# P38 vs P47 vs 109 and 190



## pinsog (Nov 5, 2009)

I was reading some very old post tonight and I began to notice a patern. When asked about P38 vs P47 most people picked the P38 including the die hard German guys. Now, it is, as far as evreything I have ever read, generally accepted that the P47 broke the back off the Luftwaffe. BUT, when the same people are asked about P38 vs either a 109 or 190 it invariably comes back that the P38 will loose every time. From all the posts I read, a P38 couldnt shoot down a 109 or 190 if the German planes were out of gas, filled with concrete and the pilots were on vacation. Add to that was the reasoning that a P38 simply couldnt turn well enough to ever shoot down a 109 or 190. One wonders after reading the posts if a P38 EVER actually shot down a single engine German fighter. YET, history records the P47 crushed the Luftwaffe despite the fact that it cant outturn anything and it sure cant outclimg anything either, except for the zoom climb. (I know, the paddle blade prop to)

Anybody want to explain the alleged discrepensies here?


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2009)

Claiming that my favourite plane, the P-47, broke Luftwaffe's back is redicioulus. It took many years of air war to destroy Luftwaffe, and the list of the planes that took part is a long one.

Back to the Jug, he didn't need to out-turn any opponent, since it was 'B-N-Z' fighter. Diving form altitude, firing at opponent, than climbing back was the game.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Nov 5, 2009)

Any aircraft can make a high speed pass if they are lucky enough to start with an altitude advantage. Even an otherwise slow speed clunker like the F4F. A great Boom Zoom fighter must have a superior rate of climb so it can easily reach that superior altitude. 

Concerning the P-38...
The P-38 was very expensive to produce. Leaving that fact aside it was a good aircraft on paper. However in the real world it was plagued by problems which reduced performance and mechanical reliability at high altitude. Assuming it doesn't malfunction I would prefer a P-38 over a P-47 from the same time period.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 5, 2009)

I understand that the Jug was a B Z fighter, but the P38 can B Z also. The P38 can also easily turn inside the P47. It was only about 10 mph slower than the P47, depending on whose top speed stats you look at, and was a much better low altitude fighter than the P47 and also easily outclimbed it also. BUT, regardless of that, almost everyone picked the P38 over the JUG in a head to head comparison, but then most people were saying that the P38 was "easy meat" for any German single engine fighter. Yet, it was the P47 that made the biggest impact in the fight from 43 until the P51 arrived. No one here would say the P47 was easy meat for any German fighter, but they say that about the P38, yet, most people pick the P38 over the Jug in a head to head contest. I'm just wanting someone to explain their own posts. When you read them all, they dont make sense.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 5, 2009)

The P-47 is a better boom and zoom fighter than the P-38. In Europe that was crucial. If you are an escort fighter in 1943-44 you will more often than not start combat with an altitude advantage. If you play that card well in a P-47 there is not so much any Bf 109 or FW 190 can do. For a P-38 it will be harder to follow any of the two German fighters even if you got an energy advantage. The P-47 may not be a great roller or turner but it's still better in that area than most if not all models of the P-38.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 5, 2009)

Wanted to add something about P-47 already having the needed height, but riarcato just beat me to it.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2009)

pinsog said:


> I was reading some very old post tonight and I began to notice a patern. When asked about P38 vs P47 most people picked the P38 including the die hard German guys. Now, it is, as far as evreything I have ever read, generally accepted that the P47 broke the back off the Luftwaffe. BUT, when the same people are asked about P38 vs either a 109 or 190 it invariably comes back that the P38 will loose every time. From all the posts I read, a P38 couldnt shoot down a 109 or 190 if the German planes were out of gas, filled with concrete and the pilots were on vacation. Add to that was the reasoning that a P38 simply couldnt turn well enough to ever shoot down a 109 or 190. One wonders after reading the posts if a P38 EVER actually shot down a single engine German fighter. YET, history records the P47 crushed the Luftwaffe despite the fact that it cant outturn anything and it sure cant outclimg anything either, except for the zoom climb. (I know, the paddle blade prop to)
> 
> Anybody want to explain the alleged discrepensies here?



It is silly for anyone to claim that a P-38 will always lose or even lose most of the time. Secondly you need to define which model because the manuever flaps and improved intercooler and boosted ailerons made the P-38J-25 and above a very fine fighter.

The bigger problem for the P-38 was its very large wingspan and size. It was easy to spot it before being spotted yourself if you were in a 109 or 190. Seeing the other a/c first gave one an immeditae advantage tactically.

Now, define 'broke the back' of the Luftwaffe.

My personal key component of that definition is rendering the LW impotent with respect to air superiority, and in particular over Germany. Many fighter types contributed to pushing the LW back to German borders. Only one type took the battle the rest of the way... actually two - but the P-38 maxed out with four Groups and two converted in May-June.

The Spit and the P-47 were important over France and Holland and Italy. The P-38 was a very good fighter in the MTO.

When the later versions of the Jug entered combat ops with fuel cells and wing pylons their range was extended well into Germany but that was essentially after Normandy campaign. By that time the 51 was (and had been) performing target escort - and continued to do so because most of the P-47 Groups in 8th FC had converted to 51's. The 356th, 353rd, 56th and 78th were only P-47 groups remaining during Operation Market Garden - the other 11 were Mustangs.

The P-47 was very important in getting the 8th and 15th AF to the borders of Germany but only the Mustang and P-38 enabled target escort and fighting LW over Germany.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 5, 2009)

The P38 offers the piece of mind of a twin engine and a great set of nose guns, otherwise I would pick the P-47. Its tough as nails, fast and good at high altitude.

Edit: As said above, the advantage of the P-38 was the range it offered over the P-47. It was an escort in the traditional sense.

Also says something of the Mustangs capabilities to have the range that it did and remain a competitive fighter.


----------



## davebender (Nov 5, 2009)

> No one here would say the P47 was easy meat for any German fighter


Do we have statistics which show the average number of sorties performed before each aircraft type is lost?


----------



## pinsog (Nov 5, 2009)

Personally, I liked both the P38 and the P47, and I think under 15 or 20 thousand feet the P38 would beat a 109 and do ok with the 190. No one argues what the 47 did. I know the Mustang was a great fighter, but I have never liked it for some reason. Probably because everyone else does. I like the Corsair the best myself, but I digress.
I didnt think the Spitfire had a huge strategic effect on the war due to its short range. I knew it was an excellent, fast climbing short range interceptor but it had difficulty taking the fight to the enemy because of its short legs. Dont want to offend the Spit fans out there, this is merely my perception from what I have always read.
When I said the 47 broke the Luftwaffes back, I have read that more than one place. I guess if I were to define that, I would say it was in the fight when the Luftwaffe was the strongest and still had a well trained experienced group of pilots, took the fight to them(because of longer range) and caused them serious losses. By the time the Mustang arrived on the scene in numbers, the Luftwaffe had been seriously roughed up and had lost alot of experienced people that were being replaced by MUCH less experienced pilots. Not to say that they werent still a potent fighting force, but they werent what they were when the 47 first started escort duty. Just my opinion right now, I could still be swayed one way or another.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2009)

davebender said:


> Do we have statistics which show the average number of sorties performed before each aircraft type is lost?



Not precisely but I could get within perhaps 10% for 8th AF by assuming certain operational strengths over time.

The next problem is putting losses in context. For example losses due to mechanical failure are probably higher for the Mustang simply because it was in the air far longer per mission than a Spitfire or P-47.

Ditto wrt flak. Mustangs were shooting up far more airfields in Germany while the Jug was restricted to France/Holland/Western Germany.

Ditto wrt air to air. In Mar-44 through April 1945 far fewer air to air fights were engaged by P-47s than Mustangs, so losses per sortie would be discounted but air to air credits vs losses would favor Mustangs by 50%


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2009)

pinsog said:


> Personally, I liked both the P38 and the P47, and I think under 15 or 20 thousand feet the P38 would beat a 109 and do ok with the 190. No one argues what the 47 did. I know the Mustang was a great fighter, but I have never liked it for some reason. Probably because everyone else does. I like the Corsair the best myself, but I digress.
> I didnt think the Spitfire had a huge strategic effect on the war due to its short range. I knew it was an excellent, fast climbing short range interceptor but it had difficulty taking the fight to the enemy because of its short legs. Dont want to offend the Spit fans out there, this is merely my perception from what I have always read.
> When I said the 47 broke the Luftwaffes back, I have read that more than one place. I guess if I were to define that, I would say it was in the fight when the Luftwaffe was the strongest and still had a well trained experienced group of pilots, took the fight to them(because of longer range) and caused them serious losses. By the time the Mustang arrived on the scene in numbers, the Luftwaffe had been seriously roughed up and had lost alot of experienced people that were being replaced by MUCH less experienced pilots. Not to say that they werent still a potent fighting force, but they werent what they were when the 47 first started escort duty. Just my opinion right now, I could still be swayed one way or another.



Not trying to sway you but the LW was losing about 1000 pilots a month in the west in march-may mostly due to the Mustang - their losses in 1943 were far lower.


----------



## Watanbe (Nov 5, 2009)

If you want the plane that broke the back of the Luftwaffe it was the P51. 

Don't forget *pinsog* the Spitfire did its business in the Battle of Britain and the MET, areas of strategic importance, particularly from the British point of view.


----------



## davebender (Nov 5, 2009)

What percentage?

Combat accounts I have read suggest quite a few German fighters were lost to bomber gunners. You put 100,000 or so .50cal bullets in the air and one will accidently hit something. In addition to hitting German fighters I think the bomber gunners also scored a considerable number of hits on friendly aircraft. Spray and pray works both ways....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 5, 2009)

davebender said:


> What percentage?
> 
> Combat accounts I have read suggest quite a few German fighters were lost to bomber gunners. You put 100,000 or so .50cal bullets in the air and one will accidently hit something. In addition to hitting German fighters I think the bomber gunners also scored a considerable number of hits on friendly aircraft. Spray and pray works both ways....



Keep in mind that fighter claims from bombers were overclaimed by as much as 60%.


----------



## snac (Nov 5, 2009)

Its indicative of the p38s role that a large number were used for reconaissance, and that even p38J models were being replaced by p47 and p51 in europe during 1944. most of the early mark p38s in europe were used in italy/north africa, presumably tangling with regia aeronautica and luftwaffe transports rather than axis fighters


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2009)

snac said:


> Its indicative of the p38s role that a large number were used for reconaissance, and that even p38J models were being replaced by p47 and p51 in europe during 1944. most of the early mark p38s in europe were used in italy/north africa, presumably tangling with regia aeronautica and luftwaffe transports rather than axis fighters



The P-38s in the MTO were very successful and the only escort capable of escorting 12th and 15th AF bombing Southern Germany and Ploesti until the Mustang arrived. Even the P-38G and G were very competitive w/109 in MTO and a far better a/c than the mainstay P-40's. For example the 1st (440 air credits), the 14th (456) and the 82nd FG (553) would have ranked 2nd, 5th and 6th place in 8th AF and they fought against a generally better experienced and quality LW beginning in 1943 than the Mustang Groups of the 8th AF in 1944.

Only the 56th FG P-47's had a better air to air total than those three P-38 Groups - and all far higher than any 8th AF Lighnting Group.

The wholesale replacement of P-38 (and P-47) for Mustang was part of the 'deal' the 9th AF had with the 8th AF. The first Mustangs (354 and 363FG) were originally targeted for 9th AF and the first 8th AF FG, the 357th, was swapped with 9th AF in exchange for the 356th FG and their P-47s... which is why the P-47 and P-38 was replaced by Mustang in 8th AF.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MikeGazdik (Nov 5, 2009)

My take on this is how the aircraft werre actually deployed, versus a 1 on 1 engagement between two fighters.

The P-47 was successful as a high altitude escort fighter. The real problem with the Jug was lack of range. Conversely, the P-38 was problematic in Northern Europe, in the same role. About the time the J and L models of the Lightning came on line, the Mustang was present. So the potential effectiveness of the P-38 as an escort fighter was never realized. As much as I love the P-38, I still don't think at its best, an L model, would not perform as well as a Mustang or a Thunderbolt in that role in Northern Europe.

That being said, if you remove the duty of escorting bombers, and this becomes only fighter vs fighter, I think the P-38 is much better than the P-47. I would much rather be in a Lightning in a 1 on 1 fight vs a Thunderbolt, Messerschmitt, or Focke Wulf.

So I think when you read the P-38 would be a poor opponent vs a Luftwaffe fighter, I think the historic lack of effectiveness in the escort role of the Lightning factors in to opinions posted.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 5, 2009)

MikeGazdik said:


> ..... So I think when you read the P-38 would be a poor opponent vs a Luftwaffe fighter, I think the historic lack of effectiveness in the escort role of the Lightning factors in to opinions posted.



The P38 was quite successfull in the escort role. The LW had to engage them or they were going to be blasted from the air. And while the LW was busy with the P38, they couldnt concentrate on the bomber formations. Also, untill the AAF implemented the fighter sweep strategy, the escort fighters were tethered to the bomber formations and their true effectiveness was hampered. 

The P38 might have been inferior in an air-to-air role against the -109 and -190. But the P38 was far superior to the -110 and any other two engine fighter the LW had going up against bombers. And woe to any -109 or -190 pilot who didnt take the P38 seriously.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 5, 2009)

With the company front approach LW units managed to make passes on heavy bombers then brak off without having to engage Lightnings at all. Only really the arrival of the P-51 and the change in US fighter doctrine really countered this.


----------



## pinsog (Nov 5, 2009)

Watanbe said:


> If you want the plane that broke the back of the Luftwaffe it was the P51.
> 
> Don't forget *pinsog* the Spitfire did its business in the Battle of Britain and the MET, areas of strategic importance, particularly from the British point of view.



I always seem to forget about the MET and North Africa, I havn't studied those campaigns nearly as much as the others, and yes the Spit was an important aircraft in those theaters. 

Some interesting theories being posted here, I agree the P38 would have been at the very least competetive with the 109 maybe even dominant, and I still think it could hold its own against the 190.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 5, 2009)

> Keep in mind that fighter claims from bombers were overclaimed by as much as 60%.



This is, if anything, an under representation of the claims of fighters downed by bomber gunners.

The RAF rule of thumb for large daylight formations was eight claims for every actual kill, and even this could now be considered generous. During the unescorted daylight bombing in 1943, bomber gunner overclaims were typically ran at 10-15:1, sometimes approaching 30:1.


----------



## davebender (Nov 5, 2009)

I wonder how many of those claims were shot up P-47 escort fighters?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2009)

riacrato said:


> With the company front approach LW units managed to make passes on heavy bombers then brak off without having to engage Lightnings at all. Only really the arrival of the P-51 and the change in US fighter doctrine really countered this.



Sounds easy but didn't work out that way unless the LW was able to be directed to locations where 8th AF fighters were missing. On a clear day with no cloud cover fighters in gaggles were easy to spot many miles away. In cloud cover it was possible to hide and look for an opening but the bombers were connected to their specific escort via C Channel to bring help quickly. 

The days of mass successful attacks were few after April 29, 1944.. they occurred but perhaps only 8 or so times after April 29 when 15 or more bombers from one Division were downed by LW. Off hand May 12, July 7, September 12, 27-28, November 2 and 26 come to mind.. probably more but not many.

Lightnings scored very well on July 7 and September 11 but disappeared from 8th AF in mid September.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 5, 2009)

That was well after the turning point though. Even older P-40s could've had considerable success at that point. Especially if used for strafing airfields.


----------



## davebender (Nov 5, 2009)

> Even older P-40s could've had considerable success at that point.


I would not bet on that. Germany had plenty of operational aircraft right up to 1945. For instance they employed about 1,000 aircraft for Operation Baseplate on 1 January 1945. I would not care to tangle with a Fw-190A8 while flying a P-40.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Nov 5, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The P38 was quite successfull in the escort role. The LW had to engage them or they were going to be blasted from the air. And while the LW was busy with the P38, they couldnt concentrate on the bomber formations. Also, untill the AAF implemented the fighter sweep strategy, the escort fighters were tethered to the bomber formations and their true effectiveness was hampered.
> 
> The P38 might have been inferior in an air-to-air role against the -109 and -190. But the P38 was far superior to the -110 and any other two engine fighter the LW had going up against bombers. And woe to any -109 or -190 pilot who didnt take the P38 seriously.



Hey, Im a P-38 fan. I would take on anything in a P-38L. All I am saying is that until the later marks, they were problematic in Northern Europe. About the time the J and L were up to speed, they were mostly pulled from duty with the 8th AF.


----------



## Hop (Nov 6, 2009)

> When I said the 47 broke the Luftwaffes back, I have read that more than one place. I guess if I were to define that, I would say it was in the fight when the Luftwaffe was the strongest and still had a well trained experienced group of pilots, took the fight to them(because of longer range) and caused them serious losses. By the time the Mustang arrived on the scene in numbers, the Luftwaffe had been seriously roughed up and had lost alot of experienced people that were being replaced by MUCH less experienced pilots



The Luftwaffe really started losing quality with the losses in the Battle of Britain. A fairly large part of the pre war pilots, who had spent years training, were lost then. From the history of JG 26 by Caldwell:



> . But the significance for Germany lay not in the number of casualties, but in their quality. Most of the German pilots lost in 1940 were professional soldiers and airmen, with extensive pre-war training. Men of the calibre of Buerschgens, Ebbighausen, Ebeling, Henrici, and Mueller-Duehe were quite literally irreplaceable. The number and quality of fully trained, professional combat leaders available to the Jagdwaffe began a definite, if at first imperceptible decline that fall, while the British were reinforced by successive waves of highly trained pilots from the occupied countries, the Empire, and finally, America. The seeds of the total defeat of Germany's fighter force in 1944 were thus sown over the fields of Kent in 1940.



From Strategy for Defeat by Williamson Murray:



> By the beginning of 1942, the Germans had lost the equivalent of two entire air
> forces . The result was that the Germans had to curtail their training programs to
> meet the demands of the front for new pilots . By January 1942, of the pilots
> available for duty in the fighter force, only 60 percent were fully operational, while
> ...



The Luftwaffe lost 200% of it's force strength by the end of 1941. In 1942 they lost 150% of the fighter force. In the first 6 months of 1943 they lost another 120%, then another 150% in the second half of 1943.

And it's worth pointing out it wasn't just the USAAF inflicting those losses in the second half of 1943. The Luftwaffe lost 5 100+ aces in the second half of 1943, 2 were killed by the USAAF, 1 in an accident and 2 by Spitfires.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 6, 2009)

Hop is correct. 

On the other hand the Luftwaffe defeated 8th BC in fall of 1943 and was inflicting even heavier losses on RAF BC because the LW had control of the air over Germany - which the RAF FC (plus 8th/9th) could not dent until Mustang.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 6, 2009)

You can't fight a war without casualties can you? The problem were not the losses, more RAF pilots were killed over France in 1941-42 than LW. The problem was the decline in training quality.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 6, 2009)

Hop said:


> The Luftwaffe lost 200% of it's force strength by the end of 1941. In 1942 they lost 150% of the fighter force. In the first 6 months of 1943 they lost another 120%, then another 150% in the second half of 1943.



And...? 

Fighter Command lost some 50%+ of its force in a _one and a half month period_ in May-June 1940, and then they lost some 200% of the force _again_ in next the four months during the BoB. The Luftwaffe, in contrast, didn't loose more than the half the fighter force during the same period, nor did the losses prevented the Luftwaffe from expanding its size through the war. One of the reasons why Fighter Command largely became a non-issue for the rest of the war - apart from the lack any coherent and meaningful offensive strategy, or long range fighters - was that it lost virtually all of its highly trained pilots during the spring summer of 1940. The ranks could be filled up with hastily trained replacements, but they had neither the skill, the military background or the combat experience of the professional pre-war RAF pilots. And it showed in 1941 and 1942 over France.

Murray is simply demagogue in this case anyway. 'Lost 200% of it's force strength by the end of 1941' - yup, _pick a long enough period_ and you will eventually come up with 100%, 200%, 300% and even higher numbers.It is meaningless the same without a context, and in this case, the context was that 
a, Allied air forces suffered this kind of attrition much sooner, see RAF FC in BoB
b, the LW, despitite these losses, continued to expand


----------



## JoeB (Nov 6, 2009)

Battle of Britain or 1941 is ridiculously early to talk about 'breaking the back' of the LW fighter arm. The fact is the BoB *was* a sobering experience for that fighter arm, but LW fighters generally improved their performance v British fighters for the next at least 2 years (perhaps 3). In many cases that was helped by the tactical situations prevailing: the Bf109 was at its best in quite short ranged operations, so were most British fighters. When either one was on escort or fighter sweep duty at the edge of its range and the other defending, the defending one had a natural advantage, a situation which doesn't apply as much to later matchups of the Bf109 or 190 with much longer ranged fighters. But including that effect, British fighters were generally at a serious disadvantage to LW ones in kill ratio terms until at least 1943; well they had been even in the BoB, but a lot more so in campaigns like 1941-2 over France, Western Desert in same period, etc. The German fighter arm was sustaining itself in quality terms in that period, perhaps even improving relative to the Allies. That only changed considerably later.

I think people might say the P-47 'broke the back' of the LW because a famous book said so, but I agree it's oversimplification at best. And similar to the situation in Pacific I often mention, the tendency based on war time accounts from Allied side is to accelerate the qualtiative decline of the Axis fighter arms to before it really occurred. In LW case sharp decline did not happen before 1944. And then stuff like lack of fuel and safe training areas to properly train replacements were becoming factors, not just combat losses.

Joe


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Nov 6, 2009)

I have read in more than one place that the Luftwaffe had lost a good many of its experienced pilots by the time the Mustang was commonplace in the theater. 

Anyone have any stats on that or any thoughts about that claim?


----------



## claidemore (Nov 7, 2009)

Kurfürst said:


> And...?
> 
> Fighter Command lost some 50%+ of its force in a _one and a half month period_ in May-June 1940, and then they lost some 200% of the force _again_ in next the four months during the BoB. The Luftwaffe, in contrast, didn't loose more than the half the fighter force during the same period, nor did the losses prevented the Luftwaffe from expanding its size through the war. One of the reasons why Fighter Command largely became a non-issue for the rest of the war - apart from the lack any coherent and meaningful offensive strategy, or long range fighters - was that it lost virtually all of its highly trained pilots during the spring summer of 1940. The ranks could be filled up with hastily trained replacements, but they had neither the skill, the military background or the combat experience of the professional pre-war RAF pilots. And it showed in 1941 and 1942 over France.
> 
> ...



Luftwaffe fighter and fighter pilot losses during BoB are lower than RAF fighter and fighter pilot losses, because the RAF was primarily after the bombers. But then we all know that. 

Exactly where did the pre-war RAF professional fighter pilots get their combat experience? 

RAF losses in 1941/42 were not due to poor pilots skills on the part of the RAF, they were due to a disasterous policy of cross channel raids and escorts for little or no tactical or strategic value. A stupid and wasteful strategy that brings to mind the mentality of the never ending 'over the top' charges of the Great War. 

The "non-issue for the rest of the war" Fighter Command certainly seemed to be a bit of an issue when it became 2TAF. They did ok in the MTO too, as I recall.


----------



## JoeB (Nov 7, 2009)

claidemore said:


> RAF losses in 1941/42 were not due to poor pilots skills on the part of the RAF...


"Poor" skills is a loaded term that would tend to turn the discussion more nationalistic and less rational than it already, often, tends to be. But it's hard to escape the conclusion that LW fighters were more effective plane for plane than British in that period. Also look at North Africa where neither side was operating at the edge of range, but just a typical support/opposition of recon and bombing a/c over a land battlefront, like WWI Western front air combat (where the Germans also had large kill ratio advantage for extended periods) or that on Eastern front in WWII. The Germans had a commanding kill ratio advantage over the Western Desert (and in Tunisia later as well), despite consistently inferior numbers. A particularly large ratio against Hurricanes and P-40 types, but it not by any means reversed in '42 when Spitfires V's were used there. The German fighter arm was not declining that early in the war: combat results just don't support that thesis. 

And I also don't think that air combat results in general support the theory that fighters escorting bombers are at a big advantage in fighter combat to fighters intercepting escorted bombers. The escorting fighters typically have to worry more about fuel (depending the fighter types and range of the operation, but the Bf109 had to worry about it a lot raiding UK from France or Malta from Siciily) and morale wise the escort pilots have to worry more what happens to them if they survive a downing: it's more difficult psychologically to fly agressively. But again for RAF v LW in 41-42 we can look at a variety of tactical situations and the result was fairly consistent, German advantage. In bigger picture terms the war had by then a reached a point where Allied (including Soviet) air arms had more potential to absorb losses, but 41-42 is way too early to talk about German fighter quality declining, not relative to their opponents anyway.

Joe


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2009)

JoeB said:


> "
> And I also don't think that air combat results in general support the theory that fighters escorting bombers are at a big advantage in fighter combat to fighters intercepting escorted bombers. The escorting fighters typically have to worry more about fuel (depending the fighter types and range of the operation, but the Bf109 had to worry about it a lot raiding UK from France or Malta from Siciily) and morale wise the escort pilots have to worry more what happens to them if they survive a downing: it's more difficult psychologically to fly agressively. But again for RAF v LW in 41-42 we can look at a variety of tactical situations and the result was fairly consistent, German advantage. In bigger picture terms the war had by then a reached a point where Allied (including Soviet) air arms had more potential to absorb losses, but 41-42 is way too early to talk about German fighter quality declining, not relative to their opponents anyway.
> 
> Joe



Joe - good summary IMO - 

The German high command emasculated the LW Fighter Arm by insisting, under penalty of court martial, that the LW interceptors NOT engage US excorts - solely attack the bombers. Those orders gave the new US pilots a great deal of time to refine operational skills and all weather skills out of the UK - so that by the time the Mustang was available, the 'in flight housekeeping' was routine and the experience gained in 1943 blended with aggressive tactics when Doolittle turned the 8th FC loose on the LW in January 1944.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I have read in more than one place that the Luftwaffe had lost a good many of its experienced pilots by the time the Mustang was commonplace in the theater.
> 
> Anyone have any stats on that or any thoughts about that claim?



Anecdotally, the LW had lost many experienced pilots from West based units in 1943. These losses hit JG26 and JG2 as well as units in the south such as JG27 and 77.

However, staring in late 1943 the LW transferred more than 20 squadrons from the East and South into LuftFlotte Reich for the defense of Germany. These are the forces that were arrayed against the Mustang for the battles over Central, East and Southeast Germany where the refineries and aircraft plants were located. Additionally, the fighter forces based in western Germany did not suffer the same attrition because the Jugs didn't go past Koln and Koblenze so the s/e and t/e day fighters simply waited until the Jugs turned back. 

The few P-38s that were available starting in Oct 43 (55th) and Dec 43 (20th) were simply too few and ineffectual to escort 36+ bomb wings into Germany.

The effect was to transfer many experienced fighter pilots from the Russian Front to the cauldron that was the Battle of Germany for control of the air in the February, 1944. At that timeframe the max reach of the P-47s was Dummer Lake and only two Mustang Groups and two Lightning Groups were available to cover the same three Bomb Divisions from England. 

There was actually better coverage from 12th and the new 15th AF from the south as 3 very experienced P-38 Groups could go to Munich.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Nov 7, 2009)

Thanks. You are always a wealth of good information Bill.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Thanks. You are always a wealth of good information Bill.



Thank you. I'm still digging.

I have all the totals for all the 8th FC by a/c type (and losses) and now triaging the daily scores.

I just wish someone on the 'other' side would do the same for the LW.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 7, 2009)

"breaking the back ..." might be one of those myths that everyone likes to quote, but no one has pondered what facts are involved in that assertion.

First of all, just what is the definition of "breaking the back of the LW"? Killing enough LW pilots so that their efficiency goes way down? Forcing a change in tactics from an aggressive daily challange to the bombers, to one of avoiding the escorts and only attacking on a periodic basis? 

I seriously doubt the P47's broke the back of the LW. They were continually being on the sidelines as P38's and P51's were the ones that went deep into Germany. And through out the first 1/2 of 1944, the P47 groups were converted to P51's on a monthly basis.


----------



## eagledad (Nov 8, 2009)

Greetings!


As for the P-38 vs. P-47, Me-109, and FW-190, I would go with the P-38. It could turn with or out-turn all 3 ships; it could out climb the P-47 with ease and hold its own against the 2 German fighters, and once dive flaps were installed, could dive with all 3. The Lightning also had the speed to hold its own with the other 3 fighters. Assuming the engines worked fine (and that seemed to be only a problem with the 8th AF groups), the only disadvantage the P-38 had was its silhouette, odds are, when the P-38 was engaged, it would be at a disadvantage. 

I base my comments on the following:
According to Oliver Taylor commander of the 14th Fighter Group:

“Generally we found that the 38 could out-maneuver anything, friend or foe, between 18,000 and 31,000 feet (5490-9450 meters). Below 18,000 it was sort of a toss-up except that very near the ground we could run (the Axis) right into the dirt, since he apparently couldn’t get quite such a fast pull-out response as we could. “

Roger Freeman, in his book “The Mighty Eighth War Manual”, stated that the P-38J was “equal in speed to most, and better than some Luftwaffe single seat fighters at medium altitudes, as also was its rate of climb….Without them(drop tanks)it could turn with and often out turn both the Me-109 and FW-190. Its particularly good stall characteristics allowed very tight turns without danger of spinning, whereas the FW-190 in particular could not follow without stalling out.” 

“…the P-38 was faster on entering a dive than the Me-109 and FW-190.” Of course it could not keep up with the Me-109 and FW-190 until dive flaps were installed. It was also a very stable gun platform. 

Again from Freeman:

The P-47 “At low altitude it exhibited poor acceleration and rate of climb and could be out-turned by both German types unless a high speed was maintained. With increases in altitude, above 15,000 feet performance gradually improved and at heights at which the US bombers operated, the P-47 was faster than its adversaries in level flight and was far superior in dives. Its acceleration and rate of climb remained poor by comparisons.” Further Freeman states “the P-47 could out-dive both the Me-109 and FW-190, in the initial stages of the dive its acceleration was much slower than that of the German fighters”, and “Below 15,000 feet the P-47 had a distinct performance disadvantages to both the Me-109 and FW-190 and a prudent plot did not attempt to engage in a turning fight. At the end of 1943 P-47s were modified to receive water injection and wide-blade propellers. These greatly benefited sprint performance and it was then possible for the Thunderbolt to out-turn enemy fighters at low altitude if high speed was involved.”

As for the P-47 “breaking the back of the Luftwaffe”, in Adolf Galland’s book, “The First and the Last”, it is indicated that the decline of the Luftwaffe‘s fighter arm occurred in the winter of 1943 to the spring of 1944. It seems to me that there were plenty of P-38’s, P-47.s and P-51’s to accomplish the job. I don’t think it is fair to say that one fighter played a bigger role in taking down the Luftwaffe than another.

Just my thoughts.

May God fly your wing always..

Eagledad


----------



## drgondog (Nov 8, 2009)

eagledad said:


> Greetings!
> 
> 
> As for the P-38 vs. P-47, Me-109, and FW-190, I would go with the P-38. It could turn with or out-turn all 3 ships; it could out climb the P-47 with ease and hold its own against the 2 German fighters, and once dive flaps were installed, could dive with all 3. The Lightning also had the speed to hold its own with the other 3 fighters. Assuming the engines worked fine (and that seemed to be only a problem with the 8th AF groups), the only disadvantage the P-38 had was its silhouette, odds are, when the P-38 was engaged, it would be at a disadvantage.
> ...



If you look at the scores credited to the Mustang from December 1943 through May 1944 you will see a huge impact by the Mustang - simply because the P-38 was easy to see and avoid, it had the dive issues, and engines kept blowing up in cold ETO winter skies. This P-38F and J did not have the boosted ailerons or dive flaps and did not match well with 109 at altitudes. 

The P-47 was restricted to covering inbound to German border, and outbound from German border but the Mustangs and Lightnings were doing the target escort where the big battles were being fought over central and eastern/southern Germany.

The Pioneer Mustang Group had more LW credits (250+) from beginning of Ops on December 1, 1943 through April than the 20th, 55th and 364th FG (all P-38's) combined (88, 103 and 37 respectively) That is 5, 7 and 2 months of combined ops for the P-38s to 5 months for the 354th FG P-51s. 

In other words the P-38s flew 14 months of sorties vs 5 months of one P-51 Group's sorties and scored fewer victories... with nearly 3x sorties 

The addition, the 357th, 355th, and 4th FG which came on board with Mustangs from mid February, 1944 all had more scores individually by the end of April 1944 than the 55th FG (top ETO P-38 GP with 103 credits) who had started ops in Oct 1943 to the end of April.

All of the P-47 Groups had better scoring than the top P-38 group in the same period except for 356th FG.

So, it is clear that the P-38 was not a candidate for 'breaking the back of the LW' in the ETO..

Great airplane that didn't come into full potential until the Battle of Germany was over.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 9, 2009)

When it comes to the Luftwaffe ... if you look at the fighter losses you will see a gradual increase in losses during 1943 and reaching a top around April 1944. Though February 1944 and Big Week are often portrayed as the turning point or breaking point, the figures definitely do not support this. One can see a sudden increase in November/December 1943 though. When you go for Luftwaffe losses, it seems that's when the first big hits were received!

Kris


----------



## drgondog (Nov 9, 2009)

Civettone said:


> When it comes to the Luftwaffe ... if you look at the fighter losses you will see a gradual increase in losses during 1943 and reaching a top around April 1944. Though February 1944 and Big Week are often portrayed as the turning point or breaking point, the figures definitely do not support this. One can see a sudden increase in November/December 1943 though. When you go for Luftwaffe losses, it seems that's when the first big hits were received!
> 
> Kris



My perspective about Big Week/February 1944 is simply the first time the 8th AF had both the reserves and will to go 'deep' after the August through October beat downs by the Luftwaffe. It also had at that point 4 Fighter Groups capable of performing Target escort with three more due in late February to mid March.

The Luftwaffe suffered more losses in November/December (IMO) simply because the Fighter Groups that became operational in Sept/Oct were gaining experience enough to compete along with the old timers (4th, 56th, 78th and 353rd).. so the 352nd, 355th, 55th, 356th plus several 9th AF P-47 groups were gaining similiar experience. 

So the 8th AF escort to western Germany effectively doubled in November... but still only the 55th available to escort all the way to any one target.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 9, 2009)

I see. It is however surprising that the heavy bombardments didn't start until April 1944 (in terms of bombs dropped). The number of bomber available at the end of 1943 was still limited. To see how the LW losses started to mount and get out of control months before this and also weeks before Big Week is very interesting.

So that is before the numerous deep penetrations occured and before the Mustang became the main fighter. 

Kris


----------



## drgondog (Nov 9, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I see. It is however surprising that the heavy bombardments didn't start until April 1944 (in terms of bombs dropped). The number of bomber available at the end of 1943 was still limited. To see how the LW losses started to mount and get out of control months before this and also weeks before Big Week is very interesting.
> 
> So that is before the numerous deep penetrations occured and before the Mustang became the main fighter.
> 
> Kris



So, Kris - what were the LW losses on Kanalfront in November 1943 before the first Mustang group was operational on Dec 1 1943 - and how does that compare March 1944 when the first 3 mustang Groups were operational for target escort against LuftFlotte Reich?

How do yo define 'heavy bombardments' ?? Number of 8th AF BG bombing past Frankfurt or some other definition?

All of the February through April, 1944 strikes were with 30-35+ BG of 8th BC ranging from 600 to 900 B-17s and B-24s


----------



## Civettone (Nov 10, 2009)

drgondog said:


> So, Kris - what were the LW losses on Kanalfront in November 1943 before the first Mustang group was operational on Dec 1 1943 - and how does that compare March 1943 ? - when the first 3 mustang Groups were operational for target escort against LuftFlotte Reich?
> 
> How do yo define 'heavy bombardments' ?? Number of 8th AF BG bombing past Frankfurt or some other definition?
> 
> All of the February through April, 1944 strikes were with 30-35+ BG of 8th BC ranging from 600 to 900 B-17s and B-24s


Hey man, I don't have the figures with me at the moment so I am going by what I remember. I have seen graphs of number of allied heavy bombers available and of the number of bombs (in tons) dropped on German targets. Then I compare them with the Luftwaffe loss figures which seem to be in constant rise from mid 1943 to mid 1944. But a first remarkable peak occurs at the end of 1943. Maximum losses seem to occur around April 1944 though it still increases afterwards but that may be less significant as the production also increased and many were destroyed on the ground or abandoned. I suppose these would also be considered to be combat losses but are not listed seperately from air combat losses.

Anyway to come back to your question. In early 1943 the losses on the Kanalfront was still sustainable but after that they started to rise. And not only that, by the end of 1943 the loss-kill rato had gone from 1:3 to 3:1. It seems clear that the Luftwaffe was first blown away in France and everywhere west of Germany before the actual assault on Germany itself could start. This was repeated soon afterwards with the P-47: the Luftwaffe virtually retreated east of the Ruhr where the P-47 could not follow the heavy bombers. When the Lightning and especially the Mustang appeared the Luftwaffe had nowhere left to hide!
So in essence, the downfall was already obvious to all by mid 1943 but the Mustang finalized it. Not because of its fighting qualities per se - the other 2 American fighters were good enough - but because of its range.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Nov 10, 2009)

A sure sign that German pilot training was inadequate.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 10, 2009)

Quite right Dave. Pilot training had declined since the end of 1942 but the results took a bit longer to be felt. 

Same thing but then in the other direction happened with the RAF. Though they had increased their training programs after the BoB it took until 1942 before the average pilot quality was good enough. 

Kris


----------



## davebender (Nov 10, 2009)

Erich Hartmann took his first military flight 5 March 1941. Flight training continued until 21 August 1942, the day he was posted to Ergänzungs-Jagdgruppe Ost. 17 months! It appears to me Germany ran short of fuel for flight training as soon as they invaded the Soviet Union.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 10, 2009)

Civettone said:


> Hey man, I don't have the figures with me at the moment so I am going by what I remember. I have seen graphs of number of allied heavy bombers available and of the number of bombs (in tons) dropped on German targets. Then I compare them with the Luftwaffe loss figures which seem to be in constant rise from mid 1943 to mid 1944. But a first remarkable peak occurs at the end of 1943. Maximum losses seem to occur around April 1944 though it still increases afterwards but that may be less significant as the production also increased and many were destroyed on the ground or abandoned. I suppose these would also be considered to be combat losses but are not listed seperately from air combat losses.
> 
> Anyway to come back to your question. In early 1943 the losses on the Kanalfront was still sustainable but after that they started to rise. And not only that, by the end of 1943 the loss-kill rato had gone from 1:3 to 3:1. It seems clear that the Luftwaffe was first blown away in France and everywhere west of Germany before the actual assault on Germany itself could start. This was repeated soon afterwards with the P-47: the Luftwaffe virtually retreated east of the Ruhr where the P-47 could not follow the heavy bombers. When the Lightning and especially the Mustang appeared the Luftwaffe had nowhere left to hide!
> So in essence, the downfall was already obvious to all by mid 1943 but the Mustang finalized it. Not because of its fighting qualities per se - the other 2 American fighters were good enough - but because of its range.
> ...



Kris - my point was simply this. There were few losses per se in Luftwaffenbefehlshaber Mitte (Germany) until the escorts started taking the bombers beyond the range of the P-47s and Spits.. The LW tactics were to wait until the P-47s turned back and then pile on with s/e and t/e fighters - exactly what happened on August 17, October 10, October 14th missions.

Back to Kanalfront - yes JG 2 and JG 26 losses began to rise significabtly in mid to late 1943 simply because the 8th and 9th FC P-47 groups and pilots were a.) gaining experience, b.) adding to RAF strength and c.) had the range to engage the JG 2 and JG 26 throughout Their range. If they had to attack the bombers, they had to engage the US fighters. This loss pattern had nothing to do with strikes into deep Germany. All of the summer and fall disasters for 8th BC were well out of range of P-47s

It was in fall of 1943 that LW started the really heavy migration of skilled pilots and aircraft from west and south into Germany and Luftwaffenbefehlshaber Mitte was re-roganized to LuftFlotteReich. Mitte only had elements of JG1, JG3, JG11 and JG27 mid year 1943 and they weren't having the same losses as LufFlotte 3... until after the Mustangs and Lightnings were going all the way in increasing strength.


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 10, 2009)

The gig was up for the Luftwaffe once the Western Allies could escort their massive bomber streams to targets deep into Germany and back. (Mustang was instrumental in making this possible, but in reality any long range fighter with good overall attributes (P-38/P-47/P-51 etc) could have done the job.)

Doolittle's shift in strategy assured this. The Target became the Luftwaffe itself and in the end, the Luftwaffe couldn't win the mass war of attrition facing both large #'s of heavy bombers guarded by swarms of escort fighters that would hunt them to exhaustion all the way down to the deck if necessary. Attrition war's are messy for both sides. He with the most toys at the end wins. Western Allies had the most toys.

Add to that targeting oil and it spirals ever downward. No one plane was responsible. All contributed but the Mustang probably deserves special mention because of what it enabled the Allies to do.

If one is going to talk seeds of the Luftwaffe's downfall, it would be unfair not to mention the Eastern Front. While the Experten might have run up their scores to massive effect in the kill rosters, this air war, one even larger than either BC's war, ultimately played a key part in grinding down the Luftwaffe and accounted for a good number of expert pilots. The Russian pilots were incredibly brave and resolute in the face of adversity, never giving up and losing morale as a whole.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 10, 2009)

Nikademus said:


> The gig was up for the Luftwaffe once the Western Allies could escort their massive bomber streams to targets deep into Germany and back. (Mustang was instrumental in making this possible, but in reality any long range fighter with good overall attributes (P-38/P-47/P-51 etc) could have done the job.)
> 
> Doolittle's shift in strategy assured this. The Target became the Luftwaffe itself and in the end, the Luftwaffe couldn't win the mass war of attrition facing both large #'s of heavy bombers guarded by swarms of escort fighters that would hunt them to exhaustion all the way down to the deck if necessary. Attrition war's are messy for both sides. He with the most toys at the end wins. Western Allies had the most toys.
> 
> ...



agreed


----------



## Juha (Nov 11, 2009)

Hello Drgondog
Also RAF got better during 1943 and made its contribution to overall Jagdwaffe downturn. Also RAF pilots had learned from past errors, they got Spitfire IX with Merlin 63s and 66s which were better than those with Merlin 61s and more and more reliable Typhoons for lower altitude combats. Also during early part of 43 RAF got new, longer range radars for fighter control over France which meant better situation awareness to RAF formation leaders over France.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Nov 11, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Drgondog
> Also RAF got better during 1943 and made its contribution to overall Jagdwaffe downturn. Also RAF pilots had learned from past errors, they got Spitfire IX with Merlin 63s and 66s which were better than those with Merlin 61s and more and more reliable Typhoons for lower altitude combats. Also during early part of 43 RAF got new, longer range radars for fighter control over France which meant better situation awareness to RAF formation leaders over France.
> 
> Juha




Juha - also agreed. The key part of this discussion is that basically all the battles over France and Holland in 1943 were LuftFlotte 3 with JG26 and JG2 plus elements of JG3 against the growing strength of 8th and 9th AF plus RAF.

LuftReich was formed from Mitte plus major reinforcements from Sud and Ost - which formed the primary resistance to 8th AF BC and 8th FC long range escorts. A far larger force of s/e and t/e fighters than LuftFlotte 3.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 11, 2009)

Nikademus said:


> If one is going to talk seeds of the Luftwaffe's downfall, it would be unfair not to mention the Eastern Front. While the Experten might have run up their scores to massive effect in the kill rosters, this air war, one even larger than either BC's war, ultimately played a key part in grinding down the Luftwaffe and accounted for a good number of expert pilots. The Russian pilots were incredibly brave and resolute in the face of adversity, never giving up and losing morale as a whole.


I disagree somewhat. Of course a large part of the Luftwaffe was fighting on the Eastern Front but the end result would have been the same. The western allies would have defeated the Luftwaffe even if it had been twice the size. You see, the problems were still the same: the western allies had better pilots and to a lesser extent better high altitude fighters. 







Kris


----------



## timshatz (Nov 11, 2009)

Another point that should be brought up is the philosophy of the Western Pilots Vs that of the Luftwaffe (and Soviet as well). 

Western pilots were, especially the long range American fighter Pilots, assigned for a tour of duty. It generally was 200 hours but could be extended. They were then returned back to the continental US for re-assignment (or is some cases went back to their units for another 200 hours). As such, their opportunities were fewer than that of the Luftwaffe pilots and tended to attack whenever the opportuntity arose as there were only so many chances they would get. 

The Luftwaffe pilots were not relieved from active flying operations (in general). They flew through the war, accumulating extensive hours in some cases, but getting far more opportunities than their American counterparts but with no real prospect of extensive relief. As such, their tactics and perspective was more that of the proffessional solider, attacking when the odds were best and taking all advantage of all opportunities to increase their odds of survival. If the sitiuation didn't look favorable, there was generally not a problem with going home and trying it again tomorrow. That is not to say they did not attack in unfavorable situations (outnumber, ect). But they tended not to simply because they would have another shot at it later (either in the day, week or month) and the odds would/could be more in their favor then. 

Pitted against each other, you had the American pilot who had to make the most of every chance he got against a Luftwaffe pilot who had to maximize his chances of success AND survival. It was the product of different strategies and should be considered when thinking about the efficiency and effectiveness of each sides pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Nov 11, 2009)

Kris - look at the steep rise of fighter losses for single engine day fighters from sep-Dec 1943 versus Jan-May 1944 when comparing Reich Defense to West losses... the Reich Defense has 2x fighter losses to West losses in Jan-May 1944.

Jun-Dec 1944 had closer ratios but remember how much of LuftFlotte Reich was transferred to France and Holland during Normandy campaign - putting them at more risk to RAF and shorter range P-47s of 8th AF and all of 9th AF fighters - but still Reich Defense had the far higher losses reflecting again the Mustang impact.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 12, 2009)

D, i have problems understanding what exactly you are trying to say. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? If I read your post I agree with you but it comes across as if you are disagreeing with what I'm saying . I am confused.

And exactly how much of LF Reich was transferred to France after D-Day?

Kris


----------



## drgondog (Nov 12, 2009)

Civettone said:


> D, i have problems understanding what exactly you are trying to say. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? If I read your post I agree with you but it comes across as if you are disagreeing with what I'm saying . I am confused.
> 
> And exactly how much of LF Reich was transferred to France after D-Day?
> 
> Kris


Kris - I was pointing out that LF Reich had nearly as many day fighter losses as West, Balkans and East combined in Jan-May and Jun-oct 1944... which pointed back to my thesis that the long range escort was the fatal blow to the LW. It was a grinder for replacement pilots from East and Balkans coming into the Battle of Germany.

I am wholly in support that while the East and VVS took its toll it was west losses (West and Reich) that overshadowed the Russian front losses.

I'll have to look it up but approximately 5 Gruppen moved from Munich to central Germany to central/west LF Reich and into the Normandy campaign starting on June 7.


----------



## Nikademus (Nov 12, 2009)

Civettone said:


> I disagree somewhat. Of course a large part of the Luftwaffe was fighting on the Eastern Front but the end result would have been the same. The western allies would have defeated the Luftwaffe even if it had been twice the size. You see, the problems were still the same: the western allies had better pilots and to a lesser extent better high altitude fighters.
> 
> Kris




Its not a matter of what the end result might have been. The Western Allies alone probably would eventually have clawed out air superiority just as its feasible to conjecture that without D-Day, Torch, or Husky, the Russians would have eventually clawed their way back to Berlin. Its a matter of time and casualties. In the airwar's case too, one also has to factor in the bomber force as well as the fighters. The Western Allies' job was achieving air superiority was made infinately easier by not having to try to eliminate the Luftwaffe's bomber forces in strength at the same time they were conducting their stragetic operations.

My point thus, was that when discussing the downfall of the Luftwaffe, one cannot discount the VVS's contribution. Without it......it would have been far more costly and time consuming for the Western Allies, regardless of what specific plane type is being forwarded.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 14, 2009)

Like I said, I disagree "somewhat". Of course it would have been more difficult for the allies to gain air superiority if the entire LW was against them. But the end result would have been similar, especially as the allied fighter and bomber forces were expanding rapidly throughout 1944. At the end of the year by a factor of 3 compared to the beginning of the year.


Kris


----------



## davebender (Nov 14, 2009)

> more difficult for the allies to gain air superiority if the entire LW was against them


Could the western allies get ashore in Sicily and at Salerno if Luftwaffe units historically commiteed to Kursk were in the Med instead? I have my doubts.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 16, 2009)

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. I am saying that the allies would _eventually_ get air superiority. Of course it would take a bit longer. 

OTOH I wouldn't be surprised if aircraft production would actually be smaller if there was no Eastern Front. 

Kris


----------



## Soren (Nov 16, 2009)

I suspect that had there been no eastern front aircraft production might actually have been higher whilst the production of landbased machines was lower. Reason being that in such case much of the fighting in the west would've been undertaken in the air, everyone knowing that esp. because of the geographical situation who'ever had mastery of the skies also had all he cards in their hands.


----------



## billswagger (Nov 16, 2009)

pinsog said:


> I was reading some very old post tonight and I began to notice a pattern. When asked about P38 vs P47 most people picked the P38 including the die hard German guys. Now, it is, as far as evreything I have ever read, generally accepted that the P47 broke the back off the Luftwaffe. BUT, when the same people are asked about P38 vs either a 109 or 190 it invariably comes back that the P38 will loose every time. From all the posts I read, a P38 couldnt shoot down a 109 or 190 if the German planes were out of gas, filled with concrete and the pilots were on vacation. Add to that was the reasoning that a P38 simply couldnt turn well enough to ever shoot down a 109 or 190. One wonders after reading the posts if a P38 EVER actually shot down a single engine German fighter. YET, history records the P47 crushed the Luftwaffe despite the fact that it cant outturn anything and it sure cant outclimg anything either, except for the zoom climb. (I know, the paddle blade prop to)
> 
> Anybody want to explain the alleged discrepensies here?




There are different reasons for the discrepancy, but the 38s usefulness also came down to pilot training and design factors, where other single engine fighters like the Jug just didn't have issues. 

You have two engines, it takes a bit more consideration and experience to fly properly. 

The 38 had a low mach number which made it horrible to dive with, and from all accounts it seems that BnZ was a popular tactic on both sides of the war. Not being able to dive away from an attack with out also losing control, is another reason the 38 was not as useful as a fighter. 
It did follow the roll of the P-47 in ground support and attack missions. 

Lastly, and less commonly known is not so much the turn rate, but it did have a poor roll inertia. 
It could roll fast, but getting the plane to roll the opposite direction with in combination of maneuvers was difficult by comparison . A 109 pilot was quick to learn that a half roll to the right, and then a full roll to the left, and the 38 was not able to follow. 

There are also reports of 38 pilots who mention the delay between moving the stick and the actual bank of the plane feels like an eternity with an enemy plane baring down on you. 

Talking about turning ability is kind of sillly, considering that it all depends on the speeds these planes are traveling. There are also many 38 pilots who contended better against the better turning Japanese planes. I don't think turn ability was as much of an issue for the P-38, but i might say the biggest factor in Europe was trained pilots who could managed two engines. 




Bill


----------



## Civettone (Nov 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> I suspect that had there been no eastern front aircraft production might actually have been higher whilst the production of landbased machines was lower. Reason being that in such case much of the fighting in the west would've been undertaken in the air, everyone knowing that esp. because of the geographical situation who'ever had mastery of the skies also had all he cards in their hands.


I think you have a point. It would mainly have been tank and artilley production which would have remained at a low level. my idea was that Hitler was reluctant to increase production because he didn't want to upset the civilian population by decreasing production of civilian products. Only when pushed he ordered an increase in production.
And it is quite possible that with Britain being the only enemy he would have ordered an increased production of aircraft, submarines and other attack ships.




billswagger said:


> The 38 had a low mach number which made it horrible to dive with, and from all accounts it seems that BnZ was a popular tactic on both sides of the war. Not being able to dive away from an attack with out also losing control, is another reason the 38 was not as useful as a fighter.


Compressibility was at around 460 mph so it could dive safely but simply not too steep. 
Also the problem was mainly solved by adding special flaps. The interesting story is that these flaps were to be installed on operational P-38s in the field. But the C-54 carrying these flaps was accidentally shot down which caused a delay of some months. The last P-38Js got these modifications standard. Alsom, they got hydraulically powered controls and flaps which made the P-38 exceptionally controllable at high speeds. Suddenly the weakness of the P-38 turned into a strength.
But by then the P-51 had become the favorite of the USAAF in the ETO.

Kris


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2016)

_Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II _has these numbers for aerial victories in the ETO: 6,098 by heavy bombers, 7,422 by fighters, and 103 by medium bombers.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2016)

fubar57 said:


> View attachment 347981
> 
> 
> _Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II _has these numbers for aerial victories in the ETO: 6,098 by heavy bombers, 7,422 by fighters, and 103 by medium bombers.



I still don't believe those for the heavy bombers.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2016)

True, and that includes B-24s but it's probably closer than almost 10,000


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2016)

As for the P-38, it rolled very slowly, especially in the initial stages, except for the later models with power boosted ailerons - and then only when at high speed.

Diving for models without dive flaps was restricted to shallow angles, and when they got the dive flaps the limiting angle was 45°.

Climb was good, but the dive restrictions would make booming and zooming a problem, and the slow roll response made turning fights also difficult, even though it turned quite tightly once banked.

Spitfires could turn inside Zeroes provided speed was high enough. ie above 200 or 250mph IAS.

F4Fs were successful against Zeroes because of the tactics that were developed and employed in the USN and USMC.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 10, 2016)

You do realise you are replying to posts that are 7 years old?

How about you go to the Improving the Bf 109 thread and check out the bits from the RAE tests on the Bf 109E conducted during 1940?


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> No, they knew which planes were lost during which raids and where, keeping very good track of such things.



And which document do you have to support this.....other than your landlord?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2016)

Thanks for the education shooter, now where is my $1000?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> You have to prove me wrong to get the money and I do not have to prove myself right to keep it.


Both myself and Stona proved you wrong, more spitfires were not lost to take of and landing accidents than to enemy action


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> .....But seriously, there were several books published recently, ( Post internet?) one on Bomber guns and turrets IIRC with many stats in reference.......



And which document did you use to get the number of almost 10,000 shoot-downs for bomber crews?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> I have not seen those posts. I note that the very first Spit made crashed three times, was rebuilt twice and killed it's pilot the third time around. So that counts as three destroyed, one pilot killed. I still have not seen a single post with a link to the total number of planes lost to what causes.
> Please furnish a post number and thread name with those numbers. The total lost in combat would also be nice to have along with those to "All Causes".


Read the thread you annoying fool, I am not chasing about after you again, I did that when I posted the losses in the first place.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 10, 2016)

wuzak said:


> You do realise you are replying to posts that are 7 years old?



_It's déjà vu all over again_
- Yogi Berra


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 10, 2016)

Shooter8 said:


> Exactly correct! But those tactics were learned and developed by the Flying Tigers over China and brought home before the start of American involvement in the war. Those tactics were B&Z in nature and the RAF did not learn them in time to make a difference early in the war. Our tactics were every bit as bad in Europe early in the war, only the Germans and the USN were any different until later, say mid 1943?


The Flying Tigers flew no combat missions before the U.S. involvement in the the war. Chennault however, has been observing Japanese tactics since 1937.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2016)

Wasn't the first mission on Dec. 19 '41?


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 10, 2016)

fubar57 said:


> Wasn't the first mission on Dec. 19 '41?


Wiki says 20th, but I think its 19th in GMT.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2016)

OK, my info here....

The Flying Tigers


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 10, 2016)

fubar57 said:


> OK, my info here....
> 
> The Flying Tigers


Interesting, that site credits Boynton with 6 victories with AVG. He always claimed 6 but the Tigers on credited him with two.
Gregory "Pappy" Boyington - WW2 Ace, Black Sheep Squadron C.O.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2016)

fubar57 said:


> Wasn't the first mission on Dec. 19 '41?


Yes -

And shooter - you just don't get it, do you?


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 10, 2016)

wiki-The group first saw combat on 20 December 1941, 12 days after Pearl Harbor (local time).

The difference must be a time zone issue.



FLYBOYJ said:


> And shooter - you just don't get it, do you?


- WTF!


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> wiki-The group first saw combat on 20 December 1941, 12 days after Pearl Harbor (local time).
> 
> The difference must be a time zone issue.
> 
> - WTF!


Are you shooter?


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 10, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Are you shooter?


No


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> No


Well what is your question then?


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 10, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Well what is your question then?


Shooter hasn't replied to this thread and you are at least the third person who has asked me or implied that I was "Shooter". FlyboyJ quoted fubar57's response to my posting, so I'm just a little confused.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> Shooter hasn't replied to this thread and you are at least the third person who has asked me or implied that I was "Shooter". FlyboyJ quoted fubar57's response to my posting, so I'm just a little confused.


Nothing against you BLine - I was responding to Shooter's post which is no longer here, sorry for the confusion


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 10, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Nothing against you BLine - I was responding to Shooter's post which is no longer here, sorry for the confusion


Roger

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2016)

What happened here FBJ? Is his account deleted? When I'm wrong(often) I still leave the comment


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2016)

Site issue - I'll PM at a let time

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2016)

James W. said:


> FBJ has a few 'site issues'.. Horse being No1..


Just an observation here, but it never goes well to hassle a Moderator.

And a FYI, Horse owns this site...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2016)

Enough James W.!

Knock it off! Quit trying to incite arguments.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2016)

GrauGeist said:


> Just an observation here, but it never goes well to hassle a Moderator.
> 
> And a FYI, Horse owns this site...


The little jerk-off knows that - even knows his name! I'm in a lot of trouble!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2016)

Ok everyone. Let's get this back on topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 10, 2016)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The little jerk-off knows that - even knows his name! I'm in a lot of trouble!!!!


LMAO

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2016)

OK folks, back on topic


----------



## BLine22 (Jul 10, 2016)

One trait of the Thunderbolt that can't be overlooked is its toughness. It could take a beating. Even though the Lightning had two engines, it had problems with single engine performance due to the remaining engine overheating.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2016)

BLine22 said:


> One trait of the Thunderbolt that can't be overlooked is its toughness. It could take a beating. Even though the Lightning had two engines, it had problems with single engine performance due to the remaining engine overheating.


This may, or may not, depend on the model and the conditions. In the China/Burma/India theater a few of them made it back to base flying over 600 miles on one engine. However flak, and even enemy aircraft were scarce to nonexistent on the return trip so they didn't have to beat up on the remaining engine. Coming back over 300-400 miles in Europe may be different due to the higher desirable cruise speed to get home. A balancing act between speed and blowing up the second engine. 
It may also depend on flying technique. Way, way too many pilots were taught the *wrong *way to cruise the P-38 by army instructors in direct contradiction to both Allison's and Lockheed's instructions/recommendations. Army was teaching high rpm and low boost for far too long.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2016)

The P-38 is often a question because it it was one of the most modified fighters in WW II while changing the least on the outside. 
Aside from the chin intakes and slightly larger radiators back on the booms a P-38L doesn't look any different than a P-38E. 
Yet it has about 33% more internal fuel. About 40% more power ( combat emergency), combat maneuver flaps, diveflaps/brakes and powered ailerons. The last three considerably changing it's combat capability without showing up on most short lists of specifications. 
Other planes certainly changed engines and fuel capacity and armament but this was accompanied by changes in outward appearance that make it easy to differentiate the models. Few people confuse the abilities of a 109E and a 109 G or Spitfire I/II with a Spitfire IX/XIV. 

The P-38 was also used pretty much world wide (Russian front excepted) and in 1942/43 by pretty much green pilots who had to learn "on the job". It was recognized as being superior to the P-39 and P-40 and was often tasked with protecting those fighters (or at least forcing the enemy aircraft down to the altitudes at which those planes were effective.) It is little wonder that it's combat reputation in the first few years was "spotty". 
Often criticized for not being a good escort fighter in Europe (bad cockpit heating for one) it actually only was first used for escorting the the 8th AIr Force 2 months before the first P-51 escort mission into Germany. At the time of the First P-38 escort missions (mid Oct 1943) there were already 7 fighter groups in England using P-47s. Not a lot of time for sorting out the problems encountered in this theater. 
The P-51 was the better choice but the P-38 did eventually get the modifications needed. 
Put that together with the sometimes inadequate training many P-38 pilots got and it is no wonder that it's "reputation" is all over the map.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 11, 2016)

Didn't know the Russians didn't have P-38s. I found this on line which surprised me...

The book "Lavochkin's Piston-Engined Fighters" (Red Star Vol 10) by Yefim Gordon contains the following information on a Russian Lightning;

"Several months before the beginning of the La-11's flight tests GK NII VVS obtained an example of the Lockheed P-38L-1-LO Lightning twin-engined fighter. Its evaluation, which was completed in April 1947, showed that, despite the Lightning's high all-up weight (almost twice that of the La-11), its range with drop tanks was inferior to that of the Soviet fighter. Other performance figures, with the exception of the radius of turn and service ceiling, were also lower."

Going to go through my books to see if I can find and earlier date about the Russians at least considering earlier versions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 11, 2016)




----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2016)

One really has to wonder about the condition of both planes, the fuel used and the size of the drop tanks (if any fitted to the P-38) the comparison was made with as somethings are not adding up. 

Weights for LA-11 from wiki, some other sites agree but could still be wrong. 

*Empty weight:* 2,770 kg (6,107 lb)
*Loaded weight:* 3,730 kg (8,223 lb)
*Max. takeoff weight:* 3,996 kg (8,810 lb)
Weights for P-38L

*Empty weight:* 12,800 lb[135] (5,800 kg)
*Loaded weight:* 17,500 lb[135] (7,940 kg)
*Max. takeoff weight:* 21,600 lb (9,798 kg)
A P-38L could hit (if not exceed) that 17,500lb mark clean (no external tanks ) if carrying full ammo. So how is the P-38 operating at a bit *less* than "_almost twice that of the La-11". _
A pair of 165 gal drop tanks weigh 2155lbs for the fuel and tanks pushing the weight to 19,655lbs which is much more than twice the weight of an LA-11. 
Climb rate of a max loaded LA-11 is none to good either. 
One source claiming 6.6 minutes to 5000meters. (16,404ft)
This is roughly comparable (or maybe a bit better) than a P-38 at 18,000lbs running 2600rpm and 44in of pressure for the entire climb. 
A slightly lighter P-38J could climb to 23,400ft in 6.5 minutes using 3000rpm and 60in pressure (WEP) and that required 100/130 fuel. 
I don't have any figures for climb using 3000rpm and 54in pressure at the moment (normal Military rating), perhaps 5 minutes to 15,000ft? But the idea that the heavily loaded LA-11 could outclimb the P-38L unless the P-38 was also carrying a large external load, doesn't seem to make sense. And if the P-38 is carrying external tanks the weight and range comparisons don't make sense. 

Even a pair of 75 gallon tanks don't make sense.


----------



## eagledad (Jul 11, 2016)

Shortround6

A P-38J/L at 17500 pounds climbing at 54" MP and 3000 RPM:

0-5000' 2 minutes and 3200 fpm
10000' 4 minutes and 3100 fpm
15000' 5 minutes and 2900 fpm You were spot on!
25000' 9 minutes and 2900 fpm
35000' 15 minutes and 1000 fpm

at 19400 pounds (I believe that would include 2-165 gallon drop tanks)

0-5000' 2 minutes and 2900 fpm
10000' 4 minutes and 2400 fpm
15000' 7 minutes and 2300 fpm
25000' 11 minutes and 1800 fpm
35000' 20 minutes and 500 fpm

The data comes from the Pilots Manual for the Lockheed P-38 Lightning:

The time from take off is obviously rounded, the rate of climb I am guessing is what the aircraft can do at that specified altitude.
Finally, the last 5 minutes of the climb to 35000 ' at 19400 pounds would be accomplished at something less than 54" mp for as you know, the time limit for military power is 15 minutes.

Eagledad

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2016)

Thank you.


----------



## alejandro_ (Oct 19, 2016)

Quite frankly I would prefer to read the original report rather than Yefim Gordon’s analysis. Soviets had access to ~12 P-38 in different conditions, but only 1 was obtained in flying a condition. It was a P-38L-1 that performed a belly landing in the summer of 1943 (*), during one of the shuttle missions from/to Poltava.

When the bird was fixed it was transferred to 173° regiment of long-range fighter, based in Minsk. When the war finished it was in Poland. In 1947 it was tested at NII VVS and compared to the Yak-9DD (long range variant).

The Yakovlev had better manoeuvrability, but the P-38 was superior in speed, range and ceiling. It was also able to carry an impressive load of rocket and bombs. Apparently the testing could not fully check the aircraft’s performance due to lack of 100 octane gasoline.

So, nothing that surprising about the evaluation. If the P-38 belly landed then the propellers would have to be straightened, which would have affected the performance. Same with the fuel, the one available did not allow engine to operate at maximum performance. 

Lockheed P-38 “Lightning”
P-38 Lightning авиакомпании Lockheed

(*) Shuttle missions were first organised in 1944.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 19, 2016)

I doubt they straightened the prop blades. I am sure they were replaced...

Engines had to be worked as well, as a sudden stoppage would have occurred.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Oct 19, 2016)

Not to put too fine a point on it but by 1947, who would care about the La-11 outside of whoever's head was avoiding Stalin's chopping block? If I were Ivan, I'd be more concerned about how the progress over at North American was coming along on their little swept wing jet fighter and what those guys over at Mikoyan-Gurevich were doing about it.

Also comparing your latest prop ship v. a slightly abused five year old version of a ten year old design hardly sounds like bragging rights to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

