of German fighter leaders' views (mostly interrogation reports of 1945) of different elements of their part in World War II. Among the pilots/leaders are men like Adolf Galland, Hubertus Hitschhold, Heinrich Bär , Walther Dahl, Klaus Neumann, Gordon Gollob just to name a few. In this book is a chapter called "The Most Important Mistakes of the Luftwaffe as Seen from the Standpoint of the GAF" by Adolf Galland. Galland makes a much more differentiating statement about what went wrong. His break down consists of five elements.

  • Mistakes in Organization and Planning
  • Mistakes in Development and Technical Equipment
  • Mistakes in Choice of Personnel and Training
  • Mistakes in the Training of Formation Leaders, Unit Commanders, and Staff Personnel
  • Mistakes in Strategy and in Operational Tactics

I strongly recommend the reading of this book. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think this should come into the article? Dapi89 (talk) 11:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add a section of "Omissions and Failures"? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will do this in due course. Perhaps you would like to start it off. Dapi89 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then why not quote the book and reference the "mistakes"-section properly? Sorry, but as it stands it reads like original research and what people believe to be common knowledge. While I don't disagree on all parts, I do so for the technical equipment part. For example discontinuing production of the Bf 109 was not an option: By the time the aircraft began to become inferior to its Western Allied counterparts in 1943, Germany was committed to total warfare and production interruption would've resulted in a shortage of fighter aircraft for at least a few critical months. On top of that the late K-series was about on par with contemporary American and British fighters. More importantly however, Soviet planes were still inferior in many aspects as late as early to mid '44 and the 109 operated with good success on the eastern front throughout the entire war (except for the last 5 months). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.113.82 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not OR.

Firstly, there is a citation for this section. The information comes from Adolf Galland.

Soviet aircraft were not inferior in many aspects. The LaaG's were excellent fighters and the Soviets possessed the Red Banner units, which were a group of highly trained fighter pilots.

The Bf 109 was significantly inferior to the later Spifire's and P-51 Mustangs. I suggest you read Erich Hartmann's accounts of combat with the P-51, he defines it as a superior aircraft, and the Bf 109K was only produced in small numbers, roughly 1,500 out of 33,000 by May 1945. As a result this was not available when production should have been assessed in 1941 anyway.

Phasing out the Bf 109 WAS an option. The point is that the Fw 190 should have been given priority in 1941, and that the RLM should have made more of an effort to phase the Bf 109 out by 1942, while the Luftwaffe wasn't "desperate for fighters". More of an effort should have been made to ensure the Me 262 entered production in 1942, rather than 1944.

So I don't agree, and neither do most of the sources I have. Dapi89 (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LW-post.jpg

Image:LW-post.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:BF-110s.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poland

Hi! I am generally editing Polish Campaign related topic. Can you please give the source of Luftwaffe losses in Poland? This is first time that I see nr of 250+ aircraft lost. Most of sources I've seen give the number of circa 460 aircraft lost (including accidents at malfuncions). Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luftwaffe general quartermaster report of October 5 1939 with data as of September 28, 1939: 285 aircraft total loss, further 279 aircraft damaged with 10% or more and were usually written-off (cannibalized and scrapped perhaps). The loss report list losses of all branches including the marine units. --Denniss (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your correction seems fair :) Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you deleted numbers and given yours but no reference given. Here are 2: On 1 September Luftwaffe units attacking Poland included 2565 aircraft (775 level bomber, 303 diving bombers, 507 fighters, 384 reconeissance, 39 assault, 506 transport, 51 naval) 'Gliederung, Einsatzbereitschaft, Ausrustung der Verbande am Morgen 1.9.1939' B.K Kroener pg 718-719, 2565 aircraft with combat readiness Sep 1st of total 2795 of total listed in units for invasion. Total Luftwaffe: 3751combat ready, whole number: 4127 (remainder was placed in Western Front) So according to source whole Luftwaffe consisted of 4127 aircraft, so I am not claiming that whole Luftwaffe was over Poland.

The other source: E.R Hooton, p85 : 2315 aircraft

Consider: if 1500 planes were over Poland and 270 lost and the other 250+ damaged this is percentally 1/3 of whole fleet... Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, your source is wrong as it seems to count all forces operating near Poland including fighters set to air patrol defending the Reich. The numbers I gave were the actual forces commited to operations in/over poland. Those numbers are from the same book which gives the exact losses during the operation. --Denniss (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so please include your opinion into article Invasion of Poland - there are misunderstandings regarding the number of German aircraft; in majority of publications the number I've presented is given. Majority of Polish publication refer to 'Gliederung...' stats so it will be interesting to confront it. Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing: were transport aircraft included into Luftflotte 1 and 4? If not then final number is correct. I do not think all the 500 Ju-52s were used over Poland. (Some were to supply Pz divisions) Łukasz Rzepiński (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My source mention transport aircraft only wiht nine transport groups associated to or under direct command of Ob.d.L (Luftwaffe general command). See also here for a detailed setup of the Luftwaffe on September 1st 1939. The truth may ly between the two numbers as units may have been moved/tranferred to take part in the polish invasion. --Denniss (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my figures agree with Denniss. But it seems Denniss, you have missed further numbers that were used "in and over" Poland. A further 333 Recon machines were used, but under Heer operational command. I have divided the individual strength of the Luftflotte's and separated the Home Defence for that the Luftwaffe retained against Polish air attack on German soil. Dapi89 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Luftwaffe_(1933–1945)&oldid=216818721"