OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia

OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Wirraway_Ace -> OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/22/2013 3:54:01 PM)
I have just finished reading Richard Muller's, The German Air War in Russia , in parallel with Von Hardesty's Red Phoenix Rising. I generally read books in pairs, trying for two perspectives, and I was motivated to learn more about the VVS as I am getting close to Soviet activation in a couple of PBEMs.[;)] I found Muller's perspective on the Luftwaffe to be very different than my understanding to date. At its basic level, his argument is that the Luftwaffe had a well developed operational doctrine matched to the capabilities of its aircraft, and that tactical air support (or close air support in USAF vernacular) was a tertiary mission for which its aircraft were never intended or well suited. This surprised me, as I have oft seen remarks in various texts saying the Luftwaffe was primarily a tactical air force. I am interested in this Forum's perspective primarily because I trust it to be well informed on the war in general, not just the Pacific Theater. Thanks, Mike

crsutton -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/22/2013 4:38:10 PM)
Tactical out of necessity really. Even medium range bombers can be used for strategic purposes but without fighter escort they are all but useless in this role when enemy fighters are expected. The ME 109 had a fairly short range and the FWs range was only average. The lack of long range escort probably dictated the role of German bombers in Russia more than anything else.

sprior -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/22/2013 4:38:42 PM)
The Germans had a well balanced force for the war they fought in Poland, France and Russia. What they didn't have was a strategic component. They weren't able to use aircraft in any meaningful way to support the Battle of the Atlantic nor did they really have the bombers and long range fighters to fight the Battle of Britain. Their initial thoughts to destroy the airfields in south east England and drive the RAF north of London show that the Luftwaffe was only really thought of as an extension to the German Army. You could argue that the bombing of Warsaw and The Hague was a win for strategic bombing after Guernica but the Luftwaffe never really internalised Douhet the way the RAF seemed to until almost too late. Germany only switched to bombing British cities after the British started bombing Germany (badly it has to be said) at night. Basically the Luftwaffe prepared for World War type stalemate with short range bombers and fighters and got caught short by the sudden fall of France. As did just about everyone else.

Dili -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/22/2013 6:00:30 PM)
Well the key word is semantics. What the word "tactical" and "strategic" means, so i will not use them. For me Luftwaffe was an air force that was first anti-air: deny the enemy the use of its air force, second interdict big transportation nodes - harbours, railway station, main bridges- and then in third place close air support to the army. It never had the resources necessary to destroy the industry of a country with the size of itself. In fact to destroy German industry it was the needed a joint effort of Britain and US air force and 4 engine bombers and long range fighters.

KenchiSulla -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/22/2013 6:08:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sprior You could argue that the bombing of Warsaw and The Hague was a win for strategic bombing after Guernica but the Luftwaffe never really internalised Douhet the way the RAF seemed to until almost too late. Rotterdam, not the Hague http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz

Flounder -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/22/2013 10:57:36 PM)
Doc Muller was one of my instructors during my time at USAF staff college. I thought he had a very in depth knowledge of the Luftwaffe; hardware, doctrine and personnel. As such I should point out that the book which you are commenting about was essentially his doctorate theses. When I spoke to him about this work, even he felt it was not as polished as he would prefer

desicat -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/22/2013 11:36:32 PM)
quote: was a tertiary mission for which its aircraft were never intended or well suited. I find this interesting. Ernst Udet had a lot to do with the inter-war buildup and design of the Luftwaffe and he was a huge advocate of dive bombing, hence tactical air support. The JU 87 Stuka and the JU 88 (dive bomb capable) multi-mission twin engine medium bomber were both designed with this as a primary goal.

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/23/2013 2:16:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: desicat quote: was a tertiary mission for which its aircraft were never intended or well suited. I find this interesting. Ernst Udet had a lot to do with the inter-war buildup and design of the Luftwaffe and he was a huge advocate of dive bombing, hence tactical air support. The JU 87 Stuka and the JU 88 (dive bomb capable) multi-mission twin engine medium bomber were both designed with this as a primary goal. Desicat, Muller says this is a misunderstanding of the design intent. The dive bombing capability was intended to maximize the aircraft payload through accuracy against undefended or lightly defended targets in the enemy's operational depth, not as close air support. Neither the JU87 nor JU88 were built to be rugged enough nor armored to dive bomb well defended positions. Mike

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/23/2013 2:33:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sprior The Germans had a well balanced force for the war they fought in Poland, France and Russia. What they didn't have was a strategic component.... Sprior, Muller appears to agree, but with a slightly different take. He suggests that it was the shift of the Luftwaffe bombing campaign to strategic targets in the Soviet Union during 43-44 that hastened its defeat. The Luftwaffe bomber strength was ludicrously inadequate for the proposed scale of the mission. The staff planning assumed hit rates of 50% on small targets such as power plants, which no one appears of have questioned. Instead of focusing on air superiority and indirect army support (German vernacular roughly equating to battlefield air interdiction) by continuing to attack enemy forward airfields, assembly areas and lines of communication, the bombers were used on fruitless attempts at strategic air warfare. That being said, Muller has little positive to say about USAF and RAF strategic air warfare other than to note they had such an enormous quantity of resources that the allocation of significant effort to this campaign was not greatly detrimental... Mike

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/23/2013 2:47:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flounder Doc Muller was one of my instructors during my time at USAF staff college. I thought he had a very in depth knowledge of the Luftwaffe; hardware, doctrine and personnel. As such I should point out that the book which you are commenting about was essentially his doctorate theses. When I spoke to him about this work, even he felt it was not as polished as he would prefer Thanks Flounder. That does not surprise me. It reads a bit like a thesis. That being said, it is a dream to read compared to my collection of Christopher Shores books on the air war in Malaya and Burma. Those are fun reads....

sprior -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/23/2013 1:40:49 PM)
] quote: Rotterdam, not the Hague You're right, I was writing by the seat of my pants.

sprior -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/23/2013 1:41:49 PM)
quote: That being said, it is a dream to read compared to my collection of Christopher Shores books on the air war in Malaya and Burma. Those are fun reads.... Care to elaborate? I was going to add them to my Christmas list. Have you tried "To the Right of the Line"?

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/23/2013 2:08:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sprior quote: That being said, it is a dream to read compared to my collection of Christopher Shores books on the air war in Malaya and Burma. Those are fun reads.... Care to elaborate? I was going to add them to my Christmas list. Have you tried "To the Right of the Line"? sprior, I have not read "To the Right of the Line". I have the three book "Bloody Shambles" series by Christopher Shores. I bought them on the recommendation by Nicodemus. They are superbly researched from both the Allied and Japanese sides and are very balanced in my view. However, they are largely a daily operations diary, which has some fascinating details, but are not a compelling read. To put my perspective in context, my favorite author of histories was Shelbe Foote. He wrote predominantly on the American Civil War, a subject which frankly had little interest for me, until I read his history....He was both novelist and historian. Shores' style is very dry for my tastes. I have to fight through it because I am interested in understanding the subject. The writing does nothing to draw me in. mike

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: OT - Muller, The Germany Air War in Russia (10/23/2013 2:17:55 PM)
As a side note, I have so far found Red Phoenix Rising to be awful. I am only 1/4 of the way through, but the writing is a serious distractor. The author's sentence structure is not even amateurish. It is just bad. The organization of ideas within a paragraph and the transition between paragraphs leaves me constantly confused. And like Bergerud, but much worse, the ideas and even the same descriptive language are repeated over and over. I am not a particularly good writer nor a writing critic, but wow.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9375