It wasn't the fact that Luftwaffe couldn't replace their planes, but the fact that could not replace their pilots.

Good point. The attriton rate for planes was horrendous but the drain on experienced pilots was even worse. Fly till you die does not help the pilot pool and training program.

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

Actually, they couldn't do either. Bomber losses from 1940 on were such that the force was shrinking and by 1943 was at about 50% establishment and falling. Crew losses were also greater than replacement rates with about 50 crew a month more being lost than replaced. And, to make matters worse, the new crews were far more poorly trained than those lost in many cases.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

ok... but pilots shortage is another subject, i wanted you to focus on the industrial war production: in 1940 Britain produced 15,000 planes, the nazi just 8,000. and there is much more that could be said....

Basically, in '40/'41 the nazi were strong because they had been stockpiling weapons for a decade while the allies just started in late 30's.

But when the allies pressed the pedal to speed up the industrial war production the nazi couldn't do anything but eat the dust.

the nazi state in fact proved to be the kingdom of inefficiency, deadly burocracy, privilige, corruption at all levels, complete lack of coordination, rationality sacrificed to propaganda....
exactely the opposite of what propaganda had been portraing for years.

i suggest everybody to read the famous Goebbels speech of feb '43 about Total War.

i know i'm oversemplifying, but i think this gives an idea of the situation.

__________________
If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons
- Winston Churchill

There were around 15000 planes of all types made in Britian during 1940. There were closer to 11000 made in Germany that year. What is more portent is that of those 11000 only 1500 were the Me 109. However small this number may appear it was larger than the number of fighters produced in England up to and during the BoB. I have the numbers for that at home and will get them for you later.

LOL , Okay I will try to regain some composure. Not untill 32 did Germany even begin to develop your weapons that they were stockpiling. That is only if you consider the Panzer I a weapon of modern warefare. At the begining of the war Germany had fewer tanks than France and Russia, and perhaps even Britian. Not to mention that Germanys tanks were the worst in the world.


Seriously you dont believe this do you? The only nation that left Germany behind in total production was the US. Yes Russia made lots of tanks and planes and other military weapons, but at a cost to other produstion like trucks and food. Which they got from the US. Had Russia had to produce everything it needed by itself its numbers would have been much closer overall to that of Germany.

I try to avoid propoganda when at all possible.

__________________
"What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they're going to try to impose, I think doesn't make sense." Hillary Clinton

(Photo removed for humanitarian reasons.)

No will receive no arguments from me here. Yes, by 1943 the growing threat of an allied invasion forced Germany to re-locate forces to the West. About 63% however were left in the East, to deal with the Russians.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

dear tikilal,
you simply understood NOTHING of what i said.

- i was referring to the war production UNTIL 1942 (it was abvious since we were talking about invasion of russia). what happened in '43-'45 is totally different (enslaved labour, speer taking power....) . If u mix the two periods u'll just get a big mess.

- if u want to measure the industrial capacity of a country u have to take the OVERALL PRODUCTION for big categories, the distribution of detailed models or types is another thing.

- look at the chart i made (for you) about aircraft production: as u can see as soon as the nazi took power (1933) they strongly increased aircraft production despite it was peacetime, nazi production was steadly above britain until '39.

air_production3.jpg

- at the breakout of WW2 in '39 things changed dramatically: britain moved her ass and reversed completely the situation, while the nazi proved to be uncapable of doing the same. in '42 the problem had become so relevant that even the nazi hierarchy realized the situation (in '42 britain produced 54% aircraft more than nazi, USSR produced 65% more than nazi, US produced 210% more than nazi).

- the goebbels speech of "total war" is very interesting, it is surprinsing because despite being a propaganda speech it was a sort of admission that things had to be changed, or soviets would have wiped out germany. in facts, only parts of goebbels proposals were carried out but it marked the beginning of big change that took place in the the nazi state in the following 3 years (goebbels he was close allied to speer) .


PS: if u really avoided "propaganda", as u say, u wouldn't support any politician

__________________
If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons
- Winston Churchill