Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: dogfighting
Message-ID: <7588@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Jun 89 03:46:33 GMT
References: <7022@cbnews.ATT.COM> <7210@cbnews.ATT.COM> <7250@cbnews.ATT.COM> <7521@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 22
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)

> From: marsh@linus.UUCP (Ralph Marshall)
> 
> 	Another cause for the decline of the Luftwaffe was the sheer lack
> of planes.  Their military production was messed up during the war due
> to a variety of problems: Hitler expected a short war and thus didn't 
> concentrate on coming up with a second generation of planes to replace
> the Me109 until it was really too late (the FW 190 was only available after
> they had lost most of their aircraft factories and strategic materials)

Centralized war production took a major hait after the RAF's night and
USAAF's round-the-clock bombing wound up...so the Germans decentralized
their production facilities.  Aircraft production in 1943 was up from 
the previous year, and I think (somebody please verify!) 1944 was the
highest year for fighter production.  But they couldn't get enough fuel
to run everything.  Or ball bearings to build enough of almost everything.

The loss rate > production rate (especially in the east) was probably the
worst part, especially for morale.