PDA

View Full Version : P-51 overrated? or not?



taiterbud
07-08-2004, 08:34 AM
Growing up in the U.S. and going to airshows, I think it is somewhat instilled in us that the mustang is the hero of all airplanes. I was always disappointed in performance of the mustangs in flight sims in general. Mostly the climb rate, acceleration, and turning ability. I have since read many books and biographies like that of Chuck Yeager and Bud Anderson and many others and come to couple of conclusions that I'd like some comments on. Firstly, I cant decide wether or not the sims are accurate. Both Yeager and Anderson claim the 51 could turn with the 109 and inside the 190. Not always the case in flight sims (reconizing of course the difference in models). Secondly, I believe the high sucess of the mustang in combat is probably due to the fact that the enemy was never out to shoot down mustangs, but bombers. Almost all of Yeagers and Andersons kills were them diving down on german fighters busy attacking bombers. Rarely, although there are stories, did these pilots face a german pilot on equal ground with the objective of a dogfight rather than taking out bombers. what do you guys think. Is the mustang overated due to the situation it was placed in?

taiterbud
07-08-2004, 08:34 AM
Growing up in the U.S. and going to airshows, I think it is somewhat instilled in us that the mustang is the hero of all airplanes. I was always disappointed in performance of the mustangs in flight sims in general. Mostly the climb rate, acceleration, and turning ability. I have since read many books and biographies like that of Chuck Yeager and Bud Anderson and many others and come to couple of conclusions that I'd like some comments on. Firstly, I cant decide wether or not the sims are accurate. Both Yeager and Anderson claim the 51 could turn with the 109 and inside the 190. Not always the case in flight sims (reconizing of course the difference in models). Secondly, I believe the high sucess of the mustang in combat is probably due to the fact that the enemy was never out to shoot down mustangs, but bombers. Almost all of Yeagers and Andersons kills were them diving down on german fighters busy attacking bombers. Rarely, although there are stories, did these pilots face a german pilot on equal ground with the objective of a dogfight rather than taking out bombers. what do you guys think. Is the mustang overated due to the situation it was placed in?

Slush69
07-08-2004, 08:38 AM
Nope. It's not overrated. It just played a key role in the war, and it sparks the imagination - maybe even too far for some.

Anyway, the Mustang was a decent fighter; no more than that. What turned it into a great asset was it's long range. The Mustang had the ability to be, where it mattered, and that made all the difference.

cheers/EoE

http://www.wilcks.dk/lort/Eurotrolls.gif

[This message was edited by Slush69 on Thu July 08 2004 at 07:47 AM.]

TgD Thunderbolt56
07-08-2004, 08:46 AM
I agree in general with Slush69. The points in your original post are valid as well. Most of the Mustangs from 44 on were the aggressors and took the fight to the Germans who were assigned the taks of trying to turn away the bombers.

The mustang was an excellent fighter and the addition of things like the "Ace-maker" gunsight, 2 more 50's (in the later models), it's incredibly long range and relatively smooth flight characteristics made it a good all-around fighter.

It wasn't the best in any category (with the exception of range) but was good enough in all of them to make it a force in the hands of a skilled pilot.

The bottom line is still the same though...it's the pilot not the plane.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/il2sig2.jpg

taiterbud
07-08-2004, 08:47 AM
Point well taken thunderbold56.

geetarman
07-08-2004, 08:58 AM
It was a great aircraft, as was the 109, 190, Zero, La-7, Spit, etc.

I'm not an expert on these things per se, but, if it was only a decent fighter, then the US Army Air Corps would not have been clamouring to have it replace most of its fighter squadrons towards the end of the war. They would not have kept it in service as long as they did and it would not have been exported to as many countries as did and used by them for as long as they did.

Was it perfect? No, of course not. Did a particular Russian or German or British or Japanese fighter have superior performance in a given area? Undoubtedly. But in sum, it was an exceptional aircraft and the game shows it. Flown right it will meet any opponent in the game on either a superior basis, or at least, on par.

Slush69
07-08-2004, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
It was a great aircraft, as was the 109, 190, Zero, La-7, Spit, etc.

I'm not an expert on these things per se, but, if it was only a decent fighter, then the US Army Air Corps would not have been clamouring to have it replace most of its fighter squadrons towards the end of the war. They would not have kept it in service as long as they did and it would not have been exported to as many countries as did and used by them for as long as they did.

Was it perfect? No, of course not. Did a particular Russian or German or British or Japanese fighter have superior performance in a given area? Undoubtedly. But in sum, it was an exceptional aircraft and the game shows it. Flown right it will meet any opponent in the game on either a superior basis, or at least, on par.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a jack of all trades and the master of none; with a long range though. As such it was a versatile aircraft, so it's not surprising it got a wide-spread use.

That does not mean it was a superiour fighter. It just means it could get you there, and, depending on the pilot, get the job done. That makes it a decent fighter and a great plane. Spot the difference?

cheers/slush

http://www.wilcks.dk/lort/Eurotrolls.gif

griego
07-08-2004, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slush69:
[QUOTE]

That does not mean it was a superiour fighter. It just means it could get you there, and, depending on the pilot, get the job done. That makes it a decent fighter and a great plane. Spot the difference?

cheers/slush

http://www.wilcks.dk/lort/Eurotrolls.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Superior is a relative term. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
In some aspects it was superior at high altitude. There were few planes that could match it or exceed it there.

LOL, saying it was a decent fighter and great plane. does not do it justice.

Especially in the tone of above qoute. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

That can be said about every WWII plane made.
There were no case of a plane being superior in every respect. They all had there disadvantages that could be address with the right tatics. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[This message was edited by griego on Thu July 08 2004 at 08:39 AM.]

[This message was edited by griego on Thu July 08 2004 at 08:40 AM.]

DINGHAO
07-08-2004, 09:43 AM
I would guess that the performance range for all of the top tier fighters would be close enough that it would be the pilot, and not the plane, that decided the matter.

As for the best US fighter (easier comparison maybe?)for its time and place in history, the P-51 was it for me.

Over all by the end of the war though, the F6F replacement (F8F?) was supposed to be a monster. AFIK did not fly combat, but was ready to go.

http://users.rcn.com/chao.enteract/pics/dinghaosig.jpg

horseback
07-08-2004, 09:53 AM
Mustangs didn't need great climb; they weren't interceptors. Mustangs didn't need instant accelleration; when they entered enemy territory, they made a point of already having their speed up to where they held the handling advantage (US fighters tended to handle better in comparison to Axis fighters the faster the planes flew up to the summer of 1944. After that, it didn't matter, because the LW didn't have the manufacturing quality, fuel, maintenance, or personnel to make it a fight).

As for dogfighting, that was a rarity. Most fighter vs fighter victories were ambushes; the victim never saw it coming until it was too late. There were a couple of major reasons that Mustangs matched up well against the 109 and FW over Europe.

First, they were already up high and fast, and the Germans had to climb up to them to get at the bombers. That means that the escorts would enjoy the twin energy advantages of of height and speed. Because of the Germans' limited range, they couldn't loiter over likely target areas and wait for the Americans to come to them on a regular basis. So they climbed up to altitude to arrive on the edge of overheating, probably with their eyes on the larger and more easily spotted bombers. Even if the escorts missed them, they only had time for two or three passes at the 'fat autos' before they had to RTB.

Second, a German pilot in trouble tended to dive. It was a tactic that worked well against the British and the Russians, but the Americans flew heavier and sleeker aircraft at much higher altitudes. Even though a 109 or 190 held an initial accelleration advantage in a dive, doing so from 8000m (approx. 25000ft) gave a Mustang or Thunderbolt plenty of time to catch up, and generally, these aircraft handled better at higher speeds with a later onset of compressability. This allowed them to pull out safely a bit later than a 190A-7/8 or 109G-6 (the types most encountered before D-Day, when the bulk of the damage to the LW was accomplished), for instance.

Later model German fighters were improved in response to the Mustang, but by that time, German manufacturing quality was almost nonexistant, fuel and lubricating oil was of wretched quality, and the maintenance at forward bases was not up to peacetime standards. Of course, they were also blanketed by hordes of Allied fighters roaming over Europe.

To the average Allied pilot, German aircraft probably didn't apppear to improve markedly from D-Day to VE Day. Now, of course, we realize the terrific accomplishments of engineering under stress made by FW and the Messerschmitt companies, but the aircraft that made it to combat rarely performed up to factory standards.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

WWMaxGunz
07-08-2004, 10:18 AM
There certainly were German fighters out to attack Allied fighters! 109's were sent just
to attack and harry the escorts. When a bombing run was over, the P-51's went down and
attacked ground targets on the way back for what was known as collateral damage that did
include airfields. Did the LW just hide? I don't think so! P-47's and P-51's would get
onto Me-262's on landing approach... the LW would have planes up to thwart that as possible.
There were also encounters in fighter sweeps made by both sides... Chuck Yeager was shot
down over France and the guy that did it wasn't aiming for a bomber!

Not the best fighter, but in the top rank. 190's improved as did 109's, Spitfires, La's
and so did the P-51's. Compare the late model P-51-H's to the ubiquitous D's. Mustang
was one of the top speed demons. Sorriest thing about it was lack of cannon, IMHO, and
that wasn't much of a handicap against other fighters -- I just feel that other planes
with bigger guns were able to engage heavier targets better.


Neal

taiterbud
07-08-2004, 10:23 AM
Thats exactly what I was trying to say by "situational glory." That is probably why alot of pilots (i know im not the only one) get into these sims and jump in a mustang expecting a superb aircraft in all aspects as we are sometimes lured into thinking. Fact of the matter is, the mustang can be a great airplane when it is flown in its element as described by horseback. Unfortunatly that element is not always easily found in online dogfighting as most encounters are low level co-alt, co-energy fights, just where the mustang doesnt shine in contrast to the 109 or other fighters. I am though, by no means, stating that a good pilot cant pull it off, just that it will not be as easy as one could expect.

Chuck_Older
07-08-2004, 10:37 AM
It was the right tool for the job

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

F19_Ob
07-08-2004, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by taiterbud:
Growing up in the U.S. and going to airshows, I think it is somewhat instilled in us that the mustang is the hero of all airplanes. I was always disappointed in performance of the mustangs in flight sims in general. Mostly the climb rate, acceleration, and turning ability. I have since read many books and biographies like that of Chuck Yeager and Bud Anderson and many others and come to couple of conclusions that I'd like some comments on. Firstly, I cant decide wether or not the sims are accurate. Both Yeager and Anderson claim the 51 could turn with the 109 and inside the 190. Not always the case in flight sims (reconizing of course the difference in models). Secondly, I believe the high sucess of the mustang in combat is probably due to the fact that the enemy was never out to shoot down mustangs, but bombers. Almost all of Yeagers and Andersons kills were them diving down on german fighters busy attacking bombers. Rarely, although there are stories, did these pilots face a german pilot on equal ground with the objective of a dogfight rather than taking out bombers. what do you guys think. Is the mustang overated due to the situation it was placed in?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


------------------------------------------------------------
I have come across the following standard tactic when a 109 got a p51 on their tail ; They used to dive away vertical, and if the p51's would follow they'd loose their wings.

This is an article by Mark Hanna about flying the 109:
Klick on "Flying the 109" and then "Mark hanna":
http://www.bf109.com/frameset.html

A quote from the article:

"So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109. Other factors affecting the '109 as a combat plane include the small cramped cockpit. This is quite a tiring working environment, although the view out (in flight) is better than you might expect; the profuseion of canopy struts is not particularly a problem."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/en/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

Quotes:
"Now the big difference, talking about the airplanes we confronted. The Americans came in P-47 or P-38 or -P51. Their engines flew 7 â˝ hours with internal tank fuel, not external tank. We, and all continental aircraft, including the Spitfires, all the French planes, flew 1 hour 20. We had an external tank, but you had to drop the tank because it reduced mobility. This was a tremendous handicap against the Americans."
-------------------------------------------

" I only flew the P-51, P-47, P-38 as a target for my students. So I learned these planes and I learned the advantages and disadvantages compared with the Focke-Wulf 190 and the 109. And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable. When I got in, the first thing, I got in the cockpit and I saw electric starting system. I remember wank, wank in Russia (refers to the manual starter by mechanics). Her (P-51) press button, prrrd, then we go (electrical starter, easy engine starter). Fantastic. Beautiful sight (visibility). We never had this sight to the back.. Very stable undercarriage. Very good weapons set. So I think this was a very good airplane. I flew it a few times, then I flew the P-47, then I discovered the speed difference, down, perfect. P-38. And I flew the Spitfire. The Spitfire was a fantastic airplane, but with a limited endurance like all the continental aircraft. So this was a good lecture for me."


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

taiterbud
07-08-2004, 01:12 PM
awsome links, thanks for the posting.

geetarman
07-08-2004, 01:34 PM
Cheers Slush! I don't think a "decent fighter, great plane" would have had the legs the Mustang did. There were plenty of pleasant aircraft to fly that did work out in their roles that died on the vine. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The Stang was a great fighter and was superior in a number of ways to its contemporaries.

Taiterbug - I used to think the same way about the Stang in this games. However, I've found that all you need to do is get some decent alt. in the thing before entering the fight. Just keep the speed up and you get many of its virtures coming to the fore. You don't need to use it at only 5000 and above.

P.S. Funny I'm spending this much time on the Stang - I almost always fly a P-38! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Locust_
07-08-2004, 02:25 PM
Its dam sure not Uber in FB, its good its not Great, I hear alot of German flyers biching about it online saying it cant be that fast or turn that good but realy its not that fast it cant catch a FW in a flat out run or even a ME109 it can outturn 190 but not 109 if the 109 knows what hes doing

all in all it has one big advantage IMHO The view http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Eat lead

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/p38loco1sig.jpg

L Ă˜ ÓĄ Ă˜

Screaming Insanity

geetarman
07-08-2004, 02:32 PM
I'm with Locust 100% on all points

DaBallz
07-08-2004, 02:38 PM
Time has told the tale.
Over 130 P-51s still flying.
Me is sure that's more than
all other WWII era warbirds combined.

Da...

Nexus2005
07-08-2004, 02:51 PM
To be honest, I think the number still flying is only a measure of how popular an aeroplane is, not how good it was http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Now I am no expert on WWII planes like some of you guys seem to be, but from what I've read I'd sum up the P-51 to people who know nothing as a good dogfighter with great high altitude characteristics and it's major advantage being range. It didn't dogfight as well as a Spitfire nor did it have the same firepower, but it could do one thing the Spitfire couldn't do which made it very useful and important: it could escort bombers. (Bearing in mind I'd probably be talking to a fellow Brit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif)

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

[This message was edited by Nexus2005 on Thu July 08 2004 at 02:11 PM.]

geetarman
07-08-2004, 02:55 PM
Nexus - would you say the same could be said for the remaining flying British Spitfires?

VW-IceFire
07-08-2004, 03:01 PM
My favorite fighters are the Spitfire and the Tempest but the Mustang is a close contender to my favorite fighters of all time. Fact is that, favorite of the USAAF or not, its one of the better fighters to show up during the period. It did what it was meant to do and it did it really well. Its not a stunning as the Spitfire either but its nearly so and its easy to see how its a favorite.

In FB, the Mustang can be mixed up with virtually any fighter and win if you play your cards right. But thats true for most aircraft...still the Mustang is a joy to fly in the sim. At high speeds its a dream. Its got a bunch of things going for it that make it a good plane to fly now as well.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Nexus2005
07-08-2004, 03:04 PM
Absolutely geetarman, the popularity of an aeroplane doesn't measure how good it was against it's contemporaries, only how much it means to it's parent nation http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Being popular doesn't mean it's not a good plane obviously, but I don't think you can use it to measure it's goodness if you see what I mean.

Both the Spitfire and P-51 were very good and very important aircraft in WWII, but for different reasons. Don't forget the Stang was built at British request http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (although I must admit I don't understand why they didn't ask Supermarine or Hawker, anybody know?).

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

[This message was edited by Nexus2005 on Thu July 08 2004 at 02:17 PM.]

DaBallz
07-08-2004, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
Nexus - would you say the same could be said for the remaining flying British Spitfires?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the airworthy contest has Spits as second
most common, F4U Corsairs as third.
I could be wrong, but P-40s are fourth.

Various versions of the Bf-109 seem to be
the most common Axis fighter still airworthy.
parhaps the only original German fighter airworthy.
I am aware of replica Ki-43s and Me-262s.
Also two original Zeros (last I saw).

Da...

Nexus2005
07-08-2004, 03:07 PM
DaBallz, if you really see the number still flying as some sort of contest, don't forget there are far fewer British people than there are Americans http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

[This message was edited by Nexus2005 on Fri July 09 2004 at 08:42 AM.]

geetarman
07-08-2004, 03:10 PM
Nexus - my last post to you was done when it appeared that you had only typed your first paragraph. Did you edit your post, or did I, somehow, not see the entire message?

I thought you were being a bit disingenous, however, reading your entire post, I see you were not.

Cheers

Nexus2005
07-08-2004, 03:14 PM
Sorry about that m8, I posted it and then decided I wanted to add a bit more. You still made a fair point though and I was glad to respond http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

geetarman
07-08-2004, 03:18 PM
Nice to have a civil debate on this forum. Here's to the Brits and their Spitfires! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DaBallz
07-08-2004, 03:45 PM
Type airworthy COMMENTS

P-51 150 RECENT CRASH OF A P-51C-10NT
SPITFIRE 50 INCLUDING SEAFIRE
F4U 29?
P-40 19
FM, FM2, F4F 18
FURY 15
F8F 10
Bf-109 9
P-47 8-9 RECENT CRASH...P-47N
F6F 8
P-38 7
HURRICANE 6
F7F 6
I-16 6 NEW MANUFACTURE?
YAK-3 5 NEW MANUFACTURE?
YAK-9 4 NEW MANUFACTURE?
P-63 3
P-39 2
A6M ZERO 2
ME-262 1 REPLICA NEW MANUFACTURE

BOMBERS AND ATTACK

TBM,TBF 42
A-26 40
B-25 34? SOME SAY 40+
B-17 12? ONE DAMAGED THIS YEAR, NOT AIRWORTHY.
B-24,PB4Y2 8 ONE DESTROYED LAST YEAR, SHOULD BE 7.
PV2/B-34 12+ HARD TO TELL AS MANY ARE IN USE AROUND THE WORLD, LIKE THE DC-3.
SORDFISH 4
SBD 3
Firefly 3
LANCASTER 2
SB2C 1
B-29 1 SOON TO BE 2
BLENHEIM 1
MOSQUITO MAYBE ONE, WARBIRD ALLEY REPORTS ONE. I THINK IT'S GROUNDED.
B-26 1

transports would easily dominate the war bird list.
At least 300 DC-3/C-47s and 50+ c-46 are flying
most are still earning a living!
Trainers are also dominant, not worth listing.
I did not list any combat planes that I could
not find an airworthy example.

Da...

ps:sorry, the tabs don't show, everything got scrunched.
Ckick the reply to see the proper spacings.

Abbuzze
07-08-2004, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Type airworthy COMMENTS


Bf-109 9
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
9 - 109??? maybe with the Spain versions..

There are 3 airworthy 109 the american Emil, and the G6 and G10 of the "Messerschmidt-Stiftung"

Not sure how many of them are airworthy at this moment- the G10 was damaged while a roll out some times ago...

I./JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
http://www.jg53-pikas.de/

http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/bilder/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam%20neu.gif

DaBallz
07-08-2004, 04:35 PM
The numbers are nebulous.
I counted the Bf-109 and Ha-112
as one plane.

The F4F, FM2 and FM are also lumped together.

To seperate them all would be a nightmare.

Also adding the the confusion is the disasters
and restorations. These days people will "restore"
a smoking hole that would be scrapped last year.
"Last years scrap is this years restoration".

Unless a wreck is a puddle of ****, I won't
count it out. Hey, they might find the data plate.
Got a serial number? Got a data plate? You got a plane.

Da...

horseback
07-08-2004, 07:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
Absolutely geetarman, the popularity of an aeroplane doesn't measure how good it was against it's contemporaries, only how much it means to it's parent nation http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Being popular doesn't mean it's not a good plane obviously, but I don't think you can use it to measure it's goodness if you see what I mean.

Both the Spitfire and P-51 were very good and very important aircraft in WWII, but for different reasons. Don't forget the Stang was built at British request http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (although I must admit I don't understand why they didn't ask Supermarine or Hawker, anybody know?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The reason they didn't ask Supermarine or Hawker was because they were maxed out producing Spits and Hurricanes, Typhoons, and later Tempests. Too busy to come up with Army cooperation aircraft, which was envisioned as the Mustang I's initial role.

The British Aircraft Puchasing Commission order that led to the Mustang Mk I initially came about as a result of approaching North American Aviation about building licensed copies of the P-40 Kittyhawk for the RAF. North American wanted to break into the fighter market with their own designs, and convinced the British representatives that they could build a better low level fighter/ground support type with the same engine as the Kittyhawk.

The Mustang Mk I was the result, and with the entry of the US in the war, the speed and range of the Allison engined Mustang caught the eye of the USAAF officers arriving in the UK about the time it was first making its reputation as a low level photorecon scout.

A number of persons from both countries arrived at the idea of stuffing a Merlin into the Pony at about the same time, and the idea was tested out on both sides of the Atlantic in late 1942-early 1943. You might say that a star of mixed heritage was born...

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Slickun
07-08-2004, 08:22 PM
When the P-51B appeared in Dec 1943 it was the best fighter aircraft in the world.

By the end of the war it was still as good as any other prop plane produced in any type of numbers with one caveat....it still went soooo far.

This range is as much a part of an aircraft's attributes as its top speed. Tossing off..aww it was ok, it just had long range is ignoring a vital factor.

brimigus
07-08-2004, 08:23 PM
The romantic stories from our youth don't actually protray the real nuanises of any aircraft.The p51 could certanly hold it's own, but in the right hands so could the Sprit of
Saint Loius.History is written by the victors.Besides who wants to hear the truth, if Hitler would of let his luftwaffe use the ME262 how they saw fit and not tried make it a bomber we might not be playing IL2 or even having this dicussion.

WTE_Galway
07-08-2004, 08:28 PM
DaBallz .. for your list http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

there are airworthy WWII ---
Sea Fury FB11 (not operation till after war ended I think)
CA-19 Boomerang (australia)
Fiat G59-4B (Italy)
Grumman TBM-3E Avenger

plus a Mk 32 sabre and some other stuff in Zucollis collection in Toowoomba QLD, Australia .. they all fly regularly for displays.

Temora NSW aviation museum has flyable WWII
Spitfire MKVIII
CA 16 Wirraway (Australia)
A29 Lockheed Hudson Bomber

plu s another Sabre a vampire Meteor and a Canberra bomber.

JZG-Pedro
07-08-2004, 10:19 PM
first of all:

my big S! to such a gentlemen's behaviour by all, I hope it keeps this way... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I hate to rain on your parade, nor I'm intended to be the biatch of the thread

but...


the 2 most critical drawbacks of the Mustang, climb and slow speed handling, that could be exploited by a 109, for ex, are not completely present in FB.

It climbs on par with a G6, and turns nearly as good ( from what Ive seen in VWF battles, 109s are able to outturn it only down low ). it can be a prob. with 109s too, I dont know... but the fact is that the historic performance difference between these 2 planes is not the same thing we have in the game.

Aaron_GT
07-08-2004, 10:26 PM
"Second, a German pilot in trouble tended to dive. It was a tactic that worked well against the British and the Russians, but the Americans flew heavier and sleeker aircraft at much higher altitudes. Even though a 109 or 190 held an initial accelleration advantage in a dive, doing so from 8000m (approx. 25000ft) gave a Mustang or Thunderbolt plenty of time to catch up,"

If it is assumed that the purpose of the escorts it to protect the bombers and the LW had local numerical superiority in an engagement (likely true in early 1944) then chasing a LW fighter to around 10,000 feet below the main engagement would be a tactical win by the LW, as it would improve LW relative superiority around the bombers. In a short engagement it could take around 5 minutes to make up the altitude again, plus the dive and engagement time. (The US plane might catch up before 10,000 feet in altitude was lost, but subsequent dogfighting or whatever tended to be on a downward slope in general).

This having been said, some comments made at the time make it clear that the purpose of the escorts was as much to down enemy fighters as protect the bombers.

Also if the LW planes are not up to high speed then the US planes would have a further advantage in the dive and might not end up so far below the engagement.

As the war went on local LW numerical superiority was lost, in which case chasing down diving LW fighters is perfectly logical.

WUAF_Badsight
07-08-2004, 11:32 PM
the P-51 Ds in FB in v2.01 are sooooo overmoddeled at low speed manouverability that its a joke

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
07-08-2004, 11:35 PM
the P-51 wasnt designed to be a dominant turn fighter

it had awesome high alt performance for its power & had great high speed handeling

IRL .50 cal machine guns are VERY deadly

but the mustang was never a dominant slow speed/alt performer

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DaBallz
07-09-2004, 06:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the P-51 wasnt designed to be a dominant turn fighter

it had awesome high alt performance for its power & had great high speed handeling

IRL .50 cal machine guns are VERY deadly

but the mustang was never a dominant slow speed/alt performer

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Bodenplatte attack on new years day 1945
helped demonstrate how wrong you and others are about
low speed handeling of a P-51.
The Y-29 attack saw P-51Ds and P-47s caught
taking off with full internal loads including
full fuselage tanks.
The end result of this fight was over 20 confirmed
German planes shot down (smoking hole confirmations)
and the loss of no allied aircraft at Y-29.
All of this in low speed combat.
I read the combat reports, except for the
P-47 drivers, no one reported having problems
turning with Me-109's or Fw-109s.
Remember, that's with FULL fuselage tanks.

http://352ndfg.com/Home/Y-29/legend.htm



The P-51 had to perform at under 80mph.
It had to take off and land! to say it
could not turn at 250kph is nonsense.
Some jet fighters need 300 kph just to take off.
The P-51 was airborne at the same speeds as
other contempoary piston fighters.
It was able to pass at carrier trials!
The only complaint in carrier trials was low speed
rudder responce.

Cry all you like, the P-51 was better than
the luftwaffe could field till the end.

And it could turn fight well.

da...

[This message was edited by DaBallz on Fri July 09 2004 at 05:38 AM.]

[This message was edited by DaBallz on Fri July 09 2004 at 06:06 AM.]

Nexus2005
07-09-2004, 09:34 AM
Cheers for the reply horseback, I thought it may have been something to do with them being too busy but never knew for sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

robban75
07-09-2004, 09:45 AM
Apart from turning too well at low airspeeds the P-51 in FB/AEP is very well modelled.
Just my opinion, of course. It can certainly hold its own against any LW fighter, inluding the K-4 and D-9.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Huxley_S
07-09-2004, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Firstly, I cant decide wether or not the sims are accurate. Both Yeager and Anderson claim the 51 could turn with the 109 and inside the 190.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the other hand, I'm sure Yeager and Anderson could make a 190 turn inside a P51 if they'd been on the other side. These guys were the best of the best. They could defy the limits of their aircraft. I find that this is modelled quite well in IL2FB... using prop pitch, flaps, throttle, radiators, altitude etc etc it is possible to make the aircraft do things they shouldn't be able to do if you're good and lucky enough. I think this is where a lot of the whining comes from: people being beaten by inferior planes flown by better pilots.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

lrrp22
07-09-2004, 10:01 AM
Ahhh, the voice of reason.

You may well be right about the Mustang's low speed turn ability in FB although I don't think that ability was nearly as poor as some here make out- especially with 10-20 degrees of flap.

It shouldn't turn like a Spitfire or Yak (or Lavochkin or Zero or Frank) at low speeds but US/RAF pilots seemed to have no problems staying with or turning inside contemporary 109's and 190's.

One thing that nobody mentions is the FB Mustang's poor (and accurate) low speed roll capability. The 109's roll has it all over the P-51 in FB at lower speeds which gives it a distinct advantage, again, rightly so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Apart from turning too well at low airspeeds the P-51 in FB/AEP is very well modelled.
Just my opinion, of course. It can certainly hold its own against any LW fighter, inluding the K-4 and D-9.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nexus2005
07-09-2004, 11:17 AM
I think this sentence, which is apparently a saying that came about in WWII, sums up the P-51 Mustang pretty well:

"The Mustang won't do what a Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin"

Saying the Mustang was "superior to all other fighters" or "the best fighter plane of WWII" is misleading and too vague to accurately portray its role as these statements imply that it was the best at everything, and it is fairly clear that it was not (no plane was).

It was the best in some areas (long range missions) but not so in others. Like so many things "the best" can mean different things to different people and depends on how you choose to measure success. With this in mind I don't think any single aeroplane can be definitively called the best because no aeroplane was the best at everything. It is only possible to call an aeroplane "the best in its field."

So, to reply to the original question of the thread. I don't think it's possible for me, as an Englishman, to say whether or not the P-51 is overrated in America. But, if in America the impression is given that is was simply the best at everything and when you hop into one in a flightsim you expect it to perform as such, then the answer to the question would probably be yes.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

lrrp22
07-09-2004, 12:16 PM
"The Mustang won't do what a Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin"


Nexus,

That is a corruption of a Chuck Yeager quote that frequently surfaces around here.

The gist of the quote is (I'm paraphrasing here) that the Mustang *could* do everything the Spitfire could do but could do it for eight hours and over Berlin. I'll find the verbatim quote later.

Having said that, I agree with the rest of your post. Both the Mustang and Spitfire (and everything else) had their advantages and disadvantages. The fight would go to him that best exploited those strengths and weaknesses.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
I think this sentence, which is apparently a saying that came about in WWII, sums up the P-51 Mustang pretty well:

"The Mustang won't do what a Spitfire does, but it does it over Berlin"

Saying the Mustang was "superior to all other fighters" or "the best fighter plane of WWII" is misleading and too vague to accurately portray its role as these statements imply that it was the best at everything, and it is fairly clear that it was not (no plane was).

It was the best in some areas (long range missions) but not so in others. Like so many things "the best" can mean different things to different people and depends on how you choose to measure success. With this in mind I don't think any single aeroplane can be definitively called the best because no aeroplane was the best at everything. It is only possible to call an aeroplane "the best in its field."

So, to reply to the original question of the thread. I don't think it's possible for me, as an Englishman, to say whether or not the P-51 is overrated in America. But, if in America the impression is given that is was simply the best at everything and when you hop into one in a flightsim you expect it to perform as such, then the answer to the question would probably be yes.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt; (http://www.bobcs.co.uk<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>)

BlitzPig_DDT
07-09-2004, 12:35 PM
Someone once posted a listing of the original purchase prices of all the USAAF planes here.

The Mustang was the cheapest. The P-47 was very expensive in comparison to the Mustang. Even though the P-47 was better up with the bombers (that turbosupercharger meant SL power at bomber alt. Nothing could compete with that powerloading up there), it was too expensive when you consider how well the Mustang could also do, and how long it's range was (which was a bit longer than the Jug as well).

The obvious choice is to sacrifice a bit of performance for a bit more range and a lot less money.

I think too many people too often forget to factor costs in.

As a result, people assume that the more used plane must be *better* in terms of performance. In the case of the US, that really isn't true. But it has hurt us sim Jug pilots. :/ (though there are other issues at play there as well - and everyone of them just as illegitimate)

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif

lrrp22
07-09-2004, 12:50 PM
The P-47's advantage didn't start to show up until 30,000-35,000 ft, at the upper limit of where combat typically occurred.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Someone once posted a listing of the original purchase prices of all the USAAF planes here.

The Mustang was the cheapest. The P-47 was very expensive in comparison to the Mustang. Even though the P-47 was better up with the bombers (that turbosupercharger meant SL power at bomber alt. Nothing could compete with that powerloading up there), it was too expensive when you consider how well the Mustang could also do, and how long it's range was (which was a bit longer than the Jug as well).

The obvious choice is to sacrifice a bit of performance for a bit more range and a lot less money.

I think too many people too often forget to factor costs in.

As a result, people assume that the more used plane must be *better* in terms of performance. In the case of the US, that really isn't true. But it has hurt us sim Jug pilots. :/ (though there are other issues at play there as well - and everyone of them just as illegitimate)

http://operationcarepackage.org/ddtsig.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nexus2005
07-09-2004, 01:07 PM
lrrp22 do you reckon that the Mustang could do everything a Spitfire could do?

Where the quote comes from isn't important, it may well be a corruption of something Yeager said, or it may not. It may originate from WWII, or it may not. All I know is that I saw it on this (http://www.deltaaviation.co.uk/html/aircraft_mustang.html) website, thought it summed up my feelings quite well and posted it on here.

I don't think the Mustang could turn as well, or dogfight as well as the Spitfire and it certainly didn't have the same firepower. Anybody know different?

I don't want to get sucked into a "my plane is better" debate, because I don't believe either one was really better than the other as they had different roles to play. I like the P-51, I think it's a marvellous, pretty (although not as drop dead gorgeous as the Spitfire http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) aeroplane and it played a very important part in the latter half of WWII, just as the Spitfire played an extremely important part near the beginning of WWII. I'm also glad we agree on the rest of what I said http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

[This message was edited by Nexus2005 on Fri July 09 2004 at 12:30 PM.]

Slickun
07-09-2004, 01:35 PM
Again, slow speed turn fighting was not nearly as important in WW2 as performance.

The P-51 was good from the ground up. Remember, the Merlin was added to attempt to add altitude to the stellar performance of the Allison Mustang. Brits could get the thing to over 400 mph on the deck running the engines at higher boosts than the 8th AF. Pacific P-51D's in the last stages of the Pacific War did, indeed, get their mounts to turn over 2000 HP and 448 MPH, while flying the longest missions of the war.

The P-51 was a mediocre sustained climbing machine. It was also a fantastic zoom climber, in my book much more important in a dogfight.

US pilots in the West did not hesitate to engage in turn contests with LW planes. We almost never talk about the combat flaps on the Mustang, but they were there, available at all speeds up to 400 mph IAS.

2/3 to 3/4 of all aerial kills are of the unobserved bounce variety anyway. I can't think of a plane better at it than the P-51. Long ranged for hunting over the other guy's place, high speed, controllable at very high speeds in a dive, great visibility (in most models), superb zoom after the bounce...Why design a dogfighter?

Nexus2005
07-09-2004, 01:41 PM
You design a dogfighter when you need to defend your country. The Spitfire had to fight without a massive height advantage and without a lot of time to build up speed. This is what I mean when I say they were good at different things and so were used for different roles.

The Mustang was supposed to do things the Spitfire can't do, otherwise why the hell would the British have asked for them to be created? Also, the Spitfire must have done things the P-51 couldn't, otherwise why didn't we replace them all with P-51s?

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

Freefalldart
07-09-2004, 01:45 PM
I personally think that the best WW2 fighter was the FW190 because of it's multi-role capabilities, but if you ask me which was the most important plane of the war, I'd probably choose the Mustang because it was the more adequate plane for the moment it was introduced. Its range not only allowed to escort bombers all the way to occupied Europe and Germany but to threat Luftwaffe pilots everywhere they were.
And don't forget that at that time Luftwaffe pilots training was everything but appropiate...

"Cuando un loco parece totalmente sensato es hora de ponerle la camisa de fuerza"
Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)

Nexus2005
07-09-2004, 01:49 PM
Yeh, I agree the Mustang was a very important plane when you look at the big picture.

Although without the Spitfire it's probable we would have lost the battle of britain and then the war really would have turned out differently with no Churchill to persuade the Americans to help and no Britain to launch an invasion from http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

They were both very important aeroplanes with different roles to play and they both fulfilled those roles excellently.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

DaBallz
07-09-2004, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
Again, slow speed turn fighting was not nearly as important in WW2 as performance.

The P-51 was good from the ground up. Remember, the Merlin was added to attempt to add altitude to the stellar performance of the Allison Mustang. Brits could get the thing to over 400 mph on the deck running the engines at higher boosts than the 8th AF. Pacific P-51D's in the last stages of the Pacific War did, indeed, get their mounts to turn over 2000 HP and 448 MPH, while flying the longest missions of the war.

The P-51 was a mediocre sustained climbing machine. It was also a fantastic zoom climber, in my book much more important in a dogfight.

US pilots in the West did not hesitate to engage in turn contests with LW planes. We almost never talk about the combat flaps on the Mustang, but they were there, available at all speeds up to 400 mph IAS.

2/3 to 3/4 of all aerial kills are of the unobserved bounce variety anyway. I can't think of a plane better at it than the P-51. Long ranged for hunting over the other guy's place, high speed, controllable at very high speeds in a dive, great visibility (in most models), superb zoom after the bounce...Why design a dogfighter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


EXCELLENT post. Truth is the P-51 had a couple
of key features that made it very hard to defend against.
very high cruise speed. 350-390 mph depending
on the model and loadout. that's faster than
the top speed of most Japanese aircraft. as fast
as most Axis aircraft. That's at cruise power.
It's tough to attack a P-51 on a fighter sweep.
Range... Flying for hours attacking whatever
came into view and being fast enough
to be hard to intercept.

Speed and range made the P-51 the most effective
fighter of the European war. That it was also
very good in ALL respects made it an excellent weapon.

da...

AztekWrath
07-09-2004, 02:49 PM
General John C. Meyer said once in an interview that the Mustang was overrated partly because in 1944 most German pilots were novices and had only 10 to 15 hours flight experience in their planes. According to him this is why the Mustang performed better that the 109 and the 190.

lrrp22
07-09-2004, 04:03 PM
No Nexus, each had its own strengths and weaknesses.

The point of Yeager's quote is that both were equally effective weapons system if flown to their strengths. The one big difference being the Mustang's enormous range.

The RAF's Air Fighting Development Unit agreed with Yeager's assessment when they compared the Spit XIV to the Mustang III.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
lrrp22 do you reckon that the Mustang could do everything a Spitfire could do?

Where the quote comes from isn't important, it may well be a corruption of something Yeager said, or it may not. It may originate from WWII, or it may not. All I know is that I saw it on http://www.deltaaviation.co.uk/html/aircraft_mustang.html website, thought it summed up my feelings quite well and posted it on here.

I don't think the Mustang could turn as well, or dogfight as well as the Spitfire and it certainly didn't have the same firepower. Anybody know different?

I don't want to get sucked into a "my plane is better" debate, because I don't believe either one was really better than the other as they had different roles to play. I like the P-51, I think it's a marvellous, pretty (although not as drop dead gorgeous as the Spitfire http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) aeroplane and it played a very important part in the latter half of WWII, just as the Spitfire played an extremely important part near the beginning of WWII. I'm also glad we agree on the rest of what I said http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk

[This message was edited by Nexus2005 on Fri July 09 2004 at 12:30 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slickun
07-09-2004, 04:20 PM
To defend my country in WW2, I think I'd build a fast climbing, well armed machine, if that was the only role I envisioned for it. Dogfighting would be totally secondary. Climb fast, take down the bomber. Dogfighting is very important to us, as gamers, but performance and range were the prime factors in WW2. Saying the P-51 was mediocre because of low speed turning is like saying Babe Ruth was a bad baseball player because he didn't steal many bases. So what?

The Spit and Mustang had different strengths. But let me ask a question. While the long ranged escorts were defeating the LW in Jan-May 1944, racking up hundreds of kills, generating Jaegerschreck in the LW, putting them over the edge in the battle of attrition, what were Spitfires doing? Despite their great abilities, they couldn't fly far enough to have much of an effect. Range was everything, and must be factored into the mix.

Meyer is wrong. The Mustang was there for the decisive air battles of Jan-May 1944. The Mustang's success, prayed for by the AAF brass, was why the bombers went back deep into Germany, luring the LW up to their doom.

FA_Maddog
07-09-2004, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AztekWrath:
General John C. Meyer said once in an interview that the Mustang was overrated partly because in 1944 most German pilots were novices and had only 10 to 15 hours flight experience in their planes. According to him this is why the Mustang performed better that the 109 and the 190.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ask yourself this question AztekWrath, what happened to the experienced pilots? Shot down maybe? Yes by Allied pilots flying this same plane.

The P-51 could and did hold it's own with the 109's and 190's over Germany.

WUAF_Badsight
07-09-2004, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
No Nexus, each had its own strengths and weaknesses.

The point of Yeager's quote is that both were equally effective weapons system if flown to their strengths. The one big difference being the Mustang's enormous range.

The RAF's Air Fighting Development Unit agreed with Yeager's assessment when they compared the Spit XIV to the Mustang III.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

in other words the Mustang couldnt do what the Spitfire could

it wasnt a dominant turn fighter

it had excellent higer alt performance & high speed authority

but for low speed & low Alt deck dog fighting it was inferior

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DaBallz
07-09-2004, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
No Nexus, each had its own strengths and weaknesses.

The point of Yeager's quote is that both were equally effective weapons system if flown to their strengths. The one big difference being the Mustang's enormous range.

The RAF's Air Fighting Development Unit agreed with Yeager's assessment when they compared the Spit XIV to the Mustang III.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

in other words the Mustang _couldnt_ do what the Spitfire could

it wasnt a dominant turn fighter

it had excellent higer alt performance & high speed authority

but for low speed & low Alt deck dog fighting it was _inferior_

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell the surviving pilots that fought at Y-29.
It was at least as effective in a low and slow
fight as the german attackers.
Out numbered, caught taking off, fully loaded
with full fuselage tanks, but still
carried the day, and at least at Y-29, without a loss.

Da...

WUAF_Badsight
07-09-2004, 04:47 PM
what pilots can do is not the planes design

they are pilot accounts

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

FA_Maddog
07-09-2004, 05:02 PM
America's Hundred-Thousand page 341 Fig.51-4 Talking about the Mustang I "English pilots liked the fighter; it had excellent performance at low to medium altitudes and handled well."

lrrp22
07-09-2004, 05:08 PM
No Badsight, it was an excellent fighter at low altitudes. It couldn't turn with a Spitfire at anything less than high speeds but that was as true at 25,000 ft as it was at 0 ft.

The Spitfire turned and climbed better but the P-51 handled better at higher speeds and dove and zoom climbed better. It was much faster than all but the Mk XIV, with which it shared virtually identical top speeds.

Which was 'better' was simply a matter of fighting style.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lrrp22:
No Nexus, each had its own strengths and weaknesses.

The point of Yeager's quote is that both were equally effective weapons system if flown to their strengths. The one big difference being the Mustang's enormous range.

The RAF's Air Fighting Development Unit agreed with Yeager's assessment when they compared the Spit XIV to the Mustang III.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

in other words the Mustang _couldnt_ do what the Spitfire could

it wasnt a dominant turn fighter

it had excellent higer alt performance & high speed authority

but for low speed & low Alt deck dog fighting it was _inferior_

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nexus2005
07-09-2004, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

posted 09-07-04 15:20
To defend my country in WW2, I think I'd build a fast climbing, well armed machine, if that was the only role I envisioned for it. Dogfighting would be totally secondary. Climb fast, take down the bomber. Dogfighting is very important to us, as gamers, but performance and range were the prime factors in WW2. Saying the P-51 was mediocre because of low speed turning is like saying Babe Ruth was a bad baseball player because he didn't steal many bases. So what? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Spitfire wasn't the plane that was taking out the bombers, the Hurricane did that and did it well. The Spitfires were taking care of the bomber escorts that would otherwise be tearing up the Hurricanes and they were fast climbing, well armed machines http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But if you are also gonna end up possibly on par with the German fighters, maybe with an energy disadvantage (because they had to take off while the Germans were already crossing the channel) then dogfighting suddenly becomes pretty important. Oh, and in case you didn't notice, I'm English, I know nothing about Baseball http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif and I never said the P-51 was mediocre.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But let me ask a question. While the long ranged escorts were defeating the LW in Jan-May 1944, racking up hundreds of kills, generating Jaegerschreck in the LW, putting them over the edge in the battle of attrition, what were Spitfires doing? Despite their great abilities, they couldn't fly far enough to have much of an effect. Range was everything, and must be factored into the mix. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, the P-51 was the dominant Allied plane during the latter half of the war when long range became very important, but they would never have had a chance to do that if the Spitfires hadn't enabled Britain to survive in 1940. I dare say the war in Europe could have been won without the P-51, albeit maybe not as quickly or as easily, but without the Spitfire there would have been no Britain for the P-51s to take off from, or for the Allied Expeditionary Force to set sail from.

The Spitfire was the superior interceptor and dogfighter (with more firepower after about 1942). The Mustang was the long range, high alt, high speed fighter that could take the fight to the enemy. Both planes were necessary, both planes were excellent at their job and both planes were important to the outcome of the war. Neither one could do what the other did, this made them an excellent partnership. But neither was really better than the other, they were just designed to do different things.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

[This message was edited by Nexus2005 on Fri July 09 2004 at 04:41 PM.]

[This message was edited by Nexus2005 on Fri July 09 2004 at 04:44 PM.]

Slickun
07-09-2004, 05:44 PM
You didn't answer my question. Where was the Spitfire?

The Mustang could perform all the roles the Spitfire could. Some better, some worse, we can argue all day long.

There was one the Pony could do, the Spit can't, and that is the answer to my question. The Spitfire was unable to perform the offensive fighter role that doomed the LW. Not an accident, not cheating to bring up, but the attribute that separates the Pony from the rest. All things are pretty much equal, but one plane flies twice as far (or more)? How can you compare them?

BTW. Does dogfighting include zooming, rolling, diving and high speed turning? Or does it only become a dogfight if the two planes end up at slow speeds. If that is the answer, than yes indeedy the Spit could dogfight better. If "dogfighting" simply includes what happens after the merge, I concede nothing.

To "lure the Mustang into a low and slow turn fight" happened how many times in the war? It is a negative, something you have to trick a smart, or get a dumb, Mustang pilot to do. Much easier to keep speed up and refuse to enter the other guy's envelope. Just refuse. Don't do it, stay fast. US pilots were very good at keeping energy up.

And God Bless the RAf and their performance in the BOB. Saved the Empire, maybe the world, and gave a standard of tenacity for all time. Gave the Allies a staging area for the big push across the channel. Great defensive stand.

DaBallz
07-09-2004, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
You didn't answer my question. Where was the Spitfire?

The Mustang could perform all the roles the Spitfire could. Some better, some worse, we can argue all day long.

There was one the Pony could do, the Spit can't, and that is the answer to my question. The Spitfire was unable to perform the offensive fighter role that doomed the LW. Not an accident, not cheating to bring up, but the attribute that separates the Pony from the rest. All things are pretty much equal, but one plane flies twice as far (or more)? How can you compare them?

BTW. Does dogfighting include zooming, rolling, diving and high speed turning? Or does it only become a dogfight if the two planes end up at slow speeds. If that is the answer, than yes indeedy the Spit could dogfight better. If "dogfighting" simply includes what happens after the merge, I concede nothing.

To "lure the Mustang into a low and slow turn fight" happened how many times in the war? It is a negative, something you have to trick a smart, or get a dumb, Mustang pilot to do. Much easier to keep speed up and refuse to enter the other guy's envelope. Just refuse. Don't do it, stay fast. US pilots were very good at keeping energy up.

And God Bless the RAf and their performance in the BOB. Saved the Empire, maybe the world, and gave a standard of tenacity for all time. Gave the Allies a staging area for the big push across the channel. Great defensive stand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, very well written. what Y-29 demonstrated
is that in a pinch a P-51, even fully loaded,
could dog fight low and slow.
True also the importance of range. The P-51D
could fly to any point in the German home land
and back to Britian as well as best any fighter
it may encounter.
I agree with the importance of the Spit. But
I favor the under dog. It was the Hurricane
that really saved the Empire and Europe.

Da...

Nexus2005
07-09-2004, 06:07 PM
I'm sorry, I thought I had answered your question, or at least the one behind it. If you want to know exactly what the Spitfire was doing at that point, then it was still around, still fighting the LW and still doing an excellent job. But it wasn't going deep into the heart of the enemy like the Mustang was doing.

By dogfighting (the kind the Spitfire was for) what I'm really talking about is the close in, aerobatic slow to medium speed stuff where neither plane has a big E advantage (or in the case of BoB, the enemy is likely to have the E advantage). The P-51 was not as good at this as the Spitfire. The Mustang was better than the Spitfire at very high speed handling and BnZ tactics, but you can only use BnZ tactics if you are the attacker and are able to get higher than the enemy (the P-51 wasn't a brilliant climber). The Spitfire was also no slouch at pretty high speed stuff, just not as good as the P-51.

When the enemy is attacking you and you need to scramble and get up to them fast and still have the better, or at least equal machine then the Spitfire is the plane for the job, and it's a pretty darn important job, especially in the first few years of the war. (and DaBallz, as Badsight said that shows mainly what the pilots can do, not the plane. Don't forget German pilot training was less than great at this point).

The BoB didn't save the empire, it saved Britain. WWII pretty much bankrupted Britain and ensured the end of the Empire (not necessarily a bad thing and certainly worth it to save the world).

And DaBallz, the Hurricane certainly played as important part as the Spitfire and did most of the leg work (there were many more of them). But without the Spitfire the German fighters would have been superior to anything we had and as we only survived the BoB by the skin of our teeth, I'd say the enemy having that sort of advantage would have ensured our demise. Again, both planes were necessary (although not if there were enough Spitfires to do the Hurricane's job, but there weren't).

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

[This message was edited by Nexus2005 on Fri July 09 2004 at 05:22 PM.]

BM357_Raven
07-09-2004, 06:20 PM
I will share with you now a well-kept military secret about the P-51's that guys like Andy and Yeager flew. Do NOT share this information with anyone... You see, the planes were....

xxxxx THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN EDITED BY THE SECRET EDITORS' ORGANIZATION of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA xxxxxx

Blazing Magnums 357th VFG
bm357.com (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash_intro.html) | Roster (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/bm357_rosters.asp) | Flash Cartoon (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/raven_in_plane9p.html) | BroDawg (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash-intro/tinman3.html) | QuickTime Video (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/Downloads_Public/bm357_transmission.zip)
Blazing_Magnums Server (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/server.htm)

http://bm357.com/bm357_goofy_ubi.jpg (http://bm357.com)http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

My mamma's Harley is bigger than your mamma..

BM357_Raven
07-09-2004, 06:24 PM
SHOOT! Lemme try it in code.

Their planes were made out of RUBBEFL.

Blazing Magnums 357th VFG
bm357.com (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash_intro.html) | Roster (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/bm357_rosters.asp) | Flash Cartoon (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/raven_in_plane9p.html) | BroDawg (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/flash-intro/tinman3.html) | QuickTime Video (http://www.bm357.com/NEW_BM357/Downloads_Public/bm357_transmission.zip)
Blazing_Magnums Server (http://bm357.com/NEW_BM357/server.htm)

http://bm357.com/bm357_goofy_ubi.jpg (http://bm357.com)http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

My mamma's Harley is bigger than your mamma..

Nexus2005
07-09-2004, 06:49 PM
Just to sum up what I'm trying to say:
The Spitfire is the plane to be in when the enemy are attacking you or you are close to the enemy, the Mustang is the plane to be in when you are the aggressor and need to attack the enemy from a long way away and can get yourself a nice E advantage.

In my book that's a score of 1-1 and in this game there is no extra time, no penalties so that constitutes a draw http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

DaBallz
07-09-2004, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
Just to sum up what I'm trying to say:
The Spitfire is the plane the to be in when the enemy are attacking you or you are close to the enemy, the Mustang is the plane to be in when you are the aggressor and need to attack the enemy from a long way away and can get yourself a nice E advantage.

In my book that's a score of 1-1 and in this game there is no extra time, no penalties so that constitutes a draw http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

http://www.bobcs.co.uk<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

pure interceptor P-51s were developed and tested.
The light weight P-51F, G, H, J, and L were developed
as interceptors. only the H model was produced
in large numbers.
the G model had a climb rate that would make
a Bearcat driver envious. Also the top speed
was excellent and turn radius was improved.
Range was more important at that time and the
H model was an adaptation to the P-51G for
long range. Climb was still very good.
By the way, the P-82/F-82 was based on the G model.
Not the D.
The only P-51G built was sent to Britian for
trials. They loved it except for yaw issues
on full power climbs.
Legend has it the G model saw combat, any of you
Brits have any info as to the disposition
or combat use of this uniqe airplane?
One P-51J survives, Allison powered and was
very fast, maybe the fastest P-51. Last I
heard it is being restored.
Legend has it the P-51J exceeded 500 mph in level flight.

Da...

WUAF_Badsight
07-09-2004, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
we can argue all day long.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

not really

the Spitfire is the vastly superior DFer over the Mustang

by a mile

Dogfighting is not E fighting or BnZ

its a WW1 term to describe the turning fight

Mustangs are , & never were dominant turn fighters

to say otherwise is a load of bull

pilots accounts from battles are just that

pilot accounts & are not the planes design

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

HellToupee
07-09-2004, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
You didn't answer my question. Where was the Spitfire?

The Mustang could perform all the roles the Spitfire could. Some better, some worse, we can argue all day long.

There was one the Pony could do, the Spit can't, and that is the answer to my question. The Spitfire was unable to perform the offensive fighter role that doomed the LW. Not an accident, not cheating to bring up, but the attribute that separates the Pony from the rest. All things are pretty much equal, but one plane flies twice as far (or more)? How can you compare them?

BTW. Does dogfighting include zooming, rolling, diving and high speed turning? Or does it only become a dogfight if the two planes end up at slow speeds. If that is the answer, than yes indeedy the Spit could dogfight better. If "dogfighting" simply includes what happens after the merge, I concede nothing.

To "lure the Mustang into a low and slow turn fight" happened how many times in the war? It is a negative, something you have to trick a smart, or get a dumb, Mustang pilot to do. Much easier to keep speed up and refuse to enter the other guy's envelope. Just refuse. Don't do it, stay fast. US pilots were very good at keeping energy up.

And God Bless the RAf and their performance in the BOB. Saved the Empire, maybe the world, and gave a standard of tenacity for all time. Gave the Allies a staging area for the big push across the channel. Great defensive stand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still was the germans in France, the spitfire could fly there. The spitfire also had plently of room for more fuel, the XI could reach 1200miles off internal fuel, no weapons tho, and a few spitfires had wing drop tanks tried. The spitfire remained in frontline service right up to the end, it didnt just sit in england while the p51 played with the lws bomber interceptors.

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

DaBallz
07-09-2004, 07:15 PM
http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/fww2/p51f-i.jpg

Best photo of a P-51F I have ever seen.
Note the unusal paddle bladed prop.

Da...

Nexus2005
07-09-2004, 07:26 PM
DaBallz afaik we are not talking about really really really late fighters or prototypes. If we were I would have mentioned the Spiteful (a modified Spitfire) that DID achieve speeds of 494 mph and was going to go into production but the order was cancelled when the war ended. But as I said, I have little interest in such things because they never made any difference.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alemarinel/Spitfire/SpitefulPrototype.jpg

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

WUAF_Badsight
07-09-2004, 07:30 PM
& really crappy turning abilitys too

Laminar flow wings , is like a P-51 Spitfire

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SkyChimp
07-09-2004, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
DaBallz afaik we are not talking about really really really late fighters or prototypes. If we were I would have mentioned the Spiteful (a modified Spitfire) that DID achieve speeds of 494 mph and was going to go into production but the order was cancelled when the war ended. But as I said, I have little interest in such things because they never made any difference.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alemarinel/Spitfire/SpitefulPrototype.jpg

http://www.bobcs.co.uk<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The only Spiteful that flew that fast was the single F XVI, RB518, with a 3-speed Griffon 101 and a five blad Rotol prop.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

DaBallz
07-09-2004, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
& really crappy turning abilitys too

Laminar flow wings , is like a P-51 Spitfire

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Supermarine recognised the superiority
of the P-51 and especially it's flying surfaces
developed the Spiteful, it was a world beater
at a time when jets were taking over.

Speed was far more important in real combat than most seem to understand.

Da...

Nexus2005
07-09-2004, 07:39 PM
Well we don't know the turning ability, but it's likely to be inferior to that of the Spitfire of course because it does have laminar flow wings as you said like the P-51. Still, if it had the range of the P-51 (and we don't know what its range was) then this was a Spitfire designed to do the job of the P-51.

The P-51 wings were only superior for high speed BnZ tactics! Not much good if you can't get a large height advantage, and if the enemy are attacking you then you can't. Supermarine realised the effectiveness of the P-51 wings for BnZ tactics, and they didn't have a plane suited to that. So they built one. But BnZ tactics aren't the only tactics and cannot be used easily in a defensive situation, so planes capable of both BnZ and TnB are necessary for a complete airforce. The P-51 did the former best, the Spitfire did the latter best. Mitchell's Spitfire wing was better at TnB and laminar flow wings were better at BnZ. There was no wing that could be the best at both, it's impossible because what makes a wing good for BnZ makes it not so good for TnB and vice versa. The 2 aeroplanes were equal partners, each doing what the other could not to achieve a complete air superiority package.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

[This message was edited by Nexus2005 on Fri July 09 2004 at 06:56 PM.]

WUAF_Badsight
07-09-2004, 07:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:


Supermarine recognised the superiority
of the P-51 and especially it's flying surfaces
developed the Spiteful, it was a world beater
at a time when jets were taking over.

Speed was far more important in real combat than most seem to understand.

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but its low speed / alt DFing ability that were discussing here

& how the Pony in FB is a joke in v2.01 relating to that

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DaBallz
07-09-2004, 07:53 PM
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p51-28.jpg http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p51-31.jpg http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p51-30.jpg

The H model like the Spiteful
was no prototype. The P-51H
was in squadron service before
VJ day, narrowly missing combat.

for all the things I have read about
the Spiteful I have never seen where
turning was compramised. There were
issues, and likely they never got ironed out.
Sad it was never pursued. But I am never
sad that the war ended!

Da...

SkyChimp
07-09-2004, 07:54 PM
The Spiteful's wings were thinner than those of the Spitfire, and significantly thinner than the Mustangs.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/j-rogers.gif

DaBallz
07-09-2004, 07:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:


Supermarine recognised the superiority
of the P-51 and especially it's flying surfaces
developed the Spiteful, it was a world beater
at a time when jets were taking over.

Speed was far more important in real combat than most seem to understand.

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but its low speed / alt DFing ability that were discussing here

& how the Pony in FB is a joke in v2.01 relating to that

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight, only in your eyes.
The P-51 was every bit the equal or superior
to any Luftwaffe fighter in turning combat.
Again, try to explain the Y-29 success....

Fully loaded, out numbered and ambushed taking off.
lost no airplanes, shot down 23 confirmed.

Just repeating yourself is getting boring.

da...

HellToupee
07-09-2004, 07:56 PM
"The new wing did not measure up as compared to a standard wing, as there was only a marginal performance increase and the low speed handling characteristics were inferior. "

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

Nexus2005
07-09-2004, 08:04 PM
The P-51H never saw combat, neither did the Spiteful. So in my book, neither plane took part in WWII and so we shouldn't really be talking about them when trying to compare WWII planes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Btw, I added a little extra to my previous while you were making yours (it's a nasty habit I have) and I cba to post it again, so I'd much appreciate it if you would read it again http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

DaBallz
07-09-2004, 08:13 PM
The Spiteful also weighed more than a fully
loaded P-51D. That alone may have been why
it's low speed handeling was not as good?

The P-51H is every bit as valid, more valid
than planes that never flew (Bf-109Z) and
planes that were one off's and prototypes.
We got lots of those.

The first flight of a P-51H was in February of 1945.
It was in squadron service by July 1945. That
it never fired a shot in anger was because it
was kept back for the invasion of Japan.
The P-82 also flew long before VJ day. It is far
more of a reality than the Bf-109Z.

20 P-82Bs were built, that would have been the end
if not for the fact it was adaptable as a RADAR
night fighter and of greater performance than
the P-61 it replaced.

Da...http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/xf82-4.jpg

HellToupee
07-09-2004, 08:23 PM
well it wouldnt be just the weight as the first ones were just a spitfire f.21 with the new wings.

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

WUAF_Badsight
07-09-2004, 08:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:

Badsight, only in your eyes.
The P-51 was every bit the equal or superior
to any Luftwaffe fighter in turning combat.
Again, try to explain the Y-29 success....

Fully loaded, out numbered and ambushed taking off.
lost no airplanes, shot down 23 confirmed.

Just repeating yourself is getting boring.

da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea but unlike wot your doing ?

again *sigh*

pilot accounts are just that


they are not plane designs

who cares how good individual humans use their tools

it dont make their tools better or worse than another persons tools

only a tools design dictates a certian tools performance

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

lrrp22
07-09-2004, 08:54 PM
Nexus,

I think you are oversimplifying the whole BnZ vs TnB thing. No Spitfire pilot would willingly turn-fight if he had the option to hit an enemy and get out quick. Turn fighting introduced many variables into the air battle equation, none of them particularly favorable to either fighter involved. Plain and simple, staying fast and defining the fight parameters are by far the best way to destroy the enemy and survive doing it.


Further, the Mustang did *not* require a large height advantage to be effective, again, an over simplification. If a Mustang and a Spitfire met head to head in a co-energy state, the outcome would depend almost entirely on who fought their plane better.


As late and post war fighter development showed, high speed and the ability to maneuver at those speeds became the most important factors in fighter design. The Spitfire was a superb fighter, no question, but the fact is that it became more and more Mustang-like as the war progressed.

I also disagree with your assertion that a nation's air arm required both enregy and turn fighters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nexus2005:
Well we don't know the turning ability, but it's likely to be inferior to that of the Spitfire of course because it does have laminar flow wings as you said like the P-51. Still, if it had the range of the P-51 (and we don't know what its range was) then this was a Spitfire designed to do the job of the P-51.

The P-51 wings were only superior for high speed BnZ tactics! Not much good if you can't get a large height advantage, and if the enemy are attacking you then you can't. Supermarine realised the effectiveness of the P-51 wings for BnZ tactics, and they didn't have a plane suited to that. So they built one. But BnZ tactics aren't the only tactics and cannot be used easily in a defensive situation, so planes capable of both BnZ and TnB are necessary for a complete airforce. The P-51 did the former best, the Spitfire did the latter best. Mitchell's Spitfire wing was better at TnB and laminar flow wings were better at BnZ. There was no wing that could be the best at both, it's impossible because what makes a wing good for BnZ makes it not so good for TnB and vice versa. The 2 aeroplanes were equal partners, each doing what the other could not to achieve a complete air superiority package.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk

[This message was edited by Nexus2005 on Fri July 09 2004 at 06:56 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HellToupee
07-09-2004, 09:18 PM
Spitfires could BnZ all they like, its great to have turn ability, its a quick simple solution to a poorer turning opponent on your tail.

Spitfire only became more "mustang" like with the extra weight from each mark and improved high speed handling in later marks, usually form a bigger and better engine. IT still managed to outturn its comtempoarys and be as fast or faster and climb as fast or faster.

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

lrrp22
07-09-2004, 10:13 PM
Spitfires *could* boom and zoom all they liked, it's just that they weren't exceptionally good at it.

They couldn't dive away from very many of their opponents and had a less-than-stellar zoom climb. A superior sustained climb rate is great but it takes a looong time to climb out of a pursuer's guns range at a 160-170 mph best climb speed. Even with a 1,000 foot fpm advantage it will still take more than a minute to climb out of an opponent's gun range: a lifetime in aerial combat.

The Spit certainly did always have the turn option against its Luftwaffe opposition but then so did the Mustang, just not as pronounced. The fact is that at high speeds the Mustang held pretty much held all the cards against the Spitfire, and pretty much every other contemporary fighter.

No doubt about it, in a World War I-style turning furball the Spitfire would be my ride of choice. In a late-war environment it might still be my ride of choice. However, that style of fighting ended in the early part of WWII. For that matter, with the advent of faster and heavier fighters like the SPAD and Albatross, energy fighting was already becoming the preferred style of air combat even before the end of WWI.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
Spitfires could BnZ all they like, its great to have turn ability, its a quick simple solution to a poorer turning opponent on your tail.

Spitfire only became more "mustang" like with the extra weight from each mark and improved high speed handling in later marks, usually form a bigger and better engine. IT still managed to outturn its comtempoarys and be as fast or faster and climb as fast or faster.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HellToupee
07-09-2004, 11:30 PM
last thing im going to do if an attacker is in guns range is zoom climb. At higher speeds both planes could still pull more Gs than the pilot can handle, p51 tho has a better rate of roll at high speed. No reason why a spitfire cant be exceptionally good at BnZ, whats an average zoom climb if you hold the alt advantage.

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

AztekWrath
07-10-2004, 12:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Maddog:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AztekWrath:
General John C. Meyer said once in an interview that the Mustang was overrated partly because in 1944 most German pilots were novices and had only 10 to 15 hours flight experience in their planes. According to him this is why the Mustang performed better that the 109 and the 190.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ask yourself this question AztekWrath, what happened to the experienced pilots? Shot down maybe? Yes by Allied pilots flying this same plane.

The P-51 could and did hold it's own with the 109's and 190's over Germany.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but of course the Germans had been flying for a long time in the war, basicaly since the beginning, thus increasing the possibilities of being shot down. A great number of German pilots (even experienced) were shot down by gunnars in bombers. But anyhow, I was only quoting a Mustang fighter pilot.

JZG-Pedro
07-10-2004, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:


Supermarine recognised the superiority
of the P-51 and especially it's flying surfaces
developed the Spiteful, it was a world beater
at a time when jets were taking over.

Speed was far more important in real combat than most seem to understand.

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but its low speed / alt DFing ability that were discussing here

& how the Pony in FB is a joke in v2.01 relating to that

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!"
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Badsight, only in your eyes.
The P-51 was every bit the equal or superior
to any Luftwaffe fighter in turning combat.
Again, try to explain the Y-29 success....

Fully loaded, out numbered and ambushed taking off.
lost no airplanes, shot down 23 confirmed.

Just repeating yourself is getting boring.

da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



oh yea, killing children with a few flight-hours in poorly constructed planes

that sure prooves the P-51 was better turn fighter


get real, plz... u r totally ignoring the LW situation in the last months of the war


it is you who is tiring is them from repeating the same **** all the time. and plz stop with those prototypes, we r talking about P-51 D, which was the one that flew "for real"


just get the peformance details and characteristics of the P-51 and the Bf-109 G6, for ex.

besides laminar-flow wings, about which we all agree that was bad for low-speed handling, the P-51 has a higher wing-loading, and less powerloading in relation to the 109. That reflects the Mustang's poor low-speed handling.



and yes, turning is indeed very important,

if u ever get jumped or BnZed by someone, superior turning can save your life if well used.

FA_Maddog
07-10-2004, 11:52 AM
Could someone list some sources that tell the Bf-109 could out turn the P-51?

America's Hundred-Thousand list on page 17 "The first Merlin Mustangs were very fine performers, bettering their enemy opposition in all performance factors but climb and roll rate."

I would like to read for myself both sides.

Slickun
07-10-2004, 05:41 PM
Hey, helltoupee, where was the Spitfire in Jan-May 1944? I don't care how much gas you think it could hold, what was it doing? How many kills did it get in the period? Read a few Spit pilot's comments on the relative roles of the two types.
The big leagues were high over Germany, where the air war was decided between AAF long ranged escorts and thew LW.

The RAF picked up the heavies, and dropped them off, long before any sort of heavy combat occurred.

Jeez, do a little research on what happened, not what could have.

Slickun
07-10-2004, 06:01 PM
You fellas trying to prove that low speed turning is as important as performane are just off base according to the historical record. This isn't just speculation, but an accepted trueism of the war. Pointing a finger at the P-51 and saying it was a less than stellar fighter because low and slow it didn't turn well is like saying Babe Ruth was not a great baseball player because he couldn't steal bases well. It was irrelevant.



You boom a guy, you either get him or not, he sees you or not. 2/3 to 3/4 of all aerial kills are of the unobserved bounce variety.

He sees you, he turns into you. He bleeds energy, and will NOT be able to get nose on your vertical zoom. Sharp turning at a lower starting speed just makes you helpless sooner.

He doesn't see you, you get a great shot and either:
Down him
Miss him
Damage him

And good turning helps how? As a Mustang drops on you at 450 IAS, still controllable, with 100+ mph overtake speed? In a high side attack you are helpless in that situation, totally defensive. Peruse ANY account of the war and the bouncing group virtually always comes out ahead. Doesn't matter what the guys are flying...the bouncer comes out ahead an amazing percentage of the time.

The P-51 could perform ANY role the Spit did. It performed ground attack better (more payload and range), recon better (more range), CAP better (more loiter). Intruder missions better (more range)...Bomber intercept based on a quick climb etc, worse.

The Spit could barely even DO a bomber escort worthy of the term. The Mustang embodied the idea of the offensive fighter in WW2, taking the fight to the enemy. Ummm...that's how you win.

HellToupee
07-10-2004, 06:41 PM
Any role? did the mustang operate of carriers, did it intercept bombers. In jan 1944 spitfire was flying over france italy and the far east against the japanese. One could argue where was the mustang in 1940 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

Slickun
07-10-2004, 09:16 PM
That's it?

You seem to be in a bit of denial. The short legs of the Spitfire limited its usefulness in Jan-May over the continent in 1944. Meanwhile, the LW was defeated, and the Spit was too short ranged to be involved except as an auxiliary type, running hit and run Rhubarbs and such over the continent. It was UNABLE to do it. Period.

The MOMENT AAF units in the Med transitioned from the Spitfire V's and IX's they were flying, to Mustangs, victories exploded. Why? They didn't have to WAIT on the LW to appear. They went out and hunted THEM.

Some of us here seem to be unable to grasp the difference between tactical and strategic.


No one is denying what the Spitfire accomplished in a defensive role in the war, and even a limited offensive role after D-Day. It was a great fighter plane. It flew and fought before the Mustang even appeared.

The problem here is the revisionists arguing against what the long-ranged escorts did. Just read a little bit. It's not opinion, its fact. After 4 years of a bloody stalemate, the appearance of the P-51 spelled the end for the LW, in a few months.

Some of us don't seem to be able to grasp this idea of performance trumping everything else. Some of us seem unable to grasp the idea of a rolling scissors, of a plane hunting instead of reacting..

P-5B's and C's, as well as Mustang III's, were available in numbers over the continent until VE day. One 8th AF group was still flying them at the end. Posting otherwise, pretending the lighter versions went away after awhile, so we just have to post numbers with the D model...well...just read a little bit, OK?

There were still Allison Mustangs as well, in the recon role.

Indeed, it was the B model that flew virtually all the sorties in Jan-May 1944. It is this model that made the P-51's reputation, NOT the D.

HellToupee
07-10-2004, 09:37 PM
The spitfire had been on the offensive since the LW gave up daylight attacks on britian. Hardly a limited role.

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

crazyivan1970
07-10-2004, 11:06 PM
My dad will ...or did... beat up your dad...

Are we there yet? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

JZG-Pedro
07-10-2004, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slickun:
That's it?

You seem to be in a bit of denial. The short legs of the Spitfire limited its usefulness in Jan-May over the continent in 1944. Meanwhile, the LW was defeated, and the Spit was too short ranged to be involved except as an auxiliary type, running hit and run Rhubarbs and such over the continent. It was UNABLE to do it. Period.

The MOMENT AAF units in the Med transitioned from the Spitfire V's and IX's they were flying, to Mustangs, victories exploded. Why? They didn't have to WAIT on the LW to appear. They went out and hunted THEM.

Some of us here seem to be unable to grasp the difference between tactical and strategic.


No one is denying what the Spitfire accomplished in a defensive role in the war, and even a limited offensive role after D-Day. It was a great fighter plane. It flew and fought before the Mustang even appeared.

The problem here is the revisionists arguing against what the long-ranged escorts did. Just read a little bit. It's not opinion, its fact. After 4 years of a bloody stalemate, the appearance of the P-51 spelled the end for the LW, in a few months.

Some of us don't seem to be able to grasp this idea of performance trumping everything else. Some of us seem unable to grasp the idea of a rolling scissors, of a plane hunting instead of reacting..

P-5B's and C's, as well as Mustang III's, were available in numbers over the continent until VE day. One 8th AF group was still flying them at the end. Posting otherwise, pretending the lighter versions went away after awhile, so we just have to post numbers with the D model...well...just read a little bit, OK?

There were still Allison Mustangs as well, in the recon role.

Indeed, it was the B model that flew virtually all the sorties in Jan-May 1944. It is this model that made the P-51's reputation, NOT the D.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Probably the biggest problem in this forum, and that leads to flame wars, is the habit of distorcing facts and/or what other's have actually said.

Who ever said that the Mustang was less than stellar fighter becaus eof it's poor low speed characteristics? If you want my opinion, although I love german planes and especially the 109, I've got to agree that the Mustang was one of the very best fighters of the war.

According to the importance you give to turning, I'd say u've never even bothered to play this sim online, not to mention any contact with online wars ( the closest experience u can have of being a RL pilot ). Nor that u have ever read anything about air combat tactics that go any further than "dive on him and extend away".

Of course, in RL ( and we can see that in online wars / FR games ), being able to draw and hold more energy ( both types ) than your enemy is way more important than turning the hell out of him. But that doesn't mean that superior turning ability is something to be ignored.

Taking you own example: What the 109 should do in that situation, would be to provide the mustang with the worst shooting angles each time he passes by, making him bleed off energy when trying to pull the right angle, , trying to shoot him on zoom back up ( for a short space of time, always saving youself some energy for the other passes ), slowly equaling the energy states so that it reaches a stage where YOUR superior turning ability will allow u to turn inside him and he will have no E to get away. The mustang is helpless now, since diving will be extremely dangerous cuz the 109 will gain even more on him for some seconds due to superior powerloading. I know that in this example the 51 flier seems inferior, of course, he can avoid the high angle passes, try someting else, etc etc. but now we r talking about skill.

Now picture the same situation, but the plane that is being BnZed is a poor low speed turner.

...

there is virtually no chance of turning the tables, if there's any chance of running away ( in case of this plane being able to dive faster AND having enough altitude to equal the energy states during the dive with the guy above him, the fw190 x spitfire, for ex. )


again I say: beign able to hit hard and bug out quick is way more important in fluid, FR invironments ( realistic games ), but being able to outturn an opponent can be the difference between winning or losing when what u were actually supposed to do is not possible at the moment.

JZG-Pedro
07-10-2004, 11:39 PM
hmm... I seem to have taken the wrong post from Slickun...

anyway, its the one above it

Aaron_GT
07-11-2004, 07:33 AM
"The fact is that at high speeds the Mustang held pretty much held all the cards against the Spitfire, and pretty much every other contemporary fighter. "

The IXe and XIVe were better armed than the P51B and P51D (2 20mm, 2 0.5), not least since it got the gyro sight first. The Spitfire XIV was a touch faster at altitude. Clipped wing Spits could outroll the P51 up to about 400 IAS. Climb to altitude was better for the Spitfire (great for an interceptor, not so much use for an escort).

In terms of dive acceleration, zoom, range, etc., the P51 was superior.

hop2002
07-11-2004, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The MOMENT AAF units in the Med transitioned from the Spitfire V's and IX's they were flying, to Mustangs, victories exploded. Why? They didn't have to WAIT on the LW to appear. They went out and hunted THEM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Victories in the Med exploded with the invasion of Sicily. In two months in the summer of 43, the Luftwaffe lost over 1,000 aircraft in the Med.

Indeed, in those 2 months the Luftwaffe lost more than 3,000 aircraft in the West, Med and East.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The problem here is the revisionists arguing against what the long-ranged escorts did. Just read a little bit. It's not opinion, its fact. After 4 years of a bloody stalemate, the appearance of the P-51 spelled the end for the LW, in a few months.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bloody stalemate?

Until the end of 1942, Germany was largely on the offensive. When they ran into unsustainable losses, they could call off the attack. That was inevitable, because the allies didn't have the initiative or sufficient numbers to carry the war to Germany.

From 1943, Germany was on the defensive, and couldn't withdraw from battle even if they wanted to. It was no longer stalemate.

In 1943, when America was just begining to contribute it's share of the attack, Luftwaffe fighter pilot losses were 141% of front line strength.

July - October 1943, the Luftwaffe lost an average 15% of fighter pilot strength per month. That rose to 20% by April, 25% by May 1944. But that was accompanied by a huge rise in the number of sorties flown against the Luftwaffe.

In fact, Luftwaffe losses as a proportion of US sorties dropped with the arival of the Mustang.

Sep - Dec 43, the Luftwaffe lost 2,100 day fighters in Western Europe (inc Germany). The USAAF flew 40,000 sorties in Western Europe in that period. That's 1 loss per 19 US sorties.

Jan - May 44, the Luftwaffe lost 4,800 day fighters in Western Europe, the USAAF flew 183,000 sorties. That's 1 Luftwaffe fighter lost per 38 US sorties.

Pre Mustang, Luftwaffe losses as a percentage of effort expended against Germany were higher than after the Mustang came along.

There's no suprise that with a trebling of US strength in Western Europe, Luftwaffe losses went up. It would be astonishing if they didn't. But with a quadrupling of US strength and sorties against the Luftwaffe, their losses only doubled. That doesn't speak of the "criticality" of the Mustang's contribution.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Some of us don't seem to be able to grasp this idea of performance trumping everything else. Some of us seem unable to grasp the idea of a rolling scissors, of a plane hunting instead of reacting..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's all very well to talk of the areas the Mustang was superior, but you ignore the areas where it was inferior. You seem to take the attitude that US pilots could "choose" to fight only to their plane's strength.

In most accounts of air combat I've read, it sadly doesn't work like that. For every account where the pilot made a perfect pass, kept his plane fast at all times, and fought always to his strengths, I've seen 2 where they got into turn fights, or ended up hanging on their prop trying to claw an altitude advantage, or got into an accelerated stall because they pushed just a little bit too hard.

There's a reason many of the pilots who flew both the Spit IX and Mustang prefered the Spit IX, and why some Spit XIV pilots prefered the Spit IX.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You seem to be in a bit of denial. The short legs of the Spitfire limited its usefulness in Jan-May over the continent in 1944. Meanwhile, the LW was defeated, and the Spit was too short ranged to be involved except as an auxiliary type, running hit and run Rhubarbs and such over the continent. It was UNABLE to do it. Period. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire was unable to do what, exactly? Fly the missions chosen by the USAAF for a long range escort? Certainly, but then the Mustang was unable to provide air defence to Britain until 1944. Let's make it clear, the Mustang was a failure as a fighter until December 1943. Prior to that point, it was relegated to straffing ground targets and carrying out low level recce.

The Mustang's claim to fame is that in 1944 it proved itself able to pull 8th Bomber Command out of a hole it's unwise doctrine had got it in.

The Spitfire's "limited usefullness" was to provide air superiority over the areas in France, Belgium and Holland that were vital to the success of the allied invasion.

In the end, it's the invasion (and the Soviet ground operations) that destroyed Germany, not bombing.

lrrp22
07-11-2004, 08:17 AM
Hop2002,

I think Slickun is referring to the 31st and 52nd Fighter Groups. Both transitioned to the P-51B from the Spitfire VIII/IX during April of '44, after which both experienced a large increase in the number of aerial victories.

Also, the number of Luftwaffe losses v. USAAF sorties doesn't change the fact that the P-51 was heavily outscoring the Spitifre in the critical Winter/Spring of '44.

I know that you don't place much importance on the daylight strategic bombing campaign, but I don't think you can deny that vast amounts of resources were diverted to defend against it. Nor is it possible to ignore the fact that Germany's singularly critical ability to produce motor fuels was also dramatically affected.

[This message was edited by lrrp22 on Sun July 11 2004 at 07:37 AM.]

lrrp22
07-11-2004, 08:30 AM
The now-famous NACA chart indicates that the P-51B exceeded the clipped wing Spit's roll rate at just under 340 mph IAS and the standard wing at 260 indicated.

While the four .50 cal armament was on the light side I think that the six gun arrangement was more than adequate for fighter v. fighter purposes. It allowed for greater firing time as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"The fact is that at high speeds the Mustang held pretty much held all the cards against the Spitfire, and pretty much every other contemporary fighter. "

The IXe and XIVe were better armed than the P51B and P51D (2 20mm, 2 0.5), not least since it got the gyro sight first. The Spitfire XIV was a touch faster at altitude. Clipped wing Spits could outroll the P51 up to about 400 IAS. Climb to altitude was better for the Spitfire (great for an interceptor, not so much use for an escort).

In terms of dive acceleration, zoom, range, etc., the P51 was superior.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaron_GT
07-11-2004, 08:50 AM
Thanks - didn't have the chart to hand to determine the exact cut off.

With regard to firing time, powerful armament with short firing time might allow you to bring down more planes as a brief opportunity to fire with a heavier armament might be sufficient. A longer firing time allows you to take more speculative shots. 2 20mm cannon and 2 0.5 is about the equivalent in terms of firepower to the P47 (the 8 gun versions).

hop2002
07-11-2004, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You boom a guy, you either get him or not, he sees you or not. 2/3 to 3/4 of all aerial kills are of the unobserved bounce variety.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, which negates most features of the aircraft (apart from armament, where the P-51 lagged). But AFs still trained pilots in air combat, for those occasions where it wasn't a bounce.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He sees you, he turns into you. He bleeds energy, and will NOT be able to get nose on your vertical zoom. Sharp turning at a lower starting speed just makes you helpless sooner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And saves your life in evading the boom.

If a Mustang bounces a Spit, the Spit pilot can pull a turn the Mustang pilot can't follow, or pull a spiral climb the Mustang can't follow. If the situation is reversed, there isn't that much the Mustang pilot can do. There is almost nothing that will get him out a of guns solution immediately.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And good turning helps how? As a Mustang drops on you at 450 IAS, still controllable, with 100+ mph overtake speed? In a high side attack you are helpless in that situation, totally defensive. Peruse ANY account of the war and the bouncing group virtually always comes out ahead. Doesn't matter what the guys are flying...the bouncer comes out ahead an amazing percentage of the time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the plane.

Certainly a Mustang bounced has few options, but that's not true when you have a powerloading and turning advantage. 41 and 91 squadrons, flying the Spit XII, used to invite the bounce, because they knew they had an advantage in the turning combat that followed. As an example, there combat on 20th Oct 43.

Near Rouen, they spotted 30+ 190s and 109s up sun. The Spits were at 8,000ft, the Luftwaffe about 5,000ft higher. They waited for the bounce, turned on their attackers, and claimed 9 for no loss. JG 2 actually lost 9 as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The P-51 could perform ANY role the Spit did. It performed ground attack better (more payload and range),<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Range is not that important for a close support aircraft, and of course on the negative side the Mustang had inferior armament for straffing, and a more complex and vulnerable cooling arrangement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>recon better (more range),<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yet the RAF (and USAAF) preffered the Spit for recon, even after the Mustang became suitable for high altitude in December 43.

It's worth remembering there were recce Spits over Berlin long before any US aircraft (March 1941).

Range on PR Spitfires was up to 2000+ miles, depending on fuel load.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>CAP better (more loiter)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From 1944, of course, whn the need for CAP had almost disappeared. Of course, a Spit with drop tank has about 4 hours endurance anyway, and I'm not aware of allied CAPs going on this long in 1944/45.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Bomber intercept based on a quick climb etc, worse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Much worse, but again hardly matters as by the time the Mustang had the performance to operate at height the Germans hardly had any bombers left, and they certainly weren't sending them at altitude over Western Europe in daylight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Spit could barely even DO a bomber escort worthy of the term. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell that to the 9th AF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Mustang embodied the idea of the offensive fighter in WW2, taking the fight to the enemy. Ummm...that's how you win.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you win by occupying enemy territory, something no aircraft could do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fact is that at high speeds the Mustang held pretty much held all the cards against the Spitfire, and pretty much every other contemporary fighter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mustang had inferior armament to the Spit (the B to the C wing Spits, the D to the E wing Spits)

It's roll rate was, on average, slightly worse than the Spit's, it's climg rate and acceleration much inferior, it's all out dive speed lower.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, the number of Luftwaffe losses v. USAAF sorties doesn't change the fact that the P-51 was heavily outscoring the Spitifre in the critical Winter/Spring of '44. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. But that's because the USAAF chose to fight in a different area, simply because it suited their doctrine. The RAF and 9th AF were doing the vital invasion preperation work, the Luftwaffe chose to focus their energies on fighting the 8th AF because they could do it on more favourable terms. They still lost anyway, but think how much more devestating if the Luftwaffe losses could have been quadrupled in line with the effort expended against them.

Don't forget the USSAF was paying a terrible price for those German losses, Whilst quadrupling sorties only doubled German losses, the USAAF were losing heavily as well.

In the first 4 months of 1944, the Luftwaffe lost less than 20% of it's fighter pilots per month on average, the 8th AF lost almost the same proportion of it's fighter pilots, and between 20 and 25% of it's bombers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I know that you don't place much importance on the daylight strategic bombing campaign, but I don't think you can deny that vast amounts of resources were diverted to defend against it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And against the night bomber campaign.

I'm not out to discount the bombing campaign, just Slick's belief that it was essential for victory. His argument, as far as I can understand it from previous discussions we've had going back 4 - 5 years, is that without the daylight bombing campaign there could be no air superiority, thus no invasion.

The fact is, the Luftwaffe were going to fight. They'd obviously choose to fight in the most advantageous way they could, but without the 8th AF bombing Germany, they wouldn't have sat back out of range whilst the allies destroyed their invasion defences, V1 sites, airbases in France, communications between France and Germany, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Nor is it possible to ignore the fact that Germany's singularly critical ability to produce motor fuels was also dramatically affected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, don't ignore the effect of night bombing here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The now-famous NACA chart indicates that the P-51B exceeded the clipped wing Spit's roll rate at just under 340 mph IAS and the standard wing at 260 indicated<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

260 indicated is nigh on 400 mph at 25,000ft.
340 IAS is over 500 mph at the same altitude.

The RAF evaluation of the Spitfire XIV against the Mustang (and remember the RAF were speaking as a customer who flew both types), was that in rate of roll "The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.".

I've nothing against the Mustang, it was a superb fighter. Some people have a burning need to prove it was superior to everytihing else, and the critical factor in winning the war.

Simjock
07-11-2004, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slush69:
Nope. It's not overrated. It just played a key role in the war, and it sparks the imagination - maybe even too far for some.

Anyway, the Mustang was a decent fighter; no more than that. What turned it into a great asset was it's long range. The Mustang had the ability to be, where it mattered, and that made all the difference.

cheers/EoE

http://www.wilcks.dk/lort/Eurotrolls.gif

[This message was edited by Slush69 on Thu July 08 2004 at 07:47 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything I have read about the P-51 pretty much falls in line with what Slush69 has to say. The P-47 performed very well at high altitude but could not escort bombers deep into enemy airspace. The Mustang D model was specificly modified for long range escort. Most likely it was the Bomber crews that glorified the Mustang. I'm sure it was very comforting have them along.
Another feature of the Mustang I have read allot about but rarely see modeled in a simulator is the Mustangs highly acurate guns.*(see Jane's great Planes of WWII, 1978, pg.67)Aparently Mustang pilots were known for shoting at cockpits for a quik kill, ripping the wings off of an enemy plane with a reletivly small bust, and generally killing or disabling an enemy fighter with highly acurate gunfire.

Mustangs were used in large round up opperations as well. They would form up in large numbers to simulate a bomber formation on enemy radar so when the German fighters came up to engadge them it was like shooting ducks in a barrol. I'll bet those kind of mission acounted for allot of kills.

http://www.pcaviation.net/simjocksig.jpeg (http://www.pcaviation.net/)
"Take Off is Optional, Landing is Manditory."

lrrp22
07-11-2004, 11:17 AM
hop2002:
"I've nothing against the Mustang, it was a superb fighter. Some people have a burning need to prove it was superior to everytihing else, and the critical factor in winning the war."


I can't speak for others hop, but that's not my intention at all. The fact is that the current revisionist 'conventional wisdom' likes to espouse that the P-51 was nothing but a long-legged gas truck, hopelessly outclassed at all but the highest altitudes and totally reliant on overwhelming numbers. I know you don't ascribe to that view but there are plenty here that do.

As far as Spit XIV vs. P-51B/D roll rate the quote "The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV", all that indicates is that the Spit's roll was better at certain (lower) speeds. When you consider that most engagements that began at 25,000 ft quickly moved to lower altitudes, roll rate above 400 mph TAS becomes very useful.

owlwatcher
07-11-2004, 11:33 AM
Good posts with somewhat good data and facts.
As to B & Zin and turn fighting I understand little.
I think overall the Spit & P-51 are being over rated in this discussion.
While both planes were very good planes with there days in the skys .The way they have been presented here is wrong. By not including P-47 (flew more air sorties) then P-51s and not excluding bomber crew losses and sortie numbers the number presented here are amiss.
Also the ability to draw the Luffwaffe to battle or force them to fight is not beening considered.With the ebb & flow of ground battles where range would matter and let say the Spit operate.
I believe in the day & night strategic bombing campaign that kept a steady battle raging over Europe not the bomb damage but the steady wear & tear it did to the numbers of Luffwaffe air crews.
It would be interesting to try to sort the numbers here in a different light to get a better picture of what was happening.
The fuel resouces of germany by the month should be included with new charts.

"The Mustang's claim to fame is that in 1944 it proved itself able to pull 8th Bomber Command out of a hole it's unwise doctrine had got it in."
Such statements like this would be quickly proven wrong .
Can not hear you over the bombing.
Got any gas.

hop2002
07-11-2004, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can't speak for others hop, but that's not my intention at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I wasn't hinting that you fell into that definition.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fact is that the current revisionist 'conventional wisdom' likes to espouse that the P-51 was nothing but a long-legged gas truck, hopelessly outclassed at all but the highest altitudes and totally reliant on overwhelming numbers. I know you don't ascribe to that view but there are plenty here that do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, certainly. My answer to the title of this thread, "P-51 overrated? or not?" would be that it depends on whose rating it. Huck, Isegrim et al certainly underate it, Slickun I'd say certainly overrates it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as Spit XIV vs. P-51B/D roll rate the quote "The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV", all that indicates is that the Spit's roll was better at certain (lower) speeds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they meant overall it was better, which shows how much of combat they think was below the speed where the Spitfire was better, and how much above where the Mustang was better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> When you consider that most engagements that began at 25,000 ft quickly moved to lower altitudes, roll rate above 400 mph TAS becomes very useful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You also have to bear in mind how fast WW2 fighters bled energy. Modern fast jets can sustain high Gs, and accelerate quickly up to high speed. A WW2 fighter pulling 4 G bled energy very quickly. Trading height was a neccessary way of trying to keep speed up, but that doesn't mean it kept it up to max level speeds and above. As an example, according to RAE tests of a 109E in 1940 (it probably wasn't in good condition, to try to defuse Isegrim's reply), the 109 at 250 mph and 3g, would lose 2,000 ft a min to maintain that speed and bank angle. Take that up to a sustained 4 g and you lose more than 6,000 ft/min to maintain speed.

hop2002
07-11-2004, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"The Mustang's claim to fame is that in 1944 it proved itself able to pull 8th Bomber Command out of a hole it's unwise doctrine had got it in."
Such statements like this would be quickly proven wrong .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, that's poorly worded. "Because it" would have been a better choice than "that in".

Slickun
07-11-2004, 05:09 PM
hop2002, et al

Quote all the theoretical range values for the Spit you want, but the fact is during air operations in Jan-May 1944 it was left behind in the critical air battles of WW2, wherein the LW was defeated. This is not my opinion, it is a historical fact.

The reason was that of the 4 main day fighters available to the western Allies in this period it had by far the shortest combat radius, the LW had mostly retreated out of range of it and the 1943 P-47 range.

Any book on WW2 aerial warfare should have one of those charts...the ones showing the half circles with the max ranges of the planes, and how far into Germany they could go. Any sort of research should show, as well, the futility of fighter sweeps in this period...the LW just wouldn't bite.

The only way to get them, and pave the way for the Invasion, was to send the heavies up, have free ranging fighters along, and try to knock the LW from the sky THAT way. And, there had to be an escort all the way, the LW was incredibly adept at attacking the moment the escorts left.

The AAF was flying fighter sweeps all the time...big ones, deep over the continent. They were amazingly unfruitfull. The above tactics turned out to be the only one that could possibly result in the defeat of the LW. It was done on purpose, wasn't an accident, and it worked. The period was devastating to the LW, as any history shows. Caldwell's great book on JG-26 spells all this out.

We can look at all the reasons some of you feel that turning was more important that performance, how one could evade a bounce, which of course one can. But you are just wrong if you feel low and slow turning is more important than speed. As WW2 evolved, planes got bigger, faster and more powerful...not necessarily better at low speed turn fights.

But let me ask...which would you rather be, bouncer or bounced. The bouncer has an amazing advantage.

hop2002, with the high cruise rate of the P-51, getting bounced in a Mustang would force you to display some of its good characteristics, good to great high speed roll rate and turning. Anyone seeing a bouncing plane in time to react can turn inside the attacker, it is going faster than you, and will have a greater turn radius. Both planes would be going quite a bit above corner speed, and no amount of pulling will give a faster plane a tighter radius than a slower one, assuming max G's anything close to being equal. Even the old pig P-51 could do it. But all of this is quibbling. What really happened with the planes? How did they fare in WW2 combat? I believe that in 18 months the P-51 got more kills than any other Western fighter A/C, including types present from the beginning of the war, serving 6 years.

Overrate? Maybe. I'm as aware of the P-51's plusses and minuses as you are of the Spitfire's. Wait, I take that back. Come to think of it, I don't think I've EVER read a post of yours that conceeded any sort of weak trait. Not even range. It could outdive anything. But, that's OK. You are a fan of the A/C, as am I. It's allowed.

The disconnect comes with our interpretations of what was important in the war. On what the air campaign over Germany in Jan-May 1944 meant to the air war. On what the P-51 meant to that, and why it, of all planes made it successful. Range.

And yes, bloody stalemate in the air war. Did I fail to say AIR war? If I did, apologies. My fault.

After Schweinfurt (Oct 1943) the weather and exaustion closed in on the participants, especially the AAF. Germany had defeated the 8th AF in the war of attrition, air superiority was lost. Both sides regrouped, relaxed a bit due to the tempo of the war winding down, and got ready for the good weather. The LW was strong, rested, and waiting when the heavies reappeared in force in Jan 1944. Full of fine pilots and great planes, and tactics that had virtually cleared the skies of AAF bombers.

Well, this could go on awhile.

Those of you wishing to believe low speed turning is more important than performance, be my guest.

Those wishing to believe the P-51 arrived so late it only faced poor pilots in overwhelming numbers, fine.

Those wishing to believe the Spitfire could do what the Mustang could do over Berlin, stay with that.

Atomic_Marten
07-11-2004, 05:16 PM
Since I posting so much in last couple of hours then

**bump** to this neat thread.

Slickun
07-11-2004, 05:37 PM
Owlwatcher, in the early stages of the Jan-May air battles the P-47's had the most kills. They were present in a dozen or so groups, only one or two P-51 and P-38 groups.

By March the P-51's passed them, and then totally dominated the kill totals by the end of May.

By 1944, with bigger drop tanks P-47's had added to their range, and were big players in these air battles, make no mistake. I include them in the generic term "long ranged escorts".

But, only the Mustang and Lightning were able to protect the heavies over the good targets. Only these guys could go all the way. Otherwise, it would be a repeat of 1943, with the heavies savaged as the T-Bolts left, just starting about 50 miles further in. I have absolutely no doubt the result would have been the same, the LW winning the war of attrition. Abd the Invasion? It was what Operation Argument was all about, clearing the skies of the LW to enable the Invasion of Europe.

During this time P-51 Groups scored at a rate roughly double that of the P-47 groups, and 4 times that of the P-38 groups. This is total kills, not kills per sortie. For the war, P-51 groups scored 11 kills per 100 sorties, P-38's 4, P-47's 3. This is, of course, skewed because after D-Day fewer and fewer P-47 and P-38 sorties were of the air to air variety.

For the war the following totals are available in "Victory Roll" by Wolf

Type......ETO......MTO...Total West...Total war
P-51......4239....1063......5302.........5666

P-47......2685.5...263......2948.5.......3661.16

P-38......497......1431......1928.........3785

Total war includes CBI and PTO (Pacific) Theatres.

The P-51 totals do not include P-51 RAF victories, for which I am completely unable to find any sort of listing. I know the RAF had several P-51 Aces.

Slickun
07-11-2004, 06:14 PM
A note on LW losses in early 1944. Bailing out the 8th for sure. But, LW losses for the period were ruinous (from "JG-26, Top Guns of the LW" by Caldwell). Figures are for Reich defense only, except where noted:

Jan-160 pilots, 233 A/C

Feb-255 pilots killed, 141 wounded, 17.9% of total LW pilot strength.

March-American planners plot targets to draw the strongest opposition from the LW, target itself's value was secondary. 229 pilots killed, 109 wounded, 22% of pilot strength.

April-Entire LW loses 489 pilots, trained 396. Luftfloete Reich losses 38% of its pilots, Luftflotte 3 loses 24%

May- 276 pilots and 487 planes in Reich defense, 25% of total LW pilots and 50% of its total planes.

Since January the LW lost 2262 pilots, total pilot strength had dropped from 2395 pilots to 2283. Thus, in 5 months the LW had lost 100% of its average pilot strength.

Hardly bailing out the 8th AF. More like the defeat of the LW as a viable force in the West. Caldwell, Boyne, Galland, all agree. This period spelled the LW's doom.

The instrument enabling, and causing over half of all this carnage, was the P-51.

Slickun
07-11-2004, 06:38 PM
Enough.

No one thinks the P-51 could do everything better than the other guy. If they do, they are just foolish.

But the type could do SOMETHING better than the planes it faced, even late war. The ability to go out and hunt the other guy, on something like even terms, made all the difference, and must be factored in. This is why it outscored everyone. Not cheating, not unfair, but part of the total package.

JZG-Pedro
07-11-2004, 07:41 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slickun:
hop2002, et al

We can look at all the reasons some of you feel that turning was more important that performance, how one could evade a bounce, which of course one can. But you are just wrong if you feel low and slow turning is more important than speed. As WW2 evolved, planes got bigger, faster and more powerful...not necessarily better at low speed turn fights.

But let me ask...which would you rather be, bouncer or bounced. The bouncer has an amazing advantage.

hop2002, with the high cruise rate of the P-51, getting bounced in a Mustang would force you to display some of its good characteristics, good to great high speed roll rate and turning. Anyone seeing a bouncing plane in time to react can turn inside the attacker, it is going faster than you, and will have a greater turn radius. Both planes would be going quite a bit above corner speed, and no amount of pulling will give a faster plane a tighter radius than a slower one, assuming max G's anything close to being equal. Even the old pig P-51 could do it. But all of this is quibbling. What really happened with the planes? How did they fare in WW2 combat? I believe that in 18 months the P-51 got more kills than any other Western fighter A/C, including types present from the beginning of the war, serving 6 years.

[...]

Those of you wishing to believe low speed turning is more important than performance, be my guest.

Those wishing to believe the P-51 arrived so late it only faced poor pilots in overwhelming numbers, fine.

[...]

QUOTE]


Again I say: no one said low speed turning is more important than performance, but you just keep accusing us of that...

The thing is that there is no point on discussing anything with you. You just don't seem to be able to discuss anything, whenever u are wrong on something, u twist ( or ignore ) what other's have actually said to keep making your wrong statements look right.

I'm done with this thread, because you don't want to reach an agreement/ clarify things, what you want is a crowd for you to keep vomiting all of your vast and biased american book knowledge. I'm not quite into this.



farewell,

Arms1
07-11-2004, 08:25 PM
ya ya ya....give it a rest guys, p51 was a great aircraft that did its job well end of story; spits 51's 47's and typhoons all did thier jobs and to say anyone of them was a better a/c that contributed more to the war effort is nothing less than disrespecting the brave men that took these a/c out everyday to do the job that was assigned to them...perhaps we could say the Lysander was the most effective a/c for all of the problems its passengers caused the axis in occupied europe. Allied airforces were a big puzzle that all pieces fit into quite well, in this game the P51 is definately the "cadillac" of the skies but remember there is also some "Roll's" and a few "Benz's" out there too! Anyone who thinks that the Spit played a bit part after DDay has thier head up thier ***, it's employment as a fighter bomber operating from forward air bases was instrumental in ALL allied army's advancement into Germany!

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v258/idcflashman/flashsig2.jpg

Slickun
07-11-2004, 08:32 PM
JZG=Pedro...umm, what was that on page 2? I believe you were the first person to bring up what you percieved as a weakness..low speed handling. Go back and read it.

And my response was.....it wasn't much of a weakness. Performance was more important. Now THAT response stirred up some responders, and still is.

C'mon. I was responding to....YOU in part. If you don't like my answer, fine, but I wasn't responding to the air, my friend.

My favorite story on this is about one of my favorite A/C, the amazing Spitfire. Unable to outturn Zeroes over Surabaya, I think, or was it Darwin, they resorted to energy tactics. Stay fast, hit and run. Success followed.

Slickun
07-11-2004, 08:36 PM
And they didn't get back to France until after D-Day. After May 1944. After the LW was neutralized. After Operation Argument.

Give the Spitfire and Hurricane all the credit in the world for the BOB. Magnificent.

Do the same for the long ranged escorts over Germany in early 1944.

Difference is, only a select few planes could have pulled it off. The range thing.

Arms1
07-11-2004, 08:57 PM
interesting slickun, but just so you know, my fathers squadron flying spit IX's was providing top and rear cover for B17's returning from Germany as well as also providing daylight cover for lancaster raids on the Villiers Bocage when the normandie battle was still not decided, also for your information spitfires were flying over berlin on an almost daily basis from the beginning of the war, just thought you should know, not tooting the spitfire horn here but trying to inform people that all a/c had thier roll in the ultimate defeat of the axis powers
BTW: who do you think neutralized the axis airforces?, surley not the P51 alone?
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v258/idcflashman/flashsig2.jpg

[This message was edited by Arms1 on Sun July 11 2004 at 08:10 PM.]

SkyChimp
07-11-2004, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In fact, Luftwaffe losses as a proportion of US sorties dropped with the arival of the Mustang.

Sep - Dec 43, the Luftwaffe lost 2,100 day fighters in Western Europe (inc Germany). The USAAF flew 40,000 sorties in Western Europe in that period. That's 1 loss per 19 US sorties.

Jan - May 44, the Luftwaffe lost 4,800 day fighters in Western Europe, the USAAF flew 183,000 sorties. That's 1 Luftwaffe fighter lost per 38 US sorties.

Pre Mustang, Luftwaffe losses as a percentage of effort expended against Germany were higher than after the Mustang came along.

There's no suprise that with a trebling of US strength in Western Europe, Luftwaffe losses went up. It would be astonishing if they didn't. But with a quadrupling of US strength and sorties against the Luftwaffe, their losses only doubled. That doesn't speak of the "criticality" of the Mustang's contribution.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may not speak "criticallity" of the Mustang's contribution, but it certainly doesn't speak against it either. Because it ignores the fact that a huge number of sorties weren't intended to seek and destroy enemy aircraft. They were not necessarily sorties against the Luftwaffe. And a huge portion of the total sorties weren't flown by fighters at all.

Accepting your 40,000 figure for sorties flown from September to December 1943, USAAF records indicates fewer than half, 16,466, were flown by fighters in the ETO. Of that, 12,790 were bomber escort missions. The rest were fighter bomber/strafing mission, recon or "other."

In January to May 1944 183,000 sorties were flown. 102,132 were flown by fighters. Of that, 71,197 were escort missions. The rest were fighter bomber/strafing missions, recon or "other."

And it's important to remember that when you are drawing conclusions about the effect of the Mustang from statistics through May 1944, only five 8th AF fighter groups were equipped with the P-51 on May 1, 1944. On May 1, 1944, there were still four FGs equipped with the P-38, and six equipped with the P-47.

BTW, in 1945, USAAF fighter escort sorties were actually outnumbered by fighter bomber/strafing missions. In 1945, the Luftwaffe lost more aircraft on the ground that it did in the air.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Certainly, but then the Mustang was unable to provide air defence to Britain until 1944. Let's make it clear, the Mustang was a failure as a fighter until December 1943. Prior to that point, it was relegated to straffing ground targets and carrying out low level recce.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't a failure because it couldn't do the job. It didn't do the job because it wasn't used in that role. By and large, the British didn't have very many Mustangs prior to December 1943.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Mustang's claim to fame is that in 1944 it proved itself able to pull 8th Bomber Command out of a hole it's unwise doctrine had got it in.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unwise doctrine? You mean bombing the heartland of Germany by day without fighter escort? It may have been unwise, but it is what needed to be done. And it was the only way to do it up to the arrival of the Mustang. And the decision to do so was a joint decision with RAF BC. America by day - Britain by night.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Spitfire's "limited usefullness" was to provide air superiority over the areas in France, Belgium and Holland that were vital to the success of the allied invasion.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire didn't do that alone. American 8th and 9th AF fighters contributed to the achievement of air superiority prior to June 6.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In the end, it's the invasion (and the Soviet ground operations) that destroyed Germany, not bombing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No bombing campaign can lay claim to being the proximate cause of winning a war. But the USAAF bombing campaign can lay claim to being the principal event in destroying the Luftwaffe over Germany. The Mustang's claim to fame was being able to achieve air superiority over the heart-land of Germany itself - an absolutely essential achievement necessary to finishing the Luftwaffe. Unless, of course, we assume the Luftwaffe would have been finished off by overrunning their bases with ground troops, at much higher cost.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If a Mustang bounces a Spit, the Spit pilot can pull a turn the Mustang pilot can't follow, or pull a spiral climb the Mustang can't follow. If the situation is reversed, there isn't that much the Mustang pilot can do. There is almost nothing that will get him out a of guns solution immediately.

Certainly a Mustang bounced has few options, but that's not true when you have a powerloading and turning advantage. 41 and 91 squadrons, flying the Spit XII, used to invite the bounce, because they knew they had an advantage in the turning combat that followed. As an example, there combat on 20th Oct 43.

Near Rouen, they spotted 30+ 190s and 109s up sun. The Spits were at 8,000ft, the Luftwaffe about 5,000ft higher. They waited for the bounce, turned on their attackers, and claimed 9 for no loss. JG 2 actually lost 9 as well.
[\quote]

My understanding was that the Mustang had superior handling to the Spitfire at higher speeds. Suggesting there was "nothing" the Mustang pilot could do against a Spit assumes that the Mustang pilot has slowed to a speed where the Spitfire has the maneuverability advantage.

My understanding was that the Spitfire had heavy ailerons throughout its life, and all its variants. Yes, I know old Spitfires had very heavy ailerons and that was corrected in later models - but only somewhat. The RAF was looking for way to improve aileron forces throughout the plane's life. Heavy ailerons can seriously limit the ability of a plane getting into a turn.

Additionally, the Mustang B/C/D was faster than all but the latest Spitfires - by a significant margin. And the B/C models were as fast as the Spit XIV. Certainly, speed has its advantages.

Lastly, the Mustangs were superior in dives. Yes I know that the Spitfire could reach higher mach speeds. But it was slow to accelerate into a dive. In fact, it was probably the least regarded of the mainstay Allied fighters in the dive.

I'm not disparaging the Spitfire. But it was just a plane with pros and cons like every other.


[quote]
Range is not that important for a close support aircraft, and of course on the negative side the Mustang had inferior armament for straffing, and a more complex and vulnerable cooling arrangement.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe not ground support or troops, where airbases were right behind the front lines. But in that role, range is certainly no disadvantage, either. But if we are talking about fighter/bomber missions well ahead of the front lines, maybe a German aerodrome, range was critical.

And I don't understand why the Mustangâ's armament was inferior for strafing? It was capable of getting the job done. The plane carried a lot of ammo, and its many guns and high ROFs made hits on specific targets more likely.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And yet the RAF (and USAAF) preffered the Spit for recon, even after the Mustang became suitable for high altitude in December 43.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The USAAF preferred the Spitfire because that was what was available - in 1943. The USAAF needed Mustangs for escort fighters, not recon planes. The Spitfire XI worked well in the ETO's cold, high altitudes, where the F-5 (P-38) recon planes had problems. Conversely, the Spitfire XI was troublesome at low altitude in warm weather (due to fuel system problems and vapor-lock) where the F-5 excelled. By April 1945, there was scarcely any recon Spitfires left in the USAAF, having been replaced by domestically produced planes.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It's worth remembering there were recce Spits over Berlin long before any US aircraft (March 1941).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they weren't there in 1944 escorting and destroying the Luftwaffe over Germany.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
From 1944, of course, whn the need for CAP had almost disappeared. Of course, a Spit with drop tank has about 4 hours endurance anyway, and I'm not aware of allied CAPs going on this long in 1944/45.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, CAPs usually didn't take that long. Escort missions sometimes took twice as long. And from mid-1944 on, the air-space over Germany was where the principal portion of the action was.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Much worse, but again hardly matters as by the time the Mustang had the performance to operate at height the Germans hardly had any bombers left, and they certainly weren't sending them at altitude over Western Europe in daylight.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They had lots of bombers left. They were operating on the Eastern front, where most of the air-action was in 1942 and early 1943.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Tell that to the 9th AF.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 9th AF operated mainly from continental Europe after D-Day and was mainly a tactical air force - even when flying its heaviest medium bombers. I think he was referring to long range bomber missions. In that regard, I would agree with him.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No, you win by occupying enemy territory, something no aircraft could do.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Jagdwaffe was defeated over Germany long before Germany was defeated. The principal tool in achieving that was the Mustang.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Mustang had inferior armament to the Spit (the B to the C wing Spits, the D to the E wing Spits)

It's roll rate was, on average, slightly worse than the Spit's, it's climg rate and acceleration much inferior, it's all out dive speed lower.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many E wing Spits were there?

And since there were no bombers left, it might be well to mention that there were no German fighters immune to the .50. The .50s fired faster than the 20mm Hispanos, and since it fired more projectiles in a given amount of time, it was easier to hit with. And a hit with a .50 is better than a miss with a 20mm.

The Spitfire's roll rate with normal wings was better than the Mustang's up to about 250 mph IAS, steadily worse there after. Above 300 mph IAS, it was one of one of the worst of the mainstay Allied fighters.

Additionally, the Spitfire's acceleration is regarded as poor - even given it power to weight ratio. And while it could achieve higher mach speeds (not necessarily higher true air speeds), it is also regarded as a poor diver, with no tactical advantage over any allied or axis mainstay fighter that I know of.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Not at all. But that's because the USAAF chose to fight in a different area, simply because it suited their doctrine. The RAF and 9th AF were doing the vital invasion preperation work, the Luftwaffe chose to focus their energies on fighting the 8th AF because they could do it on more favourable terms. They still lost anyway, but think how much more devestating if the Luftwaffe losses could have been quadrupled in line with the effort expended against them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may hold true if the effort against the "Luftwaffe" was truly quadrupled. It wasn't.
The 40,000 sorties you mentioned earlier from September to December 1943 weren't all fighter missions targeting German aircraft. Significant portions were bombing missions by heavy and medium bombers, fighter/bomber missions, recon missions, or "other."

As stated previously, the over-all effort of the USAAF's force quadrupled, but not necessarily against the Luftwaffe.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And against the night bomber campaign.

I'm not out to discount the bombing campaign, just Slick's belief that it was essential for victory. His argument, as far as I can understand it from previous discussions we've had going back 4 - 5 years, is that without the daylight bombing campaign there could be no air superiority, thus no invasion.

The fact is, the Luftwaffe were going to fight. They'd obviously choose to fight in the most advantageous way they could, but without the 8th AF bombing Germany, they wouldn't have sat back out of range whilst the allies destroyed their invasion defences, V1 sites, airbases in France, communications between France and Germany, etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the bombing campaign was anymore necessary for overall victory than was the Battle of Britain. But it certainly helped.

Local air superiority, or even air superiority over large portions of Europe could, and was, obtained without relation to the USAAFâ's strategic bombing campaign. But air superiority over Germany itself, the denial of free-action over home airspace, the destruction of aerodromes, repair facilities, and training bases, fighters, and their pilots - again, in and over Germany itself - was necessary to achieve victory against the Luftwaffe. This was principally a result of the USAAF's bombing campaign and its roving long-range Mustang fighters.

The Spitfire, Thunderbolt and Lightning may have won air superiority over France in 1943 and early 1944. But it was the Mustang that won it over Germany in 1944 and 1945. And winning it over Germany was necessary to finally defeat the Luftwaffe as a credible force.

If it weren't for the fact that Mustang achieved this when it did, the allies would have had to defeat the Luftwaffe by overrunning their bases with unthinkably higher cost.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Again, don't ignore the effect of night bombing here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was essential. It allowed Germany no rest at all.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The RAF evaluation of the Spitfire XIV against the Mustang (and remember the RAF were speaking as a customer who flew both types), was that in rate of roll "The advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Tends." More specifics would have been helpful. If the test tended to be at 270 mph IAS and lower, then I would tend to agree.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I've nothing against the Mustang, it was a superb fighter. Some people have a burning need to prove it was superior to everytihing else, and the critical factor in winning the war.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have anything against the Spitfire. But let's not elevate it to some mythical level. It did something well, others not so well. Some people just tend to ascribe it such virtues that, if believed, would make one think it was the end-all-be-all plane that do eveything better than anything else.

And donâ't count me among the people that think the Mustang was critical to winning the war. However, I do think it deserves credit as the plane that contributed the most to defeating the Luftwaffe over Germany.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

Arms1
07-11-2004, 09:27 PM
i agree 100% chimp, lets not elevate the 51 to mythical proportions either!

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v258/idcflashman/flashsig2.jpg

SkyChimp
07-11-2004, 09:33 PM
Ooops, some of my responses and quotes got gooped together and I can't fix it. Just read carefully. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

Arms1
07-11-2004, 09:51 PM
in july august 1944 rcaf 126 wing followed the allied advance closely, so much that stray bullets routinely flew by and through thier airfield, every officer and enlisted man was issued with a rifle in case of a counter attack and almost everyone slept with a slit trench nearby, my father squdron (401) at that time was flying armed recce's (search and destroy) during that time, this was mainly due to the fact that the 20mm that the spits were equiped with were very effective at destroying and disableing lightly armoured and even heavily armoured enemy transport (met), i,m sure the 50's were extremely effective as well but i doubt they had the destructive capabilities of the 20mm

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v258/idcflashman/flashsig2.jpg

Arms1
07-11-2004, 09:56 PM
as an afterthought i must also say that according to his log book that on most occasions they were able to find and destroy enemy met and return to base within an hour and a half

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v258/idcflashman/flashsig2.jpg

owlwatcher
07-11-2004, 10:38 PM
The air battles over Europe sorta grew with the introduction of each new plane deployed.
The Spit won control over England.
The 4 engine bombers both night and day made the Luffwaffe change their fighters to bomber interceptors and weigh down with heavy guns. To attack unescorted bombers.
P-47 and P-38 slowly gathered range to guard the bombers. Then the final agony was when a pure fighters (P-51)with a extended range engaged the bomber interceptors any where they please. The P-47 becomes a ground pounder.
Gonna have to read up on the P-38 .
Each plane type made way for the next.

The luffwaffe was setup and lead by a leash to the slaughter house.By only reacting to each new combat problem it never saw what was coming over the hill.

As to the range factor of the likes of the P-51.
The Luffwaffe should have tried to do the same as I think it would have help in the defence.
The limited range of its fighters hurt it
though out the war.

The plane I consider that shot down the Luffwaffe was the B-17. It paid the price but in a clumsy way did the job.

Nexus2005
07-12-2004, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I don't have anything against the Spitfire. But let's not elevate it to some mythical level. It did something well, others not so well. Some people just tend to ascribe it such virtues that, if believed, would make one think it was the end-all-be-all plane that do eveything better than anything else. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is what I've been trying to say about the Mustang as well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm a big fan of the Mustang, it was a truly brilliant plane, but so was the Spitfire. It's perfectly fine to have either (or any plane) as your favourite of course, but to say either one was the absolute best or played a more important role than the other is nonsense. They were good for different reasons and different jobs. Neither should be elevated to a mythical level, and that is what I was trying to argue against all along.

Many of you people seem to think that planes were only truly important or vital at the end of the war when the Luftwaffe was being defeated on its home ground. This is also nonsense. The P-51 may (and I say MAY) have helped more to defeat the Luftwaffe at the end, but the Spitfire prevented the defeat of the allies in europe at the beginning (and at the end if things had gone wrong). Not losing is as important as winning.

http://www.bobcs.co.uk/sig/Nexussig/sig2.jpg (http://www.bobcs.co.uk)

hop2002
07-12-2004, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Quote all the theoretical range values for the Spit you want, but the fact is during air operations in Jan-May 1944 it was left behind in the critical air battles of WW2, wherein the LW was defeated. This is not my opinion, it is a historical fact. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not historical fact that the Luftwaffe were "defeated" Jan - May 44, anymore that they were defeated During the BoB, or in NA, or Sicily, or over France in summer 1944. The Luftwaffe suffered a large number of defeats during WW2, not one "final" one in Spring 1944.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The reason was that of the 4 main day fighters available to the western Allies in this period it had by far the shortest combat radius, the LW had mostly retreated out of range of it and the 1943 P-47 range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The KLuftwaffe did not "retreat" out of range. I find it hard to believe Hitler and Goering would let the Luftwaffe retreat from battle in early 1944 whilst the Nazi empire was being dismantled in the East and Italy, and was about to be dismantled in the West.

The Luftwaffe concentrated their forces on the Reich, because that was the easiest and most cost effective way for them to fight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Any book on WW2 aerial warfare should have one of those charts...the ones showing the half circles with the max ranges of the planes, and how far into Germany they could go. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I've seen several. They usually show the Spit V without a drop tank, or sometimes the Spit IX with a 30 gallon tank.

Similarly, you usually see comparisons of the P-47 against Spit V, P-51D against Spit IX, etc. It's a natural tendency, because several US squadrons transitioned from Spit Vs to P-47s. The new US aircraft is compared to the old British aircraft.

Someone posted a similar one on the Pacific Fighters forum last week, Eric Schilling comparing the P-40B to the Spit 1 and 109 E3, whereas it's a contemporary of the Spit V and 109 F.

I've just seen the RAAF tests of the range of a Spit VIII. They reached up to 10 ampg at 20,000 ft with a 90 gallon drop tank attached. The Spit VIII in that configuration carries 213 gallons. You can do the maths yourself, Berlin is about 550 miles from Britain. (and that's without the rear fuselage tank that was fitted later in the production run).

The RAF weren't in the business of long range escort in Europe. Spit VIIIs were sent mainly to the Far East, where range was more important to the RAF.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Any sort of research should show, as well, the futility of fighter sweeps in this period...the LW just wouldn't bite. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's talking about fighter sweeps?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The only way to get them, and pave the way for the Invasion, was to send the heavies up, have free ranging fighters along, and try to knock the LW from the sky THAT way. And, there had to be an escort all the way, the LW was incredibly adept at attacking the moment the escorts left.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, granted. You also have to bomb targets the Germans need to defend.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>hop2002, with the high cruise rate of the P-51, getting bounced in a Mustang would force you to display some of its good characteristics, good to great high speed roll rate and turning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At normal combat altitudes, the Mustang's roll rate was only average at cruising speed. At 25,000ft, the Mustang is outrolled at even it's fastest cruise by the Spit, let alone a more fuel efficient normal cruise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Anyone seeing a bouncing plane in time to react can turn inside the attacker, it is going faster than you, and will have a greater turn radius<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A Spit would have to be going one hell of a lot faster than a Mustang for the 'stang to have a tighter turning radius.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Both planes would be going quite a bit above corner speed, and no amount of pulling will give a faster plane a tighter radius than a slower one, assuming max G's anything close to being equal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max Gs aren't equal. What's the 4G stall speed of the Mustang? Now trying pulling that from a cruise at 25,000 ft without getting into an accelerated stall.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Overrate? Maybe. I'm as aware of the P-51's plusses and minuses as you are of the Spitfire's. Wait, I take that back. Come to think of it, I don't think I've EVER read a post of yours that conceeded any sort of weak trait. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, frequently. The Spitfire was a poor ground attack aircraft. It didn't operate that well in poor enviroments, and it's undercarriage wasn't very good for a carrier fighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And yes, bloody stalemate in the air war. Did I fail to say AIR war? If I did, apologies. My fault. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I took it to mean air war, even if you didn't say it (and you may well have).

It's just that the Germans hadn't achieved stalemate in the air war. They were losing strength at well over sustainable strength throughout 1943. That's not stalemate, anymore than there was stalemate on the eastern front or battle of the Atlantic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>he LW was strong, rested, and waiting when the heavies reappeared in force in Jan 1944.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Luftwaffe carried on haemorraging. Their lowest pilot losses were in November, at 10% of the fighter pilot strength, the rest of the second half of 43 they average 15% per month. That's not "rested". As a comparison, the RAF, which people claim was close to collapse in the BoB, lost around 5% of pilot strength per month.

In 1943, the average strength of the JGs was 2105 pilots. In 1943, the JGs lost 2967 pilots. That's 141% of frontline strength. That's not "rested".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Full of fine pilots and great planes, and tactics that had virtually cleared the skies of AAF bombers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Full of rookies too. You can't lose 141% of front line strnegth in a year and have a force that isn't largely fresh out of (reduced) training.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Since January the LW lost 2262 pilots, total pilot strength had dropped from 2395 pilots to 2283. Thus, in 5 months the LW had lost 100% of its average pilot strength.

Hardly bailing out the 8th AF. More like the defeat of the LW as a viable force in the West. Caldwell, Boyne, Galland, all agree. This period spelled the LW's doom.

The instrument enabling, and causing over half of all this carnage, was the P-51.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what was the instrument that enabled the Luftwaffe to lose an average of 15% per month in the previous year? At a time when the forces arrayed against the Luftwaffe were much smaller? Look at figures Skychimp gives. USAAF fighter sorties went up a massive amount, Luftwaffe casualties did not rise anything like in proportion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I believe you were the first person to bring up what you percieved as a weakness..low speed handling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Low speed handling isn't just what you get when you enter a sustained turnfight trying to lose speed and turn inside your oponent.

Low speed handling is what you get at high altitude, or coming off the top of a loop or Immelman, or what you get towards the end of a zoom climb, or in the scissors. Low speed isn't something you can reliably avoid in a WW2 fighter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Difference is, only a select few planes could have pulled it off. The range thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pulled what off? Enabled the 8th to bomb Berlin? Certainly. Brought the Luftwaffe to battle? No. The Luftwaffe were brought to battle numerous times, and defeated numerous times, before the Mustang came along.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Accepting your 40,000 figure for sorties flown from September to December 1943, USAAF records indicates fewer than half, 16,466, were flown by fighters in the ETO. Of that, 12,790 were bomber escort missions. The rest were fighter bomber/strafing mission, recon or "other."

In January to May 1944 183,000 sorties were flown. 102,132 were flown by fighters. Of that, 71,197 were escort missions. The rest were fighter bomber/strafing missions, recon or "other."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely that makes my case even more?

USAAF fighter sorties against the Luftwaffe in the second half of 43 were 16,466. Luftwaffe losses about 15% of strength per month.

USAAF fighter sorties in the first quarter of 44, 102,132, Luftwaffe losses about 20% per month.

Surely with the USAAF putting in 6 times the effort, the Luftwaffe should have been losing far more?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And it's important to remember that when you are drawing conclusions about the effect of the Mustang from statistics through May 1944, only five 8th AF fighter groups were equipped with the P-51 on May 1, 1944. On May 1, 1944, there were still four FGs equipped with the P-38, and six equipped with the P-47.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not just, or even mainly, the Mustang. It's Slick's argument that the P-51 destroyed the Luftwaffe in early 44, something that couldn't have been done without it.

Truth is, the USAAF expanded greatly (so to a lesser extent did the RAF, and presumably the VVS as well). The Luftwaffe were attacked by more aircraft than they had been in the previous 6 months, and losses went up. To claim the losses went up only because of the change in tactics, and the P-51, whilst ignoring the much larger numbers, seems bizarre. To ignore the fact that Luftwaffe losses went up at a lower rate than allied effort against the Luftwaffe seems like denial.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It wasn't a failure because it couldn't do the job. It didn't do the job because it wasn't used in that role. By and large, the British didn't have very many Mustangs prior to December 1943. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Allison P-51 would have been a poor fighter in the ETO, because of the altitudes involved. The same is true of the Typhoon, of course. The RAF didn't try to use it as fighter because of it's altitude limitations.

I've forgotten the figures, but the Spit V would have been superior above 20,000 ft, iirc, And by mid 42 the Spit V was definately seen as outclassed at altitude in Europe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Unwise doctrine? You mean bombing the heartland of Germany by day without fighter escort? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The doctrine of unescorted daylight bombing was unwise, and proven not to work. The British and Germans had proven it didn't work in 1939 and 1940. The USAAF proved it again in 1943.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It may have been unwise, but it is what needed to be done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doing something that weakens yourself more than it weakens the enemy isn't what needs to be done. It doesn't matter what you bomb if the damage done to your AF is greater than the damage done to the enemy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And it was the only way to do it up to the arrival of the Mustang. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was, to all intents and purposes, stopped in late 1943. The men who tried were brave, no doubt. And it's easy to blame the commanders by saying the British and Germans had already proved it wouldn't work. Truth is, they thought with heavier armour and heavier armament they could do it, but the defenders simply adopted heavier armour and heavier armament, and still won.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And the decision to do so was a joint decision with RAF BC. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BC made some efforts to get the Americans to bomb at night, instead. I suppose the painfull lessons of 1939 and 1940 carried more strength to the men who'd experienced them. As they say, it's a wise man who learns from other's mistakes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Spitfire didn't do that alone. American 8th and 9th AF fighters contributed to the achievement of air superiority prior to June 6<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly not alone, and that's not what I was trying to imply. Slick's claim was that the Spit (and by extension ADGB, 2nd TAF, 9th AF and parts of the 8th AF) were of "limited usefullness".

Tell that to the soldiers on the beaches who weren't counterattacked by large numbers of Panzer divisions because the Germans couldn't get them to the front due to the destruction of the transport links.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No bombing campaign can lay claim to being the proximate cause of winning a war. But the USAAF bombing campaign can lay claim to being the principal event in destroying the Luftwaffe over Germany. The Mustang's claim to fame was being able to achieve air superiority over the heart-land of Germany itself - an absolutely essential achievement necessary to finishing the Luftwaffe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only thing that "finished" the Luftwaffe was when their airfields were overrun.

The Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses in 1943. In 1944, with much greater forces arrayed against them, they suffered higher losses.

It's worthing noting Galland's comments at the end of April 44. "Between Jan and April our day fighter arm lost more than 1,000 pilots."

More than 1000 in 4 months. The total for 1943, according to Williamson Murray, was nearly 3000, or just under 1000 every 4 months.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Unless, of course, we assume the Luftwaffe would have been finished off by overrunning their bases with ground troops, at much higher cost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Luftwaffe would have been "finished" by heavy air combat. Over France, Germany, doesn't make much difference. The Luftwaffe were "finished" over Italy by a much smaller force, without having to fight them over Germany.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My understanding was that the Mustang had superior handling to the Spitfire at higher speeds. Suggesting there was "nothing" the Mustang pilot could do against a Spit assumes that the Mustang pilot has slowed to a speed where the Spitfire has the maneuverability advantage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cruise speed is not "higher speed".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My understanding was that the Spitfire had heavy ailerons throughout its life, and all its variants. Yes, I know old Spitfires had very heavy ailerons and that was corrected in later models - but only somewhat. The RAF was looking for way to improve aileron forces throughout the plane's life. Heavy ailerons can seriously limit the ability of a plane getting into a turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were always too heavy at high speeds. Yet we have the AFDU report where they say the Spitfire's ailerons "tend to be better" than the Mustang's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Additionally, the Mustang B/C/D was faster than all but the latest Spitfires - by a significant margin. And the B/C models were as fast as the Spit XIV. Certainly, speed has its advantages.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly. But the speed advantage we are talking about is around 25 mph. That's about 12 yards a second. As an evasive, that's no use at all. 30 odd seconds to get out of range isn't something you want to rely on in combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Lastly, the Mustangs were superior in dives. Yes I know that the Spitfire could reach higher mach speeds. But it was slow to accelerate into a dive. In fact, it was probably the least regarded of the mainstay Allied fighters in the dive.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somebody posted a quote from a Jeff Ethel book here a few months ago, concerning a P-51 dive test against the Zeke. (And I think we can agree the Spit would have better dive characteristics than the Zeke). IIRC, after 27 seconds the Mustang was about 200 yards ahead.

Given that acceleration due to gravity is a max of 10 m/s in a vertical dive with no drag, I can't see the Mustang having more than about 3 m/s at most as a dive acceleration advantage.

That's going to take you more than 15 seconds to open enough seperation in a vertical dive from max speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And I don't understand why the Mustangâ's armament was inferior for strafing? It was capable of getting the job done. The plane carried a lot of ammo, and its many guns and high ROFs made hits on specific targets more likely. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because a bullet does so much less damage than a cannon shell. And with the extent of German flak, more ammunition is not something you need. Most straffing consisted of a single pass. Coming round for a second when the light AA was alerted was tantamount to suicide.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The USAAF preferred the Spitfire because that was what was available - in 1943. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But they weren't there in 1944 escorting and destroying the Luftwaffe over Germany.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As the Mustang wasn't destroying the German preperations for the invasion of France, or destroying V weapon sites in Holland and France.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They had lots of bombers left. They were operating on the Eastern front, where most of the air-action was in 1942 and early 1943.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They'd certainly learnt not to fly them over Western Europe in daytime in large numbers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Jagdwaffe was defeated over Germany long before Germany was defeated. The principal tool in achieving that was the Mustang. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were defeated over Britain before the Mustang first flew. There is no "point" during the war where the Luftwaffe was "finally" beaten, just a long series of defeats, and high attrittion reducing their effectiveness.

That attrittion is true of every period of high losses the Luftwaffe suffered. It's not the case that the losses of 1943 were bearable, and the losses of the first half of 1944 not. The Luftwaffe declined in average quality throughout 1943 and 1944.

As an example, I looked up the top 25 scorers in the Luftwaffe. I looked for those who died in the second half of 1943, and the first half of 1944.

In the second half of 43, the Luftwaffe lost:

Hans Philipp, 206 victories, shot down by a p-47 Oct 8th 1943

Max Stotz 189 victories August 19th 1943 (russian front?)

Joachim Kirschner 188 victories shot down by Spitfires Croatia December 1943

Kurt Brandle 180 victores shot down by Spitfires October 1943 Netherlands

That's 4 aces with 180+ victories each lost in the second half of 43 (2 by "limited usefullness" Spitfires)

In the first half of 44, none of the Luftwaffe's top 25 aces was killed.

It's too small a sample to be conclusive, of course, but it does illustrate there wasn't this magic period in 1944 where the Luftwaffe suddenly began to lose quality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How many E wing Spits were there? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the E wing became fairly standard from the summer of 44 onwards, about the same time the P-51D became standard.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And since there were no bombers left, it might be well to mention that there were no German fighters immune to the .50. The .50s fired faster than the 20mm Hispanos, and since it fired more projectiles in a given amount of time, it was easier to hit with. And a hit with a .50 is better than a miss with a 20mm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There was no fighter "immune" to 303s. (Not that I'm suggesting 303s were an adequate armament in 1944)

The US Navy reckoned a 20 mm equal to 3 50 cals, and I'm not going to argue with them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Additionally, the Spitfire's acceleration is regarded as poor - even given it power to weight ratio. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regarded by whom? Acceleration is closely tied to climb rate (both are a function of excess power), and the Spit LF IX and XIV had climb rates that were only equalled by the 109.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This may hold true if the effort against the "Luftwaffe" was truly quadrupled. It wasn't.
The 40,000 sorties you mentioned earlier from September to December 1943 weren't all fighter missions targeting German aircraft. Significant portions were bombing missions by heavy and medium bombers, fighter/bomber missions, recon missions, or "other."

As stated previously, the over-all effort of the USAAF's force quadrupled, but not necessarily against the Luftwaffe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Given your figures above, the fighter missions more than quadrupled.

I don't see many other enemies the USAAF would be fighting against in Europe in 1944.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Local air superiority, or even air superiority over large portions of Europe could, and was, obtained without relation to the USAAFâ's strategic bombing campaign. But air superiority over Germany itself, the denial of free-action over home airspace, the destruction of aerodromes, repair facilities, and training bases, fighters, and their pilots - again, in and over Germany itself - was necessary to achieve victory against the Luftwaffe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?

Airfields needed to be destroyed, but if the battle was in France, those airfields would be in France and just over the border. The repair facilities would need to be in France too, because the transport links were so badly disrupted it would be easier to scrap a plane than send it back to Germany for repair. And that's even more true if the USAAF are bombing more in France.

How many training bases were in fact destroyed in the first half of 44? I know the talk is of fighters loitering over every airfield, but that's something that you can only do when you have massive superiority in numbers. I suspect that's mainly true of the second half of 44, not the first.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Spitfire, Thunderbolt and Lightning may have won air superiority over France in 1943 and early 1944. But it was the Mustang that won it over Germany in 1944 and 1945<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is air superiority more crucial, behind the battlefield or over the battlefield?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If it weren't for the fact that Mustang achieved this when it did, the allies would have had to defeat the Luftwaffe by overrunning their bases with unthinkably higher cost.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they would have had to defeat them in air combat over France.

Without the US startegic campaign in 1944, the Luftwaffe has 2 choices. Fight to defend it's airfields in France, along with army bases, ammo depots, bridges, fortifications etc, or hide in Germany.

I suspect Hitler wouldn't have let it hide in Germany, and that the Luftwaffe wouldn't have wanted to anyway.

That means they get defeated over France.

The alternative is they hide in Germany and deploy to France when the invasion begins. Alfred Price has a good bit in "The last year of the Luftwaffe" about just what happened to the Luftwaffe units deploying to their airfields in France after D Day. They were innefective.

As an example, II/JG 1. They relocated to Le Mans. They flew some patrol, and mounted a fighter bombing sorties against shipping, all with no results.

Their airfield was bombed by Lancasters, and all aircraft grounded for 6 days. Then they changed airfields. Then they were attacked by Mustangs, and 15 Fw 190s destroyed on the ground. In all that time, they had 0 impact on the battle.

As Price says:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For all the problems of battling against the American heavy bombers and their escorts, there was at least the advantage of operating from permament well stocked airfields with established radar and fighter control systems to direct their activities. In France the fighters flew from field landing grounds with minimal facilities. The system for ground control of intercepts rarely worked<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Tends." More specifics would have been helpful. If the test tended to be at 270 mph IAS and lower, then I would tend to agree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you think, when summing up, the pilots of the AFDU would look only at one narrow part of the flight envelope? If they did look purely at low speed, then the Spit wouldn't "tend" to be better, it would be clearly superior. The fact that it only "tends" to be better indicates they were taking a range of speeds. Given the way the AFDU tested, that's probably a simple assesment of "normal" combat speeds. If the Spit was better over more of the speed range than the Mustang, then the Spit would "tend" to be better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And donâ't count me among the people that think the Mustang was critical to winning the war. However, I do think it deserves credit as the plane that contributed the most to defeating the Luftwaffe over Germany.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no problem with that, as long a you put the "over Germany" bit on the end http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Capt.England
07-12-2004, 05:46 PM
The thread that wont die! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Britwhiner No.1

owlwatcher
07-12-2004, 06:08 PM
Here is a interesting chart on US planes
http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v280/owlwatcher/DSC09602.jpg

From Anreican Combat Planes

SkyChimp
07-12-2004, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Surely that makes my case even more?
USAAF fighter sorties against the Luftwaffe in the second half of 43 were 16,466. Luftwaffe losses about 15% of strength per month.
USAAF fighter sorties in the first quarter of 44, 102,132, Luftwaffe losses about 20% per month.
Surely with the USAAF putting in 6 times the effort, the Luftwaffe should have been losing far more?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Makes it more what? Forgive me, but I donâ't that your argument really makes much sense. You keep stressing that the US placed more effort against the Luftwaffe. That's not necessarily true. The vast majority of US fighter sorties were escort missions for bombers. Defending bombers was the main goal, not shooting down German planes. While that certainly happened, shooting down German planes was incidental to the goal of protecting bombers. So the USAAF increased sorties without a proportional increase in the destruction of German planes. So what. The USAAF took circumstances as they found them.

Simply stating that the USAAF increased sorties without a proportional increase in German planes destroyed is over simplistic.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It's not just, or even mainly, the Mustang. It's Slick's argument that the P-51 destroyed the Luftwaffe in early 44, something that couldn't have been done without it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that is what Slickun is stating, then I would disagree with him as well. I would agree, however, that the Mustang took the fight to the heart of Germany like no other contemporary fighter did.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Truth is, the USAAF expanded greatly (so to a lesser extent did the RAF, and presumably the VVS as well). The Luftwaffe were attacked by more aircraft than they had been in the previous 6 months, and losses went up. To claim the losses went up only because of the change in tactics, and the P-51, whilst ignoring the much larger numbers, seems bizarre. To ignore the fact that Luftwaffe losses went up at a lower rate than allied effort against the Luftwaffe seems like denial.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the vast majority of USAAF fighter missions through 1944 were escort missions. The primary goal of the escort is not to seek out and destroy German planes (although that happened). The goal was to protect bombers. Fighters could do that and never shoot down a German plane.

So, I disagree with your contention that the there was some massive increase in the effort to seek out and destroy German fighters. Yes, there was an increase, and the destruction of German fighters did occur, but you simply cannot say that was the goal of every escort mission, because it wasn't, at least through much of 1944. Now in 1945, I would probably agree. By 1945, USAAF escort fighters became very adept at ranging out ahead of bombers and attacking them on the ground, or long before they were even close to the bombers. As stated earlier, in 1945, the USAAF destroyed more German planes on the ground than in the air.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Allison P-51 would have been a poor fighter in the ETO, because of the altitudes involved. The same is true of the Typhoon, of course. The RAF didn't try to use it as fighter because of it's altitude limitations.

I've forgotten the figures, but the Spit V would have been superior above 20,000 ft, iirc, And by mid 42 the Spit V was definately seen as outclassed at altitude in Europe.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In terms of altitude performance, I would agree the Allison Mustang was lacking. But at its best altitude, I think it was as good as anything out there.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The doctrine of unescorted daylight bombing was unwise, and proven not to work. The British and Germans had proven it didn't work in 1939 and 1940. The USAAF proved it again in 1943.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it had to be done, and was done until losses became unsustainable. The British tried to convince the USAAF to switch to night bombing, but agreed that US bombers at the time were not suited to night bombing. The USAAF did the job it could with what it had.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Doing something that weakens yourself more than it weakens the enemy isn't what needs to be done. It doesn't matter what you bomb if the damage done to your AF is greater than the damage done to the enemy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure that happened. Americans are just funny about getting high returns on their investments. The USAAF could have continued to throw bombers into the meat grinder and eventually gotten the job finished. It could have fought the way the Soviets did - the US certainly had the man power and industrial capacity. But it chose to wait until appropriate fighter escort was available.

There is a difference between a poor return on investment, and a negative return on investment.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It was, to all intents and purposes, stopped in late 1943. The men who tried were brave, no doubt. And it's easy to blame the commanders by saying the British and Germans had already proved it wouldn't work. Truth is, they thought with heavier armour and heavier armament they could do it, but the defenders simply adopted heavier armour and heavier armament, and still won.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Raids against Germany were stopped. They continued elsewhere. And yes, the USAAF thought they could succeed where others had failed, but they found the cost would be too high for their tastes. No country went into the war knowing precisely how to win it.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
BC made some efforts to get the Americans to bomb at night, instead. I suppose the painfull lessons of 1939 and 1940 carried more strength to the men who'd experienced them. As they say, it's a wise man who learns from other's mistakes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes they did try to convince the USAAF to switch to night bombing. And I suppose in the technical sense we can say the Americans were unwise and failed to learn from other's mistakes. But we aren't talking about the act of investing money into shaky schemes - this was a real war for national survival of many of the countries involved. The USAAF went into the war knowing it was going to meet tough opposition, loose planes and many lives. But sometimes something has to be tried before you know it will fail. And no one to date had flown hundreds of tough, heavily armed B-17s into Germany.

I think the propensity of some people here is to think that the USAAF was run by a bunch of cowboys and yahoos, that they had no clue how to fight, and only learned their lessons once the British announced "we told you so."

So, the while a "wise man learns from other's mistakes," another axiom is "nothing ventured, nothing gained."


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Certainly not alone, and that's not what I was trying to imply. Slick's claim was that the Spit (and by extension ADGB, 2nd TAF, 9th AF and parts of the 8th AF) were of "limited usefullness".

Tell that to the soldiers on the beaches who weren't counterattacked by large numbers of Panzer divisions because the Germans couldn't get them to the front due to the destruction of the transport links.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you 100%.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The only thing that "finished" the Luftwaffe was when their airfields were overrun.

The Luftwaffe suffered heavy losses in 1943. In 1944, with much greater forces arrayed against them, they suffered higher losses.

It's worthing noting Galland's comments at the end of April 44. "Between Jan and April our day fighter arm lost more than 1,000 pilots."

More than 1000 in 4 months. The total for 1943, according to Williamson Murray, was nearly 3000, or just under 1000 every 4 months.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the only thing that finished the Germans was over-running Germany. I'm talking about finishing the Luftwaffe as a credible and threatening force. That happened months before the airfields were overrun.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Luftwaffe would have been "finished" by heavy air combat. Over France, Germany, doesn't make much difference. The Luftwaffe were "finished" over Italy by a much smaller force, without having to fight them over Germany.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you don't win the war by winning air-superiority over France or Italy. You win it by taking the other guy's country. And as long as the Luftwaffe existed in Germany, where major bases existed, where training and repair facilities existed, where ammo stores and fuels stores existed, then the Luftwaffe exists to give you a very hard time while you try to take Germany.

The Luftwaffe could exist as a credible force in Germany, even while it was cleared from the skies in France. But it could not have existed for long in Italy or France after having been destroyed in Germany. The heart of the Luftwaffe existed in the heart of Germany. That's where it was finished. That's where it had to be finished.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Cruise speed is not "higher speed".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was it usual for fighter pilots to try and keep their speed moderate, or high?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
They were always too heavy at high speeds. Yet we have the AFDU report where they say the Spitfire's ailerons "tend to be better" than the Mustang's.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That report tends to be vague. What were the test speeds? Like I said earlier, if the test speeds tended to be low-moderate, then I would tend to agree. It they tended to moderate-high, then I would tend not to agree.

"Tend" doesn't say much.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Certainly. But the speed advantage we are talking about is around 25 mph. That's about 12 yards a second. As an evasive, that's no use at all. 30 odd seconds to get out of range isn't something you want to rely on in combat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mustang "tends" to be faster.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Somebody posted a quote from a Jeff Ethel book here a few months ago, concerning a P-51 dive test against the Zeke. (And I think we can agree the Spit would have better dive characteristics than the Zeke). IIRC, after 27 seconds the Mustang was about 200 yards ahead.

Given that acceleration due to gravity is a max of 10 m/s in a vertical dive with no drag, I can't see the Mustang having more than about 3 m/s at most as a dive acceleration advantage.

That's going to take you more than 15 seconds to open enough seperation in a vertical dive from max speed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karl Heinz, technical officer to 2 Staffel/JG26, in comparing allied planes to the Dora-9 stated about the Spitfire, "The D-9 was better in level flight, climb and dive, we were slightly inferior in turns."

About the Mustang he said, "The two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers, which was an advantage for us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather faster in a dive."

(About the Thunderbolt he said, "We were hopelessly inferior in a dive. Never try to dive away from a Thunderbolt.")

And regarding diving from max speed, the Spitfire's aileron effectiveness is going to get worse and worse. The advantages of superior aileron control at high speed can be seen in the Spitfire I versus Hawk 75 test that has been posted here on some occasions.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Because a bullet does so much less damage than a cannon shell. And with the extent of German flak, more ammunition is not something you need. Most straffing consisted of a single pass. Coming round for a second when the light AA was alerted was tantamount to suicide.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AA couldn't be taken out with 6 or 8 fifties? Tell that to the 9th AF.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As the Mustang wasn't destroying the German preperations for the invasion of France, or destroying V weapon sites in Holland and France.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, other allied fighters did that, RAF and USAAF alike.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
They'd certainly learnt not to fly them over Western Europe in daytime in large numbers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was there to bomb in western Europe (other than England) prior to June 1944? German already had it occupied and sent the principal portion of their air force to the east.

But I agree flying He-111s, Ju-88s and Ju-87s in the west was pretty much suicide.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
They were defeated over Britain before the Mustang first flew. There is no "point" during the war where the Luftwaffe was "finally" beaten, just a long series of defeats, and high attrittion reducing their effectiveness.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Defeating them over Britain isn't the same as defeating them over Germany. They may have been beaten over Britain, but they still existed in Germany - to regroup, train, rest, and to finally mount missions outside Germany - again.

And I disagree that there was no point in the war where the Luftwaffe was finally beaten. I think there certainly was. They were defeated in the west by February or March 1945. At that time, the Luftwaffe had since sent the majority of what was left of their fighter force to the east - where they could still be effective. The Jadgwaffe wasn't even mounting realistic defenses to USAAF raids on Berlin itself by this time. If that doesn't suggest defeat, nothing does.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
That attrittion is true of every period of high losses the Luftwaffe suffered. It's not the case that the losses of 1943 were bearable, and the losses of the first half of 1944 not. The Luftwaffe declined in average quality throughout 1943 and 1944.
As an example, I looked up the top 25 scorers in the Luftwaffe. I looked for those who died in the second half of 1943, and the first half of 1944.
In the second half of 43, the Luftwaffe lost:
Hans Philipp, 206 victories, shot down by a p-47 Oct 8th 1943
Max Stotz 189 victories August 19th 1943 (russian front?)
Joachim Kirschner 188 victories shot down by Spitfires Croatia December 1943
Kurt Brandle 180 victores shot down by Spitfires October 1943 Netherlands
That's 4 aces with 180+ victories each lost in the second half of 43 (2 by "limited usefullness" Spitfires)
In the first half of 44, none of the Luftwaffe's top 25 aces was killed.
It's too small a sample to be conclusive, of course, but it does illustrate there wasn't this magic period in 1944 where the Luftwaffe suddenly began to lose quality.
[quote]

I think it's important to remember that while it's the Experten we all remember, by and large it was the guy with just a couple, or even zero, kills that fought the war. Experten accounted for a mere fraction of the faceless pilots that fought the war on the side of Germany. That holds true with all countries involved.

Additionally, Stalin qot something right. Quantity is a quality all its own. By the time 1944 rolled around, the average German pilot may have been worse than he was in 1941. But there were more of them, and more planes, too. And an air force with lots of average pilots and lots of planes can be deadly.


[quote]
There was no fighter "immune" to 303s. (Not that I'm suggesting 303s were an adequate armament in 1944)

The US Navy reckoned a 20 mm equal to 3 50 cals, and I'm not going to argue with them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one seriously suggests the 20mm wasn't better than the .50 - if you could hit with it. The US Navy found the 20mm was equal to 3 .50s. But that's with regards to destructiveness. The same Navy found that the .50s were easier to hit with, and far from ineffective. And again, a hit with a .50 is better than a miss with a 20mm.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Regarded by whom? Acceleration is closely tied to climb rate (both are a function of excess power), and the Spit LF IX and XIV had climb rates that were only equalled by the 109.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's also closely tied to dive acceleration, and the Spitfire was poorer than other fighters in that regard - even fighters with worse power to weight ratios.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Given your figures above, the fighter missions more than quadrupled.

I don't see many other enemies the USAAF would be fighting against in Europe in 1944.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was the only branch of the German armed-forces fighting in Europe the Luftwaffe? What about attacks against German installations you talked about earlier? What about that 9th AF?

And what about the times when the bomber escorts were along for the ride, and never encountered the enemy?

There were only so many German planes, and not all sorties were directed against THEM.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Why?

Airfields needed to be destroyed, but if the battle was in France, those airfields would be in France and just over the border. The repair facilities would need to be in France too, because the transport links were so badly disrupted it would be easier to scrap a plane than send it back to Germany for repair. And that's even more true if the USAAF are bombing more in France.

How many training bases were in fact destroyed in the first half of 44? I know the talk is of fighters loitering over every airfield, but that's something that you can only do when you have massive superiority in numbers. I suspect that's mainly true of the second half of 44, not the first.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Because until the source of the problem was destroyed, it still existed. That sounds simplistic, nevertheless, it's true.

Yes, if the battle were in France, airfields may have been in France or just over the border (and they were). But the battle wasn't just over France. It was over France, over Italy, and over the heart of Germany.

While your tactical fighters are sparring with forces from bases just over the border like Achmer, Rheine, Nordhorn, and the likes, which may have been in range of tactical fighters and fighter/bombers, what would you be doing about bases like Breist, Borkheide, Lobnitz and the countless others around Berlin - or St Echterdingen, Kirlach, Altenstadi, and the like in southern Germany? These bases had substantial forces, elite units, were trainign areas and places of rest - and were all out of realistic range of fighters capable of taking air superiority from them.

The Mustang took it to these bases, and established air superiority over them. Eventually they may have been rendered ineffective as ground forces drew nearer. But as history would have it, they didn't. They were rendered ineffective by ranging fighters than shot their planes down, killed their pilots, destroyed their infrastructure, and denied training and rest areas.

We can talk about the "woulda-couldas-shouldas" all we want. But this is how it panned out.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Where is air superiority more crucial, behind the battlefield or over the battlefield?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't think it's vitally important in both areas? And you don't consider the air-space over Germany a battlefield?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
No, they would have had to defeat them in air combat over France.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the Luftwaffe could have been finished off completely over France. Not as long as the Luftwaffe had the ability to regenerate in Germany.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I suspect Hitler wouldn't have let it hide in Germany, and that the Luftwaffe wouldn't have wanted to anyway.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the Luftwaffe did withdraw to Germany, and it was in Germany that it was finished. Not France.

And there in Germany it found the sort of bases Price speaks of:

well stocked airfields with established radar and fighter control systems to direct their activities.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Do you think, when summing up, the pilots of the AFDU would look only at one narrow part of the flight envelope? If they did look purely at low speed, then the Spit wouldn't "tend" to be better, it would be clearly superior. The fact that it only "tends" to be better indicates they were taking a range of speeds. Given the way the AFDU tested, that's probably a simple assesment of "normal" combat speeds. If the Spit was better over more of the speed range than the Mustang, then the Spit would "tend" to be better.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what is clear is that, AT BEST; we have to guess what they meant.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I have no problem with that, as long a you put the "over Germany" bit on the end
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then let me reiterate, I think the Mustang deserves credit as the plane that contributed the most to defeating the Luftwaffe over Germany.

No small contribution.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

SkyChimp
07-12-2004, 08:39 PM
I'll also add that the USAAF and RAF complimented each other like no other two forces in history, before or since. For whatever squabbling they may have been involved in, or us now, there is simply no denying the fact that the USAAF and RAF, together, was the most rounded out and balanced airforce (or force) in all of history.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

Aaron_GT
07-13-2004, 06:53 AM
"No one seriously suggests the 20mm wasn't better than the .50 - if you could hit with it. The US Navy found the 20mm was equal to 3 .50s. But that's with regards to destructiveness. The same Navy found that the .50s were easier to hit with, and far from ineffective. And again, a hit with a .50 is better than a miss with a 20mm."

Given the USN swap to 4x20mm over 6x0.50 late in WW2, it would seem that it felt that the advantage of 4x20mm outweighed any possible demerits in terms of hit probability for the missions that the USN found itself engaged in (which included both air to ground and air to air).

crazyivan1970
07-13-2004, 06:58 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif call me when you get tired of all this

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Yellonet
07-13-2004, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> call me when you get tired of all this <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I became tired as soon as I saw the topic http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif


- Yellonet

Xinterface
07-13-2004, 07:04 AM
Its all http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/1241.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

X

http://xinterface.mine.nu/images/sigpic.gif
Combat Simulations Information (http://www.combatsiminfo.com)

diabloblanco1
07-14-2004, 12:34 PM
Yet another arguement about pointless things that can never be qualified. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/351.gif

The Devil made me do it!

DaBallz
07-14-2004, 07:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by diabloblanco1:
Yet another arguement about pointless things that can never be qualified. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/351.gif

The Devil made me do it!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


bump
LMAO

da...

Aaron_GT
07-15-2004, 01:21 AM
Chimp:

Two points
". The .50s fired faster than the 20mm Hispanos, and since it fired more projectiles in a given amount of time, it was easier to hit with. And a hit with a .50 is better than a miss with a 20mm."

I keep pointing out this is a fallacy. The work project should be finished at the end of this week, and I am then going to take a couple of additional days off to make up for working all last weekend. I'll see if I can knock up the simulations and show you that you are not much more likely to hit. In any case the ROF of the Hispano V is essentially the same as the M2, and the Hispano II not that much less. A Spitfire IXe with 2 0.50 and 2 20mm would have almost identical total ROF to a P51B.

With regard to the effectiveness of the bombing campaign - BC and USAAF cooperation could have been better. Here the fault seems to like mainly with BC. As regards to the effectiveness, post war reports of the USAAF campaign by the USAAF itself (I might have a copy on disk, but I've reinstalled in the past few months so I might not, and I need to have a big reorgnaisation to put everything in one place) was pretty lukewarm about the effectiveness. The USAAF did seem to concentrate on oil production more effectively than BC, and oil production is where a big contribution could have been made, and it seemed to have this effect in 1945 when fuel was in short supply that transport was crippled.

If you rewind to 1942, then Stalin was calling for a second front. North Africa didn't placate him. Nor did Italy in 1943. However the bombing campaign was a useful tool to keep him quiet, and also good for public opinion as it showed strikes on Germany. Also some (E.g. Le May) had an overinflated view of what strategic bombing could achieve, much as the RAF and Germans did in 1939-40. I think it is only in the last 20 years or so that strategic bombing with conventional weapons has come of age.

hop2002
07-16-2004, 04:13 PM
Sorry for the late reply, been busy with work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Makes it more what? Forgive me, but I donâ't that your argument really makes much sense. You keep stressing that the US placed more effort against the Luftwaffe. That's not necessarily true. The vast majority of US fighter sorties were escort missions for bombers. Defending bombers was the main goal, not shooting down German planes. While that certainly happened, shooting down German planes was incidental to the goal of protecting bombers. So the USAAF increased sorties without a proportional increase in the destruction of German planes. So what. The USAAF took circumstances as they found them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's Slick's contention that the escort sorties are what destroyed the Luftwaffe. According to Slick, anything other than escort sorties (fighter sweeps and the like) was useless in destroying the Luftwaffe.

When it comes down to it, the USAAF expanded greatly. They flew far more sorties of all types, and the escort sorties frequently did encounter the enemy. Indeed, destroying the Luftwaffe was one of the goals.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It's not just, or even mainly, the Mustang. It's Slick's argument that the P-51 destroyed the Luftwaffe in early 44, something that couldn't have been done without it.



If that is what Slickun is stating, then I would disagree with him as well. I would agree, however, that the Mustang took the fight to the heart of Germany like no other contemporary fighter did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never disputed that. The reason I responded to this thread is that Slick seemed to be arguing that a: the first half of 1944 was the period when the Luftwaffe was destroyed, and b: that only the Mustang enabled this.

In support of A, Slick has claimed that at the close of 1943 the Luftwaffes was "strong and rested" and "had forced a stalemate" in the air war. The figure do not support that.

For point B, Slick argues that only by bombing Germany would the Luftwaffe come up to fight. Again, the fact that the Luftwaffe fought as hard as they could in 1943 belies that.

The Luftwaffe suffered huge losses in NA following Torch. That's a peripheral thatre if ever there was one, but the Luftwaffe were still brought to battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, I disagree with your contention that the there was some massive increase in the effort to seek out and destroy German fighters. Yes, there was an increase, and the destruction of German fighters did occur, but you simply cannot say that was the goal of every escort mission, because it wasn't, at least through much of 1944.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not really what I was trying to claim. Slick claimed that only the tactics of 1944, enabled by the Mustang, could destroy the Luftwaffe. I was pointing out that the tactics of 1944 were less effective, in terms of losses caused per sortie, than the tactics of the second half of 1943. (It's not even tactics, in that mission types were as much caused by circumstance as deliberate tactics, but simply that the types of sorties flown in 1944 were less effective than in 1943)

And even that's a simplification, because I'm not arguing that the effort in 1944 was wasted, or not effective, just that the effort in 1943 was not of "limited usefullness" because of lack of a long range escort (the Mustang)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>By 1945, USAAF escort fighters became very adept at ranging out ahead of bombers and attacking them on the ground, or long before they were even close to the bombers. As stated earlier, in 1945, the USAAF destroyed more German planes on the ground than in the air. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with that too. In fact, that's what I meant when I said I suspected fighters over the German heartland had more effect on training bases than in 1944. There simply weren't enough fighters in the first half of 1944 to camp above Luftwaffe airfields and wait for them to takeoff or land.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In terms of altitude performance, I would agree the Allison Mustang was lacking. But at its best altitude, I think it was as good as anything out there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly, but that wasn't suitable for a fighter over the West in 1942 and 43. AFAIK, it wasn't used in a proper fightert role for this reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But it had to be done, and was done until losses became unsustainable. The British tried to convince the USAAF to switch to night bombing, but agreed that US bombers at the time were not suited to night bombing. The USAAF did the job it could with what it had. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not blaming them. Hindsight's easy, they didn't have the benefit of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not sure that happened. Americans are just funny about getting high returns on their investments. The USAAF could have continued to throw bombers into the meat grinder and eventually gotten the job finished. It could have fought the way the Soviets did - the US certainly had the man power and industrial capacity. But it chose to wait until appropriate fighter escort was available. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if throwing more bombers in would have worked. Granted the US had much bigger manpower and industrial resources than Germany, but they were still finite. 1 bomber cost 5 times the price of a fighter, and has 10 times the crew. And the fighter shot down over friendly territory is often salvageable, and the pilot often survives.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There is a difference between a poor return on investment, and a negative return on investment.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True, and I don't have the figures to know wether it was a winning tactic or not. Certainly I think restricting raids to the Ruhr and German occupied zones, where the bombers wouldn't be long out of fighter cover, if at all, would have been a better tactic, but again that's with hindsight.

There were certainly more than enough targets in the Ruhr to be going on with in 1943.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes they did try to convince the USAAF to switch to night bombing. And I suppose in the technical sense we can say the Americans were unwise and failed to learn from other's mistakes. But we aren't talking about the act of investing money into shaky schemes - this was a real war for national survival of many of the countries involved. The USAAF went into the war knowing it was going to meet tough opposition, loose planes and many lives. But sometimes something has to be tried before you know it will fail. And no one to date had flown hundreds of tough, heavily armed B-17s into Germany.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't mean criticism by it. As I said, with hindsight we know what worked and what didn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think the propensity of some people here is to think that the USAAF was run by a bunch of cowboys and yahoos, that they had no clue how to fight, and only learned their lessons once the British announced "we told you so."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not me. I think it would be valid to criticise if the USAAF had tried unescorted daylight bombing with similar aircraft, and similar numbers, to the disasterous RAF efforts, or the equally disasterous German efforts. But they had bombers that were far more heavily armed and armoured, with higher ceilings, and must have felt that would make the difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Well, the only thing that finished the Germans was over-running Germany. I'm talking about finishing the Luftwaffe as a credible and threatening force. That happened months before the airfields were overrun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Luftwaffe were certainly little threat towards the end of the war, but I don't accept Slick's case that they were no longer a threat after May 1944.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Luftwaffe could exist as a credible force in Germany, even while it was cleared from the skies in France. But it could not have existed for long in Italy or France after having been destroyed in Germany. The heart of the Luftwaffe existed in the heart of Germany. That's where it was finished. That's where it had to be finished.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it wasn't finished in the first half of 1944, and couldn't have been. It was finished because it lost it's early warning stations in France, because it had faced numbers so great it couldn't hope to compete, and because it ran out of fuel. That's not say it wasn't beaten when it still had early warning stations and sufficient fuel and closer parity in numbers. But it couldn't be destroyed under those circumstances.

Air superiority over Germany was not essential to D Day. You don't have to fight the Luftwaffe over Germany to enable the Normandy invasion, which is Slick's claim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That report tends to be vague. What were the test speeds? Like I said earlier, if the test speeds tended to be low-moderate, then I would tend to agree. It they tended to moderate-high, then I would tend not to agree.

"Tend" doesn't say much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you were assesing a fighter in late 1943, would you keep the tests only at low speed? Or test at the speeds you expected a fighter to fight at? AFAIK, AFDU had many combat pilots in their ranks, and they were responsible for developing tactics and evaluating friendly and enemy aircraft. I can't see them testing fighters over a narrow low speed range.

Indeed, in the same comparison they say the Tempest is worse below 300 mph, better above 350 mph, so they are definately testing across a range of speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Mustang "tends" to be faster.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's certainly true against the Spit IX.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Karl Heinz, technical officer to 2 Staffel/JG26, in comparing allied planes to the Dora-9 stated about the Spitfire, "The D-9 was better in level flight, climb and dive, we were slightly inferior in turns."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which Spitfire? The D9 should be faster than the Spit IX, it after all came out 18 months later, but the Spit should certainly be superior in climb. And if he's claiming the Dora to be "slightly" inferior to a Spit in turns, I think he's being over-optimistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And regarding diving from max speed, the Spitfire's aileron effectiveness is going to get worse and worse. The advantages of superior aileron control at high speed can be seen in the Spitfire I versus Hawk 75 test that has been posted here on some occasions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit I had fabric ailerons and more flexible wings than later Spits.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>AA couldn't be taken out with 6 or 8 fifties? Tell that to the 9th AF.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't seen many accounts of repeated straffing runs on defended targets. What's the maxim? "One pass and haul ***"?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And I disagree that there was no point in the war where the Luftwaffe was finally beaten. I think there certainly was. They were defeated in the west by February or March 1945. At that time, the Luftwaffe had since sent the majority of what was left of their fighter force to the east - where they could still be effective. The Jadgwaffe wasn't even mounting realistic defenses to USAAF raids on Berlin itself by this time. If that doesn't suggest defeat, nothing does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant before 1945, and should have said that. By 1945 they were collapsing as fast as the rest of Germany.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No one seriously suggests the 20mm wasn't better than the .50 - if you could hit with it. The US Navy found the 20mm was equal to 3 .50s. But that's with regards to destructiveness. The same Navy found that the .50s were easier to hit with, and far from ineffective. And again, a hit with a .50 is better than a miss with a 20mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that's the case. I think the navy believed the 20mm was 3 times as good overall:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"As it is now, we have the 50-cal. gun which has reached its peak. The only improvements will be minor. The only good increase is to increase the number of guns. So it seems to be just about the right time to look for a better weapon. There are two possibilities here - the one we have and the one we might get shortly. The one we have is a 20-mm gun. I think very highly of it. In fact. it is one we have here, and it is one in hand. It won't do what the 60 will do, but we haven't got the 60, and we won't have it for a year. So, we are gradually working into all of our aircraft the 20-mm gun. To give you some idea of the 50 versus the 20 and dispel a lot of ideas that have bothered us, I would like to give you a comparison. When somebody goes from four 50's to two 20's, to the layman that means a decrease in fire power. Actually, quite the reverse is true. In the horsepower of the gun, one 20 is equal to three .50-calibers. In the actual rate of fire delivered at the target, one 20 equals three 50's; in kinetic energy at 500 yards, one 20 equals two and one half 50's.

That adds up to four 20's equaling twelve 50 calibers, judging by those standards. Of course you have other advantages of the 20. You have the much greater penetration of armor. The 20 will go through 3/4 inch of armor at 500 yards, while the .50 cal, will go through only .43. In addition to that you have one more great advantage - that is you can have longer and more frequent bursts without damage to the gun with the 20 than you can have from the .50 cal. That is important for the strafing airplane, because they are burning up their barrels and ruining their guns on one flight. Sometimes it is long before that one flight is over. They will come down with screaming barrels and get trigger happy, and then all the barrels are gone in one flight. It should not happen in a 20mm. Of course, you have disadvantages. You have a heavier installation, on-half as much ammunition for the same weight. Our standard ammunition in the Navy is 400 rounds in one gun. The Fleet has set up 30 seconds of fire as a minimum requirement for the .50 cal gun. We can't do that with the 20, so we give them 200 rounds. The 20 is lethal enough to get far more results out of that 200 rounds than the .40 ever will out of 400 rounds." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(From the REPORT OF JOINT FIGHTER CONFERENCE NAS PATUXENT RIVER)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Regarded by whom? Acceleration is closely tied to climb rate (both are a function of excess power), and the Spit LF IX and XIV had climb rates that were only equalled by the 109.



It's also closely tied to dive acceleration, and the Spitfire was poorer than other fighters in that regard - even fighters with worse power to weight ratios.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not well tied to dive acceleration.

Acceleration = mass/thrust.

In level flight, that means weight / (excess power - drag). In a dive, weight is an advantage for acceleration, because your mass is added to thrust (in a vertical dive). Given that typical thrust for a prop fighter is in the 1 - 2000 lbs range, and the weight is in the 8 - 10,000 lbs range, in a dive effective thrust goes up ten times or move.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>While your tactical fighters are sparring with forces from bases just over the border like Achmer, Rheine, Nordhorn, and the likes, which may have been in range of tactical fighters and fighter/bombers, what would you be doing about bases like Breist, Borkheide, Lobnitz and the countless others around Berlin - or St Echterdingen, Kirlach, Altenstadi, and the like in southern Germany? These bases had substantial forces, elite units, were trainign areas and places of rest - and were all out of realistic range of fighters capable of taking air superiority from them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ignore them.

It's easy to rest a fighter squadron. You simply move them to a base and don't sortie them. The USAAF didn't have enough fighters in 1944 to attack all the airfields, let alone to do serious damage to them. The Germans actually did this in the month leading up to Normandy, building up their forces again for the invasion. They also managed to do it for Bodenplate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Mustang took it to these bases, and established air superiority over them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many airfields in Germany? How many fighters do you need overhead at any one time to establish superiority? How long can a Mustang stay on station over an airfield near Berlin?

The USAAF did not establish air superiority over German airfields, except for strictly limited periods, in the first half of 1944. The USAAF was able to engage the Luftwaffe in the first half of 1944 because the Luftwaffe was willing to fight. If the Luftwaffe had remained on their bases, and not fought, they could have done so quite easily.

The truth is the Luftwaffe never refused battle in the way the Iraqui air force did in Gulf War I. They didn't refuse battle before the first half of 1944, there's no reason to think that without the Mustang they would have done so then.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You don't think it's vitally important in both areas? And you don't consider the air-space over Germany a battlefield? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it's vital in the first half of 1944. If the Mustang had not existed, the USAAF would have done a lot more bombing in France, escorted by the planes that couldn't reach Germany, and the Luftwaffe would have tried to stop them.

The Luftwaffe would have been defeated, air superiority over France attained, and the invasion would have gone ahead. All without fighters over Germany.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't think the Luftwaffe could have been finished off completely over France. Not as long as the Luftwaffe had the ability to regenerate in Germany.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But as you said, they weren't finished off until 1945 anyway. And they were finished off then because large numbers of fighters were flying from just over the German border and could stay longer over Germany, and in huge numbers.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But the Luftwaffe did withdraw to Germany, and it was in Germany that it was finished. Not France. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It withdrew to Germany after France was liberated. A bit hard for them to continue to operate from France after the allied armies have liberated it.

It's Slick's contention that the Luftwaffe would have hidden in Germany in 1944 if the Mustang hadn't existe, and not fought with the allied aircraft over France.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'll also add that the USAAF and RAF complimented each other like no other two forces in history, before or since. For whatever squabbling they may have been involved in, or us now, there is simply no denying the fact that the USAAF and RAF, together, was the most rounded out and balanced airforce (or force) in all of history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To end on a positive note, I agree with you on this as well.

jensenpark
07-16-2004, 05:00 PM
Oh man Hop...points for the longest post ever I think... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.corsair-web.com/thistler/rtfoxint.jpg
Buzz Beurling flying his last sortie over Malta, Oct.24, 1942

SkyChimp
07-16-2004, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I keep pointing out this is a fallacy. The work project should be finished at the end of this week, and I am then going to take a couple of additional days off to make up for working all last weekend. I'll see if I can knock up the simulations and show you that you are not much more likely to hit. In any case the ROF of the Hispano V is essentially the same as the M2, and the Hispano II not that much less. A Spitfire IXe with 2 0.50 and 2 20mm would have almost identical total ROF to a P51B.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I continue to disagree with you.

I believe your theory is correct only up the point of convergence, on a non manuevering plane at ZERO deflection. Your theory that more rounds in the same plane at the same time doesn't increase chances of a hit flys in the face of everything I've ever heard, read, seen and experienced. The USAAF, USN both state that more guns and higher rates of fire INCREASED chances of hit, over fewer guns and lower rates of fire. If more guns and more rounds at target don't increases chances of a hit, why didn't fighters carry a single gun fo the largest caliber it could.

And please, understand that I am comparing 6 or 8 .50s to 4 20mms - not 2 .50s and 2 20mms. If you choose 4 .50s versus 2 .50s and 2 20mms then I would agree with you. But if you choose 6 or 8 .50s versus 4 20mms then I don't.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
With regard to the effectiveness of the bombing campaign - BC and USAAF cooperation could have been better. Here the fault seems to like mainly with BC. As regards to the effectiveness, post war reports of the USAAF campaign by the USAAF itself (I might have a copy on disk, but I've reinstalled in the past few months so I might not, and I need to have a big reorgnaisation to put everything in one place) was pretty lukewarm about the effectiveness. The USAAF did seem to concentrate on oil production more effectively than BC, and oil production is where a big contribution could have been made, and it seemed to have this effect in 1945 when fuel was in short supply that transport was crippled...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your off subject. That's not what I'm taling about. I'm talking about the effects of the long range fighters on the Luftwaffe over Germany - not the effect of the bombing itself.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

hop2002
07-16-2004, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oh man Hop...points for the longest post ever I think...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should see some of my replies to Isegrim!

Simjock
07-16-2004, 07:18 PM
This is a great thread!

One of issues I think most people have missed is the documented success of the Mustang. I understand that the point of disscusion of this thread is weither or not the Mustang is ober rated, or to put ir better: " Was the Mustang REALLY the best fighter aircraft of WW II."

It was very, very successful.

As they say in Baseball, It dosn't matter how you do it as long as you get the "W"(win) in the scorebox.

It can be said that success is being prepared for opertunitie, and being in the right place at the right time. The Mustang D wans't designed to take on German fighters in mono-e-mono combat. It was designed to escort high altitude bombers on long range missions deep into enemy territory. And thats what it did. It was in the right place at the right time. In the latter part of the Euorpean theator the Luftwaffe had more planes than pilots, and was struggling to come up with capable pilots to deffend the father land against the hordes of B-17's and Lancasters.

The Mustang did what it was supposed to do.

Most of the Historical data of WWII aircraft available on the web, or other mass media is wither abriviated, or averaged.

Performance at sea level and Altitude are two differant things. Once again, the Mustang was in the right place at the right time. The Mustang D could out perform the BF-109's and the FW-190's at 20,-30,000 ft. were the bombers were. The Germans had to come up to them, and the Mustangs always had the atvantage(most always).Mustangs were usless below 200 mph, low and slow they were FAT targets, but rarely did a German pilot find a Mustang on the deck.


Always look at were you get your data and how complete it is. I've noticed that Janes Books has a tendancy use sea level performance stats, and dosn't go into detailed permonce data. I have a neat litle identification book called, "Aircraft of WWII", by: CHRIS CHANT, published by Freidman / Fairfax. This little book is 320 pages, 317 planes, 3 view drawings, lists of varients, paint sceemes, and a breif history narative, but.....all of it is sea level performance data http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif
(I still recomend this book.

Your best bet is is a really great series of sold in allot of model stores, or here( http://www.colpar.com )
Look for Squadron Signal P{ulications, they have a book on hundreds of planes, and the specific to that plane. Number 161 for example is my favorite, "HU-16 Albatross"

Back to the topic, " is the Mustang over rated?"

I say no. The mustang is not over rated. It was tool of the military design to perfom a specific task, and is was fortunate to have have served in the specific environment it was ment to. And in that Envirnment it was a formidable foe.

http://www.pcaviation.net/simjocksig.jpeg

SkyChimp
07-16-2004, 08:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oh man Hop...points for the longest post ever I think...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should see some of my replies to Isegrim!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

SkyChimp
07-16-2004, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
It's Slick's contention that the escort sorties are what destroyed the Luftwaffe. According to Slick, anything other than escort sorties (fighter sweeps and the like) was useless in destroying the Luftwaffe.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF that is his contention, I agree with you. But I do think escort sorties had the biggest effect on the decline of the Luftwaffe over Germany. And that the destruction of the Luftwaffe over Germany was vital to the success the allies did achieve in the war. If the destruction hadnâ't happened when it did in the manner it did, then the penalty surely would have been greater allied losses elsewhere.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
When it comes down to it, the USAAF expanded greatly. They flew far more sorties of all types, and the escort sorties frequently did encounter the enemy. Indeed, destroying the Luftwaffe was one of the goals.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it would be wrong to say ALL sorties were directed at eliminating the Luftwaffe, which is what it seems you are saying when you simply assert "total sorties increased by this much but Luftwaffe losses didn't increase commensurately."



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I've never disputed that. The reason I responded to this thread is that Slick seemed to be arguing that a: the first half of 1944 was _the_ period when the Luftwaffe was destroyed, and b: that only the Mustang enabled this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would disagree that the Luftwaffe was destroyed prior to mid-1944. But the Mustang did enable the allies to take the fight to the Luftwaffe in Germany before mid-1944. And that was important.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In support of A, Slick has claimed that at the close of 1943 the Luftwaffes was "strong and rested" and "had forced a stalemate" in the air war. The figure do not support that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, there certainly wasn't a stalemate over Western Europe. At the end of 1943 and 1944 the Luftwaffe was being defeated wherever Allied fighters could engage it – be it over France of Germany.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
For point B, Slick argues that only by bombing Germany would the Luftwaffe come up to fight. Again, the fact that the Luftwaffe fought as hard as they could in 1943 belies that.

The Luftwaffe suffered huge losses in NA following Torch. That's a peripheral thatre if ever there was one, but the Luftwaffe were still brought to battle.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A perusal of some Luftwaffe war diaries would show the Luftwaffe was active throughout much of Western Europe through mid-1944 - and that they were certainly willing to fight, even through 1944. But wherever Allied fighters could get at them, they suffered heavily.

I think it is also fair to say that in 1944 the Luftwaffe was most active over Germany because thatâ's there they felt the biggest threat was, and where its fighters needed to be.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
That's not really what I was trying to claim. Slick claimed that only the tactics of 1944, enabled by the Mustang, could destroy the Luftwaffe. I was pointing out that the tactics of 1944 were less effective, in terms of losses caused per sortie, than the tactics of the second half of 1943. (It's not even tactics, in that mission types were as much caused by circumstance as deliberate tactics, but simply that the types of sorties flown in 1944 were less effective than in 1943)

And even that's a simplification, because I'm not arguing that the effort in 1944 was wasted, or not effective, just that the effort in 1943 was not of "limited usefullness" because of lack of a long range escort (the Mustang)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this for the most part. But I don't agree that the tactics of 1944 were less effective than the tactics of 1943 - because you are simply comparing kills/sortie. IMO the reason this looks skewed in favor of 1943 wasn't because there were more Luftwaffe planes in 1943 than in 1944 (because I don't think there were). It's because there were hugely more substantial numbers of Allied fighters in 1944. In 1943 the German may have been facing 1, 2 or 3:1 odds. In 1944 he may have been facing 10 or greater:1 odds. The allies could have shot down FAR more planes in 1944 and still have a worse kill/sortie ratio than they did in 1943.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Certainly, but that wasn't suitable for a fighter over the West in 1942 and 43. AFAIK, it wasn't used in a proper fightert role for this reason.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not a proper fighter for that theater conditions, I agree - but a competent fighter in its element.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't know if throwing more bombers in would have worked. Granted the US had much bigger manpower and industrial resources than Germany, but they were still finite. 1 bomber cost 5 times the price of a fighter, and has 10 times the crew. And the fighter shot down over friendly territory is often salvageable, and the pilot often survives.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree with this if the primary mission of the bomber was to destroy fighters. It wasn't. The goal of the bomber was to destroy targets on the ground. Destruction of enemy fighters was incidental to that goal. So if we were to measure return on investment, we wouldn't do it based on the number of enemy fighters destroyed, but rather the effect of the bombing.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I didn't mean criticism by it. As I said, with hindsight we _know_ what worked and what didn't.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I was trying to counter was the assertion that the USAAF "should have known better." My response to that would be: based on what? The tactics tried to date simply didn't measure up to the massive bombing efforts attempted by the USAAF in 1943. But the USAAF learned that even their massive campaign could not be prosecuted without unacceptably high losses. The USAAF couldn't know for certain their undertaking would fail beforehand because the scale of the undertaking had not yet been tried.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Luftwaffe were certainly little threat towards the end of the war, but I don't accept Slick's case that they were no longer a threat after May 1944.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well they were certainly a threat after May 1944 - even outside Germany. One only need read accounts of the classic air-battles over the Netherlands and the Ardennes fought by the British 2nd and American 9th - some of the most exciting of the war.

But I think itâ's proper to say that while the Luftwaffe did operate outside the borders of Germany during this time, its principal mission was inside Germany – the defense against strategic bombers.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Air superiority over Germany was not essential to D Day. You don't have to fight the Luftwaffe over Germany to enable the Normandy invasion, which is Slick's claim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. It wasn't â"essentialâ" for D-Day. But it certainly helped. It certainly kept a huge number of pilots and planes tied up that could have contributed to the defense against the Allies.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If you were assesing a fighter in late 1943, would you keep the tests only at low speed? Or test at the speeds you expected a fighter to fight at? AFAIK, AFDU had many combat pilots in their ranks, and they were responsible for developing tactics and evaluating friendly and enemy aircraft. I can't see them testing fighters over a narrow low speed range.

Indeed, in the same comparison they say the Tempest is worse below 300 mph, better above 350 mph, so they are definately testing across a range of speeds.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can argue all day over which plane was better. In the end, my check-book balance is still the same. I'll drop out of this argument - it's futile.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Which Spitfire? The D9 should be faster than the Spit IX, it after all came out 18 months later, but the Spit should certainly be superior in climb. And if he's claiming the Dora to be "slightly" inferior to a Spit in turns, I think he's being over-optimistic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He fought with JG26 from 1943 and survived the war. I doubt he's biased. And he gives us a good opponent's perspective of the planes.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Spit I had fabric ailerons and more flexible wings than later Spits.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point was that it shows quite well the advantages of superior aileron performance at high speed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I haven't seen many accounts of repeated straffing runs on defended targets. What's the maxim? "One pass and haul ***"?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strafing and ground attack was the most dangerous activity for a fighter. So while I understand the "maxim," it doesn't answer whether or not .50s pouring on an AA position was or was not capable of putting it out of action. Anecdotal evidence says they were.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't think that's the case. I think the navy believed the 20mm was 3 times as good overall:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Round per round, the 20mm was better if it hit. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that three .50s firing faster will increase chances of a hit over one 20mm firing slower.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"As it is now, we have the 50-cal. gun which has reached its peak. The only improvements will be minor. The only good increase is to increase the number of guns. So it seems to be just about the right time to look for a better weapon. There are two possibilities here - the one we have and the one we might get shortly. The one we have is a 20-mm gun. I think very highly of it. In fact. it is one we have here, and it is one in hand. It won't do what the 60 will do, but we haven't got the 60, and we won't have it for a year. So, we are gradually working into all of our aircraft the 20-mm gun. _To give you some idea of the 50 versus the 20 and dispel a lot of ideas that have bothered us, I would like to give you a comparison. When somebody goes from four 50's to two 20's, to the layman that means a decrease in fire power. Actually, quite the reverse is true. In the horsepower of the gun, one 20 is equal to three .50-calibers. In the actual rate of fire delivered at the target, one 20 equals three 50's; in kinetic energy at 500 yards, one 20 equals two and one half 50's.

That adds up to four 20's equaling twelve 50 calibers, judging by those standards._ Of course you have other advantages of the 20. You have the much greater penetration of armor. The 20 will go through 3/4 inch of armor at 500 yards, while the .50 cal, will go through only .43. In addition to that you have one more great advantage - that is you can have longer and more frequent bursts without damage to the gun with the 20 than you can have from the .50 cal. That is important for the strafing airplane, because they are burning up their barrels and ruining their guns on one flight. Sometimes it is long before that one flight is over. They will come down with screaming barrels and get trigger happy, and then all the barrels are gone in one flight. It should not happen in a 20mm. Of course, you have disadvantages. You have a heavier installation, on-half as much ammunition for the same weight. Our standard ammunition in the Navy is 400 rounds in one gun. The Fleet has set up 30 seconds of fire as a minimum requirement for the .50 cal gun. We can't do that with the 20, so we give them 200 rounds. The 20 is lethal enough to get far more results out of that 200 rounds than the .40 ever will out of 400 rounds."

(From the REPORT OF JOINT FIGHTER CONFERENCE NAS PATUXENT RIVER)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, I see the "one 20mm is worth three 50's" a lot. It's worth pointing out that this is one man's opinion, not the result of an actual test. It's further worth mentioning that up to the point of this Conference, the Navy had not yet adopted the "four 20's" armament and did not have a lot of combat experience from which to draw conclusions.

Second, I truly believe he is speaking in terms of the effect of hits. And with that I have no basis for disagreement - although a competent comparison test would be nice to see.

Suggesting four 20mms will put a greater number of rounds at the target than 6 or 8 .50s simply doesn't add up. The "REPORT" is a transcript, there are a lot of things said in it that we would do well to have better explained. And Commander Monroe is probably dead by now.

But if you read on, you will find Colonel Coates explanation as to why the Army was not yet interested in the 20mm:

I'll try to answer that in this way. I believe the feeling in the Army generally is that we would like to have a lethal density pattern. The most bullets going across one place at a given distance. We would like to have the smallest caliber gun that can do the job. If it takes a 22mm to tear a Messerschmitt or a Mitsubishi apart, we want 20's, but as long as a 50 will do the job we feel that if we can carry a greater number of guns and a greater amount of ammunition with the same weight, with an equal or greater firepower, that is the gun we want. If you are strafing an airdrome you can put out more bullets. A Jap doesn't care if he gets killed by 20mm's or a 50 caliber. We can put out more bullets and have more weight covering the same area. ... I would also like to point out, I won't go into an argument with 20's versus 50's, but I think a lot has to do with the arrangement in the plane. For instance, in a P-47 or F4U, you have guns in the wings. Of necessity, you must cross the fire pattern at some fixed distance from the plane. With all guns over on fixed point at a given number of yards, you have a great X forming out there. At 600 you are wasting a great amount of your bullets. If you close up on a fellow at 200 yards, you are also wasting bullets. In the F7F or the P-38 you can put all your guns in the nose; firing a parallel streams of lead, your bullets all going out forming a lethal density pattern as far as the bullets go. In an installation like that you could possibly be better off firing four 20's than you would firing six 50's. In the P-47, with four guns in each wing, we recommend that they cross the first two guns at 250 yards, the next at 350, at 450 and 550. That gives you a density pattern in depth as well as width for about 200 yards, which in turn gives the mediocre pilot a better opportunity to hit an airplane in flight.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It's not well tied to dive acceleration.

Acceleration = mass/thrust.

In level flight, that means weight / (excess power - drag). In a dive, weight is an advantage for acceleration, because your mass is added to thrust (in a vertical dive). Given that typical thrust for a prop fighter is in the 1 - 2000 lbs range, and the weight is in the 8 - 10,000 lbs range, in a dive effective thrust goes up ten times or move.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, but that flys in the face of a lot of debate around here.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You ignore them.

It's easy to rest a fighter squadron. You simply move them to a base and don't sortie them. The USAAF didn't have enough fighters in 1944 to attack all the airfields, let alone to do serious damage to them. The Germans actually did this in the month leading up to Normandy, building up their forces again for the invasion. They also managed to do it for Bodenplate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While you are ignoring them, they are not ignoring you. Those bases came to exist and operate inside Germany BECAUSE an air war was taking place over Germany. If that had not been the case, those planes could be used against you elsewhere. And the bases could have been used for training pilots more thoroughly than they did. Ignoring bases and airplanes does not take them out of the equation. It allows for the enemy to direct those resources to other areas.

As history would have it, a significant portion of the Luftwaffe in the west was based in Germany in mid 1944 and a significant portion of the Luftwaffe fought over Germany in mid 1944 to 1945. If they hadn't, they could have fought elsewhere and results may have been very different. But that's a hypothetical. In 1944 and 1945, history had the Luftwaffe, for the most part over Germany, and for the most part being destroyed over Germany.





<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
How many airfields in Germany? How many fighters do you need overhead at any one time to establish superiority? How long can a Mustang stay on station over an airfield near Berlin?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On November 11, 1944 there were at least 68 fighter bases alone within the borders of Germany.

And how many fighters are needed to establish air-superiority is irrelevant. The answer would be â"enough,â" and that USAAF had â"enough.â"

The relevant point is that air-superiority was never considered to be achieved when the Luftwaffe could not lift a plane off the ground. Air-superiority was achieved when the Allies had free-range over Germany. Who cares if the Germans were flying around when no bombers or escorts were present. What matters is that when they tried to do that when fighters were present, they suffered catastrophic losses, and failed to prevent the mission.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The USAAF did not establish air superiority over German airfields, except for strictly limited periods, in the first half of 1944.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but so what. But they only needed to establish air-superiority over German airfields for limited periods of time - because they were only there for limited periods of time. The point is that after 1943 the USAAF could come and go as they pleased and the Luftwaffe couldnâ't stop it. That's air-superiority.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The USAAF was able to engage the Luftwaffe in the first half of 1944 because the Luftwaffe was willing to fight. If the Luftwaffe had remained on their bases, and not fought, they could have done so quite easily.

The truth is the Luftwaffe never refused battle in the way the Iraqui air force did in Gulf War I. They didn't refuse battle before the first half of 1944, there's no reason to think that without the Mustang they would have done so then.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Air-superiority isn't the enemy's inability to GIVE battle; it's the inability of the enemy to WIN battle, and to prevent the completion of the opponent's mission.

And that the Luftwaffe never refused battle is irrelevant. After the introduction of the long-range escorts, they never stopped a raid. And they began to take horrible attrition over Germany itself. More pilots may have survived the war had some of them refused to fight.

The Luftwaffe never refused battle, but they still didn't stop raids. The USAAF could conduct raids it when needed to. And as time went on, it conducted them against less and less opposition until finally, in 1945, the Luftwaffe stopped trying to stop them at all.

Without the Mustang, that couldn't have happened. That was proved in 1943.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I don't think it's vital in the first half of 1944. If the Mustang had not existed, the USAAF would have done a lot more bombing in France, escorted by the planes that couldn't reach Germany, and the Luftwaffe would have tried to stop them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're shifting from what was actually accomplished to what was "vital." In the strictest sense of the word, I'm not sure it was "vital" to have an air force at all. But it sure helped. The allies may have been able to eventually take Germany proper without ever having conducted a bombing raid on it. But the cost is unimaginable.

But if seeking out and destroying Luftwaffe planes over Germany was in the plans (and it was), then the Mustang was vital to that.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Luftwaffe would have been defeated, air superiority over France attained, and the invasion would have gone ahead. All without fighters over Germany.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't know that the Allies would have defeated the Luftwaffe over France if the Luftwaffe hadn't been in battle over Germany. If the Luftwaffe wasn't defending Germany, then those planes would have been available over France. And the Mustangs shooting down German planes over Germany would then be shooting them down over France. A wash except for the fact that German bases would have gone un-attacked and would have been producing trained pilots.

And if your hypothetical scenario is that those Mustangs would not have been needed if the bombers could have been escorted by other planes due to shorter ranges, then you would need to consider that those other planes wouldn't be doing what they would otherwise be doing since they were escorting bombers.

But again, it's a hypothetical. It didn't happen that way. What did happen was that the Mustang contributed more than any other plane to the destruction of the Luftwaffe over Germany.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But as you said, they weren't finished off until 1945 anyway. And they were finished off then because large numbers of fighters were flying from just over the German border and could stay longer over Germany, and in huge numbers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By the time allied tactical fighters had the ability to range over all of Germany, they Luftwaffe was finished as a credible fighting force.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It withdrew to Germany after France was liberated. A bit hard for them to continue to operate from France after the allied armies have liberated it.

It's Slick's contention that the Luftwaffe would have hidden in Germany in 1944 if the Mustang hadn't existe, and not fought with the allied aircraft over France.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The principal portion of the Luftwaffe was based within the borders of Germany before France was completely liberated. Germany considered defending itself against the strategic bombing effort the most important task for its fighters.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

Franzen
07-16-2004, 09:28 PM
Lastnight I flew the P-51 in combat for the first time. I found a way to de-rate this bird; see my first sentence. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Ctrl+E works well. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Fritz Franzen