PDA

View Full Version : Germans overwhelmed by vast numbers of P-51s=MYTH!



Pages : [1] 2

Sergio_101
01-26-2007, 03:27 AM
WWII in Europe got into high gear in early 1940.
First P-51 flew May,1 1941.

For the first year all P-51s were Allison
powered and used as recon and low level co-op.
While a capable fighter that was not it's primary use.
The P-51 you all love to hate first flew May,5 1943!
First Merlin P-51B in May of 1943.....
First delivery of a P-51B to ETO (8th AF) was
in late November 1943.
First combat mission over Europe was in Dec 1943.
Some sources say the 13th, some say Christmass day (25th).
The so calles "vast numbers" did not appear untill
mid 1944! There were a thousand + ready for
the Normandy invasion.
But that's all, truth is probibly half that number
were cleared for action (squadron service).

Vast numbers? Show me the vast numbers!

In late 1944 the vast numbers did start to show themselves.
By then the Luftwaffe was already defeated.

Myth busted!

Truth is that a small number of badly out numbered P-51Bs
excelled in the escort role. The pilots scored a favorable
kill ratio against large numbers of German fighters.

Germany was outnumbered in one area, and one area only, heavy bombers.
Vastly out numbered. Germany never had a reliable heavy bomber.

Sergio

Jasko76
01-26-2007, 04:00 AM
So, basically, Luftwaffe was defeated by the time P-51B appeared? It could be, P-38s and P-47 + bombers themselves shot down a fair number of German fighters before P-51 came and finished them off.

Sergio_101
01-26-2007, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by Jasko76:
So, basically, Luftwaffe was defeated by the time P-51B appeared? It could be, P-38s and P-47 + bombers themselves shot down a fair number of German fighters before P-51 came and finished them off.


There is truth to that.
In late 1943 into early 1944 the Luftwaffe was "on the brink".
P-51s scored heavily in mid 1944, so there was still plenty
of targets. The Luftwaffe did not surrender it's parity in
fighter numbers in the west till roughly Feb 1945.
But be early 1945 there were few good pilots and little fuel.

Germany did well in staying ahead on fighter losses. Where
it failed was training and fuel.

By April 1945 the Luftwaffe was massively overwhelmed.
Those huge numbers of new fighters were showing up, so were
new bombers.

The Luftwaffe/Germany was to be defeated by numbers eventually, but a early
defeat saved it from that and an Atom Bomb.

Sergio

bazzaah2
01-26-2007, 04:17 AM
Robert Johnson considers (iirc) the bulk of the work in breaking the back of the Luftwaffe to have been done by the P-47 in 1943.

MrMojok
01-26-2007, 04:24 AM
That's crazy talk.

Brain32
01-26-2007, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
That's crazy talk.
Naaah that's usual BS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 04:40 AM
My theory goes - the war in Europe began in September 1939, so in the interveening years between the combat debut of the P51. The RAF and VVS did a hell of a job bleeding the Luftwaffe.

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
The Luftwaffe did not surrender it's parity in
fighter numbers in the west till roughly Feb 1945.
But be early 1945 there were few good pilots and little fuel.
Sergio

So the Luftwaffe actually had parity in numbers of fighters in the West compared to the combined strength of the USAAF and the RAF! Wow someone should have told the German High Command!

As for A-bombing mainland Europe - well im sure Holland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France and Britain would have been down with that one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

JG52Karaya-X
01-26-2007, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
First combat mission over Europe was in Dec 1943.
Some sources say the 13th, some say Christmass day (25th).
The so calles "vast numbers" did not appear untill
mid 1944! There were a thousand + ready for
the Normandy invasion.

Yes, therefore the P51 DID NOT WIN the 2nd World War.

Myth busted!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

leitmotiv
01-26-2007, 05:13 AM
Before jumping to conclusions read the authoritative:

TO COMMAND THE SKY: THE BATTLE FOR AIR SUPERIORITY OVER GERMANY, 1942-1944. Stephen L. McFarland and Wesley Phillips Newton. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 1991. (now available in paperback)

Book examines the winter 1944 battle in which the AAF defeated the German fighter force. Surprising to the Mustang buffs, the facts show the dirty job was done by the Thunderbolt

dieg777
01-26-2007, 05:16 AM
could I have a large bucket of popcorn please , this looks like a 10 pager to me
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

PraetorHonoris
01-26-2007, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

The so calles "vast numbers" did not appear untill
mid 1944! There were a thousand + ready for
the Normandy invasion.
But that's all, truth is probibly half that number
were cleared for action (squadron service).

Vast numbers? Show me the vast numbers!


In January 1944 there were 5685 air planes on US hand in ETO according to Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, Tab.89, including 2532 fighters, compared to 1785 air planes of the Luftwaffe in the west and the Reich (cf. Groehler: Die Geschichte des Luftkriegs, p.501).

In May 1944 there were 3570 fighters on US hand in ETO according to Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, Tab.89, compared to 667 Luftwaffe fighters in the west and the Reich (cf. Price: Letztes Jahr der Luftwaffe [translation of Last Year of the Luftwaffe], p.23).

Numbers backed up with sources. Let's add the RAF numbers now! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

leitmotiv
01-26-2007, 05:34 AM
Robert S. Johnson

http://www.leisuregalleries.com/johnsonrs810.jpg

Bewolf
01-26-2007, 06:20 AM
Not to forget that german fighters mostly went after the bombers and thus were easy pickings for the escort fighters. Hardly anything wonderous about how it ended.

Ratsack
01-26-2007, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
....

Numbers backed up with sources. Let's add the RAF numbers now! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Indeed.

On a (nearly) completely OT matter, I like your signature. It's not just the popular historians that have that problem, either. Neither is it a problem restricted to our yank friends only: in my view it's a problem endemic in the English-speaking world. We don't place enough emphasis on language skills when engaging other cultures.

How on Earth our Governments and businesses and other institutions think they can actually understand and approach the the world on an even footing when the world comes to us speaking English, I shall never understand. Talking about giving up the high ground without a fight!

cheers,
Ratsack

XyZspineZyX
01-26-2007, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:

The so calles "vast numbers" did not appear untill
mid 1944! There were a thousand + ready for
the Normandy invasion.
But that's all, truth is probibly half that number
were cleared for action (squadron service).

Vast numbers? Show me the vast numbers!


In January 1944 there were 5685 air planes on US hand in ETO according to Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, Tab.89, including 2532 fighters, compared to 1785 air planes of the Luftwaffe in the west and the Reich (cf. Groehler: Die Geschichte des Luftkriegs, p.501).

In May 1944 there were 3570 fighters on US hand in ETO according to Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, Tab.89, compared to 667 Luftwaffe fighters in the west and the Reich (cf. Price: Letztes Jahr der Luftwaffe [translation of Last Year of the Luftwaffe], p.23).

Numbers backed up with sources. Let's add the RAF numbers now! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The two forces didn't meet each other en masse, though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If the Luftwaffe sent 50 fighters to attack a bomber stream that was escorted by 200 USAAF fighter planes total, the Luftwaffe is, on paper, outnumbered

But it is also true that those 50 German planes did not simply seek out the 200 USAAF fighters and duked it out

For one thing, the USAAF planes covered literally hundreds of miles of bomber stream. For another, the Germans were tacticly sound and would never accept that fight in the first place

The Luftwaffe could and very certainly did acheive *local* air superiority, even in the situation I describe above

The technically 'outnumbered' 50 Luftwaffe planes attack the 'heavily escorted' bomber stream where a single squadron of USAAF planes are present

That's 50 to 16 odds, *in favor of the Luftwaffe* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif A strong screeen of fighters lures the escort away, while the remaining 30 attackers go after the bombers. The remaining 184 USAAF planes are a non-element in the engagement as they have their own sections and duties- they simply do not take part in the fight.

Historian Walter J. Boyne accurately described the late war Luftwaffe as a "too small blanket", that couldn't cover the shivering Third Reich

The raw numbers tell a very important story, as you describe, but I cannot agree it was the whole story. If the two airforces met, in a maximum strength effort to decide the aerial contest in a single engagement, then yes, I would agree that the USAAF was in practice overwhelming the Luftwaffe. However, the actual engagemants themselves illustrate that the Luftwaffe had indeed learned it's lessons well by the late war, and could still dictate terms of aerial engagement in local areas by fulfilling the air superiority requirement, and they did this by *locally* outnumbering the USAAF when possible

It doesn't matter if the USAAF has 12,000,000 P-51s, and the Luftwaffe has 300 Bf-109s. If those 300 109s deploy against a selected and isolated group of 50 of the those 12 million P-51s, the Luftwaffe has the odds in their favor, despite the raw numerical advantage of the USAAF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This was both their strategy and their tactics. A defensive airforce is what the Luftwaffe became, and it allowed them to choose when to overwhelm a target, but it also kept them from doing anything but stay defensive

Monty_Thrud
01-26-2007, 06:42 AM
So Buzz U was right all along, the P47 won teh war...http://premium1.uploadit.org/bsamania//salute2.gif SALUTE! teh P47 u underclass.

RAF74_Raptor
01-26-2007, 06:44 AM
12 Pager Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

PraetorHonoris
01-26-2007, 06:49 AM
Chuck, that is rather theory than anything else for it was not easy to assemble several small units, all widespreadly deployed over a very large area from Paris to Berlin and beyond, and direct them en masse into a very small area at the very same time having a very small timeframe for reaction, regarding factors like weather, fuel reserves, pilot stress, multiple incoming raids etc, etc, etc. Actually it was almost impossible.

12 pager be sure. Still let's not forget the RAF.

Philipscdrw
01-26-2007, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by RAF74_Raptor:
12 Pager Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
It will be if people keep posting one-liner spam posts! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hang on a minute...

whiteladder
01-26-2007, 07:07 AM
The Luftwaffes back was broken in the first three months of 1944, after which it did at times(oct 44) regain some of the quantative strength, but never the qualative.

rnzoli
01-26-2007, 07:08 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Hammy doesn't like threads longer than 1 page. Remember what he did with our forums just a week ago?! Is that what you want again?

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 07:20 AM
Sorry double post

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by whiteladder:
The Luftwaffes back was broken in the first three months of 1944, after which it did at times(oct 44) regain some of the quantative strength, but never the qualative.

So I guess it took all 3 World powers to do this then.


There were more than just P51's flying against the Luftwaffe Sergio.

AKA_TAGERT
01-26-2007, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
WWII in Europe got into high gear in early 1940.
First P-51 flew May,1 1941.

For the first year all P-51s were Allison
powered and used as recon and low level co-op.
While a capable fighter that was not it's primary use.
The P-51 you all love to hate first flew May,5 1943!
First Merlin P-51B in May of 1943.....
First delivery of a P-51B to ETO (8th AF) was
in late November 1943.
First combat mission over Europe was in Dec 1943.
Some sources say the 13th, some say Christmass day (25th).
The so calles "vast numbers" did not appear untill
mid 1944! There were a thousand + ready for
the Normandy invasion.
But that's all, truth is probibly half that number
were cleared for action (squadron service).

Vast numbers? Show me the vast numbers!

In late 1944 the vast numbers did start to show themselves.
By then the Luftwaffe was already defeated.

Myth busted!

Truth is that a small number of badly out numbered P-51Bs
excelled in the escort role. The pilots scored a favorable
kill ratio against large numbers of German fighters.

Germany was outnumbered in one area, and one area only, heavy bombers.
Vastly out numbered. Germany never had a reliable heavy bomber.

Sergio Another myth along those same lines.. The P51 escorts were typically out numbered in the encounters with the Lw because they were spread out in groups.. front, left, right, back, and at different altitudes while escorting the bombers.. which the bombers could be spread out over many miles! Where as the Lw would attack the bombers in a large group.. Thus any Dog Fights that may have resulted typically had the Lw planes out numbering that spacific group of P51 escorts. Thus there may have been more escorts in total, but in any one group, front, left, right, back, they were typically out numbered.

XyZspineZyX
01-26-2007, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Chuck, that is rather theory than anything else for it was not easy to assemble several small units, all widespreadly deployed over a very large area from Paris to Berlin and beyond, and direct them en masse into a very small area at the very same time having a very small timeframe for reaction, regarding factors like weather, fuel reserves, pilot stress, multiple incoming raids etc, etc, etc. Actually it was almost impossible.
.

Well, I for one wasn't there and can't argue the theory versus application. But what I have posted is what they tell me in the D!ck and Jane pop-up books I have in my reference library http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif In them, people who were there report what they saw and did *shrugs* You must concede the point that the Luftwaffe did indeed acheive local air superiority at times after 1943, though

I do not agree with Sergio's main point, by the way

AKA_TAGERT
01-26-2007, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
The two forces didn't meet each other en masse, though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If the Luftwaffe sent 50 fighters to attack a bomber stream that was escorted by 200 USAAF fighter planes total, the Luftwaffe is, on paper, outnumbered

But it is also true that those 50 German planes did not simply seek out the 200 USAAF fighters and duked it out

For one thing, the USAAF planes covered literally hundreds of miles of bomber stream. For another, the Germans were tacticly sound and would never accept that fight in the first place

The Luftwaffe could and very certainly did acheive *local* air superiority, even in the situation I describe above

The technically 'outnumbered' 50 Luftwaffe planes attack the 'heavily escorted' bomber stream where a single squadron of USAAF planes are present

That's 50 to 16 odds, *in favor of the Luftwaffe* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif A strong screeen of fighters lures the escort away, while the remaining 30 attackers go after the bombers. The remaining 184 USAAF planes are a non-element in the engagement as they have their own sections and duties- they simply do not take part in the fight.

Historian Walter J. Boyne accurately described the late war Luftwaffe as a "too small blanket", that couldn't cover the shivering Third Reich

The raw numbers tell a very important story, as you describe, but I cannot agree it was the whole story. If the two airforces met, in a maximum strength effort to decide the aerial contest in a single engagement, then yes, I would agree that the USAAF was in practice overwhelming the Luftwaffe. However, the actual engagemants themselves illustrate that the Luftwaffe had indeed learned it's lessons well by the late war, and could still dictate terms of aerial engagement in local areas by fulfilling the air superiority requirement, and they did this by *locally* outnumbering the USAAF when possible

It doesn't matter if the USAAF has 12,000,000 P-51s, and the Luftwaffe has 300 Bf-109s. If those 300 109s deploy against a selected and isolated group of 50 of the those 12 million P-51s, the Luftwaffe has the odds in their favor, despite the raw numerical advantage of the USAAF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This was both their strategy and their tactics. A defensive airforce is what the Luftwaffe became, and it allowed them to choose when to overwhelm a target, but it also kept them from doing anything but stay defensive Whoops! Looks like you allready covered that! Agreed 100%

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
[Another myth along those same lines.. The P51 escorts were typically out numbered in the encounters with the Lw because they were spread out in groups.. front, left, right, back, and at different altitudes while escorting the bombers.. which the bombers could be spread out over many miles! Where as the Lw would attack the bombers in a large group.. Thus any Dog Fights that may have resulted typically had the Lw planes out numbering that spacific group of P51 escorts. Thus there may have been more escorts in total, but in any one group, front, left, right, back, they were typically out numbered.

What does that mean though? Does that mean that the USAAF pilots and aircraft were so good that they consistently beat the Luftwaffe while flying against 4 to 1 odds - outscoring them 4 - 1 also ? Or does it mean they put up a solid fight and overclaimed so much that it looked like they put up a superb one?

han freak solo
01-26-2007, 07:48 AM
http://www.summermummers.com/popcorn.jpg

Whirlin_merlin
01-26-2007, 07:51 AM
A parallel to this is the situation faced by RAF fighter command during BOB. When faced with 'a numericaly' superior foe (in terms of total numbers) do you send smaller forces to try and intercept multiple targets or do you concentate on only some raids achieving local munerical superiority with your 'Big Wing'.

As a Brit I do sometimes succumb to romantic notions of the Battle of Britian, an outnumbered plucky force defeting overwhelming odds. Although in reality it wasn't always like that.

AKA_TAGERT
01-26-2007, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What does that mean though? Does that mean that the USAAF pilots and aircraft were so good that they consistently beat the Luftwaffe while flying against 4 to 1 odds - outscoring them 4 - 1 also ? Or does it mean they put up a solid fight and overclaimed so much that it looked like they put up a superb one? Maybe.. maybe not?

My guess would be (based on common sence instead of the extream flip flop bias your using) is that the Lw was focused on getting the bombers and the not the escorts..

Thus alot of the kills the smaller number of escorts got were while some poor Lw pilot was lining up a shot on a B17.

But not all!

Also note the knife cuts both ways.. Thus during BoB when the rolls were reversed it was the poor Spit geting jumped by the 109 escort that may or may not have accounted for most of the 109 kills of Spitfires.

The point your missing.. is the P51s escorts did not outnumber the Lw 24/7! That is to say the P51 did not best the so called beter Lw planes with shear numbers! Like the Sherman vs. the Tiger! Thus long held bogas MYTHD busted!

SAVVY?

LStarosta
01-26-2007, 07:53 AM
I think someone stole Sergio's password and is posting bologna.

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What does that mean though? Does that mean that the USAAF pilots and aircraft were so good that they consistently beat the Luftwaffe while flying against 4 to 1 odds - outscoring them 4 - 1 also ? Or does it mean they put up a solid fight and overclaimed so much that it looked like they put up a superb one? Maybe.. maybe not?

My guess would be (based on common sence instead of the extream flip flop bias your using) is that the Lw was focused on getting the bombers and the not the escorts..

Thus alot of the kills the smaller number of escorts got were while some poor Lw pilot was lining up a shot on a B17.

But not all!

Also note the knife cuts both ways.. Thus during BoB when the rolls were reversed it was the poor Spit geting jumped by the 109 escort that may or may not have accounted for most of the 109 kills of Spitfires.

The point your missing.. is the P51s escorts did not outnumber the Lw 24/7! That is to say the P51 did not best the so called beter Lw planes with shear numbers! Like the Sherman vs. the Tiger! Thus long held bogas MYTHD busted!

SAVVY? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes we know the LW had the bombers as their top priority with a (proportionately) small detachment of pure fighters to deal with the escorts. So again upon closer examination the escorts could be fighting on an almost 1 to 1 basis against fighters excluding the aircraft assigned to attack the bombers.

During BOB the Spitfires were generally assigned to keeping the fighters busy while the Hurricanes attacked the bombers - but I see what you are trying to say.

As for me missing the point, im not. I never said the P51s outnumbered the LW 24/7 others here did. The fighter escort, especially when they became almost free agents had their advantages both performance wise and tactically. But the Luftwaffe was defeated beacause it lost a battle of attrition, in the end this was attributable to the Allies having superior numbers. Whether this was per engagement or not is academic, over the course of a hundred engagments overwhelming numbers told.

Sherman tank vs Tiger ? I thought we all agreed a while back that tank for tank basis the Tiger owned the Sherman. The fact that over 49,000 Shermans and 57,000 T34s were produced for some 1350 Tigers is significant.

you with me Cpt Jack ?

Irish_Rogues
01-26-2007, 08:14 AM
Nothing is ever simple, with multiple TZ's on a given day, formations taking off from different places and multiple routes, quite difficult to get defense concentrated on a regular basis IMO. Lets not forget about the 100's of bombers squirting .50's around, I think they have to count at least a little into the equation. Fighter sweeps, free lance sweeps after an escort handed off it's charges, there is much to consider. Did they try to achieve as much local superiority as the could? I'm sure they did. Did it work out? I'm sure it sometimes did. One thing is obvious though, the Luftwaffe didn't have things it's way all the time as they lost the war.

fighter_966
01-26-2007, 08:15 AM
People http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif could you sometime count how many planes Luftwaffe had in given front. When Shared total
amount was in use in four fronts..Reichs defence..East front.. West front and Meds front (I dont have figures but maybe somebody has).. So anyboby.. maybe myth has some kind of origin.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

XyZspineZyX
01-26-2007, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Whoops! Looks like you allready covered that! Agreed 100%

Well I don't think it can be overstressed that strength on paper versus strength in the combat zone should be regarded as the factor that mattered to guys in cockpits http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

XyZspineZyX
01-26-2007, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
People http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif could you sometime count how many planes Luftwaffe had in given front. When Shared total
amount was in use in four fronts..Reichs defence..East front.. West front and Meds front (I dont have figures but maybe somebody has).. So anyboby.. maybe myth has some kind of origin.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

A fair point- but take this example into account:

Donlad Trump and I are waiting for a bus

he is worth millions, I am worth about 20,000 dollars

The bus comes. I pull out my dollar for bus fare, because I have 21 one dollar bills with me at the time, he has two quarters on him total

The millionaire can't ride the bus? How can this happen?!?! He is worth many hundreds of times what the whole BUS is valued at!

The key is: I took my money with me that day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Akronnick
01-26-2007, 08:40 AM
We really need a popcorn smiley...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Could someone send Hammy an energy drink, he's gonna need it!

triggerhappyfin
01-26-2007, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
My theory goes - the war in Europe began in September 1939, so in the interveening years between the combat debut of the P51. The RAF and VVS did a hell of a job bleeding the Luftwaffe.

Yeah by the time the pony entered the war, LW hardcore pilots were killed and the major part of LW forces were rookies. But as were the pony pilots.

AKA_TAGERT
01-26-2007, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Well I don't think it can be overstressed that strength on paper versus strength in the combat zone should be regarded as the factor that mattered to guys in cockpits http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Very Well Said!

AKA_TAGERT
01-26-2007, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Yes we know the LW had the bombers as their top priority with a (proportionately) small detachment of pure fighters to deal with the escorts.
Yet just a min ago you made no mention of it and you did not give the impression of knowing it when you were trying to slide the USAAF with your two lame extream biased choices to pick from.. As if they were the only two choices to pick from.. At lest until I interjected some common sence.. Now you claim that you know and that everyone knew? If so, was that last reply from you to me some sort of trolling than?


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
So again upon closer examination the escorts could be fighting on an almost 1 to 1 basis against fighters excluding the aircraft assigned to attack the bombers.
That 'feels' about right.. at least until the ones attacking the bombers got jumped and had to switch from offence to defence.. than the P51 escorts would be out numbered.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
During BOB the Spitfires were generally assigned to keeping the fighters busy while the Hurricanes attacked the bombers - but I see what you are trying to say.
Generally.. but as we all know.. The plan going in changes as soon as the bullets start to fly!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
As for me missing the point, im not.
Disagree! Unless you were just trolling


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I never said the P51s outnumbered the LW 24/7 others here did.
Roger, but you were so caught up in trying make it a 'who is better than who' thing that even if you did know you were missing the point of the topic by going there.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The fighter escort, especially when they became almost free agents had their advantages both performance wise and tactically.
Sometimes yes


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
But the Luftwaffe was defeated beacause it lost a battle of attrition, in the end this was attributable to the Allies having superior numbers.
Which is very different than saying superior numbers in per battle! I can not say it any beter than BBB462cid said it! "it can NOT be overstressed that strength on paper versus strength in the combat zone should be regarded as the factor that mattered to guys in cockpits"


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Whether this was per engagement or not is academic,
Not really.. in light of the fact that the MYTH is based on the idea that the Lw was allways outnumbered in every battle. Pointing out the fact that was not the case is the whole point!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
over the course of a hundred engagments overwhelming numbers told.
Yes, if I have 10 and you have 5 and we both lose one per battle than I win at battle 6! But per battle things were EQUAL!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Sherman tank vs Tiger ? I thought we all agreed a while back that tank for tank basis the Tiger owned the Sherman. The fact that over 49,000 Shermans and 57,000 T34s were produced for some 1350 Tigers is significant.
See you are missing the point! Everyone will agree that the Tiger is better than the Sherman.. tank vs tank! I gave that example in that is a case where the US had a number advantage over the Germans per battle. Thus an inferior tank wins due to the greater numbers in that battle! That is to say the MYTH with regards to the P51 vs Lw is NOT true, but very true with regards to the Sherman vs Tiger! One on One the Sherman did not stand a chance, only alot of luck would turn that tide! Where as the P51 one on one with any Lw aircaft DOES stand a chance and it really came down to the pilot and the situation.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
you with me Cpt Jack ?
Enough to know your lost!

msalama
01-26-2007, 09:18 AM
this looks like a 10 pager to me

Nah, a twenty-pager at least. Just wait for the usual suspects to gather some steam first...

Tell ya what - you bring them poppycorns, and I'll put some brewskis cooling. Deal?

Jaws2002
01-26-2007, 09:18 AM
The true is somewhere in the middle.
The Allieds had huge numerical superiority. Even the Luftwaffe achieved local superiority on few occasions usually after the fight started more escorts were vectored to the area where the fight was in and many times what started a fight with LW advantage was quickly flooded with Jugs and ponies coming in.

But on the other hand you just can't ignore one Huge advantage the American planes had. The high altitude performance. You can't ignore that. The LW fighters were still competitive but NOT at the altitude they had to fight. On top of that many of the LW planes were equipped to fight bombers thus being heavier, slower and less maneuverable.

The success the LW was achieving during 1941-1942 made them too confident and they did not improve their fighters much.
They paid a bitter price in late 43, 44 and 45 because of it.

Let's face it. The G6 and A5/6/8 are not match for the Pony and Jug at 7000-10000m.




But let's be serious now. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3CFA%3EJaws/popcorn1.gif?t=1169827240

whiteladder
01-26-2007, 09:22 AM
But the Luftwaffe was defeated beacause it lost a battle of attrition


That is a good point often over looked when look at what happen. For example in the airfighting during the normandy campaign, the allies actuall lost more aircraft(to all causes) than the Luftwaffe, but that still only equated to sometime like a 3% loss rate, against the Luftwaffes were it was closer to 50%. And it is the attrition of good pilot who are then replaced by pilots of decreasing quality, with less time in the cockpit.


So I guess it took all 3 World powers to do this then.

Well it certainly didn`t help! If you look at losses for Jan to March over Germany alone the losses ran to something like (from memory) 167, 500+, 500+. And this was to the 8th Airforce alone. Losses like this are unsustanable for any airforce.

LStarosta
01-26-2007, 09:31 AM
+1 pagecount

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Yet just a min ago you made no mention of it and you did not give the impression of knowing it when you were trying to slide the USAAF with your two lame extream biased choices to pick from.. As if they were the only two choices to pick from.. At lest until I interjected some common sence.. Now you claim that you know and that everyone knew? If so, was that last reply from you to me some sort of trolling than?

Irrelevant side stepping here Tagert. You are throwing out a myth and creating a new one. Your new myth is that the USAAF fought outnumbered against a numerically inferior foe and came out on top. You want to portray the USAAF as the underdogs and also as a superior force of aviators.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
That 'feels' about right.. at least until the ones attacking the bombers got jumped and had to switch from offence to defence.. than the P51 escorts would be out numbered.

WRONG! How can you switch from being a gunpod laden fighter hunting bombers to an unhindered fighter for an air to air role ? The Luftwaffe had fighters to take the escorts and fighters to get the bombers - throw a heavily laden Fw 190 A8 Sturmbock against P51s at 26,000 ft and what do you get ?


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Generally.. but as we all know.. The plan going in changes as soon as the bullets start to fly!

Agree 100% as to plans going ballsup



Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Disagree! Unless you were just trolling
Kettle, pot, black.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Roger, but you were so caught up in trying make it a 'who is better than who' thing that even if you did know you were missing the point of the topic by going there.
Im not trying to make it a whos better than who. Your and Sergios opinion on that matter was made up a long time ago. I am asking you in plain English to spell out what you are insinuating - which is that the USAAF kicked butt while heavily outnumbered Alamo style.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Sometimes yes

Glad your onboard.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Which is very different than saying superior numbers in per battle! I can not say it any beter than BBB462cid said it! "it can NOT be overstressed that strength on paper versus strength in the combat zone should be regarded as the factor that mattered to guys in cockpits"

What is your point? Nowhere have I disagreed that on occasion the LW had more numbers in one are at a particular point in time - so what ?


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Not really.. in light of the fact that the MYTH is based on the idea that the Lw was allways outnumbered in every battle. Pointing out the fact that was not the case is the whole point!

Whose MYTH is this ? Its plain and simple, the Luftwaffe was on the wrong end of the numbers game. You can argue that on occasion they had superior numbers in particular engagements but who cares! Luftwaffe planes and pilot numbers were vastly smaller than the Western allies equivalents. This is where the victory in the airwar was achieved - not in hundreds of Alamo style battles where John Wayne in his P51 was fighting vs odds of 10/1 against.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Yes, if I have 10 and you have 5 and we both lose one per battle than I win at battle 6! But per battle things were EQUAL!
Wrong again. You funtion under the misconception that the rest of the USAAF anf RAF would not be carrying out operations. For the Luftwaffe to form up 300 planes and vector them in to intercept a formation unhindered would be very lucky. What often ended up happening was the Luftwaffe being jumped enroute by roving groups of planes. For the Germans to pop up in every fight with a numerical advantage would require some sort of miracle luck which would enable them to escape the hundreds of other fighters on different operations that day.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
See you are missing the point! Everyone will agree that the Tiger is better than the Sherman.. tank vs tank! I gave that example in that is a case where the US had a number advantage over the Germans per battle. Thus an inferior tank wins due to the greater numbers in that battle! That is to say the MYTH with regards to the P51 vs Lw is NOT true, but very true with regards to the Sherman vs Tiger! One on One the Sherman did not stand a chance, only alot of luck would turn that tide! Where as the P51 one on one with any Lw aircaft DOES stand a chance and it really came down to the pilot and the situation.

So really you are comparing apples with oranges when you bring up the Sherman Tiger thing. Who ever said that one on one a P51 DOESNT stand a chance against 1 LW plane? As far as I can see you are painting a picture where the P51 was a Tiger tank fighting off those Sherman flying Luft pilots 4vs1


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Enough to know your lost!
No mate, your the one thats way off with this one. Get some coffee in you and get back on your horse.

Viper2005_
01-26-2007, 10:24 AM
Aircraft numbers aren't important.

Flying hours are.

1)By the time the P-51 appeared in numbers in 1944 the average LW pilot received rather fewer flying hours than the average Allied fighter pilot, and had to conduct his basic training in a rather high risk environment.

2) Due to pilot, fuel and spare part shortages, by the end of 1944 the Luftwaffe was having real difficulties logging flying hours. Having a lot of aeroplanes, even if they're Me-262s isn't very useful if they're all sat on the ground...

The Luftwaffe was defeated by huge numbers of Allied flying hours in all types.

MEGILE
01-26-2007, 10:26 AM
It's the final countdown.... doooo doo dooooooooooo.. doo dooo doooooooooood

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 10:33 AM
This Myth can probably be summed up as:

1-On occasion Luftwaffe managed to achieve local superiority - despite being a numerically inferior force.

2-The Luftwaffe was defeated in a huge battle of attrition over the course of battles on all fronts from 41 onwards - because of being a numerically inferior force.

Myth busted.

WOLFMondo
01-26-2007, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">this looks like a 10 pager to me

Nah, a twenty-pager at least. Just wait for the usual suspects to gather some steam first...

Tell ya what - you bring them poppycorns, and I'll put some brewskis cooling. Deal? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bet it gets a lock on page 4.

Rjel
01-26-2007, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What does that mean though? Does that mean that the USAAF pilots and aircraft were so good that they consistently beat the Luftwaffe while flying against 4 to 1 odds - outscoring them 4 - 1 also ? Or does it mean they put up a solid fight and overclaimed so much that it looked like they put up a superb one?

The USAF looked at all claims made by USAAF fighter pilots in WWII and then released it's findings in Historical Study 85. It's available online if you choose to look for it. A few pilots lost their Ace status due to that study. Several Aces had their claims revised down also.
I've wondered if anything like that has been done concerning Luftwaffe claims, especially those over the Eastern Front? Or do we always take those at face value? If so, why? Human nature being what it is, if U.S. fighter pilots overclaimed for personal glory as is suggested, I find if difficult to believe that a weary Luftwaffe wouldn't grasp at the same straw to please it's leadership.

XyZspineZyX
01-26-2007, 10:56 AM
Nobody's talking "John Wayne" or "the Alamo" here. Come on now, that's not the discussion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The point was that is it a myth that the numerically superior US pilots beat up on the depleted German pilots for the mere fact that they had numerical superiority in aircraft due to production numbers and strength on hand. The myth is that each of these numerous planes was able to react to localised German air superiority in force- that they could use those superior numbers whenever and wherever was needed at a moment's notice. I disagree with the notion that it took a concerted effort to raise significant numbers of Luftwaffe units. They did not have to attack all at once, they could attack at any time. Example- if 20 P-51s encounter 3 groups of 12 Bf 109s and 2 groups of 10 Fw 190s in an eight hour stretch, they still encountered 56 German aircraft, even if some of those German planes attacked while the bombers were en route, landed, refueled, and attacked during the withdrawl 2 hours later, it's still a case of 20 P-51s encountering 56 Luftwaffe fighters- but the P-51 group did technically outnumber each group of German aircraft encountered

A correlative myth is that the expert US pilots had a field day with green Luftwaffe replacements but that's another topic entirely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-26-2007, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Nobody's talking "John Wayne" or "the Alamo" here. Come on now, that's not the discussion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The point was that is it a myth that the numerically superior US pilots beat up on the depleted German pilots for the mere fact that they had numerical superiority in aircraft due to production numbers and strength on hand. The myth is that each of these numerous planes was able to react to localised German air superiority in force- that they could use those superior numbers whenever and wherever was needed at a moment's notice. I disagree with the notion that it took a concerted effort to raise significant numbers of Luftwaffe units. They did not have to attack all at once, they could attack at any time. Example- if 20 P-51s encounter 3 groups of 12 Bf 109s and 2 groups of 10 Fw 190s in an eight hour stretch, they still encountered 56 German aircraft, even if some of those German planes attacked while the bombers were en route, landed, refueled, and attacked during the withdrawl 2 hours later, it's still a case of 20 P-51s encountering 56 Luftwaffe fighters- but the P-51 group did technically outnumber each group of German aircraft encountered

A correlative myth is that the expert US pilots had a field day with green Luftwaffe replacements but that's another topic entirely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Exactally!

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Rjel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What does that mean though? Does that mean that the USAAF pilots and aircraft were so good that they consistently beat the Luftwaffe while flying against 4 to 1 odds - outscoring them 4 - 1 also ? Or does it mean they put up a solid fight and overclaimed so much that it looked like they put up a superb one?

The USAF looked at all claims made by USAAF fighter pilots in WWII and then released it's findings in Historical Study 85. It's available online if you choose to look for it. A few pilots lost their Ace status due to that study. Several Aces had their claims revised down also.
I've wondered if anything like that has been done concerning Luftwaffe claims, especially those over the Eastern Front? Or do we always take those at face value? If so, why? Human nature being what it is, if U.S. fighter pilots overclaimed for personal glory as is suggested, I find if difficult to believe that a weary Luftwaffe wouldn't grasp at the same straw to please it's leadership. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All sides overclaimed - not even worth discussing this aspect.

How did the Luftwaffe get defeated if it always chose the fight, using its superior numbers, surprise ect ? Did the isolated, outnumbered USAAF escort pilots win the war and really achieve up to 7-1 kill/loss ratio? Or is the real truth much less glamourous - that the Luftwaffe was bled white and hunted down in the air and on the ground 24/7?

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Nobody's talking "John Wayne" or "the Alamo" here. Come on now, that's not the discussion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The point was that is it a myth that the numerically superior US pilots beat up on the depleted German pilots for the mere fact that they had numerical superiority in aircraft due to production numbers and strength on hand. The myth is that each of these numerous planes was able to react to localised German air superiority in force- that they could use those superior numbers whenever and wherever was needed at a moment's notice. I disagree with the notion that it took a concerted effort to raise significant numbers of Luftwaffe units. They did not have to attack all at once, they could attack at any time. Example- if 20 P-51s encounter 3 groups of 12 Bf 109s and 2 groups of 10 Fw 190s in an eight hour stretch, they still encountered 56 German aircraft, even if some of those German planes attacked while the bombers were en route, landed, refueled, and attacked during the withdrawl 2 hours later, it's still a case of 20 P-51s encountering 56 Luftwaffe fighters- but the P-51 group did technically outnumber each group of German aircraft encountered

A correlative myth is that the expert US pilots had a field day with green Luftwaffe replacements but that's another topic entirely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chuck the same logic can be applied to the Luftwaffe formation. There was an awful lot of Allied air activity over Northern Europe from Typhoons on the deck, Spitfire sweeps and medium bombers at mid altitude to high alt bomber formations. The hypothetical 300 plane Luftwaffe formation would be very lucky to get from point A to point B without encountering some form of EA activity.

AKA_TAGERT
01-26-2007, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Irrelevant side stepping here Tagert.
Hardly! I am simply pointing out that up until your post I was talking about the MYTH and gave examples of it. Where as your first reply to me was an attempt to make it a WHO IS BETTER THAN WHO thing. Thus your first reply was a good example of irrelevant side stepping if there ever was one!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You are throwing out a myth and creating a new one.
Not true.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Your new myth is that the USAAF fought outnumbered against a numerically inferior foe and came out on top. Note I think you meant to say the USAAF fought outnumbered against a numerically SUPERIRO foe? In that how can the USAAF be outnumbered and the Lw be numerically inferior at the same time? That being said I never said that at all! Please feel free to QUOTE me where I did say that! You can not because I never did say that!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You want to portray the USAAF as the underdogs and also as a superior force of aviators.
Not true! You from the get go have been trying to start the WHO IS BETER THAN WHO thing! Not I! All I simply pointed out is that the Lw per battle was not outnumbered 10 to 1! And that it was typically the other way around!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
WRONG! How can you switch from being a gunpod laden fighter hunting bombers to an unhindered fighter for an air to air role ?
No, sorry, but you are wrong! The point you missed is that you said that it was most likely a 1 to 1 scenario in that some of the Lw were to deal with the escorts and the others were to deal with the bombers. I simply pointed out that once the Lw pilots going after the bombers realized they had an escort on their six they had to change from the offence to defense. At which point a Lw plane that was going after the bombers was not mixing it up with the escorts, thus subtracting one from the bomber attack and adding one to the escort attack. Simple math really! Thus shifting your 1 to 1 scenario to a 2 to 1 scenario. Simply math really, surprised you missed it? Or did you actually do the math and realized you did not want to admit that simply truth and that this would be a good time to start a tangent topic about gun pods in the hopes of taking the focus off of that simple math? If so know this, not all Lw planes had gun pods mounted 24/7 and even the ones that did it still added one to the escort attack while removing one from the bomber attack. Granted, not as good a one without, but still an addition subtraction thing.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Luftwaffe had fighters to take the escorts and fighters to get the bombers - throw a heavily laden Fw 190 A8 Sturmbock against P51s at 26,000 ft and what do you get ? A non-heavily laden Fw190 escort attacking P51 escorts and the addition of a heavily laden Fw190 A8 Sturmobock attacking P51 escorts that wasn't before, thus resulting in 2 where there was only 1. Again, not as good as 2 non-laden Fw190s, but a heavily laden one is better than nothing!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Agree 100% as to plans going ballsup
And to be fare, they are expected to go ballsup! No war ever goes as initially planned! They are always a real time work in progress!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Kettle, pot, black.
Hadly in that I have yet to try and make it about WHO WAS BETER THAN WHO! All I am talking about is common sense and head counts! If you want to belive that a heavily laden Fw190 A8 is TOTALLY USELESS AND BETTER THAN NOTHING AT ALL! By all means be my guest! But IMHO it is a pretty good bet that if you took a poll on that most would not agree with your statement.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Im not trying to make it a whos better than who.
Really? So when you said the following..


Originally posted by mynameisroland earlier:
What does that mean though? Does that mean that the USAAF pilots and aircraft were so good that they consistently beat the Luftwaffe while flying against 4 to 1 odds - outscoring them 4 - 1 also ? Or does it mean they put up a solid fight and overclaimed so much that it looked like they put up a superb one?

Your goal was to add what to the conversation?


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Your and Sergios opinion on that matter was made up a long time ago.
Hardly! Again, take a look at your first post on page 2 and mine and tell me who is trying to change the topic at hand?


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I am asking you in plain English to spell out what you are insinuating - which is that the USAAF kicked butt while heavily outnumbered Alamo style.
Disagree 100%! You took a simple observation of how the number superiority thing was a MYTH and tried to turn it into a WHO IS BETER THAN WHO THING


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Glad your onboard.
Been OT from the get go, you're the one floating the dingy along side.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Which is very different than saying superior numbers in per battle! I can not say it any beter than BBB462cid said it! "it can NOT be overstressed that strength on paper versus strength in the combat zone should be regarded as the factor that mattered to guys in cockpits"
What is your point? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That I can not say it any better than BBB462cid.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Nowhere have I disagreed that on occasion the LW had more numbers in one are at a particular point in time - so what ?
Nothing, just glad your on board! Now if you would just give up trying to make it a WHO IS BETTER THAN WHO thing we can continue on.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Whose MYTH is this ?
It belongs to a lot of ignorant people


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Its plain and simple, the Luftwaffe was on the wrong end of the numbers game.
Production numbers that is.. As for the ratio in battle, that is different.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You can argue that on occasion they had superior numbers in particular engagements but who cares!
The people who care are the ones that believe history should be based on truth and not myths!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Luftwaffe planes and pilot numbers were vastly smaller than the Western allies equivalents.
Produciton numbers yet, battle ratio is different.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
This is where the victory in the airwar was achieved - not in hundreds of Alamo style battles where John Wayne in his P51 was fighting vs odds of 10/1 against.
There you go again with the WHO IS BETTER THAN WHO THING!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Yes, if I have 10 and you have 5 and we both lose one per battle than I win at battle 6! But per battle things were EQUAL!
Wrong again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes you are wrong again! That is a simple example, yet you fail to get it!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You funtion under the misconception that the rest of the USAAF anf RAF would not be carrying out operations. For the Luftwaffe to form up 300 planes and vector them in to intercept a formation unhindered would be very lucky.
Well than they must have been very lucky because it happened a lot


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What often ended up happening was the Luftwaffe being jumped enroute by roving groups of planes.
Yes sometimes! More so near the end of the war.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
For the Germans to pop up in every fight with a numerical advantage would require some sort of miracle luck which would enable them to escape the hundreds of other fighters on different operations that day.
Nobody is talking absolutes here! Only a fool would! There is a simple point here! The idea that the USAAF outnumbered the Lw in every battle in the sky is a MYTH!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
See you are missing the point! Everyone will agree that the Tiger is better than the Sherman.. tank vs tank! I gave that example in that is a case where the US had a number advantage over the Germans per battle. Thus an inferior tank wins due to the greater numbers in that battle! That is to say the MYTH with regards to the P51 vs Lw is NOT true, but very true with regards to the Sherman vs Tiger! One on One the Sherman did not stand a chance, only alot of luck would turn that tide! Where as the P51 one on one with any Lw aircaft DOES stand a chance and it really came down to the pilot and the situation.
So really you are comparing apples with oranges when you bring up the Sherman Tiger thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True if I was trying to compare a TANK to an AIRPLANE but I am not. All I am simply pointing out is that when it comes to out numbering the Germans most of the time in battle, it IS NOT a MYTH when talking about the Sherman vs. Tiger but IS a MYTH when talking about the USAAF vs. Lw


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Who ever said that one on one a P51 DOESNT stand a chance against 1 LW plane?
Your kidding right? How many references would you like me to give you from this forum alone?


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
As far as I can see you are painting a picture where the P51 was a Tiger tank fighting off those Sherman flying Luft pilots 4vs1
Clearly you are confused! I would recommend a second read on that!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
No mate, your the one thats way off with this one. Get some coffee in you and get back on your horse.
Wrong! The fact that you missed the Sherman vs. Tiger tank comparison and how there was NO MYTH with regards to that match up in numbers proves you need a cup of joe with lots of sugar! Who knows, maybe after that you will be able to go two sentences without making a John Wayne reference too? But I doubt it! I feel your pain and your need to try and change the topic at hand, but it is not going to work on me! Good luck with your fishing though!

jarink
01-26-2007, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Aircraft numbers aren't important.

Flying hours are.

1)By the time the P-51 appeared in numbers in 1944 the average LW pilot received rather fewer flying hours than the average Allied fighter pilot, and had to conduct his basic training in a rather high risk environment.

2) Due to pilot, fuel and spare part shortages, by the end of 1944 the Luftwaffe was having real difficulties logging flying hours. Having a lot of aeroplanes, even if they're Me-262s isn't very useful if they're all sat on the ground...

The Luftwaffe was defeated by huge numbers of Allied flying hours in all types.

Page three before someone inserts this extremely important tidbit into the thread! Forget the number game for a minute; It doesn't matter that much who outnumbered whom and under what circumstances. What it comes down to is that the AAF's pilots had literally hundreds of hours flight time before getting anywhere near a fight. A similar situation existed for the RAF, though early on (40-42) they were in a similar boat as the Luftwaffe.

They needed pilots and they needed them NOW. If you've read Johnnie Johnson's book "Wing Commander", then you know what I'm talking about. When he joined his first operational squadron, he only had (I think) about 20 hours in Spitfires. That was very common for the Luftwaffe in the second half of the war. Too much pilot attrition, attacks on oil supplies, etc. made deep cuts into their training programs. While there were some exceptions, the newly minted LW pilot of Jan '44 was no match for his contemporary fresh from the States.



Originally posted by Rjel:
I've wondered if anything like that has been done concerning Luftwaffe claims, especially those over the Eastern Front? Or do we always take those at face value? If so, why? Human nature being what it is, if U.S. fighter pilots overclaimed for personal glory as is suggested, I find if difficult to believe that a weary Luftwaffe wouldn't grasp at the same straw to please it's leadership.

Adding to the confusion over claims is that in the LW there was an official relationship between claims and awards. 40 'points' for the Knight's Cross, I think. The points were to allow for differences in the difficulty of downing certain kinds of planes. Points required for awards were higher for pilots on the Eastern front. A single engine fighter kill was worth 1 point, but a 4 engine bomber was worth 3. Pilots also got 1 point for 'separations' or 'final destructions' of the heavies.

LW Points System (http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Erhorta/jgscor.htm)

Having read that, it makes one think that it's a little too easy to shoot down B-17s and B-24s in this game, doesn't it?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Rjel
01-26-2007, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
All sides overclaimed - not even worth discussing this aspect.


Why then did you bring up the point? I'm sure all sides did. Constantly reading belittling remarks concerning what Allied pilots did in the ETO gets tiresome. Inferring they were liars and glory hounds does too. It's made to sound as if flying over occupied Europe in '43 and '44 was a cake walk. Almost without opposition. If Germany had to fight the Allies on multiple fronts, against overwhelming odds, it was due to it's own choosing.

faustnik
01-26-2007, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by jarink:

Having read that, it makes one think that it's a little too easy to shoot down B-17s and B-24s in this game, doesn't it?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Shooting down a heavy was the only goal of the LW fighter pilot during the raids. It was a major achievement if they could do it! Respect for the B-17s is in every ETO LW pilot account. They were big intimidating planes with nasty defensive firepower.

PF does a good job of simulating this IF the mission is setup properly. Try climbing to intercept B-17s at 28,000 feet with escort fighters above them. It isn't easy.

Marcel_Albert
01-26-2007, 12:21 PM
When one speaks about the Luftwaffe defeat , you must also speak about the Soviet Union VVS that faced about 70% of the Lufwaffe and successfully defeated them (all the "cream" was there , JG51 ,52 ,53 , 54 ,77 ,5 , greatest KG bombers and means used , they committed everything there until mid-1943 when they transfered many units to the West to face another threat etc..).

there are many reasons mate , perhaps the turning point is the simultaneous Battle of Kursk (the Stalingrad of VVS ) and Major counter attack in the Eastern fornt , along the USAAF and RAF War of attrition that reach its peak by mid/late 1943 . The Luftwaffe could never replace its losses while the Soviet could , The Germans had not access to large Fuel reserves , the Soviet and USA did , the Germans could not withstand a long war , the USSR did , the Luftwaffe was poorly commanded ( after mid-42 ) , the VVS didn't , The quality of new enlisted German pilots prior to mid-1942 is below average while the Soviet pilots were more and more experienced and inventing new tactics , getting more numerous and skilled to be dominant by late 1943 when the LW is the shadown of its former self and Western Allied airforce had total air superioty over Western coast of France for instance by early 1944 , also the Luftwaffe was scattered all over Europe (from Crimea to France , From Africa to Norway etc ..) ,whle the Allies were concentrated etc.... too many arguments to quote , but one must keep in mind that it is not a handful of German aces that got insane personal scores by performing attacks on isolated aircrafts behind ennemy lines or fighters outdated that has a serious impact ona war , the fact that the LW was powerless to stop the VVS bombing operations and that the LW could not achieve air superiority over the ground troops over front after Stalingrad , meant that they were doomed to lose , it was just a question of time , especially after the Soviet industry was rebuilt behind Ural and when USA (most powerful industry ) got committed in the ETO .

BaronUnderpants
01-26-2007, 12:34 PM
So, did we establish that the allies infact won the war of attrition, but the LW on closer examination infact faught with superior numbers in any given battle...just checking.

This is why i stay on theese boards, u learn new and inventiv ways of using math, physics and others, every day.

keep up the good work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Rjel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
All sides overclaimed - not even worth discussing this aspect.


Why then did you bring up the point? I'm sure all sides did. Constantly reading belittling remarks concerning what Allied pilots did in the ETO gets tiresome. Inferring they were liars and glory hounds does too. It's made to sound as if flying over occupied Europe in '43 and '44 was a cake walk. Almost without opposition. If Germany had to fight the Allies on multiple fronts, against overwhelming odds, it was due to it's own choosing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, so you are getting tired of people belittling Allied pilots achievements in the ETO - Im fed up with threads which are created to pander to the P51 won the war crowds sensibilities. Who ever suggested flying in any warzone was easy ? However placed next to the job confronting a pilots in the Luftwaffe in was.

You end with a pointless remark about Germany fighting everyone at the same time because it chose to do so. Who cares? Does that make any difference at all to this thread ?

ultraHun
01-26-2007, 12:44 PM
Numbers are one thing, planes another. Then there are pilots. German accounts on the Reich defence at that time are quite univocal. I will quote from Johannes Steinhoff, "Die Strasse von Messina" in my own translation:

"The duel in the air, the classc turnfight, gets ever more rare the more the laws of strategic bomber offensive determine the action in the air. There is no time to pit ones strength against each other and ones piloting skills, if the the bombers march en route and the fighter span their umbrella above them. We intent to break fast through the umbrella of escort fighters and to attack the bombers, and the escort fighters try to stop us by booming and zooming us when we storm for the bommbers - but the classic turn fight gets increasingly rare.

If our young pilots are attacked by fighters, they mostly hesitatingly and petrified with horror go in a tight spiral without any consideration on how to end the manouver from a tactical superior position. Such fights are short: Before one can come to help, the victim tailspins down, burning, even before the duellants flew one full circle.

...

Why do our young fighter pilots only survive so few sorties? We old guys started out in the same fashion. But we have probably grown step by step in the situation of today and do not feel its shocking impact so much ... Mostly they fly at the ends of the formation or on its outer wings and are therefore particularly endangered. Only after many sorties may a fighter pilot lead a Rotte or an element. Such they are flying at their advised positions in the formation and they are more or less "blind" for a long time, because they are not aware of the situation at enemy contact and opening of fire, because they do not yet have developed an instinct for space. In this period it gets most of them, because an attacking escort fighter realizes its enemy by its manouvering."

Adolf Galland's account in "Die Ersten und die Letzten" is very simlar, however I cannot dig it out right now. From my memory I would summarize it as follows:

1. The Jagdwaffe was ordered to attack the bombers at all costs and to just ignore the fighters.
2. Such (a) the young pilots did not become mature fighter pilots and (b) the enemy air power was never challenged as such.
3. Result is attrition and ultimately annihilation.

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
So, did we establish that the allies infact won the war of attrition, but the LW on closer examination infact faught with superior numbers in any given battle...just checking.

This is why i stay on theese boards, u learn new and inventiv ways of using math, physics and others, every day.

keep up the good work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

No mate, we have established that neither extreme is true. In Some engagements it had superiority in others it did not simple as that.

At the end of the day attrition told.

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Irrelevant side stepping here Tagert.
Hardly! I am simply pointing out that up until your post I was talking about the MYTH and gave examples of it. Where as your first reply to me was an attempt to make it a WHO IS BETTER THAN WHO thing. Thus your first reply was a good example of irrelevant side stepping if there ever was one!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You are throwing out a myth and creating a new one.
Not true.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Your new myth is that the USAAF fought outnumbered against a numerically inferior foe and came out on top. Note I think you meant to say the USAAF fought outnumbered against a numerically SUPERIRO foe? In that how can the USAAF be outnumbered and the Lw be numerically inferior at the same time? That being said I never said that at all! Please feel free to QUOTE me where I did say that! You can not because I never did say that!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You want to portray the USAAF as the underdogs and also as a superior force of aviators.
Not true! You from the get go have been trying to start the WHO IS BETER THAN WHO thing! Not I! All I simply pointed out is that the Lw per battle was not outnumbered 10 to 1! And that it was typically the other way around!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
WRONG! How can you switch from being a gunpod laden fighter hunting bombers to an unhindered fighter for an air to air role ?
No, sorry, but you are wrong! The point you missed is that you said that it was most likely a 1 to 1 scenario in that some of the Lw were to deal with the escorts and the others were to deal with the bombers. I simply pointed out that once the Lw pilots going after the bombers realized they had an escort on their six they had to change from the offence to defense. At which point a Lw plane that was going after the bombers was not mixing it up with the escorts, thus subtracting one from the bomber attack and adding one to the escort attack. Simple math really! Thus shifting your 1 to 1 scenario to a 2 to 1 scenario. Simply math really, surprised you missed it? Or did you actually do the math and realized you did not want to admit that simply truth and that this would be a good time to start a tangent topic about gun pods in the hopes of taking the focus off of that simple math? If so know this, not all Lw planes had gun pods mounted 24/7 and even the ones that did it still added one to the escort attack while removing one from the bomber attack. Granted, not as good a one without, but still an addition subtraction thing.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Luftwaffe had fighters to take the escorts and fighters to get the bombers - throw a heavily laden Fw 190 A8 Sturmbock against P51s at 26,000 ft and what do you get ? A non-heavily laden Fw190 escort attacking P51 escorts and the addition of a heavily laden Fw190 A8 Sturmobock attacking P51 escorts that wasn't before, thus resulting in 2 where there was only 1. Again, not as good as 2 non-laden Fw190s, but a heavily laden one is better than nothing!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Agree 100% as to plans going ballsup
And to be fare, they are expected to go ballsup! No war ever goes as initially planned! They are always a real time work in progress!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Kettle, pot, black.
Hadly in that I have yet to try and make it about WHO WAS BETER THAN WHO! All I am talking about is common sense and head counts! If you want to belive that a heavily laden Fw190 A8 is TOTALLY USELESS AND BETTER THAN NOTHING AT ALL! By all means be my guest! But IMHO it is a pretty good bet that if you took a poll on that most would not agree with your statement.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Im not trying to make it a whos better than who.
Really? So when you said the following..


Originally posted by mynameisroland earlier:
What does that mean though? Does that mean that the USAAF pilots and aircraft were so good that they consistently beat the Luftwaffe while flying against 4 to 1 odds - outscoring them 4 - 1 also ? Or does it mean they put up a solid fight and overclaimed so much that it looked like they put up a superb one?

Your goal was to add what to the conversation?


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Your and Sergios opinion on that matter was made up a long time ago.
Hardly! Again, take a look at your first post on page 2 and mine and tell me who is trying to change the topic at hand?


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I am asking you in plain English to spell out what you are insinuating - which is that the USAAF kicked butt while heavily outnumbered Alamo style.
Disagree 100%! You took a simple observation of how the number superiority thing was a MYTH and tried to turn it into a WHO IS BETER THAN WHO THING


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Glad your onboard.
Been OT from the get go, you're the one floating the dingy along side.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Which is very different than saying superior numbers in per battle! I can not say it any beter than BBB462cid said it! "it can NOT be overstressed that strength on paper versus strength in the combat zone should be regarded as the factor that mattered to guys in cockpits"
What is your point? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That I can not say it any better than BBB462cid.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Nowhere have I disagreed that on occasion the LW had more numbers in one are at a particular point in time - so what ?
Nothing, just glad your on board! Now if you would just give up trying to make it a WHO IS BETTER THAN WHO thing we can continue on.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Whose MYTH is this ?
It belongs to a lot of ignorant people


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Its plain and simple, the Luftwaffe was on the wrong end of the numbers game.
Production numbers that is.. As for the ratio in battle, that is different.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You can argue that on occasion they had superior numbers in particular engagements but who cares!
The people who care are the ones that believe history should be based on truth and not myths!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Luftwaffe planes and pilot numbers were vastly smaller than the Western allies equivalents.
Produciton numbers yet, battle ratio is different.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
This is where the victory in the airwar was achieved - not in hundreds of Alamo style battles where John Wayne in his P51 was fighting vs odds of 10/1 against.
There you go again with the WHO IS BETTER THAN WHO THING!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Yes, if I have 10 and you have 5 and we both lose one per battle than I win at battle 6! But per battle things were EQUAL!
Wrong again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes you are wrong again! That is a simple example, yet you fail to get it!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You funtion under the misconception that the rest of the USAAF anf RAF would not be carrying out operations. For the Luftwaffe to form up 300 planes and vector them in to intercept a formation unhindered would be very lucky.
Well than they must have been very lucky because it happened a lot


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What often ended up happening was the Luftwaffe being jumped enroute by roving groups of planes.
Yes sometimes! More so near the end of the war.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
For the Germans to pop up in every fight with a numerical advantage would require some sort of miracle luck which would enable them to escape the hundreds of other fighters on different operations that day.
Nobody is talking absolutes here! Only a fool would! There is a simple point here! The idea that the USAAF outnumbered the Lw in every battle in the sky is a MYTH!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
See you are missing the point! Everyone will agree that the Tiger is better than the Sherman.. tank vs tank! I gave that example in that is a case where the US had a number advantage over the Germans per battle. Thus an inferior tank wins due to the greater numbers in that battle! That is to say the MYTH with regards to the P51 vs Lw is NOT true, but very true with regards to the Sherman vs Tiger! One on One the Sherman did not stand a chance, only alot of luck would turn that tide! Where as the P51 one on one with any Lw aircaft DOES stand a chance and it really came down to the pilot and the situation.
So really you are comparing apples with oranges when you bring up the Sherman Tiger thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True if I was trying to compare a TANK to an AIRPLANE but I am not. All I am simply pointing out is that when it comes to out numbering the Germans most of the time in battle, it IS NOT a MYTH when talking about the Sherman vs. Tiger but IS a MYTH when talking about the USAAF vs. Lw


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Who ever said that one on one a P51 DOESNT stand a chance against 1 LW plane?
Your kidding right? How many references would you like me to give you from this forum alone?


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
As far as I can see you are painting a picture where the P51 was a Tiger tank fighting off those Sherman flying Luft pilots 4vs1
Clearly you are confused! I would recommend a second read on that!


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
No mate, your the one thats way off with this one. Get some coffee in you and get back on your horse.
Wrong! The fact that you missed the Sherman vs. Tiger tank comparison and how there was NO MYTH with regards to that match up in numbers proves you need a cup of joe with lots of sugar! Who knows, maybe after that you will be able to go two sentences without making a John Wayne reference too? But I doubt it! I feel your pain and your need to try and change the topic at hand, but it is not going to work on me! Good luck with your fishing though! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

After grinding through yet another banal post I have come to the conclusion that you agree with me.

- That the myth is busted, P51s did not always hage huge numerical advantage but conversely the Luftwaffe DID NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE NUMERICAL ADVANTAGE -

Phew.

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
The true is somewhere in the middle.
The Allieds had huge numerical superiority. Even the Luftwaffe achieved local superiority on few occasions usually after the fight started more escorts were vectored to the area where the fight was in and many times what started a fight with LW advantage was quickly flooded with Jugs and ponies coming in.

But on the other hand you just can't ignore one Huge advantage the American planes had. The high altitude performance. You can't ignore that. The LW fighters were still competitive but NOT at the altitude they had to fight. On top of that many of the LW planes were equipped to fight bombers thus being heavier, slower and less maneuverable.

The success the LW was achieving during 1941-1942 made them too confident and they did not improve their fighters much.
They paid a bitter price in late 43, 44 and 45 because of it.

Let's face it. The G6 and A5/6/8 are not match for the Pony and Jug at 7000-10000m.




But let's be serious now. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3CFA%3EJaws/popcorn1.gif?t=1169827240

Another one who can see past the BS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Rjel
01-26-2007, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
You end with a pointless remark about Germany fighting everyone at the same time because it chose to do so. Who cares? Does that make any difference at all to this thread ?

Isn't that the very basis for much of the argument in this thread? That Germany was overwhelmed by superior numbers as the war went on? Explain to me how my comment was pointless to this discussion?

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Rjel:
Isn't that the very basis for much of the argument in this thread? That Germany was overwhelmed by superior numbers as the war went on? Explain to me how my comment was pointless to this discussion?

Here is what you said


Originally posted by Rjel earlier:If Germany had to fight the Allies on multiple fronts, against overwhelming odds, it was due to it's own choosing.

So it was the Luftwaffes 'choice' they had to deal with vastly superior numbers. Was it the Allies choice that they had to face Me 262s in 44? Was it 21 million dead Russians choice to have Stalin in power? Was it Germanys 'choice' that the USA give lend lease supplies to Britain and not them ?

You see all equally pointless questions of choice.

Circumstances forced a multiple front war on the Luftwaffe not choice. If you want to start a discussion on the circumstances that lead to the Luftwaffe fighting at a disadvantage then we need a new thread.

Rjel
01-26-2007, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Circumstances forced a multiple front war on the Luftwaffe not choice. If you want to start a discussion on the circumstances that lead to the Luftwaffe fighting at a disadvantage then we need a new thread.

Did not the future of the German nation and it's armed forces go hand in hand? Obviously, Germany sealed it's own fate by first declaring war on Great Britain, then the Soviet Union and finally the U.S. Whether the Luftwaffe "chose" to fight in the manner it was made to, it was Germany's own decisions which led to it's having to face the forces it did.

Bo_Nidle
01-26-2007, 01:20 PM
Brigadier General William Kepner, Commander of VIII Fighter Command said "While the P-51 was the aircraft that dealt the Luftwaffe the coup de grace it was the P-47 that broke its back". He would appear pretty qualified to give this opinion.

No single aircraft type defeated the Luftwaffe. It was a team effort combined with the fact that Germany had bitten off more than it could chew in the east which drew resources from the West combined with the strangling effect on resources such as oil, steel etc that the bombings were having. Factor in the steady drain of experienced pilots lost in combat by late 1944 the Luftwaffe was only a shadow of its former might. There was even an order given for Luftwaffe pilots to abandon their aircraft if attacked by allied fighters to increase their survival chances as pilots were in short supply, aircraft were not.

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Rjel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Circumstances forced a multiple front war on the Luftwaffe not choice. If you want to start a discussion on the circumstances that lead to the Luftwaffe fighting at a disadvantage then we need a new thread.

Did not the future of the German nation and it's armed forces go hand in hand? Obviously, Germany sealed it's own fate by first declaring war on Great Britain, then the Soviet Union and finally the U.S. Whether the Luftwaffe "chose" to fight in the manner it was made to, it was Germany's own decisions which led to it's having to face the forces it did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to you can trace Germanys WW2 decisions to pre WW1 poltitics, but again not here. Best start a new thread.

BOA_Allmenroder
01-26-2007, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
Brigadier General William Kepner, Commander of VIII Fighter Command said "While the P-51 was the aircraft that dealt the Luftwaffe the coup de grace it was the P-47 that broke its back". He would appear pretty qualified to give this opinion.



The above is just like a pilot report and must, according to the 'experts' on this Board, therefore be discounted.

Unless you can supply ample tracks, graphs, charts, formulas etc and IL2 Compare files, we shall ignore you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 02:49 PM
Werent the bombers encouraged to fly in large box formations so that their guns could protect one another?

Surely this would mean that there were big groups of bombers, with big groups of fighters to protect them?

Then you have to factor in that every day the RAF would also be attacking with Jabos and Mosquitos elsewhere in German held territory.

I would think that the Germans would generally be outnumbered in most fights from 1943-45 - just my thoughts.

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
Brigadier General William Kepner, Commander of VIII Fighter Command said "While the P-51 was the aircraft that dealt the Luftwaffe the coup de grace it was the P-47 that broke its back". He would appear pretty qualified to give this opinion.



The above is just like a pilot report and must, according to the 'experts' on this Board, therefore be discounted.

Unless you can supply ample tracks, graphs, charts, formulas etc and IL2 Compare files, we shall ignore you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it was one of hte US planes which HELPED break the back of the Luftwafee. Factor in Russia and the RAF planes too. The P47 played a part yes. But no US plane on its own broke the back of hte Luftwaffe.

You could also say that it was the SPitfire which broke the back of the LW because it fought from 1939-1945 on all fronts.

Or the Yak broke the back of the LW, being produced in large numbers, it held the Russian front.

The fact that the P47 came in late in the war may give it 'The straw that broke the camels back' award for helping to break the back of the LW. But is it fair to give the P47 that award when the Spit or Yak had been holding the LW back for 5-6 years? Well before the P47 entered the fight.

It was a joint effort, no one plane 'broke the Luftwaffes back'.

BOA_Allmenroder
01-26-2007, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
Brigadier General William Kepner, Commander of VIII Fighter Command said "While the P-51 was the aircraft that dealt the Luftwaffe the coup de grace it was the P-47 that broke its back". He would appear pretty qualified to give this opinion.



The above is just like a pilot report and must, according to the 'experts' on this Board, therefore be discounted.

Unless you can supply ample tracks, graphs, charts, formulas etc and IL2 Compare files, we shall ignore you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it was one of hte US planes which HELPED break the back of the Luftwafee. Factor in Russia and the RAF planes too. The P47 played a part yes. But no US plane on its own broke the back of hte Luftwaffe.

You could also say that it was the SPitfire which broke the back of the LW because it fought from 1939-1945 on all fronts.

Or the Yak broke the back of the LW, being produced in large numbers, it held the Russian front.

The fact that the P47 came in late in the war may give it 'The straw that broke the camels back' award for helping to break the back of the LW. But is it fair to give the P47 that award when the Spit or Yak had been holding the LW back for 5-6 years? Well before the P47 entered the fight.

It was a joint effort, no one plane 'broke the Luftwaffes back'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your honor, the Prosecution rests. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 03:01 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Sorry for the terrible typing, its late and I am drunk http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Udidtoo
01-26-2007, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BOA_Allmenroder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
Brigadier General William Kepner, Commander of VIII Fighter Command said "While the P-51 was the aircraft that dealt the Luftwaffe the coup de grace it was the P-47 that broke its back". He would appear pretty qualified to give this opinion.



The above is just like a pilot report and must, according to the 'experts' on this Board, therefore be discounted.

Unless you can supply ample tracks, graphs, charts, formulas etc and IL2 Compare files, we shall ignore you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it was one of hte US planes which HELPED break the back of the Luftwafee. Factor in Russia and the RAF planes too. The P47 played a part yes. But no US plane on its own broke the back of hte Luftwaffe.

You could also say that it was the SPitfire which broke the back of the LW because it fought from 1939-1945 on all fronts.

Or the Yak broke the back of the LW, being produced in large numbers, it held the Russian front.

The fact that the P47 came in late in the war may give it 'The straw that broke the camels back' award for helping to break the back of the LW. But is it fair to give the P47 that award when the Spit or Yak had been holding the LW back for 5-6 years? Well before the P47 entered the fight.

It was a joint effort, no one plane 'broke the Luftwaffes back'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think the General (perhaps incorrectly) assumes the reader of his statement will be informed and intelligent enough to gather that he means in that front, where the P-47's were actually present and engaged with the Luft.

Sergio_101
01-26-2007, 03:36 PM
P-47 and P-38 were there a bit eariler than the P-51.
All were a factor in breaking tha Luftwaffe.
Spitfires, Typhoons, Hurricanes and others
lacked the range to take the fight to all of Germany.
The US fighters were able to take it to the Reich.
P-47 was a bit limited, but not the P-38.
P-51 was a crippeling blow because here was
a superior fighter that could take the fight
to anywhere in Germany held territory
from Britian.

A little factoid folks. P-51s had gun cameras
and still racked up the highest Allied kill count
in ETO.
Since the pilots claims alone were not always
correct the gun camera was a neutral observer
telling only the truth.
All this in a plane that was so late in it's arrival. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

4 pages in 10 hours.... is this a record? (got a match?)

Sergio

Sergio_101
01-26-2007, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland: What does that mean though? Does that mean that the USAAF pilots and aircraft were so good that they consistently beat the Luftwaffe while flying against 4 to 1 odds - outscoring them 4 - 1 also ? Or does it mean they put up a solid fight and overclaimed so much that it looked like they put up a superb one?

Yep! But the gun cameras all but eliminated the overclaiming.

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-26-2007, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by RAF74_Raptor:
12 Pager Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Already 5 ...

Only 7 left !!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
01-26-2007, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
P-47 and P-38 were there a bit eariler than the P-51.
All were a factor in breaking tha Luftwaffe.
Spitfires, Typhoons, Hurricanes and others
lacked the range to take the fight to all of Germany.
The US fighters were able to take it to the Reich.
P-47 was a bit limited, but not the P-38.
P-51 was a crippeling blow because here was
a superior fighter that could take the fight
to anywhere in Germany held territory
from Britian.

A little factoid folks. P-51s had gun cameras
and still racked up the highest Allied kill count
in ETO.
Since the pilots claims alone were not always
correct the gun camera was a neutral observer
telling only the truth.
All this in a plane that was so late in it's arrival. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

4 pages in 10 hours.... is this a record? (got a match?)

Sergio

Tempests, Mosquito's and Typhoons had a very long range too. Plenty long enough to attack Germany.

Spitfires with drop tanks had a long range too. What was the point of flying over to the Eastern front too attack in 1939-1944?

People who say 'The Spitfire couldnt get to the fight' are just showing their lack of knowledge on the subject. (Not saying you said this)

With P51's ranging all over Germany in 1944-45 shooting down planes as they landed and took off, its not surprising that they clocked up so many kills.

Germany was on its last legs in 1944-45, that much is obvious. Mot of its top pilots were killed and kids were being sent up in clapped out planes and unsafe experimental designs.

RAF kills which were not confirmed by another source and didnt have gun cameras couldnt be counted. All the P51's had gun cameras, so they got everything. I have also heard that RAF kill confirmation was stricter than the US way, but I am not sure how true this is.

SAying all this, the P51 was an excellent plane, but so were FW190's SPitfires, La5's, P47's, Me262's. In fact we have to admit many of these planes did many things better than the P51, especially the Me262.

Why all this willy waving Sergio? Whats the point?

If I said to you, 'You speak English and our language is used all over the world, so THERE!, arent we great? All this from a tiny Island in Europe and we conquered the world'

Would you not think I was a bit of a d*ckhead? After all, absolutely none of this was anything to do with me or you, NOTHING. SO I am not sure what point you are trying to make, other than possibly look a bit simple.

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-26-2007, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Yep! But the gun cameras all but eliminated the overclaiming.

False! Guncam show only if a plane wans hit, and SOMETIMES show a plane destroyed.

You can't be shure about the destruction of a plane until he hit the ground or explode in the sky, claiming a kill after hitting a plane who disapear in clouds or dive away is a typical case of overclaiming.

BaronUnderpants
01-26-2007, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
P-47 and P-38 were there a bit eariler than the P-51.
All were a factor in breaking tha Luftwaffe.
Spitfires, Typhoons, Hurricanes and others
lacked the range to take the fight to all of Germany.
The US fighters were able to take it to the Reich.
P-47 was a bit limited, but not the P-38.
P-51 was a crippeling blow because here was
a superior fighter that could take the fight
to anywhere in Germany held territory
from Britian.

A little factoid folks. P-51s had gun cameras
and still racked up the highest Allied kill count
in ETO.
Since the pilots claims alone were not always
correct the gun camera was a neutral observer
telling only the truth.
All this in a plane that was so late in it's arrival. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

4 pages in 10 hours.... is this a record? (got a match?)

Sergio


Well, u feeding the beast seems to do a good job of keeping a otherwice dead horse alive...wouldnt u say. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

We all know your drunk....we keep on debating because we are to. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cheers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif



P.S. i especially like the "P-38 wasnt limited" part.....outstanding. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Good milage is nice though..gives u ample time to find parkingspace...if u live long enough. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

mynameisroland
01-26-2007, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland: What does that mean though? Does that mean that the USAAF pilots and aircraft were so good that they consistently beat the Luftwaffe while flying against 4 to 1 odds - outscoring them 4 - 1 also ? Or does it mean they put up a solid fight and overclaimed so much that it looked like they put up a superb one?

Yep! But the gun cameras all but eliminated the overclaiming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LW, RAF and I suspect VVS all had guncameras too. USAAF was not unique here, just as it overclaimed like the rest of them especially bomber gunners who were notorious.

DIRTY-MAC
01-26-2007, 05:45 PM
Sergio just copy and paste into your avatar
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/f/f/get_a_brain_morans.jpg

Sergio_101
01-26-2007, 05:51 PM
Roland, your much worshiped Luftwaffe claimed more aircraft than
all Allied production combined.
Think there is a problem there?

I did a careful comparison of claimed P-51 kills
by Luftwaffe pilots.
I compared RAF and USAAF losses on the same days.
I got less than 12% confirmation.
Many kills were claimed on days with no P-51 sorties at all!

There was a ace cult in the Luftwaffe. Exaggeration
was a way of life if you wanted promotion.
I knew a Luftwaffe pilot, a personal friend.
He told me the story of the "one for me, one for you"
method of claim and confirmation.

Bomber gunners severly over claimed.
But the bombers were very effective in the destruction
of the Luftwaffe. Both as bait and direct killers.
Ask a survivor, few things were scarier than attacking
a box of B-17Gs.

Oh yes, My long deceased German pilot friend said that nothing
was feared more than P-51s. They would cut and run if
they saw that the bombers were escorted by P-51s.
He actually had one confirmed bomber kill.

Sergio

Rjel
01-26-2007, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Yep! But the gun cameras all but eliminated the overclaiming.

False! Guncam show only if a plane wans hit, and SOMETIMES show a plane destroyed.

You can't be shure about the destruction of a plane until he hit the ground or explode in the sky, claiming a kill after hitting a plane who disapear in clouds or dive away is a typical case of overclaiming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It took more than that for a confirmed kill in the U.S.A.A.F. It required seeing the plane crash, pilot bailing out or a major airframe failure, such as a wing falling off or explosion of the enemy A/C. Eyewitness accounts also were taken into account. Many times pilots, when they could safely do so, would over fly the crash scene to take gun cam pictures of the burning wreak.

ImpStarDuece
01-26-2007, 06:21 PM
Looking at the USAAF statistical digest is interesting:

Of the 7,420 aerial kill claims made by the USAAF in the ETO, 6962 (or 94%) were made after the introduction of the P-51 in January 1944.

The period between May and December 1944 accounts for 68% of all USAAF ETO fighter aerial claims. It also accounts for 58% of all fighter sorties in the ETO.

Before the P-51 was introduced to the ETO, USAAF fighter groups claimed just 458 aerial kills (6.2% of total fighter claims) in 17 months of fighting, flying 6.0% of total fighter sorties.

cawimmer430
01-26-2007, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

I knew a Luftwaffe pilot, a personal friend.


Name?

Unit?

BaronUnderpants
01-26-2007, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Oh yes, My long deceased German pilot friend said that nothing
was feared more than P-51s. They would cut and run if
they saw that the bombers were escorted by P-51s.
He actually had one confirmed bomber kill.

Sergio


They would "cut and run"?.

With "they"..do u mean your friend and his wingmen....or the intire LW?

Reason im asking is because this "they would cut and run in face of p-51`s" is completly new info to me.


Btw. Have no doubts what so ever about your deceased friend....on the contrary. Im sure it happend on occasion, for differant reasons, outnumberd, alt dissadvantage and so on.....turning it into a general statment in order to make a point however......is just cheap.

FYI. U can cross the line even when trolling.

Feathered_IV
01-26-2007, 07:29 PM
Oh no. Not another one of these stupid threads.

http://www.duvekot.ca/eliane/archives/snow.jpg

leitmotiv
01-26-2007, 07:46 PM
This is typical fare for the forum---a schoolyard spat.

Cajun76
01-26-2007, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Before jumping to conclusions read the authoritative:

TO COMMAND THE SKY: THE BATTLE FOR AIR SUPERIORITY OVER GERMANY, 1942-1944. Stephen L. McFarland and Wesley Phillips Newton. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 1991. (now available in paperback)

Book examines the winter 1944 battle in which the AAF defeated the German fighter force. Surprising to the Mustang buffs, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">the facts show the dirty job was done by the Thunderbolt</span>

But beside that, the real issue that everyone is dancing around here is:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Which was or who had the better a/c?</span>

That's why the endless debates about numbers, local strength and pilot experience. Nothing simpler, or more complex can be asked about WWII air combat.

Luftwaffe/Axis will say: they had better a/c, but lost due to attrition/outnumbered.

Allied will say: Comparable a/c, and won.


Fortunately, the Thunderbolt answered those questions already. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

leitmotiv
01-26-2007, 08:28 PM
That's right, Cajun76, the T-bolt fought the remaining well-trained Luftwaffe fighter pilots. THUNDERBOLT! by Robert S. Johnson, no.2 ETO American ace, covers this crucial period in the winter of 1944 when the AAF forced the German fighters to fight by attacking the fighter production centers.

leitmotiv
01-26-2007, 08:33 PM
Major James Howard used his P-51B with great effect during this time:

http://www.acepilots.com/eto/jim_howard.html

jarink
01-26-2007, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Werent the bombers encouraged to fly in large box formations so that their guns could protect one another?

The combat box was designed back in the days when the Eighth AF brass thought the bombers could fly deep penetration raids unescorted.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

It did greatly increase the effectiveness of the bomber's guns, since the planes mutually supported one another and were less likely to hit friendlies. In most groups, there were standing orders that planes falling out of formation were to be left to their fate. Even so, there are many cases where pilots would drop out alonside a wounded comrade to help fend off fighters.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
USAAF was not unique here, just as it overclaimed like the rest of them especially bomber gunners who were notorious.

Part of the reason for this is that it was hard to tell just who hit a plane when there were several gunners firing at it at the same time. Debief procedures were supposed to eliminate most of this, but there was still a ton of cross-claiming between squadrons and other groups that were in the same formation. Also, many "kills" were claimed on the basis of seeing a fighter going down trailing smoke. No one ever saw the pilot level out down low and safely make a landing.

In the end, the Allied high command knew there was gross overclaiming by bomber gunners and let it slide. They didn't care how many fighters were actually shot down as long as the bombers were getting through and hitting their targets.

EiZ0N
01-26-2007, 09:40 PM
Saying that the P-51 beat the LW is a massive insult to every other allied pilot of WW2.

La7_brook
01-27-2007, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland: What does that mean though? Does that mean that the USAAF pilots and aircraft were so good that they consistently beat the Luftwaffe while flying against 4 to 1 odds - outscoring them 4 - 1 also ? Or does it mean they put up a solid fight and overclaimed so much that it looked like they put up a superb one?

Yep! But the gun cameras all but eliminated the overclaiming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> or maybe these P51,s were lucky that the LW was after the bombers 99% of the time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Xiolablu3
01-27-2007, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Looking at the USAAF statistical digest is interesting:

Of the 7,420 aerial kill claims made by the USAAF in the ETO, 6962 (or 94%) were made after the introduction of the P-51 in January 1944.

The period between May and December 1944 accounts for 68% of all USAAF ETO fighter aerial claims. It also accounts for 58% of all fighter sorties in the ETO.

Before the P-51 was introduced to the ETO, USAAF fighter groups claimed just 458 aerial kills (6.2% of total fighter claims) in 17 months of fighting, flying 6.0% of total fighter sorties.

Those figures are quite incredible, Imp!


Sorry for the drunken rants last night. That'll teach me to post after a few large Ales. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

bazzaah2
01-27-2007, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Looking at the USAAF statistical digest is interesting:

Of the 7,420 aerial kill claims made by the USAAF in the ETO, 6962 (or 94%) were made after the introduction of the P-51 in January 1944.

The period between May and December 1944 accounts for 68% of all USAAF ETO fighter aerial claims. It also accounts for 58% of all fighter sorties in the ETO.

Before the P-51 was introduced to the ETO, USAAF fighter groups claimed just 458 aerial kills (6.2% of total fighter claims) in 17 months of fighting, flying 6.0% of total fighter sorties.

that is interesting.

Are there any other factors which might account for that and is there any corroborating data from the German side?

easy to miux up consequence and causality.

KingKongRetard
01-27-2007, 03:13 AM
Some biography of Erich Alfred "Bubi" Hartmann (if it may help)

http://www.acesofww2.com/germany/aces/Hartmann.htm

mynameisroland
01-27-2007, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Roland, your much worshiped Luftwaffe claimed more aircraft than
all Allied production combined.
Think there is a problem there?

I did a careful comparison of claimed P-51 kills
by Luftwaffe pilots.
I compared RAF and USAAF losses on the same days.
I got less than 12% confirmation.
Many kills were claimed on days with no P-51 sorties at all!

There was a ace cult in the Luftwaffe. Exaggeration
was a way of life if you wanted promotion.
I knew a Luftwaffe pilot, a personal friend.
He told me the story of the "one for me, one for you"
method of claim and confirmation.

Bomber gunners severly over claimed.
But the bombers were very effective in the destruction
of the Luftwaffe. Both as bait and direct killers.
Ask a survivor, few things were scarier than attacking
a box of B-17Gs.

Oh yes, My long deceased German pilot friend said that nothing
was feared more than P-51s. They would cut and run if
they saw that the bombers were escorted by P-51s.
He actually had one confirmed bomber kill.

Sergio

Utter BS Sergio
But then what did I expect...

Alied combined production was over 200,000 aircraft. You go do the math - better get your crayons out mate.

joeap
01-27-2007, 05:20 AM
I'm boycotting this thread! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

Oh sh....

boxmike
01-27-2007, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
I'm boycotting this thread! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

Oh sh....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

IMO change the thread title to 'Germans overwhelmed by vast numbers of better trained Allied pilots'. Germany wasted their best and brightest to the grinder and were facing the very problem RAF was facing during BoB.
Also, releasing P51s from escort duty to free hunting, especially low, crushed mr Goering even more.

Rgds,
- box

fighter_966
01-27-2007, 06:49 AM
Mr Göing was devastated when he noticed that he was not the funboy of Adolph he thought to be, and out of his league. Adi was more friend
of Galland..

erco415
01-27-2007, 07:12 AM
From Truman Smith's excellant book, "The Wrong Stuff", on a mission in May 1944 (emphasis his):
"Out of the habit I had formed, I looked over my shoulder in the opposite direction of the obvious threat, so as to avoid any surprises- and I was SURPRISED!
There wer two little "dots", way up at 3 o'clock high and they were coming in our direction in a hurry. They were aircraft. I could even make out, as they neared, that they had twin engines and twin-boom tails. That could mean only one thing. They were American P-38 Lightnings - BALANCE ONE!
Before my goose-flesh got too happy, I thought, BALANCE? That was no balance. Two Friendly fighter escorts and FIFTY BANDITS?
Make that FIFTY BANDITS and only one Friendly, because one of the two Friendlies started flying zig-zag over the top of us, like a mother hem protecting her chicks, and the other Friendly kept going until he was above the group of FIFTY BANDITS.
Boy, this was going to be some kind of a performance. One P-38 was going to protect the bomb group all by himself and the other P-38 -by himself- was going to take on FIFTY BANDITS(?).
Now I had seen all kinds of competition, but this was like a single matador jumping into the arena with 50 killer bulls. Somebody was going to get killed for sure. But if victory was going to go to the guy with the biggest "balls," them BALANCE-ONE was, unbelievably, the 50 to 1 favorite.
My God! Balance One flew out over the top of the Bandits, rolled upside down into a "split-S" and dove straight down for the FIFTY BANDITS!. He must've eaten nails for breakfast.
*******ed American fighter pilots: vain, insolent, conceited, arrogant, cocky, and impertinent Fighter Jocks! God bless 'em all. My skin crawled and my eyes got moist- "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for another."
There was no doubt, it was a "gutsy" move and I was impressed. Such bravery also impressed the fifty Bandits, because- as if one plane- they all pitched forward into a vertical dive to get away from my hero, the "Forked Tailed Devil," as the Luftwaffe had dubbed the P-38. This was the cool voice on the radio who had been "Just a little busy right now."
Swinging back and forth behind the Bandits, he blew up two ME-109's before they all dove into the cloud deck below us- with Balance One still tailing them.
WOW! What a show! It was well worth the high price of admission. Only the inside of my oxygen mask could have heard my "Thank you Mr. Balance," and -"Where in hell are you going?" as I addressed our Top Cover who also took off for the wild blue yonder at the conclusion of their performance."

Thought this fit here somehow, anyway, might be good for another few pages at least http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Stuff-Adventures-Misadventu...0463?ie=UTF8&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Stuff-Adventures-Misadventures-Aviator/dp/0806134224/sr=8-2/qid=1169907117/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-1332255-0050463?ie=UTF8&s=books)

jarink
01-27-2007, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Looking at the USAAF statistical digest is interesting:

Of the 7,420 aerial kill claims made by the USAAF in the ETO, 6962 (or 94%) were made after the introduction of the P-51 in January 1944.

The period between May and December 1944 accounts for 68% of all USAAF ETO fighter aerial claims. It also accounts for 58% of all fighter sorties in the ETO.

Before the P-51 was introduced to the ETO, USAAF fighter groups claimed just 458 aerial kills (6.2% of total fighter claims) in 17 months of fighting, flying 6.0% of total fighter sorties.

The Eighth Air Force didn't really hit it's stride until late summer of '43. Before that, the Germans didn't strongly resist the shallower penetrations to targets in France and the Low Countries. There were a few riads into Germany and these were ferociously opposed. Lack of long-range escorts (P-47s didn't have the range to escort all the way to most targets in the Ruhr, even with drop tanks and P-38s were vey few in number.) meant that the LW could attack the bombers with little fear of being shot down.

(I remember my grandfather telling me about the Schweinfurt raid on Oct 14, 43. He said it was incredibly freightening seeing the LW making pass after pass on the bomber stream with no opposition. The bomber crews felt literally naked and helpless without fighter escort of some kind.)

The introduction of the P-51 finally allowed the USAAF to make escorted deep penetration raids. The new targets and increased strength of the raids meant the LW could no longer afford to ignore the bombers. The LW fed more fighters into the meat grinder. Coupled with deteriorating replacement pilot quality and poor leadership from Goering, the LW suffered huge losses.

arrow80
01-27-2007, 08:19 AM
For me it's always quite sad that discussion always points towards ETO, how USAAF beat LW or RAF beat LW, but guys absolutely ignore that there existed something like Eastern Front and VVS, and many vicious and decisive battles of WW2 were fought and won there. Saying that P-51 won teh war or thunderbolt crushed luftwaffe is an insult of every and I say every allied pilot who climbed into his fighter and fought (and many never came back)

horseback
01-27-2007, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
12 pager, oh ye of little faith, 15 minimum...popcorn and coke and something to drink ordered. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif...come-on peeps, don't let me down, i've got 12pence resting on this. Cheapskate! This is worth at least a half crown (that is, or used to be two shillings and sixpence, or 30 pence for the uninitiated)...

cheers

horseback

lowfighter
01-27-2007, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Arrow80:
For me it's always quite sad that discussion always points towards ETO, how USAAF beat LW or RAF beat LW, but guys absolutely ignore that there existed something like Eastern Front and VVS, and many vicious and decisive battles of WW2 were fought and won there. Saying that P-51 won teh war or thunderbolt crushed luftwaffe is an insult of every and I say every allied pilot who climbed into his fighter and fought (and many never came back)

No Arrow, every single pilot, allied or axis, would just laugh. And every single infantry soldier, who fought at Kalinin or around Argentain would laugh too.

Precisely for the reasons you mentioned! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
01-27-2007, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Arrow80:
For me it's always quite sad that discussion always points towards ETO, how USAAF beat LW or RAF beat LW, but guys absolutely ignore that there existed something like Eastern Front and VVS, and many vicious and decisive battles of WW2 were fought and won there. Saying that P-51 won teh war or thunderbolt crushed luftwaffe is an insult of every and I say every allied pilot who climbed into his fighter and fought (and many never came back)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I also find it ridiculous when I read these kind of things.

Its like the most basic historical fact that

1: The Germans sustained massive losses on the Eastern Front.
2: The RAF/RCAF/RNZAF/RAAF were all fighting from 1939.
3: The US public was generally against the war until Pearl Harbour. Had this not happened then how long before they really go into the fighting in Europe?


Saying that the P47/P51/Spitfire crushed the Luftwaffe is kind of ******ed. PLease use your brains guys, it took a massive effort of 3 world powers to finally defeat the Luftwaffe, and the USA was the last one to enter the fight. Just because it tipped the balance, does not mean that it has the right to claim it 'crushed the Luftwaffe'.

Look at the sheer weight of forces against Germany. Britain and all her Commonwealth Allies (Canada/RNZAF/RAAF/SA), Russia, USA.

Pls remember it was a joint effort, and the Germans didnt really have a chance in the end, such overwhelming force against a small (compared to Russia or USA) European country. Its amazing they lasted as long as they did, they fought an excellent campaing considering.

FluffyDucks2
01-27-2007, 09:34 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-27-2007, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by erco415:
From Truman Smith's excellant book, "The Wrong Stuff", on a mission in May 1944 (emphasis his):
"Out of the habit I had formed, I looked over my shoulder in the opposite direction of the obvious threat, sa as to avoid any surprises- and I was SURPRISED!
There wer two little "dots", way up at 3 o'clock high and they were coming in our direction in a hurry. They were aircraft. I could even make out, as they neared, that they had twin engines and twin-boom tails. That could mean only one thing. They were American P-38 Lightnings - BALANCE ONE!
Before my goose-flesh got too happy, I thought, BALANCE? That was no balance. Two Friendly fighter escorts and FIFTY BANDITS?
Make that FIFTY BANDITS and only one Friendly, because one of the two Friendlies started flying zig-zag over the top of us, like a mother hem protecting her chicks, and the other Friendly kept going until he was above the group of FIFTY BANDITS.
Boy, this was going to be some kind of a performance. One P-38 was going to protect the bomb group all by himself and the other P-38 -by himself- was going to take on FIFTY BANDITS(?).
Now I had seen all kinds of competition, but this was like a single matador jumping into the arena with 50 killer bulls. Somebody was going to get killed for sure. But if victory was going to go to the guy with the biggest "balls," them BALANCE-ONE was, unbelievably, the 50 to 1 favorite.
My God! Balance One flew out over the top of the Bandits, rolled upside down into a "split-S" and dove straight down for the FIFTY BANDITS!. He must've eaten nails for breakfast.
*******ed American fighter pilots: vain, insolent, conceited, arrogant, cocky, and impertinent Fighter Jocks! God bless 'em all. My skin crawled and my eyes got moist- "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for another."
There was no doubt, it was a "gutsy" move and I was impressed. Such bravery also impressed the fifty Bandits, because- as if one plane- they all pitched forward into a vertical dive to get away from my hero, the "Forked Tailed Devil," as the Luftwaffe had dubbed the P-38. This was the cool voice on the radio who had been "Just a little busy right now."
Swinging back and forth behind the Bandits, he blew up two ME-109's before they all dove into the cloud deck below us- with Balance One still tailing them.
WOW! What a show! It was well worth the high price of admission. Only the inside of my oxygen mask could have heard my "Thank you Mr. Balance," and -"Where in hell are you going?" as I addressed our Top Cover who also took off for the wild blue yonder at the conclusion of their performance."

Thought this fit here somehow, anyway, might be good for another few pages at least http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Stuff-Adventures-Misadventu...0463?ie=UTF8&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Stuff-Adventures-Misadventures-Aviator/dp/0806134224/sr=8-2/qid=1169907117/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-1332255-0050463?ie=UTF8&s=books)
Thanks for that!
Im ordering that book right now! What page is that passage on?

AKA_TAGERT
01-27-2007, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
False! Guncam show only if a plane wans hit, and SOMETIMES show a plane destroyed.

You can't be shure about the destruction of a plane until he hit the ground or explode in the sky, claiming a kill after hitting a plane who disapear in clouds or dive away is a typical case of overclaiming.
I don't know.. In light of the fact that Germans counted aircart sent to the rear for repairs into thier production numbers kind of offsets that. That is to say a plane that was produced onece may have been counted more than once in the production numbers.

RCAF_Irish_403
01-27-2007, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arrow80:
For me it's always quite sad that discussion always points towards ETO, how USAAF beat LW or RAF beat LW, but guys absolutely ignore that there existed something like Eastern Front and VVS, and many vicious and decisive battles of WW2 were fought and won there. Saying that P-51 won teh war or thunderbolt crushed luftwaffe is an insult of every and I say every allied pilot who climbed into his fighter and fought (and many never came back)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I also find it ridiculous when I read these kind of things.

Its like the most basic historical fact that

1: The Germans sustained massive losses on the Eastern Front.
2: The RAF/RCAF/RNZAF/RAAF were all fighting from 1939.
3: The US public was generally against the war until Pearl Harbour. Had this not happened then how long before they really go into the fighting in Europe?


Saying that the P47/P51/Spitfire crushed the Luftwaffe is kind of ******ed. PLease use your brains guys, it took a massive effort of 3 world powers to finally defeat the Luftwaffe, and the USA was the last one to enter the fight. Just because it tipped the balance, does not mean that it has the right to claim it 'crushed the Luftwaffe'.

Look at the sheer weight of forces against Germany. Britain and all her Commonwealth Allies (Canada/RNZAF/RAAF/SA), Russia, USA.

Pls remember it was a joint effort, and the Germans didnt really have a chance in the end, such overwhelming force against a small (compared to Russia or USA) European country. Its amazing they lasted as long as they did, they fought an excellent campaing considering. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least a couple fellas are using their heads http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Jaws2002
01-27-2007, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Sergio just copy and paste into your avatar
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/f/f/get_a_brain_morans.jpg

+1.

erco415
01-27-2007, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erco415:
From Truman Smith's excellant book, "The Wrong Stuff", on a mission in May 1944 (emphasis his):
"Out of the habit I had formed, I looked over my shoulder in the opposite direction of the obvious threat, sa as to avoid any surprises- and I was SURPRISED!
There wer two little "dots", way up at 3 o'clock high and they were coming in our direction in a hurry. They were aircraft. I could even make out, as they neared, that they had twin engines and twin-boom tails. That could mean only one thing. They were American P-38 Lightnings - BALANCE ONE!
Before my goose-flesh got too happy, I thought, BALANCE? That was no balance. Two Friendly fighter escorts and FIFTY BANDITS?
Make that FIFTY BANDITS and only one Friendly, because one of the two Friendlies started flying zig-zag over the top of us, like a mother hem protecting her chicks, and the other Friendly kept going until he was above the group of FIFTY BANDITS.
Boy, this was going to be some kind of a performance. One P-38 was going to protect the bomb group all by himself and the other P-38 -by himself- was going to take on FIFTY BANDITS(?).
Now I had seen all kinds of competition, but this was like a single matador jumping into the arena with 50 killer bulls. Somebody was going to get killed for sure. But if victory was going to go to the guy with the biggest "balls," them BALANCE-ONE was, unbelievably, the 50 to 1 favorite.
My God! Balance One flew out over the top of the Bandits, rolled upside down into a "split-S" and dove straight down for the FIFTY BANDITS!. He must've eaten nails for breakfast.
*******ed American fighter pilots: vain, insolent, conceited, arrogant, cocky, and impertinent Fighter Jocks! God bless 'em all. My skin crawled and my eyes got moist- "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for another."
There was no doubt, it was a "gutsy" move and I was impressed. Such bravery also impressed the fifty Bandits, because- as if one plane- they all pitched forward into a vertical dive to get away from my hero, the "Forked Tailed Devil," as the Luftwaffe had dubbed the P-38. This was the cool voice on the radio who had been "Just a little busy right now."
Swinging back and forth behind the Bandits, he blew up two ME-109's before they all dove into the cloud deck below us- with Balance One still tailing them.
WOW! What a show! It was well worth the high price of admission. Only the inside of my oxygen mask could have heard my "Thank you Mr. Balance," and -"Where in hell are you going?" as I addressed our Top Cover who also took off for the wild blue yonder at the conclusion of their performance."

Thought this fit here somehow, anyway, might be good for another few pages at least http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Stuff-Adventures-Misadventu...0463?ie=UTF8&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Stuff-Adventures-Misadventures-Aviator/dp/0806134224/sr=8-2/qid=1169907117/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-1332255-0050463?ie=UTF8&s=books)
Thanks for that!
Im ordering that book right now! What page is that passage on? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pages 112 and 113 in my copy. You'll love the book!

cawimmer430
01-27-2007, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arrow80:
For me it's always quite sad that discussion always points towards ETO, how USAAF beat LW or RAF beat LW, but guys absolutely ignore that there existed something like Eastern Front and VVS, and many vicious and decisive battles of WW2 were fought and won there. Saying that P-51 won teh war or thunderbolt crushed luftwaffe is an insult of every and I say every allied pilot who climbed into his fighter and fought (and many never came back)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I also find it ridiculous when I read these kind of things.

Its like the most basic historical fact that

1: The Germans sustained massive losses on the Eastern Front.
2: The RAF/RCAF/RNZAF/RAAF were all fighting from 1939.
3: The US public was generally against the war until Pearl Harbour. Had this not happened then how long before they really go into the fighting in Europe?


Saying that the P47/P51/Spitfire crushed the Luftwaffe is kind of ******ed. PLease use your brains guys, it took a massive effort of 3 world powers to finally defeat the Luftwaffe, and the USA was the last one to enter the fight. Just because it tipped the balance, does not mean that it has the right to claim it 'crushed the Luftwaffe'.

Look at the sheer weight of forces against Germany. Britain and all her Commonwealth Allies (Canada/RNZAF/RAAF/SA), Russia, USA.

Pls remember it was a joint effort, and the Germans didnt really have a chance in the end, such overwhelming force against a small (compared to Russia or USA) European country. Its amazing they lasted as long as they did, they fought an excellent campaing considering. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Sergio_101
01-27-2007, 06:26 PM
Use your brains guy, a country about the size of Pennsylvania
takes on the world and looses.
If not for Japan, and the obvious cooperation
of some "neutral countries" Germany would have folded much eariler.

Back to the point I am making in this thread. You Luftwhiners and apologists
claim the Luftwaffe lost heavily to P-51s by the weight of numbers alone.
The claim is swarms of P-51s rendered the vastly superior German aircraft
unable to show their superiority.

Truth is most of the kills by P-51s were by P-51Bs in early 1944 when they
were at a huge numerical inferiority!

I got the documentation here. It's obvious that it paints a Germany being
out numbered, mostly in bombers. (vastly out numbered in bombers).
As to fighters Germany was indeed out numbered by Jan 1944, but not "vastly
out numbered" in fighters untill roughly Feb 1945!

But one thing is certain, the P-51 that you all hate, the Merlin P-51, did not
appear in any quantity untill AFTER new years day 1944!
First combat mission for a USAAF P-51B in late Dec 1943!
British got the Merlin P-51 into service LATER! (although they did the first
Merlin conversion).

My point? My point is that it is in style to slam anything American and a lot
of you are on that band wagon.

There had to be something to the P-51s capabilities to allow it to maul the Luftwaffe
like it did. It out scored Spitfires, P-47s, Hurricanes, P-38s.

One thing I will say that favored the P-51. FEW newbies flew them. Most had
transitioned from P-47s, P-40s and others including Spits and Hurricanes.
Few newbs ment few accidents and a short learning curve.
Obviously combat experianced pilots allowed for quick results.

Sergio

Kettenhunde
01-27-2007, 06:52 PM
Some facts:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1169948393_usaaflosses.jpg

Entire Luftwaffe fighter strengths:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1167600683_luftwaffe_strength2.jpg

Total trainging time in operational type aircraft comparision:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1154278480_flyinghours.jpg

Total training time comparision:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1154278426_traininghours.jpg

Relative size of the opposing forces taken from the USAAF ETO After Action Review:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1150913302_sizeofopposingforces.jpg

Loss rates:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1150913328_lossrates.jpg

Escort tactics:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1154050612_fighterescort.jpg

From the USAAF After Action Review POW interrogations:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1169949113_lwtacts1944-2.jpg

Draw your own conclusions.

All the best,

Crumpp

EiZ0N
01-27-2007, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arrow80:
For me it's always quite sad that discussion always points towards ETO, how USAAF beat LW or RAF beat LW, but guys absolutely ignore that there existed something like Eastern Front and VVS, and many vicious and decisive battles of WW2 were fought and won there. Saying that P-51 won teh war or thunderbolt crushed luftwaffe is an insult of every and I say every allied pilot who climbed into his fighter and fought (and many never came back)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I also find it ridiculous when I read these kind of things.

Its like the most basic historical fact that

1: The Germans sustained massive losses on the Eastern Front.
2: The RAF/RCAF/RNZAF/RAAF were all fighting from 1939.
3: The US public was generally against the war until Pearl Harbour. Had this not happened then how long before they really go into the fighting in Europe?


Saying that the P47/P51/Spitfire crushed the Luftwaffe is kind of ******ed. PLease use your brains guys, it took a massive effort of 3 world powers to finally defeat the Luftwaffe, and the USA was the last one to enter the fight. Just because it tipped the balance, does not mean that it has the right to claim it 'crushed the Luftwaffe'.

Look at the sheer weight of forces against Germany. Britain and all her Commonwealth Allies (Canada/RNZAF/RAAF/SA), Russia, USA.

Pls remember it was a joint effort, and the Germans didnt really have a chance in the end, such overwhelming force against a small (compared to Russia or USA) European country. Its amazing they lasted as long as they did, they fought an excellent campaing considering. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thruth is told here. Put your flag down and
accept it!

ImpStarDuece
01-27-2007, 08:00 PM
USAAF statistical digest figures for:

Avaliable P-51 fighter strength/ Total front line ETO fighter strength/ P-51 strength as a % of total (my working) / Total combat flying hours / Total claims for month / Average time per combat sortie (my working, based on total, not effective)


Dec-43: 266/ 1,862/ 14.3%/ 15,704/ 100/ 2.75 hrs
Jan-44: 543/ 2,528/ 21.5%/ 21,092/ 203/ 2.95 hrs
Feb-44: 699/ 2,998/ 23.2%/ 33,685/ 341/ 3.15 hrs
Mar-44: 729/ 3,419/ 21.3%/ 54,888/ 469/ 3.4 hrs
Apr-44: 950/ 3,685/ 25.1%/ 73,900/ 418/ 3.4 hrs
May-44: 819/ 3,382/ 24.2%/ 118,727/ 596/ 3.3 hrs
Jun-44: 803/ 3,046/ 26.4%/ 165,146/ 470/ 3.0 hrs
Jul-44: 1,143/ 3,480/ 32.8%/ 122,775/ 407/ 2.9 hrs
Aug-44: 1,177/ 3,470/ 33.9%/ 142,781/ 551/ 3.1 hrs
Sep-44: 1,366/ 3,721/ 36.7%/ 114,120/ 586/ 3.4 hrs
Oct-44: 1,579/ 3,843/ 41.1%/ 91,238/ 202/ 3.1 hrs
Nov-44: 1,548/ 3,585/ 43.2%/ 92,094/ 492/ 3.1 hrs
Dec-44: 1,515/ 3,550/ 42.7%/ 99,156/ 867/ 2.8 hrs

Kill claims and time per sortie start to increase dramatically after the introduction of the P-51 to the ETO in Jan 1944. By March, the P-51 represents 1 in 5 of the USAAF fighter command strength. In this month alone, with over 700 P-51s available to them, USAAF fighters groups claim more kills than they did in all of 1943. By April the P-51 represents 1 in 4 and by July its 1 in 3.

In the March to September 1944 period, with the P-51 representing 1 in 4 fighters in the ETO, the USAAF fighter groups make 45.7% of their total ETO kill claims.

Looking at the massive numbers of fighters, particularly P-51s, that appeared in early 1944, i'd say that this particular 7 month period is when the Luftwaffe suffered greatest at the hands of the USAAF, not earlier.

Similarly, while the RAF tended to be busiest in the USAAFs quiter months, they claimed around 1,200 kills between May and August 1944, mostly preparing for and covering Operation Overlord.

Pirschjaeger
01-27-2007, 08:36 PM
I'm not gonna bother to read the whole thread so excuse me if I repeat what someone else posted.

"The P-51 won the war." is a childish and irresponsible notion.

Are we to dismiss everything else? Are we to dismiss the guys at sea, the guys on the ground, or the guys that flew anything but the p=51? Had the P-51 never existed the outcome of the war would have been no different.

The P-51 didn't win the war, it was there when the war was won, like the Jeep, Hurricane, Spitfire, La's, a/c carriers, destroyers, tanks, and whole lot more.

The P-51 may have been the best American fighter, in it's role, with British balls near the end of the war.

Hardly a sole victor.

Kettenhunde
01-27-2007, 09:54 PM
Hardly a sole victor.


Certainly. You can look at the USAAF air to air losses by month and see that some of the highest numbers of losses to enemy air action were during some of the peak P51 periods.

The USAAF losses mount steadily in proportion to the numbers of fighters deployed. IMHO there is no statistical correlation that can be drawn based on the P51's participation.

All the best,

Crumpp

waffen-79
01-27-2007, 10:20 PM
LMAO You is wrong

Espionage, the RED ARMY along with the Bomber crews of US8th force and Bomber Command won the war by early '44 BE SURE

For every bomber downed 10 men died, those men were the ones that eliminated the LW.

Sergio_101
01-28-2007, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
LMAO You is wrong

Espionage, the RED ARMY along with the Bomber crews of US8th force and Bomber Command won the war by early '44 BE SURE

For every bomber downed 10 men died, those men were the ones that eliminated the LW.

Yep, the bombers were a deciding factor in the air war.
Despite the massive over claiming by gunners those
huge formations of B-17s and B-24s destroyed more fighters
than the escorts. The escorts made a suicidal job that
much more suicidal.

Not degrading Bomber Command's contribution twords final victory
but the impact on the Luftwaffe was more by the day bombers and fighters.

I got an earful about what it was like to attack a few dozen
B-17s in a tight box formation. It was described as "hell".
I can not remember the exact words,
but it was like...

"arcing tracers creating a surreal fireworks display. Everyone took hits."
"You only hoped you did not get it in the head."
"Surviving to bail out seemed like a victory."

No, I will not post the mans name.
Take it for what it's worth.

I got to wonder how the bombers survived their own hellish crossfire.

Sergio

Brain32
01-28-2007, 05:45 AM
Only page 7, ehhh next time try with the Spitfire, you can't miss with the Spitfire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kettenhunde
01-28-2007, 05:50 AM
At it's very heart, this is a stupid discussion and I feel degraded for having participated.

Brain32
01-28-2007, 05:51 AM
Actually your posts are making this a worthy read material http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BaronUnderpants
01-28-2007, 08:38 AM
Use your brains guy, a country about the size of Pennsylvania
takes on the world and looses.
If not for Japan, and the obvious cooperation
of some "neutral countries" Germany would have folded much eariler.


U really DO know what your talking about, dont u. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


A great number of countrys/parts of countrys fought not 1 but 2 dictators in Europe.

A great number of people faught communism before your country even knew the word.

Not fighting against Hitler doesnt mean your a natzi...it meant choosing the lesser of 2 evils.


Read up before u shoot your mouth of.


If u still think the WWII was just black and white as in the world against Hitler...well, thats your problem. Communism, Natzis is only half of it..then we have the Middle East, wich is a completly differant ballgame.

Look at it this way...your countrys choise to fight only Hitler ( wich means US where communists by your way of reasoning, wich means US infact collaborated with Stalin, the greatest massmurderer in modern history )...this choise gave us the cold war that lasted another 40 od years. Thx a bunch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hey, why not say "P-51 gave communism half of Europe"....wich is equaly true as "P-51 won the war"



Sounds fair? Proppably not.


Waaay OT...but u got us there.


P.s. Last time i checked Germany did have more people living in it than Pennsylvania..i might be wrong though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

msalama
01-28-2007, 08:56 AM
Not fighting against Hitler doesnt mean your a natzi...it meant choosing the lesser of 2 evils.

So in your book Hitler was less evil than Stalin?

Yeah, and anthrax is a better disease than smallpox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

msalama
01-28-2007, 08:57 AM
Stalin, the greatest massmurderer in modern history

...and you're not that well versed in the ways of Chairman Mao either, then?

BaronUnderpants
01-28-2007, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not fighting against Hitler doesnt mean your a natzi...it meant choosing the lesser of 2 evils.

So in your book Hitler was less evil than Stalin?

Yeah, and anthrax is a better disease than smallpox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do u even know anything about Stalins exploits? Doesnt sound like it.


Never said Hitler was better than Stalin...i said "lesser of 2 evils"...as in antrhax vs plauge........NOTHING possitive in either of them.

Try reading it correctly this time.

BaronUnderpants
01-28-2007, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not fighting against Hitler doesnt mean your a natzi...it meant choosing the lesser of 2 evils.

So in your book Hitler was less evil than Stalin?

Yeah, and anthrax is a better disease than smallpox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So in your book Stalin is BETTER than Hitler? (I kan twist words away from whats actually meant to, not hard at all in fact )

Going to be intresting to se the response to that one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Judging by your "antrhax vs smallpox", Stalin is a real hoot according to u.


But just to nip this in the but...let me refrase, "Stalin, ONE OF the greatest massmurderer in modern history ".....Happy?

Sry, "greatest" is a poor choise of words, i know.

msalama
01-28-2007, 09:11 AM
Do u even know anything about Stalins exploits? Doesnt sound like it.

Sure I do. But that's not the point. The point is this:

The 3 worst mass-murderers in the world so far have been - in this order - Mao, Stalin and Hitler. All were monsters, and knowledge of that IMO suffices without trying to portray _any_ of them as being a "lesser" evil than the others. Because that, my friend, would actually be very close to s**tting on millions of unnamed graves, wouldn't it?

BaronUnderpants
01-28-2007, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Do u even know anything about Stalins exploits? Doesnt sound like it.

Sure I do. But that's not the point. The point is this:

The 3 worst mass-murderers in the world so far have been - in this order - Mao, Stalin and Hitler. All were monsters, and knowledge of that IMO suffices without trying to portray _any_ of them as being a "lesser" evil than the others. Because that, my friend, would actually be very close to s**tting on millions of unnamed graves, wouldn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know what your saying, but im not talking about this from ouer perspective...im trying to look at it from a 40`s perspective, wich is a big differance.

At the time ( WWII ) i can very well see it as "lesser of 2 evils"...from ouer perspectiv however, it sounds negative, off course.

And at the time Stalin was numero uno i the evils department. See, sounds dumb wichever way i try to say it.

Like i said, anthrax vs plauge....nothing good what so ever about either of the 2.

msalama
01-28-2007, 09:19 AM
let me refrase, "Stalin, ONE OF the greatest massmurderer in modern history ".....Happy?

Sure. An expression I could've used myself, actually.

fighter_966
01-28-2007, 09:24 AM
In one way Stalin was better than Adi ...he had two testicles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
01-28-2007, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Stalin, the greatest massmurderer in modern history

...and you're not that well versed in the ways of Chairman Mao either, then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're not that well versed in the ways of Stalin. You can tag 30,000,000 on Mao and probably more but you can tag about three times that amount on Stalin.

No one person, past or present, is responsible for more deaths than Stalin.

I just found this if you are interested in how historians place blame:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

The amount of people killed in the 20th century is mind-boggling.

msalama
01-28-2007, 09:50 AM
You can tag 30,000,000 on Mao and probably more but you can tag about three times that amount on Stalin.

Mao: 70 millions according to the latest research (see Chang & Halliday: "Mao - the unknown story").
Stalin: some 30 millions IIRC.

PS / EDIT: Some sources put Stalin's numbers much higher, though, i.e. to some 50-60 millions or so.

Brain32
01-28-2007, 09:55 AM
*drums* And the winner of the most sucessfull genocidal dictator award, the 1/72 golden gas chamber model, is....

msalama
01-28-2007, 09:59 AM
But hey, let's stop these f**king idiotical comparisons, OK? Or, failing that, should we perhaps continue with a poll of "who's your favorite mass-murderer" or something, huh?

Pirschjaeger
01-28-2007, 10:05 AM
Ha ha ha, these threads always seem to go off track don't they. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif to the fisherman who started this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LStarosta
01-28-2007, 10:07 AM
C'mon guys, 4 more pages...

I have a bet riding on this.

msalama
01-28-2007, 10:10 AM
C'mon guys, 4 more pages... I have a bet riding on this.

Baaah, will get a lock before that the way it's gone lately http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BillyTheKid_22
01-28-2007, 10:25 AM
http://oksenate.com/senate_artwork/images/artwork/col_robert_s_johnson.jpg


Colonel Robert S. (Bob) Johnson of Lawton, Oklahoma, was Oklahoma's highest scoring fighter polit of World War 2, downing 28 German aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Republic P-47D-21!!!!!

www.oksenate.com (http://www.oksenate.com) Staff Artwork and Robert S. Johnson. My Mother work Okla. State Senate Law.

horseback
01-28-2007, 11:20 AM
Yep, no doubt about it-you Euros would have lost the war without allies like Oklahoma and Canada.

cheers (and a nod of the old fashioned steel helmet to Bill Mauldin)

horseback

BillyTheKid_22
01-28-2007, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Yep, no doubt about it-you Euros would have lost the war without allies like Oklahoma and Canada.

cheers (and a nod of the old fashioned steel helmet to Bill Mauldin)

horseback

No plm!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Tator_Totts
01-28-2007, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Ha ha ha, these threads always seem to go off track don't they. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif to the fisherman who started this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://home.carolina.rr.com/squad/fish.jpg

Sergio_101
01-28-2007, 12:16 PM
Wow guys, this seems to be a apologist tactic.
You don't like your myth exposed, so lets talk
about how you think Hitler was justified
because Stalin and Mao killed more.

It gets threads locked for sure.
It would be better to see the morons who start
in that direction get a few months off.

BaronUnderpants, a complaint has been sent about your flame posts.

Sergio

Pirschjaeger
01-28-2007, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
so lets talk
about how you think Hitler was justified
because Stalin and Mao killed more.

Sergio

Nice try,......not! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brain32
01-28-2007, 12:39 PM
BaronUnderpants, a complaint has been sent about your flame posts.
I can imagine how that has to sound to admins:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Hi, Police?
---Yes.
I just entered the bank and fired 350 shots from my M16 on it's employees, but one of them threw a paper holder on me so I want to report him for an attempt of murder...
---OMG WTF, LMAO...

fighter_966
01-28-2007, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Wow guys, this seems to be a apologist tactic.
You don't like your myth exposed, so lets talk
about how you think Hitler was justified
because Stalin and Mao killed more.

It gets threads locked for sure.
It would be better to see the morons who start
in that direction get a few months off.

BaronUnderpants, a complaint has been sent about your flame posts.

Sergio
Nothing mythical about Mr Stalin or Adi to discuss ....example of Myth http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifracula and how many he has killed..?

Blutarski2004
01-28-2007, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hardly a sole victor.


Certainly. You can look at the USAAF air to air losses by month and see that some of the highest numbers of losses to enemy air action were during some of the peak P51 periods.

The USAAF losses mount steadily in proportion to the numbers of fighters deployed. IMHO there is no statistical correlation that can be drawn based on the P51's participation.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Topics like this are always guaranteed to induce people to set their hair on fire ....


As for the increase in loss per sortie rate observed from early 1944, it has been explained to have been the result of two factors:

(1) Deeper incursions into Germany meant that damaged fighters had a reduced chance of safe return.

(2) P51s were somewhat more vulnerable to loss through battle damage than P47s; as the number of P51s increased and that of P47s decreased, the overall loss rate was forced up.

Bearcat99
01-28-2007, 03:01 PM
I was going to lock this thread after all the Mao vs Stalin mess. But I'll wait.... as for the notion that the P-51 won the war... as erroneous as it is..... and most of us here know that it is just ethnocentric propaganda fueled by Cold War politics... you have to remember that there were what... 30 something years give or take.... where many Americans unless they were into wartime aviation didn't even know about the VVS in WWII.... The Eastern front was something that was just not discussed here... just as I am certain that not a lot of time was spent on Pearl in Europe and Russia beyond the fact that it brought the U.S. into the war.

Somewhere between all the propaganda of the nations is the truth. Sergios post, though it may very well be a fishing expedition.... is most likely prompted by the fact that anytime the virtues of any American planes are extolled around here .. and the P-51 in particular... someone comes up with the "YeahbutbythattimetheGermanswereoverrunbyhoardsandh oardsalliedP-51sand thatswhytheLuftwaafewasdefeated..."

Which of course is the opposite end of the BS spectrum.

If the Eastern war had not been fought... the outcome of the European conflict would have looked different... the allies still probably would have won... but it would have been different.... yet up until the past decade or so the Soviet contribution to the axis defeat was something that many Americans just were not taught. It was there to be found if you wanted to see it.... but there were no movies about it.... not many books here in the U.S.... and of course every unit in every outfit in the U.S. Army, A.A.C, Navy and Marines in WWII had someone from Brooklyn in it....

It never ceases to amaze me how incredulous and downright offended some people get when they discover that like any other nation.... Americans too to some extent have fallen victim to propaganda in the past....

I bet if you look now though you will see mainly the uninformed make claims that any one plane won or lost for that matter WWII. Unless of course they want to see some people go apoplectic and get their shorts in a knot. There is usually someone willing to go for the worm.

LStarosta
01-28-2007, 03:15 PM
Whatever, just let it go on to Page 12 so I don't have to paypal over 20 bucks

JSG72
01-28-2007, 03:15 PM
Will Be Locked. Now!

(Quote)posted by Bearcat99.

If the Eastern war had not been fought... the outcome of the European conflict would have looked different... the allies still probably would have won... but it would have been different....

Brought a New rod with you? And a big basket? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
01-28-2007, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:

Yep, the bombers were a deciding factor in the air war.
Despite the massive over claiming by gunners those
huge formations of B-17s and B-24s destroyed more fighters
than the escorts. The escorts made a suicidal job that
much more suicidal.


You really don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about, do you?

USAAF ETO bomber gunner claims: 6,098
USAAF ETO fighter claims: 7,422

Fighter claims, on average, were about 2/3rds of actual losses. However, they were an order of magnitude more accurate than bomber gunner claims, which were often out by a factor of 4-6.

When you look at the 8th AF massed raids like Schwienfurt and the like, the overclaiming by bomber gunnners generally exceeds a 4 to 1 ratio to actual losses, sometimes as high as 8 or 10 to 1.



I got an earful about what it was like to attack a few dozen
B-17s in a tight box formation. It was described as "hell".
I can not remember the exact words,
but it was like...

"arcing tracers creating a surreal fireworks display. Everyone took hits."
"You only hoped you did not get it in the head."
"Surviving to bail out seemed like a victory."

No, I will not post the mans name.
Take it for what it's worth.

I got to wonder how the bombers survived their own hellish crossfire.

Sergio

It may of been "hell", but the vast majority of LuftWaffe losses inflicted by the USAAF in the ETO happened after the bombers got effective, long range escorts.

PBNA-Boosher
01-28-2007, 04:09 PM
Hmmm.....

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8541050283/p/1

JSG72
01-28-2007, 04:17 PM
One has to realise that it was not the P51 Kill Ratios that defeated the Luftwaffe.

It was the fact that something had to be done to counter their introduction.

More Home Defense Aircraft were required which ment drawing fighters from other fronts to act as Escorts for the Bomber Destroyer SturmGruppes.

This depleted the other fronts. (Italy was bled dry.)of fighters.

It is weight of numbers and the Strategic and Tactical use from all Allied participants that Won the war.

It cannot be pinned down to any single armament. (Well it could. At the time. The A Bomb? when deployed).

Rjel
01-28-2007, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Will Be Locked. Now!

(Quote)posted by Bearcat99.

If the Eastern war had not been fought... the outcome of the European conflict would have looked different... the allies still probably would have won... but it would have been different....

Brought a New rod with you? And a big basket? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Cheap shot man. Bearcat is one of the most reasonable mods here or most other forums I read. He doesn't need me to stick up for him, but that was uncalled for. I'd suggest re-reading what he wrote.

JSG72
01-28-2007, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Rjel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Will Be Locked. Now!

(Quote)posted by Bearcat99.

If the Eastern war had not been fought... the outcome of the European conflict would have looked different... the allies still probably would have won... but it would have been different....

Brought a New rod with you? And a big basket? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Cheap shot man. Bearcat is one of the most reasonable mods here or most other forums I read. He doesn't need me to stick up for him, but that was uncalled for. I'd suggest re-reading what he wrote. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just Did!

And he Definetly said what I quoted.

Now! Read my above post.

To see. How "I" Stayed on Topic.

Another Four? Be Sure!

Hey! Maybees if you Got to know me?

You would maybe agree, with what I write? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Bearcat99
01-28-2007, 06:02 PM
The point of the statement you quoted was this:

It is a fact... one that not as many Americans as today were aware of 30 years ago. Not trolling. Certainly not fishing. I don't need to carry a rod... some guys here use dynamite.. so all I have to do is basically come by with a net and just clean up.

Kettenhunde
01-28-2007, 06:31 PM
As for the increase in loss per sortie rate observed from early 1944,

Can very much be explained by Doolittle's January 1944 order to hunt down the Luftwaffe wherever they can be found.

More engagements and more aircraft engaging means statistically the casualty rate will increase.

Absolutely nothing to do with any aircraft's performance.


When you look at the 8th AF massed raids like Schwienfurt and the like, the overclaiming by bomber gunnners generally exceeds a 4 to 1 ratio to actual losses, sometimes as high as 8 or 10 to 1.

IIRC the 8th USAAF gunners claimed more single engine fighters destroyed during the Schwienfurt raid than the Luftwaffe actually had operational on the Western Front. Allied intelligence was aware that only a small number of Luftwaffe fighters were damaged and even fewer destroyed due to defensive fire but let the claims stand for morale purposes.

All the best,

Crumpp

Sergio_101
01-29-2007, 02:42 AM
[In December 1943 the first P-51B/C Mustangs entered combat in Europe with the 354th Fighter Group "Pioneers." By the time of the first U.S. heavy bomber strike against Berlin in March 1944, the USAAF fielded about 175 P-51B/C Mustangs. Along with P-38 Lightnings, these P-51s provided sorely needed long-range, high-altitude escort for the U.S. bombing campaign against Germany.

The above is a quote from the USAF Museum site.
As I previously pointed out, there were no
overwhelming numbers of P-51s until after mid 1944.

Statistics on Aircraft in Britian did not indicate aircraft at front ine units.
They had to be assembled and tested. Then
they had to be assigned through the usual
red tape mess.

Overwhelming numbers of P-51s did arrive, and were arriving.
By mid 1945 thousands of P-51s were to have been at front line units.

Sergio

Whirlin_merlin
01-29-2007, 04:08 AM
Being overwhelmed by 'vast' numbers isn't just about how many planes meet in the air at any one time. No bear with me.

I would be interested if anyone has information on sortie rates. i.e Where LW pilots forced into the air more, resulting in fatigue etc, than allied pilots.
And if anyone has info on the condition of the planes fighting each other. Did the greater production of the allies mean that a damaged plane could be replaced when the LW might have to get it up in the air again in poor condition.

I've no idea if any of this is true does anyone have any stuff?

PS I an see where Sergio is coming from the 'LW was much better just outnumbered argument' does seem a little thin.

stathem
01-29-2007, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Being overwhelmed by 'vast' numbers isn't just about how many planes meet in the air at any one time. No bear with me.

I would be interested if anyone has information on sortie rates. i.e Where LW pilots forced into the air more, resulting in fatigue etc, than allied pilots.
And if anyone has info on the condition of the planes fighting each other. Did the greater production of the allies mean that a damaged plane could be replaced when the LW might have to get it up in the air again in poor condition.

I've no idea if any of this is true does anyone have any stuff?

PS I an see where Sergio is coming from the 'LW was much better just outnumbered argument' does seem a little thin.

Yes, Heinz Knoke makes some reference to this regarding, from memory, mid-44 - he was forced to fly a non-airworthy 109 with a twisted fuselage. I think he got shot down in it. But I'm saying that from memory, the book is at home so I could only give the exact quote later.

But that doesn't apply to late 44/45 where 109s where flying off the lines so quickly that they didn't bother with reparing stuff, just threw it away and grabbed another 109.

Kettenhunde
01-29-2007, 04:38 AM
PS I an see where Sergio is coming from the 'LW was much better just outnumbered argument' does seem a little thin.


Another silly argument that the facts do not bear out.

The Luftwaffe was in reality a small and poorly trained force.

DarkWingDuck...
01-29-2007, 05:25 AM
It was bombing that fecked the Luftwaffe..ok They needed escorts, but saying the escorts won the war is daft..as daft as saying any one force/machine
did
But I guess it was a tongue in cheek thread from the start..at least I hope so, some seem to take it seriously


Aaargh..Why did I post in this thread??????????????????

ImpStarDuece
01-29-2007, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
[In December 1943 the first P-51B/C Mustangs entered combat in Europe with the 354th Fighter Group "Pioneers." By the time of the first U.S. heavy bomber strike against Berlin in March 1944, the USAAF fielded about 175 P-51B/C Mustangs. Along with P-38 Lightnings, these P-51s provided sorely needed long-range, high-altitude escort for the U.S. bombing campaign against Germany.

The above is a quote from the USAF Museum site.
As I previously pointed out, there were no
overwhelming numbers of P-51s until after mid 1944.

Statistics on Aircraft in Britian did not indicate aircraft at front ine units.
They had to be assembled and tested. Then
they had to be assigned through the usual
red tape mess.

Overwhelming numbers of P-51s did arrive, and were arriving.
By mid 1945 thousands of P-51s were to have been at front line units.

Sergio

1st line P-51 fighters available to USAAF ETO fighter groups in March 1944: 729.

Source: USAAF statistical digest, Table 89. Page 158

1st line P-51 fighters available to USAAF MTO fighter groups in March 1944: 197

Source: USAAF statistical digest, Table 90. Page 161

1st line P-51 fighters available to USAAF fighter groups in all theatres vs Germany in March 1944: 989

Source: USAAF statistical digest, Table 88. Page 155

Total 1st line USAAF fighter strength in all theatres vs Germany in March 1944: 5,139


Sorce: USAAF statistical digest, Table 88. Page 155

In March 1944, the LuftWaffe could assemble (approximately) 1,700-1,800 fighters total, on all fronts. So, the USAAF alone, not counting the 55 odd fighter squadrons operated by the RAF in the ETO or 30 odd fighter squadrons in the MTO, or Soviet fighters in the East, outnumbered the LuftWaffe by almost 3 to 1 in fighters.

Throw in the RAF and it becomes 6 to 1.

Marcel_Albert
01-29-2007, 06:45 AM
Indeed ImpStarDuece , then throw in the VVS and it is not 6 vs 1 but 12 vs 1 by late-1944 for fighters . (VVS can field 15819 aircafts (all types mixed ) + some reserves , 10 air armies but many consider that Soviet VVS had already defeated the LW by early 1944 on the Eastern Front , what was left was a disorganized , poorly trained , poorly commanded small force that was on the defensive and extremely predictable without any influence on the situation )

Not to mention that we don't count the actual number of sorties the Luftwaffe by mid-1944 could do while in numerical inferiority , in fact they never had as many planes as in 1944 , but they didn't have the fuel to fly them , their hangars were full of new planes they couldn't use toward the end of 1944 .
On the other hand , Soviet VVS could do 92000 sorties over Berlin and 10.000 sorties per day when they invaded East Prussia which is impressive to say the least .

Bearcat99
01-29-2007, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by stathem:
Yes, Heinz Knoke makes some reference to this regarding, from memory, mid-44 - he was forced to fly a non-airworthy 109 with a twisted fuselage. I think he got shot down in it. But I'm saying that from memory, the book is at home so I could only give the exact quote later.



I Flew For The Furher.. a good read.

danimalhanke
01-29-2007, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Not to forget that german fighters mostly went after the bombers and thus were easy pickings for the escort fighters. Hardly anything wonderous about how it ended.

WHAT THE F___!!!!!!!!!!
It is true that the primary mission for kraut fighters was to intercept the bombers, but once the escorts bounced them they would turn and fight the allied fighters. It's called "self peservation". DUH! It was this tactic that allowed more bombers to get thru un-molested!

majnos64
01-29-2007, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
People http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif could you sometime count how many planes Luftwaffe had in given front. When Shared total
amount was in use in four fronts..Reichs defence..East front.. West front and Meds front (I dont have figures but maybe somebody has).. So anyboby.. maybe myth has some kind of origin.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

France
MB 152C 482
D 520 2250
MS 406 1000
Potez 63 125
3857

GB
Type 156 Beaufighter 5928
DH 96 Mosquito 7781
FireFly 1702
Fulmar 600
Gladiator 756
G.41 Meteor 3947
Hurricane 14000
Tempest 1702
Typhoon 3300
Spitfire 20351
Whirlwind 114
64038

USSR
La-7 5700
La-5/7 9920
LaGG-3 6258
mig 1+3 3422
I-15 647
I-153 3457
I-16 typ 1 4700
Jak 1 8700
Jak 9 16769
Jak 3 4800
P-39 Airacobra 4792
p-63 King cobra 2397
P-40 1300
72862

USA
P-39 Airacobra 4792
P-59 Airacomet 30
P-63 Kingcobra 906
F2A Buffalo 415
Hawk 75A P36 1000
Hawk 81A P40 12438
F4F wildcat 7722
F6F Hellcat 12275
F7F Tigercat 364
P-38 Lightning 9942
P-51 Mustang 15875
P-61 Black widow 742
P-47 Thunderbolt 15686
F4U Corsair 12571
94758

Germany
FW-190 20000
He-162 300
He-219 Uhu 100
Hs-129 841
Ju-88 6000
Bf-109 35000
Bf-110 6150
Me-210 352
Me-163 370
Me-262 1433
70546

Italy
CR42 1212
G.50 Freccia 105
MC 202 Folgore 1500
MC 205 Veltro 205
3022

Japan
N1K1 George 1427
Ki-45 Nick 1698
Ki-61 Tony 2654
Ki-102 Randy 230
A5M Claude 200
A6M Zero 10937
j2m jack 480
Ki-46 Dinah 1742
B5N Kate 1149
J1N1 Irving 477
Ki-27 Nate 3399
Ki-43 Oscar 5919
Ki-44 Todzo 1233
Ki-84 Frank 3514
35059


sources primary : Bill Gunston books
secondary wiki
terciary web

csThor
01-29-2007, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by danimalhanke:
WHAT THE F___!!!!!!!!!!
It is true that the primary mission for kraut fighters was to intercept the bombers, but once the escorts bounced them they would turn and fight the allied fighters. It's called "self peservation". DUH! It was this tactic that allowed more bombers to get thru un-molested!

So? If you're forced to attack bombers regardless of the tiny fact that there are escort fighters hanging above you then it's not that easy anymore. When attacking a target you can't have a split concentration - especially not when attacking heavily defended bomber formations. This means you either f*** up your attack or you might get jumped by the escorts. For example Willi Reschke (I./JG 302, III./JG 301 and Stab/JG 301) states in his book that he had the impression that US fighters were waiting for the german fighters to complete their initial attack, wait for them to assemble and attack then (when the confusion is at its peak).
But as it is most of the LW's losses comes from before or after attacks - either the formation of "Gefechtsverbände" was busted by prowling fighters or the planes were caught low on fuel on return to their airfields. It's not like the fighter bases were secrets to anyone - the USAAF knew exactly where to look.

majnos64
01-29-2007, 08:22 AM
Some numbers are rounded and that table is for small planes.

Ratsack
01-29-2007, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by danimalhanke:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
Not to forget that german fighters mostly went after the bombers and thus were easy pickings for the escort fighters. Hardly anything wonderous about how it ended.

WHAT THE F___!!!!!!!!!!
It is true that the primary mission for kraut fighters was to intercept the bombers, but once the escorts bounced them they would turn and fight the allied fighters. It's called "self peservation". DUH! It was this tactic that allowed more bombers to get thru un-molested! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The importance of the Jagdwaffe going for the bombers shouldn't be underestimated. They were ordered to do so, in an environment where recriminations and accusations of cowardice were being flung around by their commander.

The consequence of this was that while the German fighters laboriously and predictably positioned themselves to attack the bombers en masse, the escorts were unmolested and could manoeuvre for advantage. In the ensuing fight, the escorts would have the tactical advantage because the Germans had given it up to obey the 'attack the bombers first' order.

This wouldn't have happened every time, but that order basically handed the tactical initiative to the escorts.

cheers,
Ratsack

TgD Thunderbolt56
01-29-2007, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by dieg777:
could I have a large bucket of popcorn please , this looks like a 10 pager to me
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LOL...currently on page 9! Come on slackers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

majnos64
01-29-2007, 08:37 AM
IMO from spring 44 the allied air superiority over third reich on western front was 4.5+:1 and this number gradually raising to 12.1 at the end of war. In 42/43 I don't know it is possible that allies had only 2:1 superiority however this is not number for fighters only. It is for bombers+fighters vs bombers+fighters. In vast numbers P-51s are really great however if they would stand against same number of Bf-109K they would lose.

Ratsack
01-29-2007, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
[In December 1943 the first P-51B/C Mustangs entered combat in Europe with the 354th Fighter Group "Pioneers." By the time of the first U.S. heavy bomber strike against Berlin in March 1944, the USAAF fielded about 175 P-51B/C Mustangs. Along with P-38 Lightnings, these P-51s provided sorely needed long-range, high-altitude escort for the U.S. bombing campaign against Germany.

The above is a quote from the USAF Museum site.
As I previously pointed out, there were no
overwhelming numbers of P-51s until after mid 1944.

Statistics on Aircraft in Britian did not indicate aircraft at front ine units.
They had to be assembled and tested. Then
they had to be assigned through the usual
red tape mess.

Overwhelming numbers of P-51s did arrive, and were arriving.
By mid 1945 thousands of P-51s were to have been at front line units.

Sergio

1st line P-51 fighters available to USAAF ETO fighter groups in March 1944: 729.

Source: USAAF statistical digest, Table 89. Page 158

1st line P-51 fighters available to USAAF MTO fighter groups in March 1944: 197

Source: USAAF statistical digest, Table 90. Page 161

1st line P-51 fighters available to USAAF fighter groups in all theatres vs Germany in March 1944: 989

Source: USAAF statistical digest, Table 88. Page 155

Total 1st line USAAF fighter strength in all theatres vs Germany in March 1944: 5,139


Sorce: USAAF statistical digest, Table 88. Page 155

In March 1944, the LuftWaffe could assemble (approximately) 1,700-1,800 fighters total, on all fronts. So, the USAAF alone, not counting the 55 odd fighter squadrons operated by the RAF in the ETO or 30 odd fighter squadrons in the MTO, or Soviet fighters in the East, outnumbered the LuftWaffe by almost 3 to 1 in fighters.

Throw in the RAF and it becomes 6 to 1. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Williamson Murray has the 8th AF effective combat strength for fighters in March 1944 as 720 of all types. That's in Williamson Murray, Strategy for Defeat, p. 178.

He gives the total number of P-51s in mid February as 329, along with 539 P38s and 416 P47s. Note these figures are for totals on hand, whereas the 720 figure I gave above is for combat strength. This is on p. 180.

That's a lot of fighters, and that's just the 8th AF.

This is not to say anybody had it easy. For example, the outcome at the end of 'Big Week' at the end of Feb 1944 was that the Germans had suffered very heavy losses in pilots. The 8th AF, on the other hand, had suffered 20% attrition of their bombers! They wrote off 299 bombers in a week.

That's heavy fighting, by any standard.

cheers,
Ratsack

Xiolablu3
01-29-2007, 09:04 AM
Looking at the numbers posted, Germany and Britain kept parity through the war in aircraft numbers.

So lets say these 2 were about equal in strength, on average through the war (Germany stronger at first, Britain stronger near the end)


Now add the USSR+USAAF numbers to the Allies.

Thats a hell of a big force Germany has to stand up to. If you imagine Britain and Germany cancelling each other out, with equal numbers of planes, then you have USSR and USAAF as a purely attacking force. (I know its not as simple as that, but to show the sheer weight of forces against Germany, it works well)

Zoom2136
01-29-2007, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Not to forget that german fighters mostly went after the bombers and thus were easy pickings for the escort fighters. Hardly anything wonderous about how it ended.

Sounds alot like BoB.... with the Spits and Hurri

csThor
01-29-2007, 09:40 AM
No, not like the BoB. Not even close. This comparison just doesn't work for a lot of reasons - the numbers involved being one of them.

faustnik
01-29-2007, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
while the German fighters laboriously and predictably positioned themselves to attack the bombers en masse, the escorts were unmolested and could manoeuvre for advantage. In the ensuing fight, the escorts would have the tactical advantage because the Germans had given it up to obey the 'attack the bombers first' order.

It always amazes me that people try to ignore this fact.

Xiolablu3
01-29-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
No, not like the BoB. Not even close. This comparison just doesn't work for a lot of reasons - the numbers involved being one of them.

To be fair, tho, the Brits were always outnumbered, just like the Luftwaffe. This was dowdings policy, drip feed the fighters into the battle.

'Hit 'em and then get the hell out.'

BUT - The P51's could loiter far, far longer than the Me109's which didnt even have drop tanks. This is one great asset of the P51's, it could do it for far longer than any other plane.

Of course Germanys small bombers couldnt do anywhere near as much damage as the combined USAAF and RAF offensive vs Germany. Even if the Luftwaffe managed to destroy a lot of US bombers, the RAF would be there that night regardless.

The Luftwaffe in 1940 was nothing like as capable as the sheer power of the Combined Allied Bombing Offensive from 1943-45.

I think there were around 60,000 civilian casualties from German terror raids on England. There were 60,000 killed by the RAF and USAAF in the Dresden terror raid alone.

Wheras Germany was doing 100 bomber raids in 1940, the RAF was doing 1000 bomber raids by 1943, and the USAAF followed suit during the day.

The scale increased 10 fold from 1940-44. Still, tell that to the Hurricane and SPit pilots in the Battle OF Britain.

I remember a great quote from a BOB Veteran (forget which one) :-

'The First time I met the enemy, there were 8 of us in our Hurricanes staring at 100+ bombers escorted by 200+ German fighters. I thought to myself 'Where the hell do we start with this lot?'

Blutarski2004
01-29-2007, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the increase in loss per sortie rate observed from early 1944,

Can very much be explained by Doolittle's January 1944 order to hunt down the Luftwaffe wherever they can be found.

More engagements and more aircraft engaging means statistically the casualty rate will increase.

Absolutely nothing to do with any aircraft's performance.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... More engagements and greater numbers of aircraft will without question increase overall absolute losses, but it by no means logically follows that they must inevitably also increase loss rates per sortie. That must depend upon changing natures of the typical engagement, pilot quality, weather, increased vulnerability of the a/c types involved, etc.

I do not discount the major influence of Genl Doolittle's change of tactics, the most important consequence of which, in terms of higher loss per sortie rates, involved strafing attacks pressed home against well-defended airfields.

But, in addition, lengthier missions increasingly flown by aircraft with a statistically higher loss rate per sortie than the principal type which they replaced also contributed. Your response, which I must admit I found rather cavalier and contrary to your normal good nature, is certainly at odds with various references on the subject.

Have a nice day.

csThor
01-29-2007, 12:27 PM
Judging enemy aircraft when you're flying into them is always going to end in overestimating their number.

One major difference between 1944 and 1940 is simply the total lack of a coherent strategy within the Luftwaffe and the whole Wehrmacht in 1940. There was no coordination between the two major air force units, not even when it comes to mission planning. There was no escort tactic in the operation books (all of that had to be worked out "on the fly" by the fighter units), no communication between the different air force branches (bombers, Stukas, fighters, destroyers - and actually the LW never introduced it) and certainly not even the slightest attempt of some kind of "planning meeting" between the lower air force commanders. In fact the two Luftflotten operated just as their commanders thought it should be.

dieg777
01-29-2007, 01:39 PM
just knew it would be a 10 pager http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

looks like it still has legs tho so a large diet coke and another large tub of popcorn please

Xiolablu3
01-29-2007, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
Judging enemy aircraft when you're flying into them is always going to end in overestimating their number.

One major difference between 1944 and 1940 is simply the total lack of a coherent strategy within the Luftwaffe and the whole Wehrmacht in 1940. There was no coordination between the two major air force units, not even when it comes to mission planning. There was no escort tactic in the operation books (all of that had to be worked out "on the fly" by the fighter units), no communication between the different air force branches (bombers, Stukas, fighters, destroyers - and actually the LW never introduced it) and certainly not even the slightest attempt of some kind of "planning meeting" between the lower air force commanders. In fact the two Luftflotten operated just as their commanders thought it should be.



Yes, the difference between Germany bombing England in 1940/41 and the RAF/USAAF bombing Germany in 1942-45 is night and day really.

The sheer planning and power of the 1943-45 raids are immense. With their Guidance beams, MOsquito Pathfinders, flares, Window, Dummy raids, Different Escorts for each leg, Technology etc.

Xiolablu3
01-29-2007, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
At it's very heart, this is a stupid discussion and I feel degraded for having participated.

Well, I for one, am glad you did mate. You posted some excellent info.

Its good to have one of these threads now and again, to try and thrash the truth out.

JSG72
01-29-2007, 02:57 PM
Quote from Oberst Gustav Rodel after his Geschwader JG27 had just lost 38 pilots killed or wounded after one air battle on the 2nd of Nov. 1944.

"I flew and survived more than 1000 missions but attacking four-engined bombers flying in formation still remains a nightmare in my memory. Each attack had a different pattern...There were too many odds and unknown factors during an approach, such as weather, the counter action of the escort and the difficulty in manoeuvring in a large formation.The sole aim of the fighter leader was to get his formation into a positionwhich allowed a virtual collision course attack. Thereafter, it was every pilot for himself-he could hardly even keep his eye out for his wingman"

This single raid had ben flown with over 1000 bombers with an escort of 873 fighters Roughly 600 of them p51s

The luftwaffe had 695 fighters available at the time Not all seviceable and certainly not all used. This number would be reduced by losses of 120 on the day..
Sources quote between 40-50 bomber losses and 16 fighters.
It doesn't take much to work out the luftwaffe target for the day.

It certainly wasn't to have a dogfight with P51s.

Adolf Galland when interrogated in May '45
"If the weather from the middle ofNovember and during December had been decent the American bomber flights might have been attacked by 2500 to 3000 fighter. With those numbers our Fighter Arm would have been in a better position to cope."

I would suggest these are the thoughts of a man still smarting from not getting his own way when his perceived fighter strength was used up during the "Bodenplatte" Fiasco.

And also when one takes Rodels quote into account.

Just one of many similar.

Quoting exacting figures, is pointless when one considers. It is real life pilots that flew missions and not AI Sim number crunchers.

WWMaxGunz
01-29-2007, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
No, not like the BoB. Not even close. This comparison just doesn't work for a lot of reasons - the numbers involved being one of them.

To be fair, tho, the Brits were always outnumbered, just like the Luftwaffe. This was dowdings policy, drip feed the fighters into the battle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then Mallory got the Big Wing working then that put an end to the German plan.

The LW would mass fighters and attack points along the many miles long bomber streams but
somehow that doesn't count in many people's ideas of 'count the planes and divide to get
the odds' views.

Anyone that really wants to understand, the practice of local superiority through sizing
of groups goes back to WWI and the Dicta Boelcke. Since then none of those rules has
changed, only been added to.

The Allies were able to run hugely more missions late in the war. On average they did
outnumber the Germans. As was shown, the Germans could be given a choice, come up and
fight or take the damage. So they had to do BOTH because they couldn't everywhere have
the same numbers. And when they did go up they tried not to be at disadvantage but
rather the opposite which is smart. Of course when you can send the same fighter up
again and again with the fight being right at your doorstep that did help in putting
up more missions locally. IMO the practice of the fighters going down to attack the
airfields after the bombers were on the way home went very far to reducing the German
capabilities later on. Did maybe they learned that from LW airfield raids during the
BoB? IIRC airfield raids was also done in WWI but not as after escort duties.

Cajun76
01-29-2007, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by majnos64:
IMO from spring 44 the allied air superiority over third reich on western front was 4.5+:1 and this number gradually raising to 12.1 at the end of war. In 42/43 I don't know it is possible that allies had only 2:1 superiority however this is not number for fighters only. It is for bombers+fighters vs bombers+fighters. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">In vast numbers P-51s are really great however if they would stand against same number of Bf-109K they would lose.</span>


Yet another "LW was much better just outnumbered argument" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

So, according to you, its the plane, and not the pilot?

Or do you wish to fill your K4's will clones of Hartmann in mid '44?

Perhaps go back and reduce the number of training hours USAAF pilots received?

How about pretending that there were no fuel shortages, or that all the experten were flying K4's against P-51D Mustangs with full fuel tanks @ 1000m?

I'm not saying the P-51 won the war at all, especially since I think that it stole a lot of hard earned work from the Thunderbolt, which didn't just disappear in the escort role. The Thunderbolt still escorted the medium bombers as well as attacking its own large share of targets.

However, it seems to be apologizing for the LW to talks about "vast numbers" of Mustangs. They weren't all flying, all the time against the LW. Any engagement could go just about any direction. The 109's might have numerical advantage in a local engagement, or they might be bounced forming up to attack bombers.

But it all comes down to what I said before: <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Which was or who had the better a/c?</span>

We know that most of the top a/c were within a few % of each other in combat conditions, but it just sounds so much better to Lw fans if the Allied victory is marginalized by saying "LW was much better just outnumbered."

There plenty of times when the LW had local air superiority, but did not win the engagement, all throughout the war. Perhaps they weren't superman, flying super machines after all? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JSG72
01-29-2007, 04:02 PM
Jeezz! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I am a Self confessed Avid Luftwaffe Fan(Have been for 40 Years now!).And I am Scottish!.
Jings! must be some kindoff weirdo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It is throughout these years I have been able to collect and read all aspects of How/Why? they were eventually defeated.

It strikes me that the majority of posters on these types of thread have No interest whatso ever, in learning.Or indeed trying to educate(Because they didn't do enough research) But just trawl the internet looking for some Statistic to back up their preposterous arguments.. Half of them don't even know where to look!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

DrHerb
01-29-2007, 04:15 PM
The war was NOT won by just air to air combat, no one has really factored in the base busting raids after escorting bombers (P51, P47, P38, ect), the thousands of soldiers who probably went through worse than pilots did.

However, the allies DID have much better training regimes which equalled better pilots in the long run.

Mind you Germany had aces that scored tens of times more kills than allied pilots (yes i know their service times and conditions were completely different)

my point is and ive said it before, THE MACHINE IS AS GOOD AS ITS OPERATOR

Sergio_101
01-29-2007, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sergio_101:
[In December 1943 the first P-51B/C Mustangs entered combat in Europe with the 354th Fighter Group "Pioneers." By the time of the first U.S. heavy bomber strike against Berlin in March 1944, the USAAF fielded about 175 P-51B/C Mustangs. Along with P-38 Lightnings, these P-51s provided sorely needed long-range, high-altitude escort for the U.S. bombing campaign against Germany.

The above is a quote from the USAF Museum site.
As I previously pointed out, there were no
overwhelming numbers of P-51s until after mid 1944.

Statistics on Aircraft in Britian did not indicate aircraft at front ine units.
They had to be assembled and tested. Then
they had to be assigned through the usual
red tape mess.

Overwhelming numbers of P-51s did arrive, and were arriving.
By mid 1945 thousands of P-51s were to have been at front line units.

Sergio

1st line P-51 fighters available to USAAF ETO fighter groups in March 1944: 729.

Source: USAAF statistical digest, Table 89. Page 158

1st line P-51 fighters available to USAAF MTO fighter groups in March 1944: 197

Source: USAAF statistical digest, Table 90. Page 161

1st line P-51 fighters available to USAAF fighter groups in all theatres vs Germany in March 1944: 989

Source: USAAF statistical digest, Table 88. Page 155

Total 1st line USAAF fighter strength in all theatres vs Germany in March 1944: 5,139


Sorce: USAAF statistical digest, Table 88. Page 155

In March 1944, the LuftWaffe could assemble (approximately) 1,700-1,800 fighters total, on all fronts. So, the USAAF alone, not counting the 55 odd fighter squadrons operated by the RAF in the ETO or 30 odd fighter squadrons in the MTO, or Soviet fighters in the East, outnumbered the LuftWaffe by almost 3 to 1 in fighters.

Throw in the RAF and it becomes 6 to 1. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Williamson Murray has the 8th AF effective combat strength for fighters in March 1944 as 720 of all types. That's in Williamson Murray, Strategy for Defeat, p. 178.

He gives the total number of P-51s in mid February as 329, along with 539 P38s and 416 P47s. Note these figures are for totals on hand, whereas the 720 figure I gave above is for combat strength. This is on p. 180.

That's a lot of fighters, and that's just the 8th AF.

This is not to say anybody had it easy. For example, the outcome at the end of 'Big Week' at the end of Feb 1944 was that the Germans had suffered very heavy losses in pilots. The 8th AF, on the other hand, had suffered 20% attrition of their bombers! They wrote off 299 bombers in a week.

That's heavy fighting, by any standard.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Confirmed, I have those publications as well.
Great contribution Ratsack. Thanks for the post.

Sergio

JSG72
01-29-2007, 05:28 PM
Wouldn one have to consider the fact that the germans had to cover/defend the whole Atlantic Coast line that they occupied.

And not just the paths of any incoming Raids.Of which the bomber escorts would be travelling. Thus concentrating their numbers within Battle arena

It is when you put those numbers in quoted by yourself that a much truer picture would develop.

Ratsack
01-29-2007, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by majnos64:
...<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">In vast numbers P-51s are really great however if they would stand against same number of Bf-109K they would lose.</span>


Yet another "LW was much better just outnumbered argument" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now this is what is so stupid about this thread, and probably why some people said they feel degraded for participating. The discussion is so obviously set up to elicit responses like majnos64's, and then people (including the usual suspects) jump on it saying, 'Yeah, just another Luftwhiner argument!'. As if the thread wasn't designed to fish for that anyway!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



Originally posted by Cajun76:
...
However, it seems to be apologizing for the LW to talks about "vast numbers" of Mustangs. They weren't all flying, all the time against the LW. Any engagement could go just about any direction. The 109's might have numerical advantage in a local engagement, or they might be bounced forming up to attack bombers.


With respect, the numbers quoted so far in this thread - from reputable sources, too - show the US with a very large numerical advantage. When the other Allied air forces are taken into account, the advantage is even greater. The argument that they weren't all flying all the time in the same place is also valid for the Jagdwaffe, and leaves the ratio of strength the same.

I don't see what the problem is with the historical fact that the Allies enjoyed numerical superiority. Why does this cause people discomfort? The Allies specifically pursued numerical superiority as an explicit goal, as early as 1940 for the Brits. It was a deliberate decision, and as they sowed, so did they reap.

Problem? There isn't one.


Originally posted by Cajun76:
But it all comes down to what I said before: <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Which was or who had the better a/c?</span>


I think that you're veering toward a technical p1ssing contest here, which seems to be what you're castigating the Luftwhiners for. As I said before, I think threads like this really bring out the worst in this community.



cheers,
Ratsack

carguy_
01-29-2007, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by danimalhanke:
WHAT THE F___!!!!!!!!!!
It is true that the primary mission for kraut fighters was to intercept the bombers, but once the escorts bounced them they would turn and fight the allied fighters. It's called "self peservation". DUH! It was this tactic that allowed more bombers to get thru un-molested!


Most of the Me109 fighters were equipped with gunpods.Add performance disadvantage and number disadvantage to that and you have turkeyshoot for Pony aces.

Are you that ignorant or are you a troll?
If there was any self preservation it was attack and getthehellouttathere tactic.There was simply no sense in engaging fighter escorts.

The main factor for some bombers going through unmolested as you say is that IF a LW pilot got into a 2nd pass at bombers,he would immediately be jumped by 2-3 enemy fighters.In this case it was to fire it all and dive away or die choice.

Heinz Knocke describes his rookie pilots literally sitting 50-100m behind the fortresses blazing away,ignoring anything else.Knocke describes them as those who were easy prey,sure deaths.He even stopped being sad about that.

Pirschjaeger
01-29-2007, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by danimalhanke:
WHAT THE F___!!!!!!!!!!
It is true that the primary mission for kraut fighters was to intercept the bombers, but once the escorts bounced them they would turn and fight the allied fighters. It's called "self peservation". DUH! It was this tactic that allowed more bombers to get thru un-molested!

Can't remember the numbers but I think it was 50,000 plus aircrew members that would have a valid argument against your unmolested theory had they survived.

I'm guessing you fly offline with unlimited ammo and escorts set to "noob".

Bull_dog_
01-29-2007, 09:23 PM
Darn...I wanted to be the one to make it to 11 pages.

Oh well...might as well add my $.02 for pg 12

The quote is taken out of context. I don't even know if I've ever read it but I have heard it in documentaries...but all such comments are woven into a context of discussion.

The context that I've read about is the fact that Mustang was the first offensive fighter aircraft that carried the fight to Germany and back...and did so without a European beachhead.

In the Battle of Britain, the strategy of the bomber campaign was altered due to bombers targeting civilian targets instead of military targets and it is often written that the decision cost the battle.

In the Pacific, the US put together the Doolittle raid which set into motion a set of events that helped slow down Japanese expansion...it did not cause the battle to be lost but bought time and this was due to a handful of bombs being dropped on 1 city. It did have an impact on the war that was far greater than its actual contribution...just like the BoB.

The context of the "Mustang won the War" comment was in a similar context. The actual contribution (strategically) that the Mustang made far outweighed its tactical contribution. It is not at all about empirical numbers.

The reason there were so few kills over the ETO prior to the Mustang's introduction was because allied fighter aircraft could not carry the fight to Germany so the Luftwaffe maintained a minimum presence and concentrated their strength on the Eastern front.

The reason the Mustang had such an impact was because an offensive started...albiet an aerial one, but an offensive non-the-less and just like the PTO and BoB example, Germany was not going to sit idly by. They pulled many of their resources from East to West to combat the new threat. The Allies changed fighter doctrine because D-Day was immenent and they went on the "offensive" for the first time in the ETO. They had a purpose and weapon to deploy and the actual impact of the Mustang was far greater than its actual accomplishments...which by the way were nothing short of awesome.

A Mustang in the air over Germany was an omen. The war was going to be waged over German soil and it would happen without an invasion...that is the context.

Later, after the attrition took its toll, the allies did land at Normandy and that is the point in the war that the "superior numbers" of allied aircraft became a tactical reality because range was not a factor. Now all allied aircraft could be "on the front". Being based in England and trying to fly to Europe is not being "on the front".

It will be a conceptual leap for some, but try to understand the context of the conversation. I know there are several in this post that get it, but others who just get hung up on the words and find them offensive...the Mustang is an icon and it was a beam of hope for allies that the war was in its last days...it was and it was largely because the Allies went on the offensive in a tactical sense in January of 44. Up until that point, the strategic war was not going well for the allies.

And by the way, the Mustang was an awesome fighter. At the time it was introduced, it was the best plane flying for the mission it had and probably for several missions it didn't have. I agree with the original poster's words, if not his intent. There is a myth that the Mustang was in superior numbers...when it counted most, 1/44-D-Day it was alone in the skies over Germany with the heavies and did a great job of shooting down enemy fighters...nothing more, nothing less.

jarink
01-29-2007, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Wouldn one have to consider the fact that the germans had to cover/defend the whole Atlantic Coast line that they occupied.

And not just the paths of any incoming Raids.Of which the bomber escorts would be travelling. Thus concentrating their numbers within Battle arena

It is when you put those numbers in quoted by yourself that a much truer picture would develop.

The Eighth Air Force (Bomber Command and Ninth AF to some extent also) nearly always used diversionary raids when bomber strength allowed to dilute LW fighter strength along the path of the 'real' railds. True, the LW Gruppen were spread around, but they typically had quite a bit of notice that raids were coming in. It took quite a bit of time for the heavies to not only form up (especially in 1000+ plane raids) but also to get to altitude. This forewarning allowed the LW to try and concentrate fighters along the likely path of the bombers. Sometimes, that concentration was only achieved on the outbound leg; hitting the bombers after they were on the way home (the tactic of "shuttle" raids which did not return to their home fields was designed to counter this). If there was anough time, the usual LW plan was to coordinate attacks - soem fighters would try and keep any escorts busy, heavy fighters would try and break up the bomber formations and then pretty much everyone would go after the stragglers.

Looking at the number of Allied fighter sorties in a mission can be misleading also. Just because a fighter group flew "escort" does not mean they stayed with the bombers the entire trip. The bombers flew much too slowly for the fighters to stay with them in a uel-efficient way. Most often, they would fly a zig-zag pattern above or to one side of the bomber stream. This means that for a mission that was, say 500 miles in a straight line, the fighters would have to fly 700+. Even P-51s usually didn't have enough range to stick with them all the way out and back. Escorts often operated in a shuttle fashion, with some (usually the shorter-ranged RAF Spitfire squadrons or P-47s) taking the initial penetration leg and then leaving. Hopefully, when they left, other groups would pick up the coverage deep within enemy territory. On the really long missions, there would also be withdrawl coverage by yet another set of fighter groups. The fighters would also sometimes miss these rendezvous with the bombers (especially earlier in the war), further diluting the USAAF/RAF escorts' effectiveness.

What does all this mean? Simply that sometimes the LW had local numerical superiority, sometimes the Allies did.

As the war dragged on and it became harder for the LW to generate sorties (mainly due to fuel shortages and increasing numbers of mechanical failures), it became much harder for them to gain parity in effective sorties, let alone superiority.

Sergio_101
01-31-2007, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Wouldn one have to consider the fact that the germans had to cover/defend the whole Atlantic Coast line that they occupied.

And not just the paths of any incoming Raids.Of which the bomber escorts would be travelling. Thus concentrating their numbers within Battle arena

It is when you put those numbers in quoted by yourself that a much truer picture would develop.

The Eighth Air Force (Bomber Command and Ninth AF to some extent also) nearly always used diversionary raids when bomber strength allowed to dilute LW fighter strength along the path of the 'real' railds. True, the LW Gruppen were spread around, but they typically had quite a bit of notice that raids were coming in. It took quite a bit of time for the heavies to not only form up (especially in 1000+ plane raids) but also to get to altitude. This forewarning allowed the LW to try and concentrate fighters along the likely path of the bombers. Sometimes, that concentration was only achieved on the outbound leg; hitting the bombers after they were on the way home (the tactic of "shuttle" raids which did not return to their home fields was designed to counter this). If there was anough time, the usual LW plan was to coordinate attacks - soem fighters would try and keep any escorts busy, heavy fighters would try and break up the bomber formations and then pretty much everyone would go after the stragglers.

Looking at the number of Allied fighter sorties in a mission can be misleading also. Just because a fighter group flew "escort" does not mean they stayed with the bombers the entire trip. The bombers flew much too slowly for the fighters to stay with them in a uel-efficient way. Most often, they would fly a zig-zag pattern above or to one side of the bomber stream. This means that for a mission that was, say 500 miles in a straight line, the fighters would have to fly 700+. Even P-51s usually didn't have enough range to stick with them all the way out and back. Escorts often operated in a shuttle fashion, with some (usually the shorter-ranged RAF Spitfire squadrons or P-47s) taking the initial penetration leg and then leaving. Hopefully, when they left, other groups would pick up the coverage deep within enemy territory. On the really long missions, there would also be withdrawl coverage by yet another set of fighter groups. The fighters would also sometimes miss these rendezvous with the bombers (especially earlier in the war), further diluting the USAAF/RAF escorts' effectiveness.

What does all this mean? Simply that sometimes the LW had local numerical superiority, sometimes the Allies did.

As the war dragged on and it became harder for the LW to generate sorties (mainly due to fuel shortages and increasing numbers of mechanical failures), it became much harder for them to gain parity in effective sorties, let alone superiority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Myth BUSTED!

Sergio

Whirlin_merlin
01-31-2007, 03:05 AM
Not so fast Sergio. The Mythbusters would now attemp to recreate the myth by whatever means possible even if breaching the original constraints. Can I suggest a time machine and a few thousand F15s.

Kettenhunde
01-31-2007, 03:50 AM
If I can make a suggestion, pick up a copy of this book. It gives a great account of the bomber war from the German side without any interpretation from historians as it is reprinted USAAF documents. Be warned it is a very dry read and you will not find the pilot stories of swirling combat.

You will find a wealth of technical information and a much more factual account on the difficulty of intercepting a bombing raid in WWII.

http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Bombers-World-German-Deb...0835?ie=UTF8&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Bombers-World-German-Debriefs/dp/1853675326/sr=1-5/qid=1170240000/ref=sr_1_5/105-6045186-2310835?ie=UTF8&s=books)

All the best,

Crumpp

Monty_Thrud
02-01-2007, 08:11 AM
Come on chaps, 4 more pages, i dont want to cough up my worldly empire of 12 pence, we can make it to 15... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

dieg777
02-01-2007, 08:27 AM
u were right monty it did go past 10 pages , now if we could only get josef in here it might make 20 or 30 - more popcorn matron and some beer this time

Manu-6S
02-01-2007, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Come on chaps, 4 more pages, i dont want to cough up my worldly empire of 12 pence, we can make it to 15... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Ok I try... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

IMO when we are speaking about number superiority of allied planes we are referring above all to many allied sorties that were constantly flying above Germany: it's obvious that Luftwaffe tried to make single sorties with many planes as possible (nature teached this to us... look at the flock of birds and bugs or the fish packs).

Probably the P51 escort in that fighting place was overwhelmed... but still it got the altitude advantage and the possibility to fight in optimal situation (poor performance of luft planes until Ta152H).

Look at the latest german aces: many died in takeoff or landing because there weren't no more safe airbases in that time.

Once again, IMO, the P51 was the right plane at the right moment. It's not the plane to win the war, but the armies decisions: if the german high spheres spended more efforts in developing immediately high alt planes (and luckly they didn't) the legend of P51 would be very different.

But we all know: german lost the war above all because his high officiers.

JSG72
02-01-2007, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Wouldn one have to consider the fact that the germans had to cover/defend the whole Atlantic Coast line that they occupied.

And not just the paths of any incoming Raids.Of which the bomber escorts would be travelling. Thus concentrating their numbers within Battle arena

It is when you put those numbers in quoted by yourself that a much truer picture would develop.

The Eighth Air Force (Bomber Command and Ninth AF to some extent also) nearly always used diversionary raids when bomber strength allowed to dilute LW fighter strength along the path of the 'real' railds. True, the LW Gruppen were spread around, but they typically had quite a bit of notice that raids were coming in. It took quite a bit of time for the heavies to not only form up (especially in 1000+ plane raids) but also to get to altitude. This forewarning allowed the LW to try and concentrate fighters along the likely path of the bombers. Sometimes, that concentration was only achieved on the outbound leg; hitting the bombers after they were on the way home (the tactic of "shuttle" raids which did not return to their home fields was designed to counter this). If there was anough time, the usual LW plan was to coordinate attacks - soem fighters would try and keep any escorts busy, heavy fighters would try and break up the bomber formations and then pretty much everyone would go after the stragglers.

Looking at the number of Allied fighter sorties in a mission can be misleading also. Just because a fighter group flew "escort" does not mean they stayed with the bombers the entire trip. The bombers flew much too slowly for the fighters to stay with them in a uel-efficient way. Most often, they would fly a zig-zag pattern above or to one side of the bomber stream. This means that for a mission that was, say 500 miles in a straight line, the fighters would have to fly 700+. Even P-51s usually didn't have enough range to stick with them all the way out and back. Escorts often operated in a shuttle fashion, with some (usually the shorter-ranged RAF Spitfire squadrons or P-47s) taking the initial penetration leg and then leaving. Hopefully, when they left, other groups would pick up the coverage deep within enemy territory. On the really long missions, there would also be withdrawl coverage by yet another set of fighter groups. The fighters would also sometimes miss these rendezvous with the bombers (especially earlier in the war), further diluting the USAAF/RAF escorts' effectiveness.

What does all this mean? Simply that sometimes the LW had local numerical superiority, sometimes the Allies did.

As the war dragged on and it became harder for the LW to generate sorties (mainly due to fuel shortages and increasing numbers of mechanical failures), it became much harder for them to gain parity in effective sorties, let alone superiority. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Myth BUSTED!

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was going to answer Jarinks post a couple of days ago. Explaining how it was a complete mixed up digestion of events with timescales all over the place To suit the question.
And also the fact that the P51s went all the way to Berlin.
But I couldn't be bothered Trawling through all my references or indeed all of this thread to see what ground has been covered.

Sergio
You say that Germany was defeated before the thousands of mustangs were available. Is this a with hindsight statement?
Certainly not a thought shared by General Doolittle after the raid I related to in a previous post. Indeed he was keen to increase further the amount of escorts I.E More than the 600 p51s sent on that raid! 2nd Nov. 1944.

BTW. I have absolutely nothing against the P51 and indeed think it was a magnificent balanced design and could certainly hold it's own or better in a one on one challenge. It was their Tactical use that Changed throughout their Wartime Useage. that dictated the outcome.

But when you say it was the p51B/C that mastered the german fighters. May I suggest that their introduction. put an end to the use of German Twin Engined interceptors. Me 110, 410 and Ju 88s as these were the easier kills after the p51 period of introduction.
This forced the Luftwaffe to employ heavier armed and armoured single engined fighters into the skys. Which in turn escalated the need for more escorts. And so it goes Ad infinitem Or would have. Had it not been for the overpowering employment of P51! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A couple of books:

JagdWaffe Defending the Reich 1943-44 by Forsyth and Creek. Classic Colours pub.

JagdWaffe Defending the Reich 1944-1945 by Robert Forsyth

SturmStaffel I Reich defence 1943-1944 The War Diary by Eric Mombeek with Forsyth and Creek

Luftwaffe Sturmgruppen by John Weal. Osprey Pub.

Raiders of the Reich "Airbattle Western Europe 1942-45 by Martin W. Bowman and Theo Boiten. Airlife Pub.

Battles with the Luftwaffe "The Bomber Campaign against Germany 1942-45" by Theo Boiten and Martin Bowman. Janes Pub.

Raiding the Reich "The Allied Strategic Bombing Offensive in Europe" by Roger A. Freeman. Arms and Armour press Pub.


Fighting the Bombers: Exerpts from the allied ,interogations of Adolf Galland. Josef Kammhuber, Josef "Beppo" Schmid. And others.
Edited by David C. Isby Pub. Greenhill Books

Amongst many others. Inc. Books on P51, P47, And P38 Aces In the ETO.

Any page References (Quotes) You want? Just ask.

jasonbirder
02-04-2007, 07:24 AM
If the Allies didn't have overwhelmig numerical superiority....
Could someone explain the following sortie rate comparisons to me? The figures are for Western front Day Operations...

Jan 1944...Luftwaffe Sorties 3315...Allied Sorties 6600
Feb 1944...Luftwaffe Sorties 4242...Allied Sorties 10,000
Mar 1944...Luftwaffe Sorties 3672...Allied Sorties 14,700
Apr 1944...Luftwaffe Sorties 4505...Allied Sorties 18400
May 1944...Luftwaffe Sorties 3805...Allied Sorties 27,000
Jun 1944...Luftwaffe Sorties 1264...Allied Sorties 11550

Pirschjaeger
02-04-2007, 08:11 AM
Why don't you guys set some definitions? This argument can go either way depending on the definitions. Agree on something and then throw in the numbers.

Actually, numbers alone should be good enough. According to the number the LW was outnumber at very high rates. If you argue that they weren't outnumber, maybe trying to say there was an equal balance, then it seems you'd be saying the Allied pilots weren't worth their weight against German pilots.

Although I'm no expert, it seems to me that the LW was definitely overwhelmed by vast numbers of Allied a/c and P-51's just happened to be a fraction of the whole.

AFAIK the P-51's did overwhelm the LW but that was only at the time the LW was weak and flown by inexperienced pilots.

If you look at the war from 39 to 45 as a whole then it's easy to figure out the number of LW a/c was much smaller than the total number of Allied a/c.

But then you can look at it day by day and sometimes it would be the LW with the most a/c and other times the Allies with the most a/c.

Then you have to distinguish the various types and uses of the a/c. There are so many ways to look at this.

C'mon guys, we need definitions here. Once you agree on a definition you simply drop in the numbers and you'll get a definitive answer but as long as this thread continues as it is there will never be an answer.

Definitions?

AKA_TAGERT
02-04-2007, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
If the Allies didn't have overwhelmig numerical superiority....
Could someone explain the following sortie rate comparisons to me? The figures are for Western front Day Operations...
BBB462cid explained it to you (everyone not just you) back on page 2 when he said the following.. Pay close att to the very first sentence


Originally posted by BBB462cid:
The two forces didn't meet each other en masse, though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If the Luftwaffe sent 50 fighters to attack a bomber stream that was escorted by 200 USAAF fighter planes total, the Luftwaffe is, on paper, outnumbered

But it is also true that those 50 German planes did not simply seek out the 200 USAAF fighters and duked it out

For one thing, the USAAF planes covered literally hundreds of miles of bomber stream. For another, the Germans were tacticly sound and would never accept that fight in the first place

The Luftwaffe could and very certainly did acheive *local* air superiority, even in the situation I describe above

The technically 'outnumbered' 50 Luftwaffe planes attack the 'heavily escorted' bomber stream where a single squadron of USAAF planes are present

That's 50 to 16 odds, *in favor of the Luftwaffe* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif A strong screeen of fighters lures the escort away, while the remaining 30 attackers go after the bombers. The remaining 184 USAAF planes are a non-element in the engagement as they have their own sections and duties- they simply do not take part in the fight.

Historian Walter J. Boyne accurately described the late war Luftwaffe as a "too small blanket", that couldn't cover the shivering Third Reich

The raw numbers tell a very important story, as you describe, but I cannot agree it was the whole story. If the two airforces met, in a maximum strength effort to decide the aerial contest in a single engagement, then yes, I would agree that the USAAF was in practice overwhelming the Luftwaffe. However, the actual engagemants themselves illustrate that the Luftwaffe had indeed learned it's lessons well by the late war, and could still dictate terms of aerial engagement in local areas by fulfilling the air superiority requirement, and they did this by *locally* outnumbering the USAAF when possible

It doesn't matter if the USAAF has 12,000,000 P-51s, and the Luftwaffe has 300 Bf-109s. If those 300 109s deploy against a selected and isolated group of 50 of the those 12 million P-51s, the Luftwaffe has the odds in their favor, despite the raw numerical advantage of the USAAF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This was both their strategy and their tactics. A defensive airforce is what the Luftwaffe became, and it allowed them to choose when to overwhelm a target, but it also kept them from doing anything but stay defensive

So yes the allied had more planes in the air, thus air superiority, but per encounter they did not allways have air superiority and many times were out numbered by the Lw! In that most US sorties would NOT encounter any enemy planes, where as the few that did faced a consintrated Lw pack.

This is also part of the reason why the US kill counts are so much smaller than the Lw! On most sorties the US would not see an enemy plane, where as the Lw did most of the time.

SAVVY?

joeap
02-04-2007, 09:38 AM
+1 for Tagert and BBB462cid, there is also a comparison to be made with ground combat on the German-Soviet front, like in this forum:
Thread on RKKA (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46090&page=5)

Posted by R.N. Armstrong specialist on Operational development of the Red Army in WWII:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrey
View Post
Why to makme guesses if there are exact digits?

I don't remember where I saw it but as I remember forces ratio in the WHOLE Soviet-German Front was app. 1.5:1 in the favor of the USSR. Not 9:1, not 3:1 but 1.5:1.

But the most important was the ratio in a main blow direction. In this case the side who had initiative usually had superiority.

So the Germans often had HUGE superiority in the most important directions, especially in the first years of the war.


Andrey,

You are not going to like the source, but Glantz did a chart on comparative strengths of combat forces, eastern front 1941-45 (here are some snapshot dates of Soviet to German correlations):

22 June 1941 -- 1:1.4

1 Dec 1941 -- 1.23:1

7 June 1942 -- 1.42:1

1 Nov 1942 -- 1.74:1

July 1943 -- 1.71:1

July 1944 -- 2.17:1

By September 1944, Soviet allies (Poles, Czechs, Rumanians) begin to figure into Soviet strengths.

Nov 1944 -- 3.02:1

May 1945 -- 4.10:1

For sources, Glantz used for German Ziemke and Fremde Heere Ost reports and for Soviet Krivosheev and State Committe of Defense Decrees from TsPA UML(Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism and Leninism).

Glantz seems to be in agreement with you on the strategic correlation of forces. As Glantz and I have maintained through the years, the vivid imagery of overwhelming numbers in the German literature represented the impact of what the Red Army did in weighting their main attack sectors at the operational and tactical levels to achieve force ratios at 6 or 9 or 12 to one.

horseback
02-04-2007, 11:53 AM
When quoting the number of Allied sorties vs. German sorties, please mention which of these sorties were performed over Germany proper, and which were flown at night vs. day, and by what types of aircraft, and at which point in the war. There was a vast difference in the relative states of the combatant air arms in March of 1944 vs May of the same year, for example.

Before the arrival of the Lightning and Mustang groups in the ETO, there were NO single engined fighter aircraft that could reach major industrial areas or strategic military targets within Germany.

The overwhelming majority of sorties flown across the Channel before May of 1944 were essentially nuisance raids of less than 200 miles range, and often ignored by the Germans because they were militarily irrelevent, air to ground operations being not nearly as effective as today (and not even as effective as they were thought to be by the Allies at the time), and amounted most often to pinpricks. The Germans were using France and the Low Countries as an aerial buffer zone, with little more than a token force of day fighters to harass the raids crossing the buffer towards Germany.

In essence, there were three daylight air wars being waged by Germany from January 1944 onwards. The first was the low-level war over the battle front in the East, where the Soviets would pour everything into a concentrated point and force the LW to counter. Air power was useful there, but not pivotal. The Soviet ground power would have chewed its way into Germany regardless of the outcome overhead, because no air force of the time could have stopped them. The high scores piled up on that front are more a reflection of the overall carnage there than their value to the German war effort.

The second was a continuation and refinement of the RAF's 'lean into France' strategy, with raids over France and the Low Countries at mostly low and medium altitudes by the RAF, the 8th and eventually the 9th AFs, which served first as a means to harass the enemy and show the flag over the occupied countries, and then as a means of paving the way for invasion. The German counter was to do most of their transport at night, pile up light flak over the places they wanted to protect, and when appropriate, send the fighters after the raiders. Again, this campaign was preperation for the ground attack that came on D-Day, and strategically not all that big a deal.

Finally, there was the strategic daylight bombing air war, aimed at German industry and public morale, and this is relevent to the Mustang's reputation. Only the Mustang and the P-38 could reach the interior of German from British bases in late 1943-early 1944. Before late March-early April, the P-47s had to turn back just after crossing the border, leaving the bombers just the few P-51s and P-38s who hadn't aborted (and they both had atrocious abort rates during the first critical months) to face the Reich's Defense Geschwaderen, which included, admittedly, a lot of twin engined heavy zerstorer types, but also a boatload of top of the line single engined 109s and 190s.

That (often considerably) less than 200 escorts could defend a bomber stream dozens if not hundreds of kilometers long from those forces (plus AAA) would seem to defy reason, especially when one of the two types, which had been successful everywhere else it had been deployed, was found to be less than effective.

This air war was pivotal, because its primary aim was the destruction of the LW's ability to wage effective offensive operations over the battlefield in France, demonstrate to the German populace that their military was getting clobbered (fallout from WWI; Germany had not been invaded, and the civilian population never quite seemed to grasp the idea that they had been militarily defeated, allowing the 'we were stabbed in the back by a few traitors' line to flourish) and to choke off strategic resources, like oil and transport.

To recap: from the perspective of the air war over Germany, all those other Allied sorties are relevent in a distant way. Only the P-51 and P-38 could reach the German interior and protect the heavy bombers, and they were available in limited numbers (and save me the figures of aircraft on hand; we're talking about aircraft operational in combat, not the ones still mothballed from their cross Atlantic trip, or being used to familiarize converting units), limited further by operational troubles.

And yet they still managed to mangle the LW over Germany itself. Taken in context, it is a major achievement.

cheers

horseback

jasonbirder
02-04-2007, 03:32 PM
So let me get this right...
The Allies had substantial numeric superiority overall & in the number of single engined day fighters...
The Allies were able to generate substantially higher numbers of sorties...
The Allies were far better able to replace their losses in terms of planes and pilots...
For every anecdote of local numeric superiority being obtained by the luftwaffe there is one of local numerical superirity by the Allies...

BUT it is a myth that the Germans were overwhelmed by superior Allied numbers?

Is that what i'm supposed to be reading here?

Blutarski2004
02-04-2007, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
So let me get this right...
The Allies had substantial numeric superiority overall & in the number of single engined day fighters...
The Allies were able to generate substantially higher numbers of sorties...
The Allies were far better able to replace their losses in terms of planes and pilots...
For every anecdote of local numeric superiority being obtained by the luftwaffe there is one of local numerical superirity by the Allies...

BUT it is a myth that the Germans were overwhelmed by superior Allied numbers?

Is that what i'm supposed to be reading here?


..... It is undeniable that the Allies had a great numerical superiority in a/c by early 1944. This was true at the strategic level, the theater level, and the campaign level. The situation was less uniformly true at the tactical level. From 1944 onward, the LW increasingly applied "Big Wing" tactics, amassing groups of 50 to 100+ aircraft in a single mass interception at a given target in the bomber stream. A certain portion of the attacking group would engage the allied escort fighters, while the balance went after the bombers. This often swamped LOCAL allied fighter escorts at the interception point and was probably the best tactic available to the LW in view of their overall inferior numbers.

Allied numerical superiority? Yes, but not ubiquitously so. I think that is what this thread has been driving at.

Kettenhunde
02-04-2007, 06:29 PM
BUT it is a myth that the Germans were overwhelmed by superior Allied numbers?


Certainly.

The Allies never bothered to apply that numerical superiority in the air.

In fact Doolittle gave out the order that it would unfair and showcase the obvious superiority of the P51 Mustang. Show-off's do not get invited back for pudding. Mustang's could engage if they had less than a 2:1 disadvantage. If they did not then some of the squadrons would have to leave or they could not have a pudding cup. That is why so many allied pilot flew their whole tour without seeing a fight. But they did get pudding.

The Luftwaffe outnumbered the USAAF in air. If they did not then of course they waited until the some of the P51's would leave as per Doolittles other order. If they did not leave then they wouldn't get pudding.

Who needs facts. Let's just make this up as we go.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

All the best,

Crumpp

NekoReaperman
02-04-2007, 06:39 PM
What the hell do you mean exactly by "pudding"?

Your explanation is confusing...

Kettenhunde
02-04-2007, 06:57 PM
What the hell do you mean exactly by "pudding"?

http://www.snackpack.com/pages/index.html#

LStarosta
02-04-2007, 07:01 PM
Pg 12.

Awesome.

Cajun76
02-04-2007, 07:40 PM
Starosta......whatever..you do.......keep posting.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif





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

Cajun76
02-04-2007, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BUT it is a myth that the Germans were overwhelmed by superior Allied numbers?


Certainly.

The Allies never bothered to apply that numerical superiority in the air.

In fact Doolittle gave out the order that it would unfair and showcase the obvious superiority of the P51 Mustang. Show-off's do not get invited back for pudding. Mustang's could engage if they had less than a 2:1 disadvantage. If they did not then some of the squadrons would have to leave or they could not have a pudding cup. That is why so many allied pilot flew their whole tour without seeing a fight. But they did get pudding.

The Luftwaffe outnumbered the USAAF in air. If they did not then of course they waited until the some of the P51's would leave as per Doolittles other order. If they did not leave then they wouldn't get pudding.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Who needs facts. Let's just make this up as we go.</span>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's been working for the "Luftwaffe was vastly outnumbered every time and every situation but had superior aircraft, pilots and waffles than everyone else" crowd for years now....



Pffffft. Better waffles, my arse.

Kettenhunde
02-04-2007, 08:22 PM
It's been working for the "Luftwaffe was vastly outnumbered every time and every situation but had superior aircraft, pilots and waffles than everyone else" crowd for years now....

There does not seem to be any difficulty with exchanging one form of fantasy for another.

Jaws2002
02-04-2007, 08:55 PM
Ok here we go.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Puding</span> vs <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Waffles</span>. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Let the Fight begin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/popcorn1.gif

BTW: L.Starosta keep posting. That's some airpower. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-04-2007, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
It's been working for the "Luftwaffe was vastly outnumbered every time and every situation but had superior aircraft, pilots and waffles than everyone else" crowd for years now....

Pffffft. Better waffles, my arse. ROTFL

Akronnick
02-04-2007, 10:22 PM
Aren't Waffles a Belgian invention? And are we talking about English Pudding or American Pudding?

Cajun76
02-04-2007, 11:23 PM
If a knife will stick up in it, then it's English pudding.

Cajun76
02-04-2007, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
Ok here we go.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Puding</span> vs <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Waffles</span>. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Let the Fight begin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/popcorn1.gif

BTW: L.Starosta keep posting. That's some airpower. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Let me help you out:

<span class="ev_code_RED">Pudding</span> vs. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">Waffles</span>

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

Ratsack
02-04-2007, 11:51 PM
What a load of sh1te.

Ratsack

horseback
02-05-2007, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Akronnick:
Aren't Waffles a Belgian invention? And are we talking about English Pudding or American Pudding? Which explains why the Germans always invade France through Belgium. Belgian waffles with French syrup (the logistics of invading Vermont for its vastly superior maple syrup being well beyond the abilities of even the German army at the time).

Apparently, Poland was invaded for its breakfast hams, and Russia for its -what?-black bread for ham sandwiches? And Denmark for its butter and cheeses, Norway for its herring...

I'm getting hungry. I may invade Mexico for some fish tacos.

My original point was that all the Spitfires and Thunderbolts in the world could not cover the bombers over Germany in January 1944 unless you laid them end to end. From the standpoint of the LW, 10 Messerschmitts over the Ruhr were sufficient to hold off 500 Thunderbolts taking off from East Anglia in January of 1944.

10 Mustangs taking off from East Anglia were a whole different proposition.

cheers

horseback

Feathered_IV
02-05-2007, 12:17 AM
http://judgeinjury.homestead.com/files/TTT_Page_Twelve__Color_.jpg

It's impossible to tell from just reading the comic. But it IS page twelve. Just believe me, I won't be proving it.

MrMojok
02-05-2007, 12:20 AM
pffft. Bunch of lightweights.

Blutarski2004
02-05-2007, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Apparently, Poland was invaded for its breakfast hams, and Russia for its -what?-black bread for ham sandwiches?


..... Russia was invaded for the good vodka necessary to make proper mimosas and bloody marys. Any military historian ought to know that.

LStarosta
02-05-2007, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Apparently, Poland was invaded for its breakfast hams, and Russia for its -what?-black bread for ham sandwiches?


..... Russia was invaded for the good vodka necessary to make proper mimosas and bloody marys. Any military historian ought to know that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, Russian vodka tastes like rubbing alcohol. Polish vodka is where it's at.

msalama
02-05-2007, 07:31 AM
Russian vodka tastes like rubbing alcohol.

Nah, Stolisnaya's pretty decent actually http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JSG72
02-05-2007, 02:15 PM
Doh! There is only one winner in this thread.

And that could be the overwhelming number of Buckaroos. adding to it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW. Pudding as yous' call it is actually spelt with 2 "us" and a Treble "g"

As in Puuddinggg. Whereas Waffles are significantly more exacting and are precisely as described. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

"Wodka" Is my drink of choice. best enjoyed with some crushed ICE and a Scurvy preventative of Lime.

Kindoff. Like the drink I have just spilled over my keyboard http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Blutarski2004
02-05-2007, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
BTW. Pudding as yous' call it is actually spelt with 2 "us" and a Treble "g"

As in Puuddinggg.


..... That spelling implies that "puuddinggg" might actually be Welsh in origin ..... ;-]

JSG72
02-05-2007, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
BTW. Pudding as yous' call it is actually spelt with 2 "us" and a Treble "g"

As in Puuddinggg.


..... That spelling implies that "puuddinggg" might actually be Welsh in origin ..... ;-] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The implications of the Double and treble standard. Can be traced. To many languages.

Not just the Welsh. Per Se?

There are many referances of the "Double U" and perhaps less common Triple "G" being used within the context of Sweetmeats.

Throughout Written history.

Examples of which.. Elude me.

However. For "Those in the Know"?

A Quick "Google Search" Will perhaps clear things up?

After all?

For those concerned?

More enlightenment can be had? If "The Truth will out" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

BTW. NOOTTT! OFF Topic!

Notice how I used the "Old Etruscan" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif spelling of NOT?

As opposed to the Luftwaffe spelling as "NIEN"

Or indeed. The informal US. "NOPE" or assured "NO SIREE".

Will Rest be assured.

I will manage to remove this Sticky Lime Cordial Mess. From my keyboard. Before the week is Ower! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Cajun76
02-05-2007, 03:30 PM
The only reason I'm still sticking with this thread is I'm hoping Luke's gonna post the whole pic from his sig.

Yes, I know I am. Don't hate me for it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

JSG72
02-05-2007, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
The only reason I'm still sticking with this thread is I'm hoping Luke's gonna post the whole pic from his sig.

Yes, I know I am. Don't hate me for it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Hey! 13, and rolling.

Lukes. Fanboy?

Sticky Toffee. (Stick on Topic.).

Was the LW. Overwhelmed by P51s?

I Say Yes! In as much as they gave up on the "Western Front" because of this.

And then moved All! and I mean ALL!!! Forces towards the "Eastern Front". As of Late January 1945. IE. All those beloved TA 152s/109ks/FW190d-9s and left the "Western Allies". To try their hand against the Me 262s of the JG and KG(J) Geschwader as disposed?

Slickun
02-05-2007, 04:18 PM
The timeline for the introduction of the P-51B/C is well know and easily looked up. Groups were added at about the same time P-38 groups were added.

After the Schweinfurt raid in Oct 43 there was little doubt that the LW had air superiority over most of the continent. There were basically no deep penetration raids until January of 1944. Officially, the AAF said it was due to weather. That, and recovery from a vicious pasting at the hands of the LW are the reasons. The first P-38 unit became operational a month or so before the first Merlin Mustang Unit, which was in the 9th AF and loaned to the 8th.

By the time the Merlins were operational the P-38's contribution to the defeat of the LW was small, only a few E/A destroyed. P-47's had been going tow to tow for months, and their contribution cannot be denied.

BUT, there was a several month stand down, for reasons above, in the last months of 1943, and both sides had rested, re-tooled, and were itching to get at each other.

P-51's and P-38's provided deep cover for the Heavies, the P-47's escorted to the limit of their range, and turned back. The Mustangs and Lightnings took over from there. The planes escorted in RELAYS, not a huge gaggle. If 200 planes are listed as escort, some would be short ranged Spits, others P-47's, and then Lightnings and Mustangs, each only covering a portion out and inbound. All 200 did not escort the entire way, turning back at fuel limits. The P-38 unit would fly to the rendezvous point and pick up the formation at a point other planes, likely P-47's, turned back.

50 LW planes managing to intercept the bombers would be guaranteed to outnumber the escorts. Probably one group would be on station, 50 some planes. One squadron front, one each side, covering the entire miles long formation. Probably about 16 escorts to blunt the interception.

P-51 Groups outscored the P-38 groups by a factor of 4, the P-47 groups by a factor of 2. The total kills favored the Jug in Jan and Feb, due to so many more flying, was about even in March, and from then on the Mustang far exceeded other types kill stats. Same missions, over the same ground, often going against the same pilots.

Long ranged escorts enabled the continuation of a war winning strategy. Without them, the Brits were right, daylight bombing had become almost suicidal in late 43.

During JAn-May 1944 the issue of air superiority was decided. During this time P-51's downed more planes than the other types, even though greatly outnumbered by P-47 groups. They did not face the leftovers from P-47 and P-38 devastation, they went up, outnumbered, against a rested and superb foe in fine aircraft.

The numbers of losses the LW faced in those months was unsustinable, and can be seen in many pubs, Galland's "The First and the Last", Caldwell's "JG-26, Top Guns of the LW", or Boyne's "Clash of Wings".

In summary,
the LW was not defeated in Dec 1943.
Mustangs did not appear in great numbers until after the Jan-May 1944 critical time frame
Mustang groups were much more successful than P-47 and P-38 groups in this time frame.
Mustangs had more kills total than the P-47's in this time frame, even though being in much smaller numbers.
LW formations intercepting bomber groups past P-47 range could count on outnumbering the escorts.

Buzzsaw-
02-05-2007, 04:47 PM
Salute

Just so people don't get their facts wrong.

The 8th AAF was not putting huge numbers of aircraft in the air in late '43 and early '44.

Considering the fact that the USAAF escorts had to escort a 'stream' of bombers, which could be up to 100 miles in length. A Fighter Group, which was three Squadrons, each of 16 aircraft, 48 planes, could not cover the entire stream, it would be assigned to protect a single bomber 'box', which was approx. 64 aircraft. There could be 15 boxes in the bomber stream. And that wasn't the end of the escorts difficulties. Because the escorts could not cruise at the same speed as the bombers, they had to fly a zigzag pattern over them, thus flying a longer distance and using more fuel. Thus one Fighter Group could not escort all the way to target and back, even on shorter missions. Normally the Fighters would be organized to fly 'handoffs', ie. one Fighter Group would escort a Box on the way to target, then another Group would pick the bomber box up after target. On really long missions, there would need to be three separate Fighter Groups per box.

Meanwhile the Luftwaffe would mass its interceptors out of range of the bombers, form them up, and then commit them at a single bomber box. Usually the Luftwaffe controller would manage to put together two or three Gruppes for a single interception. Each Gruppe would usually be around 30-50 aircraft.

So what this meant is that the typical interception would see between 60-100 Luftwaffe Fighters, pitted against a box of approx. 60 B-17's or B-24's, escorted by 48 USAAF Fighters. Most often there would be less USAAF fighters at the point of attack, because the escorting Squadrons were positioned with one on the left of the bombers, one on the right, and one up ahead. So sometimes you would see a single Squadron of 16 USAAF Fighters meeting the attack initially. If the Germans hung around for a series of passes, then the rest of the USAAF Fighter Group would enter the engagement.

There would be multiple encounters up and down the bomber stream, of this type of intercept, with the Luftwaffe controllers trying to focus their available fighters on a single bomber box, which after the first attack, would have many damaged aircraft which were easier targets, plus the USAAF escorts would likely be disorganized or scattered. There was a great temptation on the part of the Fighters, to chase the German interceptors down below the altitude of their bombers and get the kill, but when they did that, it was almost impossible to regain the escort position. Which is why USAAF Fighter Groups such as the Tuskegee Airmen, who lost few if any bombers, were so respected for their discipline in staying with the bombers.

The USAAF Fighters would whenever possible, try to engage the Luftwaffe interceptors out ahead of the bombers, to breakup their formation, and make them hit the bombers in a disorganized and straggling series of attacks, instead of a massed group.

The Luftwaffe would sometimes send special interceptor Gruppes, equipped with the 109's with the larger Supercharger, and MW-50, and without gunpods, to engage and draw off the escorts. Most 109's were equipped with Gunpods, because the single 20mm in the nose was not enough to take down a B-17 or B-24. The largest percentage of interceptors were 109's, not 190's, and in IL-2 game terms, they were the 109G6 Late. 190's would be mostly 190A6's and A7's in early '44.

The Luftwaffe also had the Zerstorer Gruppes, which the controllers would attempt to send in after the initial single engined attacks, when the escorts were disorganized, but often the intercept planning was not good and these Gruppes would run into untouched USAAF formations, with their Fighter Groups in place.

Here are some sample excerpts from the USAAF War diaries, showing OOB's for particular days during the Battle for Germany.

>>>>

December 20th 1943

STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): VIII Bomber Command Mission 159:
the port area at Bremen, Germany is hit. 357 of 407 B-17's, 103 of 127 B-24's
and 12 of 12 PFF aircraft hit the target at 1142-1214 hours; they claim
21-14-23 Luftwaffe aircraft; 21 B-17's and 6 B-24's are lost; 3 B-17's are
damaged beyond repair; 213 B-17's and 34 B-24's are damaged; casualties are
9 KIA, 41 WIA and 270 MIA. Window-metal foil strips which, when dropped from
an airplane, provide an echo which confuses radar locating equipment is used
for the first time on an Eighth Air Force mission. This mission is escorted
by 26 P-38's, 418 P-47's and 47 Ninth Air Force P-51's; they claim 19-3-6
Luftwaffe aircraft; 2 P-47's and 4 P-51's are lost; 1 P-47 is damaged beyond
repair and 5 P-47's are damaged; casualties are 1 WIA and 5 MIA. Twin-engine,
rocket-firing Luftwaffe fighters attack under protection of single engine
airplanes.
VIII Bomber Command Mission 160: 5 B-17's drop 1 million leaflets on
Lille and Lens, France and Ghent and Brussels, Belgium at 2005-2015 hours;
no losses.

February 4th 1944

STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 208: 589 B-17s and 159
B-24s are dispatched to attack industry and railroad yards at Frankfurt/
Main, Germany; 346 B-17s and 27 B-24s hit the target; due to weather and
navigational problems, 122 B-17s hit Giessen, 51 B-17s hit Wiesbaden, 17
B-24s hit the Trier area, 15 B-24s hit the Arloff area, 2 B-24s hit the
Russelheim area, 1 B-24 hits Grafenhausen, 1 B-24 hits Darmstadt, 1 B-17 and
1 B-24 hit Koblenz and 26 B-24s and 23 B-17s hit unknown targets; they
claim 4-0-1 Luftwaffe aircraft; 18 B-17s and 2 B-24s are lost, 2 B-17s and
1 B-24 are damaged beyond repair and 359 aircraft are damaged; casualties are
7 KIA, 20 WIA and 203 MIA. Escort is provided by 56 P-38s, 537 Eighth and
Ninth Air Force P-47s and 44 Ninth Air Force P-51s; they claim 8-0-4
Luftwaffe aircraft; 1 P-38 is lost, 1 P-47 is damaged beyond repair and 5
P-38s and 4 P-47s are damaged; casualties are 1 MIA.
Mission 209: 7 of 7 B-17s drop 319 bundles of leaflets on Lorient, Tours,
Nantes, Raismes, Lille and Cambrai, France and Antwerp, Belgium at 2102-2132
hours without loss.


February 10th 1944

STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 216: 141 of 169 B-17s hit
the industrial area at Brunswick, Germany and 2 hit targets of opportunity;
they claim 42-30-61 Luftwaffe aircraft; 29 B-17s are lost, 1 is damaged
beyond repair and 52 damaged; casualties are 2 KIA, 3 WIA and 295 MIA; escort
is provided by 64 P-38s, 357 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s and 45 Ninth
Air Force P-51s; they claim 56-1-40 Luftwaffe aircraft in the air and 0-0-2
on the ground; 5 P-38s and 4 P-47s are lost, 1 P-38 and 1 P-51 are damaged
beyond repair and 6 P-47s are damaged; casualties are 1 KIA, 1 WIA and 9
MIA. 27 of 81 B-24s hit the Gilze-Rijen Airfield, The Netherlands; dense
contrails and frost prevent most aircraft from attacking; 4 B-24s are
damaged beyond repair; casualties are 26 KIA and 14 WIA; escort is provided
by 91 P-47s without loss.
Mission 217: In a CARPETBAGGER mission, 5 of 5 B-17s drop 260 bundles of
leaflets on Rennes, Caen, Rouen and Amiens, France and Antwerp, Belgium at
2111-2145 hours without loss.
HQ 364th Fighter Group and 383d, 384th and 385th Fighter Squadrons arrive
at Honington, England from the US with P-38J's; first mission is 2 Mar.

February 19th 1944

EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (ETO)

STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 226: The Eighth Air Force
begins "Big Week," attacks on German aircraft plants and airfields. For the
first time, over 1,000 bombers are dispatched; 21 bombers and 4 fighters
are lost hitting 3 areas in Germany, i.e.:
1. 417 B-17s are dispatched to Leipzig/Mockau Airfield, and aviation
industry targets at Heiterblick and Abnaundorf; 239 hit the primary targets,
37 hit Bernburg, 44 hit Oschersleben and 20 hit other targets of opportunity;
they claim 14-5-6 Luftwaffe aircraft; 7 B-17s are lost, 1 damaged beyond
repair and 161 damaged; casualties are 7 KIA, 17 WIA and 72 MIA.
2. 314 B-17s are dispatched to the Tutow Airfield; 105 hit the primary and
immediate area, 76 hit Rostock and 115 hit other targets of opportunity; they
claim 15-15-10 Luftwaffe aircraft; 6 B-17s are lost, 1 damaged beyond repair
and 37 damaged; casualties are 3 KIA and 60 MIA.
3. 272 B-24s are dispatched to aviation industry targets at Brunswick,
Wilhelmtor and Neupetritor; 76 hit the primary, 87 hit Gotha, 13 hit
Oschersleben, 58 hit Helmstedt and 10 hit other targets of opportunity; they
claim 36-13-13 Luftwaffe aircraft; 8 B-24s are lost, 3 damaged beyond repair
and 37 damaged; casualties are 10 KIA, 10 WIA and 77 MIA.
Missions 1 and 3 above are escorted by 94 P-38s, 668 Eighth and Ninth Air
Force P-47s and 73 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s; they claim 61-7-37
Luftwaffe aircraft; 1 P-38, 2 P-47s and 1 P-51 is lost, 2 P-47s are damaged
beyond repair and 4 aircraft are damaged; casualties are 4 MIA.
Mission 227: 4 of 5 B-17s drop 200 bundles of leaflets on Tours, Nantes,
Brest and Lorient, France at 2123-2200 hours without loss.

<<<<<<<<<

The claims by the USAAF bombers can be safely divided by 10 to get a realistic kill figure. The claims by the USAAF Fighters are probably an overclaim of around 1.5-1 or 2-1.

You can see that in the first raid I list in December, the Bombers get hammered, because of smaller numbers in the attacking force, and the fact that the 110's were able to get in and fire rockets at the bombers. In the last one I list, which was for the period better known as 'Big Week', the losses on the Luftwaffe side are pretty severe, even accounting for overclaiming.

JSG72
02-05-2007, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
The timeline for the introduction of the P-51B/C is well know and easily looked up. Groups were added at about the same time P-38 groups were added.

After the Schweinfurt raid in Oct 43 there was little doubt that the LW had air superiority over most of the continent. There were basically no deep penetration raids until January of 1944. Officially, the AAF said it was due to weather. That, and recovery from a vicious pasting at the hands of the LW are the reasons. The first P-38 unit became operational a month or so before the first Merlin Mustang Unit, which was in the 9th AF and loaned to the 8th.

By the time the Merlins were operational the P-38's contribution to the defeat of the LW was small, only a few E/A destroyed. P-47's had been going tow to tow for months, and their contribution cannot be denied.

BUT, there was a several month stand down, for reasons above, in the last months of 1943, and both sides had rested, re-tooled, and were itching to get at each other.

P-51's and P-38's provided deep cover for the Heavies, the P-47's escorted to the limit of their range, and turned back. The Mustangs and Lightnings took over from there. The planes escorted in RELAYS, not a huge gaggle. If 200 planes are listed as escort, some would be short ranged Spits, others P-47's, and then Lightnings and Mustangs, each only covering a portion out and inbound. All 200 did not escort the entire way, turning back at fuel limits. The P-38 unit would fly to the rendezvous point and pick up the formation at a point other planes, likely P-47's, turned back.

50 LW planes managing to intercept the bombers would be guaranteed to outnumber the escorts. Probably one group would be on station, 50 some planes. One squadron front, one each side, covering the entire miles long formation. Probably about 16 escorts to blunt the interception.

P-51 Groups outscored the P-38 groups by a factor of 4, the P-47 groups by a factor of 2. The total kills favored the Jug in Jan and Feb, due to so many more flying, was about even in March, and from then on the Mustang far exceeded other types kill stats. Same missions, over the same ground, often going against the same pilots.

Long ranged escorts enabled the continuation of a war winning strategy. Without them, the Brits were right, daylight bombing had become almost suicidal in late 43.

During JAn-May 1944 the issue of air superiority was decided. During this time P-51's downed more planes than the other types, even though greatly outnumbered by P-47 groups. They did not face the leftovers from P-47 and P-38 devastation, they went up, outnumbered, against a rested and superb foe in fine aircraft.

The numbers of losses the LW faced in those months was unsustinable, and can be seen in many pubs, Galland's "The First and the Last", Caldwell's "JG-26, Top Guns of the LW", or Boyne's "Clash of Wings".

In summary,
the LW was not defeated in Dec 1943.
Mustangs did not appear in great numbers until after the Jan-May 1944 critical time frame
Mustang groups were much more successful than P-47 and P-38 groups in this time frame.
Mustangs had more kills total than the P-47's in this time frame, even though being in much smaller numbers.
LW formations intercepting bomber groups past P-47 range could count on outnumbering the escorts.

And Yes indeed. It is nice to see Our most "Well Read" friends contributing to this Post!

Far be it. The Triumphs over the BF109s and FW190s. That Sergio is keen to post.

But in fact Victory over the tactical deployment of the Twin enginened "Destroyers". In use over the "Reich" at this period.
Was in Fact the Main ingredient in the introduction of more P51s to this Theatre.

The Fact. That Germany. Had to counter with a more efficient solution. (More heavily armed single seaters). Just adds weight to the discussion.

The numerical "Superiority" of LW. fighters Only happened on very few occasions (These are the ones we read about!).

Any other date is "Business as Usual". Hence the times when No enemy was encountred.

One has to remember that the escorts were not!!! The reason for interception.
The Bombers were what the Reich Defence was originally built to counter. When the Escorts got Too large? Well F**k Them! Lets go for the Ruskies instead.( They are a lot Redder? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

Russia! Won the War. P51s Just helped them do it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

luftluuver
02-05-2007, 04:55 PM
Have these been mentioned?

#158 The German Air Force versus the Allies in the West, The Air War in the West, by Josef Schmid and Walter Grabmann

#159 The German Air Force versus the Allies in the West, The German Air Defense, by Josef Schmid (1954)

#164 German Air Force Air Defense Operations, by Walter Grabmann

#189 Historical Turning Points in the German Air Force War Effort, by Richard Suchenwirth, edited by Edward P. Kennedy (1959). 143 pages.

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/numbered_studies/studies4.asp

All in PDF format.

Pirschjaeger
02-05-2007, 04:55 PM
The Germans were overwhelmed by a vast number of leaflets. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sergio_101
02-05-2007, 04:59 PM
Very good post Slickun:

The facts dictate a far different air war than the
luftwhiners like to use the Allied numerical
superiority as a crutch.
If they were to say something more intelligent
like "over all superiority in numbers" thay would
have an argument in their favor.
To say that P-51s excelled because of a numerical
advantage alone is perposterous.
By the time the overwhelming numbers did arrive, the
luftwaffe was defeated.

By the way guys, especially you luftwhiners...
Do some reading, the Allies were astounded at
the number of new and servicable German planes
on the ground. Germany never stopped cranking
out combat aircraft, untill after the surrender.
What kept them on the ground was obviously a lack of fuel.
Lack of pilots alone can not account for this.
Germany and Japan were placing men in the cockpit
who could take off and maybe land. The training systems
had collapsed and there was a distinct lack of men between 18 and 30
years of age.
Of course some Japansese only had to know how to take off.....
The planned "landing" needed little skill. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

after Jan 1945 there were more P-51s than the Allies could use.
Most never got to Europe. If Hitler had not shot himself
there were indeed clouds of P-51s to be in the sky in mid 1945.


Sergio

Blutarski2004
02-05-2007, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by JSG72:
BTW. NOOTTT! OFF Topic!

Notice how I used the "Old Etruscan" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif spelling of NOT?

As opposed to the Luftwaffe spelling as "NIEN"

Or indeed. The informal US. "NOPE" or assured "NO SIREE".




..... Other obscure regional American-English spellings of the word "no":

"nowae"

"nevahapn"

"yuuwish"

"fuggedabowdit'

"inyurdriemz"


;-)

Pirschjaeger
02-05-2007, 05:33 PM
Nein! N-I-E-N ist falsch. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JSG72
02-05-2007, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Very good post Slickun:

The facts dictate a far different air war than the
luftwhiners like to use the Allied numerical
superiority as a crutch.
If they were to say something more intelligent
like "over all superiority in numbers" thay would
have an argument in their favor.
To say that P-51s excelled because of a numerical
advantage alone is perposterous.
By the time the overwhelming numbers did arrive, the
luftwaffe was defeated.

By the way guys, especially you luftwhiners...
Do some reading, the Allies were astounded at
the number of new and servicable German planes
on the ground. Germany never stopped cranking
out combat aircraft, untill after the surrender.
What kept them on the ground was obviously a lack of fuel.
Lack of pilots alone can not account for this.
Germany and Japan were placing men in the cockpit
who could take off and maybe land. The training systems
had collapsed and there was a distinct lack of men between 18 and 30
years of age.
Of course some Japansese only had to know how to take off.....
The planned "landing" needed little skill. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

after Jan 1945 there were more P-51s than the Allies could use.
Most never got to Europe. If Hitler had not shot himself
there were indeed clouds of P-51s to be in the sky in mid 1945.


Sergio

WWII in Europe got into high gear in early 1940.
First P-51 flew May,1 1941.

For the first year all P-51s were Allison
powered and used as recon and low level co-op.
While a capable fighter that was not it's primary use.
The P-51 you all love to hate first flew May,5 1943!
First Merlin P-51B in May of 1943.....
First delivery of a P-51B to ETO (8th AF) was
in late November 1943.
First combat mission over Europe was in Dec 1943.
Some sources say the 13th, some say Christmass day (25th).
The so calles "vast numbers" did not appear untill
mid 1944! There were a thousand + ready for
the Normandy invasion.
But that's all, truth is probibly half that number
were cleared for action (squadron service).

Vast numbers? Show me the vast numbers!

In late 1944 the vast numbers did start to show themselves.
By then the Luftwaffe was already defeated.

Myth busted!

Truth is that a small number of badly out numbered P-51Bs
excelled in the escort role. The pilots scored a favorable
kill ratio against large numbers of German fighters.

Germany was outnumbered in one area, and one area only, heavy bombers.
Vastly out numbered. Germany never had a reliable heavy bomber.

Sergio

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kinda? Moved on from Original post?

Ehhh?

P51b/c? Won the War?

Many more pilots from both sides.

Had to give their all to win "The War"

Changes of Weapon. Dictated Strategies A6m2/T34/ppsh 41. Numercal numbers? Sherman/ Mustang.

But Holy Chr**t. Never one thing. (Other than perhaps th "A"Bomb?).But even then would the U.S. have used it against Germany? (Let's face it the Western allies. Hadn't a clue what was going on or what to expect).

They thought the Luftwaffe was defeated. And all of a sudden they were knocking 4% of our attacking strength , from the air. 4% of 1600. Is a lot of iron.

Be cautious. Let the Ruskies take the hit?

Lost opportunities? Another Thread? I dare you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Buzzsaw-
02-05-2007, 05:36 PM
Salute

Upper 1/3 of a Bomber box, as seen from middle section.

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/100/hudak-05.jpg

Flak over target:

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/457/usaf-457-01.jpg

Bomb drop:

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/457/usaf-457-13.jpg

P-47 Escort:

http://www.web-birds.com/8th/457/9.jpg


The Battle over Germany, if done properly with the right numbers of aircraft in the air, would be the most incredible wargame ever made.