PDA

View Full Version : P-51 Combat Reports



idonno
06-22-2008, 04:31 PM
I'm sure this won't stir up any controversy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

P-51 Combat Reports (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html)

Xiolablu3
06-22-2008, 05:43 PM
I think most have read them before mate.

I find them a very interesting read, but sokme of the numbers destroyed on single sorties seem a bit crazy.

I also question some of the claims. In the RAF and Luftwaffe the plane had to be SEEN to crash, and also have a definite witness.

The first report I just picked out was this one :-

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...2-halton-27nov44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/352-halton-27nov44.jpg)


He obviously never saw it crash or had a witness. I cant help but think other air forces were much more strict in their kills:claims.

I welcome comments on this if I am wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
06-22-2008, 05:57 PM
Pretty much all air forces had similar procedures for dealing with kills but depending on the instance there was either light to gross overclaiming...I've never ever read about underclaiming. Bomber gunners were by far the biggest overclaimers...simply because of their situation.

Remember that these are primary source historical documents in the form of after action reports. The claims made in there are not official kills unless I'm misunderstanding something about how the USAAF treats scoring. Many of those would go on to be verified as official but probably not all.

Nothing in any of the documents I read that would ever cause any controversy to those who don't want to stir one up. Is that the intention?

berg417448
06-22-2008, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


The first report I just picked out was this one :-

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...2-halton-27nov44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/352-halton-27nov44.jpg)


He obviously never saw it crash or had a witness. I cant help but think other air forces were much more strict in their kills:claims.

I welcome comments on this if I am wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


This is a combat report not a confirmed kill. A great many kill claims were not confirmed.

idonno
06-22-2008, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Nothing in any of the documents I read that would ever cause any controversy to those who don't want to stir one up. Is that the intention?

No, stirring up controversy wasn't my intention, but it occurred to me as I was posting the link that there are bound to be things in some of those reports that won't jive with what happens in-game.

badatit
06-22-2008, 07:12 PM
Yup...my favorite...
Engine Boost, Dive, and Turn

1st Lt. Raymond R. Flowers, 1 November 1944, 20th FG "I closed steadily pulling over 70 inches."

1st Lt. James F. Hinchey, 14 November 1944, 353rd FG "For fifteen minutes at 74" hg and indicating 600 mph..."

2nd Lt. Thomas R. Drybrough, 27 November 1944, 353rd FG "I had been pulling over 70" H.G. and was indicating about 425 MPH at approximately 14,000 feet."

1st Lt. Charles E. Yeager, 13 September 1944, 357th FG "I rolled over and was pulling around 70"Hg."

Capt. Charles E. Yeager, 6 November 1944, 357th FG "I got behind him and was pulling 75" Hg."

Lt. Col. Roy A. Webb, 25 June 1944, 361st FG "I closed very slowly and pulled as much as 70 inches of mercury."

1st Lt. Thomas H. Hall, 15 August 1944, 364th FG "I put on 70 inches and gradually pulled up on them."

Lt. Col. Kyle L. Riddle, 24 December 1944, 479th FG "I pulled about 70" to 75" mercury..."

Rjel
06-22-2008, 07:49 PM
Capt. Halton was indeed given credit for this action. However, since the 1950s, the USAF had/has reviewed combat claims numerous times. USAF Historical Study no.85 is probably the most comprehensive of these reviews. Many famous aces had their victory totals reduced due this study.

Before anyone on these boards dismisses these claims out of hand as over claiming, I'd suggest reviewing this study.

See the study here -
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/1039707.pdf

idonno
06-22-2008, 08:19 PM
1st Lt. James F. Hinchey, 14 November 1944, 353rd FG "For fifteen minutes at 74" hg and indicating 600 mph..."

Something's not right with this one. Six hundred miles per hour?!

Even Rare Bear, the fastest piston engined airplane in the world, with 4000+ hp, only claims a top speed of 540 mph.

berg417448
06-22-2008, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1st Lt. James F. Hinchey, 14 November 1944, 353rd FG "For fifteen minutes at 74" hg and indicating 600 mph..."

Something's not right with this one. Six hundred miles per hour?!

Even Rare Bear, the fastest piston engined airplane in the world, with 4000+ hp, only claims a top speed of 540 mph. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Indicated airspeed is different than true airspeed. Most likely involved diving.

Loco-S
06-22-2008, 08:35 PM
600 mph is :521.73913043478260869565217391304 knots

not unlikely on a shallow dive.


The Rare Bear is a World War II era Grumman F8F Bearcat. It has been restored, substantially modified and equipped with a Wright R3350 engine producing in excess of 4000 horsepower. This has allowed the Rare Bear to establish the Closed Course World Speed Record (528.3 mph) and 3000 Meter Time-To-Climb Record (91.9 seconds).

The Rare Bear was discovered as a severely damaged wreck in 1969 by Lyle Shelton. It had been abandoned next to a runway in an Indiana cornfield after a crash in 1962. The once proud airplane had been stripped by parts hunters, so Shelton found a fuselage, wing center section, landing gear and a right wing panel, but little else.

Seventh_Sonofa
06-22-2008, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
600 mph is :521.73913043478260869565217391304 knots

not unlikely on a shallow dive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Rare Bear is a World War II era Grumman F8F Bearcat. It has been restored, substantially modified and equipped with a Wright R3350 engine producing in excess of 4000 horsepower. This has allowed the Rare Bear to establish the Closed Course World Speed Record (528.3 mph) and 3000 Meter Time-To-Climb Record (91.9 seconds).

The Rare Bear was discovered as a severely damaged wreck in 1969 by Lyle Shelton. It had been abandoned next to a runway in an Indiana cornfield after a crash in 1962. The once proud airplane had been stripped by parts hunters, so Shelton found a fuselage, wing center section, landing gear and a right wing panel, but little else. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is at the extreme limit for a P-51.
Me thinks it may be over the T.O. limit by a few mph.
Also if Germany had such excellent kill confirmation then
the Allies lied about their combat aircraft production by about 2:1.
Also in the BOB both Britian and Germany are confirmed to
have over claimed by about 3:1.
Everyone knows the bomber gunners over claimed.
But with 100+ guns firing at the same airplane it was bound to happen.
The only outfit during WWII that required a wreck site confirmation
was the AVG AKA Flying Tigers. A Flying Tigers nightmare was to have his
kill crash in water or a deep rice paddy (they were paid $500 per kill).
Pappy Boyngton quit the AVG because several of his claims were disallowed
failing to have a wreck confirmation.

7eventh_Son

idonno
06-22-2008, 09:37 PM
Indicated airspeed is different than true airspeed. Most likely involved diving.

Indicated air speed is roughly equal to true airspeed at sea level and progressively becomes less than TAS as altitude increases, so that would not explain it.

It's a little unclear the way he writes it. "For fifteen minutes... indicating 600 mph, after my prolonged dive, I gave chase..." He must just mean that he got to 600 mph initially, and not that he maintained that speed for the entire 15 minutes.

He also wrote "I fired several burst at 800 yards, indicating 600 mph..." He doesn't say, but I have to believe that he did that at the very beginning, and immediately after, his dive.

It is quite interesting though, that the 262's did not pull away from him.

deepo_HP
06-22-2008, 11:57 PM
well, the report of 1st lt. hinchey is indeed some interesting piece of adventure.
he is at 2400m, when he sees 2 me-262 diving from 1200m. he gives his mustang some boost and nose-down and thereby reaches 885kmh indicated speed, when he closes to a distance of 730m to the me-262s. assuming, he is at some 800m altitude that time (since the me-262s are also diving and the dive later goes on), that makes roughly 910kmh tas.
the me-262s dive further down to 300m, he follows still on boost and reaching 965kmh ias (roughly equals tas). after 15 minutes they reach augsburg far south, still driving 965kmh (which is even for a me-262 quite astounding).
only by tricky evasives, the jets can get more distance to his mustang.
he finishes the report with the opinion, that he would have caught the jets with more available boost - which probably means being able for 1000kmh+ at sea-level flight.

honestly, that is not a report, but a fairy-tale... probably the reason, why it was held confidential.

a good read is also 1st lt. snell, who claims a kill of a bf-109 without a bullet, just by forcing the bf-109 into a too sharp turn at 1070kmh after diving - so it broke the poor thing.


sorry for my tone, but i found it funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
and maybe slightly controversary... in the meaning of credibility of those reports.

Xiolablu3
06-23-2008, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


The first report I just picked out was this one :-

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...2-halton-27nov44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/352-halton-27nov44.jpg)


He obviously never saw it crash or had a witness. I cant help but think other air forces were much more strict in their kills:claims.

I welcome comments on this if I am wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


This is a combat report not a confirmed kill. A great many kill claims were not confirmed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the info Berg.

b2spirita
06-23-2008, 02:31 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by deepo_HP:

a good read is also 1st lt. snell, who claims a kill of a bf-109 without a bullet, just by forcing the bf-109 into a too sharp turn at 1070kmh after diving - so it broke the poor thing.


QUOTE]

I read chuck yeagers autobiography, in which he claimed 2 109's which crashed into one another after he fied at one of them. Surely that cant count?

ImpStarDuece
06-23-2008, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by Seventh_Sonofa:

Also in the BOB both Britian and Germany are confirmed to
have over claimed by about 3:1.


???

I don't have any figures for the Luftwaffe, but the British officially claimed about 2,850 kills, between day and night fighters, and ended up getting about 1,800-1,900 actuall kills/write-offs.

That is a 3:2 ratio, which is not suprising, as most of the fighting took place over British territory.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-23-2008, 05:49 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 berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


The first report I just picked out was this one :-

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-repor...2-halton-27nov44.jpg (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/352-halton-27nov44.jpg)


He obviously never saw it crash or had a witness. I cant help but think other air forces were much more strict in their kills:claims.

I welcome comments on this if I am wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


This is a combat report not a confirmed kill. A great many kill claims were not confirmed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the info Berg. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not that easy.

While these kills were not confirmed at the date the battle took place, a lot of Allied troops got rewarded for it later on. We found that information true, for a lot of aces we saw combat-reports from.

The US-command frequently initiated a command that made all probable kills definite kills, not only for killing bandits, but also for ground-targets and shipping. As I posted before, that lead to the odd account that up to the end of the war 700% of all German submarines were sunk by US-forces. As an interesting account, it was a general order at the end of the war to credit all probables as lost.

Today a lot of documents are based on these values, while you only find a few that actually compared numbers from both sides.

Kettenhunde
06-23-2008, 06:12 AM
For fifteen minutes... indicating 600 mph, after my prolonged dive

Fly a constant speed propeller, dive and watch your manifold pressure if you don't adjust the throttle.

All the best,

Crumpp

berg417448
06-23-2008, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by b2spirita:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by deepo_HP:

a good read is also 1st lt. snell, who claims a kill of a bf-109 without a bullet, just by forcing the bf-109 into a too sharp turn at 1070kmh after diving - so it broke the poor thing.


QUOTE]

I read chuck yeagers autobiography, in which he claimed 2 109's which crashed into one another after he fied at one of them. Surely that cant count?

It is called a manuever kill. Enemy aircraft was destroyed as a direct result of your actions. As I recall, Erich Hartmann received credit for several Il-2 kills when they crashed into the ground attempting to evade his attack.

Seventh_Sonofa
06-23-2008, 08:59 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 Seventh_Sonofa:

Also in the BOB both Britian and Germany are confirmed to
have over claimed by about 3:1.


???

I don't have any figures for the Luftwaffe, but the British officially claimed about 2,850 kills, between day and night fighters, and ended up getting about 1,800-1,900 actuall kills/write-offs.

That is a 3:2 ratio, which is not suprising, as most of the fighting took place over British territory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Write offs for all causes.
Typically losses for all causes run a little less
than 50% in actual combat.
Mech failure, pilot error and weather accounted
for most losses for all combatants during WWII.
Bombers tended to do a little better and fighters worse for non combat attrition.
Do the math.
Overclaiming was rampant on all sides. Addition
of gun cameras helped but did not solve the problem.
A gun camera could show the same plane getting destroyed by 5 different fighters.
German kill confirmation is a myth perpetuated by Luftwaffe worshipers.
Russian losses on given dates show similar results.
Luftwaffe pilots overclaimed by about 3:1.
Ok, before you get all hot and bothered, US Navy claims
during the Mariannas campaign show a over claiming rate of about 30% against Japanese records.
Now figure in the attrition rate to non combat causes.

No one was perfect. AVG came the closest since
the Chineese paid for each wreck.

7eventh_son

K_Freddie
06-23-2008, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
600 mph is :521.73913043478260869565217391304 knots

You're out by -2 in the 15 decimal digit.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

R_Target
06-23-2008, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Seventh_Sonofa:
Ok, before you get all hot and bothered, US Navy claims
during the Mariannas campaign show a over claiming rate of about 30% against Japanese records.
7eventh_son

Last time I checked this, it was about 1.3 to 1 claims vs. actual. That's giving the IJN the maximum benefit of the doubt on their loss figures. S.E. Morison reports one air battle where USN claims were around 100 planes less than enemy losses. For 1945 battles overclaiming probably went up as a lot of combat-green squadrons went out to boost CAP strength against IJN Special Attack units.

Kurfurst__
06-23-2008, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Seventh_Sonofa:
<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 Seventh_Sonofa:

Also in the BOB both Britian and Germany are confirmed to
have over claimed by about 3:1.


???

I don't have any figures for the Luftwaffe, but the British officially claimed about 2,850 kills, between day and night fighters, and ended up getting about 1,800-1,900 actuall kills/write-offs.

That is a 3:2 ratio, which is not suprising, as most of the fighting took place over British territory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Write offs for all causes.
Typically losses for all causes run a little less
than 50% in actual combat.
Mech failure, pilot error and weather accounted
for most losses for all combatants during WWII.

7eventh_son </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct.

The Germans credited 1385 of their aircraft lost to enemy action during the four monts tradiationally associated with the Battle of Britain.
This includes aircraft that made it back to base but were written off as being too severly damaged (60-99%).
Its also all kind of enemy related losses (fighter, flak, night bombing sorties of the BC over France)

As to the ratio of written off/shot down aircraft it is unclear. But, for example, between 8 August - 30 September, the Germans lost 558 Me 109s and 110s as a total loss (100%, to all causes, either shot down or completely destroyed in accident) and have written off 88 to severe damage (60-99%); 55 were severely damaged but repairable (40-59%), 118 lightly damaged ones could be rather easily patched up.


...the British officially claimed about 2,850 kills...

I believe this only refers to as what the British claimed as 'Destroyed'. A large number of 'probably destroyed' were claimed as well, around 25-50% more, depending on the day.

R_Target
06-23-2008, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
The US-command frequently initiated a command that made all probable kills definite kills, not only for killing bandits, but also for ground-targets and shipping.

Which "US-command" was this exactly? Army? Navy? Both? Which officers made these commands, and how "frequently"? Could you also supply dates for these commands please?



As I posted before, that lead to the odd account that up to the end of the war 700% of all German submarines were sunk by US-forces.

Is this for USAAF and USN combined claims? Is this "700%" a percentage of the German subs actually sunk by the U.S., actually sunk by combined Allies , or a percentage of all German subs commissioned? Could you also name your source for USAAF and USN claims against U-boats?



As an interesting account, it was a general order at the end of the war to credit all probables as lost.

Who made this general order? In which branch(es) of the U.S. military? Which agencies received this order?

ImpStarDuece
06-23-2008, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:



...the British officially claimed about 2,850 kills...

I believe this only refers to as what the British claimed as 'Destroyed'. A large number of 'probably destroyed' were claimed as well, around 25-50% more, depending on the day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were probables awarded as kills? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Frequent_Flyer
06-23-2008, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Pretty much all air forces had similar procedures for dealing with kills but depending on the instance there was either light to gross overclaiming...I've never ever read about underclaiming. Bomber gunners were by far the biggest overclaimers...simply because of their situation.

Remember that these are primary source historical documents in the form of after action reports. The claims made in there are not official kills unless I'm misunderstanding something about how the USAAF treats scoring. Many of those would go on to be verified as official but probably not all.

Nothing in any of the documents I read that would ever cause any controversy to those who don't want to stir one up. Is that the intention?

Considering the source of this comment. I claim one " confused " Englishman fishing. I'm requesting Icefire to confirm.

R_Target
06-25-2008, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
The US-command frequently initiated a command that made all probable kills definite kills, not only for killing bandits, but also for ground-targets and shipping.

Which "US-command" was this exactly? Army? Navy? Both? Which officers made these commands, and how "frequently"? Could you also supply dates for these commands please?



As I posted before, that lead to the odd account that up to the end of the war 700% of all German submarines were sunk by US-forces.

Is this for USAAF and USN combined claims? Is this "700%" a percentage of the German subs actually sunk by the U.S., actually sunk by combined Allies , or a percentage of all German subs commissioned? Could you also name your source for USAAF and USN claims against U-boats?



As an interesting account, it was a general order at the end of the war to credit all probables as lost.

Who made this general order? In which branch(es) of the U.S. military? Which agencies received this order?

R_Target
06-28-2008, 05:10 PM
Bump. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
06-29-2008, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Pretty much all air forces had similar procedures for dealing with kills but depending on the instance there was either light to gross overclaiming...I've never ever read about underclaiming. Bomber gunners were by far the biggest overclaimers...simply because of their situation.

Remember that these are primary source historical documents in the form of after action reports. The claims made in there are not official kills unless I'm misunderstanding something about how the USAAF treats scoring. Many of those would go on to be verified as official but probably not all.

Nothing in any of the documents I read that would ever cause any controversy to those who don't want to stir one up. Is that the intention?

Considering the source of this comment. I claim one " confused " Englishman fishing. I'm requesting Icefire to confirm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pardon?

luftluuver
06-29-2008, 09:08 AM
IceFire, aren't you a Canuck?

Frequent_Flyer
06-29-2008, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Pretty much all air forces had similar procedures for dealing with kills but depending on the instance there was either light to gross overclaiming...I've never ever read about underclaiming. Bomber gunners were by far the biggest overclaimers...simply because of their situation.

Remember that these are primary source historical documents in the form of after action reports. The claims made in there are not official kills unless I'm misunderstanding something about how the USAAF treats scoring. Many of those would go on to be verified as official but probably not all.

Nothing in any of the documents I read that would ever cause any controversy to those who don't want to stir one up. Is that the intention?

Considering the source of this comment. I claim one " confused " Englishman fishing. I'm requesting Icefire to confirm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pardon? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I'was refering to Xiolablu as the " confused Englishman ". As you were questioning his agenda: "Nothing in any of the documents I read that would ever cause any controversy to those who don't want to stir one up. Is that the intention?"
His content to controversy ratio is in favor of the latter.

R_Target
07-01-2008, 07:54 PM
Bump.

VW-IceFire
07-02-2008, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Pretty much all air forces had similar procedures for dealing with kills but depending on the instance there was either light to gross overclaiming...I've never ever read about underclaiming. Bomber gunners were by far the biggest overclaimers...simply because of their situation.

Remember that these are primary source historical documents in the form of after action reports. The claims made in there are not official kills unless I'm misunderstanding something about how the USAAF treats scoring. Many of those would go on to be verified as official but probably not all.

Nothing in any of the documents I read that would ever cause any controversy to those who don't want to stir one up. Is that the intention?

Considering the source of this comment. I claim one " confused " Englishman fishing. I'm requesting Icefire to confirm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pardon? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I'was refering to Xiolablu as the " confused Englishman ". As you were questioning his agenda: "Nothing in any of the documents I read that would ever cause any controversy to those who don't want to stir one up. Is that the intention?"
His content to controversy ratio is in favor of the latter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got it.

And yes I'm a Canuck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but everyone assumes that since the Tempest is my favourite that I'm from the UK. Which would be partly true of my heritage but not myself specifically.

I wondered if the ratio would be as it is...not surprising. Good documents on the other hand. I love direct sources like that for all of their historical value...but they have to be appreciated in their context.

Saburo_0
07-02-2008, 09:34 PM
Just to chime in...crediting kills was good for morale. The high command taking them with a dose of salt was good for , shall we say a reality check. And it never hurts to over estimate your enemy, while underestimating them can be ..rather embarrassing.

WTE_Galway
07-02-2008, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Saburo_0:
Just to chime in...crediting kills was good for morale. The high command taking them with a dose of salt was good for , shall we say a reality check. And it never hurts to over estimate your enemy, while underestimating them can be ..rather embarrassing.

This was particularly so with air gunners in the 8th were high command were so desperate to bolster the impression the defensive gunnery was effective (it was not)they awarded an air medal to any gunner upon his first "kill".

The result was one famous period were 105 kills were accredited to USAAF air gunners during bombing raids over germany whilst the corresponding Luftwaffe records later revealed that in fact a grand total of two german fighters were actually shot down over the period.

Frequent_Flyer
07-02-2008, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Pretty much all air forces had similar procedures for dealing with kills but depending on the instance there was either light to gross overclaiming...I've never ever read about underclaiming. Bomber gunners were by far the biggest overclaimers...simply because of their situation.

Remember that these are primary source historical documents in the form of after action reports. The claims made in there are not official kills unless I'm misunderstanding something about how the USAAF treats scoring. Many of those would go on to be verified as official but probably not all.

Nothing in any of the documents I read that would ever cause any controversy to those who don't want to stir one up. Is that the intention?

Considering the source of this comment. I claim one " confused " Englishman fishing. I'm requesting Icefire to confirm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pardon? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I'was refering to Xiolablu as the " confused Englishman ". As you were questioning his agenda: "Nothing in any of the documents I read that would ever cause any controversy to those who don't want to stir one up. Is that the intention?"
His content to controversy ratio is in favor of the latter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got it.

And yes I'm a Canuck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but everyone assumes that since the Tempest is my favourite that I'm from the UK. Which would be partly true of my heritage but not myself specifically.

I wondered if the ratio would be as it is...not surprising. Good documents on the other hand. I love direct sources like that for all of their historical value...but they have to be appreciated in their context. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You may appreciate this site. There are a number of combat reports and interesting historical combat recollections if you click on the year and scroll thru the infomation.

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/9431/

idonno
07-02-2008, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:

You may appreciate this site.

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/9431/

Good stuff! ~S~

I got a kick out of this one.

"Stefan Janus recalls:
I commanded the 315th only for few months before I was shot down and became a P.O.W. Since everything was already written about dog fights, shooting and so on, and very little about cooperation between pilots and ops-rooms, I ˜d like to recall one event which illustrates how difficult this sometimes was, especially when dealing with young pilots.

One November evening, before a session of night training flights, I had a shorts briefing with a bunch of young pilots. I issued an order for pilots to have aircraft position lights on during take-off and landing. It was to be a short flight: take-off few rounds in airfield vicinity and landing. When third Spitfire took off I received telephone call from ops informing me that soon an enemy aircraft will pass near our airfield and my pilot is flying with his position lights on. Wrongdoer received an order to turn them on. He confirmed it but somehow couldn't remember how to switch these lights off. During a few anxious moments that followed, the controller tried to calm down the pilot. On a direct pilot's question:
How the hell you turn these bloody lights off?!, the controller not knowing Spitfire cockpit procedures and having nobody around to answer that replied: Try the opposite way you turned them on.
The lights went off in an instant and we all breathed with relive. Pilot had enough of flying for that night and soon after landing received a lot ribbing in NCOs mess. In officers mess we had our share of laughs as well."

R_Target
07-06-2008, 10:49 PM
Bump.

Dtools4fools
07-07-2008, 12:00 PM
The only outfit during WWII that required a wreck site confirmation
was the AVG AKA Flying Tigers. A Flying Tigers nightmare was to have his
kill crash in water or a deep rice paddy (they were paid $500 per kill).

Oh boy, that must been one hell of a deep rice paddy that an entire WWII fighter disappears in it...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

*****

R_Target
07-07-2008, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
Oh boy, that must been one hell of a deep rice paddy that an entire WWII fighter disappears in it...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hey, it was long grain rice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Frequent_Flyer
07-07-2008, 06:37 PM
Some more P- 51 fun !!!

http://506thfightergroup.org/missionjuly16.asp

R_Target
07-10-2008, 05:14 AM
Bump. Still seeking substantiation of Capt.LoneRanger's assertions above.