Comparitive Airpower 1939

[William of Orange]

Although Im a forum-newbie I like to make some suggestions about the 39 OOB when it comes to Airpower.

What is reflected on the map is the organisational structure of the airforces:

GB: Bomber Command-Coastal Com.-Figther Com.

(FC represented by the Malta AF)

GE: Luftflotte I-II-III

But lets take a look at the actual strengths on 1 sep 39:

GB: 600 fighters and 500 bombers.

GE: 1200 fighters and 1600 bombers.

So GB has 1 fightergroup and 1 bombergroup.

GE has 2 fightergroups and 3 bombergroups.

If using the figures without changing the system:

GB 1 AF strength 10 and 1 AF str. 1 (=Malta)

GE 2 AF str. 10 and 1 AF str. 8

(every strengthpoint 100 aircraft)

As you can see GB in the last case does not have Strategic Bombers.

This brings me to the next topic:

In 39 GB nor Ge had any Strategic Bombers.

The Wellington was the only one that could go 2500 miles with 1000 lb bombload at low speed, not really strategic...

In fact GB and GE struggled to get a SB in service.

In 42 GB succeeded with the Lancaster at last.

Suggestion:

A country can only buy SB if it has Range 2 and Heavy B. 2 developed first . This would make for a much more historical and challinging game. GB really has to put everything into HB if they really want one on time.

Using the current system GB only has 1 AF for protection and must choose in 40 what to do first, fig. or bom. The Malta AF is very weak and needs attention too.

GE will have even more trouble to find enough MPP for a SB force. Maybe they will never get one. But with their 3 AF they really start strong, as they did historically.

With editing everything is possible of course.

But I really think that the normal settings are not in balance at the moment.

Quite a long post, and Im looking forward to any comments!

[Kuniworth]

ah that wonderful word "historically"...

Interesting post, keep it up!

[JerseyJohn]

Actually, I think Malta is misrepresented in SC-1. It's main value was in being a British submarine base. It's aircraft were mainly obsolescent fighters intended to defend the military installations and the harbor.

The reason I say it's misrepresented is because aircraft (to the best of my knowledge) didn't take off from Malta and conduct attacks on Tripoli, Sicily and other targets. As an abstraction, however, this isn't too bad because the British did slip in and out of the central Mediteranean to conduct operations such as the crippling attack on the Italian fleet at Tarranto. The Malta airfleet is about the only way of representing something similar.

-- A side note, Malta saw the heaviest aearial combat of WWII. I'm sure most of that took place during Kesselring's intense effort to bomb the island into submission. Or prepare it for an invasion that Rommel talked Hitler (and Mussolini)out of launching.

I agree with most of what you're saying, William of Orange, and also with Kuni that you've raised a lot of interesting points.

Welcome to the Asylum and kudos for having written one of the great break-in posts.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

JJ, I think they did-I know the Bristol Beaufighter

(an excellent anti-shipping aircraft) was based there

and sunk quite a number of Italian shipping.

[Lars]

I suggest you look at a map of Europe, draw a 2500 mile circle based on London, and tell me Great Britain didn't have a strategic bomber.

Hell, they had one in WWI. A Vickers Vimy carried the same bomb load as a B-17.

All you really needed to do was replace the HE with gas.

[William of Orange]

Thanks for the reactions till so far, interesting.

Though I like to add some more about GB and a SB in 39.

Yes, the Wellington could fly to Berlin with a small bombload.

With Hampden and Whitley it went to The Ruhr with 4000 lb.

But GB had only 200 of those 3 types combined.

Question: schould this small force be on the map? :confused:

The 800 Heinkels could carry the same load.

And they were bombing on the beam, with better results.

Neither airforce had bombers like Lancaster or B-17 in 39.

Suggestion: make it harder to get them.

Cause when GB get's a SB, why doesn't GE?

At the moment the 2 airforces have the same size.

GB even with more bombing capacity.

Just think this could be more balanced.

I rest my case with a quote from Max Hastings.

It's from his excellent book Bomber Command:

"RAF's misfortune was it believed its own publicity,

that they were capable of a strategic bombing offensive.

It failed to recognise the principle that any theory or weapen of war

is effectively only if the means to exploit it appropriately."

[Lars]

You have to realize that in the 20's and 30's, strategic bombing was bombing the enemy's population base to break his will. And any idiot can hit a city. After you had wiped out his air force on the ground to prevent the riposte, of course. No fighter aircraft required, just bombers.

Was only after the invention of an effective bombsight in the late 30's that you could go for what we today call strategic bombing, attacking the means of your enemy to resist, his factories, ports, etc.

And the Germans never really had a good bombsight. So they went with dive bombers and low level light bombers to ensure a hit. Pretty much a pure tactical force, but the capability to hit a city was still there.

And the kicker was the Brits invented radar, which really changed the rules of the game entirely. Pretty much threw poor Douhet's theory out the window, because now a defense was possible, as you knew when the bombers were coming and could do something about it. Like building fighters.

[Liam]

The Germans did have the best Bomber early on in the War. The HE-111 was fast, blitzbomber

Lightning fast. Although a Medium at best and shortrange machine... Not as durable as say a B-17...which was able to absorb a lot of damage.

It's not respresented at really, most of German bombing was focused on Divebombing and Army support. Though they if anyone should start with an actual Bomber, as much as England Germany should have one 1. HE-111 will be considered the best bomber up until 1941 of the War.....it doesn't even exist in SC Terms while it leveled nearly half of Europe

[Lars]

Was obsolete at war's start.

They went with it just because it was what they had.

[Liam]

Well, if the HE-111 was obsolete at War's Beginning there were was little opposition. Similar to the Me109, Brits staple diet fighter was the Hurricane where the 109 had advantages. The French Dewi...<isn't that a P-40 take off?>

Well, anyways the Me109 was far superior to most of it's opponents as was the HE-111... or the Stuka... Though as the years progressed the Allies caught and brought superior designs in Superior Numbers<more importantly> that turned the tide.

Really in Terms of Aircraft in SC, the Germans should start with Fighters Level 1... With Level 1 bombers... As they had the only sufficient #s of upgraded Equipment

[Lars]

The Hurricane had one massive advantage over the Me109.

A VHF radio.

See above about the radar and ponder the importance of a ground controller.

[Liam]

Lars, agreed over English Soil that was a clear advantage. However it is the German High Command's Fault<Goering> he didn't get rid of the Radar towers when he had full capabilities to accomplish this. Also when do you actually get use of that radio and radar? You could say the German experience in Spain and in actual flight made them superior over that aspect, evening that part out.. However still remains the 109 is sleeker than the Hurricane and packs a nice punch in it's nose... The ME109 was faster, better climb, better turn, and in vaster Numbers... All this is irrelevent in SC Terms, only noticed by the appearance of an HQ to raise the readiness of Luftwaffe fighters......... Had a real Commander been in Charge and not Goering the Luftwaffe would have destroyed the RAF<and the RAF had the homecourt advantage> it was nearly accomplished but of course egotistical blunders.

The Hurricane was a decent fighter but outclassed from all reports I've heard

[Lars]

The Luftwaffe never could have destroyed the RAF. The RAF always had the option of retreat.

Doesn't matter who the commander was. The Luftwaffe never had the proper tools. Like a long range fighter. Wasn't their fault really. Hitler told them they'd never have to fight the British, so they never built what would have been needed.

[Liam]

Lars you might want to check your history but had the RAF retreated any further back there would be no RAF or any Britian. The whole point was air superiority to invade England. That was all but gained by shear #s even in the face of heavy losses on the luftwaffe. The British fighter production was being hit, their pilots were irreplaceable and they were having their airfields hit. had the Third Reich put there invasion plans in full gear no fuel or supplies would've been getting to that Island. it would've been crippled... Without the RAF protecting the South of England the whole of the country would've fallen. Can you imagine what the Blitzkrieg would've done to England? All but Wales and Scotland would've fallen in weeks.

granted no long range fighters hurt the luftwaffe, Germany blundered... Also Dunkirk, there would have been no British Army to fight had they just plowed them down...

[Lars]

You might want to check your aircraft ranges (and history) again.

The airfields in the south of England were being hit. Because that was the only place where the Germans could escort their now highly vulnerable bombers. Everywhere else, the RAF was safe. Supplies, training, etc., could be, and were, done on the west coast, out of reach of the Luftwaffe.

The importance of the Battle of Britain was the RAF made sure the Royal Navy was never put to the test.

[synystr]

A lot pf pilots were trained in the safety of good ol' Canada too!

[Liam]

Yeah and ? The Germans had proven their ability to sacrifice a lot of men and material. A foothold in London region means refueling possibly on English soil to hit Northern targets and Southern England means that maybe Ireland joins the cause and lets Luftwaffe fighters fly from there.

The backbone of the british airforce was near broken. They didn't have the resources of the Germans, just look what did they lose in total vs the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe attempted a war of attrittion and although they themselves could only afford to lose so much they could suicide enough of their forces to take the Island it was Hitler's indecisiveness and Goerings lack of foresight that really didn't help the Fighters and Bombers do what they do best...... Had the Royal navy come to the test hard to say, they may have prevailed. Never know..... Then again, we've found that Navys didn't prevail well against Land Based Aircraft even though the Germans weren't adept in 1940 as far as I know of hitting shipping, ships, etc... purely with aircraft... though given 3 or 4 months they were pretty innovative they may have learned... Remeber how poorly equiped the British were... and how seriously they saw the prospects of an invasion. I have seen the pillboxes in the British Countryside personally I have been to the very hangars that were used during the Battle of Britian

Things have not changed all that much, the Brits were on their last legs and they needed a miracle. They needed time to regroup, rest, and then strike out against the Germans which they did......and utterly destroyed them...proved themselves more than worthy a superior adversary. However in no way shape or form an offensive one, yet.

Had England of even partially been conquored, even with resistance there would be no point for the USA to liberate Europe. There would be a vast amount of industry<England was a Major European Industrial Power even if outdated> There would have been lots of extra punch against the Russians or possible Naval threats from the Americans.. I wonder if a Surrender would've taken place if the Wermacht would've ever captured London.....however impossible a feat that may seem, others have done it Just not in many centuries

[Lars]

How you going to force the RAF to fight if they didn't want too?

Even if the attacks on the 11 Group airfields had continued, the British could have afforded to withdraw to the Midlands out of German fighter range and continued the battle from there. Post-war records show that British aircraft were being replaced faster than those of the Germans; the RAF maintained its strength even as the Luftwaffe's declined.

Kesselring tried to bait them by bombing London, but the RAF always had the option of staying on the ground and waiting for the invasion fleet.

[Liam]

Lars, would airpower alone staying in a hobbit hole protected England from an Invasion fleet when the Royal Navy was caputz?

Especially when most of those were fighters, not ideal for targeting amphibious assualt craft or transports.

Even given, had they managed to kill off a large percentage of the German threat, the damage done upon England without fighter protection. The damage could've been terrible, the morale would've been dreadful. All and all, even if Hitler held off on the order to invade England would've been a recluse and not an inspiration as they were during the Battle Of Britian. With the Royal Navy stuck at home hiding up North in Scapa Flow and the U-boats free range it wouldn't be long before England was crippled as any sort of threat<all that needed to be done> if an invasion was planned and a majority of the Royal Navy was destroyed and it was then called off, what good would the Royal Navy be in all the Theatres they served? The Battle of the Atlantic would've been more than likely to go the German way. Starved to Death the Island Fortress of England.which was hardly much of a Fortress in 1940. would've just stagnated as a force to threaten the Third Reich's backdoor.

Now if a Mad Dash and forcing the RAF out during the Beginning-mid phaze of Sea Lion were to happen and along with the Royal Navy the Brits smooshed the Germans with an amazing dash who knows. Though the Germans I doubt would've launched Sea Lion till both Air, Naval supremacy was achieved...

So hiding was pointless, it was costly and a sign of weakness.

Fighting was a sign of Strength and Preservence.. It was an act of Defiance.. Egotistical by Brits, but they protected their HomeLand and inflicted a humiliating defeat upon the finest Air Force in the World... Giving the World the thought "we can beat this guys if they can"

Now, then again........ Had Hitler remained pounding London around the clock for a whole year and invaded USSR in 1942 what would be left of London? I doubt that was in Churchill's plans, even or Hugh's... I know what they wanted, they wanted to beat the Gerrys in a fair and square fistfight and they did! How? IMO, superior Will, Superior Tactics.......slight edge in technology... meanwhile the Germans overindulgant in Chocolate Cake after all those easy victories, gluttons... <Goering obese in the body and in the head> They didn't expect it, they didn't respect their adversaries. Oh and lastly, How can you lose when you outnumber your opponent more than 2 to 1? When you're better than he is at flying, when you fighter is as good at least... How can you? You don't respect him enough you are then vulnerable and weak, ever do that playing SC I have, and lost to inferior opponents.

[ January 18, 2006, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[John DiFool the 2nd]

I've heard that the RN would have sortied upon the

first hint that the invasion fleet had sailed for

British shores. Keep in mind that the Luftwaffe

wasn't optimized for anti-shipping ops at all really:

the only plane they had which would have been much

of a threat was the Stuka (assuming they had lots of

AP bombs in reserve). The Germans had no dedicated

torpedo bomber, and torpedoes were more dangerous

than bombs, 1-1.

So the Stukas would have sunk a few ships, but I

doubt they would have gotten very many. A moot

point really when you consider how unseaworthy all

those invasion barges were.

[santabear]

Hmmmm...

A few thoughts:

1. The Germans never had a strategic bomber as the US or Britain had. Their "bombers" were basically flying artillery used to accomplish tactical and operational-level missions.

2. No one in WWII had a bomb sight accurate enough to destroy factories or whatnot, nor the means to achieve "strategic" results until they figured out how to start firestorms or got atomic weapons.

The strategy employed was to drop a lot of bombs inaccurately onto cities, destroying a lot of houses, killing civilians and generally getting the enemy (British or German) more pissed-off and willing to fight to the death.

"Precision Daylight Bombing" as practiced by the US 8th AF was nearly a suicide service whose results weren't worth the losses. (See #4 below)

3. The British AF could NOT retreat and stop an invasion. The German strategy (which nearly worked until Goering decided to go with the "strategic" decision described in my point #2) was to FORCE the British to fight. The Brits could let their AF be destroyed on the ground, move it out of danger (and out of effective fighting range--i.e. to give up air superiority over the likely invasion location), or fight.

4. The US and British bombing of Germany didn't work until long-range FIGHTERS came along.

5. The original point of this post: "What are the British doing with a bomber AF in 1939?" is valid, I think. Historically they should have one. They did think about bombing Italy immediately after the declaration of war on France, but they had to use planes based in Southern France, and the French people were so afraid of reprisals that it never happened.

6.

So the Stukas would have sunk a few ships, but I

doubt they would have gotten very many.

In 1939/40 Churchill consistently believed that adequately defended warships would not suffer significant losses from aircraft. (He also believed that Asdic had made submarines obsolete, but I digress). By 1942 the Germans and Japanese had made a believer out of him. If the Germans had got air superiority over Southern England, the Royal Navy could not have stopped an invasion. That was the conclusion of the RN Staff at the time, and I think everything that happened in WWII bolsters the conclusion that they were correct.

And don't forget that U-Boats would have been out to protect the invasion force at the same time.

SB

[ January 18, 2006, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

[Liam]

Granted John, really there wasn't much weapondry in the German Arsenal designed for such operations. They'd of been better off with their Para units capturing ports and making a mad dash than attempting to use makeshift barges ill equipped for that bad weather of the English Channel... Though on the scale of a nation like England unlikely to work as it did in other locations.

Although why did the English prepare so thoroughly? Any threat still was possible. The Germans had ingenuity, they did things in record time. They just needed a Commander who with the right plan to implement and execute.. Who knows, as I mentioned, why bother with Sea Lion once you starve England just let it become a useless floating Piece of Poop, rather than a Knife in the back of the Reich........if the Germans were that wise.....triple the U-Boats, total North Sea Domination, Total Air Supremacy... No need to conquor and hold the Island, you've got what you want... now you can devote resources to Taking other locations.

Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

I've heard that the RN would have sortied upon the

first hint that the invasion fleet had sailed for

British shores. Keep in mind that the Luftwaffe

wasn't optimized for anti-shipping ops at all really:

the only plane they had which would have been much

of a threat was the Stuka (assuming they had lots of

AP bombs in reserve). The Germans had no dedicated

torpedo bomber, and torpedoes were more dangerous

than bombs, 1-1.

So the Stukas would have sunk a few ships, but I

doubt they would have gotten very many. A moot

point really when you consider how unseaworthy all

those invasion barges were.

[Liam]

Santa, just to add to your points, wise thoughts... Though Strategic Level bombing worked alright in Ploesti, the Ballbearing factories, the Rhur<sp?> Dams... Also in other places... If it reduced 10-15% of German MPPs, why not reflected? The Norden Bombsight was not accurate really over European skies as it was likely in Neveda but with 1000 bombers, some will kill their target... Area bombing was partially effective... Ever hear of the Germans talk about the pounding they got in Normandy region around D-Day, they said the bombs were going off like mad, it was disheartening beyond words... The Morale damage of areabombing ground units was effective, the Germans did that pretty well themselves with their divebombers and medium bomber. Flying Cannons to a degree, the Soviets had a nice one too.. Tankbusting was a big thing in WW2, even the Hurricane were modified for that as we had no tanks to actually kill huge Tigers without hellish losses.

All the mentions of collateral damage from FireBobming, AreaBombing, all the morale boosting I've heard is in the face of a dedicated foe. Though in third rate powers such as Poland I don't hear the same.. If both the land and naval war was going bad, the strategic bombing leveled the people as well as their cities. It wasn't effective alone granted.. I'm likely to believe that the German DiveBombing was a more humane weapon of war than the Lancaster or B-17/B-29... Though we finally figured out how to area bomb to the degree of total destruction... Small scale area bombing is ineffective, large scall likely too... The whole concept was not proven during WW2 though the few cases of planned and well trained strategic missions did play some role.. U-Boats a cheaper and less represented tool likely played a larger role. All things in WW2 were shipped on Boats, Aircraft weren't as they are today.

Perhaps all the money spent on Bombers should've been spent on a better tank

Originally posted by santabear:

Hmmmm...

A few thoughts:

1. The Germans never had a strategic bomber as the US or Britain had. Their "bombers" were basically flying artillery used to accomplish tactical and operational-level missions.

2. No one in WWII had a bomb sight accurate enough to destroy factories or whatnot, nor the means to achieve "strategic" results until they figured out how to start firestorms or got atomic weapons.

The strategy employed was to drop a lot of bombs inaccurately onto cities, destroying a lot of houses, killing civilians and generally getting the enemy (British or German) more pissed-off and willing to fight to the death.

"Precision Daylight Bombing" as practiced by the US 8th AF was nearly a suicide service whose results weren't worth the losses. (See #4 below)

3. The British AF could NOT retreat and stop an invasion. The German strategy (which nearly worked until Goering decided to go with the "strategic" decision described in my point #2) was to FORCE the British to fight. The Brits could let their AF be destroyed on the ground, move it out of danger (and out of effective fighting range--i.e. to give up air superiority over the likely invasion location), or fight.

4. The US and British bombing of Germany didn't work until long-range FIGHTERS came along.

5. The original point of this post: "What are the British doing with a bomber AF in 1939?" is valid, I think. Historically they should have one. They did think about bombing Italy immediately after the declaration of war on France, but they had to use planes based in Southern France, and the French people were so afraid of reprisals that it never happened.

SB

[Retributar]

John DiFool the 2nd The Germans did infact have a large 4-engine aircraft that was used in the Atlantic to attack shipping...however,because of low production numbers they were later ordered to avoid attacking allied shipping...but,instead report the sightings of ships only.

Focke-Wulf FW200 CONDOR:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/fw_200_condor

The Luftwaffe initially used the aircraft in conjunction with the Kriegsmarine, making great loops out across the North Sea and (following the fall of France) the Atlantic Ocean, the aircraft undertook maritime patrols and reconnaissance, searching for Allied convoys and warships to be reported and targeted by U-boats. The Condor could also carry bombs or mines to be used against shipping and it was claimed that from June 1940 to February 1941 they sank 365,000 tons. From mid-1941 the aircraft were instructed to avoid attacking shipping and avoid all combat in order to preserve numbers, but the arrival of the new escort aircraft carriers was a very serious threat.

--------------------------------

http://www.9thflottilla.de/9fw200.htm

Focke -Wulf Fw 200

The by Winston Churcill called Scourge of the Atlantic Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor was a master-piece of improvisation

The plane was constructed as an airliner for non-stop flights between Berlin and New York and had a greater range as all other german bomber types. The KG 40 was equipped with Fw 200 to attack convoys. In far-range operations from the french coast to Norway and in co-operation with the U-boats the plane was a very effictive weapon. From August 1940 until Februar 1941 85 ships with 363.000 BRT were sunk by Fw 200. The disadvantage of the plane was it's primary construction as an airliner which lead to some hull-breaks at the landing. As the british began to secure their convoys with fighters the Fw 200 became an easy prey which lead to a re-direction for cargo-purposes in 1944.

[Lars]

3. The British AF could NOT retreat and stop an invasion. The German strategy (which nearly worked until Goering decided to go with the "strategic" decision described in my point #2) was to FORCE the British to fight. The Brits could let their AF be destroyed on the ground, move it out of danger (and out of effective fighting range--i.e. to give up air superiority over the likely invasion location), or fight.

But they could. Plenty of time to bring the fighters back to the southern airfields when the invasion was on. And the bombers, don't even have to move those forward. What do you think they were going to do if it looked like they were losing the BoB? Keep losing? Nah, they would have pulled back, built their strength back up and bided their time.

Between the RAF and a Royal Navy fleet sortie (plus a few British subs in there raising hell), the Germans would have been slaughtered.

And they knew it too. Both the Navy and the Army refused to launch a Sealion without a guarantee of air superiority.

The Germans really had a hell of a strategic problem. Not enough subs for a blockade. Navy half gone from the Norway invasion. No amphibious shipping or even any experience in it. And the wrong air force to just bomb Britain into submission, if that was even possible.