Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome

[RF]

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.

lwd, this can be a difficult concept for non-fliers such as myself to fully grasp, as ''preventing the fighter from shooting down the bomber'' as a concept might be seen as best served by shooting down the fighter, but I can see your point about disturbing the attack as opposed to actual shooting down.

[Bgile]

I'm afraid it was lost on the bomber gunners that they weren't actually supposed to shoot down the attackers.

[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.

lwd, this can be a difficult concept for non-fliers such as myself to fully grasp, as ''preventing the fighter from shooting down the bomber'' as a concept might be seen as best served by shooting down the fighter, but I can see your point about disturbing the attack as opposed to actual shooting down.

Indeed shooting them donw is the optimum. That way they are not only prevented from shooting the bomber down today but in the future as well. However the purpose of the bomber isn't to destroy enemy planes in the air it's to drop it's bombs on target. That's the key. The same can be said of AA in general. It's to prevent the bombers from accuratly dropping their bombs on target. Shooting down planes is very good but disturbing their aim is "good enough".

[lwd]

I'm afraid it was lost on the bomber gunners that they weren't actually supposed to shoot down the attackers.

That's not what I said and I thought it pretty clear that that was not what I meant.

[Bgile]

I'm afraid it was lost on the bomber gunners that they weren't actually supposed to shoot down the attackers.

That's not what I said and I thought it pretty clear that that was not what I meant.

This "debate" is rather silly, but I just couldn't help myself. I apologize.

[VeenenbergR]

mkenny.

It is indeed interesting to know the exact USAAF and RAF air losses over Europe due to Flak or enemy fighters.

Since Russian losses are about 46.000 (to both Flak and Fighters) those of the Western Allies may be half of that in total?
With Germans loosing about 17.000 fighters alone (not counting all their other aircraft type losses: may be the same amount?).

In this picture Allied losses (>60% damage) due to fighters and Flak were about 70.000 and Luftwaffe losses about 35.000. Exactly a 2:1 ratio

Excludes are all losses due to other causes (accidents, destroyed on the ground aso) and all losses of the minor countries including France/Poland.

[RF]

VeenenbergR, don't forget that in the case of RAF and USAAF boimbing raids over Europe they had much further to go than the Luftwaffe had to in their raids on Britain. More time and distance over which to fire on the Allied bombers.......

[Bgile]

Here is a link to USAAF losses in the European Theater by type: http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t159.htm

Here are the losses in the Med: http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t160.htm

The USAAF lost a total of 6,800 aircraft to fighters from June of 1942 until the end of the war in those areas.

[VeenenbergR]

Bgile: ok this includes bombers AND fighters I suppose; and how many to enemy FLAK?

[Bgile]

Bgile: ok this includes bombers AND fighters I suppose; and how many to enemy FLAK?

Yes, bombers and fighters. You can follow the links I included for the flak info and much more.

[VeenenbergR]

Bgile:

In the Luftwaffe boardgame (Avalon Hill) a booklet was enclosed with stats from the US Strategic bombardment Survey:

Bomber - Fighter losses (to all causes?) over Europe per unit were:

AAF
1st Tac 47- 313
8th AF 5945 - 3112
9th AF 804 - 2141
12th AF 773 - 1824
15th AF 2380 - 1030

RAF
2nd TAC 353 - 1762
BC 9163 - 16
FC 0 - 3559
CC 841 - 549
Med AF 1611- 4175

RNAF?
RCAF?
RAAF?

[tommy303]

VeenenbergR

I believe the USSBS included both the ETO and MTO in its totals. If this is the case, then the figures you present agree fairly well with the totals provided in the two tables by Bgile.

[VeenenbergR]

AAF losses: 9949 bombers and 8420 fighters in ETO and MTO
RAF losses: 11965 bombers and 10045 fighters in ETO and MTO.

Grand total: 40.379 to Flak and enemy aircraft (about 55%/45%).

So Flak WAS quite effective and deadly.

Imagine how many damaged bombers returned home..........
Not included 3500 aircraft forced landing in Switserland and many thousands (!) lost to accidents (Skye!!).
I think in Allied totals are also included losses of night fighters.

If the VVS admitting loosing 46.100 aircraft to Flak and enemy aircraft alone the picture is quite complete.

The LUFTWAFFE on the contrary lost 16.100 day-fighters to enemy aircraft and flak.
If looking to the Allied totals the Germans may have lost an equal number of bombers too.
Nightfighter losses I don't know, but they lost few (1000?) nightfighters in night air combat.
Their He219 UHU was the most advanced and deadliest of them all.

[Bgile]

So Flak WAS quite effective and deadly.

Yes, and especially to fighters trying to strafe on the way back home.

The LUFTWAFFE on the contrary lost 16.100 day-fighters to enemy aircraft and flak.

Mostly to enemy aircraft, since the Lufwaffe didn't do much strafing on the way home. They were mostly over home territory.

The USAAF lost a total of 3,018 fighters to the luftwaffe. I wonder what kind of an exchange ratio there was?

[Karl Heidenreich]

Presently engaged in the reading of Beevor`s "Stalingrad" book and trying to cross reference it with Glantz & House`s "Kursk". Both books support many of the previous concepts here, specially the emphazis that the "main" theater of the war was in the East and the main effort of the Germans was concentrated there and not in the West. Also Vasiliesky`s comments sound more and more correct. But so far I cannot came with anything until the reading is done.

It is also obvious that the western propaganda has underated everything soviet (from the T 34 to Zhukov) in order to proclaim "Ike" , in a clear error, as "the man that defeated Hitler". And it is me, the anti comunist, that is saying this.