# Impressions of Axis pilots regarding Allied planes.



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 20, 2005)

I'm curious what German, Japanese and Italian pilots thought of the allied aircraft they faced. 

I'm especially interested in what they thought of the P-47.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 21, 2005)

German pilots would have been in such a way instructed(probably being from the Hitler Jungen) that any enemy they saw, they considered inferior... Only maybe after engaging one or 2 aircrafts their picture would change, realising that they weren't the masters of the sky...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2005)

During the BoB, some German pilots shot down by Hurricanes used to lie and claim they were hit by Spitfires


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 21, 2005)




----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 21, 2005)

It was called Spitfire Snobbery as they thought they'd been shot down by an inferior plane


----------



## Erich (Mar 21, 2005)

Every Luftwaffe day fighter pilot I have interviewed from the late summer of 44 till war's end was impressed with the Allied fighters especially with the P-51 but the Germans all thought they had the better weaponry and ammo.............

there will be others here on this board that will say otherwise and it is good to get an overall picture. just giving my opinion and the thoughts of those I have dealt with.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Mar 21, 2005)

Any specific opinions on the P-47?


----------



## Udet (Mar 21, 2005)

Hellmaker´s idea is kind of silly.

The new German pilots, say from 1944 and on, knew very well what to expect once they´d get airborne for combat: LARGE numbers of enemy planes.

Now, from my conversations with some German veterans no one has ever come close to anything that might even suggest they felt their planes were inferior, at all. That there might have been some who saw the enemy planes superior can be true, not in the cases i mention here though.

Quite the contrary, in spite of the heavy losses in some battles of that particular period, it appeared to me morale was in very good shape amongst German fighter pilots.

They did not fear no particular enemy plane, what was unanimous is the fact they were more troubled about the numbers of allied fighters they could find many times rather than any sort of technical superiority of the enemy.

Also they feared one thing like hell: that there might not be fuel to fly any sorties against the enemy. FUEL.



When I asked them about Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings and Spitfires and Tempests they told me all were excellent planes, but in no way superior to their own toys. 

Noteworthy to mention is the fact 2 of them told me the easiest to deal with was the P-38, which they did consider inferior to either the Bf109 or the Fw190. I asked them if they ever called the P-38 the "fork tailed devil", from them I began learning the German airmen never did refer to it as such, and that the propaganda of the USA could be as prolific as that of the communists or of the Reich itself.


----------



## Erich (Mar 21, 2005)

as I said another viewpoint given by our friend Udet. I will say though that all the pilots I have interviewed thought very well of their own flying skills and could keep up with the predators-Allied escort fighters. As one pilot said in the SturmFw unit IV.Sturm/JG 3, one for one I could keep up with any US P-51 pilot even in my heavy Fw. but when there was 7-8 P-51's dropping down on you at once what kind of chance did we have ?

Nothing was ever said of the P-47 in combat.


----------



## Udet (Mar 22, 2005)

I just finished reading a post made by GT on another thread telling late German fighter pilots were sent to service after 20-30 hours of training only.

Non-sense.

That is nearly the average time the bulk of the late Japanese fighter pilots got before being ordered to take off and to smash themselves against Task Force 58 vessels as kamikazes.

20 hours of traning flight is hardly enough to teach the new pilot to just land his plane and to learn the basics of air navigation.

It is plentiful of records, showing allied formations, inspite of "superior training" committed gruesome navigational mistakes during 1944, which lead to many massacres conducted by "undertrained" young German pilots. Sure Erich can enlight you further in some of such cases.

I have said this on other threads, and i will repeat it: training of the new Luftwaffe pilots from 1944 and on, if indeed shortened due to lack of fuel, was sufficient to send properly trained guys to begin their careers as air warriors.

Germany was not Japan, as apparently tacitly suggested by the allies.

That they took high losses is real, but was due to the extremely easy reason of overwhelming numbers of enemy planes many times, and not because they did not what to do once airborne or because their planes were inferior, much less "outclassed".

Allies love to put it like "only a fistful" of the late German new pilots "survived" and that is not true from what i have learned.

The Stabstaffel of JG301 featured an interesting number of very young experten.

From opinions and books i have collected a casualty rate (HIGH) of between 40-50% seems more accurate for the new pilots of the Luftwaffe in 1944-45.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2005)

All pilots and aircrew take pride in there aircraft and they all love there aircraft and will say that they have the best aircraft out there even if they know it is not true. Allied pilots will do the same.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 22, 2005)

well if you don't have faith in your plane you might as well not fly in it.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2005)

That attitude wouldnt have won us the BoB...

"Scramble!"

"Nah, i dont have any confidence in my plane, id rather stay down here and live."

A pilot should give it his best whether he likes his plane or not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

Very true.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 23, 2005)

True indeed...what should a plane be without a confient pilot..nothig more then a pile of metal...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

Being over confident can get you killed to though. I have seen this many times and it is not pretty.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 23, 2005)

but it can also be used to your advantage, if you think you're invincible you'll automaticlly take the initative in battle, meaning you have a better chance of survival.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 23, 2005)

But you can not let it go to far or you will think that nothing can stop you and you will let the simple things kill you.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2005)

i don't think we'll ever decide between us if it's a good thing or not......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2005)

It can be positive or negative.


----------



## GT (Mar 25, 2005)

Update.


----------



## hellmaker (Mar 25, 2005)

The british advantage was that they were kinda isolated from the main front... They could have better training, and also surviving became more and more experienced, and could pass on their experience... While for the german pilots, the situation was exactly oposite. Many of their plnes were lost over the Channel Sea, many experienced pilots lost, replaced with young, unexperienced ones... This became their greatest disadvantage...


----------



## Iskandar Taib (Mar 25, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> All pilots and aircrew take pride in there aircraft and they all love there aircraft and will say that they have the best aircraft out there even if they know it is not true. Allied pilots will do the same.



Not always true. Those who flew Brewster Buffalos and P-39s in the Pacific weren't shy about saying what they thought of those planes, and their capabilities against their adversaries.



hellmaker said:


> The british advantage was that they were kinda isolated from the main front... They could have better training, and also surviving became more and more experienced, and could pass on their experience... While for the german pilots, the situation was exactly oposite. Many of their plnes were lost over the Channel Sea, many experienced pilots lost, replaced with young, unexperienced ones... This became their greatest disadvantage...



This might've been true for the BoB, but in 1941 and later the Brits were the ones who had to fly over there and swim for it if they got shot down. 

The rotation of experienced pilots into instructor posts was, I think, more a matter of policy than anything else. At least, in the early parts of the war before things got really desperate.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2005)

Iskandar Taib said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > All pilots and aircrew take pride in there aircraft and they all love there aircraft and will say that they have the best aircraft out there even if they know it is not true. Allied pilots will do the same.
> ...



That does not mean they dont take pride in there aircraft. That just says that they know the limitations of there aircraft. I know my aircraft can not fly the highest, fastest or carry the most loads but I still have pride in it and when I am in it I think it is the best thing in the sky.


----------



## Iskandar Taib (Mar 29, 2005)

Maybe SOME would, but if one had to fight a war in something one knew was absolutely obsolete and one didn't have much of a chance of surviving, let alone getting to one's target, some might feel differently than you do. As I said, there are some who were pretty vocal about what they thought about those planes they were forced to fight in.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2005)

Iskandar Taib said:


> Maybe SOME would, but if one had to fight a war in something one knew was absolutely obsolete and one didn't have much of a chance of surviving, let alone getting to one's target, some might feel differently than you do. As I said, there are some who were pretty vocal about what they thought about those planes they were forced to fight in.



Okay but honestly when you fight a war or are defending your country you do it in whatever means are available to you.


----------



## Jank (Nov 22, 2007)

I understand that a well known German pilot said that the only thing he feared was being dived on by P-47's.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 22, 2007)

Udet said:


> 20 hours of traning flight is hardly enough to teach the new pilot to just land his plane and to learn the basics of air navigation.


Sounds similar to what what one sees about RAF pilots during BoB. What was meant was 20 hours in the type of plane they would fly in combat.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 22, 2007)

Jank said:


> I understand that a well known German pilot said that the only thing he feared was being dived on by P-47's.



That sounds kinda silly and I love the P-47.

Any aircraft diving is a threat... speed/momentum is life!


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 22, 2007)

> As one pilot said in the SturmFw unit IV.Sturm/JG 3, one for one I could keep up with any US P-51 pilot even in my heavy Fw. but when there was 7-8 P-51's dropping down on you at once what kind of chance did we have ?



Oskar.....

A real gentleman too.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Jank (Nov 22, 2007)

"_That sounds kinda silly and I love the P-47._"

I was repeating what Adler said a couple weeks ago on another thread. Perhaps he can elaborate.


----------



## Jank (Nov 23, 2007)

My mistake. It was not Adler. It was someone else.

The assertion comes from the book, "I Fought You from The Skies" by Willi Heilmann. He flew 190's throughout the war and states that the only thing they were afraid of were P-47's diving on them from above.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Nov 24, 2007)

Well they hit like a ton of bricks!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 24, 2007)

And many MANY german pilots and experten thanked God that the Allies didnt use explosive rounds with their .50cals...


----------



## davparlr (Nov 24, 2007)

Erich said:


> Every Luftwaffe day fighter pilot I have interviewed from the late summer of 44 till war's end was impressed with the Allied fighters especially with the P-51 but the Germans all thought they had the better weaponry and ammo.............
> 
> there will be others here on this board that will say otherwise and it is good to get an overall picture. just giving my opinion and the thoughts of those I have dealt with.



This is one of the difficulties when assertaining aircraft performance by fighter pilot comments. Fighter pilots, by design, typically have a rather large ego. This is needed to ensure aggressiveness in combat. They must have conficence in their own ability. Therefore, they will often claim their aircraft was superor while, in their minds, they were thinking of its performance in their hands. This is true with British, German, Americans, et. al. In reality, every WWII aircraft had strengths and weaknesses. The expert fighter pilot understood this and was able to apply his aircraft strengths against the enemy aircraft's weaknesses, thus victory. A German pilot in a Bf-109G or an Fw-190A-6 would have a signifcant disadvantage to a P-51D in airspeed but had altitudes and capabilities he could use to his advantage if he could get the P-51D to fight his fight. This is where the pilot expertise wins the fight. When faced with equal competence in the fight, both aircraft would jockey for advantage until one erred, then the other pounced. However, some aircraft had more tools than the other and therefore did not need as capable a pilot. Few fighter pilots would admit to inferiority of his aircraft or feared an opposing aircraft, but if he said that the other aircraft was capable or that he was impressed, then it can be pretty well assumed that that aircraft was indeed a capable fighter aircraft. And I am sure you can find this on all sides of the conflict.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 24, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> And many MANY german pilots and experten thanked God that the Allies didnt use explosive rounds with their .50cals...



Dan - I'm still trying to find records of the experiment - so this is anecdotal.

The 355th received some and both my father and Henry Brown talked about the problems experieced with the rounds.. most serious of which was detonation out in front of barrel.. this would have been post August 1944. Henry lost a score when all the stuff started blowing up on him and he thought a 190 was on his tail!

When we got back from Japan in early 1951, he (dad) had the Test Programs at Eglin AFB when the .60 Cal based on the .50 case (easy barrel conversion for M2) was tested - but not accepted - because it wasn't as effective as the 20mm and the USAF was pretty committed to 20mm in 1952. It WAS deemed more reliable than the M2 20mm in service at the time.

Having said that the .60 Cal by all accounts solved the issues experienced by the explosive .50. Probably a good reason the Germans settled on 15mm?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 24, 2007)

I agree, and great info as well...


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 25, 2007)

> A German pilot in a Bf-109G or an Fw-190A-6 would have a signifcant disadvantage to a P-51D in airspeed but had altitudes and capabilities he could use to his advantage if he could get the P-51D to fight his fight.



Hi Guys,

I would say the answer as to which aircraft has the advantage is "it depends".

All aircraft performance is a mean average over a percentage range. These percentage variations are wide enough that they overlap and the optimistic aircraft of a given design will outperform the pessimistic aircraft of the other design.

Looking at a hand picked test chart is not going to tell you how the type performed. 

Frankly, the margin of advantage has to be rather wide in order for it to be really noticeable in the air.

Just reading a manufacturer’s list "speed" does not tell you much either. The application of compressibility corrections was not standard in the 1940's and is still not standard today. Some manufacturers apply them at mach .70 while others as early as mach .3. 

Lets say our aircraft have a 17 mph difference in top speed. At a 5nm separation, we are talking a 17 minute tail chase to close the distance. Most WEP systems do not last that long so our pilots have to drop back to maximum continuous.

Here the shape of our L/D curve becomes important. Some airplanes cruised much faster than others due to the location of the Dmin point. 

If we take our FW190A6 vs P51 example, _generally speaking_ the Focke Wulf has a slightly faster maximum continuous cruise velocity than the P51D. The P51 will no longer close the distance, the distance will increase, or the closure rate will drop to the point the aircraft will run out of fuel before it can close.

So it is easy to see why all sides felt their aircraft were competitive. Wrongly focusing on one characteristic without examining the aircraft as a complete system will lead to some erroneous conclusions.


All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2007)

Very good post there Crump and I have to agree with you.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 25, 2007)

Me too....


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 25, 2007)

Thank you, Adler and nice to know you both agree!


----------



## Mangrove (Nov 26, 2007)

Virtualpilots - Captain H. Wind's Lectures On Fighter Tactics 



> The I-153 Chaika is mainly used at low altitudes of 0-2,000 m. Quite difficult to shoot down because of its excellent manoeuvrability. If attacked from below and rear, tends to evade by pulling up and after that shoots back when we go up. Superior in dogfights. The best way to shoot it down is to approach fast from lower rear quarter, in which case you can pull up behind it after firing.
> 
> The I-16 and I-16bis are very nimble fighters used at lower altitudes. A formation of several planes (about 5-10) willingly form the so called "Spanish fly", that is, the planes fly round in circles on a horizontal plane [Lufberry circle], so when attacking against one of them you become target of the next plane. The best method against this kind of circle is to form a similar one above it. The circle goes around in the same direction, but you attack from above, and after firing, pull up. When flying alone the I-16 (as well as the Chaika) prefers to shoot head-on. In such a case you should try to evade either up or down depending on [original text illegible] using the rudder with force.
> 
> ...


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 26, 2007)

> If we take our FW190A6 vs P51 example, generally speaking the Focke Wulf has a slightly faster maximum continuous cruise velocity than the P51D.


Was is the maximum continuous cruise speeds for each?


----------



## davparlr (Nov 26, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Very good post there Crump and I have to agree with you.





lesofprimus said:


> Me too....






Crumpp said:


> Thank you, Adler and nice to know you both agree!



WOW! Did you guys miss the point. I am surprised! Let me restate the points I was making and let me know which ones are incorrect.

1. Effective figther pilots tend to be a self-reliant sort and by necessity have immense confidence in their ability.
2. Their ratings of their aircraft are with them at the controls (obviously).
3. Fighter pilots estimations of opposing aircraft will indicate that they wil almost never say they are superior, and will consider theirs superior, especially if they are close in capability.
4. All fighter aircraft tend to have areas of better performance and areas of lesser performance, generally due to design philosopy and/or aerodynamic variations.
5. Expert fighter pilots know how to use their aircaft's strength and how to avoid its weaknesses and try to make the other pilot not do the same. 


So, why did responses my comment go flying off into some area unassociated with this thread and emphasis an example and turn into one of those ad infinitum discussions on Fw-190 vs. P-51.

I would be surprised if the there was not an operational envelop of the P-51 where it did not have a max continuous airspeed greater than the FW and and certainly a combat situation where the P-51 could indeed catch a Fw-190, and, if the roles were reversed, the Fw-190 would not be able to catch the P-51. I am also sure there are situations where the Fw-190 would have the P-51 at a disadvantage and, if the roles were reversed, could escape.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 26, 2007)

> Let me restate the points I was making and let me know which ones are incorrect.



I agree with the points made in your second posting. The post is much clearer on the points you were trying to make in the first. 



> All fighter aircraft tend to have areas of better performance and areas of lesser performance, generally due to design philosopy and/or aerodynamic variations.



Certainly. Keep in mind that the margins of superiority generally half to be rather large for it to even be noticable in the air and all parameters of an aircraft's performance is a percentage variation over a mean average.

Makes nailing down specific performance rather ambiguous and performance comparison’s rather silly waste's of time. 

 



> Was is the maximum continuous cruise speeds for each?



According to the data I have:

~320mph for the FW190 and ~315mph for the P51 at S.L. 

Sources - Focke Wulf GmBh, Kennblatt Cruise performance appendix
North American Aviation, Flight Operation Instruction Chart, P51D/K 

The specifics do not matter and the listed speeds are within 1.5% with a normal manufacturer's variation of 3%, hence my statement:



> The P51 will no longer close the distance, the distance will increase, or the closure rate will drop to the point the aircraft will run out of fuel before it can close.



All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 26, 2007)

davparlr said:


> WOW! Did you guys miss the point. I am surprised!



Yours was a good post, davprlr. Take it easy, no one's keeping score. Besides, it usually takes a couple of posts for Adler and Les to keep up.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 27, 2007)

Crumpp said:


> According to the data I have:
> 
> ~320mph for the FW190 and ~315mph for the P51 at S.L.
> 
> ...


Thank you. Do you have the numbers for higher altitudes?


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 27, 2007)

I have the numbers for all altitudes but I did not really look at them very hard. 

Application of compressibility errors and differences in atmospheric modeling make a direct comparison problematic.

Using EAS we at least eliminate some of these problems. At a glance on paper, it looks like above ~5000 feet the P51 moves to advantage but who is to say? 

We are getting off the subject of the thread too. 

The Axis pilots I have interviewed all said in the FW190 was that they were equal or slightly faster at low altitude. That trend does hold true for EAS speeds. I have even had some Mustang Pilots relate that same information.

However both agree that at altitude, the P51 had a slight advantage. Neither airplane had a decisive advantage at any altitude. 

The general impression is that the Mustang was not the issue, it was the Mustang*s*.

End of comparison for me.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 27, 2007)

Bout sums it up for me as well Crumpp... Reading and re-reading, and reading some more in the Dora/JG54 pretty much gives the same line....


----------



## renrich (Nov 27, 2007)

Crumpp, your posts regarding relative performance of fighter AC make a lot of sense to me. I have a book by a Navy fighter pilot who flew fighters from Hellcats to F4s and the phrase he uses to describe those differences in similar fighters is;"not tactically significant" Hear, Hear.


----------



## Crumpp (Nov 27, 2007)

> Reading and re-reading, and reading some more in the Dora/JG54 pretty much gives the same line....



That is the key IMHO, Lesofprimus. You have to get the facts as both sides saw it as well as bounce things off a solid base in the science!



> those differences in similar fighters is;"not tactically significant"



Exactly renrich. The more one learns about aircraft of a similar class, the more one realizes simple physics and the fact none of these aircraft represent a quantum leap in technology over another dictates the performance will be very similar.

Take Care all.

All the Best,

Crumpp


----------

