Talk:Luftwaffe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Luftwaffe article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	Luftwaffe is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal

Perhaps instead of "This chain extended from North-Norway all the way through Europe along the Iron Curtain ending in East-Turkey." it would be more accurate to state :

" This chain extended from northern Norway all the way through Europe, along the Iron Curtain into Asia, ending in eastern Turkey."

The original version might be mis-read to imply that eastern Turkey is in Europe.

Contents 1 ============================= 2 Soviet aircrafts in German airforce 3 Question 4 Topics of this article 5 Other Luftwaffes 6 Correction 7 Credit due 8 Luftwaffe Luftflotten and your diverse locations 1939-45 9 Guernica, 1939-1940 10 Language and Imperial Air Force 11 Split WWII section 12 What is the Lufttransportgeschwader 13 About the Deutsche Luftwaffe 14 Two Bundeswehr templates

[edit] =============================

Luftwaffe is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Military aviation task force German military history task force World War II task force

An event in this article is a February 26 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

---

[edit] Soviet aircrafts in German airforce

The last Soviet MiGs were retired in II/2004.

That is correct. All 23 surviving MiG-29 have been sold (at the symbolic price of € 1) to Poland where they now serve in the Polish Airforce. The fighter wing "Steinhoff" in Laage has since switched to Eurofighter Typhoons.

Wrong, 29+13 still remains at airbase Laage as an exhibition feature. One MiG29 was lost (29+06) makes 22 MiGs (4 trainer 18 single seater) that were sold to Poland, not 23 !

[edit] Question

Why would Germany, who keeps attempting to distance himself from her actions during World War II, would keep the same name for her airforce? Is their version of the boyscouts still called Hitler Youth?

Because "Luftwaffe" ("air weapon") is no special name for the German Airforce. It simply IS the german word for "airforce"! (well, the exact translation would be "Luftmacht", like the Royal Netherlands Airforce "Luchtmacht", but that would sound strange in german)

Because that's what it is called. The army is the Heer and has always been the Heer. The Navy is the Marine and has always been the Marine. So there is no need to change that. The Armed forces as such are called Bundeswehr like in Reichswehr and not Wehrmacht. That is enough distance 82.83.24.192

As this is the English Wikipedia, shouldn't the name of the article be German Air Force? Surely we cannot have articles using the "indigenous" names for institutions as that would lead to mass confusion ... Elf-friend 07:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good lord, no. Even plebes know who the Luftwaffe is. -Joseph (Talk) 14:54, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Indeed no. This article should stay at Luftwaffe. Note that a redirect German Air Force exists. And most certainly it shouldn't be at Luftwaffe (German military aviation)! Lupo 14:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you guys please stop it? It's obvious that if you don't know how redirects work, perhaps you shouldn't be moving pages around. In addition, I continue to vehemently oppose any name for this article other than "Luftwaffe." It is the most common name, is instantly associable, and is unambiguous. This is a polite request to cease and desist. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:09, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

OK, point taken! Luftwaffe it is! Christopher Crossley 01:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talking of "polite requests to cease and desist", here is mine: please cease and desist from making unhelpful comments within the body of the article itself about what organisation(s) the term "Luftwaffe" has been applied to. Maybe Lufthansa HAS laughingly been referred to as the "Luftwaffe" (by whom, exactly?) and I don't mind a good joke, but please write them HERE and not in the article - OK? LOL Christopher Crossley 16:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talking of Luftwaffe usage, shouldn't the WW1 page(s) correctly use Luftstreitkräfte? Or am I nitpicking? Trekphiler 22:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Topics of this article

IMO the article should concentrate more on the Luftwaffe of today and not SO MUCH on the history of the Luftwaffe. Some things of the Luftwaffe's history should be moved to "History of the Luftwaffe", because it's more important what the Luftwaffe today is than what good ol' Luftwaffe was in WWI/II. Deutschger

I've heard that the Luftwaffe even had some naval vessels. Can anybody confirm this?

No, but the German navy has some aircraft - 217.237.149.163 15:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In WWII, the Luftwaffe had its own ships for weather observation. Christian Rödel

The GDR Air Force has never flown the Soviet Sukhoi Su-7 jet fighter. It had only some Su-22 Jet Bommber, beginning in 1984.

[edit] Other Luftwaffes

I didn't realize this, but there are other German-speaking countries that have an air force called the luftwaffe (e.g. Swiss Air Force). Shouldn't some mention of this be made in the intro? -Lommer | ^talk 05:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. As stated in the above section "Question", Luftwaffe is just the generic term for air force in German. You could easily and correctly reference the US air force in German as the amerikanische Luftwaffe, although this is rarely done (instead die Airforce is more often used). In Switzerland the air force is indeed called the Schweizer Luftwaffe, whereas in Austria the air force is called Österreichische Luftstreitkräfte. And Liechtenstein doesn't have an air force, as far as I know :-) ... MikeZ 07:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction

The article said this:

"However, the fact that the English Channel was between occupied France and Norway (since Luftflotte (Air Fleet) V under Generaloberst Hugo Sperrle operated from Norway) did as much to save the UK from invasion as the unexpectedly fierce resistance from the squadrons consisting of pilots of many nationalities, not just British.

"Ultimately, the inability of the Luftwaffe to control the skies in what became world famous as the Battle of Britain (so-called after Winston Churchill made a radio broadcast announcing the end of the campaign in France) formed a key point in the war. Ostensibly, Hitler's decision to shift the focus of operations to bombing industrial targets in cities instead of British airfields was a tactical mistake. German air power, which suffered increasingly from a shortage of aviation fuels, raw materials (especially aluminium) for the construction of aircraft and frequently flawed leadership by Göring (who managed to deflect blame onto others like Udet), diminished further with the entry of the United States into the conflict in December 1941.

"Unlike the Germans, the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF), under the command of General Henry H. Arnold, developed a strategic bomber force. The USAAF bombers , along with fighters such as the P-51 when fitted with drop tanks, were capable of very deep penetration into Reich territory and maintained daylight bombing of industrial targets, while their RAF colleagues continued with the offensive by conducting night operations."

The loc of the Channel had damn all to do with Ger defeat in the Battle. "Ostensibly"? The shift saved FC, & HCTD knew it; 2 more wks, FC'd be finished. Between Göring, Hitler, & incompetent intel, it's a wonder the Battle lasted as long as it did. And the Ger shortages? RAF BC was so incapable of hitting precision targs, crippling Ger elec pow ind was impossible until 1944, when the 1941 tonnage could've done the job, if applied correctly. Instead, Harris, Portal, & Churchill, & Spaatz, Eaker, Marshall, & FDR (yes, they all take a share of blame) threw 50000 Empire & about 50000 American aircrewmen at German cities, for nothing. Castigate Haig for Verdun? Castigate them; it was no different. LR escort Fs should have been in service in 1939, & intel from China, or Britain, should have made the need crystal clear; USAAC wrecked the P-38 prototype on a stupid publicity stunt flight & set the program back 2yr, denying Br & US her benefits. Attacking cities was stupid; there was slim chance of "breaking morale". Bombers lacked the precision to hit factories, & prewar trials should have developed techniques & technologies to make it possible; faulty USAAF training in near-perfect conditions led to fantastical expectations of accuracy over Germany. Bomber Command's faith in their navigators was no less fantastical, & its falsity should also have been revealed prewar. So? B-26s or Mossies with guided bombs in 1940, able to hit powerstations & bring Ger war production to a halt? Why not? Trekphiler 20:26 & Trekphiler 21:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

why not guided bombs in 1940? umm...maybe because the technology used in guided bombs hadn't been created yet? or it was so rudimentary that it wouldn't have been usable, i.e., room sized computers don't so well fit inside a 500lb bomb. 69.133.157.123 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Credit due

Can someone confirm Bär's score as a jet ace, & include it here? I've seen 16, but I'm uncertain (& maybe confused with McConnell). Trekphiler 22:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

His 16 aerial victories acquired while he flew the Me 262A place him as the 2nd ranking jet ace of WWII (behind only the legendary Kurt Welter). Detmold 19:35 24th April 2006

[edit] Luftwaffe Luftflotten and your diverse locations 1939-45

hi -- can someone take a look at this article and at least come up with a new name for it? As I said on its talk page, with no response, it appears to have come through a computer translation. My locations in 1939-45 are not in question. I'm not sure how best to translate "luftflotten"; perhaps Luftwaffe wing positions during World War II would be more appropriate? thanks. bikeable (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The literal translation for "Luftflotte / Luftflotten" is "Air Fleet / Fleets" the Allied equivalent in WWII was "Air Force" (like in 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force or 8th US Air Force). However, an article about Luftflotten locations doesn't seem to make a lot of sense; the information about Organization of the Luftwaffe in WWII should either be integrated into "History of the Luftwaffe", or you undertake the work of tracking each and every individual wing and squadron ("Geschwader" and "Staffel", btw), which seems a little bit over the top for Wikipedia purposes.

I have moved this article to German Air Fleets in World War II and intend to convert it to the table scheme, allowing a lot more information to be presented, in an effort to make it more useful. Andreas 08:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guernica, 1939-1940

Why so much about Guernica and so few about 1939-1940? There happened something before the BoB. Xx236 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language and Imperial Air Force

I am (as a native German speaker) somewhat unhappy with the "literal" translation of German terms, as they seem to sound rather clumsy in English, and do ignore existing closely related English equivalents. "Luftwaffe", imho, should be translated as "Air Arm" (as in Fleet Air Arm), while "Streitkräfte" is the equivalent of "Armed Forces" in every context. So "Luftstreitkräfte" ar the armed forces of the air. The artificial constructs "air weapon" and "air fighting forces" don't make too much sense.

This leads to a second point. As far as I know, an organisation called "Kaiserliche Luftstreitkräfte" did not exist. Like in most countries, the first air units were integrated into the existing organizations of Army and Navy. The squadrons that were part of the Army were referred to as "Fliegertruppe" ("Flyers' Corps", if you must, akin to RFC). Manfred von Richthofen, e.g., started the war as Cavalry officer and retained his rank of "Rittmeister" (cavalry captain) after being transferred to a newly formed warplane squadron. chlange001 20:12 CET, 12/01/06

Found some more: "Kampfgruppe" should perhaps be "Combat Group" as "Kampf" means "fight" or "combat", and "Fighter" designates an entirely different concept in English, "Hunt / hunter" sounds very awkward for "Jagd / Jäger" in this context - the contemporary English/American equivalent was "Pursuit", as "P" in P-51. The Air Force of the GDR was not simply named "Luftstreitkräfte", but "Luftstreitkräfte / Luftverteidigung der NVA".

[edit] Split WWII section

I split the World War II section into History of the Luftwaffe during World War II, since it was big enough to warrent an article of its own.--Kross^Talk 21:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but even my limited knowledge is enough to know that the section "Luftwaffe in WWII" is incredibly POV towards a particular interpretation of the Battle of Britain and even more of the bombing campaign against Germany. Phrases such as "faulty strategy" and even more "futile" and comparing Arthur Harris and the senior commanders of Bomber Command to General Hague in 1916 are extreme expression of a particular POV on this issue. I'm aware that some reputable historians and air warfare experts hold these views, but so equally others disagree. This section should either confine itself to a simple summary of the history (what actually happened, with a minimum of analysis and interpretation) or give both sides of the debate. I am not an expert in this period, so i will not attempt it myself- but it needs doing! Ian, 02.25.06

Yes, this section is amongst the most unbelievably POV pieces of writing I have seen on wiki for a long time. It needs deleting completely and starting again from scratch. Whoever wrote it clearly has no understanding whatsover of what an encyclopaedia is supposed to be. If this is indicative of the article at the time of nomination, then I am in no way surprised that the FAC failed. Appalling. Badgerpatrol 15:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Added neutrality and verifiability tags. Material must be a) balanced; b) directly referenced. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a soapbox. Badgerpatrol 23:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the fashionable trend of slapping {{npov}} on articles where a single editor or a small group of editors disagrees with the content. Let's retain some perspective here and not use that tag on the whole article, since some of you are calling into question a single section. I think this tagging should have been more thoroughly vetted in the first place. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 23:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Forklifted from User talk:N328KF, since it really belongs here:

I noticed your comments on the Luftwaffe talk page- are you suggesting that the tag was not merited at all (I think this tagging should have been more thoroughly vetted in the first place.), or merely that the tag was not merited for the entire article? If the latter, you are right- the reason I placed a tag at the top was because a) the outrageous POV in the WWII section potentially compromises the whole page (it is, I suspect, far and away the key part of the story in most people's estimations); b) to ensure that it is noticed on the day the article was linked from the main page. I considered placing the tag at the section in question myself, and I expected someone to move it quickly anyway- but if you are seriously suggesting (your comment is somewhat ambiguous) that you can't see POV in the WWII section then I am absolutely flabbergasted. Anyway, I have no objection to moving the tags. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 00:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the tag was not merited. I am suggesting that I don't believe that most of the article is biased, and yet the entire article was tagged as such. Also, people have been npov-tag-happy as of late. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the NPOV tag on the WWII section is entirely justified! The rest of the article seems (to my limited knowledge) ok, but this section seriously needs balance or simplification! As i said, I don't feel qualified to do so myself, but if there is no alteration soon i will have a go, as leaving as it is should not, IMHO, be an option. Ian, 03.02.06

I removed the POV from the WW II section, after replacing the IMO unacceptable info there with the intro I have written for the split Luftwaffe in WW II page. I have also completely rewritten the split page, added sources, and hopefully neutralised it to a degree to become acceptable. Comments welcome. Andreas 18:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Luftwaffe in WWII" article is very good! Thankyou. Personally, I feel you should maybe have slightly more info on this period in the main article- but i don't know what wikipedia policy on this kind of thing- duplication etc- is. Thanks for your work- this article is much better now. Ian, 03.12.06

Thanks for the compliments, it was a lot of work, but I learned a lot myself while doing it. Personally I would rather like to see less duplication, since it makes it tricky to keep things up to date on pages where the duplicated info is. But as you I am not sure what Wiki policy is. Andreas 13:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the Lufttransportgeschwader

Hello.

Do you know, what Lufttransportgeschwader is?

And i haven't seen anything about the eurofighter, the Tiger(UHU) or the NH-90.

LTG = Air transport wing --Denniss 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Luftwaffentransportgeschwader translates to: (German) Air Force Transport Squadron, thus its meaning should be clear.

[edit] About the Deutsche Luftwaffe

Why does the German Luftwaffe have "Dutch" in it?

Deutsche = German, not Dutch --Denniss 12:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Bundeswehr templates

There are two Bundeswehr templates, the one at the intro and one at the foot of the page. I'm not sure which, but I think one of the templates should go. Mark83 00:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)