PDA

View Full Version : P-51 Mustang: Myths and Realities



XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 08:58 AM
Salute All

Well, we will be getting the P-51 in this patch. And as events have shown, no doubt it will be controversial.

There is a lot of the American air fighting psyche wrapped up with the image of the P-51, those, shining silver arrows with the checkerboard tails so elegant and yet so deadly.

The facts as to combat effectiveness are there. In Europe, 4950 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air, 4131 destroyed on the ground, for a loss of only 2520 Mustangs, a better numbers totals than any other US aircraft, and an extremely good combat record. Against any of the German aircraft of WWII, the Mustang has at least a 2-1 kill record, against most, much higher. Against the Japanese aircraft, the Mustangs have an even better record.

Yet there are many myths and misunderstandings wrapped around the Mustang, confusion in the public mind as to exactly how it was this plane was so effective.

Myths and Misunderstandings

1) "The Mustang was the fastest aircraft in the air"

At its rated altitude, the Mustang B had a maximum speed of 441mph. For December of 1943, that makes the B model the fastest aircraft in operation in Europe when compared to the 405mph 109G6, 418mph 190A5 and 396mph La-5FN.

The P-51D model would also be the fastest operational prop plane at altitude when it is introduced in the Spring of '44 with a top speed of 437mph. At higher altitudes it is better than the 431 mph of the G6AS, the 426 mph of the 190D9 without MW-50, and the 410 mph of the La-7. It was much better than the Spitfire IX LF with its top speed of 407 mph., and the 190A8 with its top speed of 408 mph.

At sea level the P-51's advantages were less.

At sea level the B model was rated at 355 mph. That compares to 336 mph for the G6, 356 mph for the 190A5, and 357 mph of the La-5FN.

At sea level, the P-51D at +18 boost was rated at 367mph. (362mph for the early D) That compares to 363 mph for the 109G6AS, 380mph for the La-7. It was superior to the 362 mph of the FW190D9 without MW-50. The Spitfire IX LF was slower at approximately 336 mph as well as the 190A8 at approx. 355 mph.

Against 1945 aircraft, the P-51D began to fall behind at higher altitudes when compared to the 452 mph of the 109K4 and the 440 mph of the FW190D9 with MW-50 with both aircraft. At low altitudes the 190D9 had significant advantages in speed at 378mph, with the K4 being almost identical to the P-51.

Conclusion:

It is clear that the Mustang had advantages of speed at higher altitudes in late 1943 and early 1944 when the crucial periods of combat in the ETO occurred. But the advantages were not there as much at lower altitudes, and by 1945 it was falling behind to some German aircraft. Of course, by 1945, the Luftwaffe was hopelessly outnumbered.

So it seems that the Mustang's reputation for having superior speed is only partly true, but it is true for the periods when combat was the most intense.


2) "The Mustang had a great climb"

Level Climb

An examination of tests of climbrates for the P-51B show a maximum initial climbrate of 3200 ft per minute at Sea Level. (all tests at full fuel) This is not very good. It compares for example, to 4200 ft/min for the 190A5

The P-51D shows a maximum initial climbrate of approx. 3450 ft per minute. For a mid 1944 aircraft that is poor to mediocre. For example a mid 1944 Spitfire Mk IX LF had a climbrate in the area of 4700 ft per minute. A 109G10 had a climbrate of approx. 4600 ft per minute, a FW190D9 a rate of approximately 4200 ft per minute, a La-7 a rate of around 4400 ft per minute. Only against the 190A8 with its climbrate of 3400 ft per minute does it seem competitive. When the Mustang D is compared to 1945 aircraft, it comes off even worse.

There is no doubt that the Mustang's reputation for having a great climb is a myth. However, when the subject is ZOOM climb, the answer is different. More on this later.

3) The Mustang had great acceleration.

Level Flight Acceleration

Level acceleration can generally be approximated by looking at the powerloading of an aircraft, which is the normal loaded weight of an aircraft, compared to its engine's maximum horsepower. Acceleration is also significantly affected by the overall drag of an aircraft's airframe. (more later on that issue) A look at the powerloading of the Mustang when when fully loaded as compared to other aircraft of the same era indicates that it lags significantly behind. Fully loaded, with maximum fuel, combat weight of a P-51B is combat weight of a P-51D is 10,208 lbs. Maximum hp is 1720. That translates into a powerloading of 5.93 lbs per horsepower. A 109G10 with 1800 hp and a weight of approximately 7400 lbs, has a powerloading of approximately 4.1 lbs per horsepower. A Spitfire IX LF with a weight of 7400 lbs and a horsepower output of 1720 lbs has powerloading of 4.3 lbs per hp. A La-7 with a weight of approx. 7300 lbs and a horsepower output of 1700 has a powerloading of approx. 4.3 lbs per hp. The FW190A8 and D9 did not have as much of an advantage in raw powerloading, but were slightly superior.

It seems clear that in LEVEL flight, the Mustang's reputation for great acceleration is a myth.

4) The Mustang was a great Dogfighter.

A conventional view of a dogfight has fighter aircraft in tighter and tighter turns, chasing each others tails. How would the Mustang do in that type of combat?

First of all, an aircraft's ability to turn tightly is related to three main things: Wingloading, Wing Design and Powerloading. Low wingloading, and wing designs which generate more lift at high angles of attack give aircraft better ability to turn tightly. An aircraft's ability to sustain it maximum tight turn is related to its acceleration and powerloading. A sustained turn will inevitably lead to a stall, unless an aircraft's engine can generate enough acceleration to overcome the induced drag of placing the wings at an angle to the airstream. Higher powerloading will allow for sustained high Angle of Attack turns.

We seem to have determined that the Mustang has relatively poor Acceleration, which suggests its ability to sustain its maximum turnrate would be questionable.

How is its wingloading?

At fully loaded weight of 10,208 lbs on a wing area of 233 Sq/ft, a Mustang has a wingloading of 43.8 lbs per Sq/ft. That compares very poorly to a Spitfire IX LF with a weight of 7400 lbs and a wing area of 242 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 30.6 lbs per Sq/ft. It's similar to a 109G10 with a wing area of 172 Sq/ft and a weight of 7400 lbs for a wing loading of 43 lbs per Sq/ft. It is inferior to the La-7 with a wing area of 189 Sq/ft and a weight of 7300 lbs for a wingloading of 38.6 lbs per Sq/ft. It is superior to the 190A8 with a weight of 9750 lbs on a wing area of 197 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 49.5 lbs per Sq/ft. It is superior to the 190D9 which has a weight of 9480 lbs on a wing area of 197 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 48.1 lbs per Sq/ft.

How about Wing Design?

The P-51D is unique in the listed aircraft in having a Laminar flow aerofoil as its chosen wing shape. The laminar flow design allows for low drag when air is travelling across the wings at high transonic speeds, but additionally, this wing design shape also produces reduced lift at high angles of attack. Ie. when a Mustang pilot pulls very tight turns at low speeds and high angles of attack, his wings generate lower lift than a conventional aerofoil.

On the basis of the above, one would have to conclude that a fully loaded Mustang would be a mediocre classic dogfighter. Against an aircraft like the Spitfire or La-7, or even a 109G10, (due to the G10's much better acceleration) it would not have much of a chance in a classic low speed turnfight. Against a 190A8 or 190D9 it should be superior.

Overall Conclusions?

On the basis of an objective examination of the technical stats of the Mustang, and its competitors, one would begin to wonder why the Mustang did so well. It seems like a very mediocre aircraft.

However, a little deeper examination and the misunderstandings about the quality of this aircraft come into focus.

And its advantages and superiorities come to the fore.

To understand the Mustang, you have to first understand its design goals and designated role. Ie. a long range escort Fighter.

Range and Fuel Load

If we look at the Mustang's range, we get our first clue as to the misunderstandings. The P-51D had a maximum range of approximately 1250 miles on internal fuel. That gave it a combat radius of 450 miles without drop tanks. (including climb to altitude, flight to and back from target, 10 minutes at combat power) When compared to other aircraft of the era, we see an incredible advantage. The 109G10 had a combat radius of approximately 130 miles. The Spitfire IX LF had a radius of 125 miles, the 190A8 had a radius of approximately 165 miles and the 190D9 had a radius of 175 miles. (all without drop tanks) The La-7 had a similar radius to the 109's.

The P-51's airframe had every spare space filled with fuel tanks. One of the last elements added prior to the Merlin version beng standardized was an 85 gallon tank behind the pilot's seat. This tank when filled caused a dramatic shift in the aircraft's centre of gravity, such that if a pilot pulled a turn over 3G's with the tank full, the possibility of airframe damage was considerable. For that reason, the tank was only filled on long range missions. And orders were specifically penned by the 8th Air Force Commanders that the fuel in the tank was to be burned off before any other fuel, before even fuel in drop tanks. Once the fuel in the tank was below 45 gallons, the aircraft's centre of gravity returned to normal. Most pilots emptied this tank completely first then started on their drop tanks. That meant that the Mustang went into combat with the behind seat tank empty. In essence it meant the aircraft's maximum combat weight was actually 510 lbs, (85 gallons) less than the 10,208 lb fully loaded figure. Ie. maximum combat weight was actually 9698 lbs. Which meant that wingloading was actually 41.6 lbs per Sq/ft.

The Mustang carried 269 gallons of internal fuel. That compares to 106 gallons for the 109G10, or 170 gallons for the 190A8, or 138 gallons for the 190D9, or 102 gallons for the Spitfire IX.

As the P-51D carried more fuel, it could fly longer, and burn more, as it burned its larger fuel load, its wingloading improved proportionately more than its opponents.

At 50 % fuel remaining, the P-51D had a wingloading of 40.34 lbs per Sq/ft. It still had a radius of 225 miles.

At 50% fuel remaining, the 109G10 had a wingloading of 41.27 lbs per Sq/ft. It had a radius of 65 miles.

At 50% fuel remaining, the 190D9 had a wingloading of 46.3 lbs per Sq/ft, and a radius of 87.5 miles.

At 50% fuel remaining, the 190A8 had a wingloading of 47.0 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 82.5 miles.


At 25% fuel remaining, the P-51D had a wingloading of 38.6 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 112.5 miles. Notice that the P-51's radius with 25% fuel is nearly as good as the G10 at full fuel load.

At 25% fuel remaining, the 109G10 had a wingloading of 40.4 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 32.5 miles.

At 25% fuel remaining, the 190A8 had a wingloading of 45.8 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 40.1 miles.

At 25% fuel remaining, the 190D9 had a wingloading of 45 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 43.7 miles.


At 25%fuel the German fighters better be returning to base, but the P-51 can still fly for a considerable distance.


Powerloading

The same would apply to powerloading for the Mustang at lower fuel loads.

At full fuel load, the Mustang as mentioned above, had a powerloading of 5.93 lbs per hp. At 25% fuel it improves to 5.2 lbs per hp, still not as good as the 109's but proportionately a better improvement.


What this all tells us, is that while the Mustang wasn't a very good dogfighter when fully loaded, when it was at a lower fuel load, it would get considerably more nimble.


Combat Flaps

Most aircraft of the WWII era could not deploy flaps over approximately 300 mph, or 480 kph. This applied for the 190's, 109's, Spitfires, Yaks, etc. If flaps were deployed at higher than those speeds, they would be damaged. What this meant was that during high speed maneuvers, an aircraft which could successfully deploy flaps, would have a considerable advantage.

The P-51 had a flap setting mechanism which allowed it to drop flaps up to speeds of 425 mph without damage. At very high speeds, only 5 degrees of flaps were used.

A pilot could drop the flaps momentarily, gain a brief advantage in turnrate to achieve a gun solution, and then retract them again to regain speed.

Combat flaps allowed the Mustang to outturn aircraft at high speed which it could not stay with at lower speeds.


Rollrate

The P-51 had a slightly above average rollrate at low and medium speeds, peaking at 94 degrees per second at 310 mph Indicated Airspeed. That does not come close to the 190A, the acknowledged King at low and medium speeds with a maximum rollrate of 165 degrees per second at 250 mph. But the big advantage the Mustang had, was the fact its rollrate was sustained at high speeds. The Mustang still rolled at 85 degrees per second at 400 mph IAS. That compared to the FW190A, which had its rollrate drop off to 70 degrees per second at 400 mph IAS. When compared to other opposition aircraft, the Mustang's advantage at high speed was even more pronounced.


Aerodynamics

But perhaps the largest single design advantage that the P-51 had was its fuselage and wing shape.

The P-51 used flush rivets, which did not protrude over the surface of the aluminum which covered the wings. This reduced drag considerably.

The radiator intake on the P-51 was set back, behind the wing, on the underside of the fuselage. This avoided affecting most of the airflow over the frame. In addition, The P-51 design used a boundary layer gutter that separated the cooling air intake from the fuselage, preventing the intake from ingesting the boundary layer (the layer of turbulent air close to the skin of the plane) This reduced drag even more. In fact, when the radiator was opened at higher temperatures, the flow of hot air out the back acted as a addition to the thrust of the aircraft, and a net gain in speed of approximately 10 mph was seen.

The P-51 also used a Laminar flow aerofoil design on its wings.

http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/history/airfoils.jpg


Due the wing design with its intention of creating lift, airflow over wing surfaces moves at a high speed than the speed the aircraft is actually travelling. Speeds over the wing surfaces reach high transonic speeds at times, even when the aircraft is travelling much slower. A laminar flow aerofoil reduced the formation of turbulent airflow, which greatly increased drag.

http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/history/lamdiag.jpg


On aircraft with ordinary wings, as speed increases, drag increases expodentially. Laminar flow wings do not suffer as much of a penalty. Which meant that the P-51 bled speed much more slowly than other aircraft at high speeds.

The faster the speeds at which the P-51 met other aircraft in combat, the bigger its aerodynamic advantage. Low G turns at high speeds, zoom climbs, in all these the P-51 excelled.

The P-51 had a drag coefficient of .0176. This compares to the 190A8 and 190D, the most aerodyamically efficient aircraft in large scale production on the German side, which had a drag coefficient respectively of .0278 for the 190A8 and .0242 for the 190D9. On a wing area of 233 Sq/ft that gives the Mustang an equivalent flat plate area of 4.10 sq/ft compared to 5.22 Sq/ft for the A8 and 4.78 Sq/ft for the D9 on a wing area for both 190's of 196.98 Sq/ft. This means the Mustang is aerodynamically 22% more efficient than the A8 and 15% more efficient than the D9.

This aerodynamic advantage was most noticeable in situations where aircraft were travelling at over their maximum level speeds. At those speeds, normal acceleration and powerloading is no longer effective in propelling the aircraft to go faster, and a major factor governing how an aircraft accelerates in a dive, or how long an aircraft retains speed in a zoom climb is the cleanliness of its airframe.

In these areas, the P-51 is the superior aircraft.


Overall

An overall analysis of the P-51 Mustang reveals an aircraft which, although it doesn't have a very good climb or low speed acceleration, and which does not excell in low speed high angle of attack turnfighting, has excellent speed through the altitude range and should excell in high speed maneuvers, dives and zoom climbs.

This is what hopefully, we should see in FORGOTTEN BATTLES.


Sources are too numerous to post here, but include the books such as "America's Hundred Thousand", test data from NACA and AFDU, as well as original German sources.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 08:58 AM
Salute All

Well, we will be getting the P-51 in this patch. And as events have shown, no doubt it will be controversial.

There is a lot of the American air fighting psyche wrapped up with the image of the P-51, those, shining silver arrows with the checkerboard tails so elegant and yet so deadly.

The facts as to combat effectiveness are there. In Europe, 4950 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air, 4131 destroyed on the ground, for a loss of only 2520 Mustangs, a better numbers totals than any other US aircraft, and an extremely good combat record. Against any of the German aircraft of WWII, the Mustang has at least a 2-1 kill record, against most, much higher. Against the Japanese aircraft, the Mustangs have an even better record.

Yet there are many myths and misunderstandings wrapped around the Mustang, confusion in the public mind as to exactly how it was this plane was so effective.

Myths and Misunderstandings

1) "The Mustang was the fastest aircraft in the air"

At its rated altitude, the Mustang B had a maximum speed of 441mph. For December of 1943, that makes the B model the fastest aircraft in operation in Europe when compared to the 405mph 109G6, 418mph 190A5 and 396mph La-5FN.

The P-51D model would also be the fastest operational prop plane at altitude when it is introduced in the Spring of '44 with a top speed of 437mph. At higher altitudes it is better than the 431 mph of the G6AS, the 426 mph of the 190D9 without MW-50, and the 410 mph of the La-7. It was much better than the Spitfire IX LF with its top speed of 407 mph., and the 190A8 with its top speed of 408 mph.

At sea level the P-51's advantages were less.

At sea level the B model was rated at 355 mph. That compares to 336 mph for the G6, 356 mph for the 190A5, and 357 mph of the La-5FN.

At sea level, the P-51D at +18 boost was rated at 367mph. (362mph for the early D) That compares to 363 mph for the 109G6AS, 380mph for the La-7. It was superior to the 362 mph of the FW190D9 without MW-50. The Spitfire IX LF was slower at approximately 336 mph as well as the 190A8 at approx. 355 mph.

Against 1945 aircraft, the P-51D began to fall behind at higher altitudes when compared to the 452 mph of the 109K4 and the 440 mph of the FW190D9 with MW-50 with both aircraft. At low altitudes the 190D9 had significant advantages in speed at 378mph, with the K4 being almost identical to the P-51.

Conclusion:

It is clear that the Mustang had advantages of speed at higher altitudes in late 1943 and early 1944 when the crucial periods of combat in the ETO occurred. But the advantages were not there as much at lower altitudes, and by 1945 it was falling behind to some German aircraft. Of course, by 1945, the Luftwaffe was hopelessly outnumbered.

So it seems that the Mustang's reputation for having superior speed is only partly true, but it is true for the periods when combat was the most intense.


2) "The Mustang had a great climb"

Level Climb

An examination of tests of climbrates for the P-51B show a maximum initial climbrate of 3200 ft per minute at Sea Level. (all tests at full fuel) This is not very good. It compares for example, to 4200 ft/min for the 190A5

The P-51D shows a maximum initial climbrate of approx. 3450 ft per minute. For a mid 1944 aircraft that is poor to mediocre. For example a mid 1944 Spitfire Mk IX LF had a climbrate in the area of 4700 ft per minute. A 109G10 had a climbrate of approx. 4600 ft per minute, a FW190D9 a rate of approximately 4200 ft per minute, a La-7 a rate of around 4400 ft per minute. Only against the 190A8 with its climbrate of 3400 ft per minute does it seem competitive. When the Mustang D is compared to 1945 aircraft, it comes off even worse.

There is no doubt that the Mustang's reputation for having a great climb is a myth. However, when the subject is ZOOM climb, the answer is different. More on this later.

3) The Mustang had great acceleration.

Level Flight Acceleration

Level acceleration can generally be approximated by looking at the powerloading of an aircraft, which is the normal loaded weight of an aircraft, compared to its engine's maximum horsepower. Acceleration is also significantly affected by the overall drag of an aircraft's airframe. (more later on that issue) A look at the powerloading of the Mustang when when fully loaded as compared to other aircraft of the same era indicates that it lags significantly behind. Fully loaded, with maximum fuel, combat weight of a P-51B is combat weight of a P-51D is 10,208 lbs. Maximum hp is 1720. That translates into a powerloading of 5.93 lbs per horsepower. A 109G10 with 1800 hp and a weight of approximately 7400 lbs, has a powerloading of approximately 4.1 lbs per horsepower. A Spitfire IX LF with a weight of 7400 lbs and a horsepower output of 1720 lbs has powerloading of 4.3 lbs per hp. A La-7 with a weight of approx. 7300 lbs and a horsepower output of 1700 has a powerloading of approx. 4.3 lbs per hp. The FW190A8 and D9 did not have as much of an advantage in raw powerloading, but were slightly superior.

It seems clear that in LEVEL flight, the Mustang's reputation for great acceleration is a myth.

4) The Mustang was a great Dogfighter.

A conventional view of a dogfight has fighter aircraft in tighter and tighter turns, chasing each others tails. How would the Mustang do in that type of combat?

First of all, an aircraft's ability to turn tightly is related to three main things: Wingloading, Wing Design and Powerloading. Low wingloading, and wing designs which generate more lift at high angles of attack give aircraft better ability to turn tightly. An aircraft's ability to sustain it maximum tight turn is related to its acceleration and powerloading. A sustained turn will inevitably lead to a stall, unless an aircraft's engine can generate enough acceleration to overcome the induced drag of placing the wings at an angle to the airstream. Higher powerloading will allow for sustained high Angle of Attack turns.

We seem to have determined that the Mustang has relatively poor Acceleration, which suggests its ability to sustain its maximum turnrate would be questionable.

How is its wingloading?

At fully loaded weight of 10,208 lbs on a wing area of 233 Sq/ft, a Mustang has a wingloading of 43.8 lbs per Sq/ft. That compares very poorly to a Spitfire IX LF with a weight of 7400 lbs and a wing area of 242 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 30.6 lbs per Sq/ft. It's similar to a 109G10 with a wing area of 172 Sq/ft and a weight of 7400 lbs for a wing loading of 43 lbs per Sq/ft. It is inferior to the La-7 with a wing area of 189 Sq/ft and a weight of 7300 lbs for a wingloading of 38.6 lbs per Sq/ft. It is superior to the 190A8 with a weight of 9750 lbs on a wing area of 197 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 49.5 lbs per Sq/ft. It is superior to the 190D9 which has a weight of 9480 lbs on a wing area of 197 Sq/ft for a wingloading of 48.1 lbs per Sq/ft.

How about Wing Design?

The P-51D is unique in the listed aircraft in having a Laminar flow aerofoil as its chosen wing shape. The laminar flow design allows for low drag when air is travelling across the wings at high transonic speeds, but additionally, this wing design shape also produces reduced lift at high angles of attack. Ie. when a Mustang pilot pulls very tight turns at low speeds and high angles of attack, his wings generate lower lift than a conventional aerofoil.

On the basis of the above, one would have to conclude that a fully loaded Mustang would be a mediocre classic dogfighter. Against an aircraft like the Spitfire or La-7, or even a 109G10, (due to the G10's much better acceleration) it would not have much of a chance in a classic low speed turnfight. Against a 190A8 or 190D9 it should be superior.

Overall Conclusions?

On the basis of an objective examination of the technical stats of the Mustang, and its competitors, one would begin to wonder why the Mustang did so well. It seems like a very mediocre aircraft.

However, a little deeper examination and the misunderstandings about the quality of this aircraft come into focus.

And its advantages and superiorities come to the fore.

To understand the Mustang, you have to first understand its design goals and designated role. Ie. a long range escort Fighter.

Range and Fuel Load

If we look at the Mustang's range, we get our first clue as to the misunderstandings. The P-51D had a maximum range of approximately 1250 miles on internal fuel. That gave it a combat radius of 450 miles without drop tanks. (including climb to altitude, flight to and back from target, 10 minutes at combat power) When compared to other aircraft of the era, we see an incredible advantage. The 109G10 had a combat radius of approximately 130 miles. The Spitfire IX LF had a radius of 125 miles, the 190A8 had a radius of approximately 165 miles and the 190D9 had a radius of 175 miles. (all without drop tanks) The La-7 had a similar radius to the 109's.

The P-51's airframe had every spare space filled with fuel tanks. One of the last elements added prior to the Merlin version beng standardized was an 85 gallon tank behind the pilot's seat. This tank when filled caused a dramatic shift in the aircraft's centre of gravity, such that if a pilot pulled a turn over 3G's with the tank full, the possibility of airframe damage was considerable. For that reason, the tank was only filled on long range missions. And orders were specifically penned by the 8th Air Force Commanders that the fuel in the tank was to be burned off before any other fuel, before even fuel in drop tanks. Once the fuel in the tank was below 45 gallons, the aircraft's centre of gravity returned to normal. Most pilots emptied this tank completely first then started on their drop tanks. That meant that the Mustang went into combat with the behind seat tank empty. In essence it meant the aircraft's maximum combat weight was actually 510 lbs, (85 gallons) less than the 10,208 lb fully loaded figure. Ie. maximum combat weight was actually 9698 lbs. Which meant that wingloading was actually 41.6 lbs per Sq/ft.

The Mustang carried 269 gallons of internal fuel. That compares to 106 gallons for the 109G10, or 170 gallons for the 190A8, or 138 gallons for the 190D9, or 102 gallons for the Spitfire IX.

As the P-51D carried more fuel, it could fly longer, and burn more, as it burned its larger fuel load, its wingloading improved proportionately more than its opponents.

At 50 % fuel remaining, the P-51D had a wingloading of 40.34 lbs per Sq/ft. It still had a radius of 225 miles.

At 50% fuel remaining, the 109G10 had a wingloading of 41.27 lbs per Sq/ft. It had a radius of 65 miles.

At 50% fuel remaining, the 190D9 had a wingloading of 46.3 lbs per Sq/ft, and a radius of 87.5 miles.

At 50% fuel remaining, the 190A8 had a wingloading of 47.0 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 82.5 miles.


At 25% fuel remaining, the P-51D had a wingloading of 38.6 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 112.5 miles. Notice that the P-51's radius with 25% fuel is nearly as good as the G10 at full fuel load.

At 25% fuel remaining, the 109G10 had a wingloading of 40.4 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 32.5 miles.

At 25% fuel remaining, the 190A8 had a wingloading of 45.8 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 40.1 miles.

At 25% fuel remaining, the 190D9 had a wingloading of 45 lbs per Sq/ft and a radius of 43.7 miles.


At 25%fuel the German fighters better be returning to base, but the P-51 can still fly for a considerable distance.


Powerloading

The same would apply to powerloading for the Mustang at lower fuel loads.

At full fuel load, the Mustang as mentioned above, had a powerloading of 5.93 lbs per hp. At 25% fuel it improves to 5.2 lbs per hp, still not as good as the 109's but proportionately a better improvement.


What this all tells us, is that while the Mustang wasn't a very good dogfighter when fully loaded, when it was at a lower fuel load, it would get considerably more nimble.


Combat Flaps

Most aircraft of the WWII era could not deploy flaps over approximately 300 mph, or 480 kph. This applied for the 190's, 109's, Spitfires, Yaks, etc. If flaps were deployed at higher than those speeds, they would be damaged. What this meant was that during high speed maneuvers, an aircraft which could successfully deploy flaps, would have a considerable advantage.

The P-51 had a flap setting mechanism which allowed it to drop flaps up to speeds of 425 mph without damage. At very high speeds, only 5 degrees of flaps were used.

A pilot could drop the flaps momentarily, gain a brief advantage in turnrate to achieve a gun solution, and then retract them again to regain speed.

Combat flaps allowed the Mustang to outturn aircraft at high speed which it could not stay with at lower speeds.


Rollrate

The P-51 had a slightly above average rollrate at low and medium speeds, peaking at 94 degrees per second at 310 mph Indicated Airspeed. That does not come close to the 190A, the acknowledged King at low and medium speeds with a maximum rollrate of 165 degrees per second at 250 mph. But the big advantage the Mustang had, was the fact its rollrate was sustained at high speeds. The Mustang still rolled at 85 degrees per second at 400 mph IAS. That compared to the FW190A, which had its rollrate drop off to 70 degrees per second at 400 mph IAS. When compared to other opposition aircraft, the Mustang's advantage at high speed was even more pronounced.


Aerodynamics

But perhaps the largest single design advantage that the P-51 had was its fuselage and wing shape.

The P-51 used flush rivets, which did not protrude over the surface of the aluminum which covered the wings. This reduced drag considerably.

The radiator intake on the P-51 was set back, behind the wing, on the underside of the fuselage. This avoided affecting most of the airflow over the frame. In addition, The P-51 design used a boundary layer gutter that separated the cooling air intake from the fuselage, preventing the intake from ingesting the boundary layer (the layer of turbulent air close to the skin of the plane) This reduced drag even more. In fact, when the radiator was opened at higher temperatures, the flow of hot air out the back acted as a addition to the thrust of the aircraft, and a net gain in speed of approximately 10 mph was seen.

The P-51 also used a Laminar flow aerofoil design on its wings.

http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/history/airfoils.jpg


Due the wing design with its intention of creating lift, airflow over wing surfaces moves at a high speed than the speed the aircraft is actually travelling. Speeds over the wing surfaces reach high transonic speeds at times, even when the aircraft is travelling much slower. A laminar flow aerofoil reduced the formation of turbulent airflow, which greatly increased drag.

http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/history/lamdiag.jpg


On aircraft with ordinary wings, as speed increases, drag increases expodentially. Laminar flow wings do not suffer as much of a penalty. Which meant that the P-51 bled speed much more slowly than other aircraft at high speeds.

The faster the speeds at which the P-51 met other aircraft in combat, the bigger its aerodynamic advantage. Low G turns at high speeds, zoom climbs, in all these the P-51 excelled.

The P-51 had a drag coefficient of .0176. This compares to the 190A8 and 190D, the most aerodyamically efficient aircraft in large scale production on the German side, which had a drag coefficient respectively of .0278 for the 190A8 and .0242 for the 190D9. On a wing area of 233 Sq/ft that gives the Mustang an equivalent flat plate area of 4.10 sq/ft compared to 5.22 Sq/ft for the A8 and 4.78 Sq/ft for the D9 on a wing area for both 190's of 196.98 Sq/ft. This means the Mustang is aerodynamically 22% more efficient than the A8 and 15% more efficient than the D9.

This aerodynamic advantage was most noticeable in situations where aircraft were travelling at over their maximum level speeds. At those speeds, normal acceleration and powerloading is no longer effective in propelling the aircraft to go faster, and a major factor governing how an aircraft accelerates in a dive, or how long an aircraft retains speed in a zoom climb is the cleanliness of its airframe.

In these areas, the P-51 is the superior aircraft.


Overall

An overall analysis of the P-51 Mustang reveals an aircraft which, although it doesn't have a very good climb or low speed acceleration, and which does not excell in low speed high angle of attack turnfighting, has excellent speed through the altitude range and should excell in high speed maneuvers, dives and zoom climbs.

This is what hopefully, we should see in FORGOTTEN BATTLES.


Sources are too numerous to post here, but include the books such as "America's Hundred Thousand", test data from NACA and AFDU, as well as original German sources.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 09:06 AM
total load O crapola

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. Semper Invictus! <img src ="http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509047.jpg">

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 09:12 AM
What a great read.

I don't know enough to vouch for the info contained in it but you're obviously passionate about the subject and if accurate, I have learned a lot from this post. Thanks
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


It's only funny til someone loses an eye....then it's hilarious

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/hurricat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 09:16 AM
Very good stuff for any Mustang jock. Speed is your friend, keep it fast, keep it high and you will be in good shape. For those not aware of these tendencies of the P-51 read it and read it again if you plan on flying the Mustang regularly, it will pay off big time. Another thing to remember here in FB is that even on the largest of maps and the longest of missions you will never need more than 50% fuel in the P-51, this is a very large benefit as you can read in Buzzsaws very good post.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 09:42 AM
RedDeth wrote:
- total load O crapola
-
- A highly logical, well thought out and well delivered rejoinder.
Not.



http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

Buzz_25th
11-06-2003, 09:49 AM
One thing it does well in FB is dive. It doesn't start to come apart until 1000 km/h IAS. Pretty sturdy, and beats the Fw190 for strength.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg


Message Edited on 11/06/0312:51AM by Buzz_25th

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 09:49 AM
But the P51 won the war! It HAS to be the best there was.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 09:52 AM
Very nice research. Thanks for posting that Buzzsaw!

And RedDeth - Out fishing? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 10:04 AM
Just to add something on the topic:
The research does not provide correct data on La-7...
La-7 max power output was 1850hp not 1700, therefore its power loading is bigger...
La-7 initial climb was about 24-25m/s which is about 4850 foots per minute not 4400.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 10:10 AM
You cant calll something crapola without saying why. Its a new rule. This is a discussion board and I want to read disscussion.

Its a shame the P51 can be such an emotional subject. It seems as though when emotions come into play they can ruin a good discussion. I mean just hearing a P51 makes me emotional and I am not even from the States. Great work on this post BTW


<center>http://members.shaw.ca/corn/worms2.jpg</center>

<div align='center'>
<a href='http://greatergreen.com/il2/'>
http://members.shaw.ca/corn/il2sig2.jpg
</a>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 10:15 AM
Very nice Post . Good idea to post this prior to release of the patch 1.2 to make exspectations clear. We should keep this
post on top that when 1.2 is released we dont see things like . "My P51 cant outturn a La7 its wrong" "Or my P51 cant catch a FW at sea level" or "My p51 cant climb away from K4" .

Regards,
Hyperion

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 10:27 AM
Salute Tipoman

You are correct. I mistakenly used the figures for the Hp and climb at normal full power, not boost.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 10:32 AM
RedDeth wrote:
- total load O crapola
-

Please feel free to compare this post with RAF74BuzzsawXO initial and well researched post, and ask yourself this question: Who do you trust?

cheers/slush



http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 10:48 AM
Gets my vote as one of the greatest posts this board has seen.

Copy & Paste it and show it around.


well done

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

Fw 190 durbatulk
Fw 190 gimbatul
Fw 190 thrakatulk,
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 11:09 AM
GOOD POST! Conclusions supported by numbers and facts (although the numbers may vary from different sources and might be disputed ...) - People calling this "total load O crapola" should add argue and present their facts or go back to kindergarten!

fluke39
11-06-2003, 11:23 AM
It is quite clearly a load of crapola - as i didn't read half of it and the half i did read, didn't seem to say the P51 was superior to all other planes in all respects.


seriously though - seems quite a accurate and informative post -
thanks for posting Buzzsaw/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 11:24 AM
Excellent post!

It's so nice to read something thats obviously not biased!
I myself has no passion for the P-51, and will probably not spend many minutes in it, but reading articles like this makes me want to try it!

Skarphol

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 12:02 PM
Message Edited on 11/06/0311:10AM by Mr.Krunchie

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 12:07 PM
I'm annoyed at other stuff please ignore me.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 12:22 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO, that was an excellent, unbiased summary of the Mustang's strengths and weaknesses. You obviously put a lot of work into that post, and it shows. I can't vouch for all the specifics (as you said, "sources too numerous to mention") but the comparisons look as I expect them to. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 12:24 PM
Good form. I decided to scratch your name from the "Allied Whiner's List". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

..

Seriously though, thanks for the good read.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 12:41 PM
Great info in that post. The problem is that most people flying in dog missions at low alt with turn fights, so it is obvious that they cant use mustangs and even me109s for that purpose...leave that great realistic planes for others whos flying VEF and coop missions (or team)....I never liked La5FN & La7 series, YAk3...they are overmodeled slightly and not realistic.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 12:57 PM
I wanted to say that dogfight missions are not realistic (as you all know)....in WW2 u never saw 10-15 fighters in turn dogfight at low alt (to be honest only few times that happened)....on the other side we want realistic planes in FB....plane models are realistic as other things in this great game (almost realistic - its just a pc game lol)...so play dog missions for fun with some la7 toy and real VEF and COOP missions with mustang,Fw190,Me109 (and offcourse La7 if you want)....

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:42 PM
Very good indeed /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . I would like to see the ****s try and argue over the muzzie's performance now

11 out of 10 i think /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:44 PM
Great post!!!
Thanks for all the work you obviously put in!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:48 PM
Nice read Buzz...... wait till the gruesome twosome come along and turn what has been a decent thread to utter chaos........

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 02:08 PM
Very good reading!

Cheers.
-S


Greetings from Spliffster of
The Butcher Bird Brotherhood

Home of the FW Squad:
http://il2.wunderlin.net

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 02:14 PM
Very good post. A pleasure to see it on the board. As the Germans said, One of it's main strengths is that "there was so damn many of them".



Message Edited on 11/06/0301:23PM by prozac70

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 02:34 PM
Yeah, I am surpised the Uber twins havn't shown yet! After all someone said that a German plane was the least little bit inferior!

BTW, yes a good read. Of note the left wing of a Mustang will stall first and cause a Roll to the left so keep up the speed and try not do too severe stick yanking.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid84/pcf14831e07273a1e01a33fb0e5650ffa/face10c7.jpg


Lead Whiner for the P-47D-40, M and N and Hvars

Message Edited on 11/06/0302:13PM by Sniper762x51

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 02:58 PM
Thanks RAF74BuzzsawXO, a good analysis /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


I particularly liked the examination of expended fuel load vs. performance.



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 03:16 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- The facts as to combat effectiveness are there. In
- Europe, 4950 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air,
- 4131 destroyed on the ground, for a loss of only
- 2520 Mustangs, a better numbers totals than any
- other US aircraft, and an extremely good combat
- record. Against any of the German aircraft of WWII,
- the Mustang has at least a 2-1 kill record, against
- most, much higher. Against the Japanese aircraft,
- the Mustangs have an even better record.

The F6F had a (roughly) 19:1 kill ratio and produced the most US aces of the war.

Figures vary, but something around 5000 kills for 270 lost.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 03:26 PM
Skarphol wrote:
- I myself has no passion for the P-51, and will
- probably not spend many minutes in it, but reading
- articles like this makes me want to try it!


I feel the same.


A.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 03:40 PM
Exellent post Buzz. A slight correction though:

- The P-51D model would also be the fastest
- operational prop plane at altitude when it is
- introduced in the Spring of '44 with a top speed of
- 437mph.

The Spitfire XIV went operational in Jan 44, with a top speed at alt of 448 mph.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 03:47 PM
Buzzsaw wrote:

- The facts as to combat effectiveness are there. In
- Europe, 4950 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air,
- 4131 destroyed on the ground, for a loss of only
- 2520 Mustangs, a better numbers totals than any
- other US aircraft

Wasn't Finnish Brewster a US aircraft? It had a kill ratio of 20,8 (victories/losses: 478/23)



"Ride the Big One"
- Notch Johnson

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:13 PM
RedDeth wrote:
- total load O crapola


Red ur a maniack /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<CENTER> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1068129235.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:35 PM
p11 better in EVERY way tbh /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
good read, but its one of those pick the best things about it thingys
i think the germans wanted the escort to drop the drop tanks, germans run off, now escort cant go as far...

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:39 PM
please tell us how many ponys there was against german birds? what was that rate, 10 vs 1 ? or even more?
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
could it be anyway possible to count what would that kia/kill ratio be, if there would not be air superioty for allies, that situation had been even for plane count, how would that kia/kill rating the look. and ho many german birds were shot down when they were landing almost out of fuel.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:52 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- You are correct. I mistakenly used the figures for
- the Hp and climb at normal full power, not boost.
-
-
- Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw


Good read Bazzsaw,
But. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

For some reason you overstate La-7 max weight which was 7142 pounds (not 7300 pounds).
You also did not use max power 1850 hp which was available with ASh-82FN engine (not 1700 hp) in your calculations for La-7. I believe, if you start using War Emergency power for P-51, you should have continue using it for all planes reviewed.

This also can help your calculations - La-7 range was 407 miles (655 km) and internal fuel tanks could carry 123 gallons (466 liters) of fuel.

Anyway, good read again.


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 04:54 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute All

Nice Work Buzz! A very good read! Great summary, alot of info that when pulled toghter makes for a very good *list o things to remember* while flyin the Mustang! Thanks!



<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3></marquee>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 05:24 PM
hop2002 wrote:
- Exellent post Buzz. A slight correction though:
-
-- The P-51D model would also be the fastest
-- operational prop plane at altitude when it is
-- introduced in the Spring of '44 with a top speed of
-- 437mph.
-
- The Spitfire XIV went operational in Jan 44, with a
- top speed at alt of 448 mph.
-

Interesting, though a slight correction to put it in perspective. Altough "officially" the Spit XIV may have entered service in Jan 1944 on paper, it didn`t flew missions until March 1944, and the first combat loss didn`t come until the May of 1944. The type didn`t flew sorties into Germany until the automn of 1944.

Secondly, and more imporantly, at that time (May), only 3 Squadrons were equipped with XIVs, making up for - on papar again - 60 planes maximum, though much less in the actual operational conditions, probably around 1/2 to 2/3s of that.
At that time (May), the USAAF in ETO had 819 P-51s on hand, a slight decrease from the 950 planes on hand in April.

One sidenote to Buzzshaw`s unusually balanced opinion is though that by the time the P-51B entered service, the first examples of G-6s with methanol injection and high altitude compressors also arrived in service, and should be the type compared to.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 05:41 PM
Enofinu wrote:
- please tell us how many ponys there was against
- german birds? what was that rate, 10 vs 1 ? or even
- more?
- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
-
- could it be anyway possible to count what would that
- kia/kill ratio be, if there would not be air
- superioty for allies, that situation had been even
- for plane count, how would that kia/kill rating the
- look. and ho many german birds were shot down when
- they were landing almost out of fuel.
-
C'mon dude isn't that getting to be a really tired argument. :| It is very true that later in the war(Late 44-end of war)the LW was greatly outnumbered but in 1943 all the way until mid 1944 it was the USAAF escorts who were greatly outnumbered in the sky. The only valid part of your argument is the fact that the numbers concentrated on the escort fighters versus those concentrated to the bombers were far too few and were dispatched quickly. Another thing to remember that many Mustangs were lost in ground attack flights, I don't have the numbers but I am sure someone does, I do know that more were lost due to flak and such than enemy air action.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG


<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 05:42 PM
What is ironic is that the lead post, while doing an admirable job at pointing out that the Mustang was not uber in all aspects, it was uber against anything in the air short of a jet when flown to its strengths.

The Mustang was not an interceptor, so its initial climb rate should not be as important to it as it was to the 190 and the Spitfire. The Mustang was designed to get to alt far from the combat zone and dive into battle from there, using the BnZ tactics that the Americans used almost exclusive of turnfighting. Sustained dive, manuevering at speed, and zoom climb are much more the strengths that the Mustang pilot relied upon. I scarcely doubt Mustang pilots cared whether they could catch enemy or Russian planes in level flight at sea level. Most of their time on the deck was spent strafing on the way home.

The fuel capacity of the Mustang is critical to its success, for the range of the aircraft, while immense, is only one facet of the advantage. On full real in the game, especially on air superiority missions (hunting), the Mustang's fuel capacity and efficiency affords its pilots a luxury no other plane could match--choosing when to fight for a very long time relative to the enemy. The climb rate is not so important here as is the effective ceiling. When one has the fuel to manuever at will for a virtual eternity compared to the opponent, one can climb to max ceiling, stay out of range, loiter over an area, and still sustain maximum fuel consumption in combat far longer than the opponent. A good Mustang pilot is an "iron butt," as the same focus that allowed long and boring escort flights fosters the mental focus to enter combat only on favorable terms and use as much time as is required.

I like to think of the Mustang as a boxer who would be reluctant to go toe-to-toe in a brawling bout trying to rely on a quick knock-out (though certainly capable of such)--but rather would be happy to jab, feint, and dance around the opponent until an opening occurred through superior patience and endurance which allowed the boxer the easy opening to end the fight decisively over the tired brawler.

Properly employed, the patient pilot of the Mustang is going to be a conscienceless murderer of the impatient turnfighter (as it was against the Japanese) and a very hard kill for a good LW BnZer who would have to goad the Mustang pilot into being impatient or into making a speed, E retention, or alt mistake. I think the tactic of using the Mustang's huge endurance and E advantages as its primary strengths will lead to lots of vulching and dive kills by Mustangs. Such a flight envelope will be boring for a stick yanker, even with combat flaps, so the Mustang will not be a mount for everyone and is unlikely to become a noob plane if it is modeled accurately.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 05:47 PM
Eagle_361st wrote:
-
- Enofinu wrote:
-- please tell us how many ponys there was against
-- german birds? what was that rate, 10 vs 1 ? or even
-- more?
-- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
--
-- could it be anyway possible to count what would that
-- kia/kill ratio be, if there would not be air
-- superioty for allies, that situation had been even
-- for plane count, how would that kia/kill rating the
-- look. and ho many german birds were shot down when
-- they were landing almost out of fuel.
--
- C'mon dude isn't that getting to be a really tired
- argument. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif It is very true that later in the
- war(Late 44-end of war)the LW was greatly
- outnumbered but in 1943 all the way until mid 1944
- it was the USAAF escorts who were greatly
- outnumbered in the sky. The only valid part of your
- argument is the fact that the numbers concentrated
- on the escort fighters versus those concentrated to
- the bombers were far too few and were dispatched
- quickly. Another thing to remember that many
- Mustangs were lost in ground attack flights, I don't
- have the numbers but I am sure someone does, I do
- know that more were lost due to flak and such than
- enemy air action.
- ~S!
- Eagle
- CO 361st vFG

/agree

I cannot remember the figures either, but more Mustangs were lost in ground attack than due to enemy fighter action.

Enofinu- there are some posts on these boards that are trying to make this or that plane out as the UberMachine, but RAFBuzzsaw's was not one of them though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 05:56 PM
NavyFlyer wrote:
- What is ironic is that the lead post, while doing an
- admirable job at pointing out that the Mustang was
- not uber in all aspects, it was uber against
- anything in the air short of a jet when flown to its
- strengths.
-
- The Mustang was not an interceptor, so its initial
- climb rate should not be as important to it as it
- was to the 190 and the Spitfire. The Mustang was
- designed to get to alt far from the combat zone and
- dive into battle from there, using the BnZ tactics
- that the Americans used almost exclusive of
- turnfighting. Sustained dive, manuevering at speed,
- and zoom climb are much more the strengths that the
- Mustang pilot relied upon. I scarcely doubt Mustang
- pilots cared whether they could catch enemy or
- Russian planes in level flight at sea level. Most of
- their time on the deck was spent strafing on the way
- home.
-
- The fuel capacity of the Mustang is critical to its
- success, for the range of the aircraft, while
- immense, is only one facet of the advantage. On full
- real in the game, especially on air superiority
- missions (hunting), the Mustang's fuel capacity and
- efficiency affords its pilots a luxury no other
- plane could match--choosing when to fight for a very
- long time relative to the enemy. The climb rate is
- not so important here as is the effective ceiling.
- When one has the fuel to manuever at will for a
- virtual eternity compared to the opponent, one can
- climb to max ceiling, stay out of range, loiter over
- an area, and still sustain maximum fuel consumption
- in combat far longer than the opponent. A good
- Mustang pilot is an "iron butt," as the same focus
- that allowed long and boring escort flights fosters
- the mental focus to enter combat only on favorable
- terms and use as much time as is required.
-
- I like to think of the Mustang as a boxer who would
- be reluctant to go toe-to-toe in a brawling bout
- trying to rely on a quick knock-out (though
- certainly capable of such)--but rather would be
- happy to jab, feint, and dance around the opponent
- until an opening occurred through superior patience
- and endurance which allowed the boxer the easy
- opening to end the fight decisively over the tired
- brawler.
-
- Properly employed, the patient pilot of the Mustang
- is going to be a conscienceless murderer of the
- impatient turnfighter (as it was against the
- Japanese) and a very hard kill for a good LW BnZer
- who would have to goad the Mustang pilot into being
- impatient or into making a speed, E retention, or
- alt mistake. I think the tactic of using the
- Mustang's huge endurance and E advantages as its
- primary strengths will lead to lots of vulching and
- dive kills by Mustangs. Such a flight envelope will
- be boring for a stick yanker, even with combat
- flaps, so the Mustang will not be a mount for
- everyone and is unlikely to become a noob plane if
- it is modeled accurately.
-
Excellent way of explaining it even better. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I think that truely flown right the P-51 can rival any plane in FB as it did in real life. But it is not the uber can do anything better than anyone else fighter some may think it is. They will tire of getting blown from the sky on low speed, low altitude dogfights in it and fly something else. All the while I will be watching from somewhere above picking and choosing who I want to engage in my P-51. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG



<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 06:08 PM
NavyFlyer,


Very interesting adjunct to RAFBuzz's post.

A further comment about climb rates - When you stop and closely think about it, there are at least three different situations in which climb rate must be examined:

First is the normal maximum sustained climb rate which everyone understands and likes to quote.

Second is zoom climb performance, in which speed is converted to altitude. We have a reasonable grasp of this as well.

Third is a very much more subtle matter. An a/c like the Mustang might have had a very modest sustained climb rate. BUT, in those cases where the Mustang held a speed advantage over an opponent, it could convert its speed advantage energy into a very gradual climb at a speed equal to the max speed of its opponent. The opposing a/c would then be forced upon the horns of a dilemma: if (a) it chose to match the climb of the Mustang, it would be forced to slow down, thereby ceding separation to the Mustang; if (b) it chose to keep pace speedwise, the Mustang would slowly gain altitude advantage.

In short, the Mustang might have been greatly inferior in climb rate at speeds of 200 or 300mph, but at 425 or 430mph it actually would have held a climb rate advantage! The moral of the story here is that climb performance is not always just about those listed maximum climb rates that we see in the books.


Blutarski



Message Edited on 11/06/03 05:11PM by BLUTARSKI

Message Edited on 11/06/0306:10PM by BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 06:12 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
-
-
- The facts as to combat effectiveness are there. In
- Europe, 4950 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air,
- 4131 destroyed on the ground, for a loss of only
- 2520 Mustangs, a better numbers totals than any
- other US aircraft, and an extremely good combat
- record. Against any of the German aircraft of WWII,
- the Mustang has at least a 2-1 kill record,

Let's not tell him the kill ratio of the P-47, shall we? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 06:29 PM
Enofinu wrote:
- please tell us how many ponys there was against
- german birds? what was that rate, 10 vs 1 ? or even
- more?
- http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
- could it be anyway possible to count what would that
- kia/kill ratio be, if there would not be air
- superioty for allies, that situation had been even
- for plane count, how would that kia/kill rating the
- look.

You seem to assume that there was a sudden flood of Mustangs in January of 1944, when the fact is that there was a very slow conversion process from the P-47 in the 8th AF until there were only about 8-9 Mustang groups by D-Day, peopled by pilots who were mostly trained up on the Thunderbolt's strengths (fortunately, they were similar to the P-51's). The bulk of the experienced fighter pilots in the Jagdewaffe had been attrited by then, often due to their insistance on diving away from trouble, which was demonstrably suicidal against the faster diving Yanks. The Germans weren't exactly helpless victims here, having the advantages of a shorter flight to the arena, flying comparable aircraft with which they were long familiar, and having a much greater institutional combat experience. Air superiority for the Allies was won in a long hard fought campaign from the Spring of 1943 to the early Summer of 1944, not conceded in any way. The great fighter numerical superiority came later, after the issue was decided.


and ho many german birds were shot down when
- they were landing almost out of fuel.

By definition, any German bird would be almost out of gas against a Mustang almost as soon as it got airborne.





"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 06:36 PM
We need more posts like this, tnx Buzz,

V!

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub


Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:08 PM
Nice airplane, has its +'s/-'s like all aircraft...Just a visually stunning look when you actually see one in person, "Sally" just looks fast and is just a fine aircraft.
Over-all she was a nice escort aircraft and she served her purpose well, and was to a large degree was inflated by our typical yankee ego.
As being a USA fella , she's a pure as Baseball, Hotdogs, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.
Did she win the war?? Hell no. She was a participant, just like any other aircraft in WW2.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:11 PM
Buzzsaw,
for your post you deserve more than a simple "Salute" .
very good .
one of the best posts i have read in this forum .

best regrads
Boandl

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:14 PM
Several points already touched upon, but here goes.

In Dec 1943, when the P-51B began operational service, and until the decisive air war over Germany was won (May 1944) the P-51B was the fastest plane in the European skies. That is where the Mustang made its bones, and its reputation. Comparing its slower (for the most part) D brother to later LW designs doesn't quite cut the clearest picture of how much an advantage a 450 mph plane appearing in late 1943 enjoyed. BTW, the Brits think it went 450, the USN thinks it went 450, and my Dad and hundreds of P-51 pilots think it went 450. You can use 440 if you want, just realize there is another opinion out there.

During this time the US escorts were regularly outnumbered by the LW. The escorts flew in relays, with one group of P-51's or P-38's escorting the entire bomber screen for a brief portion of the flight, until another group relieved them. Seeing reports of 400 escorts does NOT mean 400 planes were over Frankfurt, or Weisbaden. Most were P-47's or Spitfires, turning back long before arriving over the target, and picking the bombers back up as they returned.

P-51 pilots were not reluctant to engage in turning battles with the LW. The literature is full of such battles, with P-51 pilots regularly winning all sorts of turning fights.

P-51 pilots regularly engaged the LW at low levels. The scenario of :
Bounce
Split S
Long extended chase in the dive
Low level high speed dogfight
Was repeated hundreds of times between LW and US planes.

P-51 units, performing the same missions, at the same time, on the same day, against the same enemy, destroyed E/A at a rate twice that of the P-47 groups, and roughly 4 times that of the P-38 groups in the decisive Dec 1943-May 1944 time frame. The numbers of P-38's and P-51's available during this time was roughly equivalent. There were many more P-47's available.

Roughly 450 Mustangs were lost in the ETO to enemy A/C. The air to air kill ratio for all Mustang units was about 11-1, exceeding the 56th FG which was at roughly 7-1. The rest of the P-51's were lost to ground fire.

Mustangs shot down more planes than the Hellcat in WW2. One must include the RAF and PTO and CBI kills in the Mustang's totals. While close, the P-51 downed more E/A than the F6-F, and many many more ground kills.

The Brits operated Mustangs at higher boosts than the US. RAF Mustangs were capable of 400+ on the deck.

2/3 to 3/4 of all aerial kills, for all the wars in history, are from unobserved bounces, not dogfights. The US figured out early, as did most countries, that speed trumps maneuverability. Top speed, range, and good dive performance were shown by the AAF to be the set of attributes in the ETO that gave the most advantage in a war of attrition. Period. The Mustang was a superb hunting plane, long legged, fast, great dive, zoom and high speed maneuverability, and performance from the ground to 30,000 feet. The fact that it shot down German planes landing and taking off, due to that range, is a POSITIVE attribute, not a negative one, my friends.

It was built to fly fast and far, and it did that superbly. Nuff said.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:22 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
-
- Third is a very much more subtle matter. An a/c like
- the Mustang might have had a very modest sustained
- climb rate. In those cases where the Mustang held a
- speed advantage over an opponent, it could convert
- its speed advantage energy into a very gradual climb
- at a speed equal to the max speed of its opponent.
- The opposing a/c would then be forced upon the horns
- of a dilemma: if (a) it chose to match the climb of
- the Mustang, it would be forced to slow down,
- thereby ceding separation to the Mustang; if (b) it
- chose to keep pace speedwise, the Mustang would
- slowly gain altitude advantage.
-
- In short, the Mustang might have been greatly
- inferior in climb rate at speeds of 200 or 300mph,
- but at 425 or 430mph it actually would have held a
- climb rate advantage! The moral of the story here is
- that climb performance is not always just about
- those listed maximum climb rates that we see in the
- books.

Well the one commonality to all accounts by P-51 pilots such as Anderson, Yeager, and others is that it is critical that the Mustang driver always maintain as much speed, "E," as possible and use it to advantage always. IRL, the Mustang pilots over occupied Europe and Germany itself would almost always start with two distinct tactical advantages as well that might not ever be accurately reflected in FB: 1) The Mustang would almost always have initial alt advantage over interceptors because of--2) The LW was ordered to engage bombers and avoid escort engagement.

Since the P-51s, (and all allied long range escorts really) flew top cover for the lower B-17 and B-24 formations, the escorts would start virtually every fight with the LW with alt, speed, and E advantages, as well as getting what amounted to a free bounce chance because of the LW's priority of bomber engagement first.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:25 PM
Nice escort?

Well, I guess. That escort also shot down over 5000 planes after getting there. It also served superbly in the ground attack role, both as the A-36 and just the Mustang. It served every role a fighter plane could be asked to do, except carrier borne stuff, and did the job from 1942 until the 60's.

It didn't win the war, but enabled the continuation of a war winning strategy, the daylight bombing campaign over Germany. If one realizes this fact, and embraces it, the case is easily made the P-51 had more impact on the course of the war than any other single engine plane in WW2.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:29 PM
Navyflyer, sometimes true. But Germans were smart, and had the LW ready with their own altitude advantage on the bomber stream as often as not.

When the free ranging tactics became evident in Feb 1944, the US escorts weren't necessarily tied to the bomber stream.

Again, the ability, due to long legs, of hitting interceptors over their own place is not cheating, or unfair, but a product of one of the advantages of the P-51....range. It should get credit for this, not points taken off.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:32 PM
Not to sound like too much of a Mustang fanboy here/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , but Buzz's P-51 horsepower and power loading numbers are all based on 67" Hg boost level. Mustangs operating in the ETO were running at least 72" Hg by the early Spring of '44 and as high as 81" (Mustang III's) by Summer/Fall of '44. This boost increase had had a sizable impact on the Mustang's power loading and low-level speed by the time the Dora and 109 K-4 appeared on the scene.

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:32 PM
Salute Bogun

Your figure of 466 miles for the La-7 is based on maximum possible range without any allowance for climb to altitude or combat time over the target. In addition, your figure is for a one way trip.

I quoted distances for combat radius. Ie. there and back.

And that includes a climb to 30,000 ft altitude, 10 minutes combat time over the target at WEP, and return to base.

If you want to compare a simple straight line flight, then then the P-51 had a range of 1250 miles. Compare that to 466.

The 109's had a range of approx 450 miles straight line too. But operationally, without drop tanks, they had a tough time flying escort from the Pas de Calais to London, a distance of less than 100 miles.

I am not sure fuel consumption is modelled correctly in FB. As it stands, it doesn't seem to make that much difference whether an aircraft runs at WEP or 100% power or at cruise settings. Whereas in fact, it made a big difference.

But that is another issue.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:34 PM
Slickun wrote:
- the case is easily made the P-51
- had more impact on the course of the war than any
- other single engine plane in WW2.


Apart from the Spitfire and Hurricane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:36 PM
NavyFlyer wrote:
- What is ironic is that the lead post, while doing an
- admirable job at pointing out that the Mustang was
- not uber in all aspects, it was uber against
- anything in the air short of a jet when flown to its
- strengths.
-
- The Mustang was not an interceptor, so its initial
- climb rate should not be as important to it as it
- was to the 190 and the Spitfire. The Mustang was
- designed to get to alt far from the combat zone and
- dive into battle from there, using the BnZ tactics
- that the Americans used almost exclusive of
- turnfighting.

You didn't need an astonishing climb rate to make a good bomber interceptor. Armor and firepower were more important, this is why Fw-190 was a better interceptor than Bf-109. When ETO operations had started radar warning was so good that you could get bombers at the altitude of the bomber stream.

This "high climb rate = interceptor" is a often met confusion, when is not intentional. High climb rate of 109 was a used solely for dogfighting. Is not easy to understand how, most of the people around here still haven't figured out what energy fighting or fighting in the vertical means.

Actually is very simple. Turnfighting burns energy to gain angles over the enemy fighter, and by the moment you won the duel with the direct opponent you are most likely low and slow, an easy target for other nearby enemy fighters.

To cure this energy tactics were developed, which required fighting in the vertical plane, instead of circling (most of the time) in the horizontal plane. The pilot using energy tactics has to lure the opponent in burning his energy while he is increasing his own by using its climb rate (which has to be very good) usually in a spiral climb. Because he is climbing he is gaining energy not loosing it, therefore the name. Even if you find yourself flying at slow speeds you still should be much higher that the opponent at highest altitude (if applied correctly), so you're out of reach for the enemy guns.

Compared to hit and run, energy fighting can surely be called dogfighting because both pilots engaged know that they are in a fight. In a hit and run attack (BnZ) the whole idea is to get as close as possible to the enemy plane and open fire before he notices you. Good BnZers need huge firepower in order to be effective.




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:37 PM
good post - good reading... Thanx! The Mustang is a beauty, but I am more into ugly planes, so I look more forward to steer the G.50 than the pony /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif (and of course the J8A)



<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>


http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:39 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Nice escort?
-
- Well, I guess. That escort also shot down over 5000
- planes after getting there. It also served superbly
- in the ground attack role, both as the A-36 and just
- the Mustang. It served every role a fighter plane
- could be asked to do, except carrier borne stuff,
- and did the job from 1942 until the 60's.
-
- It didn't win the war, but enabled the continuation
- of a war winning strategy, the daylight bombing
- campaign over Germany. -

Trying to define the most significant fighter of WW2 is a matter mainly of opinion. I don't think the Mustang was well suited to ground attack, although it was used with success in that role.

Anyway, I always like to acknowledge the fact it was a team effort:

"If it can be said that the P-38s struck the Luftwaffe in it's vitals and the P-51s [gave] the coup de grace, it was the Thunderbolt that broke it's back".

-William E. Kepner, Commander, 8th Fighter Command



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

Message Edited on 11/06/0306:40PM by NegativeGee

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:50 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- You didn't need an astonishing climb rate to make a
- good bomber interceptor. Armor and firepower were
- more important, this is why Fw-190 was a better
- interceptor than Bf-109. When ETO operations had
- started radar warning was so good that you could get
- bombers at the altitude of the bomber stream.

True in some respects, but a great deal also depends on the early warning available (ie spotters, radar etc...), Fighter control and dimensions of the airspace being defended. Good climb was certainly an advantage.

As an interesting aside, look up the P-75 Eagle, an aircraft (USAF, Evaluation only) that was concieved to address the problem of a fast climbing interceptor.




"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 07:57 PM
NegativeGee wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- You didn't need an astonishing climb rate to make a
-- good bomber interceptor. Armor and firepower were
-- more important, this is why Fw-190 was a better
-- interceptor than Bf-109. When ETO operations had
-- started radar warning was so good that you could get
-- bombers at the altitude of the bomber stream.
-
- True in some respects, but a great deal also depends
- on the early warning available (ie spotters, radar
- etc...), Fighter control and dimensions of the
- airspace being defended. Good climb was certainly an
- advantage.


Radar was wide spread in Europe and it was reliable. No surprise attacks were possible, unless attacking force flew the whole mission at tree tops. This was impossible for medium and heavy bombers because it decreased the range dramatically, but it was tried with fighters in attack configurations.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

ZG77_Nagual
11-06-2003, 08:12 PM
Nice read - good to see a discussion of the impact of not having a full tank! So much mustang data is with full fuel.
Great contributions too - good thread

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 08:14 PM
NegativeGee wrote:
- -
- Trying to define the most significant fighter of WW2
- is a matter mainly of opinion. I don't think the
- Mustang was well suited to ground attack, although
- it was used with success in that role.
-
- Anyway, I always like to acknowledge the fact it was
- a team effort:
-
- "If it can be said that the P-38s struck the
- Luftwaffe in it's vitals and the P-51s [gave] the
- coup de grace, it was the Thunderbolt that broke
- it's back".
-
--William E. Kepner, Commander, 8th Fighter Command
-

Disagree with a lot of what you wrote there, NegativeGee. Unsuited, but successful? Well, I guess it was some use, huh? Destroyed more E/A on the ground than the P-47. Korea should prove to any doubters it was at least "very useful" as a ground attack bird.


I just disagree with Kepner. The LW was hale and hearty in January of 1944, stronger in the West than ever, full of well trained pilots in fine planes. The P-47 had NOT broken its back, and the P-38 was coming off all of about 20 air to air kills since its reappearance in Nov of 1943. The LW had defeated the AAF over Europe, with a culminating thrashing of the 8th AF over Schweinfurt.

I'm just not sure everyone here is aware of how bad it was for the 8th in the early winter months of 1943. The whole idea of self defending bombers, the whole deck of cards the 8th had gambled on, was not looking good. There was a pause, a pulling back, during late 1943, as the 8th tried to retool, and the LW took a good, deep breath and got ready for the better weather coming. The LW was anything BUT broken backed.

The P-51 enabled the bomber offensive to continue, to lure the LW up into the long ranged escort's guns.

Many of the typical excuses the anti-mustang folks use to denigrate the type, to lessen the impact of the combat record, are in fact based in truth when discussing the D model. By its appearance the LW had its back broken, the best pilots mostly gone, the allied air force on French soil, allowing the RAf to range the front, outnumbering the LW pilots most of the time (but not always), and the air offensive turning to the oil deposits.

But in the savage months of Jan-May 1944 the best of both countries went at it with everything they had, fresh, trained, and itching to get at each other. The usual excuses hold NO water.





Message Edited on 11/06/0307:32PM by Slickun

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 08:14 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- You didn't need an astonishing climb rate to make a
- good bomber interceptor. Armor and firepower were
- more important, this is why Fw-190 was a better
- interceptor than Bf-109. When ETO operations had
- started radar warning was so good that you could get
- bombers at the altitude of the bomber stream.

An astonishing climb rate can't hurt in an interceptor. Better interceptors, even today, have greater initial climb rates generally than other types of fighter craft. I would still maintain that initial climb in a Mustang was not all that important and Blutarski has already elucidated as to why. The Mustang's zoom climb and sustained climb with retained E is better than most other fighters it faced. On the zoom, it was not unheard of for Mustangs to take 190s past their stalling point because of higher dive speed and better E retention.

- This "high climb rate = interceptor" is a often met
- confusion, when is not intentional. High climb rate
- of 109 was a used solely for dogfighting. Is not
- easy to understand how, most of the people around
- here still haven't figured out what energy fighting
- or fighting in the vertical means.

I never meant to imply that because they were good climbers, the 190 and late 109s were "merely" interceptors. However it cannot be denied that more powerful climbing is a desireable trait in an interceptor even if that ability is also used in other aspects of aerial combat.


- Actually is very simple. Turnfighting burns energy
- to gain angles over the enemy fighter, and by the
- moment you won the duel with the direct opponent you
- are most likely low and slow, an easy target for
- other nearby enemy fighters.

This is what makes the Mustang a different beast as an E fighter in many respects. It doesn't lose E very easily, has the top speed to regain what little is lost in high speed manuevering and if speed can be maintained, shortfalls in low speed horizontal manueverability and "relatively pathetic" climb rates can be easily compensated for by a pilot who knows the aircraft.

- To cure this energy tactics were developed, which
- required fighting in the vertical plane, instead of
- circling (most of the time) in the horizontal plane.
- The pilot using energy tactics has to lure the
- opponent in burning his energy while he is
- increasing his own by using its climb rate (which
- has to be very good) usually in a spiral climb.
- Because he is climbing he is gaining energy not
- loosing it, therefore the name. Even if you find
- yourself flying at slow speeds you still should be
- much higher that the opponent at highest altitude
- (if applied correctly), so you're out of reach for
- the enemy guns.

A spiral climb with a good climb rate is not the only effective E tactic, just the one that LW birds are best employed in. There are two components of E tactics: Speed and altitude. One can be readily converted into the other. As I stated, in the way the Mustang was employed against the LW, it usually already started at great altitude, which it was remarkably effective at converting into speed, and then retaining that energy to compensate for its rather pedestrian climb rate. The Mustang could manuever with better E retention at higher speeds than most of its contemporaries. As noted earlier by Blutarski, retained E can assist climb rate by enabling a bad choice for opponents--match or exceed the Mustang's climb and lose speed to worse drag characteristics and sustained power endurance and the Mustang gains seperation to convert speed into more E, or match the Mustang's speed and over the course of a gentler Mustang sustained climb lose altitude over time as the Mustang uses retained E, full power endurance and better top speed to gain alt seperation it can convert again into E.

- Compared to hit and run, energy fighting can surely
- be called dogfighting because both pilots engaged
- know that they are in a fight. In a hit and run
- attack (BnZ) the whole idea is to get as close as
- possible to the enemy plane and open fire before he
- notices you. Good BnZers need huge firepower in
- order to be effective.

Outside of FB evidently, six .50 cal Brownings was more than adequate to the task of bringing down all manner of aircraft, though eventually all US craft eventually shifted to some form of cannon later on.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 08:22 PM
RocketDog wrote:
-
- Slickun wrote:
-- the case is easily made the P-51
-- had more impact on the course of the war than any
-- other single engine plane in WW2.
-
-
- Apart from the Spitfire and Hurricane <

RocketDog, every country in the world had planes basically like the Spitfire or Hurricane, or the Bf-109E for that matter, in 1940.

The Mustang solved what a few years earlier was an unsolvable problem (compare it to the Me-110, the LW's answer in the BoB for a long ranged escort), and flew to the other guys place and fought on an even basis.

This enabled a winning OFFENSIVE strategy.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, as are all here.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 08:29 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Radar was wide spread in Europe and it was reliable.
- No surprise attacks were possible, unless attacking
- force flew the whole mission at tree tops. This was
- impossible for medium and heavy bombers because it
- decreased the range dramatically, but it was tried
- with fighters in attack configurations.

Sneak attack was improbable, but what was not was that oftentimes, LW fighters had to return to earth to refuel and rearm, particularly on days when bombers filled the sky and afforded the opportunity to be hit coming and going. A fantastic initial climb rate would be pretty useful on multi-sortie days, no?

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 08:30 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Navyflyer, sometimes true. But Germans were smart,
- and had the LW ready with their own altitude
- advantage on the bomber stream as often as not.
-
- When the free ranging tactics became evident in Feb
- 1944, the US escorts weren't necessarily tied to the
- bomber stream.
-
- Again, the ability, due to long legs, of hitting
- interceptors over their own place is not cheating,
- or unfair, but a product of one of the advantages of
- the P-51....range. It should get credit for this,
- not points taken off.
-
-
..... Agreed. The ability of the P51 to fly 600 odd miles and still have time to loiter over enemy airfields waiting for their enemy to run out of gas was bought and paid for by its 11,000 odd pound GW.


Blutarski




Message Edited on 11/06/0307:47PM by BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 08:38 PM
Watch a pole or roadside tree the next time you are going 80 mph. You get an idea of the rate of closure if you are going 400 to the other guys 320. If you open fire from 250 yards, you are hosing the guy for quite a while.

This idea 4 or 6 x 50 cals made the Mustang a poor bounce plane is belied by its combat record. Either that or it was a dogfighting fool.

Can't have the cake and eat it too.

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 08:40 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- You didn't need an astonishing climb rate to make a
- good bomber interceptor. Armor and firepower were
- more important, this is why Fw-190 was a better
- interceptor than Bf-109. When ETO operations had
- started radar warning was so good that you could get
- bombers at the altitude of the bomber stream.


..... I basically agree with this position. Given sufficient support by early warning radar and ground control, a bomber interceptor does not absolutely need a terrifically high climb rate. But, it is a very important factor. The better the climb rate, the longer the interceptor force can sit comfortably on the ground await the true intentions (targets) of the raiding bomber force to unfold. Also time saved in climb might make the difference in a/c based at outlying fields achieving an intercept.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 09:14 PM
So.....with the climb rates measured with a full fuel load, and the difference in weight between 100% and 25% being so dramatic.....I'm wondering how the P-47s climb was measured. Perhaps it should be better than what we have...... ?

Also, seems Oleg plans to choke the P-51 a bit in the speed dept. Again, what were the speed measurements he's using as reference, taken with? If it was with full fuel, it should be faster with 25% (unless the testing involved diving and seeing what speed it stopped slowing down at....).

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 11:49 PM
S! Buzz


Great Post, a honest apprisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the Mustang. The performance boost as fuel burns off should be illuminating to many luftwaffe pilots.

Very interesting insight by Slickrun also on operational combat issues. Can you add more information of where and when your father flew the P51B and his personal thoughts ?
It is a facinating subject matter.

I had an opportunity to eat dinner with Bud Anderson & Bob Goebel - P51 Aces. They had flown several models of the 51. They both said they could out turn 190's no problem and with 10% of flaps they could turn with a 109. But given the chance of maintaining E or turning, they would rather zoom climb back up to maintain a potential E advantage and situational awareness.

Goebel stated that he was turning with a 109, firing at it and getting strikes when he was bounced by 190's and forced to dive away. Geobel decided in the future not turn with 109's but go vertical to maintain an advantage. Thats the trade off--you slow down as a result of turning to get your kill but it makes you vulnerable to get killed by others.

Goebel also said it was not uncommon to be at 30,000ft and have the germans loitering at 35,000ft setting up their attack runs.

Both pilots said they caught every german prop plane that tried to outdive them and along those same lines were never caught in a dive. Both pilots said that combat flaps added tremendusly to AoA and firing solutions without creating much drag. Staying fast with Energy tactics was the way to live and suceed.


It was interesting that after WW2 the P51 and the La7 would meet in the skies over Korea. The victor being the Mustang. Many factors could have influenced this outcome, especially pilot ability.

_________

Braveheart's William Wallace said it best:
"I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men, and free men you are. What will you do without freedom? Will you fight? Fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live, at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing, to trade all the days from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!"

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 12:24 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
-- The facts as to combat effectiveness are there. In
-- Europe, 4950 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air,
-- 4131 destroyed on the ground, for a loss of only
-- 2520 Mustangs, a better numbers totals than any
-- other US aircraft, and an extremely good combat
-- record. Against any of the German aircraft of WWII,
-- the Mustang has at least a 2-1 kill record, against
-- most, much higher. Against the Japanese aircraft,
-- the Mustangs have an even better record.


Oh please, 4950 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air? Where were those aircraft?

If you just look at the composition of LW in ETO just before D-day, you'll see that only aprox 500 day fighters and destroyers and 300 bombers and transport planes was the total of airplanes deployed by LW at that time in Germany, France, Belgium and Holland (there were also aprox 550 nightfighters to fight RAF). Yet USAAF claimed in June '44 alone 513 planes destroyed in air. In May USAAF claimed 978 air kills.

Did USAAF destroy LW completely each month? They certainly seemed to believe that way.
USAAF claims are just that: claims. Let's not confuse those statistics with reality.


Also if you want a basis for fighter vs fighter comparisons from kill ratios, you have to compare adequate numbers. One of those would be the ratio kills/losses claimed in fighter sweep missions divided by the number of sorties in fighter sweep missions in USAAF and LW in ETO. Unfortunatelly nobody gives such statistics.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/06/0306:25PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 12:25 AM
When will, or is the p-51 available to fly?

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 12:31 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- If you just look at the composition of LW in ETO
- just before D-day, you'll see that only aprox 500
- day fighters and destroyers and 300 bombers and
- transport planes was the total of airplanes deployed
- by LW at that time in Germany, France, Belgium and
- Holland (there were also aprox 550 nightfighters to
- fight RAF). Yet USAAF claimed in June '44 alone 513
- planes destroyed in air. In May USAAF claimed 978
- air kills.
-
- Did USAAF destroy LW completely each month? They
- certainly seemed to believe that way.
- USAAF claims are just that: claims. Let's not
- confuse those statistics with reality.


..... Where do you get only 500 German fighters and destroyers deployed in NW Europe? What source does this come from? It is at odds with a great deal of other published data (STRATEGY FOR DEFEAT, LW WAR DIARIES, RISE AND FALL OF THE LW, for example).


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 12:34 AM
Good post. A couple of points:


1) The P-51 was not originally designed to be a bomber escort. That criteria was never part of the Air Purchasing Comission's requirements. It evolved into a long-range bomber escort, but it was originally designed as a fighter. It's high speed at low altitude made it a great recon plane early on. Even then with the Allison engine and without the fuselage fuel tank, exceptional range was apparent.



2) The P-51B intial climb rate at sea level was around 3,200 fpm. But the rate of climb increased up to over 3,400 fpm at nearly 15,000 feet. It was still well over 2,500 fpm at 28,000 feet.



3) The V-1650-3 of the P-51B had a higher critical altitude than the V-1710-7 of the P-51D. The P-51B achieved its highest speed - 453 mph - at 28,800 feet. The P-51D achieved its top speed - 437 mph - at around 25,000 feet.

The P-51B's engine was considered a better high altitude performer, and was the basis for the V-1650-9 engine that powered the ultra-fast P-51H.

(Source for P-51B speeds: North American Aviation report: NA-5798 "Flight Test Performance for the P-51B-1" -and- "Evaluation and Comparison of P-51B and F4U-1 Airplanes")

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 12:36 AM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- If you just look at the composition of LW in ETO
-- just before D-day, you'll see that only aprox 500
-- day fighters and destroyers and 300 bombers and
-- transport planes was the total of airplanes deployed
-- by LW at that time in Germany, France, Belgium and
-- Holland (there were also aprox 550 nightfighters to
-- fight RAF). Yet USAAF claimed in June '44 alone 513
-- planes destroyed in air. In May USAAF claimed 978
-- air kills.
--
-- Did USAAF destroy LW completely each month? They
-- certainly seemed to believe that way.
-- USAAF claims are just that: claims. Let's not
-- confuse those statistics with reality.
-
-
- ..... Where do you get only 500 German fighters and
- destroyers deployed in NW Europe? What source does
- this come from? It is at odds with a great deal of
- other published data (STRATEGY FOR DEFEAT, LW WAR
- DIARIES, RISE AND FALL OF THE LW, for example).


Sorry my mistake, not deployed but serviceable.

sources are listed at the bottom of the page:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LWOB.html


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 12:38 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Sorry my mistake, not deployed but serviceable.



..... No problem. I can buy that figure as serviceable on any given day.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 12:42 AM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Sorry my mistake, not deployed but serviceable.
-
-
-
- ..... No problem. I can buy that figure as
- serviceable on any given day.


Yes, but the overclaiming remains. Not that other airforces did not overclaimed, but Mustang kill ratio is based on those overclaims.

And particulary that kill ratio alone is not relevant anyway. The fighters Mustang downed were there to destroy bombers not Mustangs.

<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/06/0306:43PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 12:57 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Yes, but the overclaiming remains. Not that other
- airforces did not overclaimed, but Mustang kill
- ratio is based on those overclaims.
-
- And particulary that kill ratio alone is not
- relevant anyway. The fighters Mustang downed were
- there to destroy bombers not Mustangs.

So essentially, you're saying the true amount of kills in Buzzsaw's post is 3/4s or 1/2 of those values?

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 01:01 AM
Korolov wrote:
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-- Yes, but the overclaiming remains. Not that other
-- airforces did not overclaimed, but Mustang kill
-- ratio is based on those overclaims.
--
-- And particulary that kill ratio alone is not
-- relevant anyway. The fighters Mustang downed were
-- there to destroy bombers not Mustangs.
-
- So essentially, you're saying the true amount of
- kills in Buzzsaw's post is 3/4s or 1/2 of those
- values?


I don't know. It will be probably very hard to make a research to confirm each kill and rewite all that has been written until now. We'll probably stay with those numbers, they are comfortable for most.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 01:15 AM
The kills claimed were actually much higher right after the war, it wasn't until later that they came to 4950 enemy air kills. They came to that after going through LW records, whatever was left, and each sqaudron, Fighter Group and Bomber Group involved or in the area. I would have to say it is more than likely very close to the truth. They were very thorough with these records. My Grandfather helped with these investigations after the war to determine these numbers and their validity. The highest margin for error was found to be the Bomber crews and not fighter crews. USAAF fighter claims could only be substantiated by a witness to the enemy plane being attacked by the claiming pilot and then the destruction or crashing of said engaged aircraft. Many pilots after the war "lost" kills that were not valid. So again I will say that number is most likely the closest to reality of any other.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 01:22 AM
I can't remember where I saw the interview...I believe it was with Chuck Yeager, but he describes being chased by a 109 and he went into a climbing, banking turn until the 109 stalled out, where he promptly rolled behind him and dispatched the enemy aircraft.

The story backs up something I read somewhere stating the the initial climb rate of the P-51 was not good...but above 20,000 ft. , it could outclimb most aircraft in the sky at the time. I don't remember the source...but I just remember reading it then seeing the interview with Yeager.

Most climb rates are usually expressed from ground level to some altitude, but all aircraft had certain altitudes where they enjoyed top performance...the Mustang was a beast above 20,000 ft.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 01:34 AM
Slickun wrote:
- RocketDog wrote:
--
-- Slickun wrote:
--- the case is easily made the P-51
--- had more impact on the course of the war than any
--- other single engine plane in WW2.
--
--
-- Apart from the Spitfire and Hurricane <
-
- RocketDog, every country in the world had planes
- basically like the Spitfire or Hurricane, or the
- Bf-109E for that matter, in 1940.
-
- The Mustang solved what a few years earlier was an
- unsolvable problem (compare it to the Me-110, the
- LW's answer in the BoB for a long ranged escort),
- and flew to the other guys place and fought on an
- even basis.
-
- This enabled a winning OFFENSIVE strategy.
-
- You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, as are
- all here.
-

Um how many countries had a plane that could match the 109 in 1940? well ild say very few, the p40 was no match all of europe had no plane that could beat it, the spitfire was the only plane that could match it, also how many countries had a plane on the frount line from 1939 to the end of ww2? Unsolveable problem? for the raf there was no problem.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 01:39 AM
Eagle_361st wrote:
- The kills claimed were actually much higher right
- after the war, it wasn't until later that they came
- to 4950 enemy air kills. They came to that after
- going through LW records, whatever was left, and
- each sqaudron, Fighter Group and Bomber Group
- involved or in the area. I would have to say it is
- more than likely very close to the truth. They were
- very thorough with these records. My Grandfather
- helped with these investigations after the war to
- determine these numbers and their validity. The
- highest margin for error was found to be the Bomber
- crews and not fighter crews.


I know how much you whish those numbers to be true.
Those investigations you are talking about only decreased the bomber claims and transfered them to fighters. Those numbers are as controversial as are the statistics made at the end of war.

For example in June '44 fighter claimed 470 air kills, bombers claimed only 42. I already mentioned that this must be overclaiming, but you can see who overclaimed more. Also if you look at german pilots accounts you'll see that defensive bomber fire was much more feared than enemy fighters.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 01:46 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Radar was wide spread in Europe and it was reliable.
- No surprise attacks were possible, unless attacking
- force flew the whole mission at tree tops. This was
- impossible for medium and heavy bombers because it
- decreased the range dramatically, but it was tried
- with fighters in attack configurations.

I see we are in agreement then /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif You are right in the ETO comprehensive radar networks made high rate of climb a secondary consideration to an interceptor (just look at the effectiveness of the Bf-110 and Me-410 against unescorted heavy bomber formations- neither of these types had great rates of climb), but I was drawing attention to the fact that rate of climb could be an important factor for an interceptor.




"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 02:31 AM
This was the best high altitude Mustang fighter:

http://www.il2sturmovik.de/ss_fb_dev/02-12/P-51B_1.jpg


The P-51B-1NA and the P-51B-5NA were produced without the fuselage fuel tank (although some were retrofitted with them). P-51B/C/D that had the fuselage tank suffered from longitude instability **when that tank was full**. No such problem in the P-51Bs and Cs that did not have them.

Additionally, the onset of compressibility started at a much higher speed with the P-51Bs and Cs than it did with the P-51D. Dives much beyond 505 mph IAS in the D model resulted in "porpising." The Bs and Cs could be dived to 550 mph IAS before ill-effects began to be felt.

Also, P-51Bs and C that had the Packard Merlin V-1650-3 engine had much better high altitude performance than Mustangs with the V-1650-7. The P-51B with the V-1650-3
could hit 450mph to 453mph (depending on source) at around 29,00 feet.

And while climb was mediocre at lower altitudes, the excellent engine and high critical altitude allowed a high climb rate to be mainatined even at very high altitudes. The P-51B started at S.L. at about 3,200 fpm, not spectacular. But at 28,000 feet, climb rate was still 2,500 feet per minute. That is spectacular. And it was still in ecess of 2,000 fpm above 30,000 feet.

The P-51B/C had problems. Obviously, visibility was not as good as with the D, but visibility with the Malcom hood was great.

The B and C had their guns lying on their sides. Firing the guns while performing high-G manuevers often led to jamming.

Also, 4 .50s was fine for enemy fighters, but only marginal against larger planes.


Nevertheless, the P-51B and C were fantastic aircraft. Hoep Oleg does a really good job on them.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 02:41 AM
Slickun wrote:
- NegativeGee wrote:
-- -
-- Trying to define the most significant fighter of WW2
-- is a matter mainly of opinion. I don't think the
-- Mustang was well suited to ground attack, although
-- it was used with success in that role.
--
-- Anyway, I always like to acknowledge the fact it was
-- a team effort:
--
-- "If it can be said that the P-38s struck the
-- Luftwaffe in it's vitals and the P-51s [gave] the
-- coup de grace, it was the Thunderbolt that broke
-- it's back".
--
---William E. Kepner, Commander, 8th Fighter Command
--
-
- Disagree with a lot of what you wrote there,
- NegativeGee. Unsuited, but successful? Well, I
- guess it was some use, huh? Destroyed more E/A on
- the ground than the P-47. Korea should prove to any
- doubters it was at least "very useful" as a ground
- attack bird.

You appear to have some sort of emotional attachment to the P-51 that has clouded your judgement of what I wrote, as you seem to have construed my statement as an attempt to undermine the P-51's reputation. I will clarify my statement further as to draw your attention to the point being made.

The Mustang (namely the escort types that were type mainly used by the USAAF in the ETO) was unsuited to ground attack- well, it was a high performance fighter equipped with an inline engine and equipped with armour to protect its vital systems from fighter attacks and bomber defensive fire. It was not armoured for the ground attack role, and its liquid cooled powerplant put it at risk of engine damage (and subsequent faliure) that could be caused by small calibre defensive fire. The P-47 (Radial engine, tough construction, large load capacity) and the P-38 (two separate inline engines, large load capacity) were both better suited to the ground attack role.

To take your extrapolation to Korea, there were far more capable ground attack types operational there as well (Late variant Corsairs, Grumman Avenger if we stick with the props).

The Mustang was not an ideal design for ground attack- however, the Strategic situations and it's tactical deployment allowed it to be successful in that role, both in WW2 and Korea.

- I just disagree with Kepner.

With all due respect, I hardly think you are qualified to contradict his analysis of the situation, given his viewpoint of the events.

- The LW was hale and
- hearty in January of 1944, stronger in the West than
- ever, full of well trained pilots in fine planes.
- The P-47 had NOT broken its back,

You assume that Kepner is refering to this period- he is not, he is commenting on the overall effect of the three fighter types by the end of the war.

- and the P-38 was
- coming off all of about 20 air to air kills since
- its reappearance in Nov of 1943. The LW had
- defeated the AAF over Europe, with a culminating
- thrashing of the 8th AF over Schweinfurt.
-
- I'm just not sure everyone here is aware of how bad
- it was for the 8th in the early winter months of
- 1943. The whole idea of self defending bombers, the
- whole deck of cards the 8th had gambled on, was not
- looking good.

Indeed, the 8th USAAF suffered unsustainable losses in the latter half of 1943 (most notoriously being October 14th, or "Black Thursday" when 60 Forts- 26% of the attacking number- were lost). The bombing campaign targets had to be limited to France and nearby German targets, where the P-47s, P-38s and Spitfires could escort too.

There was a pause, a pulling back,
- during late 1943, as the 8th tried to retool, and
- the LW took a good, deep breath and got ready for
- the better weather coming. The LW was anything BUT
- broken backed.
-
- The P-51 enabled the bomber offensive to continue,
- to lure the LW up into the long ranged escort's
- guns.

To be precise, the P-51 allowed deep penetration raids of Germany to resume.

- Many of the typical excuses the anti-mustang folks

I sincerely hope that comment is not directed towards myself.

- use to denigrate the type, to lessen the impact of
- the combat record, are in fact based in truth when
- discussing the D model. By its appearance the LW
- had its back broken, the best pilots mostly gone,
- the allied air force on French soil, allowing the
- RAf to range the front, outnumbering the LW pilots
- most of the time (but not always), and the air
- offensive turning to the oil deposits.

The Mustang as an escort Fighter allowed the deep strategic bombing raids to resume into Germany at the earliest opportunity. However, it was one of several types that provided continuous escort to the bombers- if it had not been for the P-47, P-38 and Spitfire to do escort missions closer to the UK, the Mustang would have not been present if sufficent numbers for a good length of time to provide its all important escort of the Bombers deep into Germany. As I originally stated, I like to acknowledge that it was a team effort that got the job done.

- But in the savage months of Jan-May 1944 the best of
- both countries went at it with everything they had,
- fresh, trained, and itching to get at each other.
- The usual excuses hold NO water.

Even in the latter half of 1944, an effective response to the daylight bomber offensive (with all of its escort fighters) was not out of the Luftwaffe's capabilities. General de Jagdflieger Galland envisaged a plan to once again inflict unsustainable losses on the US bombers (the "Big Blow"), but these resources were squandered in Operation Bodenplatte in support of the Ardennes Offensive in December 1944/January1945. Read his book, The First and the Last, for an in-depth view.


Btw, that is one nice screenshot you posted Skychimp /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif





"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

Message Edited on 11/07/03 01:48AM by NegativeGee

Message Edited on 11/07/03 01:51AM by NegativeGee

Message Edited on 11/07/0302:14AM by NegativeGee

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 02:54 AM
I do not wish them to be true, unlike you and most if not all of your claims. I can tell you personally that I will believe what a veteran no matter if it was my grandfather or not has to say about it, rather than you. I agree that there was overclaiming by all parties on both sides of the war, however I tend to believe the finalized claims considering what they did after the war. And for your information not only did the bombers have kills dis-allowed, the fighters did as well. I am not saying that 4950 is absolute, in fact it could be lower or it could be higher who knows unless we were there. I just don't believe YOU and the golden eggs you constantly try to lay in order to bash American planes especially where the Mustang is concerned. You seem to always find ways of twisting half truths to your benefit for your cause whatever that may be. I just can't believe anything that you post as it is always half concocted and half true if even half true at all.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:48 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
-
- Oh please, 4950 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air?
- Where were those aircraft?
-
- If you just look at the composition of LW in ETO
- just before D-day, you'll see that only aprox 500
- day fighters and destroyers and 300 bombers and
- transport planes was the total of airplanes deployed
- by LW at that time in Germany, France, Belgium and
- Holland (there were also aprox 550 nightfighters to
- fight RAF). Yet USAAF claimed in June '44 alone 513
- planes destroyed in air. In May USAAF claimed 978
- air kills.
-
- Did USAAF destroy LW completely each month? They
- certainly seemed to believe that way.
- USAAF claims are just that: claims. Let's not
- confuse those statistics with reality.
-
-
-

What is so hard to believe that the P-51 destroyed, on average, 11 LW a/c per day? {(4950/15 months)/30} That is from Dec 43 to end April 45 in the ETO and MTO.

I./JG26 in May '44 recieved 82 a/c with the loss of 74. For June '44 it was 56 and 72. In July '44 it was 80 and 78. That is quite the turnover rate(in/out). The other Groups are listed http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg26.htm.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 05:52 AM
HellToupee wrote:
-
- -
- Um how many countries had a plane that could match
- the 109 in 1940? well ild say very few, the p40 was
- no match all of europe had no plane that could beat
- it, the spitfire was the only plane that could match
- it, also how many countries had a plane on the
- frount line from 1939 to the end of ww2? Unsolveable
- problem? for the raf there was no problem.

The RAF didn't have a range problem with its fighters?

Uhh, OK. Don't tell Johnny Johnson

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:05 AM
well the spitfire could cover all of england and roam quite a part of france. If they wanted more range from it they probly could have put some wing drop tanks on it.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:11 AM
HellToupee wrote:
- well the spitfire could cover all of england and
- roam quite a part of france. If they wanted more
- range from it they probly could have put some wing
- drop tanks on it.


Well, later in the war, Spitfires were flying from bases in France, Belgium and Netherlands. They could fight over Germany with bases that close.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:15 AM
- NegativeGee wrote:
-- -
You appear to have some sort of emotional attachment to the P-51 that has clouded your judgement of what I wrote, as you seem to have construed my statement as an attempt to undermine the P-51's reputation. I will clarify my statement further as to draw your attention to the point being made.


Ahh, C'mon. Lay off the insults. I have an emotional attachment to the truth. You spent most of the rest of your post agreeing with me.


It was not unsuited to ground attack. It carried a big load, flew far, got in fast, and did the job. It was liquid cooled, and had the well known problem with coolant hits. Everyone knows that. You feel this makes it unsuited to ground attack, I say its combat results in two wars makes my case stronger. There were better types, but that does not make the Mustang a poor ground attack aircraft. In most theatres outside the ETO, it was primarily used in that capacity. Pretend the A-36 didn't exist. Pretend it didn't get more ground kills than the P-47. The Jug suffered 1 loss per 100 ground attack sorties, the P-51 in the ETO, going after mostly well protected airfields, suffered 3 per 100. A-36's loss rates in strictly ground attack were very very low, the lowest in the MTO.

I can disagree with Kepner if I wish. There are other Generals and authors that disagree with him as well on this point, that he gives too much credit to the P-47 and not enough to the P-51. Read Walter J. Boyne's book "Clash of Wings" to get his perspective. Again, the historical record agrees with me. So do you. The LW was not defeated or broken backed in January of 1944. My entire basis for the post was to make people aware that the P-51B appeared on the scene long before any back breaking had occurred.

My goodness, of course the P-47's and Spitfires provided the close in escort work. But, that was no more enough to win the war of attrition in Jan 1944 than it was in October of 1943. What enabled the bombing to penetrate deep enough into Germany to force the LW to fly in numbers to stop it? Long ranged escorts. Without it the 8th pecks away at the fringes of the Reich.

And who disagreed it was a team effort? What are we really disagreeing about? Whether I've read Galland's book? By Christmas 1944 the LW had no chance. They could possibly have delivered a very severe blow, but by then the AAF would have absorbed it quickly enough.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:18 AM
The British Air Purchasing Commission needed a fighter that was not only capable of fighting other aircraft, but also for providing ground support. When NAA designed the Mustang, certainly some thought went into that.

The Mustang was not the ideal ground attack aircraft, but it certainly got the job done - in spades.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:19 AM
Again, fellas, my original posts were to underline that in Dec of 1943, when the P-51B made its combat debut in the ETO, things were very very different than when the P-51D showed up. That's all.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:23 AM
HellToupee wrote:
- well the spitfire could cover all of england and
- roam quite a part of france. If they wanted more
- range from it they probly could have put some wing
- drop tanks on it.

But you can't put so much gas in it that you go out further on drops than internal gets you back. The Spit was limited thus by its smaller internal fuel capacity.

The problem, helltoupee, was that the LW wouldn't come up and fight unless the heavies went deep.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:29 AM
Huck, check Caldwells's "JG 26, Top Guns of the Luftwaffe". He spells out pretty plainly the disaster that befell the LW in Jan-May 1944, especially to the pilot corps. Galland hits the topic as well in "The First and the Last".

I'll post the pilot loss numbers sometime, culled from Caldwell's book. Before Jan 1944 the LW kept up with the war of attrition fairly easily, and had air superiority over the continent. In just a few months of 1944 the LW exceeded its western losses for the entire previous year.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 07:07 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
--
--
-- Oh please, 4950 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air?
-- Where were those aircraft?
--
-- If you just look at the composition of LW in ETO
-- just before D-day, you'll see that only aprox 500
-- day fighters and destroyers and 300 bombers and
-- transport planes was the total of airplanes deployed
-- by LW at that time in Germany, France, Belgium and
-- Holland (there were also aprox 550 nightfighters to
-- fight RAF). Yet USAAF claimed in June '44 alone 513
-- planes destroyed in air. In May USAAF claimed 978
-- air kills.
--
-- Did USAAF destroy LW completely each month? They
-- certainly seemed to believe that way.
-- USAAF claims are just that: claims. Let's not
-- confuse those statistics with reality.
--
--
--
-
- What is so hard to believe that the P-51 destroyed,
- on average, 11 LW a/c per day? {(4950/15 months)/30}
- That is from Dec 43 to end April 45 in the ETO and
- MTO.

Yes, its very hard. If you look at USAAF claims they say that they obliterated LW each and every month.


- I./JG26 in May '44 recieved 82 a/c with the loss of
- 74. For June '44 it was 56 and 72. In July '44 it
- was 80 and 78. That is quite the turnover
- rate(in/out). The other Groups are listed <a
- href="http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg26.htm."
- target=_blank>http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg26.htm.
- </a>


Feck Milo, you read those tables with your feet.
Read again and see that I./JG26 lost in May '44 15 planes (not pilots) due to enemy action, in the air and/or on the ground. In June '44 they lost 18 planes. I./JG26 had a nominal strength of 68 planes. Are those losses heavy, considering that USAAF launched an enormous campaign in spring '44 to cut the strength of LW before D-day?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 07:53 AM
Here are some numbers for you Huckebein:

On the evening of 30 June 1944, II Jagdkorp's 4th and 5th Jagdivisionen had 233 single-engined fighters on strength. Between June 6th and June 30th, II Jagdkorps had lost 458 single-engined fighters.

If 458 single-engine fighters were lost over a period of three weeks on the Invasion Front alone, the USAAF's claims of 513 Luftwaffe aircraft in total for the entire month sounds quite reasonable. Remember, those 458 losses did not include fighters lost by Reich Defense units or any other non-single engine fighter losses.

To answer your question: yes, for all intents and purposes the Allies did destroy the Luftwaffe's entire inventory every month. The Germans just kept producing enough aircraft to replace them every month.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
--
-- Huckebein_FW wrote:
--
---
---
--- Oh please, 4950 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air?
--- Where were those aircraft?
---
--- If you just look at the composition of LW in ETO
--- just before D-day, you'll see that only aprox 500
--- day fighters and destroyers and 300 bombers and
--- transport planes was the total of airplanes deployed
--- by LW at that time in Germany, France, Belgium and
--- Holland (there were also aprox 550 nightfighters to
--- fight RAF). Yet USAAF claimed in June '44 alone 513
--- planes destroyed in air. In May USAAF claimed 978
--- air kills.
---
--- Did USAAF destroy LW completely each month? They
--- certainly seemed to believe that way.
--- USAAF claims are just that: claims. Let's not
--- confuse those statistics with reality.
---
---
---
--
-- What is so hard to believe that the P-51 destroyed,
-- on average, 11 LW a/c per day? {(4950/15 months)/30}
-- That is from Dec 43 to end April 45 in the ETO and
-- MTO.
-
- Yes, its very hard. If you look at USAAF claims they
- say that they obliterated LW each and every month.
-
-
-- I./JG26 in May '44 recieved 82 a/c with the loss of
-- 74. For June '44 it was 56 and 72. In July '44 it
-- was 80 and 78. That is quite the turnover
-- rate(in/out). The other Groups are listed <a
-- href="http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg26.htm."
-- target=_blank>http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg26.htm.
-- </a> -
-
- Feck Milo, you read those tables with your feet.
- Read again and see that I./JG26 lost in May '44 15
- planes (not pilots) due to enemy action, in the air
- and/or on the ground. In June '44 they lost 18
- planes. I./JG26 had a nominal strength of 68 planes.
- Are those losses heavy, considering that USAAF
- launched an enormous campaign in spring '44 to cut
- the strength of LW before D-day?
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center>

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 08:25 AM
Slickun wrote:
- Huck, check Caldwells's "JG 26, Top Guns of the
- Luftwaffe". He spells out pretty plainly the
- disaster that befell the LW in Jan-May 1944,
- especially to the pilot corps. Galland hits the
- topic as well in "The First and the Last".
-
- I'll post the pilot loss numbers sometime, culled
- from Caldwell's book. Before Jan 1944 the LW kept
- up with the war of attrition fairly easily, and had
- air superiority over the continent. In just a few
- months of 1944 the LW exceeded its western losses
- for the entire previous year.


The number of USAAF sorties flown in '44 was 10 times bigger than in '43. For example the number of sorties flown in May '43 by USAAF was 3,915 compared to 67,979 sorties flown in May '44 (to stay at this important month). That's more than 17 times increase in number of sorties flown. I don't know what you expect from LW, but to me it seems quite normal that the number of losses to increase steeply in '44.

There is no magic aircraft that broke the back of LW. LW was simply unable to increase its force 10 times, in fact it was in a continuous shrinking, especially due to chronic shortages of fuel, beginning with the spring of '44, shortages that became catastrophic from the end of summer in '44.

But LW planners also made serious mistakes. They kept the core of their force in Germany at a time when it was needed in France. Also LW was incredibly poorly supplied in spring of '44, considering the aircraft industry output in '44. To counter the landings without having the air superiority in France, they needed fighter conversions to attack missions, like Fw-190F/G and maybe Me-410. If they had 1000 such aircraft available in France together with 500 fighters they could stop the landings on the beach.

As Rommel said before the landings, no landing can succed or be countered effectively without use of air power. He saw that in Africa and Italy. Those 100 fighters they had available was simply a ridiculous force. They had some bombers, but they could not operate considering that allies had total air superiority and were present everywhere in France airspace in huge numbers. Only fast attack Fw-190 models, preferably with escorts, could have breached to their targets. An early arrival of Me-262A-2 would have been helpful, but this is hypothetical.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 11:39 AM
Thanks for the effort put into that post.

I have a question for anyone who may know, and
I hope you will excuse me for not reading beyond the original post, so if this has been answered in these 4 pages I apologize.

Anyways, how is FB at modelling changes in weight of the aircraft? When you use fuel, does the aircraft increase in performance accordingly?



Your Post Could Not Be Completed Because:

Board is busy currently unable to post.

Please make any needed corrections and try again.

Fish itchy

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 11:45 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
- Yes, its very hard. If you look at USAAF claims they
- say that they obliterated LW each and every month.
-

Only for you who hates all that is not German. What happened to those 36,000 Me109s and 22,000 Fw190s Huck? They all did not crash.


From "Six Months to Oblivion" Werner Girbig

pg28
Losses for Nov. 2 '44 > 70 KIA + 28 WIA = 98 total

pg 34
Losses for Nov. 21 '44 > 40 KIA + 22 WIA = 62 total

pg 38
Losses for Nov. 26 '44 > 57 KIA + 30 WIA = 87 total

So in 3 days, the LW's JGs over German lost 247 personnel. Times 10, that would be almost 2500.


-
- Feck Milo, you read those tables with your feet.
- Read again and see that I./JG26 lost in May '44 15
- planes (not pilots) due to enemy action, in the air
- and/or on the ground. In June '44 they lost 18
- planes. I./JG26 had a nominal strength of 68 planes.
- Are those losses heavy, considering that USAAF
- launched an enormous campaign in spring '44 to cut
- the strength of LW before D-day?
-

What is this 'feck' Huck? Did you mis-spell and type an 'e' instead of a 'u'?

Did I say they were claims Huck? Just noting the turnover in a/c in ONE particular LW Gruppe and showing how easily the a/c were replaced.

You should take your own advice Huckie. For May '44, I./JG26 had 34 a/c at month start and only 33 a/c at month end. Nominal strength COULD NOT be reached, so why 'talk' about it?



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 11:52 AM
Salute

Huckbein has seen this multiple times, but seems to be suffering from short term memory loss.

So to help out, I'll post it again.

It shows that in fact, the Luftwaffe remained at generally the same strength throughout the war, except during '44 when they actually increased the number of aircraft they had in the air. Additionally, I would draw your attention to the loss figures listed for January to May 1944:

>>>>>>>

Here are some figures on Aircraft losses for the Luftwaffe. They come from "Luftwaffe" by Williamson Murray a British author. His sources for the losses were the actual German records, not Allied or Soviet claims. "Luftwaffe" is one of the best analysis of why the Germans lost the war in the air which I have come across. I have had to take the Charts and tables which he has provided, which means in some cases the figures I would be interested in were not available.

Total German Operational Strength May 1940 (Operational strength is the aircraft actually ready to fly, not including aircraft on the books but in repair or depots)

Fighters: 1369

Others: 4029

Total: 5398


Total German Aircraft losses due to enemy action May-September 1940 (Invasion of France and Battle of Britain)

Fighters: 871

Others: 1442

Total: 2313


Total German Fighter Pilot casualties. (Casualties include Deaths, Serious Woundings, and Captures. Fighter Pilot casualties are to be differentiated from Aircraft losses which can be replaced)

May-June 1940 (Battle of France)

169

July-September 1940 (Battle of Britain)

521

You will notice the big increase in German Pilot Casualties during the Battle of Britain. This was due to the fact they were flying over hostile territory at extreme range.


Total German Aircraft losses due to enemy action October-December 1940 (Night Blitz of Britain)

Fighters: 40

Bombers: 140


--------------------------------------


Total German Operational Strength January 1941

Fighters: 1339

Others: 3008

Total: 4347


Average German Operational Strength versus Soviet Union June-November 1941

Fighters: 738 (55% of Total Jan. Operational strength)

Other: 1724

Total: 2462 (57% of Total Jan. Operational strength)


Total German Aircraft Losses due to enemy action January-December 1941 (not including November, figures N/A)

Fighters: 868

Other: 1981

Total: 2849


Percentage of Total German Aircraft lost Monthly, All Fronts January-December 1941

January: 2.6%

February: 3.6%

March: 4.9%

April: 7.2%

May: 7.5%

June: 11.6%

July: 16.1%

August: 9.8%

September: 8.8%

October: 7.7%

November: 6.5%

December: 7.1%


You can see from the above chart the German losses are quite small when their only active Front is the English Channel. Losses begin to rise in April with the Balkan Campaigns in Yugoslavia and Greece versus the British Expeditionary Forces there, as well as the commitment to North Africa with Rommel. The Germans had significant losses on Crete, especially in Transport and Bombers. With the invasion of the Soviet Union losses jump very significantly in the first few months. But after the Soviet airforce is to all intents destroyed, the losses begin to reduce again.


Percentage of Total German Fighter Aircraft lost Monthly, All Fronts January-December 1941

January: 2.1%

February: 3.6%

March: 4.7%

April: 6.4%

May: 6.8%

June: 14.2%

July: 22.9%

August: 13.4%

September: 12.6%

October: 6.0%

November: N/A

December: 10.2%


This Chart shows the German Fighter losses with the invasion of the Soviet Union are proportionately a little higher than overall losses.
---------------------------------

German Operational Strength January 1942

Fighters: 1324

Other: 3809

Total: 5133


I do not have percentages of the Aircraft deployment by Front. However in November of 1941, Luftflotte 2, comprising approx. 600 aircraft was transferred to the Mediterranean to assist in the suppression of Malta.


German Monthly Aircraft Losses All Fronts January to May 1942.

January: 428

February: 415

March: 564

April: 525

May: 772


This Chart shows the heaviest losses begin March with the failed Counter-Offensive by the Soviets at Kharkov.


Total German Aircraft Losses January to May 1942

All Aircraft: 2704


Total German Monthly Aircraft Losses June to December 1942 by Front. All Aircraft

Month---------------Eastern Front--------------All other Fronts

June------------------350--------------------------299

July------------------438--------------------------386

August--------------436--------------------------371

September----------332--------------------------206

October-------------200--------------------------324

November----------224--------------------------595

December----------408--------------------------366


This is my first Chart which shows the actual breakdown of losses by Front. You can see the losses on the Eastern Front are higher during the Summer '42 offensive, but losses in the West are higher in October and November during the fighting at El Alamein and during the invasion of North Africa, "Torch". Eastern Front losses then move ahead again during December when the foolishly ordered airlift to Stalingrad was at its height. There were significant Transport and Bomber losses at that time.


Total German Aircraft Losses June to December 1942 by Front

Eastern Front

All Aircraft: 2388

Other Fronts

All Aircraft: 2547

You can see from this, that the overall aircraft losses during the second half of '42 begin to shift to the West.

----------------------------------------------------------


German Operational Aircraft Strength February 1943

Fighters: 1360

Others: 4014

Total: 5374


Distribution of Authorized German Fighter Strength January 1943 (note this is Authorized strength or Paper strength, not Operational strength)

Eastern Front: 445

Mediterranean: 280

NorthWest Europe: 1045


From this you can see 74% of German Fighter strength is cocentrated against the Western Allies.


German Monthly Aircraft Losses in 1943 by Front. First number is total Aircraft losses/Second number is Fighter losses

Month---------------Eastern---------------------Mediterranean------------------Northwest Europe

January--------------482--85------------------------282--124------------------------176--87

February------------318--63------------------------206--89--------------------------182--77

March---------------314--100----------------------308--140-------------------------256--140

April----------------238--67------------------------572--247-------------------------256--143

May-----------------331--110-----------------------333--97--------------------------331--183

June-----------------249--85------------------------235--131-------------------------313--157

July-----------------558--201-----------------------711--246-------------------------526--335

August-------------472--150-----------------------321--133-------------------------625--248

September---------338--99------------------------503--167-------------------------522--276

October------------279--94------------------------285--92---------------------------530--281

November---------194--45------------------------180--54---------------------------529--281

December---------Not Available


In January the German losses are slightly higher on the Eastern Front than both the Mediterranean and Northwest Europe combined. This reflects the continued attempted airlift to Stalingrad. But after that, losses versus the Western Allies become much more significant. Losses are very high during the close of the Tunisian Campaign, especially during the abortive attempted Air Supply phase. Even during the Kursk Offensive and subsequent Soviet Counter-Offensive, the losses are less than those suffered during the Sicily invasion. Meanwhile as the 8th Air Force Bombing Offensive begins in July of '43, the German losses in Northwest Europe begin to climb till they are largest portion of all losses. Notice especially the higher proportion of Fighters lost in Northwest Europe.


Total Aircraft Losses in 1943 by Front (excluding December)

Eastern Front

Fighters: 1099

Total: 3773

Mediterranean Front

Fighters: 1520

Total: 3936

Northwest Europe Front

Fighters: 2208

Total: 4246


Total German Aircraft losses inflicted in 1943, Western Allies vs Soviet Union

Western Allies: 8182

Soviet Union: 3773


German Monthly Fighter Pilot Casualties January to December 1943

January: 137

February: 115

March: 155

April: 206

May: 266

June: 246

July: 330

August: 333

September: 343

October: 339

November: 245

December: 252


Of these casualties, the majority have been inflicted by the Western Allies.


Total German Operational Strength January 1944

Fighters: 1561

Others: 5180

Total: 6741


Distribution of Authorized German Fighter Strength January 1944

Eastern Front: 425

Mediterranean: 365

Northwest Europe: 1650


You can see from this 82% of German Fighter Strength is concentrated against the Western Allies at the start of 1944.


Unfortunately Murray's book does not include figures which show losses by Front during 1944. However eduacated guesses can be made.


Total Monthly German Aircraft Losses January-May 1944. First number is total Aircraft losses/Second number is Fighter losses.


January: 991----473

February: N/A

March: 1770----985

April: N/A

May: 1882----831


You can see the monthly losses are much higher than in earlier years.


Monthly Percentage of Total German Aircraft Strength Lost January-June 1944


January: 14.7

February: 20.5

March: 25.6

April: 28.2

May: 27.8

June: 22.7


Monthly Percentage of Total German Fighter Strength Lost January-June 1944


January: 30.3

February: 33.8

March: 56.4

April: 43

May: 50.4

June: 48.3


Since 82% of the German Fighter strength is concentrated against the Western Allies, the overwhelming majority of the fighter casualties are likely inflicted by British or U.S. Pilots.


German Fighter Pilot Casualties January to May 1944

January: 292

February: 434

March: 511

April: 447

May: 578


Compare these Pilot losses with the previous tables showing Pilot losses during 1940 and 1943. You can see the attrition has become enormous.


Distribution of Authorized German Fighter Strength July 1944

Eastern Front: 475

Balkans (Mediterranean): 65

Northwest Europe: 835


Compare this table with the Authorized German Fighter Strength in January 1944. You can see the Eastern Front totals are much the same. But the strength facing the Western Allies has shrunk to 45% of what it was in January. This reflects the tremendous losses in the Battle for Germany.


Jagdgeschwader 26 Pilot Casualties by Year. (JG26 were based in France and Germany versus the Western Allies. Sometimes called the Abbeville Boys)

1939: 2
1940: 51
1941: 64
1942: 69
1943: 149
1944: 249
1945: 110

You can see from this table that during the years when JG26 was only facing short range Spitfires and ineffective British medium bombers, it could pick its time to fight or not to fight, and so casualties were very low. But with the advent of the B-17 daylight offensive, and the nessesity to intercept these destructive and accurate formations, casualties skyrocket.



Average Newly Operational Pilot Training Hours Flight Time

Number before slash indicates hours on low performance training aircraft. Number after slash indicates training hours on first line aircraft.


------------------------------------German--------------------British-----------------------U.S.


1939-Sept. '42------------------240+/80+----------------200+/40+---------------------N/A

Oct 42-June 43-----------------200+/40+----------------340+/75+---------------------270+/70+

Jul 43-June 44------------------180+/20+----------------340+/80+---------------------330+/130+

July 44-End---------------------125+/15+----------------340+/90+---------------------400+/150+



This is self-explanatory. Shows the quality of the pilots who were coming into service with the various airforces during different periods of the war. Unfortunately the Soviet not included.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 12:40 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
What happened to those 36,000 Me109s and 22,000 Fw190s


According:
6. Abteilung , Generalquartiermeister der Deutschen Luftwaffe.


1939 bis 1945

Fw 190 all variants = 20001 Planes
Bf 109 all variants = 30480 Planes


just for your info /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

btw.buzzsaws thread was very good,
but now , why always the same fights between the same people ?
why ? tell me .





http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 01:10 PM
I quoted Ise for the 109s, so you had better ask him where he got his number from./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .


Boandlgramer wrote:

-
- According:
- 6. Abteilung , Generalquartiermeister der Deutschen
- Luftwaffe.
-
-
- 1939 bis 1945
-
- Fw 190 all variants = 20001 Planes
- Bf 109 all variants = 30480 Planes
-
-
-

So now we have the true numbers./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

So what happened to all those 50,481?

http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 01:53 PM
Huckbein_FW
The number of USAAF sorties flown in '44 was 10 times bigger than in '43. For example the number of sorties flown in May '43 by USAAF was 3,915 compared to 67,979 sorties flown in May '44 (to stay at this important month). That's more than 17 times increase in number of sorties flown. I don't know what you expect from LW, but to me it seems quite normal that the number of losses to increase steeply in '44.

There is no magic aircraft that broke the back of LW. LW was simply unable to increase its force 10 times, in fact it was in a continuous shrinking, especially due to chronic shortages of fuel, beginning with the spring of '44, shortages that became catastrophic from the end of summer in '44.



P-51's downed 11 E/A per 100 sorties. P-38's downed 3, P-47's downed 2. Just wanted to throw that number out.


My point, so often ignored, is that the number of sorties is meaningless if the AAF didn't do deep penetrations. The LW refused to come up and fight a useless war of attrition against fighter sweeps. The hundreds and hundreds of sorties flown by the short range escorts seldom encountered the LW.

The long ranged escort enabled the strategy that finished the LW. Heavies going deep pulled the LW up. No deep penetrating heavies without the Lightnings and Mustangs. It's not that tough.

Indeed, the whole point of Operation Argument was to defeat the LW. You are trying to paint a picture of massive numbers of AAF fighters over Berlin, pouncing on the unsuspecting and outnumbered LW. Just not so in Jan-May 1944.

Let me say it again. US escorts did not fly in gaggles, they flew in relays. One Group of long ranged escort was all that protected the bomber screen for much of this decisive battle. One squadron in front, one to each side. The LW waited until the Spits and P-47's turned back, then bored in. The difference in early 1944 was that in most cases there WERE long ranged birds on station, and they enabled the daylight bombing campaign to continue.

Nothing magic about it, my friend. Just a couple of types with very long legs, a concept that you seem to refuse to admit has any bearing on a plane's effectiveness.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 02:13 PM
Every countries fighter pilots in every war have overclaimed. Usually the factor is by about 2. There are exceptions.

But the point with the AAF claims in the ETO is that one can use the claims of the different types to compare. No one has ever accused the Jug pilots of overclaiming more than the Lightning pilots as a whole, as far as I know,

Despite only being in the ETO from Dec 1943 on, the Merlin Mustang shot down more planes than the other two main types. This in total numbers, kills per sortie, and in kill ratio.

Ah. Not fair you say, as the Mustang recieved the main air to air role?

Yes, but in Jan-May 1944 the three types were engaged together, doing the same things at the same times against the same enemy on the same day over the same ground. Comparison is possible. P-51 groups scored at twice the rate of the P-47 groups, and 4 times that of the P-38 groups. Mustang total kills began to exceed the P-47 kills when the number of Mustangs available reached about half of the P-47's available.

If one agrees that the gauge of a fighters net worth, how history will judge it, is simply how effectively it's country was able to use its guns in combat, ponder this as well. The P-51 cost far far less than either other type, used far far less gas, was built quicker, and shot down more planes per sortie as well. Not too tough for Kepner and others to decide which type they wanted to keep as the primary air to air A/C.

Not magic at all. Just a good solid combination of cheap construction and low operating costs, put in a fast and long legged airplane, that just happened to appear at exactly the right time.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 02:22 PM
The US AAF did not build a single engined plane "ideal" for ground attack in WW2.

The P-51 was liquid cooled.

The P-47 handling became more and more sluggish as it went below 15,000 feet. My Dad, when asked about this, said "Aww, you got used to it." Range was limited compared to other US types when hardpoints were carring bombs instead of fuel.

The P-38 was even more vulnerable to ground fire than the P-51. It had TWO sets of plumbing, arrayed all about the plane. True enough, it could survive one engine out, but a mission kill nontheless. It's downward visibility was poor.

The F4-F and F6-F were good solid ground attack A/C, but neither was built for the job. They were adapted to it.

My point is the US adapted their fighter types to ground attack. All were very effective. All got the job done. Yet none were specially built for the job, like the IL-2. The closest example? Probably the A-36, specially built for the dive bombing role. There were P-38's built as well specially adapted to ground attack.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 02:38 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- I quoted Ise for the 109s, so you had better ask him
- where he got his number from.


You are not telling the truth as usual.

As for the number of 109s produced, we will never know it for sure, largely because the lack of documentation for the last months of the war, when in every month well over a thousend were produced, so the margin of error is huge. Usally they give it between 30 and 36 thousend. For example, Armand von Ishoven gives it exactly 35 000.

In any case, it`s the most produced fighter in history, shooting down the more planes than anything else, creating more aces than anything else with individual scores higher than anything before, and probably after in history, setting up a large number of speed and other records, and one of the longest living piston engined fighters just as well with about 30 years in service use.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:00 PM
lrrp22 wrote:
-
- On the evening of 30 June 1944, II Jagdkorp's 4th
- and 5th Jagdivisionen had 233 single-engined
- fighters on strength. Between June 6th and June
- 30th, II Jagdkorps had lost 458 single-engined
- fighters.
-
- If 458 single-engine fighters were lost over a
- period of three weeks on the Invasion Front alone,
- the USAAF's claims of 513 Luftwaffe aircraft in
- total for the entire month sounds quite reasonable.
- Remember, those 458 losses did not include fighters
- lost by Reich Defense units or any other non-single
- engine fighter losses.

You forgot that those 458 "lost" includes to all reasons, usally cited in German docs as following:

1, lost to enemy action (air combat, bombing, strafing etc.)
2, Lost to non-enemy action (accidents, mainly)
3, Lost to overhauls (written down to damage, cannibalised, or simply due to exceeding lifespan or becoming obsolate)

Usually, No1 reason accounts for only about 1/3 of the total "losses". Of course this may vary.




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:01 PM
LOL Ise you were the one that corrected me with the 36,000 109s by including the Hungarian manufacturing numbers.

I noticed how you told the truth in the AH forum, even going so far as to call the person a liar. You seriously lack some social skills Ise.

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100221&pagenumber=4

"Thanks Neil.

quote:Butch was adamant that 1.8 ata wasn't authorised until Feb45, 1.98 ata until March 45.

Cut the long story short, he is lying.

Note what Butch says, it's on the second of Neil's links:

"Isegrim you are very wrong on this point, it took a lot of time to clear 1.98ata for operational use.

Indeed operational test began in Feb 1945 with just one Gruppe, and it seems it was cleared for use by all gruppe in March 45."

and futher:

"Yes Chris but I have thanks to george a report from the RLM regarding the operational evaluations made at 1.8, 1.9 and 1.98ata. It seems that 1.8 was not validated until late January 1945, and 1.98 ata test began at that moment. IIRC correctly there were again some sparkplug troubles."

I was posting from memory, and said 1.8 in Feb, 1.98 in March. Butch actually said 1.8 in "late Jan", 1.98 in March. Isegrim, who admits to having the page saved, calls me a liar."



Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- I quoted Ise for the 109s, so you had better ask him
-- where he got his number from.
-
-
- You are not telling the truth as usual.
-
- As for the number of 109s produced, we will never
- know it for sure, largely because the lack of
- documentation for the last months of the war, when
- in every month well over a thousend were produced,
- so the margin of error is huge. Usally they give it
- between 30 and 36 thousend. For example, Armand von
- Ishoven gives it exactly 35 000.
-
-



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:14 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- LOL Ise you were the one that corrected me with the
- 36,000 109s by including the Hungarian manufacturing
- numbers.


As usual, your wild imagination makes your already weak story even more complicated and even less believable.



Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:27 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

-
- As usual, your wild imagination makes your already
- weak story even more complicated and even less
- believable.
-
-

As can be seen in the AH thread Ise has a hard time with stating the truth, twisting, manipulating and mis-quoting as to put Herr Goebbels to shame.

My credibility is heads and shoulders above your credibility Ise.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:28 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- As can be seen in the AH thread Ise has a hard time
- with stating the truth, twisting, manipulating and
- mis-quoting as to put Herr Goebbels to shame.
-
- My credibility is heads and shoulders above your
- credibility Ise.

Message Edited on 11/07/0303:29PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:43 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
--
-- As usual, your wild imagination makes your already
-- weak story even more complicated and even less
-- believable.
--
--
-
- As can be seen in the AH thread Ise has a hard time
- with stating the truth, twisting, manipulating and
- mis-quoting as to put Herr Goebbels to shame.
-
- My credibility is heads and shoulders above your
- credibility Ise.


What credibility are you talking about, yours?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:47 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
--
-- Yes, its very hard. If you look at USAAF claims they
-- say that they obliterated LW each and every month.
--
-
- Only for you who hates all that is not German. What
- happened to those 36,000 Me109s and 22,000 Fw190s
- Huck? They all did not crash.


They rusted on airfields. I have pitures with Doras, not the most common fighter, grouped in huge numbers, waiting to be scrapped.


-- Feck Milo, you read those tables with your feet.
-- Read again and see that I./JG26 lost in May '44 15
-- planes (not pilots) due to enemy action, in the air
-- and/or on the ground. In June '44 they lost 18
-- planes. I./JG26 had a nominal strength of 68 planes.
-- Are those losses heavy, considering that USAAF
-- launched an enormous campaign in spring '44 to cut
-- the strength of LW before D-day?
--
-
- What is this 'feck' Huck? Did you mis-spell and type
- an 'e' instead of a 'u'?
-
- Did I say they were claims Huck? Just noting the
- turnover in a/c in ONE particular LW Gruppe and
- showing how easily the a/c were replaced.

You counted the losses two times, and those all losses to all reasons. Nice try to mislead though.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:51 PM
Well yes Huck. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I don't twist, manipulate and mis-quote the 'facts' and peoples statements./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif . Even you don't go that far, either.


Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
-
- What credibility are you talking about, yours?
-
-


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:52 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Huckbein_FW:
- The number of USAAF sorties flown in '44 was 10
- times bigger than in '43. For example the number of
- sorties flown in May '43 by USAAF was 3,915 compared
- to 67,979 sorties flown in May '44 (to stay at this
- important month). That's more than 17 times increase
- in number of sorties flown. I don't know what you
- expect from LW, but to me it seems quite normal that
- the number of losses to increase steeply in '44.
-
- There is no magic aircraft that broke the back of
- LW. LW was simply unable to increase its force 10
- times, in fact it was in a continuous shrinking,
- especially due to chronic shortages of fuel,
- beginning with the spring of '44, shortages that
- became catastrophic from the end of summer in '44.
-
-
-
-
- P-51's downed 11 E/A per 100 sorties. P-38's downed
- 3, P-47's downed 2. Just wanted to throw that
- number out.

This is all claims. You also have to consider that P-38 and P-47 operated at a time when there was not such a huge discrepancy between forces. When you lift up a 10-20 times a bigger force than your enemy, you always have somebody on the enemy's six, you don't have to maneuver to get there. This is why P-51 got better scores. They were fighting a small enemy force that wasn't there to intercept fighters but bombers.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:56 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Well yes Huck. I don't twist, manipulate and
- mis-quote the 'facts' and peoples statements. Even you
- don't go that far, either.


I don't I really follow your argument here. Do you really think I rather believe you?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 03:58 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- lrrp22 wrote:
--
-- On the evening of 30 June 1944, II Jagdkorp's 4th
-- and 5th Jagdivisionen had 233 single-engined
-- fighters on strength. Between June 6th and June
-- 30th, II Jagdkorps had lost 458 single-engined
-- fighters.
--
-- If 458 single-engine fighters were lost over a
-- period of three weeks on the Invasion Front alone,
-- the USAAF's claims of 513 Luftwaffe aircraft in
-- total for the entire month sounds quite reasonable.
-- Remember, those 458 losses did not include fighters
-- lost by Reich Defense units or any other non-single
-- engine fighter losses.
-
- You forgot that those 458 "lost" includes to all
- reasons, usally cited in German docs as following:
-
- 1, lost to enemy action (air combat, bombing,
- strafing etc.)
- 2, Lost to non-enemy action (accidents, mainly)
- 3, Lost to overhauls (written down to damage,
- cannibalised, or simply due to exceeding lifespan or
- becoming obsolate)
-
- Usually, No1 reason accounts for only about 1/3 of
- the total "losses". Of course this may vary.


Kids, they don't know what they talking about. They have a strong oppinion though.
What else can someone expect from lrrp.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/07/0309:58AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 04:06 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- This is all claims. You also have to consider that
- P-38 and P-47 operated at a time when there was not
- such a huge discrepancy between forces. When you
- lift up a 10-20 times a bigger force than your
- enemy, you always have somebody on the enemy's six,
- you don't have to maneuver to get there. This is why
- P-51 got better scores. They were fighting a small
- enemy force that wasn't there to intercept fighters
- but bombers.

Not to forget, that shooting down a bomber instead of a P-51 means in the case of a B-17 to destroy a plane, that costs four times as much as a Mustang, has more crew and when shoting down before droping it's bombs protecting the target. Comparing the Mustang Loss:Kill Ratio (however it may look like - not to discuss the numbers here) is not very accurate. The target of the interceptors where the bombers, not the fighters.

(Beneeth that, the Mustang destroyed many planes on the ground, so beeing a vulcher aircraft ... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )


I don't want to talk the P-51 bad. I think it was a good aircraft for it's roll, but not so called "uber". I nearly "puke" everytime I see people talking about "P-51 won the war".
The P-51 in my opinion was not bad or "uber". Look at all circumstances and you will know, what it's about.

<HTML> <Center> http://fuchs667.bei.t-online.de/sig2.jpg

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif (http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de)</Center></Body></HTML>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 04:07 PM
Comparison of kills during a particular week or mission (or even for the campaign) can be pretty misleading-- all the US fighters and pilots at this stage of the war were more than capable of whipping up on their Luftwaffe counterparts, but so technical differences between the aircraft aside, it seems to me that the most significant factor in kills during the Big Week or in most other periods was the number of actual enemy aircraft actually encountered by this or that fighter group during a mission or during the week.
Encounters with, and kills of Luftwaffe fighters appear to have mostly depended largely on what portion of the mission that a fighter group was assigned-- the ones that were given escort of the penetrating bomber force over the early stages of the mission generally encountered very few LW fighters that were willing to fight them, but those that were assigned to escort the bombers deep inside Germany ended up with more encounters with enemy planes that were willing to fight them, instead of just avoiding USAAF fighters, and waiting for the bombers.
Fighter groups that had the most kills were usually those at the "target end" portion of the mission, where German fighters were not only thick as flies (having been drawn from all over Germany by their controllers to that point) but also flown by pilots desperate to get through to the bombers before the latter could drop their loads. The P-51 groups, with their sterling range, were often given the mission of over-the-target escort during this period of the war, thus giving them more encounters with LW fighters. The 56th FG (P-47 equipped) and other P-47 groups also had some luck during this stage of the war, in some cases due to "ranging ahead" of the bomber stream to catch large groups of enemy fighters assembling over a radio beacon or landmark specified by German ground controllers. That the P-38 groups didn't come out that high in the scoring that week doesn't so much reflect its qualities as a fighter (a lot of late-war P-38 pilots will hotly dispute the relative merits of the P-38 vs. the P-51, and vice versa) but the fact that those groups had few "shooting" encounters with enemy fighters during that period, though many enemy fighters were often seen from a distance, only to run when the identified their opposition as USAAF fighters. Indeed, during the latter part of the war, P-38 groups often reported that LW fighters wouldn't even come close, but would turn away as soon as they were within I.D. range. They suspected (probably correctly) that the P-38's one-of-a-kind silhouette being easily recognized from long range was often the cause-- German jagdfliegers just didn't want to (or see much purpose in) duking it out with vast hords of Allied fighters-- they wanted to get the bombers, and so did the Luftaffe's High Command.
Though I haven't seen comparable figures for the same period, I think it's a safe bet that RAF Spitfires had virtually NO kills during this period- which in no way reflects on the dogfight qualities of the Spit IX or XIV, but on the fact that Spits (and the other British fighters, e.g. Typhoon, Tempest, etc.) due to their short range, only flew "near leg" escort sorties for the day bombers, thus their encounters with enemy fighters that were willing to fight during the latter part of the war were few. They just were never put into mission profiles where they routinely encountered large groups of enemy fighters.
Food for thought-- if the weather had not been so awful for the 1st mission over Berlin, the P-38 might've come off much higher in the scoring, as it was P-38's that were assigned target leg escort for that mission. As it turned out, that mission was recalled, due to terrible weather over the target, though the P-38 group over Berlin didn't get the word. On the 2nd Berlin mission, Mustangs had the target leg escort assignment, and the Luftwaffe rose in force to oppose the mission, leading to large scoring against them as well as against the USAAF bombers, on part of German fighters and flak. How might the scoring have turned out had the 2nd Berlin mission, et. al., had P-38's (or even P-47's, had they had the range to do it) over the target leg segments during the Big Week and after, rather than P-51's? I'm too lazy to go upstairs to get "hard data" on which group was assigned where, but I think the scores would've been very similar, if not statistically insignificant, no matter which type aircraft was assigned the deep end of the missions. Don't get me wrong, I've got no particular stake in extolling the virtues of the P-38 or P-47, or P-51-- though I do get tired of all the tired cliches and myths that are circulated about all of them, to this day!
E.g., It's always pointed out how, with the arrival of the Mustang as a deep escort in late
43-early '44, that USAAF fighter scores soared-- implying that the P-51 was that much superior over the other two aircraft, but in this, it was only superior in RANGE, which allowed "all the way to the target" escort by USAAF fighters, and large numbers of them, at that, as USAAF fighter strength also soared during that time.
Even better, changes in USAAF fighter escort doctrine gave the green light to US fighter groups to (finally!) PURSUE and DESTROY the enemy fighters, leaving the bombers if necessary to do so, as the US had built up its fighter strength to where this was possible, and also finally recognized that this was the best way to kill the enemy fighters, instead of tying them to the bombers, and breaking off when the German fighters ran away or dove to the deck.
Thru almost all of '43, P-38 and P-47 groups were virtually tethered to the bombers, and kills were thus relatively few, though they did chase many away-- temporarily. Once they were unfettered, kills for US fighters soared, but this change also coincided with the introduction of the P-51. With the long range of the P-51 allowing USAAF fighters to go all the way to even deep targets, where the Luftaffe HAD to fight them, AND the green light to go after the enemy anywhere, anytime, instead of just chasing him away, it's no wonder that P-51 groups racked up such high scores quickly. I'm just pointing out that there's a whole lot more to kill ratios, scoring, etc. than the relative technical merits of the aircraft involved. Comments, rotten cabbages, or poison pen replies, anyone? ---Ed Wagamon

: John

: Here is a revised chart of 'Big Week'

: The system here is not friendly toward charts with spaces.

: Group....Fighter....Claims....Losses

: 56th.....P-47.......52........1
: 354th....P-51.......45........3
: 357th....P-51.......21........8
: 78th.....P-47.......19........1
: 4th......P-47.......16........2
: 352nd....P-47.......14........0
: 353rd....P-47.......11........5
: 20th.....P-38........8........3
: 355th....P-47........8........0
: 361st....P-47........8........2
: 359th....P-47........7........1
: 55th.....P-38........2........2
: 362nd....P-47........1........1

: 82nd.....P-38........8........3
: 14th.....P-38........5........0
: 1st......P-38........0........4
: 325th....P-47........0........2

: I hope this is a bit clearer.

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 04:13 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
-
-
-
- They rusted on airfields. I have pitures with Doras,
- not the most common fighter, grouped in huge
- numbers, waiting to be scrapped.
-
-

Luftwaffe Order of Battle
9 April 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters > 1305
Night fighters > 485
Ground-attack aircraf > 712
Night harassment aircraft > 215
Multi-engined bombers > 37
Long-range reconaissance aircraft > 143
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft > 309
Coastal aircraft > 45
Transport aircraft > 10
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) > 70

TOTAL >>> 3331 <<<

And how many a/c did Germany produce? It must be well under a 5% survival rate for German a/c at wars end.



-
- You counted the losses two times, and those all
- losses to all reasons. Nice try to mislead though.
-
-
-

LOL, what ever you say Huck. Honest mistake, whether you believe it or not. I did not try to hide anything since I provided a link./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

It still does not change the ratio of 'in/out'.




http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 04:18 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
-
- : Here is a revised chart of 'Big Week'
-
- : The system here is not friendly toward charts with
- spaces.
-
- : Group....Fighter....Claims....Losses
-
- : 56th.....P-47.......52........1
- : 354th....P-51.......45........3
- : 357th....P-51.......21........8
- : 78th.....P-47.......19........1
- : 4th......P-47.......16........2
- : 352nd....P-47.......14........0
- : 353rd....P-47.......11........5
- : 20th.....P-38........8........3
- : 355th....P-47........8........0
- : 361st....P-47........8........2
- : 359th....P-47........7........1
- : 55th.....P-38........2........2
- : 362nd....P-47........1........1
-
- : 82nd.....P-38........8........3
- : 14th.....P-38........5........0
- : 1st......P-38........0........4
- : 325th....P-47........0........2
-
- : I hope this is a bit clearer.



look here:

Big Week was the name given later to the coordinated six-day air offensive (ARGUMENT) launched in February 1944 by RAF Bomber Command and the US Strategic Air Forces in Europe (USSTAF) as part of the Combined Bomber Offensive.

USSTAF had been formed under General Spaatz on 1 January 1944. It comprised the Eighth and Ninth US Army Air Forces, based in the UK, and the Fifteenth USAAF which was based in Italy. The previous year Eighth USAAF had suffered heavy losses during raids on Schweinfurt and elsewhere. Consequently, US daylight raids deep into Germany had been suspended until long-range fighters to escort the bombers had been delivered, and good weather made the raids viable.

When both these conditions were met, starting on 20 February 1944, more than 3,800 USSTAF bombers and 2,351 from RAF Bomber Command dropped between them nearly 20,000 tons of bombs on German fighter factories and associated industries, the British at night, the Americans during the day. American losses amounted to 254 aircraft, while RAF Bomber Command lost 157. These were heavy losses- Eighth USAAF had a rate of attrition for February which amounted to almost 20%-but Big Week put German fighter production back two months. Its purpose had also been to begin the attrition of German fighter pilots to undermine the Luftwaffe's continuing will to resist. In this Big Week was successful as a precursor to the escorted raids that followed it (see Graphs 1 and 2). From that time the daylight bombing campaign was only partially countered and during the Normandy landings in June 1944 (OVERLORD) only a handful of German aircraft were immediately available to oppose them.





http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 04:39 PM
Just can't let this post by Nomak on the AH forum pass un-posted here. Notice who makes the statement, the #3 ranked German ace.

"Gunther Rall, a memoir"

by Jill Amadio



"The American fighter-bombers had the advantage of speed, and the P-38 Lightnings, though lacking the quality of the others were equipped with twin engines that vastly outdistanced our single engine Bf 109s. But the P-51 was truly the star fighter in Europe because of it's long range and maneuverability."

Pg 174



"I could really detect the tactical differences between the German, British and American planes. This gave me the greatest respect for the P-51 Mustang and it's extremely comfortable cockpit, good rear visibility, long-range, maneuverability, and an electrical starting system."

Pg 242



"Unlike earlier versions of the Fw 190, which were powered by BMW air-cooled radial engines, the D-9 version was equipped with a Junkers Jumo 213 liquid-cooled inline engine. It was regarded as among the finest German fighter planes in service at the time."

Pg 244



"The elliptical wings on the Spitfires had fantastic characteristics, great lift. They were very maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep climb"

Pg 53



"I didn't like the slats and our cockpits were very narrow, with restricted rear visibility"

Pg 54



"I was flying at 35,000 feet and was soon able to pinpoint the bombers coming from England by their contrails. As we reached our position we went into battle formation and dropped our external tanks. The FW 190s were at 26,000 feet. It was very unusual for Bf 109s to fly at such a high altitude because they could stall."

Pg 225



"Rall was well aware that a P-47 was much faster in a dive and had much higher structural strength than a Bf 109."

Pg 226



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 04:47 PM
Oh Milo, who wrote those above. They range from truisms to pure nonsense.

I especially like that one with the stalling 109. Such poor quality books still get published?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 04:53 PM
LOL, now Huck does not believe what a 300 'kill' experten with hundreds of flight time hours in the 109 has to say. So typical.


Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Oh Milo, who wrote those above. They range from
- truisms to pure nonsense.
-
- I especially like that one with the stalling 109.
- Such poor quality books still get published?
-


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 11/07/0311:12AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 05:10 PM
A quintessential Huck response: ignore the information and resort to personal attacks in an attempt to dodge the issue.

The fact is that Germany was sending large numbers of fighters to the Invasion Front (998 by June 30th) yet they were being shot down as fast, or faster, than they were arriving.

BTW Isegrim, what does it say about the quality of an organization and its equipment if, as you claim, in the face of savage combat fully 2/3rds of that organizations losses occur in non-combat situations?



Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
--
-- lrrp22 wrote:
---
--- On the evening of 30 June 1944, II Jagdkorp's 4th
--- and 5th Jagdivisionen had 233 single-engined
--- fighters on strength. Between June 6th and June
--- 30th, II Jagdkorps had lost 458 single-engined
--- fighters.
---
--- If 458 single-engine fighters were lost over a
--- period of three weeks on the Invasion Front alone,
--- the USAAF's claims of 513 Luftwaffe aircraft in
--- total for the entire month sounds quite reasonable.
--- Remember, those 458 losses did not include fighters
--- lost by Reich Defense units or any other non-single
--- engine fighter losses.
--
-- You forgot that those 458 "lost" includes to all
-- reasons, usally cited in German docs as following:
--
-- 1, lost to enemy action (air combat, bombing,
-- strafing etc.)
-- 2, Lost to non-enemy action (accidents, mainly)
-- 3, Lost to overhauls (written down to damage,
-- cannibalised, or simply due to exceeding lifespan or
-- becoming obsolate)
--
-- Usually, No1 reason accounts for only about 1/3 of
-- the total "losses". Of course this may vary.
-
-
- Kids, they don't know what they talking about. They
- have a strong oppinion though.
- What else can someone expect from lrrp.
-
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center> -
- Message Edited on 11/07/03 09:58AM by
- Huckebein_FW



http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 05:11 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Oh Milo, who wrote those above. They range from
- truisms to pure nonsense.


.....Those are the words of Gunther Rall. I believe he is still alive and living in Bavaria if you would like to contact him and correct his understanding of events.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 05:31 PM
lrrp,

Isegrim's claim that only 1/3 of total German a/c losses were caused by enemy action is, to say the least, quite provocative. I would like to see some source citation to support this. In his book STRATEGY FOR DEFEAT, Murray quotes a figure of approx 40 pct to cover the proportion of total German a/c losses caused by accident, with the other 60 pct lost through enemy action.

Certainly some a/c were written off. Aircraft written off due to accident would have fallen under the "lost by operational accident" heading; aircraft returning with terminal combat damage would typically have been written off as combat losses. These are the sorts of a/c which would have been cannibalized in the field for parts. New and/or serviceable a/c would hardly have been cannibalized on any sort of meaningful basis. As it was, only a/c with relatively minor defects were repaired in the field. Any a/c with significant damage were returned to the factory for refurbishment. Germany's production program emphasized maximum production of new a/c over the maintenance of a large spares supply in the field. Such a program probably made sense in light of the fact that most of the fighting was taking place directly over the factories.


Blutarski



Message Edited on 11/07/0305:08PM by BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 05:57 PM
EJGr.Ost_Anonym wrote:
- I don't want to talk the P-51 bad. I think it was a
- good aircraft for it's roll, but not so called
- "uber". I nearly "puke" everytime I see people
- talking about "P-51 won the war".
- The P-51 in my opinion was not bad or "uber". Look
- at all circumstances and you will know, what it's
- about.


Well put /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:05 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Oh Milo, who wrote those above. They range from
- truisms to pure nonsense.
-
- I especially like that one with the stalling 109.
- Such poor quality books still get published?

<h1>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA</h1>

Ok is this the part where we take Huckme's word over Ralls?

<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3></marquee>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:52 PM
Slickun wrote:
- RocketDog wrote:
--
-- Slickun wrote:
--- the case is easily made the P-51
--- had more impact on the course of the war than any
--- other single engine plane in WW2.
--
--
-- Apart from the Spitfire and Hurricane <
-
- RocketDog, every country in the world had planes
- basically like the Spitfire or Hurricane, or the
- Bf-109E for that matter, in 1940.
-
- The Mustang solved what a few years earlier was an
- unsolvable problem (compare it to the Me-110, the
- LW's answer in the BoB for a long ranged escort),
- and flew to the other guys place and fought on an
- even basis.

Actually, what I meant was that without an effective fighter the RAF might have been defeated in 1940 and a German invasion or supression of the UK would have become a real possibility. The consequences would probably have been dire - with no base for bomber offensives and an invasion of Europe having to be mounted across the Atlantic rather than across the English Channel. I'm not sure it is possible to know exactly how it would have worked out in real life, but it is easy to believe that the Soviet Union would have taken control of all Europe as a result. Not a happy thought.

Regards,

RocketDog.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 06:53 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- 3, Lost to overhauls (written down to damage,
- cannibalised, or simply due to exceeding lifespan or
- becoming obsolate)

<h1>or becoming OBSOLATE</h1>

Alot of truth in that one! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3></marquee>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 07:52 PM
lrrp22 wrote:
- A quintessential Huck response: ignore the
- information and resort to personal attacks in an
- attempt to dodge the issue.
-
- The fact is that Germany was sending large numbers
- of fighters to the Invasion Front (998 by June 30th)
- yet they were being shot down as fast, or faster,
- than they were arriving.
-
- BTW Isegrim, what does it say about the quality of
- an organization and its equipment if, as you claim,
- in the face of savage combat fully 2/3rds of that
- organizations losses occur in non-combat situations?
-

More than half of those non-combat "losses" as you called them were aircrafts replaced with newer models, or planes sent to overhaul. Those are not counted as "losses" in allied archives. In fact germans used in their statistics, the number of planes available, the number of planes received by gruppe (from vaious sources, including overhauled planes of the same gruppe), planes that left the gruppe (again for various reasons: replaced, overhauled or sent to other units) which summed gived the number of aircrafts remaining at the end of month. Allies statistics are nowhere as accurate. Unfortunatelly LW archives are incomplete and there still not fully transcribed from their original format for the public to see and form his own oppinion. All the statics made until now are by authors with an agenda, some wanted to "prove" that LW had the highest losses in East, others in West. This question still stands.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 08:05 PM
Gunter Rall biography is not of the highest quality, unfortunatelly. He deserved better.


MiloMorai wrote:
- Just can't let this post by Nomak on the AH forum
- pass un-posted here. Notice who makes the statement,
- the #3 ranked German ace.
-
- "Gunther Rall, a memoir"
-
- by Jill Amadio


-
- "I could really detect the tactical differences
- between the German, British and American planes.
- This gave me the greatest respect for the P-51
- Mustang and it's extremely comfortable cockpit, good
- rear visibility, long-range, maneuverability, and an
- electrical starting system."
-
- Pg 242

Yes it had some qualities in regard to pilot comfort, but he says no words about the performance of Mustang. Why not ask him next time you see him, if he would have changed his Bf-109 for a Mustang?



- "Unlike earlier versions of the Fw 190, which were
- powered by BMW air-cooled radial engines, the D-9
- version was equipped with a Junkers Jumo 213
- liquid-cooled inline engine. It was regarded as
- among the finest German fighter planes in service at
- the time."
-
- Pg 244


It was regarded in myths created in postwar period. No Dora variant was more performant than the Anton variants appeared at the same time (except for an advantage in high speed at altitude). There was nothing special about Dora that germans did not have prior to it.



- "The elliptical wings on the Spitfires had fantastic
- characteristics, great lift. They were very
- maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep
- climb"
-
- Pg 53

What altitude? Maybe at very high altitudes, but there are no steep climbs.



- "I didn't like the slats and our cockpits were very
- narrow, with restricted rear visibility"
-
- Pg 54


For what variant. Spitfires did not have better visibility and more cockpit room over contemporary 109 variants.



- "I was flying at 35,000 feet and was soon able to
- pinpoint the bombers coming from England by their
- contrails. As we reached our position we went into
- battle formation and dropped our external tanks. The
- FW 190s were at 26,000 feet. It was very unusual for
- Bf 109s to fly at such a high altitude because they
- could stall."
-
- Pg 225

This is an obvious mistake. Fw190 having better high altitude performance than Bf109?? Never heard about that. Anyway Rall's presence on Western Front was very brief.



- "Rall was well aware that a P-47 was much faster in
- a dive and had much higher structural strength than
- a Bf 109."
-
- Pg 226

Maybe some early non GM-1 variants were not as good as P-47 in dives, but the rest of them were better at any altitude, especially at medium and low altitudes.




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 08:23 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
All the statics made until now are by
- authors with an agenda, some wanted to "prove" that
- LW had the highest losses in East, others in West.



..... Quite a claim on your part, Huckebein! Do you really know the true motives of every single author, historian, and researcher who has ever written on the subject? I do not think you do.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 08:31 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
-
- Huckebein_FW wrote:
- All the statics made until now are by
-- authors with an agenda, some wanted to "prove" that
-- LW had the highest losses in East, others in West.
-
-
-
- ..... Quite a claim on your part, Huckebein! Do you
- really know the true motives of every single author,
- historian, and researcher who has ever written on
- the subject? I do not think you do.


For example Caldwell, Price, Overy and so on wants us to believe that LW had the highest attrition in West. Other researchers in the East reached the diametrally opposed conclusions.

I'm not in a hurry to credit any of those oppinions. I will wait until all those archives will be printed in digital format, and I'll count them myself.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 08:39 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Gunter Rall biography is not of the highest quality,
- unfortunatelly. He deserved better.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/UT_AT_WORK.jpg


<div style="width:1024;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<marquee><h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3></marquee>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 08:46 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- Comparison of kills during a particular week or
- mission (or even for the campaign) can be pretty
- misleading-- all the US fighters and pilots at this
- stage of the war were more than capable of whipping
- up on their Luftwaffe counterparts, but so technical
- differences between the aircraft aside, it seems to
- me that the most significant factor in kills during
- the Big Week or in most other periods was the number
- of actual enemy aircraft actually encountered by
- this or that fighter group during a mission or
- during the week.


This starts your post, Lead, which is a nice recap of a lot of things that went on in late February 1944.

May I ask why the Mustangs encountered more E/A? Why they had more chances to engage and kill E/A? You answered it for me, range.

Why do you not just simply include this as an attribute of the P-51, rather than treating it as an accident? The Mustang got more kills because it HAD GREATER RANGE. Nothing misleading about it. It flew past the turn back point of the P-47, and availed itself of German targets that up until that time had enjoyed a safe haven. Same mission, same day, they went farther, got kills. Very simple. The Mustang had a quality that made it more effective in finding and defeating LW fighters. Not an accident, not bad luck for the P-47's, just something they couldn't do as well. The P-38 could also do this, but it got many fewer kills, same missions, same role. If that isn't a comment on its qualities as a fighter during this period, what is? You make a lot of excuses for the type, but the bottom line is the Mustang got more kills in this crucial time frame. Period. What else is there?

This enabled the Daylight Bombing campaign to continue. The LW had shown, over and over, it could impose unacceptable losses on the heavies once they went past the P-47's range. With long ranged escorts, this changed.


Encounters with, and kills of Luftwaffe fighters
- appear to have mostly depended largely on what
- portion of the mission that a fighter group was
- assigned-- the ones that were given escort of the
- penetrating bomber force over the early stages of
- the mission generally encountered very few LW
- fighters that were willing to fight them, but those
- that were assigned to escort the bombers deep inside
- Germany ended up with more encounters with enemy
- planes that were willing to fight them, instead of
- just avoiding USAAF fighters, and waiting for the
- bombers.


And why weren't the P-47's assigned target area coverage? Couldn't reach it. Not an accident, not bad karma. They didn't measure up range wise.


Can someone tell me who claims the P-51 won the war?

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 09:02 PM
No words about the Mustang's Performance? Did you bother to read the rest of the paragraph? Range, visibility, MANEUVERABILITY!!!

We're suppossed to believe that you know better than Gunther Rall (and every other pilot who flew for either side) whether or not the P-47 could outdive the 109?

Truly amazing Huck, truly amazing...


Huckebein_FW wrote:

-- "I could really detect the tactical differences
-- between the German, British and American planes.
-- This gave me the greatest respect for the P-51
-- Mustang and it's extremely comfortable cockpit, good
-- rear visibility, long-range, maneuverability, and an
-- electrical starting system."
--
-- Pg 242
-
- Yes it had some qualities in regard to pilot
- comfort, but he says no words about the performance
- of Mustang. Why not ask him next time you see him,
- if he would have changed his Bf-109 for a Mustang?
-

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg


http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg


http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg


http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 09:47 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- For example Caldwell, Price, Overy and so on wants
- us to believe that LW had the highest attrition in
- West. Other researchers in the East reached the
- diametrally opposed conclusions.
-
- I'm not in a hurry to credit any of those oppinions.
- I will wait until all those archives will be printed
- in digital format, and I'll count them myself.


..... I see. There is a question in your mind still.



Blutarski



Message Edited on 11/07/0308:51PM by BLUTARSKI

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 09:54 PM
lrrp22 wrote:
- No words about the Mustang's Performance? Did you
- bother to read the rest of the paragraph? Range,
- visibility, MANEUVERABILITY!!!
-
- We're suppossed to believe that you know better than
- Gunther Rall (and every other pilot who flew for
- either side) whether or not the P-47 could outdive
- the 109?
-
- Truly amazing Huck, truly amazing...



..... "amazing" ..... yes, there's an apropos word.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 10:03 PM
lrrp22 wrote:
- No words about the Mustang's Performance? Did you
- bother to read the rest of the paragraph? Range,
- visibility, MANEUVERABILITY!!!

Is visibility a performance characteristic? Or you'll tell me again that Mustang pilots could check better their six o'clock high than 109 pilots (through the armored plate of course, P51 pilots could do that, I know)


MANEUVERABILITY!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Maneuvrability? compared to what? american planes??
P-39 had an elevator force of 45lb per each G at only 360mph IAS, awful characteristic. P-47? that plane was as maneuvrable as a sedated cow.



- We're suppossed to believe that you know better than
- Gunther Rall (and every other pilot who flew for
- either side) whether or not the P-47 could outdive
- the 109?

Rall like many others in the warbirds circuit has to make such vague affirmantions. They cannot shock their audience, they have to make polite concesions, the public, Skychimp and you, expects it.

Did Rall ever told that he would have changed his 109 for a Mustang? No, never. In fact he said:

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing."

What did he ment by that? 109 was more maneuvrable than Fw-190. Was Mustang more maneuvrable than Fw-190?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/07/0304:07PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 10:16 PM
How 'bout Hartmann? He flatly states the Mustangs he faced were better planes than his 109G's.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 10:20 PM
Slickun wrote:
- How 'bout Hartmann? He flatly states the Mustangs
- he faced were better planes than his 109G's.

I can hardly believe that. From what I remember he said the opposite. In fact Mustang had a poor reputation as a fighter among the axis pilots flying from Romania.

Maybe he refered to an older variant of Bf-109, that he might be flying the moment he first met the Mustangs. Eastern front JGs received new equipment with delays.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 10:26 PM
Slickun wrote:
- How 'bout Hartmann? He flatly states the Mustangs
- he faced were better planes than his 109G's.
-
-

..... Slick, don't even bother. It's not worth the effort.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 10:50 PM
Huckbein_FW, Sir, I have never willingly told a falsehood on this forum. Or any other for that matter. I don't even insult folks. Shoot, I never even insult other folks' favorite airplanes.

I didn't make it up, it appeared in WW2 Magazine.

I bought it because it featured Hartmann's last interview.

He is talking about flying over Romania, knowing he is about to face US planes and pilots. He states that he sought out opinions from other pilots that had faced the Yanks, and how to deal with the Mustang because he knew it to be better than his plane, "newer and faster".

In a fierce fight with Mustangs a set of them ran him out of fuel just short of his airfield. Hartmann's claim to never being claimed by an enemy pilot as a kill brings up an interesting question. If the US Mustangs forced him down, or he took to his parachute (it is unclear how he survived) then I can almost guarantee some US pilot or pilots claimed him as a kill.

PM me and I will send you a copy of the article to look at, if you wish. Whether you agree with it or not, it is a priceless piece of history from one of the true air warriors of all time.

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 11:05 PM
Being a young child during WW2 the P-51 was always my favorite plane. I know it did not win the war. It was a tool of war, that's all. Now, I am really sick of it, and it's not even released yet. Screw all this "Super S--t.

"Ich bin ein Wuergewhiner"

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 11:16 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Is visibility a performance characteristic? Or
- you'll tell me again that Mustang pilots could check
- better their six o'clock high than 109 pilots
- (through the armored plate of course, P51 pilots
- could do that, I know)

Still dont understand that there was room between the head rest and the canopy? Still dont realise that they leaned and looked as apposed to sit and spin like linda blair? Maybe these pics will help yoy?

ORGINAL
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/buldge.jpg


ORGINAL with prespective lines
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/P51Dprespective.jpg


NOTE
The bubble is wider than the base (sliders) and note the green box that it as wide as the pilots head.. ie it would fit inbetween the head rest and canopy


<div style="width:600;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3>
</div>


Message Edited on 11/07/03 02:17PM by tagert

Message Edited on 11/07/0302:25PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 11:17 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Oh Milo, who wrote those above. They range from
- truisms to pure nonsense.
-
- I especially like that one with the stalling 109.
- Such poor quality books still get published?

No joke, Huck. Everybody's aircraft operated less effectively in the thinner air. General Rall must have proof-read his authorized biography, wouldn't he? Engine performance might have been better, but aerodynamics, pilot comfort and vision are also part of the equation. I can't imagine Messerschmitt doing prototypes of high altitude 109s with much longer wings if the late G / early K models were doing just fine over 10km.

Caldwell's book on JG 26 also quotes a K-4 driver about the problems for the 109 at high altitudes, and includes some complaints about frost on his canopy to go along with the stalling tendencies. I have to go with Milo on this.


"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
11-07-2003, 11:19 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- HellToupee wrote:
-- well the spitfire could cover all of england and
-- roam quite a part of france. If they wanted more
-- range from it they probly could have put some wing
-- drop tanks on it.
-
-
- Well, later in the war, Spitfires were flying from
- bases in France, Belgium and Netherlands. They
- could fight over Germany with bases that close.
-
-
-
true but slick was talking about 1940.



http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 12:43 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- lrrp22 wrote:
-- No words about the Mustang's Performance? Did you
-- bother to read the rest of the paragraph? Range,
-- visibility, MANEUVERABILITY!!!
-
- Is visibility a performance characteristic? Or
- you'll tell me again that Mustang pilots could check
- better their six o'clock high than 109 pilots
- (through the armored plate of course, P51 pilots
- could do that, I know)



Yes Huck, visibility is a performance characteristic. It is a combat multiplier that increases the effectiveness of the machine. If two aircraft are evenly matched in every way but visibility the machine enjoying the better visibiliity will PERFORM (note: the root of PERFORMance) its intended mission more effectively. I refuse to further argue your ludicrous assertion concerning said visibility: you're wrong, you know it, end of story.



-Rall like many others in the warbirds circuit has to
- make such vague affirmantions. They cannot shock
- their audience, they have to make polite concesions,
- the public, Skychimp and you, expects it.



You're just a treat Huckebein. First you say Rall said nothing concerning the Mustang's performance. When you are subsequently corrected, in inimitable Huck fashion, you simply dismiss the validity of his statement. If you want to contrive some nefarious anti-Bf 109 conspiracy that counts amongst its ranks the great surviving Luftwaffe Experten, by all means, go right ahead. If you want to discount the stated observations of some of the the most illustrious combat pilots to ever take flight, again, knock yourself out. Just don't expect myself or anyone else to lend much credence to your views concerning this or any other issue.



-
-
- MANEUVERABILITY!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif - Maneuvrability? compared to what? american planes??
- P-39 had an elevator force of 45lb per each G at
- only 360mph IAS, awful characteristic. P-47? that
- plane was as maneuvrable as a sedated cow.
-
-
-
-- We're suppossed to believe that you know better than
-- Gunther Rall (and every other pilot who flew for
-- either side) whether or not the P-47 could outdive
-- the 109?
-
- Rall like many others in the warbirds circuit has to
- make such vague affirmantions. They cannot shock
- their audience, they have to make polite concesions,
- the public, Skychimp and you, expects it.
-
- Did Rall ever told that he would have changed his
- 109 for a Mustang? No, never. In fact he said:
-
- "As weaponry, both were good, but in far different
- ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it
- this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a
- florett, or foil, like that used in the precision
- art of fencing."
-
- What did he ment by that? 109 was more maneuvrable
- than Fw-190. Was Mustang more maneuvrable than
- Fw-190?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif -
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-m
- ain.jpg"> </center> -
- Message Edited on 11/07/03 04:07PM by
- Huckebein_FW



http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/a0001.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 12:47 AM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Tagert, your pictures are hilarious!

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 01:04 AM
Excellent. Well done. Add the fact that there were 36 Mustanges bouncing say 12 German fighters and you get the idea behind their great success...

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 01:33 AM
Cdn401BADGER wrote:
- Excellent. Well done. Add the fact that there were
- 36 Mustanges bouncing say 12 German fighters and you
- get the idea behind their great success...

Yup.. just like the Lw had the adv early in the war with the 109 vs WWI types of aircraft.. about the time that alot german pilots racked up big scores.

<div style="width:800;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 01:35 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Tagert, your pictures
- are hilarious!
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

My Pleasure! I think the kid sitting on the towels really sums up what we are all dealing with!

ie

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/UT_AT_WORK.jpg


<div style="width:800;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3>
</div>


Message Edited on 11/07/0304:36PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 02:31 AM
Well, whaddaya know, a performance discussion about the Mustang (which I have no real affinity for) and it's degenerated into yet another classic monster. Maybe bearcat can post a pic of the Wolfman this time. Buzzsaw, great post, good info.
Now.....

Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Gunter Rall biography is not of the highest quality,
- unfortunatelly. He deserved better.
-
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- Just can't let this post by Nomak on the AH forum
-- pass un-posted here. Notice who makes the statement,
-- the #3 ranked German ace.
--
-- "Gunther Rall, a memoir"
--
-- by Jill Amadio
-
-
--
-- "I could really detect the tactical differences
-- between the German, British and American planes.
-- This gave me the greatest respect for the P-51
-- Mustang and it's extremely comfortable cockpit, good
-- rear visibility, long-range, maneuverability, and an
-- electrical starting system."
--
-- Pg 242
-
- Yes it had some qualities in regard to pilot
- comfort, but he says no words about the performance
- of Mustang. Why not ask him next time you see him,
- if he would have changed his Bf-109 for a Mustang?
-


# He was refering to tactical differances, and noted manueverablity as an attribute. And Mustang needed good cockpit comfort, as one could spend hours in a Mustang. No one complained about 109 cockpit comfort or lack thereof because it couldn't stay in the air long enough for your arse to get sore.


-
-- "Unlike earlier versions of the Fw 190, which were
-- powered by BMW air-cooled radial engines, the D-9
-- version was equipped with a Junkers Jumo 213
-- liquid-cooled inline engine. It was regarded as
-- among the finest German fighter planes in service at
-- the time."
--
-- Pg 244
-
-
- It was regarded in myths created in postwar period.
- No Dora variant was more performant than the Anton
- variants appeared at the same time (except for an
- advantage in high speed at altitude). There was
- nothing special about Dora that germans did not have
- prior to it.
-



# I would imagine that Rall had access to other German pilots while he was flying and fighting, and sipping coffee between missions. If he has the impression that the Dora was one of the finest aircraft at the time, then I have no grounds to disagree with him, as I wasn't there.



-
-
-- "The elliptical wings on the Spitfires had fantastic
-- characteristics, great lift. They were very
-- maneuverable. We couldn't catch them in a steep
-- climb"
--
-- Pg 53
-
- What altitude? Maybe at very high altitudes, but
- there are no steep climbs.
-


# I don't understand. Steep climbs do not exist?



-
-- "I didn't like the slats and our cockpits were very
-- narrow, with restricted rear visibility"
--
-- Pg 54
-
-
- For what variant. Spitfires did not have better
- visibility and more cockpit room over contemporary
- 109 variants.
-
# I thought this was a discussion about the merits and nonmerits of the Mustang. Where does Spitfire come in? I'll tell you.

#Huckbein has adopted the tactic used by car salesmen. They take the car that they are selling and list the important attributes. Engine hp, trunk size, cup holders, and so on. Then they take the competition, find the one with a lesser attribute, and use this for comparison. So, it goes like this: This car X has more room than A, more HP than B, more cup holders than C and so on. Yet car X could still be better or worse overall compared to any one of the cars it's competeing against. This is just sales pitch used on unwary customers.


-
-- "I was flying at 35,000 feet and was soon able to
-- pinpoint the bombers coming from England by their
-- contrails. As we reached our position we went into
-- battle formation and dropped our external tanks. The
-- FW 190s were at 26,000 feet. It was very unusual for
-- Bf 109s to fly at such a high altitude because they
-- could stall."
--
-- Pg 225
-
- This is an obvious mistake. Fw190 having better high
- altitude performance than Bf109?? Never heard about
- that. Anyway Rall's presence on Western Front was
- very brief.
-
-


# You did not comprehend that at all. It says, 109s at 35,000 feet, and 190s at 26,000 feet. He stated that the 109s were having trouble at 35,000 feet.


-
-- "Rall was well aware that a P-47 was much faster in
-- a dive and had much higher structural strength than
-- a Bf 109."
--
-- Pg 226
-
- Maybe some early non GM-1 variants were not as good
- as P-47 in dives, but the rest of them were better
- at any altitude, especially at medium and low
- altitudes.
-
-
# Back to the car salesman pitching. Yes, the 109 could dive just as well as a Jug in the short run, but couldn't stay ahead in a prolonged dive, so it could stay ahead at low altitude because of the ground factor, but it couldn't escape. It has been stated, BY THE PILOTS WHO WERE THERE, numerous times, on both sides, that one DID NOT escape merely by diving away from a Jug. I'll take their word for it.


Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 13th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my BOOMSTICK!! It's a 12 gauge, double-barreled Remington.
S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about $109.95. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop S-Mart. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, e-ven Touches me.....

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 03:17 AM
Cajun76 wrote:
- Meanwhile, in the 13th century:
-
- BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads,
- listen up. See this? This is my BOOMSTICK!! It's
- a 12 gauge, double-barreled Remington.
- S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the
- sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet
- baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails
- for about $109.95. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt
- blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop
- smart, shop S-Mart. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear,
- the next one of you primates, e-ven Touches me.....

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/ash_vs_ut.jpg



<div style="width:800;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3>
</div>


Message Edited on 11/07/0306:28PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
11-08-2003, 07:59 PM
B HUMP

<div style="width:800;color:F0FFFF;fontsize:11pt;filter: glow[color=black,strength=8)">
<h2> TAGERT</h2>
<h3>If WAR was not the ANSWER........ Than what the H was your QUESTION?</h3>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 01:07 AM
Cdn401BADGER wrote:
- Excellent. Well done. Add the fact that there were
- 36 Mustanges bouncing say 12 German fighters and you
- get the idea behind their great success...
-


Badger, did you read any of my posts regarding this?

sigh

In the critical, decisive Air Battles in Jan -May 1944, when the P-51B made its reputation, it was rare the long ranged escorts outnumbered the interceptors.

Don't like the P-51? Fine. All you have to do to justify your dislike, hatred, or contempt is to:

1. Ignore or somehow discount its combat record, achieved in every theatre and role available in WW2.

2. Pretend range has no effect on a planes combat effectiveness.

3. Pretend the P-51B/C never existed, and go strictly with the P-51D and compare it to late model LW A/C.

4. Insist low speed maneuvering is the most important attribute a plane can possess, and the P-51 really only went about 420 mph.

5. Pretend the Browning .50 cal was ineffective.

6. Ignore the comments and opinions of thousands of fliers, on both sides.

7. Pretend that the type appeared suddenly by the hundreds, but only after the P-47 had cleared the skies of all the good LW pilots, and that the daylight bombing campaign would have continued merrily along its way without it.

8. Refuse to learn how escorts were conducted by the AAF, and continue to think all the escorts travelled in a huge gaggle along with the bombers, the shorter ranged planes gradually turning back as fuel was exausted.

9. Ignore the fact that the type out-performed the Jug and Lightning in the same above time frame while flying the same missions, on the same days, over the same targets, fighting the same enemy.

10. Get mad everytime you think you heard someone say "It won the war".

Do these ten things and you can be justified in having negative vibes about the plane.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 02:25 AM
Helltoupee, here is another opinion about what you asked me. Just one of many, but I wasn't necessarily alone. This is culled from another source, but I paste it here:
A different approach may convince some of the readers the
reason why our successes against the Japanese was so outstanding.
After reading the following, don't feel sorry for Japanese, they
started the damn war.

All of the aircraft listed below are contemporaries of the P-40. As
an added comment and question, why do many insist upon comparing
apples and oranges. Surely there can be no doubt in anyone's mid
that the F8F was superior to its forerunners, but it wasn't flying
in combat in December of 1941. Why compare it to earlier fighters?
Makes as much sense as camparing the F-16 with Germany's Fokker
triplane.

The P-40's contemporary fighter aircraft, were the Japanese AM62
21, and the Hayabusa Ki-43. Germany's Me. 109 E-3, Briton's Spitfire
Mark I as well as the Hurricane.

The P-40B was. . .
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
70 mph faster than the fixed gear I-96.
195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero.
P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet
P-40 was 9 mph faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was.

The P-40B flown by the Flying Tigers had. . .
Self sealing fuel tanks. . . Japanese aircraft had none.
Armor plate that would stop any bullet fired from a Japanese
fighter or bomber encountered over Burma.
Bullet proof windshield that would stop any Japanese fighter or
bomber's machine gun bullets.
Very much stronger than the flimsily constructed Japanese aircraft.
A number of Zero's shed their wings at speeds slightly over 350 IAS
mph. Japanese would not even attempt a dive that approached 350
IAS. None of Japan's aircraft could even stand up to P-40's 30 and
50 caliber guns. It only required a few incendiary bullet, even
from our 30 cal. guns, to set fire or explode their aircraft.

Although subsequent model P-40s did fall behind the new model
Me.109s and British Spitfires in performance, however in every case,
each new model Zero that came out remained inferior to their
contemporary P-40.

Now why in the hell would anyone consider the Zero to be the best
fighter of the war?

Hell it didn't even start out that way. . .
The above is not just my opinion, but garnered from available
facts, and flying the P-40 in combat.

What was truly obsolete happened to be the turning or dogfighting
combat that had been used during of WW I.

Erik Shilling

--
Erik Shilling Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's
Flight Leader Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:37 AM
the spitfire mk 1a is a 1940 plane, the MK v series are 1941 planes.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg


Message Edited on 11/09/0303:50PM by HellToupee

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:42 AM
Technically the Flying Tigers didn't fly the P-40B. They flew the Curtis Hawk 81-A-2

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:44 AM
HellToupee wrote:
- the spitfire mk 1a is a 1940 plane, the mk II and MK
- vs are 1941 planes.

By and large, yes. However, 61 Squadron received it's first Spitfire II's on 22 August 1940, and by the end of October the RAF had accepted 195 in all, so it did see action in 1940 in fair numbers.

I wonder if we will see the Mk II in the BoB sim /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif




"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 04:52 AM
the mk II is pretty much a late model mk1 produced from a new factory.

Also in december 1941 the 109 F series was out, the e-3 was late 1939.
http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg


Message Edited on 11/09/0303:57PM by HellToupee

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 05:37 AM
Thanks for the good read RAF74BuzzsawXO, I read your post and ignore everything after it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 05:41 AM
Recon_609IAP wrote:
- Thanks for the good read RAF74BuzzsawXO, I read your
- post and ignore everything after it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
-

Good advice Recon.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 02:41 PM
Helltoupee, the point was yours, I believe, that the Hurricaine and Spitfire were unique in being able to defeat the LW in the BoB. It was a counter to my opinion that the Mustang had the biggest impact on the war of any single engined plane.

I think there were many planes, in many countries, that could have been interchanged with the Hurri and Spit and still enabled England to survive the BoB. Schilling's article kind of backs me up.

I didn't say there were better planes, just that there were other single engined types capable of doing it.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 10:49 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Helltoupee, the point was yours, I believe, that the
- Hurricaine and Spitfire were unique in being able to
- defeat the LW in the BoB. It was a counter to my
- opinion that the Mustang had the biggest impact on
- the war of any single engined plane.
-
- I think there were many planes, in many countries,
- that could have been interchanged with the Hurri and
- Spit and still enabled England to survive the BoB.
- Schilling's article kind of backs me up.
-
- I didn't say there were better planes, just that
- there were other single engined types capable of
- doing it.
-
-

But that fact there wasnt any planes that could be interchanged, i doubt the p40 could have done well at the heights the bob was fought, the russians at that time im sure had no planes capable of it, at the time im sure there was no other plane that could match the 109. The biggest impact on the war for a single engined plane would have to be the 109, it fought the entire lenght was the most produced and probly destroyed the most planes and produced the greatest aces of all time.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 11:12 PM
But...I thought you were arguing for the Hurri and Spit....I'm confused.

My point is this...there were single engined planes all war long about like the other guys, You feel the P-40 couldn't have cut the mustard in the BoB, I think it could have done just fine attacking bombers and fighters near the end of their useful range.

I KNOW this...there weren't any planes available in anyone's inventory that had the impact on the air war the Mustang did. They just couldn't fly far enough. It's range and fighting ability enabled the instrument of doom for the LW to continue...the daylight bombing campaign.

Just my opinion.

XyZspineZyX
11-09-2003, 11:29 PM
Slickun wrote:
- The P-40B was. . .

It is like dragester race. pilot think P-40 can fly fast but have short range. if pilot decide to run away and fly fast then Zero may decide to follow as pilot keep throttle high then noticed fuel run out as Zero close it up. Also, don't forget Ki-44 as it is so fast and great climber even heavy gun power. Expert pilots usual show better tactic to deal with B&Z planes. Il-2 do have all armor over it but still shot down if aim at oil cooler, so Pilot will aim for weakness area like radiator or wing root also Zero can pull off angle shooting as side of P-40 isn't armored too.

Funny, when I fly Stuka campaign, I still able shot P-40 down in off angle shooting in short burst firing. Is FB's P-40 damage undermodel?

Regards
SnowLeopard

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 12:19 AM
WereSnowleopard wrote:
-
- Slickun wrote:
-- The P-40B was. . .
-
-
- It is like dragester race. pilot think P-40 can
- fly fast but have short range. if pilot decide to
- run away and fly fast then Zero may decide to follow
- as pilot keep throttle high then noticed fuel run
- out as Zero close it up. Also, don't forget Ki-44 as
- it is so fast and great climber even heavy gun
- power. Expert pilots usual show better tactic to
- deal with B&Z planes. Il-2 do have all armor over it
- but still shot down if aim at oil cooler, so Pilot
- will aim for weakness area like radiator or wing
- root also Zero can pull off angle shooting as side
- of P-40 isn't armored too.
-
-
- Funny, when I fly Stuka campaign, I still able
- shot P-40 down in off angle shooting in short burst
- firing. Is FB's P-40 damage undermodel?
-
-
- Regards
- SnowLeopard
-
SL, this whole thing isn't an argument about which plane was "best", but it started when I made the statement that the P-51 affected the war's outcome more than any other single-engined plane.

My contention is that countries in WW2 had fighters that were pretty much interchangeable. Helltoupee disagrees. At first I thought he was going with the RAF types that were on the defensive for the BoB, now it appears that he's opting for the 109.

My point is this...many fighter types could have done what the Hurri, or Spit, or Emil, Franz, Gustav did. We can argue if they would have been exactly as effective, slightly more effective, or slightly less, but overall it appears to be a wash.

The Mustang appeared and immediately enabled a moribund 8th AF to continue daylight bomnbing, and in 5 months decimated the LW which up to that point had fought the Allied Air Forces to a bloody stalemate. This was a direct function of its range, a concept that it appears many on these boards cannot grasp.

I didn't say the best, or greatest, I said it had the most effect on the war's outcome of any other single-engined plane.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 12:28 AM
Slickun wrote:

-
- The Mustang appeared and immediately enabled a
- moribund 8th AF to continue daylight bomnbing, and
- in 5 months decimated the LW which up to that point
- had fought the Allied Air Forces to a bloody
- stalemate. This was a direct function of its range,
- a concept that it appears many on these boards
- cannot grasp.
-
- I didn't say the best, or greatest, I said it had
- the most effect on the war's outcome of any other
- single-engined plane.
-
-

You will have a hard convincing many here Slickun - just too narrow minded.

Now if the 109 could have flow from its bases from France to Norway, the length and breadth of the UK during BoB what would the outcome have been? Most likely simular to what the P-51 achieved over Germany in 1944.





http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 12:36 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Slickun wrote:
-
--
-- The Mustang appeared and immediately enabled a
-- moribund 8th AF to continue daylight bomnbing, and
-- in 5 months decimated the LW which up to that point
-- had fought the Allied Air Forces to a bloody
-- stalemate. This was a direct function of its range,
-- a concept that it appears many on these boards
-- cannot grasp.
--
-- I didn't say the best, or greatest, I said it had
-- the most effect on the war's outcome of any other
-- single-engined plane.
--
--
-
- You will have a hard convincing many here Slickun -
- just too narrow minded.
-
- Now if the 109 could have flow from its bases from
- France to Norway, the length and breadth of the UK
- during BoB what would the outcome have been? Most
- likely simular to what the P-51 achieved over
- Germany in 1944.


It wouldn't have achieve anything more. LW did not need air superiority in Scotland or Ireland. Bf-109 was perfectly capable of ensuring air superiority over the Channel and coastal area for troop landings. There was nothing to challenge LW superiority in those areas if Germany decided for an invasion.

But Hitler had no such intentions. He wrongly assumed that crossing the Channel will be more difficult than invading USSR.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 12:55 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

-
- It wouldn't have achieve anything more. LW did not
- need air superiority in Scotland or Ireland.


LOL Huck, glad you have confirmed my first sentance. In Scotland, N. Ireland Wales and northern England is where the R&R and training bases for the RAF were. How much R&R and training would have been done with the 109s interupting, as did the P-51s did in Germany?


- Bf-109
- was perfectly capable of ensuring air superiority
- over the Channel and coastal area for troop
- landings. There was nothing to challenge LW
- superiority in those areas if Germany decided for an
- invasion.
-

It did? More of the UTs belief in the German Supermen./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


- But Hitler had no such intentions. He wrongly
- assumed that crossing the Channel will be more
- difficult than invading USSR.
-
-

With air supremicy over the British Isles, the UK would have been effectively neutralized just like the P-51s dominated the skies of Germany in 1944 and other Allied a/c did so within their shorter ranges.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 11/09/0306:59PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:01 AM
I think the LW would have won the BoB if the 109's had had 20% more flying time over the target.

I like it. Range is no factor in a fighter plane. Gas, who needs it, right?

Anyway, you missed my point, and helped make it. The fighters of the time were so short ranged they were interchangeable to a great extent. Not so the P-51.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:09 AM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- It wouldn't have achieve anything more. LW did not
- need air superiority in Scotland or Ireland.

Didn't the RAF trian in the north? Yep, no reason to go up there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



- Bf-109
- was perfectly capable of ensuring air superiority
- over the Channel and coastal area for troop
- landings. There was nothing to challenge LW
- superiority in those areas if Germany decided for an
- invasion.

Am I missing something? Didn't the invasion get laid to rest because the LW COULDN'T achieve air superiority?



- But Hitler had no such intentions.

He didn't? So Operation Sea Lion was just a cover-up plan for something else?



- He wrongly
- assumed that crossing the Channel will be more
- difficult than invading USSR.

How do you know? The Germans didn't have the capability to pull off an inavsion of Great Britain. That's a pipe dream on the part of the Nazis.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:13 AM
WereSnowleopard wrote:
Is FB's P-40 damage undermodel?


I firmly believe that the P40 almost in it's entirety is undermodeled in FB. Aileron forces and roll rates are WAY off, it is far too slow, and the engine damage model is just silly.

The P39 in game with the same engine will fly and fly and fly with smoke pouring out of it, but when the smoke appears out of the P40 you had better bail, because an explosion is imminent.


<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible. "
--T.E. Lawrence

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 03:15 AM
- The P-40's contemporary fighter aircraft, were the
- Japanese AM62
- 21, and the Hayabusa Ki-43. Germany's Me. 109 E-3,
- Briton's Spitfire
- Mark I as well as the Hurricane.

I don't know about the Jap aircraft, but the Spit, Hurricane and 109 were not contemporaries of the P-40.

The Spit entered squadron service in 1938, the P-40 in June 1940. The P-40 wouldn't have been in time for the BoB.

Even if it had been, the P-40 had no self sealing tanks, no armour, no armoured windscreen. It took the extra couple of years headstart the Spit and Hurrican and 109 had to get many of those things fitted.

The P-40B was probably capable enough to have been used in the BoB, but it didn't fly until April 41, and wouldn't have been ready (ie enough squadrons outfitted, mechanics trained, facilities built etc) a year after the BoB. Maybe a year after the BoB finished the P-40B would have been ready to start.

When the P-40B entered service, it was still behind the curve. It wasn't as good as the Spit V, and in less than a year the Spit IX was out. Despite being designed years after the Spit, the P-40 never even enjoyed parity, and for most of the war was well behind the Spit.

- I think there were many planes, in many countries,
- that could have been interchanged with the Hurri and
- Spit and still enabled England to survive the BoB.


I'd like to know what aircraft you think could have fullfilled the Spits role during the BoB?

The Hurricane could not, the victory/loss rate of the Hurricane was much worse than the Spit's.

- Schilling's article kind of backs me up.

Schilling's article is talking about events that began 18 months after the BoB. In fact, the Spitfire LF IX, with it's 400 mph+ top speed, 4,700ft/min climb rate is closer to the Flying Tiger's first combat action than the begining of the BoB is.

- The Mustang appeared and immediately enabled a
- moribund 8th AF to continue daylight bomnbing, and
- in 5 months decimated the LW which up to that point
- had fought the Allied Air Forces to a bloody
- stalemate.

The Luftwaffe had hardly fought the Allied AF's to a bloody stalemate. They had been defeated in the Med, defeated over Western Europe, and over the Eastern Front. About the only thing the Luftwaffe fought to a standstill was the unescorted daylight bomber offensive.

As Williamson Murray notes, the Luftwaffe had 1,784 single engined fighters at the begining of July 43. In the next two months, they lost 1313 of them. (roughly a third each in the East, West and Med)

The Luftwaffe were facing defeat whatever they tried.

- The Mustang appeared and immediately enabled a
- moribund 8th AF to continue daylight bomnbing,

That is true. there's no way the USAAF could have continued unescorted daylight bombing.

- I didn't say the best, or greatest, I said it had
- the most effect on the war's outcome of any other
- single-engined plane.

To accept that, you have to accept the daylight bomber offensive of Jan - May 1944 was the decisive event of the war. It's hard to argue that. German industry didn't really begin to suffer badly from bombing until after D Day, when the bases on the continet meant the Mustang's range was no longer vital.

The halfway mark for bombs dropped on Germany was September 1944, that is half were dropped in the five years prior to Sept 44, half in the 7 - 8 months afterwards.

- I think the LW would have won the BoB if the 109's
- had had 20% more flying time over the target.

I doubt it. What the Luftwaffe needed was a higher victory/loss rate. Range would hardly have helped them achieve that, in fact extra fuel would have meant their planes were that little bit less competitive, and fighting futher inland would have meant higher losses (get a bullet in your radiator over the South Coast, and you're probably safe. Get one in your radiator over London, and you have no chance)

- It wouldn't have achieve anything more. LW did not
- need air superiority in Scotland or Ireland. Bf-109
- was perfectly capable of ensuring air superiority
- over the Channel and coastal area for troop
- landings.

But it didn't. It wasn't even capable of ensuring air superiority over the South Coast for other elements of the Luftwaffe. Hence the orders to escort more closely, forbidding more than one officer per bomber, ever higher numbers of escorts for each bomber, and the eventual abandon of the campaign.

- There was nothing to challenge LW
- superiority in those areas if Germany decided for an
- invasion.

Try telling that to the thousands of Luftwaffe crewmen lost during the BoB.

- But Hitler had no such intentions.

Oh but he did. You can look up the orders for Sea Lion if you like, they are very detailed, even down to which SS and SD units would be involved in the pacification of Britain after the invasion. You could also read up on the orders that were issued by Hitler, including the one he issued when he decided to postpone the invasion.

- He wrongly
- assumed that crossing the Channel will be more
- difficult than invading USSR.

Crossing the channel was far more difficult than invading the USSR. Tanks and soldiers cannot fight ships and aircraft, and without a: defeating the RAF, and b: defeating the Royal Navy, the Germans simply could not cross the channel. They didn't come close to A, and thus couldn't even try B.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 03:34 AM
Fantastic post, Hop.

One thing I'd like to say is that I would agree that a little extra loiter time would have been helpful for German pilots.

1) The German bombers would have had more planes available to protect them by virtue of the fact that German fighters would not have had to return to France so soon.

2) German fighters would have been able to reach bases further north where, IIRC, most training took place.

I'm not so sure taking a bullet in the radiator over London or the south coast would have made much difference. In the former case, the pilot becomes a prisoner if he is lucky. In the latter case, he drowns.

Nevertheless, the final outcome would have been the same given the change in strategy from airbase attacks to attacks on civilians.

And you are right, in 1940 there was no plane that could do the job of the Spitfire.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 03:44 AM
How did the French Curtiss Hawks (75A), aka P-36, perform in the BoF?




http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 03:46 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- How did the French Curtiss Hawks (75A), aka P-36,
- perform in the BoF?


IIRC, French Hawks made a very good account of themselves in the BoF, fighting the "much superior" Bf-109 to a loss parity.

Don't know much about the BoF airwar, though.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 03:54 AM
LOL, did the UTs finally brainwash you SC? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif , /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


SkyChimp wrote:
-
-
- IIRC, French Hawks made a very good account of
- themselves in the BoF, fighting the "much superior"
- Bf-109 to a loss parity.
-
-



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 04:14 AM
Slickun wrote:
- WereSnowleopard wrote:
--
-- Slickun wrote:
--- The P-40B was. . .
--
--
-- It is like dragester race. pilot think P-40 can
-- fly fast but have short range. if pilot decide to
-- run away and fly fast then Zero may decide to follow
-- as pilot keep throttle high then noticed fuel run
-- out as Zero close it up. Also, don't forget Ki-44 as
-- it is so fast and great climber even heavy gun
-- power. Expert pilots usual show better tactic to
-- deal with B&Z planes. Il-2 do have all armor over it
-- but still shot down if aim at oil cooler, so Pilot
-- will aim for weakness area like radiator or wing
-- root also Zero can pull off angle shooting as side
-- of P-40 isn't armored too.
--
--
-- Funny, when I fly Stuka campaign, I still able
-- shot P-40 down in off angle shooting in short burst
-- firing. Is FB's P-40 damage undermodel?
--
--
-- Regards
-- SnowLeopard
--
- SL, this whole thing isn't an argument about which
- plane was "best", but it started when I made the
- statement that the P-51 affected the war's outcome
- more than any other single-engined plane.
-
- My contention is that countries in WW2 had fighters
- that were pretty much interchangeable. Helltoupee
- disagrees. At first I thought he was going with the
- RAF types that were on the defensive for the BoB,
- now it appears that he's opting for the 109.
-
- My point is this...many fighter types could have
- done what the Hurri, or Spit, or Emil, Franz, Gustav
- did. We can argue if they would have been exactly
- as effective, slightly more effective, or slightly
- less, but overall it appears to be a wash.
-
- The Mustang appeared and immediately enabled a
- moribund 8th AF to continue daylight bomnbing, and
- in 5 months decimated the LW which up to that point
- had fought the Allied Air Forces to a bloody
- stalemate. This was a direct function of its range,
- a concept that it appears many on these boards
- cannot grasp.
-
- I didn't say the best, or greatest, I said it had
- the most effect on the war's outcome of any other
- single-engined plane.
-
-
my point was one which plane had the greatest impacet, you consider the p51 to hav ethe greatest impact on the war, but i belive it is the 109 it didnt change the couse of the war no plane did but it was probly the most signaficant single engined aircraft, myplane is the spitfire, but it wasnt tasked to fight as many enemies as the 109 and it wasnt produced as much as the bf109.


http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 04:21 AM
Slickun wrote:
- I think the LW would have won the BoB if the 109's
- had had 20% more flying time over the target.
-
- I like it. Range is no factor in a fighter plane.
- Gas, who needs it, right?
-
- Anyway, you missed my point, and helped make it.
- The fighters of the time were so short ranged they
- were interchangeable to a great extent. Not so the
- P-51.
-
-
if the 109 could cover all of england what difference would it make, radar would still pick them up and spitfires and hurricanes would still intercept them, they couldnt even hold air surpremacy over southern england.

As for fighters being interchanged it is clear at the time of bob there was no fighter that could be interchanged and match the 109 on a somewhat even terms, the p40b was 1941 and the fights were at high altitude.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:16 AM
The Mustang allowed continuation of deep penetration daylight raids into Germany in early '44. The Luftwaffe was forced to engage this threat. In the process, severe losses were infliced on the Luftwaffe in the first half of '44. This insured tactical air superiority for the D-Day invation. No Mustang and the LW would have been able to hold back and mount a serious challenge for local superiority during a June '44 invasion. In short, the Mustang enabled D-Day to happen when it did. No Mustang, and D-Day would have been delayed, perhaps until after the Soviets completely overrun the Reich. The post war situation would have been drastically different in this scenario.

End result - the Mustang did win the war - not WWII - the COLD WAR!!!

How about that??

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:20 AM
"if the 109 could cover all of england what difference would it make"

..

Range, makes a tremendous difference in both tactical and strategical aspect.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:37 AM
klower wrote:
- The Mustang allowed continuation of deep penetration
- daylight raids into Germany in early '44. The
- Luftwaffe was forced to engage this threat. In the
- process, severe losses were infliced on the
- Luftwaffe in the first half of '44. This insured
- tactical air superiority for the D-Day invation. No
- Mustang and the LW would have been able to hold back
- and mount a serious challenge for local superiority
- during a June '44 invasion.

Air superiority would still have been obtained over the landing areas in France. As it was, the Spitfires, Thunderbolts and Lightnings were already able to provide heavy fighter cover all the way to the Ruhr Valley, so I see no reason why this Fighter cover would not have been present for Normandy. Plus it is a moot point: many of the Luftwaffe aircraft destroyed by the Mustang were those stationed deep within Germany and were tasked as interceptor units. They were not tactical air support units, and would have had to redeploy to areas where Allied Fighters had the numerical superiority.
Moot-moot actually (or is that moot-squared /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ) the Germans got it all wrong about Normandy- they thought the invasion was coming elsewhere. Even if these Luftwaffe fighters had survived they would not have been deployed in a positions to assist in Normandy.

In short, the Mustang
- enabled D-Day to happen when it did. No Mustang,
- and D-Day would have been delayed, perhaps until
- after the Soviets completely overrun the Reich. The
- post war situation would have been drastically
- different in this scenario.
-
- End result - the Mustang did win the war - not WWII
- - the COLD WAR!!!
-
- How about that??

I don't agree, I'm afraid. And before anyone suggests it, no, the Mustang will not find the cure for cancer and neither will it figure out who shot JFK.



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 11:26 AM
Apparently Rock 'n Roll crushed communism and freed Hungary. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=816&e=2&u=/ap/20031109/ap_on_en_mu/rock_music_communism_downfall


Long live Rock, man!

Good hunting,
Cajun76

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

Meanwhile, in the 13th century:

BOOM! Yeah, Alright you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my BOOMSTICK!! It's a 12 gauge, double-barreled Remington.
S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about $109.95. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop S-Mart. YOU GOT THAT!? Now I swear, the next one of you primates, e-ven Touches me.....

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:36 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Now if the 109 could have flow from its bases from
- France to Norway, the length and breadth of the UK
- during BoB what would the outcome have been? Most
- likely simular to what the P-51 achieved over
- Germany in 1944.

Yes, but the requirement (for Sealion) was local
air superiority over the landing areas. Superiority
over other parts of the UK would only have been
useful if the benefit derived from this (ability to
bomb factories in the north, interdict training) could
have outweighed the negative effect of diluting the force
over the whole of the UK (and with longer mission
times, less missions flown). It is hard to see, given
the relatively small tonnage carried by LW bombers,
and the comparatively small chance of intercepting
aircraft from an OTU, how this would have been of
much benefit to the short timescale needs of Sealion.

Even with years of heavier bombing Germany still managed
reasonable industrial production, so comparatively light
bombing, unless very concentrated, was unlikely to be
useful for Sealion, hence the initial focus on very
narrow targetting. The later dilution of targetting
arguably gave the RAF and the UK aero industry breathing
space.

As Skychimp noted, longer loiter time over the South
East (or the ability to conduct longer, more agressive
combat sweeps in advance of the bomber force, as the
8th AAF later did) would have been useful, though.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:47 PM
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/K-4%20vs%20P-51speed.jpg


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/K-4%20vs%20P-51clmb.jpg




Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 01:54 PM
hop2002 wrote:
That is true. there's no way the USAAF could have continued unescorted daylight bombing.

- I didn't say the best, or greatest, I said it had
- the most effect on the war's outcome of any other
- single-engined plane.

To accept that, you have to accept the daylight bomber offensive of Jan - May 1944 was the decisive event of the war. It's hard to argue that. German industry didn't really begin to suffer badly from bombing until after D Day, when the bases on the continet meant the Mustang's range was no longer vital.


No you don't. All you have to accept is that the P-51 enabled the daylight bombing to continue when it did. That's all. I'm not saying the P-51 won the war. I'm saying that the very thing we agree on, that it enabled the daylight bombing to continue and enable D-Day, is the most significant contribution to the conduct of the war a single engined fighter accomplished in WW2.

We're not arguing about the bombing's efectiveness. That is a red herring, I never said it. The bombers brought up the LW to contest, as we agree, and the long ranged escorts knocked them down. Fighter sweeps were a failed concept, the LW refused to waste planes in a war of attrition against single engined fighters.

Your figures for 1943 are correct, however the LW was able to replace the planes and pilots with well trained replacements. They kept up. Not so after May 1944.

Bloody stalemate is correct. The LW and the Allied air forces were in a rather stable situation in late 1943. As you correctly point out, the LW had met defeat on several other fronts. Not over the area the fighters couldn't reach, however. That belonged to the LW, and the 8th AF penetrated at their extreme peril.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 02:10 PM
Nice homemade graphs Ise but can we see some for the G-6s and G-14s which were the main opponents to the P-51 Mustang. A G-10 graphs would be nice also.



http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 02:45 PM
Seeing that Isegrim and Huckebein are on this again, I'm happy that I just jumped from page 2 of this to the currently last page.


Anyway, excellent read on the P-51, shows in detail that the FM in the 1.2 beta is way off reality. Long range escort, not turbo climbing tightturning dogfighter! I just hope Oleg, his team and that P-51 pilot actually read some straight facts up and compare them to the FMs in FB.

I also hope the B-17 gets its bugs worked out, but thats some other story...



- Future

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 03:07 PM
somewhere on one of these threads there's a post from a Mustang pilot who thinks that its representation in FB is pretty good actually, imperfect of course and perhaps necessarily so but pretty close to what he knows. I'll go with the jock on that.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:04 PM
Gentlemen, can we take a half step back?

My contention that the P-51 had the most impact on the outcome of the war seems to have really lit up a few folks. Let me clarify things, if I can.

I feel that for the most part single engined A/C were interchangeable. That is, if you gave the British Bf-109's and 110's for the Battle of Britain, and the Germans the Hurricane and Spitfire, it would have ended the same, a defeat for the LW.

We somehow got off on a tangent, that the P-40 wasn't good enough or even available (thanks Hop), probably because of my post of Eric Shilling's missive on the subject. It wasn't my intention to single out the P-40 as the be-all candidate here. Schilling's post was a good quickie look at some of the other planes available, and that's all it was meant to be.



Now. Most of us seem to be, finally, in agreement that the long ranged escorts enabled the daylight bombing campaign to continue. We seem to be at odds on exactly what that meant, and why a need to "continue".

The LW was not defeated. It had air superiority over its industrial areas. It was refusing to combat fighter sweeps. It had administered, in October 1943, a severe defeat on the 8th AF over Schweinfurt, to the point the 8th was forced to quit deep penetration missions over Germany until 1944. Why no deep penetrations? To stay under the fighter umbrella provided by short ranged fighter escorts.

The appearance of the P-51 and P-38 enabled the 8th to once again go deep, past the range of the P-47's, into the teeth of the LW opposition. The difference was the long ranged escorts taking on the LW all the way in and out, sparing the bombers the total fury of the defense, and shooting down a tremendous number of fighters as well.

It resulted in the LW being put behind the attrition curve, once and for all, in those 5 decisive months. I can post the loss numbers if you wish, but they are readily available from Galland, Caldwell, or Boyne.

I feel this outstrips any contribution of any other single engined fighter, it enabled the defeat of another countries air force.

It has nothing to do with which plane was better, climbed faster, turned sharper, or whether it was irreplacable by another. I just think that the P-51, with its speed and range, and showing up at exactly the right time, enabled the defeat of the LW through deep penetration bombing raids, which was the one thing the LW was going to contest.

By all means, welcome to another opinion.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 06:22 PM
And due to the heavy damage inflicted to the german industry, the LW lost its supplies of fuel, leaving many planes grounded and others only half fueled.

By the time the 262 was brought into the action, many of them had to stay on the ground because of the supply shortage, otherwise I guess they would have been able to turn the tide again.


FB vs Reality.

Oh well. Let's see where we will get once 1.2 final reaches us.


- Future

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 06:25 PM
In all this discussion of the BoB why has no one brought up the key change of German air strategy from attacking the British airfields and radar stations to the bombing of London.

Most historical accounts I've read deem this change of strategy as the decisive event that allowed Britain to recover from the early losses and mount a successful defense of London.

Had the Germans continued with their initial strategy, air superiority would most likely have been theirs. The next question would naturally be, would the German air and naval forces have been strong enough to defeat the home fleet as it sallied to head off an invasion.

And that is another game for Oleg and crew to bring us.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 08:41 PM
Future- wrote:
- And due to the heavy damage inflicted to the german
- industry, the LW lost its supplies of fuel, leaving
- many planes grounded and others only half fueled.
-


Not until after D-Day, when the Allies shifted from attacks on transportation to the fuel.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 08:58 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Future- wrote:
-- And due to the heavy damage inflicted to the german
-- industry, the LW lost its supplies of fuel, leaving
-- many planes grounded and others only half fueled.
--
-
-
- Not until after D-Day, when the Allies shifted from
- attacks on transportation to the fuel.
-
-


..... Indeed. According to W Murray, Germany seized 30,000 tons of fuel from Italy upon their surrender to the Allies.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 09:30 PM
Slickun wrote:
- Future- wrote:
-- And due to the heavy damage inflicted to the german
-- industry, the LW lost its supplies of fuel, leaving
-- many planes grounded and others only half fueled.
--
-
-
- Not until after D-Day, when the Allies shifted from
- attacks on transportation to the fuel.
-
-


In autumn 1942 there were only two ways in which the already insufficent german fuel production could be enlarged; one was to secure the Russian oil fields, but as we have seen that expectation quickly evaporated; the other was to increase the number and output of hydrogenation plants. Such a plan was devised late in 1942, projecting an annual production of synthetic fuel of 60 million barrels by 1946. Yet when the effort was finally made toward the end of 1943, it was decidedly too late for any improvements. The onset of Allied air attacks on the hydrogenation plants in May 1944 foiled all expectations and sounded the death knell For the German war machine.

The first massive raid was flown on 12 May 1944 and directed against five plants. Other raids followed successively and continued into the spring of 1945. The severity of the raids was immediately recognized by the Germans. Between 30 June 1944 and 19 January 1945, Albert Speer directed five memoranda to Hitler which left no doubt about the increasingly serious situation. Speer pointed out that the attacks in May and June had reduced the output of aviation fuel by 90 percent. It would require six to eight weeks to make minimal repairs to resume production, but unless the refineries were protected by all possible means, coverage of the most urgent requirements of the armed forces could no longer be assured. An unbridgeable gap would be opened that must perforce have tragic consequences. Continued attacks also negatively influenced the output of automotive gasoline, diesel fuel, Buna, and methanol, the last an essential ingredient in the production of powder and explosives. If, Speer warned, the attacks were sustained, production would sink further, the last remaining reserve stocks would be consumed, and the essential materials for the prosecution of a modern technological war would be lacking in the most important areas.

In his final report, Speer noted that the undisturbed repair and operation of the plants were essential prerequisites for further supply, but the experience of recent months had shown that this was impossible under existing conditions. Behind Speer's warnings was his awareness that once production of fuels was substantially curtailed, once reserves and the fuel in the distribution system were depleted, the Germans would be finished and the end could be predicted with almost mathematical accuracy. In a way, Speer was merely echoing the prophetic utterance of Field Marshal Erhard Milch from the summer of 1943:

The hydrogenation plants are our most vulnerable spots; with them stands and falls our entire ability to wage war. Not only will planes no longer fly, but tanks and submarines also will stop running if the hydrogenation plants should actually be attacked.

A perfect example of this was the amount of aviation fuel allotted to the training of pilots. Toward the last nine months of the war, they were sent into combat with only one-third of the training hours actually required.


============================
The important thing in [tactics] is to suppress the enemys useful actions but allow his useless actions. However, doing this alone is defensive.

Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
Japanese Samurai and Philosopher
(More than 60 Victories in Hand-to-Hand combat.)

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 10:10 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
-
- IIRC, French Hawks made a very good account of
- themselves in the BoF, fighting the "much superior"
- Bf-109 to a loss parity.
-
- Don't know much about the BoF airwar, though.


And the Finns made a better account against the soviets with the same Hawks. Germany sold them to Finland. Few of the Hawks were actually found in boxes. Those were brand new when Finns got their hands of them. FiAF used those through the war. Must have been a little bit of Finnish stubornes to take those against end war Soviet fighters. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 10:44 PM
Thanks, Oak, for that post.

Apparently there was a severe row amongst the higher ups pre invasion. That is, should the bombing campaign keep after industry, or go after transportation assets to slow the German response to D-Day. The transportation attacks won out.

It appears, however, that just before the invasion some blows were struck. Learn something new every day.

BM357_Raven
11-10-2003, 11:15 PM
fab...

Blazing Magnums 357th VFG

http://bm357.com/bm357_raven_with_guns%20copy.jpg


http://www.bm357.com

BM357_Raven
11-10-2003, 11:38 PM
I am a die hard P-51 fan and 8AF fan. For this reason I am always reading and studying the plane and the men who flew it. In another two months I will be going to Kissimmee to fly an authentic WWII P-51D, when I have saved up enough money ($2,750.00/hour flight time).

However, I think one reason the P-51 was so successful in dogfights against LW pilots is partly due to the fact that the Germans were told not to engage the fighters, but rather to concentrate their energy on the bombers.

This meant that the Germans were often running away from the P-51's, or focusing their sites on bombers rather than positioning for a dogfight. Of course there are many other factors, but this is a point that is probably often overlooked---that if you want to win a dogfight, don't show the enemy your tail.

Other factors, like replacement part shortages, the loss of experienced pilots, fuel shortages, limited range, to name a few will hurt ya too.

Nevertheless, the P-51 was an exceptional plane for its assigned role. If you took the figher out of its niche, and say put it in low altitude combat over Russia, then likely you would hear less about it, and there likely would have been less of them built.

Blazing Magnums 357th VFG

http://bm357.com/bm357_raven_with_guns%20copy.jpg


http://www.bm357.com

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 12:13 AM
Raven,

Have a great time in the P51 and remember to post a photo for us less fortunate (and courageous) sorts.

As regards the tactical relationship between the German and American fighters over Germany, according to Caldwell's book on JG26 three of the four gruppen were assigned to deal with the American escort fighters. Only one gruppe was tasked to attack the bombers. I suppose this says something about the efficiency of American escort tactics, but it implies that a goodly number of German fighters were in the air specifically to tangle with American fighters.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 12:32 AM
BM357_Raven wrote:
-
- However, I think one reason the P-51 was so
- successful in dogfights against LW pilots is partly
- due to the fact that the Germans were told not to
- engage the fighters, but rather to concentrate their
- energy on the bombers.

Disagree.

I seriously doubt some 20 year old LW pilot is going to ignore the 4 Mustangs off to his left because of something his leaders said to him who are safe and sound 30,000 feet below. As a US infantryman on Omaha beach once said, "The generals had no say in what went on that day."

Translate: When the poodoo hits the fan, you do what you can.



"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 01:44 AM
- No you don't. All you have to accept is that the
- P-51 enabled the daylight bombing to continue when
- it did. That's all.

Yes, I accept that.

- I'm not saying the P-51 won
- the war. I'm saying that the very thing we agree
- on, that it enabled the daylight bombing to continue
- and enable D-Day, is the most significant
- contribution to the conduct of the war a single
- engined fighter accomplished in WW2.

I don't accept that.

The Mustang enabled long range daylight bombing to continue. For that to be of such significance, the bombing has to be of tremendous significance. I don't think it was.

The lesson of strategic bombing in WW2 was that you needed to do a lot of it for it to have a significant effect.

The bombing campaign was of marginal significance until after D Day, due to innsuficient tonnage dropped over too long a period.

- We're not arguing about the bombing's efectiveness.
- That is a red herring, I never said it. The bombers
- brought up the LW to contest, as we agree, and the
- long ranged escorts knocked them down. Fighter
- sweeps were a failed concept, the LW refused to
- waste planes in a war of attrition against single
- engined fighters.

"Fighter sweeps" and "deep penetration daylight raids" are not the only types of warfare you can conduct with aircraft.

Take the example of July August 43 (or was it August September?).

No long range fighter escorts. Just fighting over Sicily, the Eastern Front, and occupied Western Europe. It brought the Luftwaffe up to fight, and brought them huge numbers of losses.

- Your figures for 1943 are correct, however the LW
- was able to replace the planes and pilots with well
- trained replacements. They kept up. Not so after
- May 1944.

The Luftwaffe could not sustain 600 - 700 fighter losses per month, especially along with all the other aircraft they were losing.

Luftwaffe pilot quality had been in decline long before mid 43.

- Bloody stalemate is correct. The LW and the Allied
- air forces were in a rather stable situation in late
- 1943.

No, the Luftwaffe had given up large areas of it's responsibility to retreat to Germany, and engage unescorted bombers. I doubt they would have been able to withdraw to Germany without a credible task to fulfill there.

- As you correctly point out, the LW had met
- defeat on several other fronts. Not over the area
- the fighters couldn't reach, however. That belonged
- to the LW, and the 8th AF penetrated at their
- extreme peril.

Granted, but as in the point that the Luftwaffe didn't need air superiority over Scotland to invade England, so the Allies didn't need superiority over Germany to invade France.

- The LW was not defeated. It had air superiority
- over its industrial areas. It was refusing to
- combat fighter sweeps. It had administered, in
- October 1943, a severe defeat on the 8th AF over
- Schweinfurt, to the point the 8th was forced to quit
- deep penetration missions over Germany until 1944.
- Why no deep penetrations? To stay under the fighter
- umbrella provided by short ranged fighter escorts.
-
- The appearance of the P-51 and P-38 enabled the 8th
- to once again go deep, past the range of the P-47's,
- into the teeth of the LW opposition. The difference
- was the long ranged escorts taking on the LW all the
- way in and out, sparing the bombers the total fury
- of the defense, and shooting down a tremendous
- number of fighters as well.

In essence what you're saying is only the Musstang enabled the battle to be fought over the German industrial heartland, but you're not making it clear why you believe the battle could only be fought there, and not over the Russian Front, the Italian Front, and the Atlantic Wall (not to mention the Ruhr, which was certainly the industrial heartland, and within range of P-47s, and even Spits with a drop tank)

Cologne, Bonn, Essen, Dusseldorf, Duisburg are all within 250 miles of the English coast. Granted airbases are not on the coast, but even hen you are talking distances of 270 - 280 miles.

The range of a basic Spit IX, with 1 90 gallon drop tank, was around 950 - 1,000 miles. Assume escort range is one third of full range, and you still have an escort range in excess of 300 miles. I assume the P-47 was better.

To make the Mustang vital, you have to explain why the Luftwaffe would not defend the Russian front, not defend the Italian front, not defend the Atlantic wall, not defend the V-1 launch sies, that Hitler was hoping would knock Britain out of the war, and disrupt the invasion, and not even defned the Ruhr, where millions of Germans lived and worked in war industries.

I can't see how the Luftwaffe would be able to sit out of range of the fighting in all those areas, safe from the fighting. Unless they had some other task they could claim as a higher priority.

But hiding in Germany whilst the fighting raged elsewhere? I think Goering would have been executing people left right and centre if they tried that.

- It resulted in the LW being put behind the attrition
- curve, once and for all, in those 5 decisive months.
- I can post the loss numbers if you wish, but they
- are readily available from Galland, Caldwell, or
- Boyne.
-
-
- I feel this outstrips any contribution of any other
- single engined fighter, it enabled the defeat of
- another countries air force.


If you're arguing what the Mustang did, then I would say the victory in the BoB was more significant. If the BoB had been lost, there could be no strategic bombing campaign against Germany, not to mention North Africa, the U Boat war, and the RAF bombing campaign, all bleeding German strength, as well as the D Day invasion.

If you're arguing that the Spitfire wasn't critical to the BoB, and another fighter could have substituted, then I can say the same for the Mustang. No other fighter at the time could have carried the fight over central Germany, but I have yet to see why the fight had to be over central Germany. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the fight could have been carried out more efficiently over Italy, France, Russia, and the Ruhr.

- It resulted in the LW being put behind the attrition
- curve, once and for all, in those 5 decisive months.
- I can post the loss numbers if you wish, but they
- are readily available from Galland, Caldwell, or
- Boyne.


Don't forget to take into account the sortie rate that inflicted those losses.

If you take the four months Sep - Dec 43, the Luftwaffe lost about 2,100 day fighters in Western Europe and Germany (excluding Med), from a total of just over 40,000 USAAF sorties against Germany (ETO, excluding MED)

Roughly 1 Luftwaffe fighter lost per 19 USAAF sorties.

Taking the period Jan - May 44, the Luftwaffe lost about 4,800 day fighters in Western Europe, (again inc Germany, excluding the Med). The USAAF sortie rate, again ex Med, was around 183,000. That's 1 Luftwaffe fighter lost per 38 USAAF sorties.

The loss rate for the Luftwaffe went up, but the USAAF sortie rate soared, and the losses inflicted per sortie halved. Whatever the method of fighting in Sept - Dec 43, before the advent of the Mustang, it was more efficient than the method of fighting in Jan - May 44.

Of course, these figures don't take in to account the RAF contribution, which would have been a higher percentage of the total in late 43 than early 44, but then the deep penetration campaign was largely responsible for taking the fight out of the RAF's range anyway. Is choosing to fight where you can only use half your force, rather than the full force, really an advantage?

Loss figures from Groehler's famous table http://jg26.vze.com/ if you haven't got a copy, USAAF sorties from http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_list_of_tables_operations.html


- I just think that the
- P-51, with its speed and range, and showing up at
- exactly the right time, enabled the defeat of the LW
- through deep penetration bombing raids, which was
- the one thing the LW was going to contest.

So when all's said and done, you believe the Luftwaffe would have sat out the war in safety, if not for the strategic bombing campaign? That doesn't agree with their history, the certainly fought hard over France, over Britain, over Greece and Crete, over Africa, Malta and Russia.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:03 AM
"And you are right, in 1940 there was no plane that could do the job of the Spitfire."

On the technical point of view, the Dewoitine 520 was equal and on some points superior to the Emil and it had only an Hispano with 860hp. With a 1000hp Hispano (as it was planned), it would have been probably better than the Emil on all points.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:29 AM
The D.520 was a good plane, no doubt, but again it's too later for the BoB. The first prototype flew about the same time the first Spitfire squadron went operational. The D.520 only became operational in the Spring of 1940.

That's too late for it to have had a major impact on the BoB. Not only wouldn't there be enough of them, and not enough infrastructure to support them, but planes usually take time to have all the bugs ironed out.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:42 AM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/K-4
- %20vs%20P-51speed.jpg">
-
-
<img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/K-4
- %20vs%20P-51clmb.jpg">


Why are you comparing a Bf-109K-4 at maximum boost to a P-51B on military power?



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 02:49 AM
NegativeGee,
When we get into these "what if" scenarios, it's really easy to argue just about anything, but consider this. Amphibious landings are usually only considered if total air supremicy is virtually guaranteed. No doubt, the large force of P-47s, P-38s, Spitfires, etc. could have maintained reasonably complete air superiority over the beach-head, but could they have guaranteed it to the satisfaction of allied high command? I think not.

I'm saying that the P-51 forced the LW to commit it's fighters on the western front. The pool of experienced pilots was delpleted. In addition, it gave the allies a pool of combat hardened pilots that the allied high command knew could and would go head to head with the LW's best. This gave them the confidence to plan and execute the D-Day landing when they did.

No doubt the invasion of France would have occured without the P-51, but I'd say it almost certanly would have been delayed or had been more costly. In either case, the western allied advance would have been slower and more of Germany would have ended up under Soviet control. How decisive would this have been in the cold war, we can only speculate. Consider the difference if the Soviets had exclusive control of German jet and rocket technology.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 04:31 AM
Losses by month, 1944, Western Front (Caldwell)

January.......160 pilots 233 A/C
February......225 pilots lost
March.........229 pilots lost
April.........Luftflotte Reich lost 38% of its pilots, Luftflotte 3 lost 24%. The entire Luftwaffe lost 489 pilots, and replaced 396. 8th Bomber Commans lost 409 bombers, or 25% of its strength.
May............276 pilots, or 25% of its strength, 487 fighters or 50% of those.

By May the number of fighter pilots on duty in the Jadgwaffe had dropped from 2395 to 2283, despite frantic efforts to keep numbers up. Losses were 2,262 pilots, or 100% of average strength. This took all of 1943 to do, but 5 months in 1944. Yes, behind the attrition curve for good.


Our point of contention seems to be that you refuse to put much importaqnce on the renewed bomber offensive that we agree the P-51 enabled. It was "renewed" because the LW had basically defeated the 8th AF's idea of self protecting bombers once and for all over Schweinfurt, hardly the act of a beaten and huddling LW.

How much damage the bombing did is moot. I've tried to make this point several times. Galland, Caldwell, Goering and Boyne all agree. The appearance of long ranged escorts spelled doom for the LW, and I've posted numbers to back up their point of view.

If you want to think the BoB was more important, by all means do so.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:12 AM
hop2002 wrote:

- I don't accept that.
-
- The Mustang enabled long range daylight bombing to
- continue. For that to be of such significance, the
- bombing has to be of tremendous significance. I
- don't think it was.
-
- The lesson of strategic bombing in WW2 was that you
- needed to do a lot of it for it to have a
- significant effect.
-
- The bombing campaign was of marginal significance
- until after D Day, due to innsuficient tonnage
- dropped over too long a period.

I believe it was of tremendous importance. Even if the principal impact occurred after D-Day, the campaign was the impetus for major Luftwaffe losses during the period preceding D-Day. And there is no denying the fact that major fuel shortages were being felt before D-Day, and this was solely as a result of the strategic bombing campaign.



- "Fighter sweeps" and "deep penetration daylight
- raids" are not the only types of warfare you can
- conduct with aircraft.
-
- Take the example of July August 43 (or was it August
- September?).
-
- No long range fighter escorts. Just fighting over
- Sicily, the Eastern Front, and occupied Western
- Europe. It brought the Luftwaffe up to fight, and
- brought them huge numbers of losses.

What you describe appears to be "fighter sweeps." In fact, the VIII Fighter Command referred to them as just that. 8th AF Fighter Groups conducted huge quantities of sweeps over France and the low countires - not to mention Italy - during July and August 1943 inflicting significant and irreplaceable losses on the Luftwaffe.



- The Luftwaffe could not sustain 600 - 700 fighter
- losses per month, especially along with all the
- other aircraft they were losing.
-
- Luftwaffe pilot quality had been in decline long
- before mid 43.

Actually, the Luftwaffe appears to have produced pilots of the same quality from October 1942 to June 1943 as they did from 1939 to September 1942.

During both time periods (1939 to Sept 42 -and- Oct 1942 to June 1943) there was no significant difference in training hours and training hours in operational aircraft.

During 1939 to Sept 1942 the new Luftwaffe pilot could expect to receive nearly 250 hours of training flying hours, and about 40-50 in operational type aircraft.

During Oct 1942 to June 1943 the new Luftwaffe pilot was still getting no less than 220 hours of training flight time, and the same 40-50 hours in operational type aircraft.

Not until July 1943 did the new Luftwaffe pilot receive signicantly less training, 175 hours training flight time, and about 25-30 hours in operational aircraft.

It may be correct to say there were fewer highly experienced veterans; but the new, average Luftwaffe pilot appears to have been at least as well trained in June 1943 as he was in 1941.



- No, the Luftwaffe had given up large areas of it's
- responsibility to retreat to Germany, and engage
- unescorted bombers. I doubt they would have been
- able to withdraw to Germany without a credible task
- to fulfill there.

I agree with this. Allied strategic bombing was only a portion of the activities engaged in, and that was the only portion of their activities temporarily halted. Fighter, fighter-bomber and recon missions, as well as tactical bombing, went on.



- Granted, but as in the point that the Luftwaffe
- didn't need air superiority over Scotland to invade
- England, so the Allies didn't need superiority over
- Germany to invade France.

I agree with this as well.



- In essence what you're saying is only the Musstang
- enabled the battle to be fought over the German
- industrial heartland, but you're not making it clear
- why you believe the battle could only be fought
- there, and not over the Russian Front, the Italian
- Front, and the Atlantic Wall (not to mention the
- Ruhr, which was certainly the industrial heartland,
- and within range of P-47s, and even Spits with a
- drop tank)
-
- Cologne, Bonn, Essen, Dusseldorf, Duisburg are all
- within 250 miles of the English coast. Granted
- airbases are not on the coast, but even hen you are
- talking distances of 270 - 280 miles.

Prior to D-Day, I believe that is correct.

The strategic bombing campaign was just that, strategic. The Atlantic Wall, the Italian Front and the Russian Front during this time contained no real strategic targets.

And yes the Ruhr had a high concentration of industry, but strategic targets existed elsewhere as well. Kassel, Frankfurt, Bremen, Hamburg, Hanover, Misburg - as well as countless others further east - were all targets of the bombers, and most were out of range of all except the P-38 and P-51. Perhaps the Spitfires and Thuderbolts could reach these targets when distance is considered "as the crow flies." But much of the bomber streams did not fly "straight" into Germany. The flew into southern Germany, turning north and then flying in a northwesterly direction over their target. This adds a great deal to the distance and effectively eliminates the Thunderbolt and Spitfire as a practical escort.

Additionally, escorting fighters were not only defensive accompaniment for bombers, they had their own offensive roll to fulfill.

As you know, 8th AF Mustangs often ranged ahead of the bombers to engage Luftwaffe fighters over their own bases, inflicitng huge losses before the Luftwaffe fighters could even make it to the bomber streams. In fact, history is replete with instances of Luftwaffe intercept attempts that never even made contact with the bombers due to this offensive action on the part of the escorts. There is no blinking at the fact that these missions were insturmental in the final destruction of the Luftwaffe. And there is no denying the fact that these mission could only have been carried out by the Mustangs.

Bases like Breist (JG7), Sachau (JG54), Borkheide and Lobnitz (JG300), as well Finsterwalde, Alteno and Welzow (JG301) we all out of range of P-47s and Spitfires, yet suffered heavily to Mustang attacks. And there were many more bases like these.



- The range of a basic Spit IX, with 1 90 gallon drop
- tank, was around 950 - 1,000 miles. Assume escort
- range is one third of full range, and you still have
- an escort range in excess of 300 miles. I assume the
- P-47 was better.
-
- To make the Mustang vital, you have to explain why
- the Luftwaffe would not defend the Russian front,
- not defend the Italian front, not defend the
- Atlantic wall, not defend the V-1 launch sies, that
- Hitler was hoping would knock Britain out of the
- war, and disrupt the invasion, and not even defned
- the Ruhr, where millions of Germans lived and worked
- in war industries.
-
- I can't see how the Luftwaffe would be able to sit
- out of range of the fighting in all those areas,
- safe from the fighting. Unless they had some other
- task they could claim as a higher priority.
-
- But hiding in Germany whilst the fighting raged
- elsewhere? I think Goering would have been executing
- people left right and centre if they tried that.

I agree that the Spitfire, or Thunderbolt, would have been sufficient escort if the need exisited only to escort bombers as far as the Atlantic wall and V-1 launch sites (or the Ruhr in a straight flight). But the German interior had vital targets that could not be reached by any of those planes until bases near or within the borders of Germany were obtained.

The Mustang ensured that there was no place in the whole of Germany that was safe from allied fighters. The Spitfire and Thuderbolt could not do this. Had the Mustang not had the range to conduct operations over central, eastern and southern Germany, there would have been places where the Luftwaffe could train and regroup. There was no rest for the Luftwaffe anywhere, and that was due to the abilities of the Mustang.



- If you're arguing what the Mustang did, then I would
- say the victory in the BoB was more significant. If
- the BoB had been lost, there could be no strategic
- bombing campaign against Germany, not to mention
- North Africa, the U Boat war, and the RAF bombing
- campaign, all bleeding German strength, as well as
- the D Day invasion.

With all due respect, I don't think the winning of the BoB was absolutely vital to achieve victory or to start a strategic bombing campaign.

The more territory the Germans won, the thinner their forces were stretched. Troops to occupy Britian may well have reduced future defenses in North Africa or Italy. And while I agree the war would have taken a differnt course had the BoB been lost, the overall outcome was ordained with the invasion of the Soviet Union.

Once sufficient time had elapsed, an invasion of southern Europe could and would have been undertaken. And we would do well to remember that the strategic bombing campaign took place from more locations than England. Raids on Romania and the Balkans were made from North Africa and Italy well before the campaign started from England in earnest. The forgotten 15th AF in Italy played a vital roll in the strategic bombing campaign obliterating vital targets throughout southern and eastern Germany. And their Mustang fighters were insturmental in shutting down Luftwaffe fighter defenses from bases like St. Echterdingen, Malmsheim and Kirrlach (JG53) and as well as many bases that were home to various NJG and KG units - all out of range of Spitfires Tempest and Thunderbolt fighters.



- If you're arguing that the Spitfire wasn't critical
- to the BoB, and another fighter could have
- substituted, then I can say the same for the
- Mustang. No other fighter at the time could have
- carried the fight over central Germany, but I have
- yet to see why the fight had to be over central
- Germany.

Because that's were the Luftwaffe trained, and that's where significant strategic targets lie, and that's where the Luftwaffe would have regrouped and strenghtened. This area could not be ignored.



- In fact, I'd go so far as to say the fight
- could have been carried out more efficiently over
- Italy, France, Russia, and the Ruhr.

Then I would suggest you aren't completely familiar with the targets, and their significance, that laid in central, eastern and southern Germany.

There were roughly 21 major air bases, homes to famous Tagjagd and Nachtjagd groups, clustered around Berlin. There were an additional 18 or so in south-central Germany. There were 7 or so more in southeast Germany. That's more than half of the major fighter bases in Germany on November 1, 1944. And most, if not all, were out of the practical range of any fighter other than the Mustang. And most, if not all, were rendered virtually ineffective by the ranging Mustangs. And these airbases don't take into consideration those additional bases that lie in western Germany.

The fuel installations of Gelsenkirchen and Castrop-Rauxel, as well as the hydrogenation plants at Leuna lie in central Germany.

And the list goes on, and on, and on.

And it was the Mustang that dominated the airspace over these vital targets. And it was the only fighter that could.



- Don't forget to take into account the sortie rate
- that inflicted those losses.
-
- If you take the four months Sep - Dec 43, the
- Luftwaffe lost about 2,100 day fighters in Western
- Europe and Germany (excluding Med), from a total of
- just over 40,000 USAAF sorties against Germany (ETO,
- excluding MED)
-
- Roughly 1 Luftwaffe fighter lost per 19 USAAF
- sorties.
-
- Taking the period Jan - May 44, the Luftwaffe lost
- about 4,800 day fighters in Western Europe, (again
- inc Germany, excluding the Med). The USAAF sortie
- rate, again ex Med, was around 183,000. That's 1
- Luftwaffe fighter lost per 38 USAAF sorties.
-
- The loss rate for the Luftwaffe went up, but the
- USAAF sortie rate soared, and the losses inflicted
- per sortie halved. Whatever the method of fighting
- in Sept - Dec 43, before the advent of the Mustang,
- it was more efficient than the method of fighting in
- Jan - May 44.

First of all, you are comparing the last 1/4 of 1943 to the first 1/2 of 1944.

Second, this comparison does not take into consideration the type of sorties flown. A perusal of AAF stats suggests an exponential increase in the number of fighter-bomber and strafing missions flown during the time period in 1944 over the time period in 1943. These missions were not necessarily intended to engage enemy aircraft. Also increased were bombing missions not intended to engage enemy aircraft. Escort missions increased as well and by inference we can probably assume this made up the bulk of the enemy aircraft destroyed.

Also, Allied losses were proportionally higher in 1943 than they were in 1944.

Therefore, its difficult to say whether or not allied fighter operations were more "efficient" in 1943 than they were in 1944. Probably not.



- Of course, these figures don't take in to account
- the RAF contribution, which would have been a higher
- percentage of the total in late 43 than early 44,
- but then the deep penetration campaign was largely
- responsible for taking the fight out of the RAF's
- range anyway.

I agree, it did take the fight out of the range of the RAF. And there were many more Luftwaffe losses during 1944 than in 1943. In the ETO, roughly 3,800 enemy aircraft were destroyed in the air in 1943 by the USAAF, none on the ground. In 1944 roughly 7,600 Luftwaffe aircraft were destroyed in the air by the USAAF, another 2,300 on the ground. In 1945, Luftwaffe losses on the ground exceeded those in the air. Losses on the ground were were principally due to ranging escort fighters.

It took getting to the heart of Germany to get to the heart of the Luftwaffe.



- So when all's said and done, you believe the
- Luftwaffe would have sat out the war in safety, if
- not for the strategic bombing campaign? That doesn't
- agree with their history, the certainly fought hard
- over France, over Britain, over Greece and Crete,
- over Africa, Malta and Russia.

It's not that they would have sat out the war in safety, the point is they COULD have had safe places to train and regroup. As stated, and shown, the strategic bombing campaign and the ranging Mustangs escorts that accompanied them took the fight to the heart of Germany, thus to the heart of the Luftwaffe. The Mustang, more than any other plane, ensured that the Luftwaffe had no place to hide, and inflicted horrific losses right on and above their bases in central, east and south Germany. Places the Thunderbolt, Tempest and Sptifire could not hope to operate.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/sigstang.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:26 AM
klower wrote:
- NegativeGee,
- When we get into these "what if" scenarios, it's
- really easy to argue just about anything, but
- consider this. Amphibious landings are usually only
- considered if total air supremicy is virtually
- guaranteed. No doubt, the large force of P-47s,
- P-38s, Spitfires, etc. could have maintained
- reasonably complete air superiority over the
- beach-head, but could they have guaranteed it to the
- satisfaction of allied high command? I think not.

As you correctly state, what if scenarios can be argued to assert just about anything /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif However, based on what I have read, my assertion was not unreasonable. Oh, and I forgot to mention the myriad other tpyes of aircraft that the Allies operated over France prior to Normandy, and the role they had in allowing the invasion to happen.

- I'm saying that the P-51 forced the LW to commit
- it's fighters on the western front. The pool of
- experienced pilots was delpleted. In addition, it
- gave the allies a pool of combat hardened pilots
- that the allied high command knew could and would go
- head to head with the LW's best. This gave them the
- confidence to plan and execute the D-Day landing
- when they did.

There were more significant tactical and strategic concerns that the Allies considered and addressed before Normandy. The opening of the Italian front was one.

- No doubt the invasion of France would have occured
- without the P-51, but I'd say it almost certanly
- would have been delayed or had been more costly.

A fair analysis. Allied losses in the whole of the mainland Europe campaign were (relatively speaking) very low. How much of that was a direct contribution by the P-51 is less clear. Aircraft such as the Thunderbolt, Typhoon and Lancaster (flying close air support lol!) are the ones that probably made the most difference to the troops on the ground (well, there are many more, but I am not awake enough to think of them all yet)

In
- either case, the western allied advance would have
- been slower and more of Germany would have ended up
- under Soviet control. How decisive would this have
- been in the cold war, we can only speculate.
- Consider the difference if the Soviets had exclusive
- control of German jet and rocket technology.

Now we take a bold leap into what if territory /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif What if the Mustang had not existed, and Operation Market Garden had not been carried out in favour of a more consevative plan? What if Galland had has his way and staged his "big blow" operation (in which case, Mustang or no Mustang, Allied bomber losses would have been huge). What if Hitler had woken up at 8:00am on June 6th 1944 and ordered the Panzers into action straight away?

In the final analysis, the Mustang was the right plane for the job, and it appeared (rather fortuitously) for the Allies at a time when it could make a unique contribution to the war effort, that no other plane could make at that particular time of that there is no doubt.

As to being the most important single engined fighter of the war... well there are too many other contributions from various other types to say that for certain.



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 03:15 PM
NG, there's a subtle difference between being the "most important single engined plane of the war", and "having the biggest effect on the outcome of the war of any single engined plane".

It's hard to argue against the 109, or Spitfire, in the first one. Flew all war, in production a long time, a huge number made etc.

The second one is a different question, sort of like the difference between "most valuable player" and "player of the year". The Mustang qualifies for consideration.

Hawgdog
06-11-2004, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kweassa:
_"if the 109 could cover all of england what difference would it make"_

..

Range, makes a tremendous difference in both tactical and strategical aspect.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>