# P-51 against the 109



## Jenisch (Mar 1, 2013)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b69pO7538sE_

I'm a little skeptical by what is told in this video. It seems that according to him the Mustang was outclassed by the Bf 109, and totally hopeless in combat (yeah, history disagree). While the 109 definately had a better power to weight ratio; and was significantly superior in a turning an/or constant vertical combat, I think that factors such as altitude advantage, group tactics and specially energy tactics were the most important features in the air engagements. It seems to me that the guy was talking like a conservative officer of the Japanese Air Force in WWII, obcessed in dogfight.

What are your views about this?


----------



## Kryten (Mar 1, 2013)

well thats a Buchon for a start with a much lighter merlin in the nose, so it's going to have somewhat different characteristics to a DB powered aircraft.
I always believe the critical factor in air combat goes pilot-situation-plane, and unless theres a considerable performance difference between the combatants the above will decide the fight, to say you can fight a handfull of Mustangs in a 109 suggests pretty poor pilots in the Mustang!


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 1, 2013)

Pilots playing at dogfighting isn't the same as a real encounter where can live or die.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 1, 2013)

The man puts a great emphasis at turning fight ("it can turn on a dime"), so it really sounds like a Japanese, Soviet or Italian pre-ww2 thinking. The I-16 was also been said that it could turn on a dime, yet nobody would say that it was better than Bf-109 once DB was installed in the 109. He neglects the fact that Merlin P-51 was way faster during 1944. Also neglects the great field of view offered by P-51D. 
The Bf-109 could sell a trick or two to the cocky Mustang pilot, not so much if the Mustang is well handled (=pilot knows the planes strong and weak sides and flies accordingly). The Bf-109s with DB-605 ASM/D should climb faster.

The Merlin was not lighter than DB-601/605, engines of same year?


----------



## GregP (Mar 1, 2013)

I'd say there is a tremendous amount of opinion that runs counter to what was said. The Bf / Me 109 is a 1936 design and the P-51 is abot 5 years newer, but that doesn't mean a great deal. What does is that the performance of the P-51 and the Me 109 are fairly well knowm. The Me 109 is supposed to turn hrizontally about like a P-40 from everything I have read, and the P-51 can definitely outclass a P-40 in a turning dogfight, though the P-40 will certainly out-roll both the Me 109 and the P-51.

On the other hand, I see and read the Me 109 being run down as an average fighter, yet it shot down an amazing number of enemy aircraft in WWII ... how bad can it have been?

I am left with an overwhelming impression that the pilot was of more importance than his mount. I have sat many times in the cockpit of an Hispano Ha.1112 (we are restoring one) and also in the cockpit of a P-51. I can definitely see better out of the P-51, but the P-51 is WAY better at anything over 320 mph and the Me 109 is right in its element at 250 - 280 mph. Common doctrine in WWII for Mustang pilots was to keep it fast and win.

So I think whether one or the other is better depends on the situation and the two pilots. If they start head on at the same altitude at 270 mph, the Me 109 might have an advantage. If they start head on at 350 mph, I'd think P-51. If either had an advantage, then the odds might swing his way, one-on-one. In reality, in autumn of 1944 forward, any P-51 the Me 109 pilot encountered was probably in the company of 7 or more others and the Me 109's were out numbered. So if the Me 109 had the advantage, it probably tried to escape while taking a shot in passing as 8+ Mustangs all tried to maneuver for a return shot ... and the chase was on with the Me 109 being vastly in the disadvantage since he probably only had 1/2 hour or so of fuel to fight with.

If the P-51's closed in, the Me 109 pilot probably went vertical and tried to climb away unless the P-51's had top cover flying along waiting for just such a maneuver.

The point is the Me 109 pilots in the last 8 months of the war were hunted by packs of Allied fighters ... not by singles out prowling around looking for a dogfight.

The guy in this film clip has his own opinion, but he also probably can't sell the Buchon for a decent price and may be trying to get somebody to want it. The pilots who have flown OUR Ha.1112 are not very impressed with it. They include many rather well-known pilots. The last owner disliked it so much he gave it to the Museum!

Let him tell his story. If we had a real Me 109 (and we do ... an Me 109G-6) and if we flew it (we don't since we only have the one engine that is in it), we might have something to talk about. At the Planes of Fame, we don't fly anything that we don't have at least two engines for. When they break down away from home, you have to fix them and fly them home. I'd love to get another DB so we could fly our 109, but they are rather scarce and getting one would be as expensive as another flying aircraft, no doubt.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 1, 2013)

This is from the book Luftwaffe Test Pilot: Flying Captured Allied Aircraft in the Second World War. The author was a higly experienced Luftwaffe pilot in WWII.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 1, 2013)

The P-51s with V-1650-3 were even faster between 25-30000 ft, circa 440 mph. The P-51s with V-1650-7 were just under 440 mph, at 25000 ft.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 1, 2013)

GregP said:


> So I think whether one or the other is better depends on the situation and the two pilots. If they start head on at the same altitude at 270 mph, the Me 109 might have an advantage. If they start head on at 350 mph, I'd think P-51. If either had an advantage, then the odds might swing his way, one-on-one. In reality, in autumn of 1944 forward, any P-51 the Me 109 pilot encountered was probably in the company of 7 or more others and the Me 109's were out numbered.
> 
> *Unlikey. Even in November 1944, the LW was able to achieve air superiority (numerically) and the 109s were dominantly G-10's with excellent speed and firepower. Also the tactics lent themselves to entering the battle with an altitude advantage because the 109 was flying top cover for the Sturms...
> 
> ...



It is the eternal debate - but the statistics when considering the first five months of 1944 show that the P-51B pounded the me 109G-6 and most of the battles in that timeframe were strongly in favor of the LW with respect to numbers in a given space. 

The reasons are 1.) the average skill of each US pilot was greater than the average skill of the German fighter pilot (ignore the old timer Experten in this debate - his wingmen and replacement pilots were on the decline with respect to average skill); 2.) the 51 was a Lot faster while maintaining near parity in manuever; 3.) the German tactics were badly flawed and gutted the natural aggressiveness of the LW fighter pilots, giving time to introduce and reinforce confidence by the American pilot; 4.) the 51 had RANGE - giving it tremendous tactical footprint and options in combat that the 109 didn't have.

The Net? It is debatable that the LW Fighter Command could have altered any outcome even if the 190D had been introduced in the summer of 1944 (IMO) - simply because of the disparity between fighter pilot skills and aggragate experience would not have permitted the LW to significantly improve their tactical situation.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 1, 2013)

GregP said:


> I'and the P-51 can definitely outclass a P-40 in a turning dogfight



I ask: how? The P-51 was much heavier and had a symmetrical wing. It had more power, but it don't seems to me that it would be enough to achive parity with the P-40.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2013)

GregP said:


> Let him tell his story. If we had a real Me 109 (and we do ... an Me 109G-6) and if we flew it (we don't since we only have the one engine that is in it), we might have something to talk about. At the Planes of Fame, we don't fly anything that we don't have at least two engines for. When they break down away from home, you have to fix them and fly them home. I'd love to get another DB so we could fly our 109, but they are rather scarce and getting one would be as expensive as another flying aircraft, no doubt.



Have you guys considered contacting the Messerschmitt Stiftung in Manching, Germany? They are controlled by EADS. They restore original Bf 109s, as well as convert Buchons to normal 109 configuration with original DB engines.


----------



## GregP (Mar 2, 2013)

Hi Drgondog,

Let's say you and I disagree ... that's a shock, isn't it? My opinions come from pilots who were there and did it and present at the Museum every month. I wasn't there and neither were you, but THEY were. Doesn't mean you're wrong; means they disagree with you, too ... more than 20 or so, and I believe them. You are free to not do so.

Hi DerCrewChief ... Yeah, we contacted Germany and they want a LOT of bucks to even THINK about doing anything. So we do it ourselves and look for bargain stuff. We fly more planes than they do, but not German except for a Flugwerk Fw 190 with an R-2800 for power and soon an Ha.1112. It flew in the 2000 movie "Pearl Harbor" and is being restored after a brake failure and resulting groundloop


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 2, 2013)

Greg, I think DrgonDog has some pretty accurate inside information on the P-51 (all models) so I'd listen to what he has to offer


----------



## jim (Mar 2, 2013)

There are two opinions on the subject
On one hand there is the opinion of modern american researchers that LW outnunbered (!) P51s and accordingh to Mr drgondong badly(!!!) outnumbered them
On the other hand are the opinion of the german pilots that flew at the time period. They met american fighters at take off, at forming formations, at approaching the bombers, during the attack, at disengange, at landing,at taxing
They speak of countless fighters at every part of the mission
They speak at their memories being continiously bounced from above . They speak of american fighters ahead of the formations to prevent head on attacks. They speak of escort fighters above the bombers . They speak of so many escort fighters that followed them back at their bases
Finally we have the order of battle of both opponents to form an opinion.
Also the american researchers claim that P51 could run cycles around Bf109 ,while keeping more than manouvering parity . Amazing , considering the worse powerloading and the low drag wing of the P51
On the other hand Lipfert says that he never had problem outmanouvering a mustung and the main problem was the great numbers of the P51 formatons. He never met small number of P51s
To use Lipferts own words, for a B17 interception over Rumania in June 1944 " there were so many escort fighters high above the bombers ,that i did not dare to look at them!" Thats a statement by a 3 year veteran experte ! That was common for him to fight at 1:10 against the rusiians
Now, anyone can choose the opinion that looks more logical


----------



## Juha (Mar 2, 2013)

Hello Jim
it's easy, just check how many P-51s were around the hundreds of km long bomber stream at the time xx or xxx LW fighters intercepted the USAAF formations.

Juha


----------



## cimmex (Mar 2, 2013)

“around the hundreds of km long bomber stream”, surely not for US daylight bombing in close combat formation, maybe for BC night bombing.
cimmex


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 2, 2013)

Unless the Americans were fudging the operational reports (or they were modified later) the numbers of American aircraft involved on any given mission/day should be available to researchers. If the operational reports are detailed they should tell which groups/units were assigned to which "legs" of the bomber mission or if any failed to make or turned back early. Luftwaffe records may or may not be available. 
There was no good reason to "fudge" records at the time and trying to change them now is going to hard without getting found out, changing the originals would be difficult.


----------



## Juha (Mar 2, 2013)

cimmex said:


> “around the hundreds of km long bomber stream”, surely not for US daylight bombing in close combat formation, maybe for BC night bombing.
> cimmex



Now for example on 11 Jan 44 attack on Halberstadt and Oschersleben, there were 3 task forces of bombers (5, 4 and 3 bomber wings respectively) There was a gap of 9 miles between wings and 72 miles between TFs. After 3 P-47 FGs (56FG/A and /B [both 3 x 12 a/c formations] and one which I cannot identify instantly) turned away there was a gap without escort but then max. 44 P-51s of 354FG took took over and escorted part of one of the TFs (1st) during its attack on Halberstadt, other bombers were unescorted until 2 P-38 FGs (altogether max. 49 P-38s) arrived after bombing and after the formations had turned from NNW leg to West and home. That according to Price's Battle over the Reich and Freeman's The Mighty Eight War Diary.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> I ask: how? The P-51 was much heavier and had a symmetrical wing. It had more power, but it don't seems to me that it would be enough to achive parity with the P-40.



The P-40 would initially (very slightly based on W/L) out turn the P-51, relative load outs being equal. If comparing Allison -39 to -39, etc, the P-40 and P-51 had nearly identical wing area and Basic Weight. The P-51A (and B and D) had 70% of the drag of the P-40 and lost energy at a lower weight.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi Drgondog,
> 
> Let's say you and I disagree ... that's a shock, isn't it? My opinions come from pilots who were there and did it and present at the Museum every month. I wasn't there and neither were you, but THEY were. Doesn't mean you're wrong; means they disagree with you, too ... more than 20 or so, and I believe them. You are free to not do so.
> 
> Hi DerCrewChief ... Yeah, we contacted Germany and they want a LOT of bucks to even THINK about doing anything. So we do it ourselves and look for bargain stuff. We fly more planes than they do, but not German except for a Flugwerk Fw 190 with an R-2800 for power and soon an Ha.1112. It flew in the 2000 movie "Pearl Harbor" and is being restored after a brake failure and resulting groundloop



How many flew both airplanes Greg - at a time when the USAAF didn't restrict the flying. 

My father, Billy Hovde, John (Moon) Elder, Bud Fortier and Jim Duffy - all air aces - flew the Fw 190D-9, the two seat Me 109G-10(?) and two seater Fw 190 and the 109K in rat races against the 51B and D, when my father was Group CO of the 355th at Gablingen during the occupation - and had access to LW mechanics to keep the a/c in good shape. I have not only expressed the opinions based on historical narratives from both sides but also from those that flew both top line US fighters against top line LW fighters and vice versa. 

Having said that my father had only approximately 50 hours flight time combined in the 190D and the 109(s). 

Kit carson also had the same opportunity and wrote about it. Al White, also of 355th FG and future NAA Test pilot was there and participated.

What I passed on was what was passed on to me. Take what you want and leave the rest.

So, go back to your 20 and see how many flew both and to what degree? Come back and report what you hear from those that flew both.


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 2, 2013)

drgondog said:


> The P-40 would initially (very slightly based on W/L) out turn the P-51, relative load outs being equal. If comparing Allison -39 to -39, etc, the P-40 and P-51 had nearly identical wing area and Basic Weight. The P-51A (and B and D) had 70% of the drag of the P-40 and lost energy at a lower weight.



I kinda doubt that given the Soviets measured about 18 secs for their P-40s and about 23 secs for their Allison Mustangs (from memory)...


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2013)

cimmex said:


> “around the hundreds of km long bomber stream”, surely not for US daylight bombing in close combat formation, maybe for BC night bombing.
> cimmex



Juha is correct. Use your imagination to picture 20 boxes of 50 B-17 and B-24's per Box for a 1000 bomber mission. Recognize that each Bomb Division (1st B-17, 2nd B-24, 3rd B-17) penetrating German airspace in one long column.

At some point, say Brunswick, one long foramtion of 1st BD (~350 a/c in seven boxes) continues to Berlin. The Second Box heads SE toward Mulhausen then breaks for Leipzig. The 3rd Division heads SE then East for Halberstadt. The mission is co-ordinated to plan a route point for the formations to re-join at Kassel and return home en masse,

If this mission occurred in mid April 1944 - ALL of the Penetration Escort P-47 FG's (approx 5 including 9th AF) that were escorting the three BD (2 each ..P-47 FG to cover seven boxes of bombers strung out over 20-30 miles).. so one FG covering 175 bombers in 3-4 boxes each. Max effort = 48 in three squadrons of 16 - one above center 'essing, one out in front and one in trail.

There are five Mustang Groups (4, 354, 352, 355, 357) and three Lightning Groups (20, 55 and 364) now hitting the R/V with responsibility to split up and cover the 1000 bombers going to three (or more) locations. So, the division of labor is about the same as the P-47's.. two cover one BD of 350, two cover another BD of 300, two more cover the third BD of 350 and the last (Mustang) group sweeps out in front of the Berlin strike force.

Density of US Fighters per cubic mile is very low. Far lower than the LW 'eyewitness' can claim. 

If you 'do the math', the LW can easily place 200 fighters on one or two boxes and expect to run into zero or at most two Fighter Groups IF the LW makes first contract and MAINTAINS contact. In that example, specifically Munich on April 24, the LW put 225 fighters between Ulm, Augsburg, Erding, Munich, Oberphaffenhofen and Landsberg - covered by the 355th and 357th only. 98 Mustangs against 225 is not a very bad ration for the LW. This example is NOT unique.

Simply put, the LW experten that claimed 'swarms' of Mustangs engaging them was hyperbole and exaggeration for the most part.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> I kinda doubt that given the Soviets measured about 18 secs for their P-40s and about 23 secs for their Allison Mustangs (from memory)...


Tante Ju - given that the wing loadings, the gross weight for common load out and the power loadings for the P-40 and P-51A were nearly identical - a result like that can only be that one airframe/engine (the P-51A) was not at some mfr standard...or one pilot was far superior to the other. particularly when the P-51A drag was approximatly 70% of the P-40.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi Drgondog,
> 
> Let's say you and I disagree ... that's a shock, isn't it? My opinions come from pilots who were there and did it and present at the Museum every month. I wasn't there and neither were you, but THEY were. Doesn't mean you're wrong; means they disagree with you, too ... more than 20 or so, and I believe them. You are free to not do so.



Interestingly, Bill's father was a P-51 pilot in WW2, and owned a P-51 after the war. Bill also has time flying the P-51 as well. He also has spoken to the aces and other pilots from his fathers squandron, and still maintains contact with the surviving ones today. I would not be so quick to dismiss him.


----------



## stona (Mar 2, 2013)

drgondog said:


> If you 'do the math', the LW can easily place 200 fighters on one or two boxes and expect to run into zero or at most two Fighter Groups IF the LW makes first contract and MAINTAINS contact. In that example, specifically Munich on April 24, the LW put 225 fighters between Ulm, Augsburg, Erding, Munich, Oberphaffenhofen and Landsberg - covered by the 355th and 357th only. 98 Mustangs against 225 is not a very bad ration for the LW. This example is NOT unique.
> 
> Simply put, the LW experten that claimed 'swarms' of Mustangs engaging them was hyperbole and exaggeration for the most part.



You've alluded to a problem with the maths in your own post. The Luftwaffe may well have put up 200+ fighters in a fairly limited area to oppose this raid but what is important is how many actually engaged the americans. This number was often rather low. This is what gave the Luftwaffe pilots who did press home attacks against escorted formations _the impression_ that they were out numbered. Many Luftwaffe units were distinctly wary of,or downright unwilling,to attack bomber formations when the presence of escort fighters had been established. Those that did may well comprise the "experten" whom you suggest were engaging in hyperbole and exaggeration.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2013)

stona said:


> You've alluded to a problem with the maths in your own post. The Luftwaffe may well have put up 200+ fighters in a fairly limited area to oppose this raid but what is important is how many actually engaged the americans. This number was often rather low. This is what gave the Luftwaffe pilots who did press home attacks against escorted formations _the impression_ that they were out numbered. Many Luftwaffe units were distinctly wary of,or downright unwilling,to attack bomber formations when the presence of escort fighters had been established. Those that did may well comprise the "experten" whom you suggest were engaging in hyperbole and exaggeration.
> Cheers
> Steve



Steve - I posted a researched narrative on the April 24, 1944 mission on Mike William's site. You may also draw on Caldwell's facts regarding the LW order of Battle on 276-277 of "Day Fighters in Defense of the Reich" - or not. Simply, Sturmstaffel I., ALL of JG3, III./JG26, I., III. and IV./JG27, I./JG5, I./JG301, II. and III./ZG26 - attacked the 1st BD starting around Ulm thence to Augsburg, Efferding, E. and S. Munich, Obephaffenhofen and ending at Landsberg between 1315 and 1420. According to LW and US mission reports the attacks were made in numbers primarily ranging from Staffel to Gruppe level strength. The defenders were first the 355th which broke up the SS and JG3 attacks, then the 357th which also hammered JG3. The 357 and 354FS were the two 355th FG combatants as the 358FS stayed with the lead boxes as escort.

The 354FS also attacked I./JG301 and III. and IV JG27. The 357th FG engaged all three FS and dealt with ZG26 plus JG5, JG3.
You'll have to decide what math to work with here as flights of the 355th and 357th were battleing with Squadrons and Gruppes intitially - then the fights broke down to fligt and element battles as they always do.

The point I would make to you is that I can easily draw on at least seven (3/29, 4/13, 4/24, 6/20, 7/7, 11/26/44 and 1/14/45) specific air battles between the LW and the 355th FG - in which I have the order of battle, the times and places of the combat and the approximate attacking force by the LW in which less than 50 Mustangs were defending a very large volume against repeated attacks - in which rareley did more that two squadrons actually engage..

To summarize - US force (355th) attacking much larger LW forces in the form of Gaggles - rather than flights or squadrons. The examples NEVER involve the entire group with the single exception of November 26 over Misburg and that was a case of an understrength 355th (38 Mustangs plus 7 2nd SF) intercepting in units of sections to flights all of JG301, and Stab., I. and II./JG1 plus III./JG6. Between 1215 and 1245 these 45 Mustangs were the Only defending force for 88 B-24s.

Do the math anyway you wish. 21 B-24s went down simply because there were far too many Fw 190s and 109s to deflect with such a small defending force. Zero Mustangs were lost by 355th and 2nd SF. 26 Fw 190s and Me 109s were credited as destroyed. In Willi Reschke's book the P-51 force was described as 'overwhelming' and he also claimed numerous Mustangs were shot down.

It is up to you to make your own judgment about 'the math'.


----------



## davebender (Mar 2, 2013)

*1943 to 1945 production.*
2,970 x P-38J
3,923 x P-38L
4,632 x P-40N.

310 x P-51A
1,988 x P-51B
1,750 x P-51C
8,100 x P-51D
…..12,148 Mustangs produced 1943 to 1945.
…..Excludes A-36 and P-51H.
12,608 x P-47D.
…..Some Mustangs and P-47s operated in the Pacific. However quite a few P-38s and P-40s operated in Europe.

How many British built Spitfires operated as daytime bomber escorts during 1943 to 1945? “The Day of Battle” (Rick Atkinson) gives the impression Spitfires were the primary Allied fighter aircraft operating from Sicily and Italy during 1943 to 1944.

11,289 Fw-190 fighter aircraft produced 1943 to 1945.
21,618 Me-109 fighter aircraft produced 1943 to 1945.
…..32,907 total.
…..How many of these German fighter aircraft were committed to bomber interception missions in the West?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi Drgondog,
> 
> Let's say you and I disagree ... that's a shock, isn't it? My opinions come from pilots who were there and did it and present at the Museum every month. I wasn't there and neither were you, but THEY were. Doesn't mean you're wrong; means they disagree with you, too ... more than 20 or so, and I believe them. You are free to not do so.



Ah yes, Greg - the last time you cited 'experts' on the subject at hand was when you dropped Bud mahurin's name as a P-51B combat expert. How did that work for you?

Now you cite "20 or more who were there and did it".. which 20 are you going to trot out here and what do they get to testify about that is contrary to what I said? Be specific.


----------



## jim (Mar 2, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Simply put, the LW experten that claimed 'swarms' of Mustangs engaging them was hyperbole and exaggeration for the most part.


 
a comment full of respect for the pilots that fought and suffered in those battles. I suppose we must accept as truth only the american s opinions
What makes them more reliable?
And since some american pilots flew a few captured german machines we have all the answeres we need about the abilities of the german planes
( I respect the pilots and their war service , i disagrre that their comments is the ultimate evaluation of the german aircrafts)


----------



## Aozora (Mar 2, 2013)

drgondog said:


> How many flew both airplanes Greg - at a time when the USAAF didn't restrict the flying.
> 
> My father, Billy Hovde, John (Moon) Elder, Bud Fortier and Jim Duffy - all air aces - flew the Fw 190D-9, the two seat Me 109G-10(?) and two seater Fw 190 and the 109K in rat races against the 51B and D, when my father was Group CO of the 355th at Gablingen during the occupation - and had access to LW mechanics to keep the a/c in good shape. I have not only expressed the opinions based on historical narratives from both sides but also from those that flew both top line US fighters against top line LW fighters and vice versa.
> 
> ...



Bill Hovde's P-51D "Ole VIII" - Littlefriends.co.uk

"Ole VI" - Littlefriends.co.uk

Gotta be an interesting story about the Cyrillic inscription...

Maj Norman J "Bud" Fortier - Littlefriends.co.uk

Fortier P-51D - Littlefriends.co.uk

Capt. James E. Duffy Jnr. - Littlefriends.co.uk

Duffy, Dragon Wagon and Yank - Littlefriends.co.uk

Dragon Wagon - Littlefriends.co.uk

The two seat 109 was the G-12


----------



## jim (Mar 2, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Interestingly, Bill's father was a P-51 pilot in WW2, and owned a P-51 after the war. Bill also has time flying the P-51 as well. He also has spoken to the aces and other pilots from his fathers squandron, and still maintains contact with the surviving ones today. I would not be so quick to dismiss him.



Mr Der Adler ist Gelandet
Mr Drgondorg,trully, is a great researcher and writer, and pilot,and scientist and we should not dissmiss him quickly. His opinion is very important
But why we should dismiss quickly as "hyperbole and exxageration" the opinions of the pilots that WERE THERE ? Their opinions diasagree with some of the conclusions mentioned above

And since , the last years , continiously the claims and the memoirs of the german pilots are questioned as unreliable, why the researchres with acces toi them dont ask them directly to give explanations? They deserve at least a chance to "apologise"
Reschke is heavily attacked even at this forum. Why dont you ask him directly to give his opinion. Schack, i believe is still alive. He also is heavily attacked. I dont know if rudorffer is still alive,and anyway he was never accesible, but would be most interesting to ask him 

The air battles of 1944 were very complicated . Many factors affected the final result. The arguments above ,in my opinion, are selective and result of simplifications.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2013)

jim said:


> Mr Der Adler ist Gelandet
> Mr Drgondorg,trully, is a great researcher and writer, and pilot,and scientist and we should not dissmiss him quickly. His opinion is very important
> * But why we should dismiss quickly as "hyperbole and exxageration" the opinions of the pilots that WERE THERE ? Their opinions diasagree with some of the conclusions mentioned above*



Why should you be so quick to accuse me of saying such? Please be kind and show me where I said that we should so. Please be kind and show me where I have ever said such? Anywhere on this forum. 

I think you will find the opposite. I however doubt that you will try, as you will just accuse.

All I have said, is that one should not just dismiss him. He too has talked with many pilots from WW2. You don't have to be a member of a museum to do such. 



jim said:


> And since , the last years , continiously the claims and the memoirs of the german pilots are questioned as unreliable, why the researchres with acces toi them dont ask them directly to give explanations? They deserve at least a chance to "apologise"
> Reschke is heavily attacked even at this forum. Why dont you ask him directly to give his opinion. Schack, i believe is still alive. He also is heavily attacked. I dont know if rudorffer is still alive,and anyway he was never accesible, but would be most interesting to ask him
> 
> The air battles of 1944 were very complicated . Many factors affected the final result. The arguments above ,in my opinion, are selective and result of simplifications.



You are arguing with the wrong person jim. 

I however unlike you, I am open and unbiased in my studies of the Luftwaffe. I am also open and unbiased in my studies of the Allied Air Forces. 

Your arguments for the Luftwaffe also are very selective and result of simplifications. You however do not see this, because they are your arguments. 

Now are we continue to have this same discussion every time someone has a different opinion? Are we going to continue to call people liars and such? Are we going to continue to call people mud slingers?

Or are we going to discuss them in a civil and adult like manner? Somehow I doubt it. 

I will be honest, I see as much mudslinging from you and others toward Allied pilots and aircraft, as you claim others do to the Lufwaffe and their pilots. I think the Luftwaffe pilots are a lot more respected than you think around here. You just can't have the fact that others might interpret the facts differently, or hold a different opinion than you.

If that is not your intention, then you might want the change the way you come across.

And as for Reschke. Where has he been attacked? He is actually held in very high regard. ONe member of this forum actually has a regular correspondence with Reschke, and is very good friends with his son. Several of us have actually asked him many questions. A thread was started here on this forum about Reschke, where forum members asked questions and the questions were passed on to Reschke, and he answered them. 

I for one hold Reschke in very hard regard, and cherish the personalized autographed photo of Reschke that was given to me by him. 

So please try again. *THIS FORUM IS NOT AS ONE SIDED AS YOU BELIEVE IT IS, AS YOU ACCUSE IT OF BEING!*


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2013)

jim said:


> Mr Der Adler ist Gelandet
> Mr Drgondorg,trully, is a great researcher and writer, and pilot,and scientist and we should not dissmiss him quickly. His opinion is very important
> But why we should dismiss quickly as "hyperbole and exxageration" the opinions of the pilots that WERE THERE ? Their opinions diasagree with some of the conclusions mentioned above
> 
> ...



Jim - your comments have merit. Mine deserve an explanation.

I have known many US, some Japanese and 5-10 RAF/RCAF plus the same number of German fighter pilots including Galland and Krupinski and Rall. I do not denigrate the experience or the bravery of any fighter pilot. 

Having said this I heve been present when many friendly conversations between US and German pilots had at one point or another captured comments like "If you Americans had not had such material advantage it (the air war over Germany) would have had a different outscome". I was present during one such conversation between a famous JG11 ace (to remain un-named) described the swarms of Mustangs he fought over Berlin during the first week of March, 1944. To which Goodson replied "Hell you say, I was There!" - and of course he WAS there as an ace of the 4th FG, and operationally experienced for 12 days in the P-51B. 

The point Goodson made is that he was one of three Mustang and three Lightning Groups escorting 700+ 8th AF bombers to Berlin and surrounding area. Further his FG was the only one escorting the entire 1st BD comprised of 12 B-17 Bomb Groups.

For his LW ace friend to focus on the swarms of Mustangs on that day could be accepted as friendly exageration but the simple facts were that for there to be any form of numerical disadvantage for his Jagdgerschwader then they must have taken off and engaged All of the 4th FG with one staffel... But JG11 put up 50+ on that day to intercept and 39 to pursue on the way back to England. In all the LuftFlotte Reich put up 300+ fighters from Hannover to Potsdam, and perhaps 150 from Berlin back to Dummer Lake. The battle to and/from Dummer Lake was fought more by JG2 and JG 26.

Now take a close picture of one JG making contact with the bombers and engaging also with one Group of Mustangs - whilst the 354th was with the 3rd BD and the 357th was with the 2nd BD B-24s. 

That scenario is repeated throughout the Battle of Germany between the Mustang groups and the LuftFlotte Reich. Two things are clear. The LW was outnumbered by 8th AF BC alone and when ever they encountered a box od bombers they were in the vicinity of 40-50 B-17/B-24's. Add to that any single group of Mustangs they might encounter and the odds in tha local cubic mile are even - if you are attacking with 2 Gruppe's. To reach total combined odds of 1:10 you must attack in Staffel level and count the bombers in your account.

I have a theory and it is strictly a light theory with no proof. The LW swept the French and the British in 1939/1940. They were stalemated in the BoB, they fought superbly in the Desert while undermanned. They swept the Russians in 1941 and 1942. They fought the Russians to a standstill while undermanned in 1943. They stopped unescorted US 8th AF in 1943. 

They were crushed by 8th FC in 1944 when the Mustang engaged. 

Is it possible that deep down those magnificent German pilots could not rationalize that the overfed, arrogant/cocky, overpaid US fighter pilots could show the courage and aggressiveness to defeat them - unless they (Americans) had overwhelming numbers and material advantage? And then subconsciously remembered the air battles as hopeless because of the overwhelming superiorirty?

I pose that question because there w.ere more than a few German aces who remembered the RAF as the toughest opponent..

I have no quarrel with any assessment by the warriors that fought each other - but as a historian I do have access to the facts and opinions based on facts that have brought both LW and US and RAF operations to light in great detail and variety - in contrast to anecdotal recollections following WWII by ALL combatants - that show much of what was said and cast on paper by so many authors was imply not in line with facts we have now.

To close. I should not use of 'hyperbole' to describe Lipfert or Rudendorfer or Reschke's rememberances - to coin a phrase "I wasn't there". Having said that I am very comfortable in the summation of both historical force disposition and various orders of battle to conclude that the US fighter pilot more often fought against greater numbers of German aircraft in 1944. Perhaps the definition of 'outnumbered' needs to be further clarified.

I respect your opinion Jim - we have dueled historical perspective before.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Bill Hovde's P-51D "Ole VIII" - Littlefriends.co.uk
> 
> "Ole VI" - Littlefriends.co.uk
> 
> ...



Aozora the cyrillic enscription meand "Major". Billy Hovde, Moon Elder, Bud Fortier and Jim Duffy were all on the Shuttle Mission September 18-22. So was Al White. My father led the fighter escort portion of the mission to drop supplies to the Polish underground in Warsaw.. Billy added that enscription after returning from Piryatin on the rest of Mustangs, OLE IV through OLE VIII.

Gablingen also had a two seat Fw 190A and I have posted pics of all of them in Peter Randall's website - many of Peter's 355th shots have been contributed by me.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 2, 2013)

Post 32...well said, Bill


----------



## drgondog (Mar 2, 2013)

Thanks Dave - I wish you would change your Avatar - it always makes me think of drag components liket turrets, etc..what the aeros call protubance drag..Oh wait! I didn't realize they were drinking beer..

Wonderful "Thangs".

Bill


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 2, 2013)

davebender said:


> *1943 to 1945 production.*
> 2,970 x P-38J
> 3,923 x P-38L
> 4,632 x P-40N.




A few thousand of the P-40Ns never left the US. From some point in 1943 NO NEW American fighter groups were formed using P-40s. P-40s were used by allies, as trainers and as replacements for units equipped with P-40s until they could be re-equipped with other aircraft. NO P-40s were used as bomber escorts in the European Theater. Some may have been used in the Mediterranean but not on long range missions. They are irrelevant to this discussion. 

Few Spitfires were used on bomber escort missions. If they were used they operated over France and Low countries. The Deep penetration missions were flown by P-38s, P-47s and P-51s and the numbers and groups using them can be found.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 2, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Thanks Dave - I wish you would change your Avatar - it always makes me think of drag components liket turrets, etc..what the aeros call protubance drag..Oh wait! I didn't realize they were drinking beer..
> 
> Wonderful "Thangs".
> 
> Bill


lol...this is one of those instances where drag from the components is not only acceptable, but actually enhances the frame design...a nessecary condition, really!

And the beer just compliments that 

As far as the discussion goes, I'll also say that when speaking with a pilot regarding his experiences in combat with particular aircraft goes, there can also be a little bias or predujice on thier behalf as well. We had members of the family that were pilots as well as close friends. One of the family friends was a Luftwaffe pilot who made it from 1938 until 1945 flying nothing but Bf109 aircraft. His opinions of the early models were high but his dislike of the late Gustav onwards were very evident. He said they were too heavy and underpowered. He had said that an "indian" wasn't a problem for him as long as he was in a G-2, but the G-6 and later models put him at risk in a turning fight.

On the otherhand, one of my relatives started out flying a P-36 which he loved but hated the P-39 and P-38 and thought the P-36 should have been built up with better engines weapons like they did with many other aircraft.

The list goes on, but this just gives you an idea of thier sentiments, not mine...I have my opinions and I can make observations based on what I have heard all day long, but it really bears no weight in the end, because I wasn't there.


----------



## davebender (Mar 2, 2013)

The same is true for thousands of Me-109s and Fw-190s.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 2, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> His opinions of the early models were high but his dislike of the late Gustav onwards were very evident.



Part of an interview with a Russian pilot:



> A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, you constantly say that the basic Soviet fighters, the Yak and the Lavochkin, were equal to the German fighters in speed, although reference books contradict this. According to reference data, German aircraft always have superiority in speed. How do you explain this difference between reference data and practical data?
> 
> N.G. Reference data is obtained under ideal conditions, in “ideal” aircraft. Tactical and technical characteristics are always lower under actual use conditions.
> 
> ...



I think this "combat speed" concept also find convergence with the Japanese N1K2 fighter. The Japanese praised it's performance, while the Americans, who tested it in the post war, had the same opinion. And the top speed of that plane was rather low. Probably not the case of it's "combat speed." The same being said of the Ki-100.

Part 4


----------



## 61fury (Mar 3, 2013)

I'm not expert but I have read that by the end of WW2 airplanes had been roughly developed to similar levels of performance. Victims were at the hands of pilots who were better or smarter or more numerous. Germany choked on its ambition and had no resources to churn out skilled pilots. Sheer numbers make a huge difference but one on one I believe a very good Me 109 pilot could best anything flying.
The P47 is my personal favorite, but the P 51, I hate to admit,was the best over all fighter plane of the war. It might have been lacking in some qualities but had a greater balance in all of it's qualities The 109 is a very different thing, developed in the 30's and clung to for lack of anything else, and despite all it's flaws, could match and better the opposition, given the right pilot and circumstance. Give a great pilot a Zero and the odds might tilt in his favor too.
By the end of the war it's not like an I 15 vs a Mustang . The 109 fought more and longer than almost anything else out there and could still hold it's own at the end. Here, two planes I'm personally meh about .
The Soviet impressions of planes fascinate me, their favorites, like the P39 seem mediocre to the western world, their descriptions of combat conditions are detailed and have and don't ring false to me. But what do I know? not a pilot, not a WW2 pilot for sure.


----------



## GregP (Mar 3, 2013)

Hi everyone.

I don't dismiss Drgiondog's father or any of the other first four. I tend to discount anything Kit Carson says because he said only what would further Kit Carson, and everyone else was wrong ... acording to many others I have spoken with. I have little respect for Kit's opinions (comes from Ralph Parr and few other contemporaries). That's MY opinion, and not something I will arguue with anyone; I doubt whatever Kit said because he said it.

I don't have to trot out anyone, Drgondog, I have heard what I have heard ... and your opinions won't change that reagrdless. Wanna' talk about it, show up on an event day and have your say. I'm sure you heard plenty (I'd like to have heard it) and I have, too ... obviously not quite the same stories. What you heard won't change my opinions and I already know the converse is true, right?

So I am left where I started trying to be polite ... let's say we disagree and let it go at that. Your first post to me above (about two up) was polite, but it seems you can't resist the dig with the second one. Face it. You and I don't see eye to eye about a 70+ year old war. 

That puts us in good company with about a million or more other people around the world. Please stop being acidic and let's just disagree pleasantly. Otherwise it slides into acidic replys that don't add to the forum and make me want to strike back when I actually value your opinion as a good backstop.

I don't care what you have heard (and also don't doubt you heard it) ... I have heard what I have heard from the people I have heard it from and that won't change. You like to trot out your lists of pilots and that is fine. I believe you totally that you heard it and have NO suggestion that you have lied or misremembered ... you heard what you heard and THAT IS WHY YOU BELIEVE IT. 

I simply heard differently and don't agree. Hopefully that doesn't make us enemies ... just means we heard differently. If it can't be that way; then OK ... fight. Otherwise, let's talk pleasantly and exchange ideas. Maybe we'll both move closer to the middle. It's sort of like splitting up a household in a divorce ... when both people think they got screwed, it's probably a fair settlement.

An Me 109 fan will NEVER admit the Spirtfire was better to a Spitfire fan and vice versa but, if they're honest, both can usually admit the other was a good adversary.

No disrespect to anyone intended, but my opinions don't and won't change because someone disagrees with them. Show me proof flying over my head and maybe I'll concede. Otherwise, we can both continue to think as we do with little chance of proving either one of us wrong to the other one. We can still be pleasant and upbeat, can't we?


----------



## Aozora (Mar 3, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Thanks Dave - I wish you would change your Avatar - it always makes me think of drag components liket turrets, etc..what the aeros call protubance drag..Oh wait! I didn't realize they were drinking beer..
> 
> Wonderful "Thangs".
> 
> Bill


 
Besides which I thought we were discussing P-51s rather than Jugs...or is that beer steins?


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2013)

> Besides which I thought we were discussing P-51s rather than *Jugs...or is that beer steins? *


Is this wrong? LOL


Greg, I might comment here about this, if I may.

There is a huge difference between what you'll hear from family members and close family friends, and what you'll hear about guys "sharing" thier stories to people they've met during public events.

I'm sure you've met all sorts of interesting people and all, but the candor of a pilot recounting for an audience (however small) will be different than what you'll hear from a Dad, a Uncle or even a very close family friend (close enough to be considered family)...

DrgonDog is recounting directly from first-person here. Unless you were actually there, then just leave it at that


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2013)

davebender said:


> The same is true for thousands of Me-109s and Fw-190s.




Not the same and you know it. 

Use of Me-109s by German "allies" was by the dozen. Use of Fw-190s by German "allies" was ????

Of the P-40Ns 586 were to be delivered to England, first 130 diverted to USSR, While a few P-40NS were evaluated in England the planes served in squadrons in the far east. 468 (at a minimum) more P-40Ns went to Australia. 172 went to New Zealand Number of P-40Ns to the USSR is hard to find but with over 2000 P-40s of all types delivered well over 1/2 were P-40Ns. _Then_ we get into the quantities the Germans supplied to allies. 36 to Canada, 41 to Brazil, a small quantity to the Royal Netherlands East Indies Air Corps.

As for training use, P-40s were being sent straight from the factory to training schools, or conversion units. How many Me-109Gs went straight to flight schools without a stop at a service squadron? Many 109s and more than a few 190s may have wound up in training units but they were usually obsolete models (Me 109 D, E, Fs) or war weary/repaired examples were they not? 

By mid 1944 the need for P-40 replacements was fading fast, a trickle was being sent overseas but even some allied units (like the Free French GC II/5) were being re-equipped with P-47s rather than replacement P-40s. If the US was handing out P-47s to allied units like that their own need to keep P-40s units up to strength instead of converting them P-47s must have been minimal. 

Sorry but trying to count P-40 production as "proof" the Germans were out numbered is a real stretch.

We know what the unit strengths were for both sides on a number of days/battles, trying to prove otherwise using several year production totals is a very poor way of refuting those records.


----------



## GregP (Mar 3, 2013)

Hi Graugeist,

Your comments have merit here, but I don't see anyone else in here just leaving it at that.

I have absolutely no doubt his dad told him a lot and have no quarrel with any of the information that I wish to discus in public public.

The relative merits of any aircraft are debated between advocates of different machines all the time and nothing ever gets settled, so why should this?

The P-51 absolutely beat the Me 109 in the real war. Whether it was due to mass tactics as I have heard or not, history has already been written. Anyone who wants to debate the two surely has the right to do so. Almost everyone who discusses two different fighters has a debate unless they both feel the same. At our presentations, the former Luftwaffe pilots are sure their equipment was better. The former USAAC pilots are sure THEIRS were better, and the former RAF pilots are sure THEIRS were better. To date, all they can collectively agree on is who won the war in the end.

It's still fun to listen to them, one and all.

My own opinion is that memory is selective. One remebers the really good things and the really bad things. If you were sure you were going to die and didn't, you'll remember your "escape," whether it was in Viet Nam or WWII, and the details may or may bot be what exactly happened. If you sruvived because the enemy pilot hit turbulence that spoiled his aim right when he fired or because his guns fired asymmetrically and yawed the aim slightly, all YOU know is he missed.

The guys who landed at Omaha Beach were all sure they were going to die in the surf, up udner the shingle, and certainly when they were charging the machine guns nests along the beach. To a man, they are flabbergasted they survived. The memories are vivid, but are they all accurate? Or is memory selective?

I tend to believe that anyone who rmembers what happened in WWII has selective memories because nobody has total recall from 60 - 70 years ago and most admit it. The guys who make presentations at the Planes of Fame have their memories and they mostly talk about whatever aircraft we are going to display along with stories about flying it. The speakers are usually former pilots of the bird being flown that day. Almost nobody who fought against and survivied Me 109's took them lightly, but all remember certain characteristics (not necessarily in agreement with one another) about the enemy. 

The truth is that not all the enemy pilots were created equal and they might have flown against a rookie or a 100+ victory Ace, and that is what made the difference. The former Luftwaffe pilots have the same difficulty ... they didn't know if their opponent was a rookie or seasoned veteran, unless they shot him down, captured him, and talked with him. The list of pilots who did that is quite small.

So we all believe the sum total of what we have heard from the experts who were there. Drgondog's dad was there and I salute him and thank him for his service. It helped win the war.

But to see Drgondog post something I doubt and just let it go becasue we think differently and his dad was there? Huh? Are you kidding?

Since neither Drgondog or I were there, I think we have equal right to post our opinion in here, which is, after all, an aviation forum centered around WWII. Everyone can discuss in here and we don't all have to sing the same story. But, at least according to the rules we all agreed to when we signed up, we can play nice in the sandbox even if our observations of having heard different accounts of the war are diferent from one another. 

My own posts have gotten a bit more polite since I started looking over my replies the morning after and thinking that I really hadn't intended to come off the way it sounded. The solution, at least for me, is to look it over carefully before hitting "Post Quick Reply." As a side benefit, my spelling gets better because I at least catch some of my bad typing ...


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 3, 2013)

I will risk to say that the most important attributes a WWII fighter need to have were top speed and diving speed. A figther who flies faster and dives faster than the enemies rules the day.


----------



## GregP (Mar 3, 2013)

Both good points, Jenisch, for getting away from the bad guys or getting to a fight to attack or rescue someone.

The Me 109 was out of its element when going faster than about 320 mph. It had no rudder trim and the ailerons in particular were very heavy when fast as was the elevator. Above 400 mph the Me 109 was basically a straight-line aircraft. The P-51 was at home going fast and rolled quite well at 400 mph.

But for sheer numbers the Me 109K was a bit faster than the Mustang, even if it wasn't going to get into a fight when going that fast, and was a better climber, particularly at low airspeeds. I believe they only built around 1,593 K models out of over 33,000 Me 109's. While the Me 109 could dive quite quickly, it wasn't all that controllable when diving at high speeds and many simly continued the dive right into the ground.

But if you got into a dogfight at 180 - 275 mph, the Me 109 was a deadly opponent since it was optimized for combat in that speed range. To fight the P-51 best, the pilot tried to stay fast, above 300 mph if he had the chance to do so.

I believe I like the P-51 better, but the Me 109 has always been a favorite of mine for some reason, I can't explain it. Wish we flew our DB-powered Me 109G-10, but we don't as of today. That could change, but it would need work.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2013)

As a sidelight to rememberences , a friend of mine's father went to see "Topgun" when it came out. He had flown with VMF-124 at the wars end. He thought the locker room sequences were realistic!

_GOOD_ fighter pilots have to have big egos in many cases, they may act humble or show respect to other men but they _have to believe_ they are the biggest, baddest guy in the sky or they are at a disadvantage. They cannot take the time to second guess themselves. Men less sure of themselves can make great bomber or transport pilots. But effective fighter pilots have to have confidence in themselves and their equipment. Not misplaced or over confidence though. 

Please remember what percentage of total shoot downs were performed by a much smaller percentage of pilots. 

I am certainly not saying that any of these men are consciously lying but that some of their memories or opinions may have a _filter_ (tint?) on them?? 

On a very simple level I once asked my own father ( when I was young) about his experiences with the US .45 cal pistol, having read how difficult it was for many soldiers to shoot. He said he had no trouble with it. Later I found out he had being shooting pistols as a teenager in competition and had fired hundreds if not several thousands of rounds through a variety of pistols before he went in the Marines. 

These veterans memories are what they are but many of them do _NOT_ have the same frames of reference as each other.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2013)

One of the main problems with the improved *Bf*109s later in the war, was that no matter how well they were capable of performing against thier Allied adversaries, there just weren't any more experienced pilots to fill the ranks.

If the Luftwaffe was able to get a hundred *Bf*109s into the air to confront the escorts, only a handful of thier pilots were seasoned enough to bring a competant fight to the Allied fighters, the rest were just casualties that haven't happened yet.


----------



## davebender (Mar 3, 2013)

German Me-109s attempting to intercept B-17s don't have the luxury of pretending P-47 escorts don't exist. Ignore the jugs and they will kill you just as quickly as P-51 escorts.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 3, 2013)

GregP said:


> the Me 109K was a bit faster than the Mustang



Yes. But people frequentely considerate the "Mustang" as the B/C/D/K. There was the H.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2013)

The P-51H never fired is weapons in anger...too late to see combat service in WWII and considered unsuitable for service in Korea, it is one of those machines that "could have been"...


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 3, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> The P-51H never fired is weapons in anger...too late to see combat service in WWII



Yes. But people tend to make comparisons of the late war German fighters with the basic Mustang. The Germans were catching or surpassing it by the end of the war. North American wasn't unaware of this, however. Hence I mentioned the H.



> considered unsuitable for service in Korea



Why?


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 3, 2013)

The H model Mustang was the lightweight model, less structual strenght, not considered strong enough for the rigors of close support in Korea.
Plus only about 500 were made.


----------



## davebender (Mar 3, 2013)

How many P-51Ds were deployed to Korea?


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 3, 2013)

davebender said:


> How many P-51Ds were deployed to Korea?


 Just because 500 P-51Hs were made in 1945, doesn't mean they're still around in 1950.


----------



## davebender (Mar 3, 2013)

500 brand new P-51Hs were destroyed while used P-51Ds were retained in service? That suggests P-51H had significant problems which were never solved.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2013)

Not sure of the total number of the P-51's service in Korea, I know it almost made it to the end of the conflict, but was phased out by jets.

The USAF P-51D (redesignated F-51D) served alongside P-51Ds of ROKAF, SAAF and RAAF units.

Also, the P-82 Twin Mustang (later F-82) being also too late for WWII, served well in Korea.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2013)

The P-51H wasn't "destroyed" after the war, it remained in limited service, then was relegated to National Guard units.

It's didn't see service in Korea because it's frame and armor had been lightened and it had very limited spare parts.


----------



## GregP (Mar 3, 2013)

Hey Graugeist, have read in several references that all 109 models from the E from and earlier were considered to be Bf 109's while from the F-model forward they were considered to be Me 109's, even by the Germans in their own internal documents to a large extent, but not completely. So ... the vast majority were F or later and are thus Me 109's to me.

Not being a German reader, I can't say from personal browsing, but I have seen it said that way in several ... but not all ... references, including from a German friend (not a member of tehse forums). Still, I think when I type in "Me 109," everyone in here knows what aircraft I am talking about.

I wonder what these purists think of the Ta 152 compared with the Fw 190? Was it really an FW 152?


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2013)

Since the Bf108, Bf109 and Bf110 were developed and accepted by the RLM before Bayerische Flugzeugwerke was aquired by Messerschmitt, the model designation remains Bf to the end of production with the exception of the Bf109s that were refitted by Erla Flugzeugwerke, who designated them Me109s...rare, but it occurred.

Any models produced by Messerschmitt A.G. after mid 1938 were designated Me, such as Me410, Me262, Me323, etc...

Kurt Tank's stand-alone designs were designated Ta (Ta152, Ta154, Ta183, etc) even though they were produced by Focke-Wulf...so technically, they are referred to as Focke-Wulfe Ta154, for example.

He was part of a design team that created and developed the Fw190, so it remains designated a Focke-Wulfe Fw190.

I suppose when discussing the details of an aircraft, referring to it by it's correct name adds to the accuracy of one's discussion


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 3, 2013)

Several documents at the Kurfurst's site do refer to the 109 as Me 109 indeed. The Me and Bf sorta get mixed from mid war on.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Several documents at the Kurfurst's site do refer to the 109 as Me 109 indeed. The Me and Bf sorta get mixed from mid war on.


I have seen people refer to the Bf108 as a Me108 also...doesn't mean it's correct, though


----------



## GregP (Mar 3, 2013)

Once Messerschmitt was making the 109, it would seem to be correct to called it the Me 109 rather than the Bf 109 since Bf was absorbed by Messerschmitt.

Once Messerschmitt acquired Bf, all the development going forward was done by Mersserschmitt, wasn't it? Why wouldn't the new models going forward be referred to as Me 109's? In many references, they are.

I'm not trying to start anything, but I've been referring to the E and earlier as Bf and the F and later as Me for more than 4 decades and, to date, nobody has been confused by it or taken exception to it other than by two people, yourself included in this post.

I KNOW the DC-9 was designed and developed by Douglas into the MD-95, but itsn't it correctly a Boeing 717 these days?


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2013)

Greg, call it whatever the hell you want if it makes you happy...why not just call all of the German aircraft "nazi airplanes" and make it easy on yourself?

I refuse to get into a stupid and useless arguement over the "technical" renaming aspects of Messerschmitt aircraft that carried officially applied designations by the German government...


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 3, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> I have seen people refer to the Bf108 as a Me108 also...doesn't mean it's correct, though



I'm not talking about what people might or might not say, nor the hangar talk. I'm talking about the original documents, and plenty of such can be found here talk about Me 109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 3, 2013)

Calm down guys. No need to get into a pissing match over this stuff.

As for the designation. My understanding from reading German sources and what not, is that the *109* kept the Bf status. *Me* however is also very widely used. I know the Messerschmitt Stiftung in Germany calls their 109G's Bf 109G's. Other aircraft that came after the 109 and 110 were given the *Me* name.


----------



## GregP (Mar 3, 2013)

Being calm, and wasn't trying for that response either ... was attemting to discuss. I'll refrain ... and go looking elsewhere for some discussion. Cheers.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Mar 3, 2013)

I suppose that alot of the confusion came from popular culture and convention of the time. Look at all the old movies, during the war and after, usually refer to Willy's wonderful machine as an "Me-109". Indeed, that's how I had always known it until recently,...say, the last 15 years or so. However, now that I know, I try to say "Bf" instead of "Me", just the same as I no longer think that there was a creature known as a "Brontosaurus". Learning requires knowledge, and the application of such.
And now I will take my leave as I have less than 6 hours to finish an entry in the #16 G.B.


----------



## tengu1979 (Mar 3, 2013)

As for "number superiority" of allied fighters: My personal opinion is that the "experten" could feel overwhelmed cause I really do not think they attacked ALL AT ONCE. So one Staffel attacks for ex 2 Groups of fighters and another in few minutes difference so each of them seeing the same formation could think that there is actually much more of them. Maybe they also split Gruppen to attack Fighters and bombers at the same time leaving even further differences in numbers.

As for the Topic. As it was said here two main factors in favour of P-51. Pilot expirience and armament. Germans started to have similar problem as British in the heat of BoB. Lack of really familiarised with plane pilots. I remember seeing an documentary where Bader was saying that after he was asked whicj=h plane was better he said the spit because any idiot could fly it while it was more difficult in 109. (Still I have not heard a lot about P-51 though.). The 109 had also tremendous firepower from G-6 onwards but less siutable for dogfighting than 6x0.5 as its main purpose were bombers. I know there were some German pilots that scored fighter kills on Eastern front with MK108 but I think .50 cal battery is still better to fight fast paced aircraft than 30mm + 2x13mm combo. 

As for BF and ME designation. It is a fact that in some 109 manuals there is used a Me109 designation and I certainly seen a scanned document whan both bf109 and me109 designation were used simulanously. (Some kind of test data if I recall that right). So I think it was a confusion for Germans of the period either.


----------



## Gixxerman (Mar 3, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Me 109 was out of its element when going faster than about 320 mph. It had no rudder trim and the ailerons in particular were very heavy when fast as was the elevator.



I know they shaped the tail aerofoil a particular way (asymmetrically).
I always thought that was just a different approach to the trim issue. 
They must have known how to do it seen it on other aircraft.
I have seen pilot fatigue mentioned regarding having to actively and constantly use the rudder to maintain trim (but I must admit that I am inclined to dismiss this as comments from post-war allied pilots trying out the 109 not being so used to it).

Hope you get your G up in the air.


----------



## CobberKane (Mar 3, 2013)

Regarding the numbers in 109 v 51 combat - wouldn't the relative endurance of the german and American fighters have been an issue? Say, on a given day the LW put up 100 Bf109s against 50 P51's. But the 109s are notoriously short-legged; they attack in four waves of 25 each at different times as the bombers cross occupied territory on the way in and the way out. So history records that 50 P-51s took on 100 Bf109s, although at any given time the Mustangs outnumbered the Messerschmitts 2 to 1.
Very simplistic, I realise. I'm just suggesting that simple numbers don't tell the whole story


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 3, 2013)

The Mustangs may not have been that long legged. Flying at combat settings can use fuel 2 -2.5 times faster than even a fast cruise. 

Others may be more up on this than I am but in many cases the fighters did not fly all the way with the bombers. Different fighter groups escorted on the way in than on the way out. 

Just because 100 P-51s were used for escort missions on a given day does not mean that all 100 were in a given area at one time and as Dragndog has already stated, in many cases even the groups/squadrons assigned to the outward part of the mission ( or the return) could be spread out over dozens of miles.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 3, 2013)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEJa9iBPYb0_

This is a propaganda film of the time, but they mention something about this escort question. I'm going to sleep now, don't remember at which part of the video.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 4, 2013)

tengu1979 said:


> As for "number superiority" of allied fighters: My personal opinion is that the "experten" could feel overwhelmed cause I really do not think they attacked ALL AT ONCE. So one Staffel attacks for ex 2 Groups of fighters and another in few minutes difference so each of them seeing the same formation could think that there is actually much more of them. Maybe they also split Gruppen to attack Fighters and bombers at the same time leaving even further differences in numbers.
> 
> *Visualize US fighter escort for say four boxes of B-17's. The escort mission is performed by three separate fighter groups. In early to fall, 1944 that would be one group/3 squadrons/16 P-47s per squadron on Penetration. At some R/V point, say for Berlin, one group of P-51s would relieve the P-47s which would turn back for England. About this time another Group of P-47s takes off from East Anglia and starts for the Return R/V point when they will relieve the Mustangs.
> 
> ...



The 8th AF 'Box/wing' separation doctrine was that approximately 6 miles separated each box of 36 to 72 a/c boxes (the latter in 1945) - so the Mustang fighter group covering this four box batch of B-17s with three squadrons has 18+ miles of moving territory to cover. If is is a lead group then one P-51 squadron of 16 (or less due to early returns) is 5-10 miles in front in combat cruise about 5000 feet higher than the bombers. There is a trailing squadron 23-25 miles to the rear essing over the trailing box and the middle squadron may be on the move from the second last box up to the lead box and back again.

Pick wherever you wish to attack and there will be no more than 16 Mustangs to defend for the first couple of minutes...

The other advantage the P-51B had in the early days of December 1943 through May 1944 was that the P-51B-1 had the 1650-3 high altitude Merlin - with critical altitude at 29,000 feet - far above the Fw 190 and the Me (Bf) 109G-6. When the 1650-7 replaced the -3, the P-51B-7 through P-51D/K had CA of 24K but better performance at 15K-24K.

The point is that these two aircraft were pretty evenly matched for the most part after the high altitude DB's were installed and neutralized the 51's overwhelming speed advantage. Then tactical situation, aggressiveness and pilot determined the outcome in a one on one fight.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 4, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEJa9iBPYb0_
> 
> This is a propaganda film of the time, but they mention something about this escort question. I'm going to sleep now, don't remember at which part of the video.




That is a P-47D office shown..Fight for the sky IIRC was narrated by Ronald Reagan..


----------



## drgondog (Mar 4, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Regarding the numbers in 109 v 51 combat - wouldn't the relative endurance of the german and American fighters have been an issue? Say, on a given day the LW put up 100 Bf109s against 50 P51's. But the 109s are notoriously short-legged; they attack in four waves of 25 each at different times as the bombers cross occupied territory on the way in and the way out. So history records that 50 P-51s took on 100 Bf109s, although at any given time the Mustangs outnumbered the Messerschmitts 2 to 1.
> Very simplistic, I realise. I'm just suggesting that simple numbers don't tell the whole story



Cobber - the 'thing' is that 50 Mustangs will not be 'together' during an escort leg Unless they are flying Sweep for the entire 8th AF out 5-50 miles in front of the bomber stream.

It is an honest assumption that the defending German fighters were greatly outnumbered when you read about say April 24, 1944 in Roger Freeman's Mighty Eighth War Diary.
716 Effective B-17 and B-24 sorties.
867 Effective P-47 (490) , P-38 (131) and (246) P-51 sorties

What the casual reader doesn't see until they understand 8th AF doctrine and the Mission 315 details, is that the 1st Task Force separated from fighter escort at Ulm because the Sweeping force 4th FG was in an airbattle north east of Stuttgart with JG11 at 1200 and the 355th and 357th weren't due to pick them up until 1315 and 1320 at Augsburg. 

When the 355th attacked the JG3 109s and Sturmstaffel 1 at Augsburg, they did the first attack with 357FS Red and Yellow Flight, then Blue and Green met the second wave north of Munich as one flight of the 354FS went south of Augsburg to attack a Staffel sized force which were working over the 384th BG out of position... and so on. six flights of the 355th's 42 Mustangs engaged and the trailing 357th also engaged six flights. Six flights did not engage, sticking with the bombers the entire trip.

Summary - two Mustang groups were defending 268 B-17s in seven large combat boxes spread out over 30 miles with a target area populated by cumulus clods offering concealment to 225+ stalking 109s looking for unprotected targets


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 4, 2013)

IMHO the other part of the coin is that wheter those "225+ stalking 109s" were moving on one blob (I very much doubt that) or in piecemeal in Staffel etc. size when engaging and may have found themselves locally outnumbered by escorts.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2013)

Shouldn't the LW defenders have had far more a clear situation assessment, due to friendly radar visual coverage; the escorts lacking the same once deep into continent?
Were the German fighter units being better/worse 'served' with informations during 1944, than RAF fighter units during the BoB?


----------



## cimmex (Mar 4, 2013)

IMO the intention is to make the glory bigger, the bigger the danger the bigger the honor!


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 4, 2013)

What they say in the video I posted was that fighters in the escort role used fuel twice as fast. They say that because this a thousand fighters might be needed to keep 40 to 100 in the escort all the time. Don't know if this is true, but there's also the advanced escort to be considerated...


----------



## GregP (Mar 4, 2013)

We might be forgetting some of the facts of the real-life WWII here.

Before the advent of the P-51 Mustang, bombers on long range missions had to fly unescorted. Since the fighter planes early in the war had a range of only about 250 miles, this meant that they could not escort the bombers further than Aachen, near the western border of German. For any penetration deeper into the Third Reich, the bombers were on their own. 

The unescorted missions had disastrous results for the bombers. During a bombing mission over Schweinfurt, Germany on October 14, 1943 to bomb the large ball bearing factories so crucial to the German war effort, the U.S. Eighth Air Force were attacked by a large number of Luftwaffe fighter aircraft. Out of 229 bombers over Scheinfurt, 60 were shot down and 17 more were irreparably damaged. This loss rate was was unacceptable and proved that the allied bombing campaign over Germany could not continue unless the bombers could be accompanied by fighter aircraft.

From their first long-range missions accompanying bombers in January 1944 with the advent of the P-51B and later escort variants, the P-51 Mustangs tipped the balance of the air war over Europe in favor of the Allies. No longer could Luftwaffe fighters easily shoot down Allied bombers. From this point, and through the rest of the war, the German fighter aircraft were on the defensive. In addition to protecting the bombers at high altitudes, the P-51 Mustangs were given the added assignment of destroying the Luftwaffe aircraft on the ground along with their support facilities during low altitude strafing missions.

A little over 15,000 P-51 Mustangs were produced during WWII. They accounted for almost half of the German aerial losses despite being in the fray in strength for only about a year and a half of a five and half year war. That hardly seems like an equally-matched aircraft … looks more like dominance of the airspace around them including shooting down Me 262’s when they showed up.

I like the Me 109 myself, but it was outmatched by later Allied fighters, including the P-51 Mustang ... not in every area of performance, but at least in overall effectiveness of employment and combat results. Those two attributes of late-war Allied fighter operations, including but not limited to P-51 Mustangs, closed out the air war in Europe.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 4, 2013)

Perhaps the Mustang could have been an overall better fighter than the 109 (but I'm skeptical about this, the late 109s were equally fast and climbed much better). But the real factor was the fuel avaliability that greatly favoured the Allies. If the LW had enough fuel, perhaps a stalamate in the campaign could have occured.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Mar 4, 2013)

The LW was not only starved out of fuel; let's not forget it lost experienced pilots throughout its struggle against the USAAF/RAF/VVS. 
Airframes and fuel can come around one way or another, Nazi Germany managed this until very late in the war when even Me-262's rose to challenge American air power as late as April 1945; experienced pilots, however, are much harder to produce.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2013)

Problem is that late 109s (the ones with DB-605AS/ASM/D engines) were, well, late. Too late to matter. The 1st such 109s were started to trickle in from mid 1944 on, ie. in the time of D day and Operation Bagration. Once the W. Allies are firmly in France, the RAF can also make their presence felt above Gemany if needed, let alone above Low countries and France proper. The P-47 can also put the Contnental airstrips into a good use, plus by mid 1944 it has increased internal fuel tankage, the engines capable doing 2600 HP. 
By that time the war was long time being decided, the LW also lacks pilots capable enough to really hurt the Allied air forces. We can also note that Germany was out-produced out-numbered long time before mid-1944.
The 109 that was as fast as Merlin Mustang would be the K-4, and that type was available from winter of 1944/45. Ie. as late as Fw-190D-9. The Gustavs with ASM engines were good for 425 mph, ie. some 15 mph slower than contemporary P-51D and P-47D.
The Mustang was a better overall fighter than the Bf-109, the RoC of the late Bf-109s have had much to do with having far lighter fuel load on board. The combat range with fuselage tank and 2 x 75 drop tanks was 700 miles. In other words, P-51 was capable any task Bf-109 could; vice versa not possible.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 4, 2013)

TheMustangRider said:


> Airframes and fuel can come around one way or another, Nazi Germany managed this until very late in the war when even Me-262's rose to challenge American air power as late as April 1945; experienced pilots, however, are much harder to produce.



Fuel did come, but it's just question of you look how many training hours a LW pilot received and an American pilot received. Both sides suffered casualities, but the Americans could replace pilots adequately, the Germans not.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 4, 2013)

I don't know if was significative, but late in the war the American pilots were flying with anti-G suits and tail warning radar.


----------



## Mike Williams (Mar 4, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> I don't know if was significative, but late in the war the American pilots were flying with anti-G suits and tail warning radar.



"Without the K-14 sight and my "G" suit I don't believe I would have gotten this Jerry as he was headed for a heavily defended airdrome."







"There were Huns all over and three times the tail warning system gave good service." 





As noted above G-suits and tail warning radar were deemed useful, however, the K-14 Gyro gunsight was a huge asset - a significant difference maker. Check the last section of  Encounter Reports of P-51 Mustang Pilots for pilot comments on the value of the Gyro gunsight in destroying enemy aircraft.

P.S. Nice video Jenisch


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 4, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> What they say in the video I posted was that fighters in the escort role used fuel twice as fast. They say that because this a thousand fighters might be needed to keep 40 to 100 in the escort all the time. Don't know if this is true, but there's also the advanced escort to be considerated...



that is because the mustangs didnt throttle back and fly along side the slow bombers...they flew a weave back and forth over the box in oreder to keep up speed. so for every mile the bomber flew the escorts flew 1 1/2ish? the 109s and the 190s were formidable aircraft and up to the task of mixing it up with a mustang. the edge had to go to the allies in pilot training. that is where they had the luxury that germany did not. in the beginning of the war when it was fighting vastly inferior airforces and lesser trained enemies the new LW recruits had the opportunity to cut their teeth in not so desparate circumstances. germany not only did not throw their aircraft industry into high gear too late but also their pilot training programs. i doubt whether the out come would have been different but the allies would have had a bloodier noses at the end.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 4, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> IMHO the other part of the coin is that wheter those "225+ stalking 109s" were moving on one blob (I very much doubt that) or in piecemeal in Staffel etc. size when engaging and may have found themselves locally outnumbered by escorts.



Tante Ju - They were not moving in one blob but all being directed by ground control as the B-17 inbound stream moved eastward from Stuttgart. The LW also did not originate from various locations and R/V to attempt to consolidate. The only LW force that seemed to stay in one cohesive group was III./JG26 which avoided the Mustangs. Much of JG27 came from south, JG3 from north, ZG26 from NE, JG301 from the south (IIRC). Probably the largest single concentration in a small area was JG26 and III./JG3. So you are correct in that the typical LW force was Staffel sized and that most fo the fights were 10-12 vs 4, 20 vs 8, four vs 2 (the JG26 picked off two P-51s that got lost in the clouds - east of Munich)..

OTOH, the two US Fighter groups were attacking in units of four and in the case of the 20+ Bf 110's, the 357th engaged with an 8 ship section.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Mar 4, 2013)

"Fuel did come, but it's just question of you look how many training hours a LW pilot received and an American pilot received. Both sides suffered casualities, but the Americans could replace pilots adequately, the Germans not."...

My thoughts exactly.
When you no longer have command of the air even to a tactical level to properly train your green fighter pilots; you know you are in deep trouble.


----------



## Jenisch (Mar 4, 2013)

TheMustangRider said:


> "Fuel did come, but it's just question of you look how many training hours a LW pilot received and an American pilot received. Both sides suffered casualities, but the Americans could replace pilots adequately, the Germans not."...
> 
> My thoughts exactly.
> When you no longer have command of the air even to a tactical level to properly train your green fighter pilots; you know you are in deep trouble.



Germany needed to win in the East and have acess to a huge quantity of fuel. Only then perhaps Germany would have a chance to stop the bombing. I think that this only would be possible if the USSR collapsed in 1941 and Germany managed to capture and restore (if the Russians destroyed it) oil production in the Caucasus quickly.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Mar 4, 2013)

Watching that video and there were two Mosquitos and a Spitfire in the US gun cam footage 

Friendly fire!


----------



## tengu1979 (Mar 5, 2013)

Ok my other thought. Although Bf109 guns are grouped tight in the nose (apart from [optional] underwing pods) is there any influence of offset mount sights. Seems to me almost all German fighters have them. For me it would be much easier to have sights dead on like Spitfire or Mustang does.

I must admit it is really interesting subject about those numbers. I am still wandering than why many LW pilots claim otherwise. Or they are simply referring to later times when they were really outnumbered.


----------



## stona (Mar 5, 2013)

Bf 109,official RLM designation. The RLM got so upset with Messerschmitt AG correspondence which referred to the Me 110 etc that it _officially refused to acknowledge such correspondence_

You might find some reference to Me when it should be Bf in some contemporary German documents but you won't find it in an RLM document. All handbooks etc refer to Bf or Me as someone (Grau Geist?) explained earlier. That means Bf 109,Bf 110,Me 210 and so on.

Allied sources almost invariably refer to all Messerschmitt aircraft as Me,but that doesn't make it right.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 5, 2013)

stona said:


> Bf 109,official RLM designation. The RLM got so upset with Messerschmitt AG correspondence which referred to the Me 110 etc that it _officially refused to acknowledge such correspondence_
> 
> You might find some reference to Me when it should be Bf in some contemporary German documents but you won't find it in an RLM document. All handbooks etc refer to Bf or Me as someone (Grau Geist?) explained earlier. That means Bf 109,Bf 110,Me 210 and so on.
> 
> ...



Yeah that is what I was saying I had read in German documents. Everything up to the 110 was a Bf (Bf 108, Bf 109, Bf 110, etc). Everything after the 110 was Me. 

Me however really has become a common thing though from everyone including Germans today. The Messerschmitt Stiftung in German even refers to their Bf 109G-2s as Bf's not Me's.


----------



## stona (Mar 5, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Me however really has become a common thing though from everyone including Germans today. The Messerschmitt Stiftung in German even refers to their Bf 109G-2s as Bf's not Me's.



I'm sure it has. I,personally,don't mind what someone refers to the Bf 109 as in a general context. However in a serious historical context it has to be Bf not Me. This is not a choice. The official RLM designation for the type was Bf 109. The fact that some sources at the time,particularly allied,and modern usage use Me does not make them correct.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Mar 5, 2013)

I think it IS a choice and either one is correct since even WWII Germans used the Me designation in official correspondence ... if THEY did it, we can, too. Even if it isn't exactly correct according to the dataplate (which they kept as "Bf"), nobody is confused by it ... we all know what aircraft is being talked about.

The term engine is correct for a piston powerplant, but everyone knows what you are talking about if you call it a motor. Same thing, really.

If you KNOW what is being discussed, you can join the conversation.

We can correct our kids if we want to, but correcting adults too often makes nobody want to speak with you after awhile. Let it go and have a meaningful discussion.

I have reference books that call it Me 109 and others that call it Bf 109. To me, they're interchangeable and I can deal with either one as long as the phrase is referring to an aircraft and not a phone number. If that doesn't fit the technically accurate view, that's OK by me. I generally call anything from the E model and older a Bf 109 and anything from an F model and newer an Me 109 since that is what I was taught more than 40 years ago by people who were in the war and flying over Europe in Allied and German planes. Even the guys who disagree know what plane we are discussing, and that's all that matters since I'm not writing a book about it trying to set the prefix right for all time.


----------



## stona (Mar 5, 2013)

GregP said:


> I think it IS a choice and either one is correct since even WWII Germans used the Me designation in official correspondence ...



No it is not.

There is occasional use of Me for Bf in official correspondence,particularly pre-war when some confusion existed about whether the Me prefix should be retrospectively applied to BFW aircraft now being produced by Messerschmitt. The RLM soon lay down the law. 

The official RLM designation for all types whose development or production was started by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke is Bf. You can call it Me and so can anyone else. That doesn't make it correct. As I posted above the RLM made it quite clear what designation was correct to the point of notifying Messerschmitt AG that it would not respond to correspondence regarding the Bf 110 unless the correct designation was used.

I already said I don't mind how these types are referred to in a general sense,we do all know what we are referring to,but on what is essentially a historical forum I would expect a little more rigour. Maybe I'm wrong. 

Anyone referring to a Me 110 in Germany or anywhere else during the war or later was and is technically incorrect. This is forgiveable in allied documents ( where all Messerschmitt aircraft are almost invariably referred to as Me),unacceptable in German documents (as the RLM made perfectly clear) and also incorrect in any serious historical context today.That goes for the guys who were there. Being there doesn't make them right about official government designations for aircraft types.

The two terms were never interchangeable in RLM/Luftwaffe circles at the time. You will not find an official RLM document,nevermind an aircraft data plate or similar,which refers to an Me 109.

Why on earth would you make a distinction between an E and F,or later, model _of the same aircraft type _? I don't mind what you call the thing,that's your business,but to call two sub-types of the same aircraft something different is illogical. 

The difference in nomenclature is due to various aircraft being designed and/or produced by _two different companies_ in the eyes of "Das Reichsluftfahrtministerium"

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 5, 2013)

Seems plenty of people in Germany were acting 'unacceptable'?


----------



## GregP (Mar 5, 2013)

Hi Steve,

I change to Me after the E-model because the Bf works was absorbed by Messerschmitt (Me) during production of the E model. As I said earlier, the MD-95 was designed and built by McDonnell-Douglas but, if you want one today, it's a Boeing 717. The designation changed because ownership of the design changed. It's the same thing to me.

I can see it isn't to you. That's OK since I'm not in charge of you and we both know what we are talking about. It's still one of my personal favorite WWII fighters. Funny, I live in the USA and my two or three favorite WWII fighters are Axis aircraft. In no particular order I like the 109, the Zero, and the Re.2005.

I had not even considered this as an historic forum, just a forum about interesting things surrounding WWII. For an historic forum, there WAY too many "what ifs" and tales from WWII participants that are unsubstantiated in any way. We don't even know they were related essentially correctly since people rarely if ever remember a tale word for word.

Maybe we could use an historic section where researched information could be posted. I'd bet anything that if we got that, there would be disagreements about the researched information, too.

From the title of this thread, P-51 versus 109, if we were to be historic, the premise would be ludicrous. From the time the Mustang showed up in the B and later models, it dominated the skies around itself in a way that had never been done before. The 109 never really challenged the P-51 on equal terms after Jan 1944. I had assumed it was largely due to Luftwaffe pilot attrition without adequate replacements coupled with dwindling numbers of fighters, dwindling fuel, and a general lack propellers as the end got closer. Many brand new 109's never turned a prop! That's what I have read for years in many books.

I see that many in here are not of that opinion and it makes me wonder what books I have missed. Alas, I don't read German.

I have always figured that, one-on-one, the pilot was much more important than the plane. That is, with a great pilot in a 109 versus an average pilot in a P-51 or vice versa, the win would go to the better pilot if starting positions were equal. They rarely if ever were equal and that sometimes helped decide the issue, too. Also, the fuel state was important.

Erich Hartmann himself once ran out of fuel in a dogfight and was "shot down." In reality, he abandoned his 109 glider and it fell in flames as a Russian shot it up on the way down ... but it counted as a victory to someone in the Red Air Force. I have never substantiated that story, but have read it in print in at least 5 places.

So, to me, the P-51 far and away contrubuted more to the outcome of the war for the Allied side than the 109 did for the Axis side. The P-51 became a major factor in the last year and a half of the war, changed the face of daylight bombing, and dominated wherever it showed up. The 109 was a great plane that did a lot for the Axis, but untimately presided over a defeated Luftwaffe, though the 109 itself was a good, solid performer right up until the end. Think what it might have done with an electric starter! In the real world, it didn't get one and the notion is a what-if.


----------



## Gixxerman (Mar 5, 2013)

I have to agree with GregP.
Maybe some of this is partly something to do with being born into an allied country seeing history from a largely allied perspective?

Regardless, it seems self-evident to me that the P-51 was the right plane at the right time (as indeed was, almost, the P-47 just before it....and which could have gone on to be had the need arisen with bigger drop tanks).

The attrition they inflicted on the LW was simply intolerable both in the air on the ground.
Couple this with a shattered transport infrastructure stopping parts fuel from circulating and the end is not hard to see coming.
At the end of the war I have seen pics read that Germany was littered with brand new aircraft which never flew due to a lack of transport to get them where needed, pilots fuel.
Compound this with the Germans unable to adequately train pilots and the result is inevitable.

As impressive as the (just to add to the mix, I've seen it written as) 'Me (Bf) 109' was as a fighting machine I think it is clearly a full generation behind the P-51.


----------



## cimmex (Mar 5, 2013)

There never was a lack of propellers in WWII Germany and the Bf109 didn’t have an electric starter because there was no space due the fuselage cannons and ammo magazines
cimmex


----------



## GregP (Mar 5, 2013)

For the "Me" / "Bf" argument, here is a take on a 109 site: The 109 Lair- The Online Source for Messerschmitt 109 information

As for the lack of propellers, I've read that since the early 1960's and heard it from former Luftwaffe pilots, especially from about Nov 1944 onward.

So maybe I'll look into the subject again and see what current thinking is. I'm not much on historic revision and tend to believe the documents generated at the time rather than many years later. Too much time between the event and the writing leaves a lot of room for embelishment of the facts with colored glasses. I have history wbooks written the year the American Civil War ended and their version of the war is at considerable odds with a "modern" Civil War text. I believe the texts written at the time. 

But I'll look at the subject again ... you could be correct and I could have been wrong all these years. Cheers.

About the electric starters, we are currently restoring a Buchon and there is space in the cowling for a battery box ... it has an electric starter. I have NOT looked under the cowling of our 109G-10 in Arizona looking for battery space, so I'll take your word for it. Modern Me 109's usually all have a starter ... and no ammunition. So what you say makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Mike Williams (Mar 5, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Seems plenty of people in Germany were acting 'unacceptable'?


I'm with you tomo


----------



## Mike Williams (Mar 5, 2013)

This snippit bears on the thread subject of P-51 vrs the 109 as well as the silly nomenclature "argument", that is without merit. 

From a discussion with the Chef-Ing. der Luftwaffe in Berlin: 





"Im Zusammenhang mit der Zellenfrage wird von den Herren berichtet, dass die Leistung der Zelle ausser-ordentlich schlecht und zum Teil unerhört niedrig liege. Auch hier weist DB wieder daraufhin, dass es keinen Zweck hat, den Motor dauernd in der Leistung aufzustocken, während die Zellen durch Fabrikations-ungenauigkeit etc. immer schlechter werden und damit den durch die Steigerung der Motorleistung möglichen Geschwindigkeitsgewinn wieder zunichte machen. Es wird seitens der Herren des Chef.Ing. davon berichtet, dass die gegenüberstellende Vorführung einer *Mustang* und einer *Me 109* für Herrn Sauer geplant war, dass jedoch Herr Sauer selbst leider nicht erschienen sei. Die Gegenüberstellung der beiden Maschinen sei, was die Ausführung der *Me 109* angelange geradezu niederschmetternd."​
Full report - Niederschrift Nr 6730, Daimler Benz, 24 January 1945 





From: Geschwindigkeitmessungen mit 4 VDM Luftschrauben auf Me 109 K4 mit DB 605 D

I have literally thousands of pages of documents from Messerschmitt AG, Daimler-Benz, etc., etc., etc., that refer to the ME 109 as ME 109 or some such derivation. Other times BF 109 or 8-109.

Here are a couple that relate to both performance nomenclature:





















I also have thousands of Encounters Reports from US fighter pilots and thousands of Combat Reports from RAF fighter pilots that refer to the Me 109 as an Me 109. They earned the right to call it anything they want, even Nazi P.O.S. for all I care.


----------



## GregP (Mar 5, 2013)

Thanks for posting, Mike. I like your website!

I wish we had more flyable 109's with the real DB engines in them ... but they are pretty scarce these days ... unfortunately.


----------



## stona (Mar 5, 2013)

The official designation from the RLM,who sanctioned such prefixes was still Bf.
Me was certainly used during the war,I've even seen a G-6 (IIRC) data plate marked thus. I'd weigh that against the dozens I've seen marked Bf.
There is no arbitrary cut off point. When BFW morphed into Messerschmitt sometime in 1938 (I'm not at home) the Bf prefix did not change on extant designs.The fact that some within the German aviation industry got it wrong doesn't make it right.
For me the official ministry approved nomenclature would be Bf 109 Sub type-dash number/ as in Bf 109 G-6.
Frankly,as I said before,I don't really mind what people call it 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## meatloaf109 (Mar 5, 2013)

I still think my reasoning works good.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Mar 5, 2013)

I still think my reasoning works good. see post #69


----------



## CobberKane (Mar 5, 2013)

Interesting that the USN and USAAF felt the need to ascribe code names to Japanese and (after the war) Russian aircraft, but never did the same with the Italian planes, which had names that must have been almost as difficult. Maybe they had better intelligence and just went straight to using model numbers, whereas the japanese planes were more of an unknown quantity.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Mar 5, 2013)

Naw, we figured that the Italian aircraft would be gone quicker than the Japanese. As for NATO designations, I think they just wanted to call the Mig-15 "Faggot" for propaganda reasons. Everything else just naturally had to fall into place.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 5, 2013)

I'm not sure faggot meant the same in the late 40's as it does now. 
I don't remember hearing it when I was young, but maybe I led a sheltered life.

I'm the son of a preacher.

But he was a Marine in WW2.


----------



## GregP (Mar 5, 2013)

In WWII "Faggot" meant cigarette.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Mar 6, 2013)

Only to the British. Unfortunately, my uncle knew only too well the appelation of "faggot". It was well known as a slang term for a homosexual.
My Uncle Mitt served his country in Korea, earning three battle stars. He was a difficult person to know. The Chinese once infiltrated his foxhole and slit the throat of his buddy while my uncle was taking his turn asleep. Mom said that he had problems. But she was talking from a fundamentalist christian position. He never was branded as a "Fag" until after he returned home. I don't know exactly why. The army gave him an honorable discharge. I only remember him as a troubled man that eventually took his own life.
He was a very good barber, and he would sing a silly song as he cut my hair. He never molested me, and I never felt threatened by him


----------



## GregP (Mar 6, 2013)

It wasn't only the British, it was widely accepted ... per my American Grandfather who was there and lived through it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2013)

We are a pretty diverse forum here. To say our forum is not a historical forum because of "what if" threads is wrong. We have plenty of threads were people discuss the actual historical aspects of aviation and WW2. 

This is the internet. You are going to get people from all walks of life. Everything from young and curious to real time aviation enthusiasts and historians, pilots and mechanics. Some people are interested in the "what if" scenerios, hense why we have them on a discussion board. God forbid they want to discuss something right? All that matters is that they are learning something from it. Besides sometimes they bring out interesting discussions. 

Basically if someone does not like a thread, just stay out of it. No one is forced to read something they don't care about or they find "not historical". It doesn't make this forum any less "historical" or meaningful.


----------



## cimmex (Mar 6, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> To say our forum is not a historical forum because of "what if" threads is wrong. We have plenty of threads were people discuss the actual historical aspects of aviation and WW2.
> 
> . It doesn't make this forum any less "historical" or meaningful.


That’s true but they are hard to find and the thread head line does not indicate this and during the discussion the topic changed from “facts” to “what if” or contrary. IMO this makes the contend of the whole forum not very credible and I would prefer a separate “what if” section with a strict borderline to the “history” (facts) section
cimmex


----------



## Tante Ju (Mar 6, 2013)

Can we put aside this silly Bf/Me arguement? Clearly even the Germans called them both ways... lets move on and back to the subject..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2013)

cimmex said:


> That’s true but they are hard to find and the thread head line does not indicate this and during the discussion the topic changed from “facts” to “what if” or contrary. IMO this makes the contend of the whole forum not very credible and I would prefer a separate “what if” section with a strict borderline to the “history” (facts) section
> cimmex



This is not the place to discuss that. We have a forum suggestion section. Post it there...


----------



## fastmongrel (Mar 6, 2013)

GregP said:


> In WWII "Faggot" meant cigarette.



A Faggot is a bundle of sticks, Faggots is also a meat dish made of minced pork. Fag in WWII Britain meant and still does mean a cigarette, it was also used in the US to mean cigarette up till about WWI. Fag as in the US meaning is from the Yiddish Faygeleh meaning effeminate or girlish. You would have a job getting a faggot to light


----------



## GregP (Mar 6, 2013)

Since the Nazi government is extinct and Messerschmitt is still around, I'd say official documents from Messerschmitt with "Me 109" alongside "Bf 109" make either one as "official" as it gets. Either one is "correct.

The B-1 is "officially" the "Lancer," but NOBODY calls it that. It's a "Bone," which is derived from B-one. The A-10 is the Thunderbolt II, but will be the Warthog forever. 

For most people today, including Germans, the 109 is called the Me 109. Most would recognize the Bf 109, but not all ... unless the name Messerschmitt was in front of it. If they're aircraft buffs, as we are, they'd recognize it well enough.


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 6, 2013)

an interesting post i read yesterday. you always hear the claims of the p 51s flooding the skies. here's a story that is quite the opposite. 

taken from 
69 years ago: Back to Berlin with the 4th and 357th FGs | Flat Spins and Milk Runs

On March 4, 1944

Don Gentile had what he described as a “hairy” day. “I took off with my wingman Johnny Godfrey, and the rest of the flight was to join me, but due to weather we never met,” he wrote in an account found on the back of his log book.

They broke overcast at 33,000 feet after flying instruments for an hour. “After being on course for a couple hours still no one joined us, so we decided to continue on alone. When we were approximately 100 miles from the target the weather seemed to clear up as if you would take a knife and cut it. In the distance I spotted approximately 50 Do 217s in formation climbing for altitude and above them were about 100 Fw 190s. They were getting ready to attack the ‘Big Boys’ head on. I called Johnny and asked him if he wanted to go ahead and attack knowing there were no other friendly fighters in this area. So, as usual, Johnny said ‘You’re the boss.’”

Gentile went for the Do 217s, hoping to disrupt their formation so the bombers could unload before the German fighters could get reorganized. “I began firing at tail end ‘Charlie’ and the Do’s started diving for the deck. About this time Johnny started screaming that the 100-plus Fw’s were coming down on us The Do’s were cross-firing on us at the same time. I had one Do smoking badly when I had to break away due to the 100+ coming in on us. Johnny and I met them head on going through the complete German formation; from then on all hell broke loose,” said Gentile.

“Planes were going up and down and every which way. I thought this was it. In the midst of twisting and turning I managed to get on an Fw, who overshot me, and was lucky enough to get him. Johnny started to scream (that) 50 more were coming in at 6 o’clock, so I started to aileron roll for the deck. I had to pull up in a vertical climb into the Fw’s. At this time I noticed a brightly-painted Fw on my tail blazing away and Johnny screaming for me to break. I broke so hard that my plane started doing snap-rolls; when I got the aircraft under control the Fw was slightly ahead and above with me on his tail diving and twisting, which lasted a good 10 minutes. I managed to get his aircraft on fire and noticed he had it, so I broke away.” With their ammunition gone, the two headed for home. “We had to dive for the clouds with them on our tail, skidding at the same time. By the grace of God we reached the cloud bank, and after flying instruments for a while we let down through (the bottom of the cloud deck). During the combat I lost my maps so I didn’t know my position, and Johnny didn’t know either so we took the general direction home.”

Gentile and Godfrey landed at Hurn Airdrome, all but out of gas. “Thank God for a good wingman, or I wouldn’t be able to write this today.”


----------



## Denniss (Mar 6, 2013)

RLM was responsible for assigning both manufacturer prefix and model number, without this the Bf 109 would have been something like Messerschmitt M 40 (just like the Bf 108 previously known as BFW M 37). Official usage was - without any question - Bf, common usage by non-officials was mostly Me.


----------



## GregP (Mar 6, 2013)

Hah! Now if we really want to confuse the issue, we can start a thread about the Messerschmitt M 40 ...


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 8, 2013)

Is there any truth to the notion the bombers in those last several months before the invasion were used to draw the Luftwaffe to engage the P51s? In other words, the strategy changed from the bombing targets to baiting the Luftwaffe? That had always made sense to me.


----------



## GregP (Mar 8, 2013)

Never heard that one before. Why risk 10 - 12 guys that might get killed just to act as a decoy?

Still, it could be, I suppose ...


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 9, 2013)

OK, I looked up the 8th Air Force, and in the chronology, I found it, "Big Week," beginning 20 February 1944. That was one big week for bombing missions! But I think that was also right about when we got the idea we ought to be using these P51s offensively, too. We're only four months out from the invasion and the P51s have really been making a dent. Let's go get this Luftwaffe out of the way, once and for all. Let's step up the bombing missions and lure them out for the P51s. I wouldn't be surprised if we were consciously going on the offensive with those P51s at that time, the stepped-up bombing targets, if they were anything, being secondary to that. It was important we cleared the skies as well as we could for the upcoming invasion, I'm pretty sure of that. So, it kind of makes sense, having the right aircraft for the job, we'd take this opportunity to deviate from our fighter cover strategy and go on the offensive like that. I don't know that's what the thinking was. I'm thinking it was, though. That's why we escalated those missions.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 9, 2013)

When 8th AF command changed (Doolittle, 6 January 1944) the escorts were not tied to the bombers as tightly and allowed to roam, hunting Luftwaffe a/c in the air and on the ground. The escorts became more offensive, tho they still had to be defensive with regards to the bombers.

_The attacks in the winter of 1944 were escorted by P-51's and P-47's and with the appearance of these planes in force a sharp change had been ordered in escort tactics. Previously the escort planes had to protect the bomber force as their primary responsibility. They were now instructed to invite opposition from German fighter forces and to engage them at every opportunity. As a result, German fighter losses mounted sharply. The claimed losses in January were 1,115 German fighters, in February 1,118 and in March 1,217. The losses in planes were accompanied by losses in experienced pilots and disorganization and loss of the combat strength of squadrons and groups. By the spring of 1944 opposition of the Luftwaffe had ceased to be effective._

Eighth Air Force Historial Society


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 9, 2013)

Milosh, thanks. I have just a very generalized understanding but I know before the P51s the Luftwaffe was decorating aces like crazy. Now I guess the question is how many of the bombers were for the most part abandoned to chase down the Luftwaffe in those missions deeper and deeper into Germany attracting the Luftwaffe from their bases in route to the target destination? With that crackerjack aircraft I don't know that we'd have lost so many bombers in those four or five months had the P51s been sticking to just providing them with defensive fighter cover. The P51s veer off to chase down Luftwaffe, the bombers are left defenseless. That's where the offensive strategy conflicts, I'm saying.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 9, 2013)

VBF, if you put more a/c (ie bombers) in the air there is more to shoot down. The question is: did the loss rate increase?

The bombers weren't abandoned, there was still enough escorts for 'close' escort'.


----------



## bob44 (Mar 9, 2013)

Just to add a couple of things. I do not think the bombers where exactly abandoned after the 1944 order to "destroy the Luftwaffe". 
But every German aircraft destroyed, every German pilot killed or wounded ment one less to go up after the bombers the next day, rather than just chasing them off.
I believe more bomber where saved in this way during 1944/45.


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 9, 2013)

That's the real question, yes. In fact, with the P51s covering throughout, I'd suppose one would expect that rate to decrease, actually. Then again, maybe not, as the Luftwaffe can be expected to be thinning out that cover the deeper into Germany the mission goes.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 9, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Is there any truth to the notion the bombers in those last several months before the invasion were used to draw the Luftwaffe to engage the P51s? In other words, the strategy changed from the bombing targets to baiting the Luftwaffe? That had always made sense to me.



No, it isn't true - other than to reflect that the bombers were going after important targets in large formations starting after January 11, then really massive during Big Week. 

The bomber crews were shocked and outraged when Doolittle 'loosed the reins' from close escort with no pursuit - to Pursuit of the Luftwaffe aggressively - some privately labeled Doolittle a 'murderer'. In fact the 8th AF FC adopted strong tactics ranging from Sweeps out in front, to combination 'close' and 'free ranging' in which parcels of the primary Fighter Group (like one squadron) would fly high above the center of mass of their assigned boxes and provide quick reaction to German attacks while the others stayed out of the fight until more German aircraft joined in the fight.

Big Week was a 're-start' for the prime directive of ETO airpower - namely "Destroy the Luftwaffe' so that the Invasion would be uncontested in the air.


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 9, 2013)

drgondog said:


> No, it isn't true - other than to reflect that the bombers were going after important targets in large formations starting after January 11, then really massive during Big Week.
> 
> The bomber crews were shocked and outraged when Doolittle 'loosed the reins' from close escort with no pursuit - to Pursuit of the Luftwaffe aggressively - some privately labeled Doolittle a 'murderer'. In fact the 8th AF FC adopted strong tactics ranging from Sweeps out in front, to combination 'close' and 'free ranging' in which parcels of the primary Fighter Group (like one squadron) would fly high above the center of mass of their assigned boxes and provide quick reaction to German attacks while the others stayed out of the fight until more German aircraft joined in the fight.
> 
> Big Week was a 're-start' for the prime directive of ETO airpower - namely "Destroy the Luftwaffe' so that the Invasion would be uncontested in the air.


Well then I guess I'm back to my premise of abandonment as I'll bet I could pick anybody off the street who could add two and two together and they could figure out a directive to pursue is a directive to leave uncovered. 

This is a tough one, I'll give it that. But I'll just guess a number of these bombers were left to fend for themselves once they drew the Luftwaffe to the fight. And you know they could hardly hit a thing with their guns, so they were pretty much defenseless.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 9, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Well then I guess I'm back to my premise of abandonment as I'll bet I could pick anybody off the street who could add two and two together and they could figure out a directive to pursue is a directive to leave uncovered.
> 
> This is a tough one, I'll give it that. But I'll just guess a number of these bombers were left to fend for themselves once they drew the Luftwaffe to the fight. And you know they could hardly hit a thing with their guns, so they were pretty much defenseless.



Substantiate your premise with knowledge about tactics and force deployment?


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 9, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Substantiate your premise with knowledge about tactics and force deployment?


Come on, I read that. But how far in do you think they're going to hold to those tactics and force deployments? 100 miles of Luftwaffe bases in? 200 miles of Luftwaffe bases in? Berlin was 400 miles of Luftwaffe bases in. And then they have to get back. I don't know. But it sure sounds good on paper.


----------



## Aozora (Mar 9, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> Well then I guess I'm back to my premise of abandonment as I'll bet I could pick anybody off the street who could add two and two together and they could figure out a directive to pursue is a directive to leave uncovered.
> 
> This is a tough one, I'll give it that. But I'll just guess a number of these bombers were left to fend for themselves once they drew the Luftwaffe to the fight. And you know they could hardly hit a thing with their guns, so they were pretty much defenseless.



Totally unfounded: to claim that the fighters "abandoned" the bombers to go chasing after the Luftwaffe is a complete misunderstanding of the function of the escort fighters. The Luftwaffe discovered as early as the Battle of Britain, and the RAF during Circus operations over France and the low countries, that tying fighters to close escort of bomber formations was a waste of effort and resources; the fighters were forced to slow to less than optimum cruising speeds while having to manouvre to stay in sight of the bombers. During the Circus operations the British packed wings of escort fighters around small bomber formations only to discover that the Germans could totally disrupt the escort formations with relatively small numbers of fighters. When bounced the escort fighters had little chance to respond because of the time it took to accelerate to fighting speed, while being hampered by having to get out of the way of other escorting fighters chasing the Luftwaffe aircraft. In addition close escort fighters faced the threat of being shot at by their own bombers.

The Americans realised that job of a fighter escort was to clear the airspace well away from the bomber formations, by attacking and breaking up the German fighter formations before they could attack the bombers in large numbers, while leaving the bombers free to defend the airspace immediately surrounding them. It was also part of that policy to attack and hound the German fighters around their airfields. Overall the American fighter escorts and their policies worked extremely well: the figures found here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.varley/Strategic_Air_Offensive.pdf (pages 48-49) tell the story: in October 1943 the loss rate of USAAF heavy bombers was over 6%: after the introduction of escort fighters the rates dropped to less than 4%. Once the fighters were let loose, loss rates dropped even further - less than 1% in May 1944.


> (T)he overall heavy bomber loss rate for the 8 9 USAAF was 1.7%. In 1943 1036 bombers were lost with an average loss rate of 3.8%. A tour of operations was set at 25 missions so that during 1943 the probability of completing a tour of operations was 38%. In October 1943 186 heavy bombers were lost on 2831 sorties, a loss rate of 6.6%. A tour of operations with the 8 9 AAF was at first 25 sorties but in the last year of the war this was increased to 40 sorties. (Page 48 )


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 10, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Totally unfounded: to claim that the fighters "abandoned" the bombers to go chasing after the Luftwaffe is a complete misunderstanding of the function of the escort fighters. The Luftwaffe discovered as early as the Battle of Britain, and the RAF during Circus operations over France and the low countries, that tying fighters to close escort of bomber formations was a waste of effort and resources; the fighters were forced to slow to less than optimum cruising speeds while having to manouvre to stay in sight of the bombers. During the Circus operations the British packed wings of escort fighters around small bomber formations only to discover that the Germans could totally disrupt the escort formations with relatively small numbers of fighters. When bounced the escort fighters had little chance to respond because of the time it took to accelerate to fighting speed, while being hampered by having to get out of the way of other escorting fighters chasing the Luftwaffe aircraft. In addition close escort fighters faced the threat of being shot at by their own bombers.
> 
> The Americans realised that job of a fighter escort was to clear the airspace well away from the bomber formations, by attacking and breaking up the German fighter formations before they could attack the bombers in large numbers, while leaving the bombers free to defend the airspace immediately surrounding them. It was also part of that policy to attack and hound the German fighters around their airfields. Overall the American fighter escorts and their policies worked extremely well: the figures found here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r_m_g.varley/Strategic_Air_Offensive.pdf (pages 48-49) tell the story: in October 1943 the loss rate of USAAF heavy bombers was over 6%: after the introduction of escort fighters the rates dropped to less than 4%. Once the fighters were let loose, loss rates dropped even further - less than 1% in May 1944.


I think I'm seeing it, here. As a practical matter, a good offense, i.e., taking the fight to the Luftwaffe, is really the best defense. I hadn't grasped that, initially. All said, these missions really were in tough, and one really has to admire the courage and sacrifice of these young men.


----------



## GregP (Mar 10, 2013)

Abandoned or protected, the bullets were flying and if you ever get inside a B-17, B-24, Lancaster, etc., you'll see the skin won't stop a BB, much less a bullet, in most places unless it happens to hit some Aluminum armor from a few degrees aft instead of from 60 - 90°. So, yeah ... these young men went through hell. So did a lot of others. 40,000 men served in U-Boats and 30,000 never came back ... roughly the same as bomber crews, but a little more severe.

Either way, they deserve our respect and thanks, whether German or British or American, Japanese, etc. They were certainly a great generation.

They were the first people to have great performance but no avionics. They could run something or someone down ... but mostly didn't know where they were unless they ran into them in the middle of the air. A jet like ... maybe a Macchi 326 is faster, but not by much, but has the advantage of modern avionics and knows where to hit and who is coming at them. The P-47, while 150 mph slower, has no idea where the enemy is unless he reflects in the sun or stumbles into a gaggle, had little idea of exactly where he is on the map except a general idea of the area, and looked for targets based in visual appearance, as opposed to the Macchi that has a GPS, knows where he is and who is up and about ... and where and at what altitude. Maybe also knows with what weapons.

Quite a change in tactics, but only about a third in speed. So the P-47 (P-51, Spitfire, Me 109, Zero, etc.) guy was basically an explorer in the air looking for targets that were mostly along his planned line of flight rather than a Macchi 326 hunter who goes looking for the guys he KNOWS are there and where ... and with what weapons ... mostly.

Quite a different attitude and philosophy, at least in my mind. The premier modern fighters are MUCH better and can use a "God's Eye" view from orbit if they want.

So the difference is manifest and the WWII fighter pilots were valiant beyond what we see today in a very basic way. They fought without prior knowledge of what they were facing, other than a general idea and a willingness to do it. Great soldiers, sailors, pilots, tankers, etc., one and all.

Our collective thanks.


----------



## VBF-13 (Mar 10, 2013)

You boys gave me an education, Greg, thanks. You understand, I had to ask my questions, or I'd never get there. Appreciate your filling in the holes for me.


----------



## Kryten (Mar 10, 2013)

double post


----------



## Kryten (Mar 10, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> I think I'm seeing it, here. As a practical matter, a good offense, i.e., taking the fight to the Luftwaffe, is really the best defense. I hadn't grasped that, initially. All said, these missions really were in tough, and one really has to admire the courage and sacrifice of these young men.



offence being the best defence!

you often read comments from allied and axis pilots bemoaning the innefectiveness of being tied to the bombers!


----------



## Aozora (Mar 10, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> I think I'm seeing it, here. As a practical matter, a good offense, i.e., taking the fight to the Luftwaffe, is really the best defense. I hadn't grasped that, initially. All said, these missions really were in tough, and one really has to admire the courage and sacrifice of these young men.



That's a good summary: at best fighters tied to bomber defense could ward off attacks, but inevitably conceded the tactical initiative to the attackers. As Greg says, all of those airmen deserve respect and thanks.


----------

