Luftwaffe losses in 1940

[jonnymacbrown]

Ran into this interesting account in Wikipedia:

"The battle for France had cost the Luftwaffe 28% of its front line strength, some 1,236 — 1,428 aircraft destroyed (1,129 to enemy action, 299 in accidents). A further 323 — 488 were damaged (225 to enemy action, 263 in accidents), making a total of 36% of the Luftwaffe strength negatively affected. Luftwaffe casualties amounted to 6,653, including 4,417 aircrew; of these 1,129 were killed and 1,930 missing and captured."

I don't know what the facts are but if this is true then the Luftwaffe got pretty chewed up in the operation. I've played quite a few games of F 40 and am doing so now. Der Luftwaffe controls the skies and the Allied air forces are a joke; literally and figuratively. In one game I'm playing now Luftwaffe losses are 46 machines in the middle of May 16. I know the game is an abstraction but 46 losses only account for c. 3% losses of the Luftwaffe's game strength, a far cry from the above account (if factual). The following article claims the Luftwaffe lost 40% of it's strength by mid-June:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airch...kland.html

The gist of the article is that the French Army found a convenient scapegoat in blaming the French air force for its defeat. One interesting quote from the article:

"The fighter units on the northeastern front were equipped exclusively with machines built within the preceding eighteen months. The American-made Curtiss 75A fighter joined French squadrons beginning in March 1939. It was the most effective type in its class in combat over France until the Dewoitine D520 became operational in mid-May 1940. Eight squadrons equipped with the Curtiss 75A shot down 220 German aircraft (confirmed kills), losing only thirty-three pilots. In seven aerial battles in which the Curtiss fighters were engaged with Messerschmitts, the total score was twenty-seven Bf 109Es and six Bf 110Cs destroyed for three of the French aircraft.23 "

In the game the French have a total of 515 aircraft. The article posts the following chart:

Table II. Modern Combat Aircraft Deployed on the Western Front, 10 May 194022 (Allied total includes Belgian & Dutch)

Type French British total German
Fighters 583 197 780 1264
Bombers 84 192 276 1504
Recon 458 96 554 502

Totals 1125 485 1610 3270

The French had over 4000 aircraft but had only c. 1000 deployed against the Germans: what were the other 3000 planes doing? I see and understand that the game only represents bombers & recon and it's all closely enough tallied for a game. I just don't see the Luftwaffe suffering any appreciable losses while they wreak complete/total havoc.

jonny :whis:

[FM WarB]

Frieser, The Blitzkrieg Legend, pp. 44-54 actually gives slightly higher numbers for the french at the front and lower numbers for the Germans at start. Total losses Allies 1921 planes, Germans 1559.

A large number of french planes in the rear areas never got into the fight.

The Germans had neither numerical nor technical superiority in the air war.
But, the German air superiority in the game is set such that the Allies can do nothing about it. Should, and how might this be changed?

In any case, I hope not to sound overly critical by opining that the air model in these games has its flaws.

[greg]

Where do you find 4000 planes for French air forces ...it's a joke ?
1000 SPAD XIII ?
850 Nieuport 17 ?:whis:
lol
my dear santa claus i'm a poor French air force marshal and i want many many planes...

[Ricky B]

Not sure what the issue is. Seems like you would like to see many more French/British planes involved, or higher German losses, or??? Regarding the battlefield, the table of planes shows who should have what on the battlefield:

Type French British total German
Fighters 583 197 780 1264
Bombers 84 192 276 1504
Recon 458 96 554 502

Totals 1125 485 1610 3270

1500 German bombers, give or take, vs 276 allied? That is a 6 to 1 ratio, which seems fairly represented in the game. Can anyone name much in the way of effective Allied ground attacks, against German units? I am not aware of much of anything but harassment, along with the failed attacks on the Sedan crossings.

Re losses, since the game isn't representing air to air losses, breakdowns, etc, then I would guess you could see some higher losses than happen, but they shouldn't be super high. One thing about the Luftwaffe losses - a large portion of them were their transports, I believe - Ju52s. They lost hundreds in the Netherlands landings. Anyway, for the portion of their losses in the actions covered by the game, I would say no more than 100 would be losses to ground fire, during the full game, probably a bit less. So maybe it comes out at 50 instead, that works okay for me - most players avoid high risk attacks, unlike historical, so I expect losses to run a bit less.

Rick

[JDR Dragoon]

The problem hinted at here is, that airpower remains almost perfectly intact and potent throughout the game, be it PzC or MC (barring stupid decisions to airstrike strong stacks containing multiple battalions and/or AA, suffering heavy losses going in). This is because that when a plane gets intercepted by either aircraft or AA/SAMs, it is merely expended and moved to the rear of the airstrike queue. There is no losses and gain in fatigue associated with an intercept. If there was a variable number of losses and/or a fatigue gain associated with being intercepted, you would likely see loss numbers closer to what you would expect based on historical records/recent experience and aircraft units would suffer a corresponding erosion of their effectiveness.

[jonnymacbrown]

The problem hinted at here is, that airpower remains almost perfectly intact and potent throughout the game... there is no losses and gain in fatigue associated with an intercept. If there was a variable number of losses and/or a fatigue gain associated with being intercepted, you would likely see loss numbers closer to what you would expect based on historical records/recent experience and aircraft units would suffer a corresponding erosion of their effectiveness.

Exactly my point. It seems like Luftwaffe bomber strength, Stuka & level, end the game at full strength. Thank you Mr. Dragoon!

[jonnymacbrown]

Where do you find 4000 planes for French air forces ...it's a joke ?
1000 SPAD XIII ?
850 Nieuport 17 ?:whis:
lol
my dear santa claus i'm a poor French air force marshal and i want many many planes...

Yes the sources seem to indicate 4000 planes or thereabouts. FMBaje indicates close to 2000 deployed against the Germans. Why weren't they all?

[Strela]

The good news is the system can adjust availability over time. There is a lot more flexibility in the air system than first meets the eye. You can make aircraft both available (reinforcements) or unavailable (withdrawal) as well as adjust the starting strengths. You can also look at the AA rating for ground units and make the environment much more unpleasant for air overall.

Finally, you can limit where air can bomb etc using the Low visibility air effects (reduced air availability) , indirect fire and air strikes by the map (prevents unsighted hexes to be attacked) and limited air recon (limits attacks based upon air recon).

Also finally remember that most scenario designers only included ground support / attack aircraft and recon. Fighter combat / raid interception is handled via the values in the parameter data file. Therefore to try and reconcile the numbers of available aircraft vs losses is a bit of mute point, as only a specific section of the air forces are modeled directly...

Personally, I believe the system is quite elegant and allows a clear representation of the air to ground support that is required in this kind of simulation. The modelling of overall air superiority is not required or done abstractly, as is the air portion of paradrops and air resupply.

David

[jonnymacbrown]

The good news is the system can adjust availability over time. There is a lot more flexibility in the air system than first meets the eye. You can make aircraft both available (reinforcements) or unavailable (withdrawal) as well as adjust the starting strengths. You can also look at the AA rating for ground units and make the environment much more unpleasant for air overall.

Finally, you can limit where air can bomb etc using the Low visibility air effects (reduced air availability) , indirect fire and air strikes by the map (prevents unsighted hexes to be attacked) and limited air recon (limits attacks based upon air recon).

Also finally remember that most scenario designers only included ground support / attack aircraft and recon. Fighter combat / raid interception is handled via the values in the parameter data file. Therefore to try and reconcile the numbers of available aircraft vs losses is a bit of mute point, as only a specific section of the air forces are modeled directly...

Personally, I believe the system is quite elegant and allows a clear representation of the air to ground support that is required in this kind of simulation. The modelling of overall air superiority is not required or done abstractly, as is the air portion of paradrops and air resupply.

David

David I think we all know we may edit the scenarios. That's not the point I think. We generally want the stock scenarios to be re-evaluated through discussion and feedback; since those scenarios are the ones we all play. What's more, it's practically impossible to get a large monster scenario like this passed through the H2H controls; as it requires 8 play-tests of a games that might last years to play. So re-designing the F 40 Campaign for play among the membership generally isn't going to happen unless you are a main guy. jonny

[Strela]

Jonny,

My response was directly in answer to JDR Dragoon's point (with your agreement) that air is usually unchanged during a game. It's obvious that the point has now changed to an expectation that all scenario design be of a sufficient high standard to satisfy all the grogs out there! (Joke!)

And at this point I will exit this conversation because as Rick says - What's the issue???