PDA

View Full Version : Some US Navy/US Marines statistics



SkyChimp
10-01-2004, 09:09 AM
From: NAVAL AVIATION COMBAT STATISTICS‚‚ā¨"ĚWORLD WAR II


http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/navymarinecredits.jpg

horseback
10-03-2004, 12:57 PM
OMG! Check out the FM-1/2 (GM-built Wildcats) kill ratios! 13:422, or 32.46 kills for every air to air loss!

cheers

horseback

Jippo01
10-03-2004, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
OMG! Check out the FM-1/2 (GM-built Wildcats) kill ratios! 13:422, or 32.46 kills for every air to air loss!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Claims, not kills. Aren't they Skychimp?


-jippo

k5054
10-03-2004, 05:01 PM
Check out the efficiency of the PB4Y. 306 kills in 3640 sorties. That's 12 sorties per kill. The F6F took 17 sorties per kill (claim, if you like, but they are confirmed kills according to the USN vetting system. FWIW).

Snootles
10-03-2004, 05:08 PM
Fantastic figures! I wonder if anything like that has survived for the Japanese...

p1ngu666
10-03-2004, 05:20 PM
skychimp, nice figures
like the unkown type http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

anyways could u take a look at this thread and see if u can add anything?
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=3291015622&r=7061076622#7061076622

thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

SkyChimp
10-03-2004, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Claims, not kills. Aren't they Skychimp?
-jippo <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Answer:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/verification.jpg

Here's some more neat numbers from the report:
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/types_1.jpg
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/types_2.jpg

Ruy Horta
10-03-2004, 11:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
OMG! Check out the FM-1/2 (GM-built Wildcats) kill ratios! 13:422, or 32.46 kills for every air to air loss!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Claims, not kills. Aren't they Skychimp?


-jippo <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We share the same sense in humor, but I thought it wiser to pass this can of worms. Nice stats though, always good to have extra reference material.

Didn't Skychimp post an URL of the source site some time ago?

Still Jippo is right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe the USN didn't overclaim as much as the US heavies did, but there certainly was the normal dosis of optimistic claiming. But in general tersm at least the early claims are fairly accurate.

Currently rereading the First Team, what a great series that is. Hoping that Hammel's Carrier Clash & Strike are anywhere near.

I have to admit that I buy far more books than I have time to read, so now I am catching up big time!

Giganoni
10-04-2004, 01:55 AM
Yeah I think Skychimp has posted these before. Of course they are claims, especially since the document admits claims were rarely evaluated higher than squadron intelligence officer or squad commander. However, as for Japanese statistics like this? Doubtful.

The closest I have is the JAAF fighter units book by Ikuhiko Hata, Yasuho Izawa. There the list every JAAF fighter pilot who died from 37 to the end of the war and when (sometimes how including non combat related). They also list the claims of many JAAF engagments further classifying if the claim is a kill, probable, or damage. Also includes the losses and when available compare that to the records of the advesary (like US records).

The result is usually obvious overclaiming by both sides, sometimes though there is underclaiming by either side.

Ruy I think you have this book.

k5054
10-04-2004, 03:02 AM
There are plenty of engagements where USN overclaiming may be checked against the IJ losses. Marianas turkey shoot for example. In that case there is overclaiming at the rate of around 1.5:1. Occasionally it goes to 3:1, usually less. If we allowed for 2:1 overclaiming for the figures Skychimp presents it's still pretty one-sided. What about the 68:1 bomber kill/loss? Japanese gunners would not appear to have matched Il-2 AI.
In some ways I hope the PF game will be more balanced (and less accurate) than the figures we see here.

(I think I was the one who first(?) posted that URL here, everyone who is interested should download the whole report.)

Ruy Horta
10-04-2004, 03:36 AM
Well Kamikaze must have a real impact on the ratios, thousands of a/c which were not much more than manned bombs when it comes to flying skill.

horseback
10-04-2004, 08:35 AM
Kamikazes, as a formally planned tactic, first appeared fairly late in the war; October 1944, Leyte Gulf. While they comprised a substantial portion of USN claims after that point, the trends of overwhelming US superiority had already been established.

Up until that time, Japanese pilots were committed to battle in the conventional way, although by virtue of their culture, they were more likely to fight to the death when a Western pilot might try to break off and RTB. Soviet pilots were not the only ones to try ramming their opponents when their ammo ran out or they were hopelessly damaged...

Even so, shooting down a single engine aircraft with a fighter plane is still considered to be a difficult feat, and hitting an erratically flying tyro might be harder in some respects than taking down a smooth flying pilot caught unawares. 80-90% of the kills continued to be claimed by the 10% or less who had been scoring all along.

cheers

horseback

SkyChimp
10-04-2004, 06:32 PM
How anyone could arrive at an overclaim ratio from what I posted I beyond me. To simply assume it was 2:1 or 3:1 or whatever simply isn't supported. As the report states, the conclusion is that overclaiming was relatively low.

The Japanese, on the other hand, went beyond simple errors. They overclaimed as a practice. Ruy, if you haven't read about in in Lundstrom's book yet, you will. And it's further illustrated in his second book, The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign.
Even Japanese Naval Aces... is rife with Japanese overclaiming. In some instance, Japanese pilots claimed more than 100% of American planes encountered.

heywooood
10-04-2004, 06:41 PM
unfortunately Chimp - anyone can claim that the claims are inflated or false if they don't like what they claim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif knowhatImean?

PraetorHonoris
10-04-2004, 07:33 PM
I know. Some people don't believe that a single pilot has 352 victories just because he had the "wrong" batches on his uniform... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

owlwatcher
10-04-2004, 09:24 PM
Pretty interesting report. Figures seem high.
Though they tell the whole air war story in the pacfic quite well.

Loki-PF
10-04-2004, 10:40 PM
BATCHES?....We don't need no stinking BATCHES

PraetorHonoris
10-04-2004, 10:49 PM
Ups, you are right, spelling mistake. Of course I mean badges.

Copperhead310th
10-04-2004, 11:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
OMG! Check out the FM-1/2 (GM-built Wildcats) kill ratios! 13:422, or 32.46 kills for every air to air loss!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Claims, not kills. Aren't they Skychimp?


-jippo <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We share the same sense in humor, but I thought it wiser to pass this can of worms. Nice stats though, always good to have extra reference material.

Didn't Skychimp post an URL of the source site some time ago?

Still Jippo is right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<span class="ev_code_RED">Maybe the USN didn't overclaim as much as the US heavies did, but there certainly was the normal dosis of optimistic claiming. But in general tersm at least the early claims are fairly accurate.</span> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm going to disagree with the implications of that statment. i don't think that the US Bombers Over claimed very much at all. Here's why:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Gunners on bombers such as B-17 Flying Fortresses and B-24 Liberators destroyed enormous numbers of enemy aircraft, <span class="ev_code_BLACK">but the Army Air Forces quickly abandoned the attempt to systematically award aerial victory credits to them.</span> The average bomber had ten machine guns and six gunnery positions, and the average bomber formation contained many aircraft. If a formation shot down an enemy airplane, witnesses could not determine exactly which bomber, much less which gunner, destroyed the airplane.


<span class="ev_code_BLACK">"but the Army Air Forces quickly abandoned the attempt to systematically award aerial victory credits to them."</span> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So as for the USAAF Bomber crews Over claiming....i doubt that is true.

Source: USAFHRA - USAF Historical Reasearch Agency

Copperhead310th
10-04-2004, 11:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
I know. Some people don't believe that a single pilot has 352 victories just because he had the "wrong" batches on his uniform... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if you refering to Eric Hartman, or some of the Geramn Aces... there is no doubt inmy mind that there was widespread overclaiming throught the Luftwafe in WWII. In Eric Hartmans case i would suspect that @ least 30% were overclaims. But that is only an uneducated guess & a statemnt of my persoanl OPIONION on the matter. While i do not doubt that durring the early days of the war on the eastern fron the nazi's were cleaning house.....after a while the Soviets were able to turn the tide.
thankfully.

PraetorHonoris
10-05-2004, 12:11 AM
I don't want to discuss Erich Hartmanns victories, but the kill claims of the 8th USAAF bombers are not trustworthy.
On 14 October 1943 they claimed the destruction of 186 planes, actually the Luftwaffe lost 38*. Thats an overclaiming of 5:1!
So when did they abandoned the attempt to systematically award aerial victory credits to the heavies?

* A. Price "Battle over the Reich", 1991, page 100

k5054
10-05-2004, 02:42 AM
don't let's get into the overclaiming thing again. In fact all Air Forces of all nations overclaimed. In the specific case of the USN, it's easier to check than most because the forces engaged on each side are known, as are IJ losses.
In these cases we can find an overclaim ratio. It seems to be more than 1, but not often up to 3. But there are times in the island raids of 1943/4 where the USN claimed more Japanese a/c than were actually present, never mind lost. That's OK, claims are rarely accurate. My point in my previous post, which I obviously didn't make clear, was that even if the 1944-5 claims in the original table were at 2:1, they'd still be impressive figures showing a one-sided contest.
In the BoB, the RAF overclaimed 2:1 even though they could count the wrecks, the LW 3:1. Later the RAF overclaimed 3:1 over France, even though ultra data showed a better picture of LW losses.
The US heavies claims were discounted by pretty much everybody at the time. LW losses were known through Ultra, but it suited the 8th to let the gunners think they were shooting down more planes than they were.
The USN data we have here was collected direct from wartime records. It may not reflect japanese losses exactly, but it is from a report prepared for the USN archives, not for public consumptiom. In fact the report was suppressed for many years.
The numbers for total japanese losses in the report, together with the USAAF claims, add up to a number not too far from what the japanese lost, variously quoted from 30,000 a/c up.
Something more about the air war statisitcs may be found at usaaf.net, including the pacific version of the USSBS.

horseback
10-05-2004, 01:07 PM
EVERYBODY overclaimed, period. The degree of overclaiming was determined by pilot (combat) inexperience, location of the combat (over enemy territory/ocean/jungle tends to complicate confirmation by locating the wreck), weather conditions, numbers of aircraft involved in the engagement, time of day, and the organizational experience/emphasis on the intelligence gained (Japanese commands tended to take the pilot's word without examination, for instance, leading to some horrendous assumptions about relative strengths, to take the worst example).

There is continuing confusion between wartime propaganda claims vs what the pilot claimed vs what he was actually credited with at the time and what postwar studies 'adjusted' his credits to. This is complicated by the fact that postwar re-examination of claims by the Western Allies did not take place immediately postwar, foolishly thinking the money might be better spent rebuilding Europe and getting the troops home.

To this day, many combat veterans wholeheartedly believe much of the wartime propaganda they heard at the time, simply because after the war, they never heard or bothered to read about the actual historical facts, having 'lived' them. Those of you who read the interviews with Golodnikov may remember his contention that German aces were paid extra for their kills.

Axis claims in general were not re-examined until long afterwards, and then largely by private historians, some admittedly amateur enthusiasts. Contributions by by professional military personnel appear to be sparse, and in some cases, colored by personal friendships. In any case, serious cross examination or a Devil's Advocate role do not appear to have been taken, to any great extent.

However, in the case of the Luftwaffe, there was instituted a serious wartime bureaucratic sytem of claim confirmation that was very accurate within Axis held territory. It was not fully in place until after the Battle of Britain, however, and German claims prior to its institution (or over enemy territory) are no more accurate than anybody else's, when compared to the opposing units' losses.

American pilots arrived late in the European war, fighting against veterans, and initially, regular USAAF units suffered accordingly, and suffered through the same growing pains their opponents went through 2 or 3 years earlier. Similarly, they overclaimed at similar rates to those of the LW in the Battles of France and Britain, and matured to a greater level of reliability as they gained institutional experience over the next year.

American participation in the air war lasted for over two years in the ETO, and over 3 1/2 years in the Pacific. It is unfair to judge them on the basis of overclaiming done in their first six months of combat, aprticularly when little of their combat was held over their own territory.

US Navy and Marine Aviators are a special case in WWII. Prewar, they may have been among the best trained pilots in the world, by any measure. Like the Luftwaffe, they trained for air to air deflection shooting. Like the IJN, they had to be able to land on a moving ship.

As a group, they did much better against the Japanese than their Army counterparts. Had O'Hare, Foss, Carl, Thach, McCampbell, or a half dozen other prewar trained 'pros' had half the combat hours of Bong or McGuire (especially in a Hellcat or Corsair), the US 'Ace of Aces' would have scored well over 75 victories.

cheers

horseback

Aaron_GT
10-05-2004, 02:36 PM
Sykchimp wrote:
"How anyone could arrive at an overclaim ratio from what I posted I beyond me. To simply assume it was 2:1 or 3:1 or whatever simply isn't supported. As the report states, the conclusion is that overclaiming was relatively low."

The overclaiming guesstimate wasn't dervied from the figures you posted, Skychimp, but from other evidence. 1.5:1 or higher is pretty much a typical overclaiming rate for most airforces during WW2.

Copperhead wrote:
" i don't think that the US Bombers Over claimed very much at all"

Early in the war in Europe the claim rate was immensely overinflated (up to 12:1) so a lot of efforts were required to reduce the overclaiming so that an accurate picture of attrition of LW forces could be drawn up so as to determine best tactics for the bomber fleets.

""but the Army Air Forces quickly abandoned the attempt to systematically award aerial victory credits to them.""

This was one of the steps taken to try and reduce overclaiming.

PraetorHonoris wrote:
"On 14 October 1943 they claimed the destruction of 186 planes, actually the Luftwaffe lost 38*. Thats an overclaiming of 5:1!"

And even earlier in the war in one engagement 50 were claimed, 25 upheld, but the LW only actually lost 2.

However overclaiming is normal, and to say that airforces is not to besmirch the reputation of the airmen. They were young men flying in harzardous and often confused and confusing situations, full of adrenalin and always a split second from death. Given that eyewitnesses to a hand bag snatching can't always agree on the clothing the perpertator was wearing differences in claim statistics are only natural. For fighter pilots (more like one-on-one, not multiple gunners firing at one plane) a ratio of overclaims of about 1.5:1 is pretty much the standard throughout the war for all sides.

horseback
10-05-2004, 04:57 PM
About those bomber gunners' claims...

Unless an aircraft is seen to lose a wing, explode, become fully enveloped in flame, or the pilot is actually seen to leave the aircraft (at 7000m, how often did that happen?), how could it be classed as destroyed? It's not as though the gunners could follow their smoking victims down through the undercast to observe the crash. The only thing they could claim in most cases is enemy aircraft damaged or disabled. Allowing gunners' claims was strictly a matter of morale. Given the casualty rate of 8th Bomber Command, it was the least they could do for those guys.

On the other hand, the Germans made no secret that attacking the bomber formations was something most of them dreaded. Most contemporary anecdotes (somewhat dramatized for popular consumption) I've read seem to indicate that each pass through a bomber box cost a fighter formation almost half its numbers; that is, that aircraft are dispersed, damaged, or destroyed (in order of likelihood).

In any case, usually only about half of the formation was able to make a second attack. Even if it wasn't destroyed or damaged, an aircraft out of the fight was no longer a factor. From a practical standpoint, that pilot lost his fight and could be counted as a 'victory' even if his aircraft was not destroyed.

...and that victory had a cumulative effect on the loser's (and his unit's) morale and future combat effectiveness.

cheers

horseback

Copperhead310th
10-06-2004, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
I don't want to discuss Erich Hartmanns victories, but the kill claims of the 8th USAAF bombers are not trustworthy.
On 14 October 1943 they claimed the destruction of 186 planes, actually the Luftwaffe lost 38*. Thats an overclaiming of 5:1!
So when did they abandoned the attempt to systematically award aerial victory credits to the heavies?

* A. Price "Battle over the Reich", 1991, page 100 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes lets not discuss Hartman.
the man was a freakin Nazi. i'm sure
telling a few lies was nothing to him.
I'm quite positive he had done much worse in his time. I mean his boss was the freaking
anti-Christ for cryin out loud.

As for the Bomber crews it was very early on.
But i'm not certain of a date. and the information at the USAFHRA did not indicate exactly when they stoped keeping score for the bomber crews. While i admit 186 on a singlre mission by bombers alone is subject to scrutiny. However it could be possible depending on the number of LW fighters
attacking them that day....how many bombers were in the bomber stream...ect.
Considering that most of the bombing over Germany was done by large formations of heavy bombers. The average heavy bomber had ten machine guns and six gunnery positions. Now multiply that by 80 and see how many guns were in that bomber formation. you do the math.
it is highly likely that, depending on conditions they very well could have downed that many. Mathmatically it is very possible.
Historically...I would need as much FACTUAL
information on the misssion it self to
reaserch it.

Note i use the number 80 as a referance
from the PTO. i could not find an avaerage number of bombers that would have been in
a formation over Germany in Oct. 1943.

Copperhead310th
10-06-2004, 02:29 AM
Aaron_GT

I was talking about after the changes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

horseback:
Good points. well said as always. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

csThor
10-06-2004, 02:35 AM
the man was a freakin Nazi. i'm sure
telling a few lies was nothing to him.

Congrats, Copper. If you really think so you're the first person I give a negative grade on credibility.

(If that was sarcasm you can ignore my post.)

Copperhead310th
10-06-2004, 08:33 AM
Well it is true.
Hartman was a nazi.
He served Hitler & the party.
Nazi Germany killed Millions of inncocent Jews.
Hitler was called the anti-Christ.

All True statments. don't blame me ...
blame history. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Aaron_GT
10-06-2004, 09:20 AM
Copperhead wrote:
"Aaron_GT

I was talking about after the changes. "

I was amplifying what you said, although I would imagine there was still lots of overclaiming after the changes as overclaiming due to confusion in the heat of battle is natural.

Aaron_GT
10-06-2004, 09:24 AM
"While i admit 186 on a singlre mission by bombers alone is subject to scrutiny."

It would be unlikely as typically a maximum of 300 sorties were flown at 1000 bomber raid made by the USAAF and 186 shot down would represent more than 50% losses. Since late war (late 1944) the USAAF was typically flying 900+ bomber raids several times a week the LW would have been totally wiped out even sooner than it was.

Late war it was not uncommon for 1000 bombers plus 500 escorts to be flown against Germany from Britain, followed by similar numbers from Italy on the same day, and a similar number of bombers (much less escorts) at night by the RAF.

PraetorHonoris
10-06-2004, 09:34 AM
Copper,

Hartmann did never served the party, but surely Hitler, as Hitler was the Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht.
So did Stauffenberg, even longer than Hartmann, is Stauffenberg a nazi therefore?

Your statement is simply pathetic. csThor seems to be right.

horseback
10-06-2004, 10:25 AM
Aaron, PLEASE stop using late-war figures to blanket the USAAF's participation for the whole war! (I know you're not the only one, but it happens too often, and there is an epidemic of ignorance about the evolution of the airwar as regards the strength of the USAAF from day one) The 186 kills claimed on a single mission by bomber gunners was on the October 14th Schweinfurt raid. I believe there were approximately 600 bombers on that raid, and they suffered something like 15% losses.

It was a maximum effort raid for the 8th AF at the time, carried out beyond the range of the available escort fighters, which was something like 4-5 Thunderbolt groups. The losses the bombers suffered put them back quite a bit, not only in aircraft, but in trained, combat capable personnel. The massive training and manufacturing efforts in the States were just getting traction at this point, and the worth of the new trained vs prewar trained airmen was still in question.

It took quite a while for the 8th AF to mount any comparable operations after that, due to weather and supply/personnel losses. The 15th AF at the time was limited to south of the Alps for most of that time, being smaller and more concerned with Italy and Rumania's oil production than Central Germany.

USAAF operations in the ETO/Med were conducted at the end of a very long supply chain. Bombers from Boeing and Convair had to fly from the west coast or some later from satellite factories in the Midwest, but either way, that's over fifteen hundred miles to the Atlantic coast before the transit overseas, with a small percentage of losses on each leg.

Thunderbolts were made on Long Island, but Mustangs and Lightnings were made in the Los Angeles area initially and transported (flown or shipped on rail cars AFAIK) to ports for loading onto ships across a still contested Atlantic. All this in addition to the soldiers, food, fuel, and other supplies for our Allies and units building up in England and the Med, all clamoring for priority over the 'glamorpuss flyboys' requirements.

Simply put, it took a couple of years' worth of buildup on both sides of the Atlantic in manufacturing and training before the 8th AF was able to dominate the daylight skies of Europe, while at the same time it was decimating the Fighter corps of the Axis. In terms of maturity, the 8th AF of October 1943 compared to its capabilities a year later was like a 15 year old boy compared to the man he would be at 25 (if he studied hard, exercised regularly, ate all his vegetables, and stayed away from loose women).

I apologize for the rant, and for taking the thread off-track.

How 'bout that tall-tailed Wildcat?

cheers

horseback

PraetorHonoris
10-06-2004, 10:48 AM
Just for the historical correctness:
On 14 October 1943 291 US Bombers entered Germany's air space, 60 were shot down, 5 did not survive the landing and 12 were written off due the damage they suffered. Furthermore 121 Bombers had to be repaired until they could fly again.
In return 38 Luftwaffe planes were destroyed and more 20 damaged.

This was the second time the 8th USAAF had to bear such losses after the 17 August.

k5054
10-06-2004, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Mood of the topic. posted Wed October 06 2004 09:25
Aaron, PLEASE stop using late-war figures to blanket the USAAF's participation for the whole war! (I know you're not the only one, but it happens too often, and there is an epidemic of ignorance about the evolution of the airwar as regards the strength of the USAAF from day one) The 186 kills claimed on a single mission by bomber gunners was on the October 14th Schweinfurt raid. I believe there were approximately 600 bombers on that raid, and they suffered something like 15% losses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Horseback, you're right, some people think there were 1000 bombers in 1943. In fact 291 bombers crossed the enemy coast that day, 14th Oct 1943.
That was about 70-100 short of a maximum effort because of losses on the Munster raid. The gunners claimed 288, and 186 were allowed. 60 forts failed to return and others were lost over England or too damaged to repair. Only five groups of P-47s were available, no 38s or 51s were operational then. Say 250 fighters. The 47s could not go all the way, and weren't able to challenge most of 400ish LW fighter sorties.

csThor
10-06-2004, 11:15 AM
Well it is true.
Hartman was a nazi.
He served Hitler & the party.
Nazi Germany killed Millions of inncocent Jews.
Hitler was called the anti-Christ.

All True statments. don't blame me ...
blame history.

Personally I find this way of seeing things moronic. Really.
So you'd say Johannes Steinhoff or G√ľnther Rall were Nazis, too? Would you call your own government and the whole NATO idiots for

a) making both members of the NATO's highest military council (Steinhoff even led it for years)

b) awarding both the Legion of Merit (Steinhoff also got the Commander's edition of the Legion D'honneur [sp?])

???

Or Krupinski, Barkhorn or Obleser (who all served in post-war Bundesluftwaffe and received recognitions for their efforts by the NATO).

I feel extremely sorry for your simplistic picture of the world. You may know your stuff about USAAF and the USA (any news if your unit emblems will find their way in to PF???) but without any decent knowledge you should refrain from making comments abvout Germany and the Germans at all. Otherwise you're just fulfilling the stereotypical role of a mis-informed know-it-all.

DL Moffet
10-06-2004, 08:24 PM
Okay, so we have a screwhead saying Erich Hartmann was a Nazi. Sigh.
No, Erich Hartmann was not a party member. He was a German doing his duty for his country. It was his misfortune to be born when he was and come of age to do his duty at such times as those.
Tell me: Am I a Republican since G. W. Bush - a Republican, in case you were unaware - is currently President of the U. S., particularly considering that the Republicans hold a majority in both Houses of the Congress? Also, does that mean that Bill & Hillary Clinton are now Republicans? Or, say, John Kerry and John Edwards? **** Gephardt? He a Republican, too? Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, too, I suppose? Or so it must be in your philosophy.
Correspondingly, was I a Democrat back in the '90's when Bill was President?
Just because party X is in charge at the moment it does not follow that all the people in said country are members of party X. All too often the word "Nazi" (acronym from NAtional SoZIalistische Deutsche Arbiter Partei) is used entirely too synonymously for "German". Those who do so display a most potent shallowness in their thinking.
Hans Ulrich Rudel, he was a Nazi. Didn't drink, didn't smoke, vegetarian, health nut. The archetypical Nazi in every way. I respect his courage, but I despise him as a man.
That's why I prefer men such as Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall and Krupinski. They were victims of the times, not believers in them.

DL Moffet
10-06-2004, 08:27 PM
Aw, rats, there it goes again! Cripes a' mighty! I think y'all know that was short for Richard.

Copperhead310th
10-07-2004, 12:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Just for the historical correctness:
On 14 October 1943 291 US Bombers entered Germany's air space, 60 were shot down, 5 did not survive the landing and 12 were written off due the damage they suffered. Furthermore 121 Bombers had to be repaired until they could fly again.
In return 38 Luftwaffe planes were destroyed and more 20 damaged.

This was the second time the 8th USAAF had to bear such losses after the 17 August. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok so lets do the math.
@ 10 guns per aircraft
multiplyed by 291 US Bombers
comes to 2,910 M2 .50 cal HMG's.

but to be fair we'll multiply it by the number og gunstations. 6 Which is 1,746.
more than enough to mount a considerable defense. Now consider that they were most likley flying BOX formation.

Simple mathmatical logic sugests that it is not only possible....but very good chance they did shoot down that many.

(by the way you failed to mention how many German fighters were said to have been in the fight that day.)

Copperhead310th
10-07-2004, 01:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DL Moffet:
Okay, so we have a screwhead saying Erich Hartmann was a Nazi. Sigh.
No, Erich Hartmann was not a party member. He was a German doing his duty for his country. It was his misfortune to be born when he was and come of age to do his duty at such times as those.
Tell me: Am I a Republican since G. W. Bush - a Republican, in case you were unaware - is currently President of the U. S., particularly considering that the Republicans hold a majority in both Houses of the Congress? Also, does that mean that Bill & Hillary Clinton are now Republicans? Or, say, John Kerry and John Edwards? **** Gephardt? He a Republican, too? Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, too, I suppose? Or so it must be in your philosophy.
Correspondingly, was I a Democrat back in the '90's when Bill was President?
Just because party X is in charge at the moment it does not follow that all the people in said country are members of party X. All too often the word "Nazi" (acronym from NAtional SoZIalistische Deutsche Arbiter Partei) is used entirely too synonymously for "German". Those who do so display a most potent shallowness in their thinking.
Hans Ulrich Rudel, he was a Nazi. Didn't drink, didn't smoke, vegetarian, health nut. The archetypical Nazi in every way. I respect his courage, but I despise him as a man.
That's why I prefer men such as Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall and Krupinski. They were victims of the times, not believers in them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok well lest just drop the whole Hartman issue all together. it seem some are just very sensitive on the subject. it's getting too pollitical anyway.

As for Johannes Steinhoff and others after the war. Men can Change for the better. i am a firm beliver in that. And thankfully those men did. but even the sipmlest minded of men knows the differance from right and wrong.
Which ever they choose to follow rests soley upon each mans own best judgement. the whole of Germany were not nazi's. i never said they were. there was a Restance in the German poulation. It was common knowlage (from what i've read/watched) that most of the german officers in the Luftwaffe & Wermacht [spell?]
were well aware of what the party was doing in regards to the Jewish population. Now if these men, were not supportive of these actions why were they fighting to preserve them? Would not a man of this amount of courage take up arms against evil instead of fighting to suport it?
obvlously they knew the differnce in right and wrong. The fact that he served the Nazi controlled German goverment....weather or not
he held those same beliefs, or harbored the same
twisted moral convictions is irrelivent. By taking no adverse actions against things which he truely knew were wrong...and by supporting such things with his own actions made him the same as the men he served. IMO

In any case we should drop the whole Hartamn issue as i've led it too far off topic as it is.

csThor
10-07-2004, 01:51 AM
Copperhead your logic is faulty. Soldiers do hardly fight for political reasons - they mostly hear that they do fight for their country. Or do the US soldiers in Iraq fight to keep Bush in the Oval Office?

There were officers who were strongly pro-Nazi - Hans-Ullrich Rudel (who never changed until his death), Horst Carganico, maybe Gordon Gollob. Many sympathized with the NSDAP at first because the Nazis had overcome the Versailles Treaty (which all germans saw as an affront against Germany). The sympathy changed rather sooner than later - either because they knew of the atrocities or because they saw the incompetence of the Party.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

k5054
10-07-2004, 02:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> OK so lets do the math.
@ 10 guns per aircraft
multiplyed by 291 US Bombers
comes to 2,910 M2 .50 cal HMG's.

but to be fair we'll multiply it by the number og gunstations. 6 Which is 1,746.
more than enough to mount a considerable defense. Now consider that they were most likley flying BOX formation.

Simple mathmatical logic sugests that it is not only possible....but very good chance they did shoot down that many.

(by the way you failed to mention how many German fighters were said to have been in the fight that day.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it doesn't matter how many guns or gun stations there were, some of those guys never saw a fighter. LW used to concentrate (if they could) on a small part of the bomber formation. Others used rockets to engage from outside effective range of the 50s. I don't think the US heavies on their best day got more than around 20 kills. Despite the LW fear of going through the boxes they didn't lose many a/c destroyed that way. Plenty of damage though. Only when an escort was present did german fighters suffer the kind of losses that would really hurt. Germany had around 1000 single-seat fighters in october and maybe 200 Zerstorers. If only 400 made contact with the bombers that means some problem with fighter direction or priorities. This was the beginning of the end for the LW defence fighters and they didn't see the problem, they still appeared to be winning, inflicting 20% losses for 5%.

Ruy Horta
10-08-2004, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
How anyone could arrive at an overclaim ratio from what I posted I beyond me. To simply assume it was 2:1 or 3:1 or whatever simply isn't supported. As the report states, the conclusion is that overclaiming was relatively low.

The Japanese, on the other hand, went beyond simple errors. They overclaimed as a practice. Ruy, if you haven't read about in in Lundstrom's book yet, you will. And it's further illustrated in his second book, _The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign._
Even _Japanese Naval Aces..._ is rife with Japanese overclaiming. In some instance, Japanese pilots claimed more than 100% of American planes encountered. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Had the flue so I missed out on this discussion.

Hopefully my post did not lead to a discussion on overclaiming. In general there is no underclaiming in total claims, there is a generous margin for overclaim. In the case of some services this is relatively low, with others its high (for instance the Japanese simply didn't use a system that is comparible to lets say the US).

I have both books and am enjoying (in part re-)reading the first volume, but you cannot deny that if lets say O'Hare got credit for 5 destroyed, when he actually downed 3 and 1 damaged it isn't overclaiming, however mild I must add in his defense!

There is a difference between outrageous overclaiming and understandable overclaiming.

Hell, when discussing a certain encounter there is even the risk of underclaiming.

But bottom line when I see this totals list, I do take notion of "general overclaiming" and the inflation caused by Kamikaze tactics.

On the latter count one may mention pre-1944 engagements, but that is offset by the rise in 1944-45 totals committed in Kamikaze.

As for the remark of getting aerial kills, of course flying a fighter takes skill let alone achieving a kill.

But if one accepts that a Russian bomber was a relatively easy kill for the 1941 Luftwaffe, can not the same be said for a 1942 kill of a Nell or a 1944 kill of a single engine Kamikaze CV bomber type or whatever?

The key term is RELATIVE.

Reading The First Team (or other books on the topic) proofs that these men were all experts in tehir field and that carrier aviation is a whole different ball game.

On a side not, it is striking how few men were initially involved in the Pacific. I mean its dwarfed by the scale in Europe. Of course later this changes, but again relatively speaking...

Ruy Horta
10-08-2004, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
Well, it doesn't matter how many guns or gun stations there were, some of those guys never saw a fighter. LW used to concentrate (if they could) on a small part of the bomber formation. Others used rockets to engage from outside effective range of the 50s. I don't think the US heavies on their best day got more than around 20 kills. Despite the LW fear of going through the boxes they didn't lose many a/c destroyed that way. Plenty of damage though. Only when an escort was present did german fighters suffer the kind of losses that would really hurt. Germany had around 1000 single-seat fighters in october and maybe 200 Zerstorers. If only 400 made contact with the bombers that means some problem with fighter direction or priorities. This was the beginning of the end for the LW defence fighters and they didn't see the problem, they still appeared to be winning, inflicting 20% losses for 5%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO there are two ironies when it comes to the fight between the Jagdwaffe and the US Heavies.

1. The most effective German weapon until the long range escorts made their impact, was the Zerstoerer (both in the traditional attack and using stand off weapons).

2. The most deadly tactics during 1944/45 was the Sturm attack, which was suprisingly cost effective against heavy bombers and relatively simple: fly an armored fighter straight in, negating the formation defense by applying formation attack. The latter Sturmj√¬§ger variants weren't even that heavily armored, the focs being on heavy weapons instead.

Granted both types were at a disadvantage against regular fighter escorts, but it does dispell some of the myths of effective bomber defenses.

OTOH, it took time to figure out attack methods and a lot of courage to close into a bomber box or a single big bomber for that matter.

Courage or the fear of death is something we forget easily playing games. The difference between flying a damaged a/c or bailing out when you THINK you are done for. The difference between attacking against all odds and going safe and RUN like hell.

Before anyone takes this as a snipe against US bomber boys, no offense intended.

I once got an E-mail from a US bomber pilot who had been shot down in '43 over Europe, he explained how his co-pilot lost his head literally during a head on attack. These men deserve all the credit they get just for flying missions, let alone facing enemy fighters, let alone downing some of them.

BTW, even the USAAC/F admitted that their gunner claims were most of all credited because of morale purposes.

When I look at claims I find that more or less US fighter claims over the ETO are fairly accurate, so you won't see me write anything else, are they infallible: no way.

But you can say that of most other AFs, to varying degrees.

And I agree (and have underwritten) teh fact that one must make allowances for different campaigns and circumstances when it comes to accuracy (or the quality of men).

DL Moffet
10-12-2004, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DL Moffet:
Okay, so we have a screwhead saying Erich Hartmann was a Nazi. Sigh.
No, Erich Hartmann was not a party member. He was a German doing his duty for his country. It was his misfortune to be born when he was and come of age to do his duty at such times as those.
Tell me: Am I a Republican since G. W. Bush - a Republican, in case you were unaware - is currently President of the U. S., particularly considering that the Republicans hold a majority in both Houses of the Congress? Also, does that mean that Bill & Hillary Clinton are now Republicans? Or, say, John Kerry and John Edwards? **** Gephardt? He a Republican, too? Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, too, I suppose? Or so it must be in your philosophy.
Correspondingly, was I a Democrat back in the '90's when Bill was President?
Just because party X is in charge at the moment it does not follow that all the people in said country are members of party X. All too often the word "Nazi" (acronym from NAtional SoZIalistische Deutsche Arbiter Partei) is used entirely too synonymously for "German". Those who do so display a most potent shallowness in their thinking.
Hans Ulrich Rudel, he was a Nazi. Didn't drink, didn't smoke, vegetarian, health nut. The archetypical Nazi in every way. I respect his courage, but I despise him as a man.
That's why I prefer men such as Hartmann, Barkhorn, Rall and Krupinski. They were victims of the times, not believers in them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok well lest just drop the whole Hartman issue all together. it seem some are just very sensitive on the subject. it's getting too pollitical anyway.

As for Johannes Steinhoff and others after the war. Men can Change for the better. i am a firm beliver in that. And thankfully those men did. but even the sipmlest minded of men knows the differance from right and wrong.
Which ever they choose to follow rests soley upon each mans own best judgement. the whole of Germany were not nazi's. i never said they were. there was a Restance in the German poulation. It was common knowlage (from what i've read/watched) that most of the german officers in the Luftwaffe & Wermacht [spell?]
were well aware of what the party was doing in regards to the Jewish population. Now if these men, were not supportive of these actions why were they fighting to preserve them? Would not a man of this amount of courage take up arms against evil instead of fighting to suport it?
obvlously they knew the differnce in right and wrong. The fact that he served the Nazi controlled German goverment....weather or not
he held those same beliefs, or harbored the same
twisted moral convictions is irrelivent. By taking no adverse actions against things which he truely knew were wrong...and by supporting such things with his own actions made him the same as the men he served. IMO

In any case we should drop the whole Hartamn issue as i've led it too far off topic as it is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First: I can't, since you refuse to acknowledge the incorrectnes of your point.

Second: Wehrmacht.

Third: I wasn't being political. I avoided any commentary on politics. I defy you to, based on that post, tell me which party I belong to or for whom I am about to vote.

Most of those officers, in fact, did not know what was going on. Most, when told, wouldn't believe it. That's why Einsenhower's order to make every German possible tour the camps was so right. It allowed them no room for doubt.

Case in point:
German youth who lived in a town near one of the camps encounters an Heeres Hauptmann (Army Captain) who had the grievous misfortune of having been detailed to deliver message or some such to this camp. He had left the camp thoroughly disgusted with what he had seen. He encounters this young boy and a conversation begins between them.
At some point the Hauptmann says to the boy: "You know, they are killing thousands of them in there."
The boy blinks, asks: "Who?"
"Jews and others," the Hauptmann replies.
The boy blinked, and refused to believe it. "Why would they be killing them?" he wondered, "It makes no sense! We need them, we need the work they are doing!"
The young boy had become an old man when he told that story, and seemed rather embarrassed and contrite.

MK2aw
10-12-2004, 09:23 PM
Cooperhead, you really have no idea, and I mean no idea of what you are talking about.

I am an ACE historian, I on the otherhand do know what I am talking about. Erich Hartmann participated in 1400 combat sorties.

Compared to lets say Robert Johnson, who scored 27 kills in 60 sorties (American Europe air war ace). Actually has a much higer strike rate. The German aces scored so high because they flew so long and so many sorties.

Please try and read books on the subject before spreading false information.

You sound so silly spewing that Hartmann was a Nazi. I corresponded with Hartmann for years. he was not a Nazi. That is like saying Richard Bong (America's top ace) was a DEMOCRAT! Nazi is a political affiliation. You are either a young kid or you just need to read a book every now and then.

Mk2aw

DL Moffet
10-12-2004, 09:38 PM
I just reread your initial post. Are you with the NKVD our something? You sound like one of those (Various ... terms come to mind, but I'll leave them out. Use your imagination...) who tried to accuse Hartmann of war crimes when he was in the gulags after the war (For having worn the wrong uniform) by stating that some of the ammo he discharged must have missed his target. And, since what goes up (Or, at least, was once up) must come down, it must have come down someplace. And sometime or another there MUST have been an innocent, unarmed civilian struck by one of these rounds...therefore: WAR CRIMINAL!
Do you hold that much scorn for Ivan Kozhedub or Alexandre Pokryshkin? They flew for Dzhugashvili (Stalin)? He was an even more ruthless and blood-thirsty tyrant than Almost Schickelgruber. Dzhugashvili slaughtered anywhere from 2 to 3 times as many people as Hiltler. In fact, if he hadn't died when he did the hapless Jews would have experienced a second Halocaust before even a decade had passed since the last.

DL Moffet
10-12-2004, 09:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MK2aw:
Cooperhead, you really have no idea, and I mean no idea of what you are talking about.

I am an ACE historian, I on the otherhand do know what I am talking about. Erich Hartmann participated in 1400 combat sorties.

Compared to lets say Robert Johnson, who scored 27 kills in 60 sorties (Amercian Europe air war ace). Actually has a much higer strike rate. The German aces scored so high because they flew so long and so many sorties.

Please try and read books on the subject before spreading false information.

You sound so silly spewing that Hartmann was a Nazi. I corresponded with Hartmann for years. he was not a Nazi. That is like saying Richard Bong (America's top ace) was a DEMOCRAT! Nazi is a political affiliation. You are either a young kid or you just need to read a book every now and then.

Mk2aw <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your name, in real life, would not happen to be Norman, would it? Do you know a big guy named Tom ... who often owes you money?

MK2aw
10-12-2004, 09:50 PM
Nah, I am not Norman. :-)


Mk2aw

Aaron_GT
10-13-2004, 03:53 AM
"Aaron, PLEASE stop using late-war figures to blanket the USAAF's participation for the whole war! "

I didn't say it was for the whole war! The 8th AF started out with raids of less than 100 bombers. I just thought it was interesting to note the impressive size to which the raids grew! Goodness, calm down.

"(I know you're not the only one,"

I am not even one of them!

"The 186 kills claimed on a single mission by bomber gunners was on the October 14th Schweinfurt raid."

I didn't realise it was the Schweinfurt raid being referred to, in which case the 8th AF wasn't at the point of daily raids (especially not after the level of losses at Schweinfurt). Even so a loss of 186 fighters from the LW would still represent a huge percentage of the attacking force. Given the smaller defending force and lesser fighter cover it seems even more unlikely that 186 fighters shot down is an accurate figure unless it is supported by LW figures as well. Given the nature of the human mind is such a terrible decimating raid (more than decimating in fact) then overclaiming would likely be higher than typical.

Aaron_GT
10-13-2004, 04:01 AM
"I once got an E-mail from a US bomber pilot who had been shot down in '43 over Europe, he explained how his co-pilot lost his head literally during a head on attack. These men deserve all the credit they get just for flying missions, let alone facing enemy fighters, let alone downing some of them."

Very true. The psychological strain on those crews was enormous. Roughly you had a 50% chance of surviving 10 missions in 1943, about a 25% chance of surviving your tour. Becoming a member of a bomber crew was almost a death sentence. You have people being stalked by a distant hunter with little ability to control their fate: just stay in formation and hope for the best. In those sort of super-stressful conditions it is amazing that they managed to do what they did at all, let alone reported on the fighters they shot down.

One of my wife's grandfathers was a B17 pilot for the 8th AF, only just seeing action at the tail end of the war. The other was a qualified pilot but somehow managed to get placed in the infantry and was wounded (refused his purple heart, said that his injury wasn't worth it when people were losing limbs). The latter had by far the better chance of survival, though.

Dr...Watson
10-13-2004, 05:15 AM
I've just finished reading "The Big Show" by PIerre Clostermann, a French Pilot for the RAF during WWII. Im not putting the USA down by any means, they had their reasons for the exagerated claims which seem justofied considering the circumstances, he talks about the 8th Airfirce claims..

Quote "From 15th Nov to 15th Apr, German fighter lsses were estimated at 678 destroyed, 102 probable and 347 damaged by RAF fighters, 73 destroyed, 5 probable and 22 damaged by ack-ack. The American 8th Air Force however claimed that its bombers (liberators and Fortresses) obtained the following results for the same period, 2223 destroyed, 696 prob, 1818 damaged plus 1835 destroyed by fighter escort.
The British regarded these figures as ridiculous. They admitted the right of the American press communiques to produce such results to suger the pill for the American public, which was finding the enormous Air Force daylight losses hard to swallow. But the RAF categorically refused to base its plan of campaign on fancy propaganda figures.
The argument soon got heated. The British maintained that it was better to underestimate the number of successes, as they did, by means of very strict method of confirmation by cine film, than to base on individual verbal accounts which were hard to check. Naturally, when in a box of 72 B17s you had 300 or 400 machine gunners blazing away at 20 FW190s and 5 were in fact brought down, there were in the nature of things bound to be several dozen gunners who swore black and blue and in perfect good faith that they brought it down.
In addition, it seemed very odd that, in a raid like the one on Augsberg, 900 British and American escort fighters declared that they had brought down 118 German fighters while 500 Forts claimed 350 successes, almost a third of the german fighters flying that day.In a similar mixed show, for instance, after a very severe dogfight, one RAF squadron (12 of the latest spits) applied for 7 successes, while on single American bomber claimed for 6.
It was finally decided to take a working basis as one third of the American figures for bombers and one half from American fighters pilot claims which still gave very impressive figures for both...." unquote

Im just showing you what the pilot experienced, he was the most successful French pilot of WWII 293long range missions, 67 ground attack and 42 defensive missions completed before he retired at age 14 (actually 24 years old, oops)!He lost about 90% of the friends he flew with, its an amazing read...for some reason, I have a different flying style and sense of atmosphere when flying IL2 after reading his book You can get it on

www.amazon.co.uk (http://www.amazon.co.uk)

horseback
10-13-2004, 09:03 AM
Interesting that the RAF credits Clostermann with only about 60% of of the kills he continued to claim after the war, but I think you mean that he retired after 14 years of service, not that he was 14 years old when he retired.

In any case, this is another example of what I blew up about before. Clostermann, serving with the RAF in the Spitfire, had already seen over two years of war when the first Americans arrived. I'm sure that he and all his battle hardened comrades could not believe that they could ever have been so green, and there wasn't a lot of personal contact with the Yanks over the course of the war, not least because the pay scales were so different (another source of potential distaste-"oversexed, overpaid, over here"). It's unlikely that he ever had a working relationship with American pilots during the war.

In any case, the quote used ignored what happened after the Americans' first six months of the air war.

First impressions tend to last,and coupled with the mild resentment about the fighter war moving out of his fighter's range (most RAF pilots' memoirs mention this feeling that the Americans were 'hogging' the air combat from mid-43 to D-Day),it was natural to be skeptical of the American claims as the high altitude fight carried into Germany.

There was a lot of difference between the types of air combat experienced by Spitfire squadrons at the time vs that fought by the escort fighters. The RAF's air combat was generally fought at lower altitudes, where the FW (the fighter most encountered) was at its best. The American escorts were most often fighting 'downhill', usually enjoying both a height advantage and the knowlege that they were not the primary object of the German fighters' attention.

And then there's the matter of marksmanship. In the RAF, one can see that for the most part, English RAF aces tended to either be avid hunters, or had extensive shooting experience in their pre service youth. The early war aces were over represented by South Africans and New Zealanders, countries with a hunting/marksmanship tradition.

Americans, from a largely rural populace, were much more familiar with hitting a moving target than any opponents the Germans faced until the Finns asked them to leave. American fighter pilots tended to be a little bit better than the average in this department. I'm sure that a lot of the LW veterans who were lost in the bloody spring of 1944 died because they underestimated the risks they were taking. How does one say "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." in German?

cheers

horseback

Dr...Watson
10-13-2004, 01:04 PM
Fixed that typo, meant age 24.

You should check out the book though, its actaully very unbiased - Im just mentioning the 8th airforce part as thats what the topic is about. He talks about the shattered nerves of the B17 gunners, trying to shoot him down in his Tempest, anything that came near them that wasnt a B17 got shot at, there is a nice part about the first time the P47 landed at the Spitfire base (think it was a P47) the first time a US pilot saw a spit and veca versa. There is alot of stuff went on that I just never realised, I would HIGHLY recommend it.

Vipez-
10-13-2004, 03:39 PM
copperhead your an idiot go away..

shuu shuu

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

DL Moffet
10-13-2004, 07:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MK2aw:
Nah, I am not Norman. :-)


Mk2aw <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aw, rats. You said you'd corresponded with Hartmann, so has a friend of mine named Norman. (I'm not Tom, incidentally, he's a mutual friend.) Good Day.