|
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
JZG=Pedro...umm, what was that on page 2? I believe you were the first person to bring up what you percieved as a weakness..low speed handling. Go back and read it.
And my response was.....it wasn't much of a weakness. Performance was more important. Now THAT response stirred up some responders, and still is. C'mon. I was responding to....YOU in part. If you don't like my answer, fine, but I wasn't responding to the air, my friend. My favorite story on this is about one of my favorite A/C, the amazing Spitfire. Unable to outturn Zeroes over Surabaya, I think, or was it Darwin, they resorted to energy tactics. Stay fast, hit and run. Success followed. |
||||
|
And they didn't get back to France until after D-Day. After May 1944. After the LW was neutralized. After Operation Argument.
Give the Spitfire and Hurricane all the credit in the world for the BOB. Magnificent. Do the same for the long ranged escorts over Germany in early 1944. Difference is, only a select few planes could have pulled it off. The range thing. |
||||
|
 |
interesting slickun, but just so you know, my fathers squadron flying spit IX's was providing top and rear cover for B17's returning from Germany as well as also providing daylight cover for lancaster raids on the Villiers Bocage when the normandie battle was still not decided, also for your information spitfires were flying over berlin on an almost daily basis from the beginning of the war, just thought you should know, not tooting the spitfire horn here but trying to inform people that all a/c had thier roll in the ultimate defeat of the axis powers
BTW: who do you think neutralized the axis airforces?, surley not the P51 alone?  [This message was edited by Arms1 on Sun July 11 2004 at 08:10 PM.] |
|||
|
 |
quote: It may not speak "criticallity" of the Mustang's contribution, but it certainly doesn't speak against it either. Because it ignores the fact that a huge number of sorties weren't intended to seek and destroy enemy aircraft. They were not necessarily sorties against the Luftwaffe. And a huge portion of the total sorties weren't flown by fighters at all. Accepting your 40,000 figure for sorties flown from September to December 1943, USAAF records indicates fewer than half, 16,466, were flown by fighters in the ETO. Of that, 12,790 were bomber escort missions. The rest were fighter bomber/strafing mission, recon or "other." In January to May 1944 183,000 sorties were flown. 102,132 were flown by fighters. Of that, 71,197 were escort missions. The rest were fighter bomber/strafing missions, recon or "other." And it's important to remember that when you are drawing conclusions about the effect of the Mustang from statistics through May 1944, only five 8th AF fighter groups were equipped with the P-51 on May 1, 1944. On May 1, 1944, there were still four FGs equipped with the P-38, and six equipped with the P-47. BTW, in 1945, USAAF fighter escort sorties were actually outnumbered by fighter bomber/strafing missions. In 1945, the Luftwaffe lost more aircraft on the ground that it did in the air. quote: It wasn't a failure because it couldn't do the job. It didn't do the job because it wasn't used in that role. By and large, the British didn't have very many Mustangs prior to December 1943. quote: Unwise doctrine? You mean bombing the heartland of Germany by day without fighter escort? It may have been unwise, but it is what needed to be done. And it was the only way to do it up to the arrival of the Mustang. And the decision to do so was a joint decision with RAF BC. America by day - Britain by night. quote: The Spitfire didn't do that alone. American 8th and 9th AF fighters contributed to the achievement of air superiority prior to June 6. quote: No bombing campaign can lay claim to being the proximate cause of winning a war. But the USAAF bombing campaign can lay claim to being the principal event in destroying the Luftwaffe over Germany. The Mustang's claim to fame was being able to achieve air superiority over the heart-land of Germany itself - an absolutely essential achievement necessary to finishing the Luftwaffe. Unless, of course, we assume the Luftwaffe would have been finished off by overrunning their bases with ground troops, at much higher cost. quote: Maybe not ground support or troops, where airbases were right behind the front lines. But in that role, range is certainly no disadvantage, either. But if we are talking about fighter/bomber missions well ahead of the front lines, maybe a German aerodrome, range was critical. And I don't understand why the MustangÂ’s armament was inferior for strafing? It was capable of getting the job done. The plane carried a lot of ammo, and its many guns and high ROFs made hits on specific targets more likely. quote: The USAAF preferred the Spitfire because that was what was available - in 1943. The USAAF needed Mustangs for escort fighters, not recon planes. The Spitfire XI worked well in the ETO's cold, high altitudes, where the F-5 (P-38) recon planes had problems. Conversely, the Spitfire XI was troublesome at low altitude in warm weather (due to fuel system problems and vapor-lock) where the F-5 excelled. By April 1945, there was scarcely any recon Spitfires left in the USAAF, having been replaced by domestically produced planes. quote: But they weren't there in 1944 escorting and destroying the Luftwaffe over Germany. quote: No, CAPs usually didn't take that long. Escort missions sometimes took twice as long. And from mid-1944 on, the air-space over Germany was where the principal portion of the action was. quote: They had lots of bombers left. They were operating on the Eastern front, where most of the air-action was in 1942 and early 1943. quote: The 9th AF operated mainly from continental Europe after D-Day and was mainly a tactical air force - even when flying its heaviest medium bombers. I think he was referring to long range bomber missions. In that regard, I would agree with him. quote: The Jagdwaffe was defeated over Germany long before Germany was defeated. The principal tool in achieving that was the Mustang. quote: How many E wing Spits were there? And since there were no bombers left, it might be well to mention that there were no German fighters immune to the .50. The .50s fired faster than the 20mm Hispanos, and since it fired more projectiles in a given amount of time, it was easier to hit with. And a hit with a .50 is better than a miss with a 20mm. The Spitfire's roll rate with normal wings was better than the Mustang's up to about 250 mph IAS, steadily worse there after. Above 300 mph IAS, it was one of one of the worst of the mainstay Allied fighters. Additionally, the Spitfire's acceleration is regarded as poor - even given it power to weight ratio. And while it could achieve higher mach speeds (not necessarily higher true air speeds), it is also regarded as a poor diver, with no tactical advantage over any allied or axis mainstay fighter that I know of. quote: This may hold true if the effort against the "Luftwaffe" was truly quadrupled. It wasn't. The 40,000 sorties you mentioned earlier from September to December 1943 weren't all fighter missions targeting German aircraft. Significant portions were bombing missions by heavy and medium bombers, fighter/bomber missions, recon missions, or "other." As stated previously, the over-all effort of the USAAF's force quadrupled, but not necessarily against the Luftwaffe. quote: I don't think the bombing campaign was anymore necessary for overall victory than was the Battle of Britain. But it certainly helped. Local air superiority, or even air superiority over large portions of Europe could, and was, obtained without relation to the USAAFÂ’s strategic bombing campaign. But air superiority over Germany itself, the denial of free-action over home airspace, the destruction of aerodromes, repair facilities, and training bases, fighters, and their pilots - again, in and over Germany itself - was necessary to achieve victory against the Luftwaffe. This was principally a result of the USAAF's bombing campaign and its roving long-range Mustang fighters. The Spitfire, Thunderbolt and Lightning may have won air superiority over France in 1943 and early 1944. But it was the Mustang that won it over Germany in 1944 and 1945. And winning it over Germany was necessary to finally defeat the Luftwaffe as a credible force. If it weren't for the fact that Mustang achieved this when it did, the allies would have had to defeat the Luftwaffe by overrunning their bases with unthinkably higher cost. quote: It was essential. It allowed Germany no rest at all. quote: "Tends." More specifics would have been helpful. If the test tended to be at 270 mph IAS and lower, then I would tend to agree. quote: I don't have anything against the Spitfire. But let's not elevate it to some mythical level. It did something well, others not so well. Some people just tend to ascribe it such virtues that, if believed, would make one think it was the end-all-be-all plane that do eveything better than anything else. And donÂ’t count me among the people that think the Mustang was critical to winning the war. However, I do think it deserves credit as the plane that contributed the most to defeating the Luftwaffe over Germany. Regards,  |
|||
|
|
|
i agree 100% chimp, lets not elevate the 51 to mythical proportions either!
|
|||
|
|
|
Ooops, some of my responses and quotes got gooped together and I can't fix it. Just read carefully.
 Regards, |
|||
|
|
|
in july august 1944 rcaf 126 wing followed the allied advance closely, so much that stray bullets routinely flew by and through thier airfield, every officer and enlisted man was issued with a rifle in case of a counter attack and almost everyone slept with a slit trench nearby, my father squdron (401) at that time was flying armed recce's (search and destroy) during that time, this was mainly due to the fact that the 20mm that the spits were equiped with were very effective at destroying and disableing lightly armoured and even heavily armoured enemy transport (met), i,m sure the 50's were extremely effective as well but i doubt they had the destructive capabilities of the 20mm
|
|||
|
|
|
as an afterthought i must also say that according to his log book that on most occasions they were able to find and destroy enemy met and return to base within an hour and a half
|
|||
|
The air battles over Europe sorta grew with the introduction of each new plane deployed.
The Spit won control over England. The 4 engine bombers both night and day made the Luffwaffe change their fighters to bomber interceptors and weigh down with heavy guns. To attack unescorted bombers. P-47 and P-38 slowly gathered range to guard the bombers. Then the final agony was when a pure fighters (P-51)with a extended range engaged the bomber interceptors any where they please. The P-47 becomes a ground pounder. Gonna have to read up on the P-38 . Each plane type made way for the next. The luffwaffe was setup and lead by a leash to the slaughter house.By only reacting to each new combat problem it never saw what was coming over the hill. As to the range factor of the likes of the P-51. The Luffwaffe should have tried to do the same as I think it would have help in the defence. The limited range of its fighters hurt it though out the war. The plane I consider that shot down the Luffwaffe was the B-17. It paid the price but in a clumsy way did the job. |
||||
|
quote: This is what I've been trying to say about the Mustang as well I'm a big fan of the Mustang, it was a truly brilliant plane, but so was the Spitfire. It's perfectly fine to have either (or any plane) as your favourite of course, but to say either one was the absolute best or played a more important role than the other is nonsense. They were good for different reasons and different jobs. Neither should be elevated to a mythical level, and that is what I was trying to argue against all along.Many of you people seem to think that planes were only truly important or vital at the end of the war when the Luftwaffe was being defeated on its home ground. This is also nonsense. The P-51 may (and I say MAY) have helped more to defeat the Luftwaffe at the end, but the Spitfire prevented the defeat of the allies in europe at the beginning (and at the end if things had gone wrong). Not losing is as important as winning.  |
||||
|
quote: No, it's not historical fact that the Luftwaffe were "defeated" Jan - May 44, anymore that they were defeated During the BoB, or in NA, or Sicily, or over France in summer 1944. The Luftwaffe suffered a large number of defeats during WW2, not one "final" one in Spring 1944. quote: The KLuftwaffe did not "retreat" out of range. I find it hard to believe Hitler and Goering would let the Luftwaffe retreat from battle in early 1944 whilst the Nazi empire was being dismantled in the East and Italy, and was about to be dismantled in the West. The Luftwaffe concentrated their forces on the Reich, because that was the easiest and most cost effective way for them to fight. quote: Yes, I've seen several. They usually show the Spit V without a drop tank, or sometimes the Spit IX with a 30 gallon tank. Similarly, you usually see comparisons of the P-47 against Spit V, P-51D against Spit IX, etc. It's a natural tendency, because several US squadrons transitioned from Spit Vs to P-47s. The new US aircraft is compared to the old British aircraft. Someone posted a similar one on the Pacific Fighters forum last week, Eric Schilling comparing the P-40B to the Spit 1 and 109 E3, whereas it's a contemporary of the Spit V and 109 F. I've just seen the RAAF tests of the range of a Spit VIII. They reached up to 10 ampg at 20,000 ft with a 90 gallon drop tank attached. The Spit VIII in that configuration carries 213 gallons. You can do the maths yourself, Berlin is about 550 miles from Britain. (and that's without the rear fuselage tank that was fitted later in the production run). The RAF weren't in the business of long range escort in Europe. Spit VIIIs were sent mainly to the Far East, where range was more important to the RAF. quote: Who's talking about fighter sweeps? quote: Yes, granted. You also have to bomb targets the Germans need to defend. quote: At normal combat altitudes, the Mustang's roll rate was only average at cruising speed. At 25,000ft, the Mustang is outrolled at even it's fastest cruise by the Spit, let alone a more fuel efficient normal cruise. quote: A Spit would have to be going one hell of a lot faster than a Mustang for the 'stang to have a tighter turning radius. quote: Max Gs aren't equal. What's the 4G stall speed of the Mustang? Now trying pulling that from a cruise at 25,000 ft without getting into an accelerated stall. quote: Yes, frequently. The Spitfire was a poor ground attack aircraft. It didn't operate that well in poor enviroments, and it's undercarriage wasn't very good for a carrier fighter. quote: I took it to mean air war, even if you didn't say it (and you may well have). It's just that the Germans hadn't achieved stalemate in the air war. They were losing strength at well over sustainable strength throughout 1943. That's not stalemate, anymore than there was stalemate on the eastern front or battle of the Atlantic. quote: No, the Luftwaffe carried on haemorraging. Their lowest pilot losses were in November, at 10% of the fighter pilot strength, the rest of the second half of 43 they average 15% per month. That's not "rested". As a comparison, the RAF, which people claim was close to collapse in the BoB, lost around 5% of pilot strength per month. In 1943, the average strength of the JGs was 2105 pilots. In 1943, the JGs lost 2967 pilots. That's 141% of frontline strength. That's not "rested". quote: Full of rookies too. You can't lose 141% of front line strnegth in a year and have a force that isn't largely fresh out of (reduced) training. quote: So what was the instrument that enabled the Luftwaffe to lose an average of 15% per month in the previous year? At a time when the forces arrayed against the Luftwaffe were much smaller? Look at figures Skychimp gives. USAAF fighter sorties went up a massive amount, Luftwaffe casualties did not rise anything like in proportion. quote: Low speed handling isn't just what you get when you enter a sustained turnfight trying to lose speed and turn inside your oponent. Low speed handling is what you get at high altitude, or coming off the top of a loop or Immelman, or what you get towards the end of a zoom climb, or in the scissors. Low speed isn't something you can reliably avoid in a WW2 fighter. quote: Pulled what off? Enabled the 8th to bomb Berlin? Certainly. Brought the Luftwaffe to battle? No. The Luftwaffe were brought to battle numerous times, and defeated numerous times, before the Mustang came along. quote: Surely that makes my case even more? USAAF fighter sorties against the Luftwaffe in the second half of 43 were 16,466. Luftwaffe losses about 15% of strength per month. USAAF fighter sorties in the first quarter of 44, 102,132, Luftwaffe losses about 20% per month. Surely with the USAAF putting in 6 times the effort, the Luftwaffe should have been losing far more? quote: It's not just, or even mainly, the Mustang. It's Slick's argument that the P-51 destroyed the Luftwaffe in early 44, something that couldn't have been done without it. Truth is, the USAAF expanded greatly (so to a lesser extent did the RAF, and presumably the VVS as well). The Luftwaffe were attacked by more aircraft than they had been in the previous 6 months, and losses went up. To claim the losses went up only because of the change in tactics, and the P-51, whilst ignoring the much larger numbers, seems bizarre. To ignore the fact that Luftwaffe losses went up at a lower rate than allied effort against the Luftwaffe seems like denial. quote: The Allison P-51 would have been a poor fighter in the ETO, because of the altitudes involved. The same is true of the Typhoon, of course. The RAF didn't try to use it as fighter because of it's altitude limitations. I've forgotten the figures, but the Spit V would have been superior above 20,000 ft, iirc, And by mid 42 the Spit V was definately seen as outclassed at altitude in Europe. quote: The doctrine of unescorted daylight bombing was unwise, and proven not to work. The British and Germans had proven it didn't work in 1939 and 1940. The USAAF proved it again in 1943. quote: Doing something that weakens yourself more than it weakens the enemy isn't what needs to be done. It doesn't matter what you bomb if the damage done to your AF is greater than the damage done to the enemy. quote: It was, to all intents and purposes, stopped in late 1943. The men who tried were brave, no doubt. And it's easy to blame the commanders by saying the British and Germans had already proved it wouldn't work. Truth is, they thought with heavier armour and heavier armament they could do it, but the defenders simply adopted heavier armour and heavier armament, and still won. quote: BC made some efforts to get the Americans to bomb at night, instead. I suppose the painfull lessons of 1939 and 1940 carried more strength to the men who'd experienced them. As they say, it's a wise man who learns from other's mistakes. quote: Certainly not alone, and that's not what I was trying to imply. Slick's claim was that the Spit (and by extension ADGB, 2nd TAF, 9th AF and parts of the 8th AF) were of "limited usefullness". Tell that to the soldiers on the beaches who weren't counterattacked by large numbers of Panzer divisions because the Germans couldn't get them to the front due to the destruction of the transport links. quote: The only thing that "finished" the Luftwaffe was when their airfields were overrun. The Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses in 1943. In 1944, with much greater forces arrayed against them, they suffered higher losses. It's worthing noting Galland's comments at the end of April 44. "Between Jan and April our day fighter arm lost more than 1,000 pilots." More than 1000 in 4 months. The total for 1943, according to Williamson Murray, was nearly 3000, or just under 1000 every 4 months. quote: The Luftwaffe would have been "finished" by heavy air combat. Over France, Germany, doesn't make much difference. The Luftwaffe were "finished" over Italy by a much smaller force, without having to fight them over Germany. quote: Cruise speed is not "higher speed". quote: They were always too heavy at high speeds. Yet we have the AFDU report where they say the Spitfire's ailerons "tend to be better" than the Mustang's. quote: Certainly. But the speed advantage we are talking about is around 25 mph. That's about 12 yards a second. As an evasive, that's no use at all. 30 odd seconds to get out of range isn't something you want to rely on in combat. quote: Somebody posted a quote from a Jeff Ethel book here a few months ago, concerning a P-51 dive test against the Zeke. (And I think we can agree the Spit would have better dive characteristics than the Zeke). IIRC, after 27 seconds the Mustang was about 200 yards ahead. Given that acceleration due to gravity is a max of 10 m/s in a vertical dive with no drag, I can't see the Mustang having more than about 3 m/s at most as a dive acceleration advantage. That's going to take you more than 15 seconds to open enough seperation in a vertical dive from max speed. quote: Because a bullet does so much less damage than a cannon shell. And with the extent of German flak, more ammunition is not something you need. Most straffing consisted of a single pass. Coming round for a second when the light AA was alerted was tantamount to suicide. quote: Exactly. quote: As the Mustang wasn't destroying the German preperations for the invasion of France, or destroying V weapon sites in Holland and France. quote: They'd certainly learnt not to fly them over Western Europe in daytime in large numbers. quote: They were defeated over Britain before the Mustang first flew. There is no "point" during the war where the Luftwaffe was "finally" beaten, just a long series of defeats, and high attrittion reducing their effectiveness. That attrittion is true of every period of high losses the Luftwaffe suffered. It's not the case that the losses of 1943 were bearable, and the losses of the first half of 1944 not. The Luftwaffe declined in average quality throughout 1943 and 1944. As an example, I looked up the top 25 scorers in the Luftwaffe. I looked for those who died in the second half of 1943, and the first half of 1944. In the second half of 43, the Luftwaffe lost: Hans Philipp, 206 victories, shot down by a p-47 Oct 8th 1943 Max Stotz 189 victories August 19th 1943 (russian front?) Joachim Kirschner 188 victories shot down by Spitfires Croatia December 1943 Kurt Brandle 180 victores shot down by Spitfires October 1943 Netherlands That's 4 aces with 180+ victories each lost in the second half of 43 (2 by "limited usefullness" Spitfires) In the first half of 44, none of the Luftwaffe's top 25 aces was killed. It's too small a sample to be conclusive, of course, but it does illustrate there wasn't this magic period in 1944 where the Luftwaffe suddenly began to lose quality. quote: I think the E wing became fairly standard from the summer of 44 onwards, about the same time the P-51D became standard. quote: There was no fighter "immune" to 303s. (Not that I'm suggesting 303s were an adequate armament in 1944) The US Navy reckoned a 20 mm equal to 3 50 cals, and I'm not going to argue with them. quote: Regarded by whom? Acceleration is closely tied to climb rate (both are a function of excess power), and the Spit LF IX and XIV had climb rates that were only equalled by the 109. quote: Given your figures above, the fighter missions more than quadrupled. I don't see many other enemies the USAAF would be fighting against in Europe in 1944. quote: Why? Airfields needed to be destroyed, but if the battle was in France, those airfields would be in France and just over the border. The repair facilities would need to be in France too, because the transport links were so badly disrupted it would be easier to scrap a plane than send it back to Germany for repair. And that's even more true if the USAAF are bombing more in France. How many training bases were in fact destroyed in the first half of 44? I know the talk is of fighters loitering over every airfield, but that's something that you can only do when you have massive superiority in numbers. I suspect that's mainly true of the second half of 44, not the first. quote: Where is air superiority more crucial, behind the battlefield or over the battlefield? quote: No, they would have had to defeat them in air combat over France. Without the US startegic campaign in 1944, the Luftwaffe has 2 choices. Fight to defend it's airfields in France, along with army bases, ammo depots, bridges, fortifications etc, or hide in Germany. I suspect Hitler wouldn't have let it hide in Germany, and that the Luftwaffe wouldn't have wanted to anyway. That means they get defeated over France. The alternative is they hide in Germany and deploy to France when the invasion begins. Alfred Price has a good bit in "The last year of the Luftwaffe" about just what happened to the Luftwaffe units deploying to their airfields in France after D Day. They were innefective. As an example, II/JG 1. They relocated to Le Mans. They flew some patrol, and mounted a fighter bombing sorties against shipping, all with no results. Their airfield was bombed by Lancasters, and all aircraft grounded for 6 days. Then they changed airfields. Then they were attacked by Mustangs, and 15 Fw 190s destroyed on the ground. In all that time, they had 0 impact on the battle. As Price says: quote: quote: Do you think, when summing up, the pilots of the AFDU would look only at one narrow part of the flight envelope? If they did look purely at low speed, then the Spit wouldn't "tend" to be better, it would be clearly superior. The fact that it only "tends" to be better indicates they were taking a range of speeds. Given the way the AFDU tested, that's probably a simple assesment of "normal" combat speeds. If the Spit was better over more of the speed range than the Mustang, then the Spit would "tend" to be better. quote: I have no problem with that, as long a you put the "over Germany" bit on the end  |
||||
|
 |
The thread that wont die!
 Britwhiner No.1 |
|||
|
Here is a interesting chart on US planes
 From Anreican Combat Planes |
||||
|