# What did the P51s have over the German fighters?



## VBF-13 (Jun 19, 2013)

Notice the question mark, folks. This is a question. I'm not advocating anything. I'm aware of their range. Once they mixed it up with the German fighters, what did they have over them? I'm not hearing a real lot. Is it simply numbers and attrition that tell that story, or were the P51s that much better than the German fighters. And, if so, in what ways?


----------



## Njaco (Jun 19, 2013)

I think the later Mks of German fighters together with an experienced pilot were playing at least on par with P-51s. As much as my interest is in the LW and the planes, I think the Mustang had a slim margin over the Bf 109G+ and FW190D.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 19, 2013)

I'm thinking the same thing.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 19, 2013)

The way I see it, is that the P-51 beat the Bf 109 on its own game. They were very similar fighters in the sense that their main strength laid in their speed and power instead of sheer manoeuvrability. The Bf 109 dominated every fighter in these power fights, 'in the vertical'. But then when fighters like the P-51 or to a lesser extent P-38 and P-47 came along, they outclassed the Bf 109. And I am saying that as a Bf 109 enthusiast. I agree with Njaco, that the later Bf 109 was on par with the P-51 but in 1944 the Bf 109G-6 was definitely outclassed until the G-10 and K-4 appeared at the end of 1944.

The P-51 was not the super-fighter it is often mistaken for. But it was the fastest fighter around, at all altitudes. It rolled well, handled well, dived very well, had decent armour, effective armament, ... However, except for speed and range, it was not superior in any sense! But, compared to the standard Bf 109G or Fw 190A, it beat them at the most important element in air combat: initiative! Due to its superior speed it could break off any fight and engage it at will. This was what the German fighters always had over their opponents. Now, the roles had been turned. Also, German fighters were now forced to press on with the attack on the bombers, making the German fighters a prey for the P-51s. 

And couple that with the best trained pilots in the world ...

Kris

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 19, 2013)

Better trained pilots.

Marginal performance advantage (overall).

The first was the most significant factor by a very wide margin. There were other factors with less important effects. The build quality of the P-51 was much superior to late war Luftwaffe aircraft. The engine was more reliable. You can argue about the armament, many late war Luftwaffe aircraft were hampered by bomber killing armament which was far from ideal in a dogfight. The list goes on.......

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kryten (Jun 19, 2013)

Over the 109, biggest advantage I would say was visibility.

190 is another matter, down to the pilot and tactical situation?


----------



## Conslaw (Jun 19, 2013)

One of the under-praised virtues of the P-51 was its high cruise speed. The P-51 could cruise reasonably economically at 380 MPH (which is not to say that it always did so). This was close to the maximum speed of the German fighters without using NOX or water-injection. The high cruise speed meant that the Germans were unlikely to catch the P-51 in a low-energy state. The P-51 was a mediocre climber, but an excellent zoom-climber. The P-51 was also very fast in a dive, on a par with or slightly better than the P-47. In Europe, bomber-escorting P-51s tended to fight close to their best altitude. At 25,000-30,000 feet, the P-51 had a substantial performance advantage over the lower-rated FW-190As. In the various comparison tests you'll see, the turning radius of the P-51 is not considered to be very good, and yet, the P-51 aces didn't see it as a problem. Bud Anderson said that he could drop partial flaps at any speed to stay on the tail of a maneuvering adversary. The P-51's rate of roll was not exceptional but it was adequate. 

Bomber-escorting P-51s had the advantage of always being on the offensive. A P-51 could enter a dogfight with the sole objective of shooting down an enemy fighter. This is especially true after March 1944, when the American fighters were given more freedom of action. A German fighter pilot's principal mission was to shoot down bombers. usually the P-51s would have the advantage of superior numbers. If a P-51 pilot was outnumbered, he could dive away from his opponents, and use the P-51's speed to get out of danger.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 19, 2013)

Merlin Mustang have had far better performance vs. LW opposition. 
Especially if we talk about 25000 ft and above, where 430mph + was a common thing for the P-51B/C/D/K, while 190s were struggling to make 380-390 mph (depending whether it's heavier draggier A7-A8 or 'lighter' A5-A6; the A-9 is as good as A5-A6, but it was too late to matter). 
The Bf-109G-6 was doing maybe as good/bad as Fw-190A5/A6 - all the lumps and bumps (cowling bulges, fixed tailwheel etc) taking the toll on speed. The 'high altitude' Bf109s with DB-605AS engines, available from mid 1944 on (= the battle over Germany is as good as decided) were able to cut some of P-51s speed advantage, to maybe 20 mph? 
The Fw-190D-9 will not cut it, neither when we talk about availability (from late 1944 on, battle is lost for LW), nor for it's performance (again ~20 mph short of P-51s speed).
The superior combat range of the P-51 also meant it can go offensively vs. LW, so it won't be saddled with close escort more than necesarry. The small combat range of LW fighters was not to allow greater concentrations of their fighters, the thing Germans eventually reckoned and tested Ta-152 and some Fw-190Ds with internal wing tanks.

As we can read from Bill's input in this forum, the P-51B managed to rack up many kills even when not having the numerical advantage.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 19, 2013)

Thanks, fellas. Kris, "initiative," that's an interesting one. I can see it would take an intimate understanding of these aircraft to draw a comparison like that. Appreciate it!


----------



## drgondog (Jun 19, 2013)

Aggressiveness coupled with a faster, nearly equal maneuverability fighter with great visibility, and the ability to show up anywhere over Germany - to the point that even takeoff, forming up at low altitude and climbing were exposed to attack.

The 109 was a better climber but couldn't really use that in a fight unless the 51 was closing at high speed. It could turn with a 51 if the pilot skill was equal. It might turn better at low to medium speeds if the 51 wished to stay in the maneuver. Diving was a push if the 109 had a head start. The 51 would always (nearly) out roll the 109 and always at high speed.

The 190 below 19000 feet was about equal in all respects except top speed, was superior in roll until high speed range where the 51 closed but still not equal. 

With the post June 1944 introduction of 150 octane fuel and subsequent boost increase to 72" the 51 Climb approached the 109, exceeded the 190 - and faster than both until the 109K and 190D. The latter only lacked equal quality pilots to be even.

IMO armament didn't matter between these a/c. Whatever was on your tail was lethal. I believe the .50 had an advantage in air combat under 300 yards primarily because of slight MV and significant ammo quantity advantage. There were a LOT of three victory+ fighter pilots in a single Mustang victory credit day against the Fw 190 and 109, far fewer against the Mustang. 

The latter is more about relative pilot skill however.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 19, 2013)

Oh yeah, add to the list ... better gunsight !


Kris


----------



## Erich (Jun 19, 2013)

Altitude advantage, re: Bf 109G-6/AS was supposedly created for combat in April of 44, but it did not help the LW. in nearly all the combat related reports you will note the LW was at the lower alt and were continually jumped by Stangs on a daily basis.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 19, 2013)

Although touched on already, numbers of P-51s in theatre as the war wore on was a vital factor also.



> The P-51 was not the super-fighter it is often mistaken for.



No, but what is often overlooked about the Mustang Is, P-51A, B, C and D models was that although not the fastest fighters (P-51H notwithstanding), they achieved their remarkable performance (specifically speed and range) despite being heavier and physically larger than many of their contemporaries, including the Spitfire IX and the Bf 109 and Fw 190A models. Compared to faster and more powerful aircraft, the Mustang's performance stood out because of its capabilities with a smaller capacity and power output from its engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## altsym (Jun 19, 2013)

The BF 109 had advantages over the P-51, and visa versa otherwise about equal IMO, but basically the Americans had the numbers the Luftwaffe suffered from attrition at this point. The BF 109K-series needed to be put in service 10 months earlier, more then a match for the P-51 in my opinion. 

@ drgondog, speaking with 109 pilots, the sure fire way to get away from a P-51 was to dive. 
@ Erich, I conquer, getting bounce with an altitude disadvantage was the biggest problem for the Luftwaffe.


----------



## razor1uk (Jun 19, 2013)

I wonder if the P-51 would have done as well if it only ever had a 3 bladed prop upon it like the rest of the vast majority of European WW2 single engined A/C... Yes, I understand the earlier ones did have the 3 bladers, before a storm of critism wafts upon this posting.

Or if the Germans realised earleir that a 4 (or 5 bladed) prop with or without 'paddled' design would have improved the 109.. IMHO, they (LW/RLM/TechAmt etc) assumed the extra weight and syncronisation loss to RoF verses improved altitudinal power co-efficient was too detrimental too their mob/group/mass thinking(s).


----------



## davebender (Jun 19, 2013)

P-51s arrived in quantity during spring 1944. About the same time Germany became critically short of aviation gasoline.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2013)

Propeller design is not simple. NO ONE propeller is the best at all things (top speed at sea level, top speed at 20,000ft, take-off, climb, cruise and so on).

The air at 22,000ft is about 1/2 the density of sea level and at 33,000 ft it is 1/3 the density. 

Constant speed propellers help a lot but they cannot be the best at all things either. A propeller that is the best for use at 30,000 is too big for great performance at sea level. A Prop that gives top speed at sea level will be too small for good performance at 30,000ft. 

A propeller is a set of moving air foils (like wings) and using too little "wing" (prop blade area) results in poor performance but trying to swing large wings ( big prop blades, or lots of them) though dense sea level air creates a poor thrust (lift) to drag ratio. 

You also get handling problems, A large heavy propeller is going to resist changes in rpm like a big fly wheel and a sudden application of power is going to see the airplane trying to role in the opposite direction of the propeller rotation. Not a big problem at altitude and speed with plenty of control authority but a potential problem in take-off and landing ( more in landing) where the ground is close, speed is marginal, control authority is less and the engine (on landing) is throttled back and the propeller moving slow. 

Most old books on engines ( from the 30s and 40s) often have a chapter on propeller theory and design but then note that there are (were) whole books dedicated to the subject. A chapter or two just gives and over view. 

People had used 4 blade fixed pitch propellers in WW I so the idea and theories of both prop blade area and prop disc area (not the same thing) had been being discussed in aviation literature for around 20 years.


----------



## jim (Jun 19, 2013)

P51 advantages, in my opinion
1) 2-stage supercharger
2) superior fuels allowing higher boosts
3) better building quality beacause no bombing raids in america
4) vastly superior numbers
5) better trained pilots
6) Bad LW tactics, P51s always had altitude advantage
7) Alleid units knew about LW moves because of the Ultra
8) german aircraft factories, mid war, had to trade quality for quantity

9) Excellent designed cooling system low drag wing= excellent range speed (but not acceleration!)

I believe P51 has a great record,not because of being a superior design, but because the lucky combination of all the above factors. From these factors only the number 9 has to to with the airframe design itself
Fw 190A8 w MW50 (1945), Fw190D9s, late 109s were superior in close combat at low/mid altitudes if numbers were equal
A Fw 190 with 2 stage supercharger (eg D13) , equal building quality, SAME FUELS and equal pilots ,was superior at eveything but range


----------



## razor1uk (Jun 19, 2013)

T'is true that Davebender, 
...at least they unforseen didn't/couldn't expand and disperse there synthetic fuel processing - then again the mostly rail based logistical system would still be the biggest stumbling block even if they had an suitable amount of their major types of aviation fuels - and thats ignoring the fact tht Germany throught the greater part of the war had less than a years supply in storage of most of its strategic material needs.

Roughly true too as per Jim says. Plus with the assination of Isoroku Yamamoto and the subsiquent top-brass faliure of the I-400 program (the first strategic submarine weapons system designed for near world wide reach 30,000+ km range), let alone LW's largely 'hypothetical' only 'Die Amerika Bomner' project(s) yes they did make a few prototypes, and perhaps flew one or two close to the mainland but.. 

..Anyway this meant that the US relatively ddn't have to worry about keeping forces back for home defence - I mean I am led to believe that instructors, combat duty served vets and trainees could (did?) provide that service instead of larger forces deployed abroad, when in consideration to British, German, Italian Japanese etc forces kept at home on defencive duties - if you gather what I am ineptly meaning.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 19, 2013)

davebender said:


> P-51s arrived in quantity during spring 1944. About the same time Germany became critically short of aviation gasoline.



Germany had almost 600,000 metric tons in stock at the beginning of May 1944. This was the highest it had been since the BoB when it was almost 700,000 metric tons. It is also about 3 times what the consumption was.


----------



## davebender (Jun 19, 2013)

> Germany had almost 600,000 metric tons in stock at the beginning of May 1944. This was the highest it had been since the BoB when it was almost 700,000 metric tons.


Compare number of German aircraft during 1944 with number of German aircraft during 1940 and magnitude of the problem becomes obvious. There was far less fuel available per aircraft during 1944.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 19, 2013)

The Luftwaffe must have been in dire straights in mid 1942 when there was only 200,000 metric tons of fuel for 3500 /ac. (57t/ a/c)

1940 - 700,000 for 3200 a/c (218t/ a/c)
1944 - 600,000 for 4900 a/c (122t/ a/c)


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 19, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> [...] despite being heavier and physically larger than many of their contemporaries [...]


Can we say the P47s were better at taking damage? Tell me about the P51s armor.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2013)

The armor pretty much saves the pilot (things like the IL-2 excepted) , it doesn't do much for the aircraft. 

It saves aircraft by cutting down on "golden BB" hits where just a couple of hits kill or injure the pilot without hitting (wrecking) anything else. 

The plane cannot carry enough armor to protect the engine, fuel, oil, coolant and control systems. And with 20mm and larger shells (or large numbers of .50/12.7mm/13mm) the possibility of structural failure was present.


----------



## Ruud (Jun 19, 2013)

Another way to look at it is, what would you want the P-51 to have that the 109 has? Probably just the 30mm cannon for some heavy work. Other than that, the P-51 is equal or better than the 109 in almost all aspects. Better pilots, fuel, quality aside, the P-51 is a better plane than the 109 and the 190. Not sure on the D-9.

Then you add to that the fact that the P-51 was very well suited for what the 8th AF wanted, and you get a great fighter being used for what it was best at (until they started strafing down low...). It humors me that the Pacific wanted less P-51's and more P-38's and the ETO wanted the opposite.


----------



## Ruud (Jun 20, 2013)

Seems like this link has a lot of performance evaluations of the 109. I have not read them, too much there for one sitting.
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance


----------



## parsifal (Jun 20, 2013)

To me the Mustang had range and performance at altitude. both these strengths were used to advantage against the LW, to create a snowball effect. Better altitude performance keeps the fight high on the US fighters terms. The range meant that the LW got no rest or quiet spaces any longer. The LW was forced into a terrible dilemma......ignore the fighters and fight the bombers, or fight the fighters and ignore the bombers. they lacked the strength to do both.

Range also meant that though outnumbered, the Mustangs could concentrate at certain points and achieve crucial supeiority of numbers when they really needed to. but it is simply untrue that in raw numbers the LW was outnumbered by the Mustang LR escorts


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 20, 2013)

some of the minor details of the 51 i think attributed to some of its success. as said before...in malcom hood and D models it was visibility. many had rearview mirrors that helped keep them from being bounced. also the cockpit was roomy and more user friendly. levers and buttons needed in a flash were closer at hand. the lw tried to fit the 109s and 190s into both a fighter and bomber killer...that in my opinion they watered them down performancewise. had they kept one ( or been able to develop and mass produce something else ) as purely a fighter vs fighter ac it would have been interesting. fortunately, they didnt have that luxury. but the absolute greatest aspect was the range. it left the lw with no where to run and no where to hide. it could never find a safe haven to rest and repair. airdromes deep in germany were strafed and ac shot down taking off and landing. most of the 262s were taken that way. most of the 51 pilots had 250+ hours before they ever entered combat....that experience is a huge advantage.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 20, 2013)

the bomber killer aspect really came out in the wweapons fit of the LW. Its hard to fault their 30mm weappons, but I have read here and there that cannon armment eith slower rof was not quite as good as a fast firing lighter cannon or MG. The Germans did have some good, fast firing cannon, but a significant number were also fitted with these bomber killer cannons which meant they were not optimised to take on their own kind.


----------



## CobberKane (Jun 20, 2013)

Seems to me that any way you look at it the Mustang's trump card was speed. Sure, there where specific LW fighters that might have been as quick at lower or medium altitudes, but not many. When you are faster than the opposition you can engage and disengage at your discretion, hence the LW nick naming the P-51 'runstangs' (or if they didn't they should have.) Throw in at least competitive dive and turn performance, reliability and the vital but often undervalued advantage of great visibility and you have a very effective package.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 20, 2013)

jim said:


> P51 advantages, in my opinion
> 1) 2-stage supercharger
> 2) superior fuels allowing higher boosts
> 3) better building quality beacause no bombing raids in America
> ...



But it didn't have those items - and for the time of the discussion in 1945 the P-51H was available to start deployment... and it was superior in all respects to the P-51D and B. Not important. 

What was important is that none of the Fw 190 or Bf 109 had a credible record against the P-51B when it was critical and when LW had superior numbers and a skilled pilot cadre composed of experienced pilots from East and South during Dec 1943 through May 1944.


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Germany had almost 600,000 metric tons in stock at the beginning of May 1944. This was the highest it had been since the BoB when it was almost 700,000 metric tons. It is also about 3 times what the consumption was.



Stocks are only relevant in relation to consumption.

By late 1944 AVAILABILITY (a product of stocks, production, transport and consumption) of aviation fuels at airfields was so bad that various and sometimes drastic measures were introduced to conserve it. For example aircraft were to be towed from dispersal rather than taxiing to take off.

The effect of the shortages on both training and even combat sorties is well known and well documented elsewhere. Some US day time raids were simply not contested at all.

One Dornier test pilot recalls deliberately landing the Do 335, low on fuel, on Luftwaffe fields rather than back at the test facility in order to at least partially refuel from stocks already apportioned to the Luftwaffe rather that use up Dornier's dwindling stock available for testing and development.

Sounds like they had a problem to me.

Edit. Here's a scene, including a two seat trainer, which you wouldn't have seen on any airfield in Britain during late '44/'45







Cheers

Steve


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 20, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The armor pretty much saves the pilot (things like the IL-2 excepted) , it doesn't do much for the aircraft.
> 
> It saves aircraft by cutting down on "golden BB" hits where just a couple of hits kill or injure the pilot without hitting (wrecking) anything else.
> 
> The plane cannot carry enough armor to protect the engine, fuel, oil, coolant and control systems. And with 20mm and larger shells (or large numbers of .50/12.7mm/13mm) the possibility of structural failure was present.


Yeah, that's true. Still, there are aircraft that have been know to be torn apart on just being hit by a wing of .50s. It's hard to tell in the film, but sometimes you can see it. Just a line of .50s, and pieces are flying all over the place. Of course these German fighters brought a little more to the conflict than just lines of .50s.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 20, 2013)

The 51 was no more, or less durable than the Fw 190 or bf 109..


----------



## stona (Jun 20, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The 51 was no more, or less durable than the Fw 190 or bf 109..



I don't know about the Fw 190. It had a reputation for being able to take damage (somewhat like the P-47). Whether that is borne out in statistics I know not. 

It was certainly designed to be more durable, radial engine, electrically operated undercarriage etc.

Late war versions were very heavily armoured. The A-8 fighter carried 145.7 Kg of armour, the heavy "sturm jager" carried an extra 191.6 Kg, a total of 337.3 Kg.

I don't know how that compares with a P-51.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Erich (Jun 20, 2013)

an important oversight on most forums concerning this topic is the inadequate LW training of pilots to engage enemy fighters, from June onward attacks were from the rear and prioritizing for destroying heavy 4-engine bombers and then diving down if possible to the deck and home. Over and over again the wingman stayed with his leader and thus both were shot down, the idea of individual combat on any type of regular basis came to a fitting close, and in allied favor.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 20, 2013)

stona said:


> I don't know about the Fw 190. It had a reputation for being able to take damage (somewhat like the P-47). Whether that is borne out in statistics I know not.
> 
> It was certainly designed to be more durable, radial engine, electrically operated undercarriage etc.
> 
> ...


Did they have self-sealing tanks? And, while on the subject, just how did those work? I know the later A6Ms had them, and tipped the scales a little higher for them. I assume the P47s and P51s also had them.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 20, 2013)

ALL US fighters had self sealing tanks after early initial introduction - during which the manufacturers got an earful.

Armor more problematic.. firewall and seat/headrest about common for US ~ 3/8" max.

The 51 was more vulnerable to an engine overheat failure dur to lack of coolant - but its relative 'vulnerabilty' to flak was more about the range to get a crippled ship back to friendly territory (i.e most coolant bleed outs within 50 miles) than absolute structural integrity.


----------



## altsym (Jun 20, 2013)

@ drgondog; normally I agree with what you say 100%, but from Luftwaffe pilots I talked to, 8 times out of 10 the were more S/E allied fighters then S/E Luftwaffe fighters. Especially in 1944. At this time (mid to late 1944), a common thought for the LW was 'screw the plane, save the pilot'. Which usually meant the LW pilot would bail even with relatively minor damage to his A/C. These tended to be inexperienced pilots. The problem there is that they get a new plane, and with still no adequate training, the same thing happens again (if there lucky).

I believe this is why Adolf Galland's 'Big Blow' would have worked. It would have given time for the LW to replace/rearm/ properly train fledgling pilots.

Cheers.


----------



## Ruud (Jun 20, 2013)

The LW complains about new pilots coming in too young and inexperienced in 43 already (according to the Jadgwaffe camo book on the Med 43-45 IIRC). They never put as much emphasis on making sure that the new pilots got lots of hours in before going to the front, let alone hours in the plane they would be flying. Once you enter the circle of needing pilots but not having enough of them, then it is really tough to change that course. Even a success of the "big blow" would only have been temporary. Most of the Allied pilots would been alive still and just waiting on replacement planes.


----------



## jim (Jun 20, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The 51 was no more, or less durable than the Fw 190 or bf 109..


 
Mr Drgondog
I am not going to answer your answers to my post, since we have discused them extensively in the past and we only agrre that we disagree at everything.( What can i tell about your claim that LW... outnumbered the americans??)
I will only tell you that even the great manouverability that you claim for the P51 was in great part a reult of superior fuels that provided P51 with power loading advantage in comparison with the german fuels
But the statement that 51 was as durable as 190 i would never expect it by a person with great knowledge as you 
A radial engined fighter , with a lot of armour , and very strong construction ( too strong in my opinion) equal with the 51? Ask the opinion of the australians that flew them in Korea. I think your emotional involvement with P51 ,influences you great technical expertise
Typicaly the p51 lovers can not accept a single area that 51 was not top
Exceptionally agile despite its low drag wing and small engine, exceptional durable despite the liquid engine and mediocre armor, exceptionally accelaration despite the mediocre power loading without 150 fuel, exceptional effective weapons (12,7 mm vs 20and 30mm weapons) , exceptional climber even if other aircrafts had better power and wing loadings, exceptional diver, exceprional turner despite factors already mentioned
Could you tell me a sinlgle area that you accept 51 to be inferior? All aircrafts, at least of the axis, were compromises, P51 was best at EVERYTHING .


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 20, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The 51 was more vulnerable to an engine overheat failure dur to lack of coolant -


That's interesting. That big scoop almost defines that aircraft. I don't doubt you. It just kind of surprises me it would have an issue like that.


----------



## CobberKane (Jun 20, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The 51 was no more, or less durable than the Fw 190 or bf 109..


 Common sense would seem to suggest otherwise, at least in the case of the 190. There was a thread a while back discussing the degree to which a radial engine is more battle resistant than an inline, but I don't think anyone doubted that the radial was ultimately tougher. And the 190's airframe should have been at least as tough as the P-51's. Tank designed it that way.
The P51 had a reputation for being vulnerable to fire from below hitting the cooling system, though whether it was in fact more vulnerable than other liquid cooled fighters, or whether the reputation came about because then straffing duties it assumed later in the war more often placed it in harms way, I don't know. In either case, it's a problem the 190 wouldn't have had.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 20, 2013)

stona said:


> I don't know about the Fw 190. It had a reputation for being able to take damage (somewhat like the P-47). Whether that is borne out in statistics I know not.
> 
> It was certainly designed to be more durable, radial engine, electrically operated undercarriage etc.
> 
> ...


There must be somewhere who can tell us the weight of the armour on the P-51.

Kris


----------



## Aozora (Jun 20, 2013)

Civettone said:


> There must be somewhere who can tell us the weight of the armour on the P-51.
> 
> Kris


 
There don't seem to be many sources of information on the weight of the P-51's armour, in general or for specific sub-types; pilot's manuals etc didn't give weights but did show the angles of protection afforded to the pilot against .30 cal: 5/16" and 7/16" for back and head of pilot, 1/4" bulkhead

P-51A Gunnery Manual:






P-51D Erection Maintenance Manual:





I doubt if the weight was as much as the 145.7 kg quoted for the 190A-8. I'll continue digging.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 20, 2013)

stona said:


> Stocks are only relevant in relation to consumption.
> 
> By late 1944 AVAILABILITY (a product of stocks, production, transport and consumption) of aviation fuels at airfields was so bad that various and sometimes drastic measures were introduced to conserve it. For example aircraft were to be towed from dispersal rather than taxiing to take off.



And this was the post I was replying to:



> P-51s arrived in quantity during* spring 1944*. About the same time Germany became critically short of aviation gasoline.



Please not the *bold text* in the quote which is 6 months before the time you state. In the fall of 1944, stock was down to 1/3 of what was available 6 months earlier.


----------



## altsym (Jun 20, 2013)

2/3rds of that third was C3.


----------



## nincomp (Jun 20, 2013)

On one of my first posts in this forum, I stated that I was afraid to say anything bad about the P-51. I may be cowardly, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Almost everybody is familiar with the term "to back into a buzzsaw", which is what would probably happen to me if I got involved in this thread. 
On a related topic, have any of you heard about the delicatessen worker who accidently backed into the meat-slicing machine?
He go a little _behind_ in his work. 
Man, it was hard to set that joke up!
Gotta go before anyone starts throwing stuff at me for that one. Bye!


----------



## stona (Jun 21, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Did they have self-sealing tanks?



Yes... the two fuselage tanks.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 21, 2013)

It just was a very good plane. 

Good mach limit, good dive, fast, reasonable climber (not in the Me-109/Spit class, but good), good ailerons(especially above 250mph, better than a Spit or a 109 at that speed, though not a 190), fair armament (better in the 51D, but ok for anti fighter stuff). Good vision (woth Malcolm hood in the B), excellent in the 51D.

Cheap to make (half the price of a 38 or 47) , easy to fix and maintain.

Not too many 'nasties' in its handling (though there were a few, but not many, there were a lot worse).

Fair turner, competitive enough against 109s and 190s for it to depend on the pilot and the situation. Good zoom climb.

Excellent height envelope (arguably the best of the WW2 prop jobs). Fast low down, fast high up, fast in the middle (best engine the -7, which was the Packard equivalent of the 66).

And that wonderful range, which was not just a strategic advantage it was a tactical one. It could (and did) chase Luftwaffe planes right back to their bases, even if they had managed to get away. Plus, combined with speed and dive meant you could disengage then reengage at will (compared to a 47, a one dive wonder, dive once then go home because climbing back for another fight would use up too much fuel).

So overall a wonderful package, like them all it has its strengths and weaknesses, but (overall) it weakness were few and not really, with even just a reasonable pilot, significant. Even an average pilot could hold their own with a lot of confidence against the opposition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 21, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> [...] Plus, combined with speed and dive meant you could disengage then reengage at will [...]


I'm seeing that reiterated throughout this thread as the decisive advantage. 



OldSkeptic said:


> So overall a wonderful package, like them all it has its strengths and weaknesses, but (overall) it weakness were few and not really, with even just a reasonable pilot, significant. Even an average pilot could hold their own with a lot of confidence against the opposition.


I believe that, too. Yes.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 21, 2013)

Balljoint said:


> <SNIP> the P-51 had a high coefficient of serendipity as well as excellent design in its success.



This is from another thread, but think it's a great reply for this thread!


----------



## altsym (Jun 21, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> It just was a very good plane.
> 
> Good mach limit, good dive, fast, reasonable climber (not in the Me-109/Spit class, but good), good ailerons(especially above 250mph, better than a Spit or a 109 at that speed, though not a 190), fair armament (better in the 51D, but ok for anti fighter stuff). Good vision (woth Malcolm hood in the B), excellent in the 51D.
> 
> ...


Explain the state of the Luftwaffe from mid'ish 1944 up, in way of tactics, doctrine, fuel supplies, pilot training, etc., etc., etc. Compare that to the East front with no heavy bombers to contend with. There's more to the success of the P-51 then its aerial dominance, it was a combination of many, many events. In the east the Luftwaffe was wildly successful for the most part. In the west, without the B-17, the P-51 is nothing, without the P-51, the B-17 was nothing. Those two aircraft complimented each other very well. It wasn't that the P-51 was a great aircraft at anyone thing, it was good aircraft at almost everything, which overall made it a great aircraft. Combine all those factors, and that's why the P-51 was so successful. Just my honest opinion.


----------



## CobberKane (Jun 21, 2013)

If you look across the P-51 in it's various marks (excluding the Allison powered versions) it's difficult to identify any area in which it wouldn't get a good to excellent grade. Maybe the armament of the early models, being of average firepower and having a tendency to jam, might warrant a C-, to be upgraded to C once the latter issue was resolved, then a solid B with the P-51D. Aside from that it would seem to be A's (speed, dive, visibility) and B's (turn, climb, firepower) right across the board. Perhaps a B- for survivability?
In any case, looking at the opposition there doesn't seem to be any Axis piston engine fighter that wouldn't find itself at a significant disadvantage against the Mustang in at least a couple of areas, whereas the P-51, while somewhat outperformed in some situations (such as low speed manovuering against a 109, for example) was generally at least competitive, or offered a competent pilot alternatives to playing the opponents game. The exception may have been the Fw190D, but by the time it appeared the tactical situation was such that it never got to be a factor.
At the end of the day it is pointless to talk of the Mustang without reference to range. By 1944-45 there were other Allied fighters that had the opposition pretty well covered; the Tempest and Spit XIV for instance. The magic of the P-51 was that, like those fighters, it could, as a package, outperform pretty much anything it came up against, and that it could do it over Berlin having taken off from England. That's what made it unique.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 22, 2013)

The Mustang was by far the most aerodynamically advanced fighter when it first appeared and for some time after; much research was put into drag reduction through careful design of its fuselage and wings. Although the Allison engine was a suitable powerplant in the Mustang (contrary to popular belief) It was most definitely an airframe in search of a better engine than the one it had - a slight reference to another thread - to take advantage of its superior aerodynamics. As I mentioned earlier, It was bigger and heavier than its principal enemies, but could out run them and out range them, and the fact that it could mix it with fighters with bigger, more powerful engines than its 1,680 horses under the hood was because of this.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 22, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> The Mustang was by far the most aerodynamically advanced fighter when it first appeared and for some time after; much research was put into drag reduction through careful design of its fuselage and wings. Although the Allison engine was a suitable powerplant in the Mustang (contrary to popular belief) It was most definitely an airframe in search of a better engine than the one it had - a slight reference to another thread - to take advantage of its superior aerodynamics. As I mentioned earlier, It was bigger and heavier than its principal enemies, but could out run them and out range them, and the fact that it could mix it with fighters with bigger, more powerful engines than its 1,680 horses under the hood was because of this.



Most advanced, maybe, maybe not. Very very good definitely.

But a lot of the clean aerodynamics was due to Art Chester. Who for quite a few years been involved in air racing and had made his own planes. He applied for a job at NAA and it was Edgar Schmued that gave him a job and later made him head of the power plant design group (responsible for everything from the firewall forward). And it was he that was responsible for the beautiful clean front end.

Now a lovely design does not mean that production aircraft would be as good, but NAA's quality control was superb therefore they came out being very slick. Given that even small things could cause significant changes in speed Art's design was inspired by his racing experience.

You look at how big an impact even little changes or imperfections could have: such as the Spit, the 20mm cannon ones were 5mph slower than the all .303 ones. Bulletproof front glass on the fighter Mosquitos meant 5 mph lower speed compared to the equivalent bomber version. 

And that was Art's genius, not a trained engineer but a veteran of actual real world experience. One of the Mustang's unsung heroes.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 22, 2013)

> Most advanced, maybe, maybe not.



I don't think there was another fighter that was as aerodynamically sophisticated as the Mustang in 1940 when it first flew, or, for that matter for a year or so afterwards, hence the assertion. Lee Atwood did much research into the aerodynamics of the aircraft, going to NACA for aerofoil research and the RAE at Farnborough, where he learned about low drag radiator cooling. The results of its fineness are evident when you consider what I posted about its powerplant.

Here's a quote from a memorandum produced by Major Thomas Hitchcock Jr, Assistant Air Attache at the American Embassy, London dated 8 October 1942;

"In the Air Fighter Development Unit Report No.43, dated May 5, 1942, the Mustang is described as "an excellent low and medium altitude fighter and certainly the best American fighter that has so far reached this country." Comparisons were made with the Spitfire Vb in which it was faster than the Vb at all altitudesup to 25,000 ft. At 25,000 ft it went about the same speed as the Spitfire Vb, although at this altitude the Allison engine was developing 290 less horsepower than the Merlin engine in the Spitfire. Estimates have been made that with the same horsepower Mustang is twenty to twenty five miles per hour faster than the Spitfire Vb."

Atwood himself has commented on the drag reducing radiator and its impact on the Mustang's performance on numerous occasions.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 22, 2013)

Atwood took credit for much of the aero, including the drag reducing radiator's touted exhaust thust of a 'couple of hundred pounds' - notably after Schmued passed away. Ed Horkey took notable exception to Atwood as well as the rest of the Mustang design team.

OldSkeptic - Ed Horkey, the chief aerodynamicist, is credited with the compound 2nd degree curve lines of the nose - and logically should be. Chester would logically be charted with stuffing everything inside.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 22, 2013)

> Ed Horkey took notable exception to Atwood as well as the rest of the Mustang design team.



Bill, do you mean, "Ed Horkey, as well as the rest of the Mustang design team took notable exception to Atwood"? 

Riding on the coat tails of others? Shame...


----------



## airminded88 (Jun 22, 2013)

Excellent lecture gentlemen.
Right plane at the right time in the right place.
Well... it would had been more than welcome a couple of months earlier than its historical introduction and immediate impact in the air war over Europe.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 23, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Bill, do you mean, "Ed Horkey, as well as the rest of the Mustang design team took notable exception to Atwood"?
> 
> Riding on the coat tails of others? Shame...



Yes and yes - to syntax and sentiment


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 23, 2013)

Having never met Atwood, onr any other of the Mustang design team I can't comment on their character, but I remember Atwood went on a visit to the UK and gave a talk at the Yorkshire Air Museum about the Mustang in the mid/late 1990s, 1996 I think; I was living in Scotland at the time but didn't go, a colleague of mine went and enjoyed his presntation, which discussed the aerodynamics of the Mustang, principally about the Meredith effect. The text was reprinted in a British aviation magazine; I have a copy somewhere.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2013)

altsym said:


> Explain the state of the Luftwaffe from mid'ish 1944 up, in way of tactics, doctrine, fuel supplies, pilot training, etc., etc., etc. Compare that to the East front with no heavy bombers to contend with. There's more to the success of the P-51 then its aerial dominance, it was a combination of many, many events. In the east the Luftwaffe was wildly successful for the most part. In the west, without the B-17, the P-51 is nothing, without the P-51, the B-17 was nothing. Those two aircraft complimented each other very well. It wasn't that the P-51 was a great aircraft at anyone thing, it was good aircraft at almost everything, which overall made it a great aircraft. Combine all those factors, and that's why the P-51 was so successful. Just my honest opinion.



I have to disagree. The LW was shooting down about 3 for every 1 Soviet aircraft, but overall losses were about 1.5:1 when losses and write offs from all causes are concerned. i am talking the post Kursk situation. And the LW had no appreciable effect on Soviet air operations. Or ground operations either. 

German win loss ratios were the result of conscious decisions by the VVS to no longer seek air superiority as the primary mission for their air force. They were there primarily as a ground support force....the role of their fighters was not to wrest control of the sky from the Germans, merely to keep their fighters busy whilst the Sturmoviks got in and did what they needed to be done. They were very successful at that, and the germans very unsuccessful at stopping them.

The idea of the LW having heavily one sided effects on the eastern front is a post war myth. they were a very efficient force that achieved virtually nothing of strategic significance after July 1943.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 24, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I have to disagree. The LW was shooting down about 3 for every 1 Soviet aircraft, but overall losses were about 1.5:1 when losses and write offs from all causes are concerned. i am talking the post Kursk situation. And the LW had no appreciable effect on Soviet air operations. Or ground operations either.
> 
> German win loss ratios were the result of conscious decisions by the VVS to no longer seek air superiority as the primary mission for their air force. They were there primarily as a ground support force....the role of their fighters was not to wrest control of the sky from the Germans, merely to keep their fighters busy whilst the Sturmoviks got in and did what they needed to be done. They were very successful at that, and the germans very unsuccessful at stopping them.
> 
> The idea of the LW having heavily one sided effects on the eastern front is a post war myth. they were a very efficient force that achieved virtually nothing of strategic significance after July 1943.



Good point. I am reminded about the absurd claims by the USAAF against the North Koreans in the Korean war. Now that the USSR is no more and records are available the kill/loss ratio was probably only 1:1, at least against the experienced Soviet pilots, quite possibly more against less experienced NK ones, but not the absurd 10:1, 20:1, or 30:1 or whatever that had been claimed.

With roughly equivalent aircraft, roughly equivalent tactical situations and roughly equivalent pilots you would normally expect an overall average of 1:1. Any more than that then it is because of a very significant aircraft advantage (ie North Africa 109Fs and Gs vs Hurricanes and P-40s), poor tactical situations (eg the the RAF's 'push' into France in 41/42) or very inferior pilots (eg Gulf War 1).


----------



## altsym (Jun 24, 2013)

Total Luftwaffe losses in the east was about 4000 (+/-) aicraft. Source on that is Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger. According to Russian archives, the combat losses of the VVS between 1941 and 1945 amounted to 46,100 (+/-) a/c. This doesn't even include the VVS losses of the summer of 1941 which even the Russians didn't have. That's accepted facts friends.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2013)

err nope. 

This is from Caldwells site

"The data needed to answer the question are operational strength, losses, and sortie rates. (A sortie is one combat mission by one airplane.) Luftwaffe research has always been hampered by a lack of data. The existing records are fragmented and inconsistent. In the 1970s Prof. Olaf Groehler, a prominent East German military historian, was allowed to travel to the West German archives and gather data that he combined with his own to produce a major journal article".

Betweem September 1943 and June 1944, the LW lost 8600 a/c on the eastern front to all causes. you can verify this from Grohlers book

O. Gröhler, "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Militärgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336 (1978). 


Bergstrom agrees with Grohler, and whilst LW records are not complete, making the excercise difficult, the claims about 4000 aircraft being lost on the eastern front for the entire war are just part of the postwar LW mythology. Just to give some idea of the total spurious nature of these claims, in 1941 the LW crossed the border in the USSR with 2900 aircraft. By August, according the LW quarterly returns they were down to less than 1200 operational aircraft with about 500 under repair. Already, mostly due to ground fire and the harsh conditions, the LW had been forced to write off cannibalise, or had just plain lost over 1200 aircraft....in 3 months of a 34 month war. 

Murray in his book (LW Attrition) shows that in two years on the eastern front, June 41 to June 43, the LW had gone through twice as many aircraft as they had started the war.....thats about 6000 aircraft. Add to that the 8900 contained in Grohlers work and you get a loss figure of about 14-16000 a/c for the eastern front, which is much closer to the truth than 4000. Hayworth ("Stopped At Stalingrad) also confirms these sorts of figures. 

I believe these to be combat losses, because the total German losses in aircraft for the entire war 116584 (according to Costello). Using Grohler, 27000 aircraft were lost in the west during that period when 8900 were lost in the east (September 1943-June 1944). If we assume this proportion was about constant, then the Germans lost 75% of their aircraft in the west. That would mean that total German losses to all causes on the eastern front are around 30000. I think its more than that.....the period September 1943-June 1944 was a period of unprecednted air activity in the west, whilst in the east, tyhat same period was not nearly as busy,due mostly to the poor weather.

Soviet losses are undeniably very heavy. according to Krivosheev, about 45000, but most westyern estimates put it at around 109000 from all causes. im prepared to concede that loss percentages are closer to 3:1 overall Soviet to German and my memory has failed me yet again in my earlier claims. However, the claims about 4000 a/c lost on the eastern front is a total fabrication I am afraid.


----------



## altsym (Jun 24, 2013)

Err yep. You know 'Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger' is the German _Fighter pilots association_, right? IE: day fighters. Not talking bombers here.
So my apologies I should have made that clear.

Anyways here are some figures:

1941 VVS loss 5000 / LW loss 600
1942 VVS loss 8000 / LW loss 500
1943 VVS loss 9000 / LW loss 800
1944 VVS loss 7000 / LW loss 1100
1945 VVS loss 2000 / LW loss 1000

I'm too lazy to scan at the moment 

Cheers.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2013)

That is a notoriously biased and innaccurate source. You do know that dont you? LW records are known to be incomplete and caqnnot in any way be relied upon to give a complete answer or picture. They dont even align to the Quartemeister reports.


----------



## altsym (Jun 24, 2013)

So now we don't believe Russian reports, or German reports. Who should we believe? Americans? British? Aliens? I'll tell you right now, German reports are miles more accurate then anything from Russia. And most of the Luftwaffe claims were confirmed by the VVS documents. Now I'll just sit back and wait for the quote of that Russian Doctor who said that Hartmann only shot down 30-40 Russian aircraft. 

Guess I'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 24, 2013)

I can believe the LW lost 4,000 fighter pilots in 4 years in the East but not only 4,000 fighters. Wasnt Hartman supposed to have gone through about 20 to 25 planes in his career.


----------



## jim (Jun 24, 2013)

parsifal said:


> That is a notoriously biased and innaccurate source. You do know that dont you? LW records are known to be incomplete and caqnnot in any way be relied upon to give a complete answer or picture. They dont even align to the Quartemeister reports.


 
While the stalinist archieves that you use as source are the definition of accurancy...
Parsifal, i salute your objectivity....

In autumn 43 , the LW fighter units, fighting at odds 20-1 , saved the army during its retreat by total distruction by the communists air attacks. But it dosnt not fit your agenda , does it? Lets ignore it

Yes , i agree with you. Three (3) fighter wings ( less than 300 fighters) failed miserably to achieve strategical results in 44/45 fighting against 20000 soviets aircrafts plus the american 15th air force, plus the rumanian traitors. 

Rudel s Stukas fighting the russians, suffered their heaviest losses at american fighter sweeps. Thats "easten front" losses too.

German fighters were shooting down Il2s and their escorts in hudrends , but simply it was drop iin the ocean
You seem to admire the soviet tactics. Put the escort fighters just above the bombers, truly as human shields. No problem their casualties as far as german were forced to shoot at the fighters first. Great tactic. 
But explain me something else. What did achieve your great soviet airforce at the six battles of Kurland? With massive superiority against just two trapped Jagdgruppen without fuel and with boys as pilots , they failed a) to cut the sea communications ,the evacuation and the supply operations b) to inflict enough damage to german ground forcres to allow the also massive red army to capture the ports) to destroy JG54 . The Green Hearts fought to the last day (last vivtory 8/5/45,G.Thyben) and then fled to the west.
60 fighters against an airfleet kept the ports open THATS STRATEGICAL SUCCES , you like it or not


----------



## altsym (Jun 24, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> I can believe the LW lost 4,000 fighter pilots in 4 years in the East but not only 4,000 fighters. Wasnt Hartman supposed to have gone through about 20 to 25 planes in his career.


4000 pilots killed in the east? Hell no. Hartman*n* made 8 or 11 forced landings, never by an enemies guns, never took to his chute.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2013)

Im relying on the LW quartermaster reports, Ellis, Bergstrom Grohler Caldwell, Murray and Hayward. Grohler might be accused of being stalinist. I really dont know, but his work is well respected and accepted by most as fairly independant. it has some annoying omissions admittedly. the others...not a chance. Bergstrom is acknowledged as one of the formaost experts on the eastern front.

As far as my objectivity, well, maybe, except these are not my own views. Thats the problem you see. if I were expressing my own views, my objectivity would definately be an issue. im just giving you guys the opinions from mutliple, independant, credible sources. Do with that what you want. you guys are arguing with the best exeperts on the eastern front that there are. Good luck with that


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2013)

altsym said:


> 4000 pilots killed in the east? Hell no. Hartman*n* made 8 or 11 forced landings, never by an enemies guns, never took to his chute.


They are still losses. The Soviets lost 109000 aircraft, the germans 116000, less than half in each case are losses due to enemy action.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 24, 2013)

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

Grohler data for Sept '43 to Oct '44.

In that time the Lw wrote off ~17,000 fighters, 14,720 in the West and 2,294 in the East.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2013)

fighters yes, agree, but I was referring to total aircraft losses, which Grohler sys were in in the order of 8900.

My apologies for misreading his table...I thought it was to June 1944. Not a big mistake, but worth acknlowedgiing.

The claim is that there were 4000 a/c (in total) for the entire war on the eastern front. Thats what i am responding to


----------



## altsym (Jun 24, 2013)

parsifal said:


> you guys are arguing with the best exeperts on the eastern front that there are. Good luck with that


Challenge accepted.  



Parsifal said:


> They are still losses. The Soviets lost 109000 aircraft, the germans 116000, less than half in each case are losses due to enemy action.


58000 lost to combat? Those were day fighters according to your source? Becouse we're talking about day fighters here!



Parsifal said:


> The claim is that there were 4000 a/c (in total) for the entire war on the eastern front. Thats what i am responding to


Day Fighters!


----------



## drgondog (Jun 24, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Good point. I am reminded about the absurd claims by the USAAF against the North Koreans in the Korean war. Now that the USSR is no more and records are available the kill/loss ratio was probably only 1:1, at least against the experienced Soviet pilots, quite possibly more against less experienced NK ones, but not the absurd 10:1, 20:1, or 30:1 or whatever that had been claimed.
> 
> With roughly equivalent aircraft, roughly equivalent tactical situations and roughly equivalent pilots you would normally expect an overall average of 1:1. Any more than that then it is because of a very significant aircraft advantage (ie North Africa 109Fs and Gs vs Hurricanes and P-40s), poor tactical situations (eg the the RAF's 'push' into France in 41/42) or very inferior pilots (eg Gulf War 1).



We covered this extensively in days past.. It is worthwhile noting that the Soviets claimed about 3:1 over all the F-86s ever lost to any cause..

Below from Joe B. who has analyzed the PTO as well as Korea extremely well 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/post-war/mig-vs-sabre-10228.html2. 

That's not a 'myth', it's just the ratio between credited US victories and official US air combat losses. It's the same situation we encounter with many or most WWII combat results still quoted. It's not always possible to know the actual losses on both sides. But in Korea it's pretty well known overall, 319 Soviet AF MiG-15's lost in air combat (best documented number IMO among several in the same ballpark), 224 PLAAF (their official number, combat only), and probably at least several dozen, but not likely more than a 100, NK, say 50. 78 F-86's were officially lost in air combat, but reviewing one by one I estimate 90 including those written off from combat damage. Not all but the great majority of those MiG losses were to F-86's. So the Sabre:MiG ratio was ~6+:1 in reality overall, *less* of a discount than would need to be applied to most US WWII ratio's of credited victories to official losses.

One can estimate it separately v the Soviets and Chinese/NK's based on proportion of claims against F-86's (it comes out around 5:1 and 11:1 respectively if you assume all MiG claims were equally [not very] accurate). But that's somewhat artificial IMO. The US pilots didn't know their opposition in detail (things incorrectly assumed about the MiG pilots at the time are still repeated now, see point 1), so could hardly 'ignore the Chinese and NK's and focus on the Soviets'. If you saw a MiG flying in a straight line, that's the one you were going to go after (as in Gabreski's comment to that effect after one of his Korean victories).

Joe


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2013)

altsym said:


> Challenge accepted.
> 
> 
> 58000 lost to combat? Those were day fighters according to your source? Becouse we're talking about day fighters here!
> ...



I think on the basis of the above, we are arguing two different things. Im looking at total losses, you appear to be looking at day fighter losses only for the LW, versus total Soviet losses. I dont see much correlation there. 

Soviet sources claim that they lost 45000 a/c in total to combat related incidents during the war. that includes aircraft destroyed on the ground and losses to ground fire (westermann in his book on German flak claims about 58% of LW shoot downs on the eastern front were from ground fire). the rest of Soviet losses are not related to combat....wear and tear, training accidents, and the like. 

To get comparability of the relative effcetiveness of the LW fighters versus the VVS fighters, we would need to know the Soviet (fighter) losses versus shoot downs, versus LW (fighter) losses versus shoot downs. i dont believe such data exists. 

That forces us back to a much more basic set of stats....total LW losses, versus total Soviet losses. There might be some refinement possible by looking at total German losses in combat versus total Soviet losses in combat. that might be information that is obtainable, but I dont have it. at least not in a really reliable form. 

So at this point we only have some raw basic numbers.....around 35000 LW aircraft lost on the eastern front to all causes, to about 109000 Soviet. Thats about an exchange rate orf around 3:1 in favour of the LW give or take.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 25, 2013)

razor1uk said:


> I wonder if the P-51 would have done as well if it only ever had a 3 bladed prop upon it like the rest of the vast majority of European WW2 single engined A/C... Yes, I understand the earlier ones did have the 3 bladers, before a storm of critism wafts upon this posting.
> 
> Or if the Germans realised earleir that a 4 (or 5 bladed) prop with or without 'paddled' design would have improved the 109.. IMHO, they (LW/RLM/TechAmt etc) assumed the extra weight and syncronisation loss to RoF verses improved altitudinal power co-efficient was too detrimental too their mob/group/mass thinking(s).



While there are advantages to more blades -- the induced losses are reduced as the number of blades increases -- there are also disadvantages, in that more blades will result in a propeller that is, overall, heavier, more complex, and more expensive to produce and more difficult to maintain. 

Advantages of more blades:
Reduced losses to induced drag
Reduced loads on pitch change mechanism (the forces the pitch change mechanism have to exert are proportional to chord squared)
Reduced weight of individual blades

Disadvantages:
Increased parts count, resulting in increased cost, increased maintenance requirements, and reduced reliability
Narrower blades are less tolerant of FOD
Increased overall weight
Blades may be less efficient, as root thickness has to be increased (root dimensions are dictated by structural loads during takeoff, when a significant part of the blade may be stalled)

So, would a 4-bladed prop help the German fighters or a 3-bladed one harm the P-51? Maybe, but that's entirely dependent on the details of the design.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jun 26, 2013)

> Better built because the American mass production techniques and quality of training - and more skilled workers in 1943



Also IIRC the US had more advanced wind tunnels which was an advantage when optimizing designs. It would be good to go into more detail on the more advanced mass production techniques. USSBS reports that production (in terms of weight) per US worker was far higher than German's. Also, the US had far more experience in mass production as it was the leading car manufacturer.

Finally, a photo of a P-51A. It shows very well the refined design. Ironically, the photo can be found in a book on the P-47.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 26, 2013)

Better wind tunnels than the Germans or Italians? 


Kris


----------



## Milosh (Jun 26, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Better wind tunnels than the Germans or Italians?
> 
> Kris



Certainly not better than the Germans who had the most advanced wind tunnels in the world at the time.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 26, 2013)

I have read over the post and most of my opinions have already been expressed, but, I will list them anyway.

1.	Excellent high speed. It was mostly significantly faster from ceiling to SL than contemporary Axis aircraft during the critical phase on the Western Front.

2.	Excellent range and endurance. Opened penetration raids and bomber missions deep into enemy territory effectively eliminating any place to hide.

3.	Good combat capability at all altitudes. Speed and altitude performance allowed it to control combat onset and end game. Good climb at combat weight, good dive capability, adequate firepower against fighters, and good roll and turn rate made it formidable. Gave pilots several superior cards to play and few to no losers.

4.	Easy to manufacture and cheap.

5.	Relatively easy for novices to master.

As an added note, I have always considered that the time period from the fall of 1943 to end of June, 1944, as the most critical time on the Western Front. In the fall of ’43, daylight bombing was almost suspended, in June ’44, D-day allowed many more short ranged fighters to become engaged in the tactical and strategic battlefields. It was not the bubble canopied, six gunned, high octane P-51Ds of movie fame, but the sleeker four gunned lower octane, and often overlooked, P-51B and Cs that decimated the Luftwaffe during this period, and eliminated it as a threat to D-day. I think this is the most important contribution the P-51s made to the war, and it was the low octane Bs and Cs. All my opinion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2013)

One of the greatest items of scientific WW2 War Reparations for the Allies, and not just the physical size, was the Munchen Aviation Research Institute's High Speed Wind Tunnel located in the Ötz Valley in the Tyrol.

It was code named "Buildfing Project 101".

This plant was almost completed at the end of the war and was at the time the largest wind tunnel facility in the world.

Hydro-electric Pelton Turbines with an output of 76 megawatts or 
100,000 HP, could produce wind and airflow speeds of up to supersonic levels in the 18 metre (59 foot) diameter, 140 metre (460 foot) long measuring chamber.

The Americans wanted to ship the facility back to the US, but faced violent opposition from the their French Allies.

After a lot of arguement and controversy as to where the wind tunnel was to be relocated the French won the day and the facility was removed, starting in October 1945 and 13 complete goods trains were used to carry away the contents.

The facility was rebuilt in France at Modane in the Savoy Alps with the help of the German specialists.

The French Aviation industry thereby gained one of the most modern and important advance test facilities in the world.

It is still in use today.

From the book Luftwaffe secret projects, by Dieter Herwig and Heinz Rode.


Messerschmitt in a wind tunnel Retronaut | Retronaut - See the past like you wouldn't believe.

NASA - WWII NACA: US Aviation Research Helped Speed Victory

Supermarine Spitfire, 1940 - Stock Image V320/0178 - enlarged - Science Photo Library


----------



## Civettone (Jun 27, 2013)

Back in the thirties, the Italians had the best wind tunnel in Guidonia, including a supersonic one. They were of course very much into racing aircraft. Also, Italy held 33 out of 84 aviation world records in 1939.



Kris


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 27, 2013)

In Guidonia there were seven wind tunnels, five subsonic horizontal, one vertical, and the supersonic one (2500 km/h max wind speed).
however, they were all for scale models (the largest was for max 3m wide models). Some nations had full scale wind tunnels.
It is no coincidence that many Italian aircrafts used NACA airfoils during the war.

On the other hand, the studies in Guidonia served to the first supersonic postwar aircrafts, specifically the X-2.
_The concept of the supersonic biconvex airfoil can be specifically related back to Antonio Ferri and his 1939 or 1940 supersonic wind-tunnel tests in Guidonia, Italy. Also associated with the biconvex airfoil, by application of their supersonic pressure distribution theories to Ferri's test results, are the Swiss aerodynamicist Professor Jakob Ackeret (friend and contemporary of Theodore von Kármán) and Germany's Dr. Ing. Adolf Busemann (originator of the swept-wing concept)._
...
_From this wind tunnel facility Antonio Ferri obtained data for his formal report: Experimental Results with Airfoils Tested in the High-Speed Tunnel at Guidonia, dated July 1940. These tests included a 10 percent thick biconvex airfoil at a Mach number of 2.13. This report was later translated into English and published by NACA as a Technical Memorandum with the designation of TM 946. The first theoretical studies of a biconvex airfoil are believed to have been presented by Professor Ackeret in his 1932 publication titled: Theory of Airfoils Moving at Speeds Greater Than That of Sound._


----------



## Aozora (Jun 27, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Messerschmitt in a wind tunnel Retronaut | Retronaut - See the past like you wouldn't believe.
> 
> NASA - WWII NACA: US Aviation Research Helped Speed Victory
> 
> Supermarine Spitfire, 1940 - Stock Image V320/0178 - enlarged - Science Photo Library


 
Also some info on post war NACA research into high speed propellers:

ch4-1

some of it based on German designs for curved "swept back" blades:

ch4-6

A NACA report on propeller design problems for high speed aircraft from 1941:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090015108_2009014215.pdf

Here's a report on a Mustang III fitted with a Merlin 100 by Roll-Royce Hucknall and tested at +25lbs boost, using a 4 blade HS propeller:

Mustang III Flight Trials



> 4.4 Propeller tip Mach numbers on all-out level speeds exceed 0.9 over most of the height range.
> 
> The values are:-
> 
> ...



Another Mustang III, FX901 was fitted with a Merlin 113 (Mosquito B. Mk 35) with 3 bladed propeller.

(Bonus: Flight Articles on Rolls-Royce's test facility at Hucknall; part 1 starts here

Rolls-Royce Hucknall Part I

Part II:

 Rolls-Royce Hucknall Part II )


----------



## stug3 (Jun 27, 2013)

A lot of good stuff on the Retronaut site.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 27, 2013)

alejandro_ said:


> USSBS reports that production (in terms of weight) per US worker was far higher than German's.


 Weight of the workers?


----------



## riacrato (Jun 27, 2013)

US were more advanced in mass production techniques something Germany in many areas only developed during the war. US machinery was also to a higher degree of more efficient special-to-type equipment than German machinery.


----------



## bbear (Jun 27, 2013)

I'll chance my arm here, What did the P 51 have,,,,

Being preceded by the P47 - famously good at pilot protection - therefore large numbers of experienced pilots available for aggressive action once the right tool appeared.

Timing - the LW ranks had ben thinned by being forced to fly many hours by long P47/B17 attacks and in combat losses

Picked a good enemy - Goering/Hitler who overcommitted LW to protect political targets, esp. Berlin. Foul, murderous Dictators are necessarily irrational, afraid to appear to be weak or foolish .....

Picked a good partner - B17, almost capable of self protection, very threatening en masse, but looked vulnerable to a mass attack

Picked a good ally(s) - USSR/ UK - took the brunt, set up the table/ maybe helped provoke the daytime over-commitment by vexingly bombing by night and with Dh 98s??

All completely unreferenced speculations. I now await my due thumping. 

Oh yes, and P51 B.C/D was singularly effective , and a great plane (a light thumping then). All I'm really saying is context, history, multiple factors, the obscure, the forever unknown - they would all have their place. Not just engineering - because on paper the 51 is not that great?


----------



## drgondog (Jun 27, 2013)

bbear said:


> I'll chance my arm here, What did the P 51 have,,,,
> 
> Being preceded by the P47 - famously good at pilot protection - therefore large numbers of experienced pilots available for aggressive action once the right tool appeared.
> 
> ...



The P-51B did most of the heavy lifting over Germany. P-38s contributed, P-47s were hampered by range only to Stuttgart/Hannover.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 27, 2013)

gjs238 said:


> Weight of the workers?


 
US workers were better fed - readily available Spam made a big difference  and, in Texas, those huge steaks Texas Longhorn Steaks 

Anyway what's being discussed is worker productivity - ie; weight of airframe produced by each worker over a given time. Not forgetting many German factories used slave labour = an unwilling workforce under duress, many of whom will have been weakened by a poor work and living environment.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2013)

> Neither RAF nor USSR were a factor over daylight Germany - EXCEPT that RAF night fighters trimmed LW night fighters, lessening their impact on B-17/B-24s over central Germany. Also RAF performed much close escxort during first year of 8th Daylight ops from August 1942 through Aug 1943.



I agree with this statement....but....

More importantly, the RAF was largely responsible for establishing the safe haven that made the US escorted deep penetration raids even possible. 1940-42, the LW was still mounting challenges to the control of the vital air space over the british isles and Western Europe. The sustained....and costly....attrition battles played force back on the LW gave control of the vital air space to the allies and inflicted enough attrition on the LW to make them adopt unsafe pilot replacement programs, and suffer chronic fuel shortages from as early as 1942.

This last point was assisted by the VVS where whilst not as dramatic as the attrition battle in the west, still played havoc on Geran reserves of fuel, manpower and hardware. The LW was short of everything because of the attrition battles in the East and West.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jun 27, 2013)

> This last point was assisted by the VVS where whilst not as dramatic as the attrition battle in the west, still played havoc on Geran reserves of fuel, manpower and hardware. The LW was short of everything because of the attrition battles in the East and West.



Luftwaffe losses in 1941 and 1942 in the Eastern front were higher than in the Channel and over GB. After Battle of Britain Luftwaffe adopted a defensive strateegy which suited them much more. The exception were the low lovel raids carried out againt the southern region of the UK. 



> Anyway what's being discussed is worker productivity - ie; weight of airframe produced by each worker over a given time. Not forgetting many Germanfactories used slave labour = an unwilling workforce under duress, many of whom will have been weakened by a poor work and living environment.



Decentralization also added cost. By using slave labor the quality dropped and risk of sabotage increased. Not long ago I read about a Fw 190 D-9 Gruppe that carefully inspected every D-9 looking for signs of sabotage.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2013)

> Luftwaffe losses in 1941 and 1942 in the Eastern front were higher than in the Channel and over GB. After Battle of Britain Luftwaffe adopted a defensive strateegy which suited them much more. The exception were the low lovel raids carried out againt the southern region of the UK



In the west 41-2, it wasnt about the losses, it was about getting control of the airspace and not allowing the germans to recover. German efforts to gain that (air superiority, and later air parity) did not end with the traditional ending point of the BoB (November-December 1940). heavy raids continued through to the end of May 1941, albeit to a differnt operational setting (night raids, but ther wwere still significant dayligt operations through to the middle of April). There were heavy losses both operational and non- operational....By December 1941, the LW, according to murray had lost the equivalent of two full airforces sine 1939....or about 8-10000 a/c. losses in the East from June to December were running at about 2000 a/c. Losses in the BoB were about 1800, and in the period 1939 to the end of June 1940 about 2000 or so as well. adding all that up, the estimated total losses for the LW Jan-December 1941 in the west (and MTO) were in the order of 3000 a/c.

German activity in the west was not solely defensive after may 1941. Two complete KGs were maintained and engaged primarily in various Anti-shipping operations. Later, in '42 they attempted to maintain pressure by mounting nuisance hit and run FB raids across the channel. The LR KG40 remained a serious threat to the end of May, but the shorter ranged Ju88 equipped unit was progressively forced back and denied freedom of manouvre to the extent that losses due to mine operations (its principal employment) fell sharply after April. These are incidental or inconsequential activities to the germans, but for the British, gaining control of its skies and the seas that surrounded Britain was absolutely critical work, and the reason they just kept coming at the germans despite the one sided loss rates in the fighter sweeps over france July to December 1941. 

By winning those preparatory battles and inflicting several thousand aircraft losses on the LW (either directly or indirectly), Germany was denied any real chance to rest and recover its air force. this was critical to the later operations taken up by the Americans. The Russians did very similar things in the east. 

The pointy end of the victory in 1944 was virtually an all american achievment, but that had a considerable head start due to the relentless attriution operations of 1941-3, undertaken mostly by the RAF and the VVS


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 27, 2013)

Aozora said:


> US workers were better fed - readily available Spam made a big difference  and, in Texas, those huge steaks Texas Longhorn Steaks
> 
> Anyway what's being discussed is worker productivity - ie; weight of airframe produced by each worker over a given time. Not forgetting many German factories used slave labour = an unwilling workforce under duress, many of whom will have been weakened by a poor work and living environment.


 
One of the more interesting facts I discovered while reading up on the US and German aircraft production industries was the success that the US had with women workers and 'unskilled'/new hire labour.

In the US, new hires were more productive after around two months of on the job time than workers who had been employed in the industry in the pre-war period. They generally were more willing to work longer hours and adapted to new production methods more quickly than their 'older' colleauges. They were also more likely to suggest changes that would improve productivity. 

Of the new workers, it was found that women were the most productive. Female workers in the same jobs as men, were typically more efficient and faster than their male counterparts. Furthermore, when female workers joined a previously all-male shop-floor workforce, overall productivity for men increase, even if both sexes were segregated from each other.

There was a drawback though - quality. Defect rates with new hires were slightly higher than with experienced workers and with the new processes.


----------



## jim (Jun 28, 2013)

parsifal said:


> In the west 41-2, it wasnt about the losses, it was about getting control of the airspace and not allowing the germans to recover. German efforts to gain that (air superiority, and later air parity) did not end with the traditional ending point of the BoB (November-December 1940). heavy raids continued through to the end of May 1941, albeit to a differnt operational setting (night raids, but ther wwere still significant dayligt operations through to the middle of April). There were heavy losses both operational and non- operational....By December 1941, the LW, according to murray had lost the equivalent of two full airforces sine 1939....or about 8-10000 a/c. losses in the East from June to December were running at about 2000 a/c. Losses in the BoB were about 1800, and in the period 1939 to the end of June 1940 about 2000 or so as well. adding all that up, the estimated total losses for the LW Jan-December 1941 in the west (and MTO) were in the order of 3000 a/c.
> 
> German activity in the west was not solely defensive after may 1941. Two complete KGs were maintained and engaged primarily in various Anti-shipping operations. Later, in '42 they attempted to maintain pressure by mounting nuisance hit and run FB raids across the channel. The LR KG40 remained a serious threat to the end of May, but the shorter ranged Ju88 equipped unit was progressively forced back and denied freedom of manouvre to the extent that losses due to mine operations (its principal employment) fell sharply after April. These are incidental or inconsequential activities to the germans, but for the British, gaining control of its skies and the seas that surrounded Britain was absolutely critical work, and the reason they just kept coming at the germans despite the one sided loss rates in the fighter sweeps over france July to December 1941.
> 
> ...



Parsifal reading your theories is a true experience
VVS and RAF in 41-43 only provided training for german pilots. The vast majority of german aces began their carrers at this period. It was the happy times. Jg 26 and JG2 in the west suffered minimal losses and even less deaths
The only reason that LW was understrengthed in 1944 was the late mobilaization of her industry for total war effort. 
Most losses in the east were aircrafts that could not be repaired due lack of spare parts, and aircrafts that were lost because of the hard operational enviroment 
Despite your wishes ,RAF activities in the west was of little nuissance for the germans. Their twins bombers carried too light bomb loads to cause real damage. Training units were established in France by LW with no problems by RAF
The main reasons LW gradually reduced its offencive activities on western front (inclunding the effective night intruders) was 1) fuel. Already from 1941 there were conserns about fuel usage , fighters were often ordered not to engange Raf if no real danger existed for ground targets
2) LW bomber units were needed on the eastern and mediterennean fronts.

Finally , even stating that LW was weak in january 1944,is not totaly true. If remove the american airforce from the battle in january 44 , within 2 monthes VVS would have to face 7-8 fighter wings with disastrous results and the RAF 3-4 fighter wings with no heavy bombers to attract the german fighters attention
LW was weak to face at the same time raf AND vvs AND american heavy bombers AND american escort bfighters
Returning to the topic , if we would like to see the true greatness of P51 we should take 10-20-100
P51s and put them in fight with 10-20-100 german fighters with NO bombers attracting the attention of LW
P51 was a good fighter that was blessed by the circumstances


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 28, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Did they have self-sealing tanks? And, while on the subject, just how did those work? I know the later A6Ms had them, and tipped the scales a little higher for them. I assume the P47s and P51s also had them.



The explanation I've read is that self-sealing tanks were a sandwich, with a layer of unvulcanized rubber in the middle. When it was exposed to gasoline, it would swell and plug the hole. Clearly, this would only work for small holes, not the sort of hole that a decent explosive shell would leave.


----------



## alejandro_ (Jun 28, 2013)

> There were heavy losses both operational and non- operational....By December 1941, the LW, according to murray had lost the equivalent of two full airforcesssine 1939....or about 8-10000 a/c. losses in the East from June to December were running at about 2000 a/c. Losses in the BoB were about 1800, and in the period 1939 to the end of June 1940 about 2000 or so as well. adding all that up,



You were talking about British Isles and the Channel in your previous post:



> 1940-42, the LW was still mounting challenges to the control of the vital air space over the british isles and Western Europe. The sustained....and costly....attrition battles played force back on the LW gave control of the vital air space to the allies and inflicted enough attrition on the LW to make them adopt unsafe pilot replacement programs, and suffer chronic fuel shortages from as early as 1942.





> the estimated total losses for the LW Jan-December 1941 in the west (and MTO) were in the order of 3000 a/c.



Extremely unlikely. German aircraft destroyed and damaged to all causes in front line service between June and December 1941 were 4.653 aircraft. 3.827 of these were lost in the Eastern Front. In the link below you can find some data of German aircraft lost and damaged in 1941:

Strategy for Defeat: The <i>Luftwaffe</i> 1933-1945


----------



## Aozora (Jun 28, 2013)

Getting right back to the subject, here's an interesting article on the development of the American long range escort fighter 1914-45, including some information on the development of self-sealing fuel tanks and drop tanks (page 39 "Range Extension: The Development of an Idea); it's interesting to note that as early as 1942 the USAAF anticipated that the Germans would fit heavier weapons to its fighters, including the thought that the Fw 190 might be armed with 37 mm cannon. Discussion of the P-51 starts with Chapter III, page 124: 

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAFHS/AAFHS-136.pdf


----------



## drgondog (Jun 29, 2013)

jim said:


> LW was weak to face at the same time raf AND vvs AND american heavy bombers AND american escort bfighters
> Returning to the topic , if we would like to see the true greatness of P51 we should take 10-20-100
> P51s and put them in fight with 10-20-100 german fighters with NO bombers attracting the attention of LW
> P51 was a good fighter that was blessed by the circumstances



Jim - there are many examples in which smaller numbers of Mustangs attacked a larger force of Me 109s or 190s completely separated from the bombers. Fighter sweeps in which the fights were alone with each other, interceptions 30-50 miles away from the bomber stream... ditto P-47 and P-38.

One may parse LW victory credits and set aside issues of over claiming and look to how few scored three victories in a single day against US fighters in Europe. Conversely there are more than 70 such examples of 3 or more by US fighters against German fighters... despite being 'undergunned' in the opinions of many.


----------



## jim (Jun 29, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Jim - there are many examples in which smaller numbers of Mustangs attacked a larger force of Me 109s or 190s completely separated from the bombers. Fighter sweeps in which the fights were alone with each other, interceptions 30-50 miles away from the bomber stream... ditto P-47 and P-38.
> 
> One may parse LW victory credits and set aside issues of over claiming and look to how few scored three victories in a single day against US fighters in Europe. Conversely there are more than 70 such examples of 3 or more by US fighters against German fighters... despite being 'undergunned' in the opinions of many.


 
Mr drgondog
LW for three years was facing low level airforce in the east and low/mid level airforce in west and south. The coming of the americans brought another requirement -high altitude fights. Lw proved weak to adjust in time to this new threat. It was natural. did not have enough engineers,to design or factories and raw to produce new fighters to face the high altitude americans and at the SAME time keep fighting in the east and the RAF
The introduction of Both D9 and ta 152 was delayed because of fear of losing production. Many improvements for the 109 were delayed or never introduced for the same reason .Me 262 was late because of raw materials shortages
So, yes, P51 was a very very good design. Yes in early 44 clearly had an advantage over 109G6 and Fw190A . But only because war circumstances prevented the normal evolutin of the german fighters. In my opinion P51 was inferior to Bf109k4 in a classic dogfight ,using same fuels. K4 could be introduced in january 44 but production issues did not allowed it. Also the Fiat G56 ,that was rejected only on production concerns ,would be also a formidable opponent for p51. Or turbosupercharged Fw190s cancelled only because lack of raw materials.
In this sense i consider the succes of P51 ,to a degree, circumstantial
I firmly believe that judging airframes only by combat results can be misleading. 
PS I repeat i consider the P51 top class fighter. I just finished reading a thread about its cowling system.Genius. And i would like to congratulate the administrator(=creator?) of this site for the amazing amount of informations that this site provide us.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 29, 2013)

Most of the German pilots were woefully undertrained rookies. Easy bait for the any well trained American pilot. 

Also, keep in mind that the job of the P-51 was to shoot down 109s and 190s. The job of the German fighters was to shoot down bombers. Many German fighters were shot down while trying to close in on the bombers. 

I have already expressed my great respect for the qualities of the P-51. But the absolute number of kills gives a much distorted picture. Let's stick to one on one comparisons, please. 

Kris


----------



## drgondog (Jun 29, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Most of the German pilots were woefully undertrained rookies. Easy bait for the any well trained American pilot.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that the job of the P-51 was to shoot down 109s and 190s. The job of the German fighters was to shoot down bombers. Many German fighters were shot down while trying to close in on the bombers.
> 
> ...



Kris - you missed the point. 

Jim was musing about the fate of Mustangs in 'even battles' numerically with LW in fighter to fighter combat away from the bombers. I responded to that directly.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 29, 2013)

> VVS and RAF in 41-43 only provided training for german pilots. The vast majority of german aces began their carrers at this period. It was the happy times. Jg 26 and JG2 in the west suffered minimal losses and even less deaths




Not according to either Murray, or the LW quarterly returns. The following is taken from Murrays book

TABLE XVII 
German Losses, All Causes--1941 (Not Including November) 

Aircraft Authorized, Jan 1941 5,273 
Actual Strength; 4,297
Losses due to enemy action 2,849
Losses not due to enemy action: 2,153
Total Losses 5,002
Percentage of Initial Force Structure: 115%

in addition, the Quartermaster was reporting that more than 3500 aircraft had been damaged by more than 50% in 1941, in the East, most of those that were damaged and left at the front were lost in the Soviet counteroffensives. 

Despite nhaving produced more than 11000 aircraft, the Luftwaffe had actually contracted in size during the year...from 4300 to just over 4000. Moreover, pilots were being lost at such a rate that by the end of 1941, "German aircraft production and crew training programs could no longer keep up with losses; and by January 1942, conditions forced frontline units to rob transition schools of crews a month before their scheduled course completion" (Murray Page 94)

(Murray again)....

"Compounding the difficulties was a supply and maintenance system that revealed little capacity for functioning over the long distances that the Luftwaffe now covered. What had sufficed within the limited frontiers of prewar Germany could not meet the needs of an air force committed from the Bay of Biscay to the gates of Moscow and from the North Cape to North Africa. The supply system, particularly in Russia, no longer functioned effectively. Milch in a visit to the eastern front discovered that hundreds of inoperable aircraft were lying about on forward airfields. They had either broken down or been damaged in combat, and spare parts were not flowing forward to repair these aircraft.122 Because supply and maintenance were separate from operational units, a wide gulf had grown up between frontline units and their logistical support establishment in the Reich. Furthermore, the Luftwaffe's organizational structure divorced supply and maintenance from operations, thereby hindering vital communications between these two divisions. More often than not, the special needs of one were not meaningfully addressed by the other. 

The pressure of continuous air operations on the Luftwaffe's maintenance infrastructure also had its effect. Over the winter of 1940-41, the Germans experienced a considerable period without combat in which to reconstitute and to rebuild flying units strained by the fighting in 1940. The bombers, however, with their heavy commitments in the night offensive against British cities, did not enjoy such recuperation. But beginning in April 1941, with the campaign in the Balkans, the demands of far-flung campaigns burdened the entire structure. The result was a slow but steady decline in the Luftwaffe's "in-commission" rates to a nadir in the winter of 1941-42 . 

Besides maintaining aircraft "in commission," the Luftwaffe had the concomitant problem of filling cockpits. The loss rate, as already suggested, had reached the point where the Luftwaffe pushed pilots out of training schools as rapidly as possible to bring aircrew strength to acceptable levels. What now happened was that operational units completed what the schools could no longer finish. The process in many units involved working new pilots into squadron operations on a gradual basis while hopefully minimizing their exposure to hazardous missions. Then as experience increased, squadrons assigned the pilots to more dangerous tasks until they were fully combat-ready. Such a system was undoubtedly the only one that frontline units could follow given the state of pilot 

The attrition over the summer and fall of 1941 led to a steady deterioration in the experience level of aircrews. From the summer of 1941, the Luftwaffe entered a period in which losses proceeded at such a pace that a recovery in terms of crew flying experience could only come with a long halt to operations. However, failure in Russia in 1941 virtually insured that the Luftwaffe would never receive a respite. In fact, the increase of Allied air efforts in the Mediterranean and west meant that the demands on the German air force would continually increase, thus exacerbating an already serious situation. This deterioration of aircrew skill level shows up most clearly in Table XIX in the two column summarizing losses not due to enemy action". 

The numbers of combat ready aircrew also dropped throughout 1941. Again, Murray says that In commission rates fell from about 75% at the begining of the year to just over 50% at the end of the year. Some of this was due to the falling readiness rates of the crews themseves, which Murray also discusses in detail 



> Despite your wishes ,RAF activities in the west was of little nuissance for the germans. Their twins bombers carried too light bomb loads to cause real damage. Training units were established in France by LW with no problems by RAF




LW losses for 1941 amounted to over 5000 a/c, and a further 3500 damaged (by more than 50%). More than half of those losses were due to activities in the west. If untroubled by the RAF, LW must make terrible pilots as they seem to keep losing aircraft and pilots for no apparent reason.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 1, 2013)

jim said:


> ...... Returning to the topic , if we would like to see the true greatness of P51 we should take 10-20-100
> P51s and put them in fight with 10-20-100 german fighters with NO bombers attracting the attention of LW
> P51 was a good fighter that was blessed by the circumstances



fighters are always going to be providing cover ( bombers, troop transports, ground troops ,truck convoys, etc) or pursuing some sort of attacker. there are few scenarios where you will get a purely fighter vs fighter confrontation without anything else being the target of one side or the other. the few times i can think of where larger battles between them happened ( where no "bombers" were involved) was during mass invasions or troop movements like overlord or market garden...but again the allied fighters were covering ground ops or harassing enemy supply lines. the closest thing i could find to your scenario off hand was sept 18, 1944 during market garden. ~60 ac from the 357th FG tangled with a mixed force of ~60 109s and 190s north of maastricht and south of a drop zone for airborne troops. since they were covering the troop drop they were flying at low altitude and the battle raged from 16000 ft to the deck. no other allied ac were involved according to the accounts i read. the 357th scored 26 to 2 loses. there is one other account i recall off the top of my head where they ( the 357th FG...most of my research revolves around them ) bounced a large group ( of equal size or better ) of 109s forming up near an airdrome and they they came out on top...but i will have to dig for the date and stats.

_"The Yoxford Boys" Olmstead pg 43 and 44_


----------



## parsifal (Jul 1, 2013)

plus you need to look at the total losses, not just those in the air. its a wet dream scenario for the LW enthusiasts, and one they consistently get wrong because they dont look at the whole picture.

During the Polish campaign for example, it is often quoted that the germans completely dominated the skies and at little cost. Its a hotly debated topic, with divergent views. i happen to think that the germans did win air superiority and that their airpower did have a profound effect on ground operations, but it was anything but a cheap or easy vistory. Most sources now suggest that the germans lost over 500 a/c in that openeing campaign when losses to all causes are taken into account. 


This is the bottom line for the LW boys that they need to accept. Germany during the war lost over 116000 a/c . in 1944-5 they lost about 49000 a/c. Where and when were the other losses suffered? all this talk of "easy" victories, and "untroubled" by their opponents is simply not supportable. the LW never had an easy war, or a light time of it. Losses were never one sided, except perhaps in the opening months of Barbarossa, but even then own losses were never light......over 1200 aircraft in three months. 

And fighters were there for a reason, a purpose. The German had their purpose, and failed in it, the Americans had their fighters and a purpose for them, and theirs did not fail. therein lies the basis of your discussion.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 2, 2013)

> there are few scenarios where you will get a purely fighter vs fighter confrontation without anything else being the target of one side or the other


This is simply not true. Fighter sweeps were very common missions in WW2. 
Also, we can loosen up the requirement of 'no bomber escort': part of the fighter escort flew ahead of the bombers and had liberty to attack at will, while part of the interceptors were designated to take on the escort fighters, while their buddies went for the bombers. 



> Germany during the war lost over 116000 a/c . in 1944-5 they lost about 49000 a/c.


Germany lost 116k aircraft? That is more than it produced in WW2 plus that what was operational prior to it.

Most of these 'lost' aircraft were worn out or lost in non-combat actions. 

1944-1945 losses give a totally distorted view on what was going on: most combat losses were suffered on the ground. Add to that, totally undertrained pilots who would have been shot down, no matter which aircraft they were flying. 


Kris


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 2, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Germany lost 116k aircraft? That is more than it produced in WW2 plus that what was operational prior to it.



Indeed the thread is taking an increasingly surreal turn regarding the inflating of German air losses...


----------



## JtD (Jul 2, 2013)

Not every loss was a complete loss as in burning pile of wood and metal on the ground. A lot would be repaired, send back to the front, and be "lost" again. So it's not impossible to have more losses than aircraft produced.

It is also a fact that the Luftwaffe statistically got completely destroyed several times a year, with loss ratios easily exceeding 200% per year. However, this was also true for say the British bomber command, which in 1943 had a near 300% loss ratio.
---
Has anyone pointed out that when the P-51 entered combat in early 1944, the Luftwaffe was pretty much on its relative technological low? It was fielding aircraft that performed as good or worse than the aircraft it fielded in late 1941, early 1942, as the development in the past 2 years had mostly focussed on making their fighters multirole aircraft, adding armament, radio equipment, fuel capacity and whatnotelse. As a matter of fact, a Bf 109G-6 with gunpods gave considerable worse performance in early 1944 than a clean Bf 109F-4 in early 1942. The same can be said about the Fw 190A-8, not yet using the erhöhte Notleistung, and the early 1942 Fw 190A-3. This only changed later in 1944, but then it was too late to have a noticeable effect.

In particular against the fairly numerous gun podded Bf 109, a P-51 without drop tanks would have pretty much all performance advantages that count. It was a good weapon, and it appeared at the right time.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 2, 2013)

> Germany lost 116k aircraft? That is more than it produced in WW2 plus that what was operational prior to it.



Ah no. germany produced about 94000 a/c (combat types) from indigenous sources,and took delivery or expropriated about another 5000 or so from foreign sources. but on topo of that 94000 there were at least 25000 trainers and other non-combat types. The losses also inlcude those surrendered at the end of the war....about 8500 a/c. 




> Most of these 'lost' aircraft were worn out or lost in non-combat actions.



This is a spuriour defence. Exactly the same argument can be mounted for the amazing kill tallies inflicted on germany's enemies. for the russians, for example, in 1941, how many of their a/c were lost or burnt on the ground. i would suggest...think of a ridiculously high number, then double it, at least. 




> 1944-1945 losses give a totally distorted view on what was going on: most combat losses were suffered on the ground. Add to that, totally undertrained pilots who relative to your opponents. would have been shot down, no matter which aircraft they were flying.



And the russians flew under those conditions for more than half the war. its still a loss, and how do you suppose the germans got into the position of using rookies in the first place. it was because of the losses they sustained prior to 1944....it was unsustainable for them to maintain training standards with the losses they were suffereing, even when they had abundant numbers of experienced flyers.

war is unfair and often one sided. thats the objective of good strategy...to work to achieve good position...the germans fought their war essentially as short sighted opportunists, which gave them salad days early on, but caught up to them as difficulties increased. trying to cut out, or ignore what happened in the late war period is trying to deny the mistakes they made early on when they squandered their great advantages


----------



## Balljoint (Jul 2, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> fighters are always going to be providing cover ( bombers, troop transports, ground troops ,truck convoys, etc) or pursuing some sort of attacker. there are few scenarios where you will get a purely fighter vs fighter confrontation without anything else being the target of one side or the other. the few times i can think of where larger battles between them happened ( where no "bombers" were involved) was during mass invasions or troop movements like overlord or market garden...but again the allied fighters were covering ground ops or harassing enemy supply lines. the closest thing i could find to your scenario off hand was sept 18, 1944 during market garden. ~60 ac from the 357th FG tangled with a mixed force of ~60 109s and 190s north of maastricht and south of a drop zone for airborne troops. since they were covering the troop drop they were flying at low altitude and the battle raged from 16000 ft to the deck. no other allied ac were involved according to the accounts i read. the 357th scored 26 to 2 loses. there is one other account i recall off the top of my head where they ( the 357th FG...most of my research revolves around them ) bounced a large group ( of equal size or better ) of 109s forming up near an airdrome and they they came out on top...but i will have to dig for the date and stats.
> 
> _"The Yoxford Boys" Olmstead pg 43 and 44_



Most military strategy is a version of Rock, scissors, paper, i.e. tanks against infantry, artillery against tanks, interceptors vs. bombers, escort vs. interceptors etc. Thus the chance of both sides concurrently seeking a fighter vs. fighter air supremacy engagement is remote. 

In fact the Eighth’s Operation Argument, circa February 1944, had the specific intent of matching masses of long range air superiority fighters against the LW’s fighters tasked with bomber interception by using the bombers as bait to lure the LW into mass against mass combat. Galland took the challenge with perhaps a thousand fighters massed to defend the homeland. But the LW’s objective was the Eight’s bombers and Eight’s objective was to destroy the LW and gain air superiority. By June 4th the Allies did establish air superiority over Western Europe.

The point being that a LW pilot engaging the (mostly) P-51 opposition was doing so out of necessity or against orders. It’s not really possible to judge on the basis of results that were not the goal of the LW.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 2, 2013)

Civettone said:


> This is simply not true. Fighter sweeps were very common missions in WW2.
> 
> *kris, i agree, and that is one of the few scenarios it where "could" happen. but how often during these sweeps did equal forces meet and tangle? if you know of some please share. that parity ( same number of 51s vs same number of lw ac minus bombers) was what i was looking for as per jim's proposed match up. on sweeps like that one side or the other usually had the upper hand. i can find a lot of stories where the squadron found 4, 8, etc. 109s or 190s and attacked. but have yet to find many where bombers werent involved where the 2 met in equal or where the 51s were at a numeric disadvantage. i could use gentile and godfrey's encounter where4 they got lost and the 2 of them attacked 100 do 217s and an equal number for se fighters....but bomber were involved there as that group was going to meet them. i think jim was wanting a match up where forces were equal and the bombers werent being used as bait. some of the other guys who are better versed in this may be able to come up with occasions but in my limited research i cant find many.*
> 
> ...



balljoint said, "Most military strategy is a version of Rock, scissors, paper, i.e. tanks against infantry, artillery against tanks, interceptors vs. bombers, escort vs. interceptors etc. Thus the chance of both sides concurrently seeking a fighter vs. fighter air supremacy engagement is remote. "

that is what i was trying to say. and while after doolittle took charge he gave the fighters a freer reign to separate from the box to seek out and attack the lw....most of the planes they found were still going after the bombers...or were numerically less.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Indeed the thread is taking an increasingly surreal turn regarding the inflating of German air losses...



Germany built approx. 119,000 military aircraft of all types. Of that approx. 116,000 were lost of which 70,000 were total losses.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 3, 2013)

Parsifal, for some reason you are making the case that the Luftwaffe suffered significant losses during the first half of the war, while it is often portrayed that the LW was having a walk in the park. I think you are completely right. The LW did suffer.

However, I object to the numbers you use. Most of the losses you talk about are non-combat and retired (worn out) aircraft. While significant in its own right, it does say very little about enemy actions. 
Likewise, aircraft destroyed on the ground or aircraft manned by undertrained pilots, says nothing about the qualities of the aircraft. And I believe that is what this thread is about.

So again, I am not disagreeing with you, but I would like you to use to appropriate numbers. 

Also, I am strongly disagreeing with the notion that fighters were always protecting bombers/recon or attacking bombers/recon. Just check up on LW doctrine and you will see that the primary task of the LW is to regain air superiority. This means attacking air fields and shooting down planes. In Poland, France, the LCs and Russia, this was achieved very early on. From that moment on, the fighters were free to chase. Also, read Gallands biography and you will see that a large part of the fighter missions were fighter sweeps. After 1940 most bomber missions over Britain were night missions with LW fighters going on the defensive against RAF fighter planes flying rhubarb missons. Later in the war, it was common for the Allies to fly both escort for bombers as well as launch large fighter sweeps. The latter would usually go unopposed by the LW. ("LW did not show up.") Finally, on the Eastern front, it was common til quite late in the war to send bombers without escort. This was possible due to the large extent of the front lines and the air space surrounding them. LW fighters would go on small hunting missions, hoping to find an enemy. Soviet AF had a doctrine of ground support for all aircraft. As such, Soviet fighter planes would often fly on their own, strafing enemy ground forces.

As can be seen, fighter vs fighter was quite common during WW2, like it was in WW1 and in more modern times.
Kris


----------



## parsifal (Jul 3, 2013)

> Parsifal, for some reason you are making the case that the Luftwaffe suffered significant losses during the first half of the war, while it is often portrayed that the LW was having a walk in the park. I think you are completely right. The LW did suffer.



This suggest that we are not that far removed from each others POV on this issue. I am heartened by that. For the record, so too did the allies, they suffered significant caualties. im not trying to say they didnt. What generated my response was the claim (not made by you) that the LW had an easy tiime of it and was untroubled by its losses early in the war. 



> However, I object to the numbers you use. Most of the losses you talk about are non-combat and retired (worn out) aircraft. While significant in its own right, it does say very little about enemy actions.


 

But that holds true for the allies (particulalry the Soviets) as well. For the record, the Soviets lost a total of 109000 a/c to all causes, of which, according to Krivosheev, 45000 (or thereabouts) were combat realted. About 58% of Soviet combat losses were due to ground fire, and then we have issues like "Did not returns" or "engine failures" which may or may not be listed as a combat loss. This diminution works both ways. If you want to discount, or not include losses not relating to enemy action, for the germans, then you really need to apply similar standards to their opponents. 

For the record, about 70% of german losses were the result of enemy action. thats remarkably consistent with everyone else, except the Soviets....who claim that 65000 of their losses wer not combat related.....i have my doubts.

Also for the record, the british total losses were 22000 for the war, whilst the Americans were about 18000, of which 4000 were in the PTO




> Likewise, aircraft destroyed on the ground or aircraft manned by undertrained pilots, says nothing about the qualities of the aircraft. And I believe that is what this thread is about.



Your absolutely right, but as always, rememeber what sparked this response from me....claims that the germans had it easy, that their loss rates were insignificant that it all fell apart only in 1944, and only because they were facing impossible numbers and in impossible conditions. Some of that is true, but there were reasons why, and these tend to be parpere over or concealed by people trying to hide the truth...


So again, I am not disagreeing with you, but I would like you to use to appropriate numbers. 



> Also, I am strongly disagreeing with the notion that fighters were always protecting bombers/recon or attacking bombers/recon. Just check up on LW doctrine and you will see that the primary task of the LW is to regain air superiority. This means attacking air fields and shooting down planes. In Poland, France, the LCs and Russia, this was achieved very early on. From that moment on, the fighters were free to chase. Also, read Gallands biography and you will see that a large part of the fighter missions were fighter sweeps. After 1940 most bomber missions over Britain were night missions with LW fighters going on the defensive against RAF fighter planes flying rhubarb missons. Later in the war, it was common for the Allies to fly both escort for bombers as well as launch large fighter sweeps. The latter would usually go unopposed by the LW. ("LW did not show up.") Finally, on the Eastern front, it was common til quite late in the war to send bombers without escort. This was possible due to the large extent of the front lines and the air space surrounding them. LW fighters would go on small hunting missions, hoping to find an enemy. Soviet AF had a doctrine of ground support for all aircraft. As such, Soviet fighter planes would often fly on their own, strafing enemy ground forces.
> 
> As can be seen, fighter vs fighter was quite common during WW2, like it was in WW1 and in more modern times


.

Kris, i never made this claim. All air operations are either about control of the air space, or the use of the air space. "Fighter Sweeps" are about air denial, and relate most directly to either achieving air superiority or denying air superiority. In 1941 in the west, people often equate the shelacking the RAF received over France as evidenece of German air superiority. but by definition, its not air superiority the Germans possessed. They were quite unable to operate at will over the air space and undertake other operations as they needed. all they could do is mount air denial operations on a selective basis...ie when they wanted and when it was deemed useful to do so. Galland recognises this in his book....the Germans were finally and utterly presented with the knowledge that in the west they were on the defensive. Its akin to Lees battles in the seven days campaign of 1862.....Lees actions were brilliant, but he was still strategically on the defensive, and that inherently meant he was limited in his ability to manouvre and act with initiative. . 
Kris[/QUOTE]


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 3, 2013)

> Ah no. germany produced about 94000 a/c (combat types) from indigenous sources,and took delivery or expropriated about another 5000 or so from foreign sources. but on topo of that 94000 there were at least 25000 trainers and other non-combat types. The losses also inlcude those surrendered at the end of the war....about 8500 a/c.



In the book "German aircraft industry and production" there is a table with total losses and damaged aircraft (until 10%). You can see it in the link below. Also, Allies captured a very large number of aircraft towards the end of the war which are not included. British captured 4.810; in Poznan Soviets captured around 700. Commander of 1TA could not believe it and he ordered to check again...

Historia y tecnología militar: Pérdidas de la Luftwaffe en la SGM, 1939-1945


----------



## parsifal (Jul 3, 2013)

What do the words in the table mean?


Categoría
Pérdida total
Dañado, hasta un 10%
Aviones de combate
Otros modelos operacionales
Entrenamiento


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 3, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Germany built approx. 119,000 military aircraft of all types. Of that approx. 116,000 were lost of which 70,000 were total losses.


 
Hi Adler, what is the source for these figures, is there a breakdown of losses (lvl of damage, cause)?

German aircraft industry and production, listed earlier in Spanish source lists ~40 000 combat related total losses, plus about 22 000 non combat.

IMHO "lost" is a poor choice of word for an aircraft 10% damaged and needing a replacement undercarriage, for example.

As for available aircraft, Quartermaster returns for 30 September 1944 lists a total of 33 877 aircraft available, to that comes 3782 gliders.


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 3, 2013)

parsifal said:


> What do the words in the table mean?
> 
> 
> Categoría
> ...



translation:

Sun dried tomatoes
Utter bastards
Back in ten, Donald
Battered flying fish
Call girls
Dysentery


I think...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## alejandro_ (Jul 3, 2013)

Categoría
Pérdida total
Dañado, hasta un 10%
Aviones de combate
Otros modelos operacionales
Entrenamiento

Category
Complete loss
Damaged (up to 10%)
Combat aircraft
Other operational types
Training


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Hi Adler, what is the source for these figures, is there a breakdown of losses (lvl of damage, cause)?
> 
> German aircraft industry and production, listed earlier in Spanish source lists ~40 000 combat related total losses, plus about 22 000 non combat.
> 
> ...



40,000 is the approx. number of fighters lost. Fighters are not the only type of conbat aircraft. I will dig up my sources (including the OKW Tagebueche) when I have time. I am about to go to work.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 3, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> IMHO "lost" is a poor choice of word for an aircraft 10% damaged and needing a replacement undercarriage, for example.


 
That can depend upon where the 10% damage was inflicted, or in what circumstances: for instance how many aircraft categorised as 10% damaged were captured when the Allies overran airfields in Libya and Tunisia, and how many when the Russians overran Luftwaffe airfields during their offensives? The first 109E-1 captured by the French in September 1939 was able to be test flown almost immediately because it did not have enough damage, yet it would have been a write-off to the Luftwaffe.

A classic example of a lightly damaged aircraft being captured and test flown by the Allies is the 109G-2/Trop Black 6, W/NR.10639, of 8./JG77. Had the airfield on which it landed been well behind the German lines, chances are it would have been put back into Luftwaffe service.







View attachment X001-2501-BF109G-'Black-6'.pdf


It was also possible to repair aircraft which were, for all intents and purposes write-offs and get them back into service; eg:






This Spitfire XII, which was effectively written off twice, was able to be rebuilt because it crashed in England; had it crashed in (say) Burma it would have been stripped of any useful parts and dumped (or buried, to be rediscovered 70 years later!).


----------



## Milosh (Jul 3, 2013)

> Also for the record, the british total losses were 22000 for the war, whilst the Americans were about 18000, of which 4000 were in the PTO



The Americans (USAAF) lost at least 65,154 a/c.
Table 99 AAFSD


----------



## parsifal (Jul 3, 2013)

Your figures seem far more plausible. i suspect the figures ive seen are for combat losses only. As for the british losses, they are perhaps the worst, because fiding relaible figures for them is just diabolical


----------



## Milosh (Jul 3, 2013)

Army Air Forces in World War II

Combat Losses (USAAF)
Grand Total - 22,948
vs Germany - 18,418
vs Japan - 4,530


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> That can depend upon where the 10% damage was inflicted, or in what circumstances: for instance how many aircraft categorised as 10% damaged were captured when the Allies overran airfields in Libya and Tunisia, and how many when the Russians overran Luftwaffe airfields during their offensives?



IMHO in such cases an easily repairable (but captured in unairworthy state) aircraft _should _ appear in losses as a 100% loss. IRL however things are not always ideal, and probably there are a lot of such duplicate entries for the same aircraft. I.e. lightly damaged and repaired twice, then when under repairs advancing enemy troops captured it in maintanaince depot.. if one handles even 10% damaged aircraft as "lost", in this case you have three "lost" aircraft but only on aircraft in reality.

One always have to be careful with statitistics for this reason, its always important to know what they show exactly. Even comparisons between air forces is troublesome, since they may well had different understanding of "lightly" and "heavily" damagaged aircraft.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 3, 2013)

Aozora said:


> View attachment 237423
> 
> 
> It was also possible to repair aircraft which were, for all intents and purposes write-offs and get them back into service; eg:
> ...



I wonder if there is a clue in the name of the organisation that did the repair. Possibly this was rebuilt by trainee engineers as a good teaching excercise because surely even in 1943 that cant have been economical to repair. Spits were being built like shelling peas by then.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 3, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> I wonder if there is a clue in the name of the organisation that did the repair. Possibly this was rebuilt by trainee engineers as a good teaching excercise because surely even in 1943 that cant have been economical to repair. Spits were being built like shelling peas by then.



*Air Service Training* (AST) is an organization in Perth, Scotland, that has been training engineers and pilots for airlines, maintenance organizations and the military since 1931.[1] It is owned by Perth College UHI, with training taking place on the college campus and at Perth Airport, near Scone.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 3, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Kris, i never made this claim.


I know, I should have referenced the quotes, but was too lazy.

Sometimes, these discussions fly all over the place and it is difficult to keep track what everyone is referring to 





Aozora said:


> This Spitfire XII, which was effectively written off twice, was able to be rebuilt because it crashed in England; had it crashed in (say) Burma it would have been stripped of any useful parts and dumped (or buried, to be rediscovered 70 years later!).


Actually, it is interesting to realize that towards the end of the war, there was a change in German policy. It was considered to be "cheaper" (I assume, in man hours) to produce a new fighter plane than to try and repair one. As such, Germans would no longer send a 50% damaged bird to the workshop, but list it as 100% loss. It seems a waste, but that is war economics at work. 

Kris


----------



## stona (Jul 3, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Actually, it is interesting to realize that towards the end of the war, there was a change in German policy. It was considered to be "cheaper" (I assume, in man hours) to produce a new fighter plane than to try and repair one. As such, Germans would no longer send a 50% damaged bird to the workshop, but list it as 100% loss. It seems a waste, but that is war economics at work.
> 
> Kris



This is partly due to the way the German system worked. I have posted a large schematic of the system elsewhere but can't find it and I'm not at home to copy it again.

Essentially a badly damaged aircraft (say 50%+ but I don't remember a figure) left the Luftwaffe and was returned to "industry" where it was repaired with new or reconditioned parts. Industry does not necessarily mean the original manufacturer, there were many companies authorised to carry out the work. The RLM then had to pay for these (plenty of disagreements over the invoices, what was new, what was recycled etc) before the aircraft was re-accepted by the Luftwaffe.

The British system was much simpler and the aircraft never left the RAF.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Aozora (Jul 3, 2013)

stona said:


> This is partly due to the way the German system worked. I have posted a large schematic of the system elsewhere but can't find it and I'm not at home to copy it again.
> 
> Essentially a badly damaged aircraft (say 50%+ but I don't remember a figure) left the Luftwaffe and was returned to "industry" where it was repaired with new or reconditioned parts. Industry does not necessarily mean the original manufacturer, there were many companies authorised to carry out the work. The RLM then had to pay for these (plenty of disagreements over the invoices, what was new, what was recycled etc) before the aircraft was re-accepted by the Luftwaffe.
> 
> ...


 
There are also more than a few instances of Luftwaffe aircraft being completely overhauled and updated to a later model, although not necessarily after being damaged. For example, lots of 109E-1s were sent back to the manufacturer or to a repair depot and reconditioned to effectively became 109E-4s or 7s. One really good example is W.Nr. 3523, which was pulled out of a Norwegian lake: 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pzOUKeN4ys_

This E-7 started life as an E-1 built by Arado some time between June 39 and April 40. In August 1940 it was returned to a major repair facility in Germany and upgraded to E-7 standard. In mid-late 1941 3523 was given its mandatory 2 year overhaul and was completely stripped of its paintwork and was further updated to an E-7/Trop. After this it was sent to JG5 in Norway, and was assigned to Lt Wolf-Dietrich Widowitz of 5./JG5 on 23 March. On April 4 3523 was shot up by a VVS Hawker Hurricane and Widowitz force landed on a frozen lake. After being stripped of important components the airframe was left on the ice which later thawed.


----------



## GregP (Jul 3, 2013)

According to the USAAF Statistical Digest of WWII (Army Air Forces in World War II) and OpNav-P-23V No. A129 (Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, WWII) available online, the losses were as follows for overseas aircraft operated by the USA:


US Army Air Forces lost 41,575 total including 22,948 in combat and the balance on operations.
US Navy lost 5,915 total including 2,418 on combat and the balance on operations.
US Marine Corps lost 1,940 total including 996 in combat and the balance on operations.

That makes a grand total of 49,430 lost, with 26,362 lost in combat and 23,068 on operations. 

So it was almost as dangerous to simply fly as it was to go into combat! The majority of the operational losses were in the ETO, as pointed out by Milosh above. Must have something to do with the weather ... ya' think? IMC most of the time in planes with almost no avionics.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 3, 2013)

> This E-7 started life as an E-1 built by Arado some time between June 39 and April 40. In August 1940 it was returned to a major repair facility in Germany and upgraded to E-7 standard. In mid-late 1941 3523 was given its mandatory 2 year overhaul and was completely stripped of its paintwork and was further updated to an E-7/Trop. After this it was sent to JG5 in Norway, and was assigned to Lt Wolf-Dietrich Widowitz of 5./JG5 on 23 March. On April 4 3523 was shot up by a VVS Hawker Hurricane and Widowitz force landed on a frozen lake. After being stripped of important components the airframe was left on the ice which later thawed


. 

Would that situation qualify as mutiple losses in the LW reporting system?


----------



## davparlr (Jul 3, 2013)

jim said:


> P51s and put them in fight with 10-20-100 german fighters with NO bombers attracting the attention of LW
> P51 was a good fighter that was blessed by the circumstances


 
In general, I agree with you. The P-51 was indeed a good fighter. However, what made it particularly great was its ability to project this good fighter capability deep into the heart of the enemy, changing the dynamics of the air war in the west at a vital time.



> LW for three years was facing low level airforce in the east and low/mid level airforce in west and south. The coming of the americans brought another requirement -high altitude fights. Lw proved weak to adjust in time to this new threat. It was natural. did not have enough engineers,to design or factories and raw to produce new fighters to face the high altitude americans and at the SAME time keep fighting in the east and the RAF
> The introduction of Both D9 and ta 152 was delayed because of fear of losing production. Many improvements for the 109 were delayed or never introduced for the same reason .Me 262 was late because of raw materials shortages
> So, yes, P51 was a very very good design. Yes in early 44 clearly had an advantage over 109G6 and Fw190A . But only because war circumstances prevented the normal evolutin of the german fighters. In my opinion P51 was inferior to Bf109k4 in a classic dogfight ,using same fuels. K4 could be introduced in january 44 but production issues did not allowed it. Also the Fiat G56 ,that was rejected only on production concerns ,would be also a formidable opponent for p51. Or turbosupercharged Fw190s cancelled only because lack of raw materials.
> In this sense i consider the succes of P51 ,to a degree, circumstantial



While this last statement is true, it is not really relevant. Had the Brits seen the value of Whittles design and financed it appropriately, they may have fielded the first jet fighter thus making the success of the Me 262 circumstantial. This is a very prevalent situation. 



JtD said:


> Has anyone pointed out that when the P-51 entered combat in early 1944, the Luftwaffe was pretty much on its relative technological low? It was fielding aircraft that performed as good or worse than the aircraft it fielded in late 1941, early 1942, as the development in the past 2 years had mostly focussed on making their fighters multirole aircraft, adding armament, radio equipment, fuel capacity and whatnotelse. As a matter of fact, a Bf 109G-6 with gunpods gave considerable worse performance in early 1944 than a clean Bf 109F-4 in early 1942. The same can be said about the Fw 190A-8, not yet using the erhöhte Notleistung, and the early 1942 Fw 190A-3. This only changed later in 1944, but then it was too late to have a noticeable effect.



I agree with all of this. It has always baffled me as why the Luftwaffe was caught unprepared to deal with the P-51B. Surely they knew the P-51A was fast and that the P-51 had good range, British Mustang Is made a fighter sweep over the Ruhr valley as early as July, 1942. I suspect they even had technical data on Mustang since I am sure some had been shot down over German controlled territory. I would have thought that some German intelligence officer would have put two and two together and say “hey, if the Brits put a Merlin in this aircraft, it could be a dangerous escort fighter.” The Germans desperately needed an Fw 190D-9 or a Bf 109K en masse in early days of 1944. This could have had a large impact on D-day. They did not pursue this.



> In particular against the fairly numerous gun podded Bf 109, a P-51 without drop tanks would have pretty much all performance advantages that count. It was a good weapon, and it appeared at the right time..



Again true, however, the P-51B was also a very capable aircraft against the best Bf 109s and Fw 190s in early ’44, even before 44-1 became available, besting both in speed, often significantly so, and comparable in climb, except for the climb of the AS powered 109. I am not sure this engine was available in quantity at this time. The post 44-1 fueled P-51B, May/June '44, was quite comparable with the Fw 190D-9 at low altitude and superior at higher altitudes but the Bf 109K would have been a problem, as long as it did not run out of fuel.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 3, 2013)

duplicate


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 3, 2013)

GregP said:


> According to the USAAF Statistical Digest of WWII (Army Air Forces in World War II) and OpNav-P-23V No. A129 (Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, WWII) available online, the losses were as follows for overseas aircraft operated by the USA:
> 
> 
> US Army Air Forces lost 41,575 total including 22,948 in combat and the balance on operations.
> ...


 
You can add another 21,583 lost by the USAAF within the continental US, making non-combat losses twice those of combat losses


----------



## Aozora (Jul 3, 2013)

parsifal said:


> .
> 
> Would that situation qualify as mutiple losses in the LW reporting system?


 
Not likely in this instance - this is used to illustrate how a Luftwaffe fighter could be updated to later standards; no doubt this happened in many instances after an aircraft sustained damage, so I'll see if I can dig up some case studies. Another F'rinstance is that some Me 210s were converted to 410s, possbly after sustaining damage?


----------



## GregP (Jul 3, 2013)

Hi Jabberwockey,

I stated aircraft operated overseas, so I guess I won't add them. You can if you want to, but they weren't aircraft slated for combat like the ones deployed overseas and I think of them as a cost of training a lot of pilots all at once in warbirds, but not combat losses or operations by aircraft with the potential to see combat.

To be sure, they are a WWII cost, but not a combat possibility. I'm sure some DC-3's crashed in the continental USA carrying civilians, and I wouldn't count them as potential combat planes either or operational losses of potential combat planes ... any planes in the USA weren't going to engage in combat. 

But I would add them up as a WWII cost. Of course, there are as many ways to add it up as there are accountants ... and I wouldn't tell you that one way or the other is correct .... just one way to look at a complex issue. I'm sure the USAAF and US Navy had their oiwn issues with how to count a loss, too.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 3, 2013)

But this again is an example of being selective in accepting what is a loss, and renders the US losses not comparable to anyone elses losses. most nations list total losses, and so too must the US if we want to compare apples to apples. If we start to be selective in what we include for just one nationality ,we can no longer make valid comparisons with other nations' losses. Realistically it has to be a total figure.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 3, 2013)

parsifal said:


> But this again is an example of being selective in accepting what is a loss, and renders the US losses not comparable to anyone elses losses. most nations list total losses, and so too must the US if we want to compare apples to apples. If we start to be selective in what we include for just one nationality ,we can no longer make valid comparisons with other nations' losses. Realistically it has to be a total figure.


 
Precisely. German, British, Italian, Russia, Japanese 'losses' would include aircraft lost in training, transport, ect on the home front. 

Just because the US had the luxury of doing the vast majority of its fighting on someonelses soil, doen't mean that home front write-offs shouldn't be included in its losses tally. Why should they be excluded?

Extending this logic, could we write off fighter claims for trainers and other 'non combat' types as a 'cost of training'?


----------



## GregP (Jul 3, 2013)

Yes you would and it IS an operational cost of training unrelated to combat. It certainly is a war cost, but has nothing to do with combat losses. You guys can account for it any way you want and there is no issue. I just do it differently, that's all. In combat there are losses to AAA, enemy aircraft and operational combat losses. I have those numbers, too, at least for the Navy and Marines. All the losses in my files except for the domestic and enroute numbers are from a combat theater of operations, not from domestic operations. All the victories and losses have ETO, PTO, FEAF, C&BI, Alaska, MTO, etc. There is no category for "Domestic USA" in my references except for a single table listing them separately.

I consider the US planes that got to a combat theater as counting in combat and operational losses. The rest, to me, were non-combat operational losses. The UK didn't have the option of basing their planes anywhere but where they did and they were almost all in potential combat except for the far North. I'm sure some were there. Likewise Germany, France, etc. 

The Soviet Union DID have the option to base some planes too far from the front lines to be in combat and I bet they don't count those in combat statistics.

So, it isn't an issue .. count 'em any way you like. We may simple not agree on the combat-related losses. Total losses, sure, I add 'em in as domestic operational losses not related to combat. I DO count the planes lost enroute to overseas locations as combat relayed since they were on their way to combat bases and it amount to about 1,000 (actually slightly fewer).

I don't need to "convert" your opinion to match mine ... there is no right and wrong. In the overall number, they are accounted for; I just don't count them as combat-related losses and stated the numbers above were for overseas aircraft in the original post. 

Do it however you want, no issue here. Cheers.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 4, 2013)

stona said:


> This is partly due to the way the German system worked. I have posted a large schematic of the system elsewhere but can't find it and I'm not at home to copy it again.
> 
> Essentially a badly damaged aircraft (say 50%+ but I don't remember a figure) left the Luftwaffe and was returned to "industry" where it was repaired with new or reconditioned parts. Industry does not necessarily mean the original manufacturer, there were many companies authorised to carry out the work. The RLM then had to pay for these (plenty of disagreements over the invoices, what was new, what was recycled etc) before the aircraft was re-accepted by the Luftwaffe.
> 
> ...


Anyway, my main point was that there was a change in procedure. During the early years, a plane which could be repaired, would have been repaired. By 1944, it was cheaper to dismantle the old one for parts and build a new one.

Today, the car industry works the same way. If a car is damaged while still in the factory, it will be scrapped. Not worth the hassle to repair it.

Kris


----------



## Denniss (Jul 4, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Not likely in this instance - this is used to illustrate how a Luftwaffe fighter could be updated to later standards; no doubt this happened in many instances after an aircraft sustained damage, so I'll see if I can dig up some case studies. Another F'rinstance is that some Me 210s were converted to 410s, possbly after sustaining damage?


No formerly active Me 210 were converted to Me 410, they used stored Me 210 fuselages for the initial build series of Me 410A.


----------



## pattle (Jul 4, 2013)

I think we could sit here until the cows come home arguing over which was the best fighter of it's generation as it seems to me that the Spitfire, Mustang and Me109 amongst others all had areas in which they were superior to each other but that none stood head and shoulders above the rest. From what I read I get the picture that there came a point in the war where the RAF and USAAF could deal easily with Luftwaffe fighters until they met experienced pilots and from that point on it was mostly the pilots that decided the outcome of battle and not the aircraft. 
The only thing I have often wondered about with the Mustang escorts is pilot fatigue, I know they were all fit young blokes but even so flying from in England to Germany in a tiny cockpit at altitude and then having to go to work against angry FW190's etc must have been incredibly exhausting work. My legs and backside would have been a nightmare after sitting down for that length of time.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 4, 2013)

pattle said:


> The only thing I have often wondered about with the Mustang escorts is pilot fatigue, I know they were all fit young blokes but even so flying from in England to Germany in a tiny cockpit at altitude and then having to go to work against angry FW190's etc must have been incredibly exhausting work. My legs and backside would have been a nightmare after sitting down for that length of time.



I have never even been drive my car for more than 2 hours without getting out to stretch the kinks out of my legs. At least in a Mustanf there is a bit of room to wriggle about and try and get the blood flowing. A Spit would have been worse but a 109 must have been murder for anyone above about 5'8" I am 6' tall with rugby player shoulders and I think they would have to rivet the plane around me to get me in


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 4, 2013)

True enough Pattle, mind due they could stretch their legs slightly if when they needed a bit of corrective rudder instead and while trimming... Mmm, I guess wearing all that kit gear, in a smallish cockpit above the clouds for upto 5+ hours, some of these cockpits could end up stinking - hope dehydraytion gets you before you need to water the cockpit floor, let alone the uncomfortable something more...


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 4, 2013)

There's no doubt the endurance of the Mustang towards the end of the war really began to push pilots to the limit. Pilots flying missions over Japan often had to be lifted out of the cockpit when they returned. Some basic help was in the pipeline - 'rump vibrators' for instance - and I think the issue was one of the factors in the development of the twin mustang, where it was anticipated the workload could be shared.


----------



## stona (Jul 4, 2013)

Aozora said:


> There are also more than a few instances of Luftwaffe aircraft being completely overhauled and updated to a later model, although not necessarily after being damaged. For example, lots of 109E-1s were sent back to the manufacturer or to a repair depot and reconditioned to effectively became 109E-4s or 7s. One really good example is W.Nr. 3523, which was pulled out of a Norwegian lake:
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pzOUKeN4ys_
> ...




Indeed, and not just updated (as was very common for the early Bf 109 Es). If you want to see a real "mongrel" you need look no further than the extraordinary composite aircraft stuck on a pole at the AWM museum in Canberra.

I'm not sure that the Luftwaffe knew exactly what it was when it was returned! It started life as Bf 109 G-6 W.Nr.163824 at Regensburg, around the third quarter of 1943 from the werknummer, but that's not what it looks like when it was found at the end of the war.

Brett Green did a good job establishing this airframes trials and tribulations in "Augsburg's Last Eagles" and remarkable they are. 


Cheers

Steve


----------



## davparlr (Jul 4, 2013)

pattle said:


> The only thing I have often wondered about with the Mustang escorts is pilot fatigue, I know they were all fit young blokes but even so flying from in England to Germany in a tiny cockpit at altitude and then having to go to work against angry FW190's etc must have been incredibly exhausting work. My legs and backside would have been a nightmare after sitting down for that length of time.



Good comment. This certainly must have been exhausting, especially flying back hundreds of miles after intense deadly combat, with no autopilot. I remember flying one approach in a C-141 in moderate turbulence with 500 and a mile weather and 30 degree drift on final and I could hardly get out of the seat when we shut down. And that was with no combat.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 4, 2013)

I even have it from sitting in the car for too long



Kris


----------



## drgondog (Jul 4, 2013)

Flt LT Warren Peglar, RCAF, came to the 355th on an exchange program from a Spitfire Squadron (402?). His first mission was a Ramrod to Munich (6hr 25 min in my fathers logbook). According to the history Peglar needed assistance to get out of the cockpit and complained loudly about his stiff legs and sore butt... quite a difference from Spit operations.


----------



## Conslaw (Jul 4, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> I have never even been drive my car for more than 2 hours without getting out to stretch the kinks out of my legs. At least in a Mustanf there is a bit of room to wriggle about and try and get the blood flowing. A Spit would have been worse but a 109 must have been murder for anyone above about 5'8" I am 6' tall with rugby player shoulders and I think they would have to rivet the plane around me to get me in



Remember, recon Spitfires flew missions as long as the Mustangs'. That would be the worst of both worlds.


----------



## GregP (Jul 4, 2013)

Hey Aozora and Stona,

Want to see a really modified Bf 109? How about one with a radial engine and bubble canopy enclosure?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 5, 2013)

thats....just wrong.....


----------



## GregP (Jul 5, 2013)

Yeah, but it apparently flew quite well ...


----------



## riacrato (Jul 5, 2013)

pattle said:


> The only thing I have often wondered about with the Mustang escorts is pilot fatigue, I know they were all fit young blokes but even so flying from in England to Germany in a tiny cockpit at altitude and then having to go to work against angry FW190's etc must have been incredibly exhausting work.


I assume the same way most nations deal or dealt with that: Methamphetamine.


----------



## Aozora (Jul 5, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hey Aozora and Stona,
> 
> Want to see a really modified Bf 109? How about one with a radial engine and bubble canopy enclosure?
> 
> View attachment 237521



A Bf 109A6MG-50?


----------



## riacrato (Jul 5, 2013)

Aozora said:


> A Bf 109A6MG-50?


 
Bf 109 V21 (?) with Pratt Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp. I think it looks rather great. Kind of like a La-5. With 1200hp and Bf 109 airframe it may well have been a very good aircraft for 1939 too.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 5, 2013)

I could well be wrong but that looks a bit photoshopped to me.


----------



## JtD (Jul 5, 2013)

You're wrong. It's a genuine photo of V21, powered by a Pratt Whitney Twin Wasp, prototype of 1939, as stated by riacrato.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 5, 2013)

JtD said:


> You're wrong. It's a genuine photo of V21, powered by a Pratt Whitney Twin Wasp, prototype of 1939, as stated by riacrato.



Okay it just looked so odd to me. Definitely a plane that looked a whole lot better with a DB V12 than any other engine.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 5, 2013)

AFAIK, it was made to compare against the early pre-production Fw190(s) inline 109's, to see how well a radial-ed 109 would behave. Only the front of the fuselage forward of the No.1 fuz break was rebuilt more rounded wider, tapering back to the fuz joint. 
I don't know if the cockpit was raised to give better viewing angles for take-off and to see around the A/C, although it might have a cut down rear decking if the pit wasn't elevated.
Messerschmitt dropped the design, and I doubt it was armed, possibly used as a transport hack and light liasson/recce duties, I think it was destroyed by bombing or straffing.
Sometimes this in some older literature is called the 'Bf.109X' IIRC.


----------



## stona (Jul 5, 2013)

riacrato said:


> I assume the same way most nations deal or dealt with that: Methamphetamine.



In WW2 Benzedrine was the most common stimulant, usually provided as a tablet. It's in the same ball park as methamphetamine.

A WW2 US bomber veteran, operating by day, told me that he was instructed to take it if he was shot down and parachuted into enemy territory to overcome "shock" which is certainly not a known medical use 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## JtD (Jul 5, 2013)

razor1uk said:


> Sometimes this in some older literature is called the 'Bf.109X' IIRC.


The Bf 109 X was a later prototype, powered by a BMW 801.


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 5, 2013)

stona said:


> In WW2 Benzedrine was the most common stimulant, usually provided as a tablet. It's in the same ball park as methamphetamine.
> 
> A WW2 US bomber veteran, operating by day, told me that he was instructed to take it if he was shot down and parachuted into enemy territory to overcome "shock" which is certainly not a known medical use
> 
> ...


 
Interesting field of expertise - does it explain your user name?


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jul 7, 2013)

Interesting those commenting on actual kills. I think they miss the point a bit.
The final stages over Germany, using the Mustang, was the coup de gras for the Luftwaffe, after many years of attrition on all fronts.

East, Med, North Africa and from the west with the BoB, early RAF attacks and the start and mid of the USAAF bombing campaign.

The real amazing thing was how long they held on, given their poor training and manufacturing (until too late) levels.
What is also forgotten was that in '43 they won 2 strategic victories, beating both Bomber Command and the USAAF, who basically had to leave the field and lick their wounds.

In BC's case it was lucky that they were ordered to concentrate on the D-Day build up. Either Harris would have destroyed his command or been fired if he had kept persevering.

Even after the basic collapse of the Luftwaffe, in local areas they could still put up a bit of a fight right to the end.

Quite remarkable when you think about it. More so in that they were crippled in some areas by weird orders from Hitler and Goering.


----------



## riacrato (Jul 10, 2013)

stona said:


> In WW2 Benzedrine was the most common stimulant, usually provided as a tablet. It's in the same ball park as methamphetamine.
> 
> A WW2 US bomber veteran, operating by day, told me that he was instructed to take it if he was shot down and parachuted into enemy territory to overcome "shock" which is certainly not a known medical use
> 
> ...


I think in Germany the most common was Pervitin, which I think is chemically a methamphetamine though I'm not at all firm in chemistry. It was colloquially called "Panzerschokolade" (tank chocolate) or "Stuka Tabletten" (stuka pills) and is a common subject in the popular sensationalist media in Germany especially since speed or meth are becoming more popular among europe's youth. What's a better headline than "not only were the Nazis evil they were also basically all junkies or turned other people into junkies".


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 10, 2013)

my father refered to them as "bug out pills" and said there were one or two of them in his first-aid/escape kit, along with a small compass and a different currency from various countries. i know several guys who were shot down and made their way back....never occured to meto ask if they ever took those pills.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 10, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> my father refered to them as "bug out pills" and said there were one or two of them in his first-aid/escape kit, along with a small compass and a different currency from various countries. i know several guys who were shot down and made their way back....never occured to meto ask if they ever took those pills.



Heck, the pills may have been a good source of currency....


----------



## pattle (Jul 10, 2013)

Well the Germans and Americans were both lucky, all you got given in boring old Britain was a fag and a strong cup of tea!


----------



## stona (Jul 11, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Interesting field of expertise - does it explain your user name?



Not really! I was once, many years ago, an organic chemist mainly involved with "agro chemicals" but any large carbon based molecule is not a strange thing to me, even now.


----------



## stona (Jul 11, 2013)

pattle said:


> Well the Germans and Americans were both lucky, all you got given in boring old Britain was a fag and a strong cup of tea!



Not at all.

Between April and October 1941 R H Winfield, the Medical Officer of the RAF Physiological Laboratory flew 14 long missions with Coastal Command to assess the efficacy of various stimulants. Some crews were using Benzedrine which they were obtaining from asthma inhalers without permission. What the RAF described as "surreptitious use" was increasing and the need for a study and official position was appreciated.

Winfield tested Benzedrine and Methamphetamine. Benzedrine was protected by patents and was only available to be purchased from the US whereas Methamphetamine (as Methedrine) was produced in the UK by Borroughs-Wellcome.

The results of the tests, which were not just into wakefulness but also the mood altering effects of the drugs, were that 8mg of Methedrine kept the crew awake as well as 10mg of Benzedrine. However Benzedrine was considered to give a more "marked feeling of well being" and hence became the RAF's stimulant of choice, despite having to be purchased abroad.

For long flight two 5mg tablets were issued. This applied to both Bomber and Coastal Command.

There is plenty of evidence of abuse. Many Medical Officers handed out the so called "wakey wakey" pills like sweets and many men became dependant. The well known mood swings associated with over use of these stimulants, particularly when combined with heavy use of alcohol, caused concern and problems for the RAF throughout the war.

The Benzedrine was routinely abused. One WAAF (Joan Wyndham) remembers partying whilst using the drug:

"I really love the clear, cool feeling in my head and the edge of excitement it gives to everything you do."

On the other hand she also wrote:

"You certainly can neither eat nor sleep when you are on them, and you cry a lot."

Benzedrine was available surreptitiously well before the RAF's official acceptance and issue of the drug. Tony Bartley remembers a party in the Officers' Mess at RAF Hornchurch in May 1940 in which Spitfire pilot Bob Holland "gobbled his Benzedrine, washed down with whisky and took over the upright piano".

Certainly not a fag and strong cuppa 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pattle (Jul 11, 2013)

I was only joking.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 11, 2013)

Maybe they mixed into the fag and the cuppa tea 


Kris


----------



## parsifal (Jul 11, 2013)

anyhow, time for a winfield i guess.....


----------



## BiffF15 (Dec 1, 2013)

Q: What did the P51s have over the German fighters?

A: A relief tube, heat, and elbow room.

I'm reading, "My Logbook", by Gunther Rall and he writes of getting to fly the P-51, P-38, P-47 and Fw-190D. He was a bit disappointed that he had been stuck with the Me-109 for so long. Great book!


----------



## N4521U (Dec 2, 2013)

The long range crews shoulda had No Doze!


----------



## vinnye (Dec 2, 2013)

The P51D had very good visibility compared to the Bf109.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 3, 2013)

The number one reason is that the P-51B and D performance envelope encompassed 20-30000 feet where the LW were forced to compete to attack US Strategic bombers - and within that envelope were superior in overall performance (except marginal climb and neutral turn vs 109 and basically everything vs 190A). The 190D at max engine performance was the equal of the P-51D, but less so against the P-51B at altitudes greater than 24000 feet.

Had the Spit XIV had the same range it really had an edge in every respect against the 109 (except very possibly top speed of 109K at max possible engine performance) - ditto the 190A and 190D.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Dec 3, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The number one reason is that the P-51B and D performance envelope encompassed 20-30000 feet where the LW were forced to compete to attack US Strategic bombers - and within that envelope were superior in overall performance (except marginal climb and neutral turn vs 109 and basically everything vs 190A). The 190D at max engine performance was the equal of the P-51D, but less so against the P-51B at altitudes greater than 24000 feet.



My data shows the P-51D (and the B) pulling 75" had more power than the Fw-190D-9 above 20k and was faster with a better rate of climb. Below 20k, the D-9 and the P-51B were well matched, swapping advantages as altitudes varied.

Another daunting aspect beyond speed and range and excellent high altitude performance of the P-51 (which made it an escort fighter par excellence) was the general capability over its entire operating envelope, sea level to ceiling. Save for a few limited German aircraft, the P-51 was faster at all altitudes, often significantly so. In addition, it also had good climb and maneuverability at all altitudes. For the critical times over Western Europe, end of '43 till wars end, the P-51 offered a lot tools for a pilot to use at all altitudes, and a particular problem for the Germans.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## billrunnels (Jan 25, 2018)

VBF-13 said:


> Notice the question mark, folks. This is a question. I'm not advocating anything. I'm aware of their range. Once they mixed it up with the German fighters, what did they have over them? I'm not hearing a real lot. Is it simply numbers and attrition that tell that story, or were the P51s that much better than the German fighters. And, if so, in what ways?


The P-51 pilots were more experienced and better trained near the end of the war.

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


----------



## pbehn (Jan 25, 2018)

In combat height is important, the P51s appeared on German RADAR at circa 25,000 ft, it was up to the LW to climb up to the fight.


----------



## grampi (Jan 25, 2018)

I think it's worth mentioning that comparing climb rates of the 51 to the 109 depend on what type of climb we're talking about. The 109 had a higher static climb rate than did the 51, but the 51 zoom climbed better, and zoom climb is what mattered most in combat situations...


----------



## grampi (Jan 25, 2018)

CobberKane said:


> Common sense would seem to suggest otherwise, at least in the case of the 190. There was a thread a while back discussing the degree to which a radial engine is more battle resistant than an inline, but I don't think anyone doubted that the radial was ultimately tougher. And the 190's airframe should have been at least as tough as the P-51's. Tank designed it that way.
> The P51 had a reputation for being vulnerable to fire from below hitting the cooling system, though whether it was in fact more vulnerable than other liquid cooled fighters, or whether the reputation came about because then straffing duties it assumed later in the war more often placed it in harms way, I don't know. In either case, it's a problem the 190 wouldn't have had.


Unless we're including the Dora...


----------



## dedalos (Jan 25, 2018)

grampi said:


> Unless we're including the Dora...


 
Why? The Dora s Radiator had armor and was in front of the engine, a heavy hit there would have destroyed the engine anyway


----------



## alejandro_ (Jan 27, 2018)

> Save for a few limited German aircraft, the P-51 was faster at all altitudes, often significantly so. In addition, it also had good climb and maneuverability at all altitudes.



When I look at the climb data (check topic on Bf 109 G-10/K-4) I get the impression that at high altitudes, the P-51 was comparable and even superior to the Bf 109. Is that fair to say?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jan 27, 2018)

How many P-51Ds used the V1650-3 engine?

The RCAF received some so engined post war.
https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/collections/X003-2338-P-51D-D-Duck.pdf


----------



## wuzak (Jan 27, 2018)

Milosh said:


> How many P-51Ds used the V1650-3 engine?



I wouldn't have thought any.

The P-51B/C moved from the -3 to the -7 to improve low/medium altitude performance.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Mar 1, 2018)

One key factor not discussed! The G- Suite as a key advantage.
Speeds increased a lot during WW2 and more high speed turning.

The G-Suit allowed US pilots to hold a high speed turn better.
Reduced early Grey/Black out which also helped the P47 and P38 pilots as well.
In fact a key component dogfighting Mig15s in Korea

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

