Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Non-naval discussions about the Second World War. Military leaders, campaigns, weapons, etc.
VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by VeenenbergR »

RF wrote
Germany was a world leader in science and education, but with a very insular view that in part enabled the nazies to come to power. The whole problem of totalitarian ideology is its holistic nature, it runs contrary to science and true understanding, it is ultimately self-defeating.
I think that you expressed here the real reason why Germany waged and lost WWII.
Hope you are right that nowadays totalitarian regimes also will fall (Iran, China, Birma and North Korea).
VeenenbergR
Senior Member
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Vinkeveen

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by VeenenbergR »

Losses Luftwaffe day fighters according to Christer Bergström: 16.100 (total loss = > 60% damage) with 8.500 pilots killed.
Losses Night fighters and other aircraft (bombers, transports, ground-attackers and recce): Anybody knows??? :?:

They (the Luftwaffe day fighter arm) claim 70.000 kills (25.000 West and 45.000 East). Of these 10-15% can be subtracted to double claims, so it may be 60.000 in total.
The nightfighter arm of the Luftwaffe claims a further 5.750 aircraft (most heavy bombers and mosquito's) with possible 5000 kills in reality.

Soviet losses were in reality only 1,4% of the 3.500.000 sorties flown or about 46.100 aircraft (not including aircraft destroyed on the ground).
These claims are nowadays further proved by Finnish and Russian sources.

The FLAK claims 20.000 aircraft destroyed.
The bomber and recce arm claims are unknown, but the surely also shot down enemy aircraft.

Note1. of all claims only the total losses are interesting to know, because a claim does not necessarely lead automatically to 1 kill.

Note2. not included are all Allied aircraft destroyed on the ground, lost by accidents or landing in Switserland (3.500 at the end of the war).
These are substantial numbers too.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by RF »

mkenny wrote:
I don't think so. War between the original six countries of the EEC was the least likely scenario after 1945.
Look at the previous 100 years. How many wars in Europe?

[/quote]

What exactly is the point here?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by RF »

mkenny wrote:[
RF wrote:EU enthusiasts in their fantasy world like to pretend that the EEC was responsible for the peace in Europe after 1945.
Much like flag-waving little Englanders can never accept it on any terms.
This is just a convenient cliche. It is not an argument.

For the record I am English, I am not little, and I can accept political authority that is based on consent and is freely elected. Rather like the United States, which would not dream of joining a body lIke the EU.

The EU is not based on genuine consent, IT IS AN IMPOSITION.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by RF »

mkenny wrote:
EEC money played a big part in Irelands prosperity and that had an effect on cross border relations.
EEC money? The only money the EEC or EU had or has was that provided by the largely German and British taxpayers! Yes Eire did benefit from the British taxpayer but as they are in the single currency and the EU interest rate structure we now see a very different picture emerging, as the Eire government is struggling to deal with the retrenchment needed in the current economic slump.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by RF »

mkenny wrote:
Britain still believes she is a world power and to fulfill this fantasy plays the role of troublemaker in Europe and has completely sold her Armed Forces to do the bidding of the USA.
The current debacle in Afghanistan shows the extent of this delusion.
Neither I or millions of other Brits regard Britain as being a superpower.

''trouble maker in Europe'' is another cliche and not an argument.

The role of Britain's armed forces is decided by HM Government and not the British people. I do not support the war in Afghanistan,or regard our armed forces as being there to do the bidding of any foreign power, be it the EU or the USA.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by mkenny »

Point is (and it is the last one by me on this subject) there are those in the UK who will never ever accept anything positive about the EEC. The latest outburst by that buffon Nigel Farage gives an idea of the visecral nature of the displeasure.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by lwd »

VeenenbergR wrote: ...Note1. of all claims only the total losses are interesting to know, because a claim does not necessarely lead automatically to 1 kill.
....
My understanding is that when compaired to actual losses most airforces in WWII had a ratio of about 2 claims to 1 kill and this includes the LW. The biggest exception to this was bomber gunners. For US bomber gunners it was about 10 to 1. The above is the average over a number of units, fronts, and time. Particular units and locations had much better or worse. For instance both the LW and the RAF had more accurate claims while operating over friendly territory.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by RF »

mkenny wrote:Point is ( there are those in the UK who will never ever accept anything positive about the EEC. The latest outburst by that buffon Nigel Farage gives an idea of the visecral nature of the displeasure.
I am happy to accept any positive feature about the European Union, based on evidence that it is an improvement to my and other people's situation. So where is that evidence? I cannot see any redeeming feature.

The ''latest outburst by that buffoon Nigel Farage'' has a very serious point over the way the EU and its Commission governs itself, to which as usual we have no say.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by RF »

lwd wrote: The biggest exception to this was bomber gunners. For US bomber gunners it was about 10 to 1.
Is there any particular reason for this, as presumably bomber gunners did bring down a substantial number of aircraft.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by alecsandros »

RF wrote:
Is there any particular reason for this, as presumably bomber gunners did bring down a substantial number of aircraft.....
If 10 bomber crews fired upon a fighter, and it would go down in flames, all the gunners would claim a kill. Because of the tight box formation adopted by the USAAF bombers, it was almost impossible that a single bomber be in effective weapons range at any given time.

Ex: after the Ist raid on Schweinfurt, bomber crews reported at least 300 destroyed fighters, whereas 300-400 was the total number involved in the the air-defence...
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by lwd »

RF wrote:
lwd wrote: The biggest exception to this was bomber gunners. For US bomber gunners it was about 10 to 1.
Is there any particular reason for this, as presumably bomber gunners did bring down a substantial number of aircraft.....
I think one of the reasons was the US box formations. A fighter that attacked such a formation could come under fire from a considerable number of gunners. If there were indications of serious hits such as a significant amount of smoke most of those who fired on it probably claimed it as a "kill". Correlation between crews would have been pretty difficult. Even from the same bomber if gunners on both sides fired at the same fighter there's a good chance they might not realize that both were claiming it. Then there's the question of how a bomber crew determines a "kill".

*** edit for ***

Looks like I essentially repeated the previous post. Some slight difference so won't deleate it.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by RF »

My understanding of the box formation used by the USAAF was to maximise the defence firepower; to come into firing range a Luftwaffe or Japanese fighter would put itself within the firing arcs of a considerable number of bombers and thus a greater number of enemy fighters would be brought down - so the theory went.
I do realise that it didn't quite work out that way, but even so I would have thought it would have produced better results than it did. But there again I'm not a flier.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by lwd »

The main point of defensive guns on a bomber are not to shoot down attacking fighters it's to prevent the fighters from shooting down the bomber. Thus if you can damage, discourage, or even disturb the aim of the attacking fighter you have done your job. I suspect they actually did a decent job of this certainly early war even a long B-17 was not considered an easy target.
mkenny
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:58 am

Re: Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

Post by mkenny »

As a rough guide over the whole war it cost $107,000 in AA ammo (5,000 8.8cm rounds) to shoot down a $300,000 B17 or a $330,000 B24.
Flak got 1,345 RAF bombers and fighters got 2,278.
Over half of USAAF losses were due to flak. 5,400 flak/4,300 fighters
Figures from Edward B.Westermann, 'FLAK, German Anti-Aircraft Defenses 1914-1945'
Post Reply