How the RAF & USAAF Beat the Luftwaffe

Ken Delve

• Publisher: Greenhill Books
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781784383831
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World War II
• Index: History

"The Luftwaffe had to be used in a decisive way in the Battle of Britain as a means of conducting total air war. Its size, technical equipment and the means at its disposal precluded the Luftwaffe from fulfilling this mission." - Adolf Galland How did the RAF beat the Luftwaffe during the Second World War? Was it actually the fact that they did not lose which later enabled them to claim victory – a victory that would have been impossible without the participation of the Americans from early 1943? This groundbreaking study looks at the main campaigns in which the RAF – and later the Allies – faced the Luftwaffe. Critically acclaimed writer Ken Delve argues that by the latter part of 1942 the Luftwaffe was no longer a decisive strategic or even tactical weapon. The Luftwaffe was remarkably resilient, but it was on a continual slide to ultimate destruction. Its demise is deconstructed according to defective strategic planning from the inception of the Luftwaffe; its failure to provide decisive results over Britain in 1940 and over the Mediterranean and Desert in 1941–1942; and its failure to defend the Reich and the occupied countries against the RAF and, later, combined Allied bomber offensive. Delve studies numerous aspects to these failures, from equipment (aircraft and weapons) to tactics, leadership (political and military), logistics, morale and others.

Chapter 1

Galland’s View

Many years ago, I wrote a commentary article around a document produced by Adolf Galland in 1953 with his view of the Battle of Britain. Whilst covering the campaign quite broadly, his focus was on what went wrong, and who to blame, and many of the subjects he discussed related to the overall set of reasons why Allied air power defeated the Luftwaffe. One of Germany’s greatest fighter pilots, Adolf Galland had gained his initial experience in the Spanish Civil War and by the outbreak of World War Two was flying Bf 109s. His flair as a fighter pilot saw him quickly promoted to command of JG 26 and subsequently to the post of Inspector of Fighters. This, however, brought him into contact, and conflict with Hermann Göring and many stormy scenes ensued. He was dismissed from this post in January 1945 and returned to combat flying, leading the Me 262-equipped JV 44. The 1953 report was compiled in the light of post-war knowledge, and antipathy towards the German leadership in general and Göring in particular; however, despite this it is a useful document, the main elements of which are discussed here.

The Luftwaffe had to be used in a decisive way in the Battle of Britain as a means of conducting total air war. Its size, technical equipment and the means at its disposal precluded the Luftwaffe from fulfilling this mission. On the other hand, in the absence of the necessary experience, the possibilities, limitations, requirements, methods and forces needed for carrying out strategic air operations were not yet known. Whatever may have been the importance of the tests of German arms in the Spanish Civil War from tactical, technical and operational points of view, they did not provide the experience that was needed nor lead to the formulation of sound strategic concepts.

Galland makes the point that the Luftwaffe was less than five years old when it was ‘called upon to prove its mettle in the Second World War’ and that in those years the ‘most powerful air force in the world at that time had been built up’. As in other areas of his account, Galland is being somewhat selective here, as the Luftwaffe’s origins could be traced back to before this ‘official formation’ date. The effective strength of the Luftwaffe in late summer 1939 included 30 bomber Gruppen (He 111, Do 17, Ju 88) with 675 bombers, nine Ju 87 Stuka Gruppen with 200 aircraft, ten long-range fighter Gruppen with 300 Bf 110s, 13 single-engine fighter Gruppen with 400 Bf 109s, 21 long-range reconnaissance Staffeln with 104 aircraft, primarily Do 17s, and 30 close reconnaissance Staffeln with 200 aircraft, mainly He 126s. The majority of these were involved in the Polish campaign and the Polish Air Force was rapidly overwhelmed. Several additional Gruppen were formed during the first year of the war and according to German Quartermaster-General records total strength increased from fewer than 2,000 aircraft to around 7,000 aircraft, including over 3,000 bombers and around 2,750 fighters. German estimates gave British strength as 5,500 warplanes, but with only 3,600 of these being based in the UK and with only 200 of the 620 fighters being ‘of the latest type . . . a large proportion of the British aircraft were out of date and this enabled the Luftwaffe to maintain air supremacy at this stage with about 2,500 aircraft of later types’.

Galland then comments that the balance of the German forces was not right – because there were too few fighters,

The reason for this is to be found in the basic conception on which the new Luftwaffe had been built up; it was thought of as an attacking force. This conformed with the strategic concept much in favour at that time: that mastery of the air should be obtained in the initial operations of a war through the destruction, on the ground, of the enemy’s air power. I personally believe that Germany would not have lost the war if the production of fighters had been on the same scale in 1940 or 1941 as it was in 1944.

To some extent this is the fighter pilot speaking – there are never enough fighters, but there is also a very valid point of air doctrine in terms of air superiority being the prerequisite for air operations. The concept of destroying an enemy’s air power ‘on the ground’ was fundamentally flawed but appeared valid in the light of the Polish campaign, and indeed would do so again in the June 1941 offensive against Russia. The inherent secondary nature of the fighter implied by this doctrine was to be one of the factors limiting the effectiveness of the German fighter arm during the Battle of Britain.

German fighter production in 1940 averaged only 200 aircraft a month and it was not until early 1942, as a reaction to the Allied bomber offensive, that a significant increase in rates of production began. In common with most air arms in the 1930s, the bomber was seen in Germany as the decisive weapon and most attention was paid to the development of these offensive weapons. ‘The air force is a strategic, offensive weapon’ and to this effect aircraft such as the Do 17 and He 111 were developed, bombers with performance superior to the contemporary He 51 and Ar 65 fighters:

This led to a completely erroneous conception; it was believed then, and for some time afterwards, that in daylight attacks, bombers would be able to master enemy fighters and would thus not need to be escorted. In any case, fighters would not be able to accompany bombers owing to their disparity of speed.

This false premise led the RAF’s bomber force into problems in late 1939 and the USAAF’s B-17s and B-24s to suffer heavy losses in 1943. The advent of high-performance fighters should have prompted changes in doctrine.

The construction of the new Bf 109 of completely revolutionary design put the problem back again in proper perspective. The sceptics asserted that the new Bf 109 was not suitable for service use because of its very high take-off and landing speeds, which would give rise to insurmountable difficulties in handling it. Time has corrected these false conceptions and made one fact quite clear, the Bf 109 not only possessed superior features, but it caused a revolution in fighter design throughout the world.

The principal drawback of the single-engine fighters such as the Bf 109 was that of operational radius, around 200 km: ‘This drawback played a decisive part in the outcome of the Battle of Britain.’ With the realisation that the bombers might require fighter escort in daylight the Luftwaffe planners, at Göring’s insistence, had to devise a twin-engined long-range fighter, the outcome being the Bf 110. The formation of such units in 1938 saw the third time when the day-fighter force was required to give up a cadre of its best pilots, the previous two occasions being the expansion of the bomber force and the creation of the Stuka dive-bomber force.

The consequences of this reduction on three separate occasions of the effective strength of fighter personnel were felt in the period between 1934 and 1939. For a long time, fighter pilots were relegated to second place because they were not integrated into the operational air force. At manoeuvres, in conformity with regulations that had been drawn up governing their use, fighters were assigned the tasks of local air defence and combat for the purpose of achieving mastery in the air over front-line zones. Thus, they were not included, and this was the mistake, in the operational air forces. However, the pilots of the new long-range fighters were, according to Göring, to be the elite of the fighter personnel.

Once again, the fault lay in doctrine; the Luftwaffe had little on which to base a strategic doctrine and thus it was constrained to operate in a more tactical sense. Whilst the Spanish and Polish campaigns gave the Luftwaffe valuable combat experience, they also provided what were to prove inappropriate lessons.

The Battle of Britain

‘In order to carry out the invasion, the primary need was to obtain air superiority, and, as far as this was possible, absolute mastery of the air. Hence the task of solving the crucial problem was assigned to the air force.’ The German Navy, rightly, insisted on air cover, a protective umbrella, during any invasion operation – to achieve this the Luftwaffe would have to destroy the RAF; three strategic missions were therefore given to the Luftwaffe:

•The blockade of Britain, in conjunction with the Navy, by air attacks on shipping and ports.

•Softening-up for the invasion; an offensive aimed at gaining air superiority.

•Forcing Britain to surrender by waging total air war.

Galland had doubts:

Many voices in Germany were raised in criticism of the idea of attacking the British on their own soil. The critics maintained that not even the military occupation of the British Isles would be enough to bring about the end of the war. Field Marshal Kesselring [commander of Luftflotte 1 in 1939–40 and Luftflotte 2 in 1940–3], for example, headed a section of opinion that believed that an air offensive against Britain would demonstrate the limitations and weaknesses of the air force, and that it would result in our losing the most powerful instrument of political and military pressure we possessed. Hitler decided differently; once again it was principally Göring who goaded him into making his decision.

At this stage Galland was not party to the discussions of either the Luftwaffe hierarchy or that of the Nazi leadership; he no doubt subsequently discussed the battle with some of those who had been part of the decision-making process, but the inclusion of hindsight perspective is inevitable, especially from such air leaders as Kesselring. Nevertheless, it was a confident Luftwaffe that commenced operations against Britain; its campaigns to date – Spain, Poland and France – seemed to vindicate both its equipment and its doctrine. True, the Luftwaffe had greater respect for the RAF than for some of its previous opponents and there was the problem of combat radius for the single-engine fighters, but overall the planners, and the aircrew, anticipated few major problems.

The second phase of the German air offensive began on 24 July 1940, the aim being to rout the British fighter defences in combat with German fighters, and thus obtain the superiority necessary to ensure the effective employment of day bombers. To this end, German fighters were sent over the Channel on successive and intermittent sorties, first in group strength and then by squadrons. At first the British accepted the challenge and sent up Hurricanes and Spitfires to engage the German units. The Hurricanes were out of date and their performance was far inferior to that of the Messerschmitt fighter as regards both maximum speed in level flight and rate of climb. Though the Spitfire was more manoeuvrable in turning, its maximum speed was 20–30 km per hour less. German ammunition and armament were manifestly better than those of the British. The RAF lost the greater number of fighters. But even more important than these technical drawbacks were the outmoded tactics used by the British fighters.

The question of comparative fighter performance is one that has occupied countless words and is frequently clouded by partisan view points: did the rugged nature of the Hurricane make it better able to survive being hit, was the armament of the German fighters far superior, and so on. The qualitative nature of the pilots and, as Galland points out, the tactics being employed, have also to be taken into consideration. The Luftwaffe entered the Battle with a confident, verging on cocky, attitude and hence their morale was superb. The RAF fighter pilots were still largely untried and they faced what appeared to be an invincible war machine that had swept previous opponents away. They had confronted each other over France but now came the real test.

Normally each unit made up to three sorties per day. The physical strain on pilots was very heavy; airframes and engines also suffered from these efforts. It soon became evident that Fighter Command was not deceived by the German air attacks for it did not send up its fighters on hasty missions according to the exigencies of the moment. Radar enabled the British to alert their defences in good time and to send up fighters at the right moment to intercept the German formations and to engage them when and where they chose.

The failure of the fighters to draw the RAF to its destruction led to a change of tactics:

In order to compel British fighters to fight again – the British Command had undoubtedly forbidden them to do so owing to German superiority – our fighters began to appear escorting several bombers, which attacked airfields, rail junctions and any other similar targets. The bombers were called Lockvögel [decoy birds] and the aim was achieved; the struggle for air supremacy resumed its rhythm.

This same tactic was subsequently employed by the RAF, during the Circus operations, when offensive fighter sweeps over Occupied Europe in 1941–2 failed to produce any Luftwaffe reaction and bomber forces were employed to force a response – a tactic that met with mixed results.

However, it was with Phase III, the direct attack on RAF airfields, that the Battle of Britain truly began. To the RAF, these attacks on its airfields, and associated installations such as radar sites, were critical and many post-war commentators have concluded that if the attacks had continued then the battle might have taken a different course. Galland, however, in his commentary puts forward a different view:

The results obtained were very poor, for when attacks were made, practically all available British aircraft were in the air, engaged on defensive operations. Overall, damage caused to the ground organisation was superficial. Better results would have been obtained if more small-calibre bombs had been used, but the bombers were not equipped with suitable release apparatus. The British withdrew their fighter squadrons beyond London and used airfields close to the coast only for staging and emergency landings. Moreover, they had so many airfields that they had good chances of eluding attacks.

As with other parts of the Galland commentary, this smacks of post-war ‘excuses’ for the failure of the Luftwaffe campaign. Whilst it is true that the RAF had a reasonable number of airfields, the number within operating range of the combat area was limited – and all were well known to the Luftwaffe. RAF records show that a number of key airfields suffered significant damage, albeit repairs were rapid and the airfields, if not all of their facilities, were back in operation quite quickly; however, a concerted and continued attack on these key sites might have produced a different overall picture. In my own period of ‘bomber’ crew service in the 1980s, the view was that you could not destroy an airfield; all you could do was to ‘reduce the sortie rate’ by attacking key operating surfaces or infrastructure.

As the pace of operations increased the German fighters were given four main missions: direct escort, indirect or deployed escort, freelance patrols (Freie Jagd), and supplementary escorts to pick up and cover returning formations and provide protection to air-sea rescue services.

Insofar as it can be said to have functioned at all, the system of escorting bombers yielded poor results. There were neither special tactical rules nor uniformity of plan; each fighter squadron carried out its missions as it thought best. Hence the quality of performance attained in these missions varied considerably. Some squadrons executed their missions in an extremely satisfactory manner, others failed miserably. It was not until late in the period of air battles that tactics were standardised.

Not surprisingly, Galland the fi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Plates
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1 Galland’s View
• Chapter 2 Readiness? The Period to May 1940
• Chapter 3 France and the Battle of Britain
• Chapter 4 Luftwaffe Night Raids and V-weapons
• Chapter 5 Bomber Command’s Night Offensive
• Chapter 6 Daylight Offensive: Destroying the Luftwaffe
• Plate Section