# The Ta-152.... The Best High Altitude Fighter?????



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Many have said its the best piston driven high altitude fighter of the War... Whats everyones take???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

It has to be the best...The Westland Welking could have been pretty effective too though me thinks...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Never heard of that airplane.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Westland Welkin: Twin Engined High altitude fighter just entering service towards the end of the war. It looks pretty similar to the Whirlwind and although its perfomance wasnt quite so good as the Ta-152, It was probably a lot tougher. Ill have to do some research on it later and post more.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2004)

ah yes the welkin, how can you not know about that one, me and CC know her well................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

Yup, and to think we doubted its existance...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2004)

Never heard about it before..... I never really did get into post-war or prototype planes.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

It wasnt post war or prototype...it actually did see service.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2004)

HMMM.... I musta been in the shiithouse when that topic came up.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

Ever notice how I say ill do stuff and then dont? Well, I will get some more info on this tomorrow, cos im sure it was developed especially to combat high altitude fighters like the Ta-152 and im sure it saw service...


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 23, 2004)

Something around 150 TA-152 airframes were started. Of these, about 80 were completed, and less than 50 were delivered, and as best I've been able to find, it seems likely only about 30-40 of these were deployed. Those that were deployed only flew a very few sorties, and little is known about how they would have fared in combat had the type been in any substantial amount of combat.

The TA-152H had a very strange wing design. It was twisted, with the inner wing having more attack than near the tips. This was done to allow it to stall fight at very high altitudes. When the plane is in a climb and starts to stall, theoretically part of the wing will still have airflow and provide some roll control. The price for this would clearly be buffeting at high speeds, especially at lower altitudes. General roll performance was also not up to FW190 standards (the best). Finally, the SEP system on this plane was an odd setup that could be used for fast climbs and maybe to exit combat, but it was not something that would be very likely to be useful in combat. The engine has to be at the right RPM to engage it, and the load on the prop has to be sufficient to prevent the engine from reving up from there, the pitch being increased as the power comes on.

The few sucesses this plane had (and some of these are dubious) really do not tell us much, because the TA-152 pilots had a very good idea of the capabilities of the planes they were fighting, where the Allied pilots had never seen or even heard of a TA-152. Until a plane like this is proven in battle over a reasonable period of time, you just don't know if it was really any good or not.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 23, 2004)

Captured planes tell a different story..... It was better than any piston driven plane in WWII.... Americans and Brits alike agreed....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

And I thought over 400 Ta-152's were built?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

Westland Welkin.

The Welkin was a twin-engine heavy fighter from the Westland Aircraft company, designed to fight at extremely high altitudes in the stratosphere. It was created in response to the arrival of modified Junkers Ju 86 bombers flying reconnaissance missions which suggested the Luftwaffe might attempt to re-open bombing of England at high altitudes. In the end this threat never materialized, and the Welkin was produced only in small numbers.

The Welkin was essentially a modified Whirlwind, fitted with a much larger wing, new engines in the form of Rolls Royce Merlin 76/77's, and a pressurized cockpit. The last item required the majority of the effort in designing the Welkin. After extensive development a new cockpit was developed that was built out of heavy-gauge duraluminum bolted directly to the front of the main spar. The cockpit hood used an internal layer of thick perspex to hold the pressure, and an outer thin layer to form a smooth line. Heated air was blown between the two to keep the canopy clear of frost.

When the pressurization system was driven by a Rotol supercharger attached to the left-hand engine, providing a constant pressure of 3.5 lb/in² (24 kPa) over the exterior pressure. This resulted in an apparent altitude of 24,000 ft (7,300 m) when the plane was operating at its design altitude of 45,000 ft (13,700 m). This apparent altitude is still too high for normal breathing, the pilot still had to wear an oxygen mask during flight. A rubber gasket filled with the pressurized air sealed the canopy when the system was turned on, and a valve ensured the pressure was controlled automatically.

Other than that, changes were minor. The wings were so large that the Fowler flaps used on the Whirlwind weren't needed, and were replaced by a simple split-flap. The extra wing area also required more stability, so the tail was lengthened to provide more arm.

By the time the plane was complete and rolling off the line, it was apparent that the Germans had lost interest in the high-altitude mission, due largely to successful interceptions by specially modified Supermarine Spitfires. In the end only 75 Welkins were produced. A two seat version known as the Welkin Mk. II was produced in only two examples.


Role - High altitude heavy fighter 
Crew - 1 
First Flight - NA
Entered Service - NA 
Manufacturer - Westland

Dimensions 
Length - 32 ft 3 in 
Wingspan - 70 ft 
Height - 16 ft 
Wing Area - 250 ft²

Weights 
Empty - 8,310 lb 
Loaded - NA
Maximum Takeoff - 11,410 lb 
Capacity - NA

Powerplant 
Engines - 2 x Rolls-Royce Merlin 76 
Power - NA

Performance 
Maximum Speed - 385 mph 
Combat Range - NA 
Ferry Range - 1,500 miles 
Service Ceiling - 45,000 ft 
Rate of Climb - NA 
Wing Loading - 38 lb/ft² 
Thrust/Weight - NA 
Power/Mass - NA

Armament 
Guns - 4 x 20 mm cannons 
Bombs - NA 
Missiles - NA
Rockets - NA 
Other - NA




So It appears that it was much earlier in the war than I thought and not designed to take on German high-altitude fighters...shame it never made it, I think this could have been a great plane.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Captured planes tell a different story..... It was better than any piston driven plane in WWII.... Americans and Brits alike agreed....



All I'm aware of is one ferry flight where the pilot said he liked the plane, but did not put it through any extreme manuvers or push the engine. Would you care to provide some sources, I'm open to new info.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Nov 24, 2004)

That the allied pilots did not know of the Ta 152 means virtually nothing regarding the quality of the German fighter. Furthermore, the Ta 152 combat record coudl be called everything but dubious.

The Ta 152 made more than a ferry flight seeing the pilot leaving the cockpit reporting the plane is a very cool toy.

The Ta152 went through extensive testing and it was proved it made a superb aircraft. Not a perfect plane, though. No aircraft, from any of the combatant nations, was perfect. Yet, the Ta 152 was a superb machine, superior in many departments to the P-51, the latest Spitfire and the P-47.

Conceived as an extremely high altitude fighter with a service ceiling of nearly 16 kilometers -well beyond the reach of the P-51- it did not see service for the role it was originally intended.

Right, only a few dozens of Ta 152´s saw combat. Right, the period of combat exposure of those few dozens was indeed brief.

Such arguments, while being true, can never be enough to tell the Ta 152´s real capabilities remain uncertain. The extreme bureaucracy and politics in the Reich ensured the Ta 152 did not reach the fronts in important numbers. Still, the brutal fuel shortages would certainly ground most of the new fighters.

Even with the few dozens which saw combat service, the Ta 152 left recorded and confirmed kills over Yaks and Tupolevs in the final weeks of the war.

The Ta 152, intended for very high altitude combat, scored kills against the Yak-9´s, one of the very best low altitude fighters of the war (stab JG/301). The soviet pilots were not precisely of top quality, yet the late Yak fighter was excellent.

There was a confirmed and recorded kill of Willi Reschke flying a Ta152 over a Tempest in the final days of the war as well.

A brief period of time in service, only a few dozens of them Ta152´s, yet the capabilities and quality of the German fighter were proved. 

Read Griehl Dressel for further input.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2005)

The Ta-152 was considered to be superior to anything the allies had at high alltitude. At low alltitudes obviously not, but it was a great aircraft and was very capable.


----------



## Erich (Feb 16, 2005)

Stab/JG 301 kills are all confirmed nothing is dubious.........

it was the master of high altitude and even at mid range it could perform as seen in other threads of this one.

Few numbers indeed but it was the mode of the future if there had been a future for the Luftwaffe

lets not go back into the what if please. No Ta 152's were downed in combat.

E


----------



## Udet (Feb 16, 2005)

Erich who did you direct that to?


----------



## Erich (Feb 16, 2005)

everyone because I feel some will start pulling out that it was not any good because of few numbers and that it never was in combat with P-51 escorts..................oh well. Dang, I wish J. Crandall would get his book out on JG 301 and then the proof will be in print for everyone to see not just my opinions.

v/r E →


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 16, 2005)

Nothing strange about wing 'twist' on the 152 as most a/c had some twist. The 190A had 2 degrees difference between root and tip, for example.

K. Tank did outrun some P-51s at low attitude in a 152.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

The 152 was the best high alltitude aircraft at the time and it could have been developed even more. Tank had something going with this aircraft, and yes I agree with you Erich, it is bound to happen real soon as soon as some one reads what was written.


----------



## Udet (Feb 17, 2005)

Erich:

Well i did say quite the same things you did.

As i´ve said elsewhere, just like any other plane of the war, the Ta152 was not a perfect machine, but even in the small numbers that saw combat, the worth of that superb design was proved.

Others come up with silly arguments like "it never saw the kind of service for which it was originally conceived" (meaning extremely high altitude combat)...so what???????????

At medium and low altitudes the Ta 152s enganged soviet Yaks and gave them a clean pounding. The VVS pilots were not precisely of top quality, still the Yaks are considered as some of the very best low altitude fighters of the war. So the Ta 152, while "conceived" as extremely high altitude interceptor, had superb medium and low altitude performance as well.

From Reschke`s records, also the Tempest got engaged at extremely low altitude and the Ta152 came out as victor.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

I would not say that the Ta-152 had the best performance at low and medium alltitude but it would deffinatly have given the best allied aircraft a run for its money. At high alltitudes it was superior to anything. Having said all of this, it was one of the best aircraft produced of the war and who cares if it did not see much combat, combat does not determin the qualities of an aircraft or how good an aircraft is.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

Well said Adler.

Udet, I was not aware that Ta-152's ever encountered Yaks, let alone shoot them down


----------



## Udet (Feb 18, 2005)

Provolone...sorry...Cheddar cheese:

Yep, it is absolutely confirmed: the Stabstaffel and I. Gruppe of JG301, which received Ta152s for combat operations engaged Yaks near Berlin in the very last weeks and days of world war II. (IIRC, also II./JG301 had Ta152s, do not have the papers at hand though)

The Yaks were outflown in combat with the Ta152 at very low altitude dogfights, and several victories were confirmed.

So that is why I say even if the Ta152s were conceived for extremely high altitude combat, flying in the opposite hemisphere of the graphic -at very low altitude-, its manouverability and handling were superb.

Finally, even if the following remark will certainly be the "final word", as Erich commented, not one Ta152 got lost in combat with the enemy.


----------



## Erich (Feb 18, 2005)

correction Udet. In January 1945 III./JG 301 was equipped with the TA 152 in three of the four stafflen as well as their heavier A-8/R2's and some A-9's. The unit decided to terminate the Ta 152 and all surviving Ta's went to the Stab of the geschwader staff and pilots from III. gruppe that had flown the 152 were ordered to transfer to the Stabstaffel along with several other knowledgeable pilots.

I. and II. gruppe only flew the A-9 during 1945.

see you guys Monday sometime......off to the mountains and what little snow is left.....

Gruß


----------



## Udet (Feb 18, 2005)

Erich:

Have a nice weekend, save some snow for the fridge!

Thanks for the remarks. I kind of knew that, i simply did not had the accurate info at hand. It is clear most of the Ta152´s victories over soviet fighters were achieved by pilots of the stab/JG301 (i.e. Reschke, Loos, etc.)

Still, I could say "i was sure" II./JG301 had Ta152s alloted to one of its staffeln, but well, perhaps alzheimer played a trick on me.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 19, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Nothing strange about wing 'twist' on the 152 as most a/c had some twist. The 190A had 2 degrees difference between root and tip, for example.
> 
> K. Tank did outrun some P-51s at low attitude in a 152.



The Ta had a lot of twist to its wing, and it was spread across a wide area not at a joint.

Tank _claimed_ to have outrun some P-51's but there is no confirmation of this. It is unclear if the P-51's actually pursued him or not - they may well have broken off fearing they were being lured into an AA trap which was a common German tactic.

Also, it is quite possible he was simply lying, wanting to claim he'd finally built something that could outrun the P-51. He was under quite a bit of pressure to do so. The account is very dubious as the P-51's would already have had speed and there is no way the TA would have been able to accelerate fast enough to overcome that.

As a general rule you never take an engineer/designer's unconfirmed word concerning the competitive performance of their creation - too much pride and ego is involved.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Feb 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> As a general rule you never take an engineer/designer's unconfirmed word concerning the competitive performance of their creation - too much pride and ego is involved.Lunatic



Very true, but the same could also be said from fighter pilots. You have to be careful taking any _one_ person's word without verification.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 19, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The Ta had a lot of twist to its wing, and it was spread across a wide area not at a joint.



And how much is a lot of twist?


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 20, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The Ta had a lot of twist to its wing, and it was spread across a wide area not at a joint.
> ...



I'll have to dig out the figure, but I think it was 2 degrees at the first joint, and then another 6 degrees out to the wingtip. There used to be a page giving very detailed info on the TA but it is either gone or down right now.


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 20, 2005)

Tell you who may know something on the Ta-152.... Claus Colling and his partner at Flugwerk, [whose building the rebuilt Fw-190's], could know something, as they spoke with Kurt Tank in their early development days, I believe....


----------



## Erich (Feb 20, 2005)

Udet, II./JG 301 was the only gruppe in the Geschwader to be outfitted with the Fw 190D in 5-7th staffeln only. The I./JG 301 had the A-9 in 1945 and the 8th staffel in II. gruppe had the A-8 and A-9. Only III./JG 301 had the Tank and again as I said for an immensely short period transfering all stocks to the Geschwader stab; the III./JG 301 going back to the A-9 but primarily the heavier A-8's and A-8/R2's but without extra SturmFw armor.

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2005)

The problem with taking peoples accounts is that all pilots exagerate what happened. 

Now RG what alltitude are you talking about. At high alltitudes a Ta-152 would outfly a P-51D.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The problem with taking peoples accounts is that all pilots exagerate what happened.
> 
> Now RG what alltitude are you talking about. At high alltitudes a Ta-152 would outfly a P-51D.



Certainly. But what was the point of a "superior" fighter at 35+ thousand feet?

The TA was designed to counter a threat that never materialized - B-29's at 33-35 thousand feet. Had such a campaign have been pursued, appropriate high-altitidude fighters along the lines of the P-47J, P-38K, and P-51H would have been given development priority.

The TA was the result of a successful deception. Germany was convinced the B-29 was headed for Europe, and spent resources to develop a fighter to counter it. How many hundreds of very effective Dora9's were sacrificed to deploy something between 35-60 TA's ?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2005)

There were 674 Doras built of all types. Later ones were built as Ta-152's. Whether deception or not, the Ta-152 was an excellent aircraft and you can not deny that.


----------



## Erich (Mar 7, 2005)

curious why is there always reference to the B-29 in Europe and the German counter to it by developing the Ta 152. I have interviewed vets from JG 301 and nothing has ever been said about this......


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 7, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There were 674 Doras built of all types. Later ones were built as Ta-152's. Whether deception or not, the Ta-152 was an excellent aircraft and you can not deny that.



Hmmm... info I have indicates more Dora9's than 674, I believe the figure is 850? I agree the Ta was an excellent aircraft but I'm not sure it was as good as it is made out to be. It is impossible to judge such things until tested in combat - and I don't mean a few prototypes. In very small quantities such a plane enjoys an "unknown quantitiy" advantage, its pilots know what to expect from the enemy planes, but the enemy has no idea what to expect from it.

At altitudes below 30,000 feet, I suspect the Dora9 or Dora12 were probably better than the Ta.



Erich said:


> curious why is there always reference to the B-29 in Europe and the German counter to it by developing the Ta 152. I have interviewed vets from JG 301 and nothing has ever been said about this......



Why would you think the pilots would know anything about this? Since when did military intelligence share such details with pilots until they "needed to know" them?

It is well known that the German spies reported on the B-29 and the German's thought it was destine for Europe.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Mar 7, 2005)

I thought so.............bull.

You are not aware then of JG 301 capabilities and the closeness of the units Kameraden. The Ta 152 was designed to take on anything at high altitude not just high flying heavies. New marks of the 262 and other jet types developed by Focke Wulf were to take on the mysterious higher altitidue RAF and US bomber formations....


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 7, 2005)

Erich said:


> I thought so.............bull.
> 
> You are not aware then of JG 301 capabilities and the closeness of the units Kameraden. The Ta 152 was designed to take on anything at high altitude not just high flying heavies. New marks of the 262 and other jet types developed by Focke Wulf were to take on the mysterious higher altitidue RAF and US bomber formations....



Where did I say it was limited only to taking on high flying heavies? It was built in anticipation that the altitude of combat was going to be moving up, and this belief was based upon reports about the B-29.

More on the "new jets" of the Luftwaffe? Jets w/o engines are just ... bad gliders.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Mar 7, 2005)

Stoßseufzer


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 7, 2005)

Groan all you want Erich but the fact is the engines were the achilles heel of all these "wonder planes".

At the same time, the British and Americans were building jet engines of their own with TWICE the power!


----------



## Erich (Mar 7, 2005)

twice the power not to bee seen in action...........

RG your full of crap ! The tA was not built for contention of the B-29. I asked you for your source on this and none is provided.

Go interview some German vets that have flown the a/c.

Crap on the jet shit right now ok ?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 7, 2005)

Erich said:


> twice the power not to bee seen in action...........
> 
> RG your full of crap ! The tA was not built for contention of the B-29. I asked you for your source on this and none is provided.
> 
> ...



The TA was intended to establish air-dominance above 35,000 feet. This was in response to the belief the B-29 was to be deployed in Europe. I never said the Ta was specifically built to intercept B-29's. It was built to clear the way for not only Ta's but also other German high-altitude interceptors to do so. Clearly it was intended to be capable of bomber interception - the MK108 was not a very good choice for fighter combat.



> When Germany declared war on the USA, the Luftwaffe had initially assumed that the Americans would give the war in the Pacific their first priority, and had not worried too much about high-altitude bombing raids from B-17 bombers. However, by the autumn of 1942, it became readily apparent that the USAAF was planning a full-scale massive bombing campaign against Germany from its bases in the UK, and that the Luftwaffe would soon require fighters with better high-altitude performances to face the threat from American bombers. By that time, the Luftwaffe was also aware of the existence of the B-29, and they were also aware that the existing Fw 190 would be incapable of effectively intercepting this American bomber at the altitudes at which it was supposedly capable of operating. Consequently, Dipl.-Ing Kurt Tank undertook the development of of a Hochleistungsjäger, or High-performance Fighter, offering a much improved combat ceiling.
> http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html



=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Mar 8, 2005)

RG thank you for the sources, I know see where this information came from. I own just the top title listed in Joe's short article for the fotos only. there are many mistakes in Greens big boy book, and the two other titles I gave away as bogus gifts back in the early 70's, they were so full of errors.

the Ta 152 was built in response to anything that flew over the Reich at high altitude. that meant the P-51 or any other US/RAF fighter not the B-29, as it was not even considered. As I mentioned bomber killers like the Me 262 were to be brought up for that taks, and by late 1945 into 1946 had there been a prolonged war, JG 300 would of traded all prop driven a/c for the jet as one particualr unit to face high flying Allied bombers...... slightly off topic but there are so many authors that have taken W. Greens book as the bible of the Luftwaffe and in one case on FAGr 5's journey to New York has stuck like wallpapaer glue for so many years I cannot even see why it is still accepted as fact as in nowhere in the short history of the Ju 290 unit does it mention anything about this. Greens op historys on the A/c depeicted have to be taken with a slight of hand and other more delicate and thourough works on individual units must be associated with to provide needed clarity....................Greens profiles are all hotly contested as being untrue. The schematics are interesting I have to admit.

ok enough of my bitch


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

Also another thing that needs to be stated. Yes the P-51H may have been the premiere Mustang and the US answer to the Ta-152 but one can not say which is better then the other for they never met in combat. Sorry but you can not say that the P-51H is better. 

And RG you only quote parts that suit your needs but you dont quote parts that say otherwise such as this (this is the same source that you listed open and I read the whole thing):



> It was said that no British or American fighters risked attacking an Me 262 during landing while Ta 152s were known to be circling the airfield. The large wing area of the Ta 152 made it quite easy to fly.
> http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html



Why is this, if the Ta-152 was so inferior to the P-51's why didn't they just go in an attack. Maybe this is not true but then that would make the whole source worthless.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 8, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet, you and GT(in another thread) have both stated > 152Hs used as airfield defence.

To bad but this is not true. This is another of the myths started by Green, and perpetrated by many others.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

I am not stating that, I believe they were Fw-190D's and not Ta-152H's however this proves my point that the sourse being used was crap.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 8, 2005)

Opps, sorry mis read.

Was not those gaudy red with white striped under wing colored Doras for af defense?

baughe's site is not bad as a whole but yes he does have some questionable data/statements.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

Yes they were used for Airfield defence. I can not remember the website. Erich has it, can you please post the web address on the airfield defenders.


----------



## Erich (Mar 8, 2005)

Gentlemen

ok let's try to make a few points just that much more clear.

# 1 Ta 152's were never used for airfield defence for Me 262's. On one maybe two missions of JG 301 they were in the air above II./JG 301's Dora 9's which were a thousand feet lower than the Ta 152's of III. gruppe.

# 2 Dora 9's as airfield defenders were first used by Kommando Nowotny's Me 262 fighter unit. The Dora gruppe was III./JG 54 later absorbed into IV./JG 26.

The KG units that used the Me 262 never had air cover defence and neither did the famous JG 7 although it has been stated as another myth that they had Bf 109G-10's from II./JG 7.

The Würger staffel of 5-6 Dora's, D-9's, D-11's and D-13's had the red/white undersides and they were based roughly a mile from JV 44's Me 262 base and provided minimal cover for the jet unit deep in Bavaria.

hope this helps

Erich ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

There we go, thanks Erich. I knew it was Fw-190D's and not Ta-152's.


----------



## Udet (Mar 8, 2005)

To a very good extent i am with Erich here.

That is a point RG_Lunatic apparently does not want to see. In your view RG, had the war been protracted for several more months, or even a year, you see only the allies bringing on their newest and "superior" toys.

It is interesting to note you do not see the Germans producing more of the newest and most advanced toys of the planet!

The jet engines of ALL nations already producing them were having trouble, still the Germans were the ONLY ONES who put a jet in service, furthermore a jet which brought down in combat an interesting number of enemy planes!

The Gloster Meteor was a piece of crap compared to the Schwalbe, no matter what my British friends might argue here.

As i said before, any protraction of the war plays in favor of Germany mostly!

If the P-51 was matched with the late Bf109s and Fw190s, the Ta152 represented a definitive superior fighter over anything the allies were fielding.

The "it did not see action in role for it was originally conceived" argument is 100% ridiculous. 

As Erich correctly put it, it does not matter if the idea was to fight the dreaded B-29, it could simply deal and outmatch any allied machine flying over the Reich.

RG are you forgetting the late Bf109 versions could more than outfly ANY allied plane above 35,000 ft? So the service ceiling of the B-29 is comfortably within the reach of the late Bf 109 versions. Or are you going to bring in more of your very sophisticated technical data to attempt proving that is not true?

the very high altitude performance of the Bf 109 was not matched by any fighter of the USAAF, so it is very unlikely the Germans decided to create a fighter especifically for the purpose of superb very high altitude performance, the Ta 152 in this case.

Also i find interesting to note that RG puts into doubt the performance of German planes which in fact saw action and scored killes (Ta 152 and the Me 262) but predicts the superiority of USA planes which in fact NEVER saw combat!


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 8, 2005)

IMO the Schwalbe was better than the Meteor, and I'm normally on the side of the allies


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 8, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Also another thing that needs to be stated. Yes the P-51H may have been the premiere Mustang and the US answer to the Ta-152 but one can not say which is better then the other for they never met in combat. Sorry but you can not say that the P-51H is better.



I agree, we simply do not know how the Ta152 might have matched up against the P-51H, P-47M, or late model Spitfire.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And RG you only quote parts that suit your needs but you dont quote parts that say otherwise such as this (this is the same source that you listed open and I read the whole thing):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Adler, I did not re-read the whole page on the Ta, I only scanned various pages I've got marked for the Ta for the string "B-29".



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why is this, if the Ta-152 was so inferior to the P-51's why didn't they just go in an attack. Maybe this is not true but then that would make the whole source worthless.



That is clearly sillyness. There were so few Ta's that Allied fighter pilots had no idea it even existed. It's a German, probably a Tank inspired, myth. Tank was patting himself on the back very hard toward the end of WWII. "It was said" does not say who was saying it, or that it was true.

As for the B-29 argument, it is a known fact that the German's had spies carefully watching US bomber development, particularly Boeing, which tends to give some amount of credance to that part of the page. I believe 3 German spies were caught and executed over this. I cannot recall the source for this info, perhaps a book called "Hitler's Spies" or something like that I read long ago.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 8, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> IMO the Schwalbe was better than the Meteor, and I'm normally on the side of the allies



I certainly agree. But I think the P-80 was at least a match for the 262. Probably it was inferior as a bomber killer, but superior as a jet vs. jet fighter.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

I think that the Ar-234 was perhaps the best jet of the war though.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 8, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I think that the Ar-234 was perhaps the best jet of the war though.



But with only about 38 having seen action, 12 bombers, 24 reconnaissance, and 2 night-fighters, it was truely insignificant. Once again, a huge effort to produce 210 airframes of which only about 15% saw any kind of action typifies the German jet program.

And the P-80 could carry about the same bombload.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

I think it was the first truely useful jet. It carried out the recon and bombing roles withgood efficiency. Im not sure about the Nightfighters though, I think they were only prototypes.


----------



## Erich (Mar 8, 2005)

Gents I think we are in need of seperating this long thread into two or three especially if we start up again on the 262 vs Meteor or the Arado 234.

I posted the kill info by 352nd fg ace Don Bryan over a Arado 234 didn't I ?

back to the slight variation, RG is correct the Arado was hardly felt but could of been. It was a fantastic recon plane with 2 rearward 2cm weapons fitted. first flown over Normandie beaches taking numerous fotofilms and not touched by any Allied A/c which is surprising to me. Several piston units such as the four engine Ju 290 unit FAgr 5 dumped their Junkers on KG 200 and took hold of a staffel sized unit of Arado 234's in spring of 45 and flew ?recon missions without any Allied interference.

The night version initially was flown by Kurt Welter before he decided upon the me 262A-1a for his nf kommando. Kurt felt that over burning cities that a front cover or darkened windscreen was needed so the earchlights and burning fires would not blind the pilot from underneath. this u it did not have any radar fitted and was the typical recon version with bottom of the glass nose open. Apparently his mentions did get noticed and a revised experimental nose was fitted to house the pilot and right behind him and R/O, the nose was enclosed like other nf's with FuG 218 installed and experiments with the newest Berlin 240A set. But again no operations were done.
Two other nf's of sorts were tested in Italy, kampfgruppe Bonow actually morelike 4-5 pilots but a phone propaganda name was used. the nf's were radarless but under the belly was housed two 2cm weapons and they were used to some effect in Italy on night harassing ground attack missions......


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 8, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the Ar-234 was perhaps the best jet of the war though.
> ...



CC, we know that Lune has all the op reports for all the LW units that flew the 100 had that had been deliverd, so he can't be wrong.

There was at least 19 of the 234s from KG76 lost on operations.

Sure it could, on the P-80C.


Erich, I think you are wrong on the recon having guns. There was no room for them as that is were the ammo and guns went.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 8, 2005)

Armament options for the P-80A are 6 x .50 BMG's plus 2000 lbs bombs or 10 x 5" rockets.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Mar 8, 2005)

yes the bomber versions had rearwards fring 2cm weapons but so did the newere B-1 given to the units on a very limited basis. the dual camera approach stationed to foilm vertically was towards the rear tail, but what happened is the a small protrusion was formed underneath for the recon B-1 housing the dual cannon. the protrusion was right underneath the belly and did not interfere with filming as it was placed forward of the cameras.


----------



## Erich (Mar 8, 2005)

heres a bit of additional info on the ar 234.

17 Ar 234's were in

9./KG 76 : 12
Kommando Sperling (Recon) : 4
Kommando Hecht (recon) : 1

this was for the date of 10 January 45. Pretty skim I would say. 148 Arados deliverd in 1944 but only a small portion arrived. Allied bombing put the B series into late production.

10 April 1945 only 38 Arado 234B's in action

Stab KG 76 : 2
6./KG 76 : 5
III./KG 76 : 5
______________________________________

1./FAGr 33 : 7
1./FAGr 100/old FAGr 5 : 6
1./FAGr 123 : 8

Kommando Sommer : 3
______________________________________

Kommando Bonow flying AR 234 nf's : 2

E ~


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 8, 2005)

Do you have any photos Erich? Any I have seen have no belly gun pods.




> Armament options for the P-80A are 6 x .50 BMG's plus 2000 lbs bombs or 10 x 5" rockets.



Lune, where are the racks for the bombs?

http://www.ethell.com/jethell/ww2color/p-80a.jpg
http://www.coastcomp.com/av/pres/misc2003/TO-1_P-80A_029689_12-89_a.jpg
http://www.skynet-1.com/aircraft/photo/Lock01.gif
http://broadcast.illuminatedtech.com/pages/aircraft_s/TV-1A.jpg
http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/yd09.jpg
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/post_war/p80/pics/p80a_acrojet.jpg
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/post_war/p80/pics/p80a_self.jpg
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/post_war/p80/pics/p80a_mgschrage.jpg


----------



## Erich (Mar 8, 2005)

actually the only recon B variant I have seen pics of was a snow camou'd jet, 2 views so will have to look for it. the underbelly trough is very deceptive and I can only describe it as a subtle bulge but it runs the length of the underside of the craft to make it streamlined.........sorry this really isn't a good description

E ♪


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 8, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Do you have any photos Erich? Any I have seen have no belly gun pods.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just like on most USA fighters, bomb racks were optional. But from the get-go the design included mounting points for bomb and rocket racks. This was pretty standard for US fighter designs.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 9, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Just like on most USA fighters, bomb racks were optional. But from the get-go the design included mounting points for bomb and rocket racks. This was pretty standard for US fighter designs.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



The P-80C built first in 1948 had its wings strengthened to carry 2000lb worth of bombs. Now why would that be be if the A could already carry 2000lbs worth of bombs? Many P-80As (and P-80Bs) still in service *were rebuilt* to P-80C standards. So no bombs til the P-80C.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

Im staying out of this one, mostly cuz I dont know much about the P-80 but I thought this was about the Ta-152


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 9, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Just like on most USA fighters, bomb racks were optional. But from the get-go the design included mounting points for bomb and rocket racks. This was pretty standard for US fighter designs.
> ...



Actually, the sources I've seen indicate a 2000 lbs bomb, not "2000 lbs worth of bombs", indicating a single bomb on a center station.

Besides, what does it matter? If the P-80 had entered service in WWII, and the desire to mount bombs on them came about, any needed changes would have been quickly implemented.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 9, 2005)

It is about the Ta-152, it's just gone wildly off-topic.
I don't know much about the aircraft but I think it could provide a big problem to all other fighters


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 9, 2005)

_if, if, if, if_ is a long way from your claim that it could. 

Produce a pic of a fuselage mounted bomb for I doubt very much an AN-M66 GP would fit under a P-80.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

You see RG here you are being hypocritical (spelling?). You always talk about the Luftwaffe or British aircraft being crap because they were not combat tested or used operationally during the war, but for you it is okay to use the "IF" if it as American aircraft. So why is it any different for the P-80? It was not used in combat in WW2 and dont give me that combat patrol crap. Did it shoot down any German aircraft, did it get shot down by any German aircraft? No.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 9, 2005)

I disagree. When we start talking about "what if" the Luftwaffe had survived and been strong in the summer of 1945 and beyond, the P-80 is a legitimate plane for consideration.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2005)

I can see your point there RG.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I disagree. When we start talking about "what if" the Luftwaffe had survived and been strong in the summer of 1945 and beyond, the P-80 is a legitimate plane for consideration.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



If you put it that way yes you are correct and it should be considered then but what I mean is as a whole you do this.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 10, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Actually, the sources I've seen indicate a 2000 lbs bomb, not "2000 lbs worth of bombs", indicating a single bomb on a center station.



Lots of room under the P-80's fuselage to mount this bomb.  And it would have to be to the rear of the speed brake. Nice GC then.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2005)

Nice pic.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> If you put it that way yes you are correct and it should be considered then but what I mean is as a whole you do this.



It depends on the context of the specific post I'm replying to. If we are talking about how things were the that is different than if we are talking about significant "what if's".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2005)

Okay whatever man.


----------



## GT (Jun 5, 2005)

Update.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

There were several....

You dont read many of the other topics and posts here do u??? There have been great discussions here concerning what ur asking. Maybe u should read some more of the Topics and posts that some of the more esteemed members here were kind enough to research and post for us.........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 8, 2005)

If the Ta-152 was pressed into wide service earlier, I suspect the Americans would have countered that threat with the XP-47J.






Image was taken in November of 1943.











From: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Seversky-Republic7.html

_The J was fitted with a high output version of the P&W R-2800. Specifically, the R-2800-57. This engine made 2,800 hp @ 2,800 rpm at 35,000 feet. This is in War Emergency Power. 

The aircraft actually attained 507 mph at an altitude of 34,300 feet. 2,800 hp is 133% of rated power. At military power (100%), the XP-47J could sustain 470 mph. 435 mph was attained at 81% of it's rated power (1,700 hp). All performance figures were obtained at 34,300 feet. 

The J model was an especially good climbing fighter too. It had a climb rate at sea level of 4,900 fpm. At 20,000 feet, it was still rocketing up at 4,400 fpm, and got there in 4 minutes, 15 seconds. Time to 30,000 feet was only 6 minutes, 45 seconds. Now that's an interceptor! Yet it had a usable range of 1,075 miles. Rather impressive performance. 

Nor was this a stripped down hotrod. It was fully armed and carried ballast in the wings equal to 267 rds per gun. The aircraft was flown to a height of 46,500 feet and was capable of a bit more. 

Originally designed to defeat the FW-190 series fighters, the XP-47J certainly would have exceeded this requirement. In point of fact, with its critical Mach of .83, it had the potential to chase down Me-262's by utilizing a shallow dive, taking advantage of its superior service ceiling._


----------



## Erich (Jun 8, 2005)

th Tank actually was destined to fly above 42,000 feet and using the glider mode drop down on P-51 escorts and then zoom up and flip over and repeat....


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 8, 2005)

This is true... Loos actually got a few kills doing that same manouver...


----------



## Udet (Jun 8, 2005)

Interesting phenomena...

...that superb German fighters which effectively saw service during the final days of the war are put into "doubt" due to the limited numbers reaching fighter units but unexplicably predict an alleged "superiority" of whatever of their designs which did not see any action during WWII.

Since the Ta 152 saw service and proved being a top machine I am more than convinced this allegedly superior plane -which did not see service- could be surpassed.

If we decide to play in the same pond, the Do 335, which did not see service, but got duly tested could also be a superior machine if compared to this particular USAAF fighter.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 8, 2005)

I have to agree in this case. We can only speculate how the XP-47J would have faired in aerial combat. The speed and climb rate are impressive, but that doesn't say how it would be in a dogfight. The Do-335 is said in some circles to have been the finest piston fighter of all time. It too was an impressive aircraft, but also untested in combat.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 9, 2005)

Gentlermen, before we all get our panties in a bunch, all I said was, "I suspect the Americans would have countered that threat with the XP-47J." I never said that the XP-47J would be superior.(I was thinking it however. )

We do know that the XP-47J was flying during the latter part of 1943 and was developed specifically to handle the Fw-190. How it would have actually fared in such combat had it gone into production we will obviously never know.

It should be borne in mind though that this was not an entirely untested and new combat design. It was essentially just a lighter and more aerodynamic P-47 Razorback with a 2,800hp "C" series turbo-supercharged engine within a close fitted cowling. I understand that it employed the same wings, tail, rudder and control surfaces.


----------



## evangilder (Jun 9, 2005)

Hey now, leave my panties out of this!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 9, 2005)

The Pink ones or the Lavender Blue ones with that Butterfly on em???


----------



## evangilder (Jun 9, 2005)

I was thinking of the racy lacy ones, with the optional bulge.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 9, 2005)

OK, but that bulge in the back will leave a brown stain tho...


----------



## evangilder (Jun 9, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

That is the problem some people here (I am not saying you Davidicus  ) tend to automatically asume that certain aircraft (mostly allied aircraft) would have been the best things since woman and crotchless panties 8) . They automatically dispute Japanese or German aircraft because they did not see any service but an allied aircraft that was the same way is okay.

I too think the Do-335 could have been one great machine had it been given the chance, however based on actually seeing service the Ta-152 in my opinion and probably the opinion of many experts (which I am not) was the most superior piston aircraft to see service in WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Gentlermen, before we all get our panties in a bunch, all I said was, "I suspect the Americans would have countered that threat with the XP-47J." I never said that the XP-47J would be superior.(I was thinking it however. )
> 
> We do know that the XP-47J was flying during the latter part of 1943 and was developed specifically to handle the Fw-190. How it would have actually fared in such combat had it gone into production we will obviously never know.
> 
> It should be borne in mind though that this was not an entirely untested and new combat design. It was essentially just a lighter and more aerodynamic P-47 Razorback with a 2,800hp "C" series turbo-supercharged engine within a close fitted cowling. I understand that it employed the same wings, tail, rudder and control surfaces.



And the Ta-152 was also pretty much the same. It was an evolution of the Fw-190D-9. I am not sure if it is true but I have read that the last 190D-9 to come off of the assembly line were renamed Ta-152's.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2005)

The Germans would have countered with increased useage of a newer Me 262 jet streamlined with overall much better fuel efficient engines and amored to boot..........Ta's would of been used for airifield protection

Jupp Keil I believe was the only Ta 152 ace with 6 kills in the craft. Walter Loos and Will Reschke came close I think with 4 each. Bubi Bloom got 1-2


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Off topic but speaking of the 262. Didn't Willie Messerschmitt build a version of the 262 called for the Shneider Cup in 1949? Not sure if I am correct here, that is why I am asking.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2005)

not sure but the Soviets tried to elaborate on the desgin from captured stocks near Prague at wars end


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Yes I have read on them.


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Aug 17, 2005)

As to Guest's comment on the wing twist. Almost all wings have some kind of 'twist' to them. The actual reason is to provide stall warning (through buffeting on the more cambered portion of the wing) while the outside of the wing, the ailerons, still remain effective even though the inside portion of the wing was essentially stalling. 

Very few aircraft actually have a wing 'twist'. Most wings are built with the root portion of the wing having a greater camber as it joins the fuselage. These two methods however are generally more expensive than other methods used to simulate wing 'twist'. The most common one you'll see is the 'stall strip'. Literally a piece of metal bolted or welded onto the leading edge of a wing to disrupt the airflow there first. A great example of this is the Lear 35. 

Anyway, I still think a P-47 could smoke the 152. Didn't it have a higher ceiling by 7,000 ft or so? And... for some reason I thought it was still faster than the 152? For sure it didn't have the questionable construction that late war German construction suffered from.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 17, 2005)

Really depends on the model of -47 we're talkin about... 

Plain and simple, the -152H was more than a handful for ANY pilot in ANY aircraft to deal with...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 18, 2005)

The problem here is that no-one is making comparisons with other fighters. Its all well and good to state that the Ta-152 was the best High-Altitude fighter, but WHY was it so? What made it better than its opponents.

What qualifications did it have to make it THE BEST?

Speed?
Range?
Service Ceiling?
Armament?
Sighting?
Climb?
Dive?
Roll?
Stall warnings?
Instanteous turn?
Turning circle?
Visibility?
Quality of production?
Easy of handling?
Ease of mainenence?
Ease of Production?
Ease of pilot conversion?
Slow speed flight characteristics?
Landing characteristics?

All of these factors need to be considered before a judgement can be made.

We also need to look at aircraft that could of been potential competitors in the high altitude stakes

Likely ones are;

P-47M
P-47N
P-51H
Spitfire XIV
Spitfire XVIII
Spitfire 21
Yak-9U

When you look at the list of opponents the Ta-152 suddenly doesn't seem as fierce as it did wen it was going up against P-51Ds, P-47-D-30s and Spitfire IXs. In many cases it is out-run, out-climbed, out-turned, out-dived and out manouvered by it Allied counterparts. With the exception of the Yak, all of these planes have a 40,000 foot plus flight ceiling, engines that are rated over 2000 hp and (with the exception of the P-51H), quite heavy armament and are just as much at home in this environment as the Ta..


----------



## Udet (Aug 18, 2005)

Mr. Jabber:

From where is it that you concluded some of those allied planes "out-run, out-dived, out-manouvered and out-turned" the Ta 152?

I do not have the time to conduct any in depth technical discussion here; however, I will bring up elements extracted from the combat records that can add strenght to the notion of how superb the Ta 152 was.

At very high altitude, the Bf 109, G-6 and G-10 (the versions which saw the most action against both RAF and USAAF in 1944) were formidable fighters against anything fielded by the enemy. The especially trimmed AS variants came to increase the value of the version.

The Butcher Bird, Fw 190 A´s, could easily chew anything sent out by the enemy at mid/low altitude. Emil Lang, for instance, shot down 4 P-51´s in less than 5 minutes...twice. Or the sturmböck pilots flying their Fw´s fitted with rough 250 kg of extra armor who managed to digest Mustangs during the fierce air battles of 1944.

Now, the "long nose" Fw 190 D, appeared to fill the high altitude gap of its predecessor. Appearing in modest numbers in battle also proved its worth against anything fielded by the enemy.

The Ta 152 came as the final evolution of Kurt Tank´s fighter. The tests showed it left both the Bf 109 and the previous Fw190s behind. We know it, too little and too late for the Ta 152 as well.

As for the combat record of the Ta 152 you can check the accounts of stab/JG 301 during the final weeks of the war. Being an extremely high altitude fighter, the Ta 152 proved lethal against the soviet Yaks at very low altitude during the very last days of the war.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 18, 2005)

Jabberwok, if u go back to page one and read the whole thread, u will see several arguments and info concerning this question...


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Aug 20, 2005)

I keep hearing that the TA152 would have been used for top cover for ME262 fields. This just doesn't make sense. Why would you have a high altitude fighter provide low altitude cover? Most landing patterns are anywhere from 0' to 3000' agl. Down this low the 152 would have suffered. Those big ol' beautiful wings it had would have had big drag penalties down low. It wouldn't have been as fast as other aircraft, thus more vulnerable. So I question the validity of those claims saying it was used mainly for top cover over 262 airfields. Maybe... but then it was a bad decision, or they flew top cover at 30,000' for a landing pattern at 2000'. Just doesn't work for me on that score.


----------



## Erich (Aug 20, 2005)

so Monkey where do you hear these myths of Hohenjäger for 262's ? the whole stement is a joke and is not backed by any factual evidence. My cousin served in Jg 301 and I have a bit of info on the tank plus copies of flugbuchs of the units vets. The Ta could almost bust out 500mph as well as almost toping out beyond 47,000 feet in tests by at least 6 pilots.

to be truthful we are not going to know if the Ta could take on a P-47N or other late mark Spits


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2005)

We can agree tho that the Ta-152H was the definitive prop job for the Luftwaffe....

Several pilots who had the chance to fly the -152 said that at altitude, there was nothing to compare it to, because it was so superior to anything else they had ever flown...

Although it was planned to be used as a top cover aircraft, it never did set upon that task, instead being relegated mostly to short intercepts of Russian Yaks at mid level altitudes, in which it truly owned the Yakolev fighters...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2005)

Just a small point....

I recently came across a book "German Aircraft in Soviet Service," and it showed several FW-190D and TA-152H in Soviet markings. The text stated the aircraft were assigned to a Baltic "High Altitude Incerceptor Squadron" and remained in use until 1948.....

I wish I had bought this book!


----------



## evangilder (Aug 21, 2005)

I would guess those -152s were captured at war's end and used by the Soviets in a high altitude interceptor squadron because they had nothing else to perform at that altitude other than the captured German aircraft.


----------



## Erich (Aug 21, 2005)

Les I still doubt seriously that the Ta was developed as a high cover a/c. there is no written proof in the German. It was selected to combat high altitiude P-51's for which it was not destined. It took on several Soviet types, RAF Tempests and US P-47's. There is even a quote that a B-17 was claimed but this is doubtful as well.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 21, 2005)

Udet said:


> The Butcher Bird, Fw 190 A´s, could easily chew anything sent out by the enemy at mid/low altitude. Emil Lang, for instance, shot down 4 P-51´s in less than 5 minutes...twice. Or the sturmböck pilots flying their Fw´s fitted with rough 250 kg of extra armor who managed to digest Mustangs during the fierce air battles of 1944.



There were numerous occasions when P47's, P51's and P38's "chewed" and "digested" multiple 109's and 190's.

There were even many occasions when multiple 109's and 190's were chewed and digested by B17's and B24's. I bet we can also say the Soviets had the same luck against the 109's and 190's.

A great pilot in almost any airplane can shootdown a less capable pilot flying a great plane. So lets not say that the -109 and -190 planes were the do all to end all fighters, cause they werent.

In all fairness, if the Ta-152 had acceptable maneuverability in the roll rate, then we can rank it as the best high altitude interceptor of WW2. 

Has anyone wondered what the results of a Ta-152 vs F4U-5 would be? That would have been an interesting matchup (I know the -5 didnt come out untill the end of the war... but its just hypothetical)


----------



## Erich (Aug 21, 2005)

syscom your question although a what if was covered in back threads. this thread probably should been called "The best high altitude interceptor in the ETO " ?

indeed it may well have been though it's service record doesn't chart it's high alt ops exploits. Armed as it was in the H-0 and H-1 versions it would of competed with anything the Allies were going to throw in it's way including B-17's/B-24's or Lancasters in the day role


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 21, 2005)

Heres an interesting thought..... Ta-152's vs B29's.

I wonder if the B29's computer controlled defensive firepower could neutralize the -152's firepower?


----------



## Erich (Aug 21, 2005)

fuuny but your statement is another myth that has been developed over time after the war that the Ta 152H was to contend the B-29 if it was to be brought over to the ETO. Fact is the the TA was to be used as a weapon against the P-51 and that any bomber would then be subjected to jet attacks/tactics which were going through changes at wars end when newer more streamlined arsenals were to be produced


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 21, 2005)

Erich said:


> fuuny but your statement is another myth that has been developed over time after the war that the Ta 152H was to contend the B-29 if it was to be brought over to the ETO. Fact is the the TA was to be used as a weapon against the P-51 and that any bomber would then be subjected to jet attacks/tactics which were going through changes at wars end when newer more streamlined arsenals were to be produced



You know you have a lot of good points but:

1. The Ta-152 was optimized for fighting above the service envelope of the Mustang. 
2. The B-29 was capable/designed to fly within the flight envolope of the Ta-152.
3. The Germans had a priority on the collection of information on the B-29 and options to counter it. 

I haven't heard any official info pro/con on this but it sure explaines the intrest/effort put into a program that doesn't seem to apply or be needed for the P-51.

Do you have something that shows why the Ta-152 program was persued?

wmaxt


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 21, 2005)

erich, I never said the Ta was designed or developed for the high cover roll.... It was designed, as u know, for high altitude interception...

The -190D-9 variant served this roll quite well as a stop gap till the -152 could be properly mated with the correct powerplant, the Jumo 213E-1, that Herr Dr. Tank desired...


----------



## Erich (Aug 21, 2005)

yes I have information in the German as to why the Ta was created and for it's optimal useage but of course we know that did not happen. the P-51's were to be brought up hoping that the Ta's in staffel strength could always pounce down upon the mustangs with the sun in their faces. a novel idea of course that did not develop, and one that German pilots were hoping to even out the odds.

I have never seen any official documentation to support the theory that there would be B-29/Ta 152 engagements. I did see the myth written in the early 1960's in the English in old aerial a/c books printed in the states that have since fallen by the wayside. In accordanace with what I know of friend Jerry Crandall his work when published on JG 301 with heavy emphasis on the Ta 152H should be remidied for all those interested as he has worked on the NASM Ta flown by pilot Walter Loos


----------



## Erich (Aug 21, 2005)

Les no my comment was for Monkeysee. We have had the discussion before in the past. The Dora was a stop gap that was to be ceased until enough Tank's could role off the lines as well as an increase in redesigned Me 262's in Reich defence and in fact an allotment was to be drawn and given to JG 300 for just this purpose starting in the summer of 1945. JG 7 would of gotten it's fair share for the struggling II. gruppe which was a paper outfit and the so-called squadron of experten, JV 44 would of been enlarged to full Geschwader strength. R4M's with about 48 per craft would of been standard in the jet vs bomber roles and of course the refit of AT rockets against the Soviets, but as we know the war ended before this all could even take place


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 21, 2005)

Erich said:


> yes I have information in the German as to why the Ta was created and for it's optimal useage but of course we know that did not happen. the P-51's were to be brought up hoping that the Ta's in staffel strength could always pounce down upon the mustangs with the sun in their faces. a novel idea of course that did not develop, and one that German pilots were hoping to even out the odds.
> 
> I have never seen any official documentation to support the theory that there would be B-29/Ta 152 engagements. I did see the myth written in the early 1960's in the English in old aerial a/c books printed in the states that have since fallen by the wayside. In accordanace with what I know of friend Jerry Crandall his work when published on JG 301 with heavy emphasis on the Ta 152H should be remidied for all those interested as he has worked on the NASM Ta flown by pilot Walter Loos



Something to think about is that most myths have a basis in truth and the lack of evidence does not mean nonexistence. Performance levels of the 109K/190D/262 was adequate, the Ta-152 was an extravagance that was not required, for the P-51. There is more to it than coming out of the sun to get P-51s because they could already do that. 

For now I'm going to keep my mind open to the possibility/liklyhood.

wmaxt


----------



## Erich (Aug 21, 2005)

sorry but I don't buy it as their is lack of German documentation on the B-29 theory and there is plenty of text written on this bird. As I said I do have connections, and some new information will be gleaned from the future release and I hope within the 5 year period I was told. The Bf 109, Dora and 262 could not handle the Mustang hordes and this is plainly obvious, what was needed and so the German techs thought was an overpowering effective H.A. craft that the Mustangs could not even touch


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2005)

Just a comment - The B-29 fire control system could handle a target up to 470 mph. Anything beyond that the firing "blip" that appeared on the target aperture would only illuminate for a split second. It was at this time you "pulled the trigger."


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 24, 2005)

Udet said:


> Mr. Jabber:
> 
> From where is it that you concluded some of those allied planes "out-run, out-dived, out-manouvered and out-turned" the Ta 152?
> 
> ...



I like your style, but the execturion just isn't there  

Any late war fighter was capable of killing any other late war fighter. You just can't argue otherwise, simple common sense. There are planet of accounts from late 1944 onwards, on both sides, of pilots scoring multiple kills against late war opponents. There were several P-47 and P-51 pilots who had 5 kills in a single mission. 

No one plane was superior in all respects. 

To back up my claims just look at some of the Allied fighters;

P-51H; 487mph level speed at 25,000 feet, service ceiling of 42,000 feet
P-47M; 471mph at 32,000 feet, service ceiling 46,500 feet
P-47N; 465 mph at 30,000 feet, service ceiling 42,000 feet
Spitfire XIV; 447 mph at 26,000 feet, 420mph at 40,000 feet, service ceiling 44,000 feet.

The Spitfire XIV climbed better off the deck to 40,000 feet, the P-51H could outpaced it, the P-47s would be able to outdive it and the N model would at least match it in a turn. Even the Me-262 pilots feared the late model P-47s ability to gain speed in a dive. Unlike the Ta or Ma the P-47s had wing mounted dive breaks which allowed them to push their dives harder then their opponents. 

The Allies had a wide variety of aircraft that were the counterparts of the Ta-152. They were equally at home above 40,000 feet.

The question is; what would they be doing at that height in the first place?

The Strategic Bombers of WW2 all had service ceilings about or below 35,000 feet and generally operated lower than this. Even the B-29 was only officially cleared for 33,600 feet. There would be very little for the Ta-152 to do at 48,000 feet. It has to come into Allied fighter territory in order to be an interceptor of any use. 

As for low and medium levels, 190As, as good as they were at low level, were counterpunched by the combination of Spitifire IX L.F.s, Spitfire XIIs, Mustang IIIs at 25lbs boost, Typhoons and Tempests as well as +18bs Spitfire Vs with cropped impellers. 

Would the Ta-152 have ruled the roost above 4,000 feet. Yes, of course. Nothing but a P-47M would go high enough to challenge it. High alt really begins around 30,000 feet though. At this height the Ta was just another one of the boys, and there were things that others could do better.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 24, 2005)

Didnt the P47 have one of the fastest roll rates among all WW2 fighters at high altitudes?

And the late model P38L's with dive brakes were no slouches either at high and medium altitudes.


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 24, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Didnt the P47 have one of the fastest roll rates among all WW2 fighters at high altitudes?
> 
> And the late model P38L's with dive brakes were no slouches either at high and medium altitudes.



True, and had it been required, the P-38K would have been produced to counter any threat above 40,000ft.

wmaxt


----------



## Udet (Aug 25, 2005)

Jabber, hi!

Let me first proceed to cast the Spitfire XIV aside from the group of allied planes you cited here.

Why´s that? For the easy reason the XIV while in fact very fast, was already suffering a deteriorating handling. 

Most of my British mates here dislike me very greatly for I constantly repeat the Spitfire is an overrated machine that suffered even more than the Bf 109 throughout its ever evolving life.

I wholeheartedly agree with you any late war fighter was capable of shooting down its enemies though, Spitfre XIV included.

Now that I´ve casted the Sptifire XIV aside, it is the Mustangs turn. Why? About as overrated as the glorious Spitfire.

If there is one plane I will not slam that is the Jug. Not a perfect plane either. It took a pounding the first year it operated, but it is, by far, the best fighter deployed by the allies. Great dive, roll, speed and damage absorbing abilities.



Now, the P-51 H? It did not even fly in Europe Jabber.

Now, let´s play a game and pretend the P-51 H has the chance of flying against the Luftwaffe. Also add the P-47 N, M (O,P,Q,R and Y reaching 12,900 hp) who hardly saw any action, if any, in Europe as well.

(Note nobody suggested the Ta-152 was a perfect machine. No plane made a perfect machine during the war)

Why is it that the allied boys -not you Jabber- only see the allies bringing on powerful might toys to the front against the Luftwaffe?

In our game, if the P-51 H and all the new Jugs fly in numbers against the Luftwaffe is due to the fundamental reason that the war got protracted.

A protracted war means the allies -even if they will win in the end- have not yet put Germany down on its knees; so any protraction of the war also plays in favor of Germany.

The war is protracted fundamentally due to German actions, and not for the actions (or omissions) of the allies who were hard pressed to finish the war.

So the Germans will certainly send very aggressive and lethal new toys to welcome the new allied hardware.

What about two staffeln of Dornier Do 335s? The plane was about as fast or faster than any allied design, and had a hell of a handling, acceleration and dive. Or what about improved and faster jets with more experienced pilots? And of course, the Ta-152 as well. 

As Erich correctly once put it, it is silly to debate if the 152 was conceived to deal with the dreaded B-29. By the way, no matter how sophisticated the B-29 might have been, had it seen action in numbers over Europe its fate would have been no different to that suffered by the B-24s and B-17s.

The Ta-152 (quoting Erich) was designed to deal with anything that flew over the Reich, as simple as that. The yak is frequently depicted as the "best low altitude fighter" of the wat. Whatever. The Ta-152 proved the Yaks were no match against it, at very low altitudes, suffering no losses against the VVS.

You made several good points jabber.

Cheers!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 25, 2005)

You're disliked 'cos you're an ass. 

That aside, the Spitfire did not loss handling characteristics. You're making that up as you go along. The Spitfire XIV had the exact same turning circle as the Spitfire IX. The only reduction in performance from the Spitfire series was from the Spitfire XIV to the Spitfire 21 - the Spitfire XIV could climb faster. 

But I really don't know why I bother, you're the same person that said the Spitfire 21 handled like a...what was it? "...a pig."

Don't mind me I'll just be rolling around with laughter.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 25, 2005)

Yup, here it comes..............


> You're disliked 'cos you're an ass.


BAM!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 25, 2005)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 25, 2005)




----------



## Udet (Aug 25, 2005)

Plan_D:

This will be brief but substantial.

I happen to know "what" I am.

(Remark: Your intelligence lets a lot to be desired if you think your rubbish contains any offense, much less fun -regarding the emoticons posted by some here-.)

It should be you asking yourself what the hell are you.

Now mr. tough guy, I am beginning to ask myself "who the hell is this little person (plan_D) who speaks to me though as he was qualified on the subject?". I am reaching tolerance level with you. 

Have all assurances you are directing your comments to someone who has made, and continues making his homework. 

With this I mean: I´d be glad to teach and to prove you how is it that the Sptifire is in fact overrated, and that its fighting abilities were in fact affected throughout its developing.

*But no. What the hell makes you think you and your advocators are the sole ones in a position to dislike others? *

Be sure there are some who do not like you as well. Not my case though. I do find you irrelevant. There is no need to waste energies with you.

The issue, in fact, is quite a different one: you completely swallowed the pill prescribed by the propaganda of your country. I understand people like you very well; it is quite an annoying experience you must go through when knowing of someone challenging the laid-back comfort and may i say, "soundness", of the beliefs of a lifetime.

You are the typical Brit firmly convinced the Spitfire´s evolution was one of pure perfection. From the MkI to the 21, your preferred toy did nothing but becoming even more wonderful, perfect and lethal, version after version; every version of the Spit outdoing the previous one! Ouurrahhh!

So, I "make things up" eh? Very unlikely tough guy. To put this in rougher terms: it is perhaps you who has not made the homework and decided to rest your butt listening to the appealing prayers of the allied propaganda.

To get done with you, learn this very well: without the (thousands) Jugs, Mustangs and Lightnings of the 8th and 15th AFs, the flawless Spitfires deepest point of penetration in Europe would have been a mere dozens of miles behind the french beaches along the channel, and to put the cherry on top of the ice cream ball guess what?? The area of the map comprised by the channel (the bottom), french beaches and the few dozens of miles behind them, would be littered with Spitfires.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 25, 2005)

Udet said:


> As Erich correctly once put it, it is silly to debate if the 152 was conceived to deal with the dreaded B-29. By the way, no matter how sophisticated the B-29 might have been, had it seen action in numbers over Europe its fate would have been no different to that suffered by the B-24s and B-17s.



I have to disagree with you on that. Even though the B29 was deployed to the Pacific, it is quite conceivable that a B29/Ta152 matchup could have occured. The B29 was a magnitude or better improvement over the B17's and B24's. Imagine the intercept problems for the Ta152 pilot would have chasing a 300 mph bomber. Forget about head on pass's cause the closing rate would have been so fast to be absurd. The only way to get to them would be an old fashioned "tail chase" which incidently, burns a lot of fuel. Unless the intercept was perfectly timed, the -152 could only have fuel for 1 pass. Admittedly, the -152 was supurbly armed. But thats offset by the B29 being so big, and the B29 could fire back at the fighter with far more precision than the hand aimed guns on the B17/24. Id say a B29 formation would give the -152 pilots all they could handle. Invincible? No.... but not a bunch of sitting ducks either.

In addition, I'd say the Ta152's flying at 44,000 feet at 450 mph would be right on the bubble of compressability. Put the nose down for a dive, and it would quickly accelerate out of control, just like the early model P38's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> Udet said:
> 
> 
> > As Erich correctly once put it, it is silly to debate if the 152 was conceived to deal with the dreaded B-29. By the way, no matter how sophisticated the B-29 might have been, had it seen action in numbers over Europe its fate would have been no different to that suffered by the B-24s and B-17s.
> ...



And with the B-29's fire control system, the Ta152 would not of been able to rip through formations as easily done with the butcher bird. 35,000' intercepts with an aircraft that will go no faster than 470 mph - this is exactly what the B-29s fire control system was designed for...

And again, the B-29 would not of been alone, the B-32 would of been there as well

Although escorts still would of been essential....

Now throw in the -262; that's another story....
What ifs........


----------



## Erich (Aug 25, 2005)

ah you haven't thought of one thing that was being perfected the last 2 months of the war. Not that the TA had bad cannon because it had already proven quite effective...........what am I getting at you think ?

it flys quite quickly and cannot be shot down and bomber pulks would easily be decimated as already proven by JG 7's Me 262 attacks on 18 of March 45. man did I ever give you guys a hint. think radio ~ wire controlled and not the unwieldly racked devices which still would of been used as a stop gap


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 26, 2005)

Udet said:


> Jabber, hi!
> 
> Let me first proceed to cast the Spitfire XIV aside from the group of allied planes you cited here.
> 
> ...



Have you read the ADFU tactical trials of the Spitfire XIV?

Strangely enough, they performed a DIRECT comparison to the Spitfire IX.

Here is what they found;

**************************

ADFU Report. 117 16th June 1944

TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE IX

13. The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).

Range Endurance
14. The Spitfire XIV, without a long-range tank, carries 110 gallons of fuel and 9 gallons of oil. When handled similarily, the Spitfire XIV uses fuel at about 1 1/4 times the rate of the Spitfire IX. Its endurance is therefore slightly less. Owing to its higher speed for corresponding engine settings, its range is about equal. For the same reasons, extra fuel carried in a long-range tank keeps its range about equal to that of the Spitfire IX, its endurance being slightly less.

Speeds
15. At all heights the Spitfire XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.

Climb
16. The Spitfire XIV has a slightly better maximum climb than the Spitfire IX, having the best maximum rate of climb yet seen at this Unit. In the zoom climb the Spitfire XIV gains slightly all the way, especially if full throttle is used in the climb.

Dive
17. The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.

*Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.*

Rate of Roll
19. Rate of roll is very much the same.

Search View and Rear View
20. The search view from the pilot's cockpit is good; the longer nose of the aircraft interferes with the all-round visibility, which remains the same as that of the Spitfire IX. Rear View is similar.

Sighting View and Fire Power
21. The sighting view is slightly better being 4 deg (140 m.p.h.) as against 3 1/3 deg. The two bulges at the side cause little restriction. The firepower is identical with the Spitfire IX.

Armour
22. As for the Spitfire IX

Conclusions
23. The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off. 

END OF SECTION

*********************


The ADFU, who tested all RAF planes for combat during the war, concluded that the turning circles of the XIV and the XI were identical, the XIV turned to the left better than to the right and that the stall warning was less pronnounced than in the XI. I hardly think this qualifies the XIV as having "deteroiated handling"

Another section from the same report;

***********************

FLYING CHARACTERISTICS

5. In most respects this aircraft is similar to the Spitfire IX, except for some very marked changes in trim with alteration of throttle setting below 0 boost. This applies principally to the rudder, despite the incorporation of the servo-operated trimming tab. This is the one bad characteristic of this aircraft. The elevators also require more frequent trimming than in a Spitfire IX. 

********************


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 26, 2005)

Nah ur wrong... U must have made up those statements... If Udet says it was junk, it must be, cause he knows SOOOOOOOOO mush more than all of us here....

I mean seriously, none of us here feel that the Spit was overrated and handled like a pig.... But since Udet thinks so, we better all get onboard with him before he slaps a Mazatlan VooDoo Curse on us and all our hair will fall out...

I have it on good infirmation that Udet was infact a test pilot back in the day, and personally flew every type of single engine fighter in WWII, which explains his expertise in this matter... Dont pay any heed to all the other test pilots and Aces and whatnot that flew many of the fighters of WWII..... They were all wrong....

Udet for Presidente!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 26, 2005)

Erich said:


> ah you haven't thought of one thing that was being perfected the last 2 months of the war. Not that the TA had bad cannon because it had already proven quite effective...........what am I getting at you think ?
> 
> it flys quite quickly and cannot be shot down and bomber pulks would easily be decimated as already proven by JG 7's Me 262 attacks on 18 of March 45. man did I ever give you guys a hint. think radio ~ wire controlled and not the unwieldly racked devices which still would of been used as a stop gap



I would guess the X-4?!? But wire-guided for air-to-air?


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2005)

yes and more Fly. did you guys know that some Dora 9's had R4M racks installed in the spring of 45 ?


----------



## evangilder (Aug 26, 2005)

Wow! If the war had continued, there is no telling how bad the bomber groups would have been bloodied. Not that they weren't already getting bloodied.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 26, 2005)

Erich said:


> yes and more Fly. did you guys know that some Dora 9's had R4M racks installed in the spring of 45 ?



Yes - Well aware of the R4Ms on 262s, didn't realize that Doras had them as well?!? - as stated it would of been quite a battle and not a cake walk although the radar controlled turrets would of given a hell of a lot better protection for the bombers provided they weren't first shredded by the rockets.....

I think the X-4 would of been devastating provided the launch plane could get off a good shot. I know I'm talking decades later, but I knew helicopter pilots who fired wire guided weapons. If no one was shooting at you, the aircraft was stable and you had a clear view of the target, they could be deadly. I doubt you could get that scenario while attacking a stream of B-29s with a bunch of escorts buzzing around.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 26, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Wow! If the war had continued, there is no telling how bad the bomber groups would have been bloodied. Not that they weren't already getting bloodied.



Actually, by Sept 1944, the Luftwaffe pretty muched ceased to exist as an effective force. When you look at the stats, after that date, few B17's and B24's were getting shot down by fighters.

Having the rockets gives the Ta152 a leg up on shooting down a bomber..... but I would guess the B29's would counter with 30mm, maybe 37mm cannons in the tail position.

Note - Wire guided air-to-air missles require a stable platform that isnt maneauvering. If a fighter does that, its going to be shot down quickly. Remote control missles have always been prone to jamming.


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2005)

sorry but the Luftwaffe ceased to exist in May of 45 or should we say by March of 45 when Me 262's were about the only things that faced the RAF and US, the Reich defence depleted since 9/10ths of the gruppen went to the Ost front for the last battles for Berlin.

no matter the R4M's were outside the range of 30mm and 37mm. this is all getting to what ifs with a/c comparisons that never actually took place with the Ta and the thread has run it's course............downward


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 26, 2005)

Udet said:


> As Erich correctly once put it, it is silly to debate if the 152 was conceived to deal with the dreaded B-29. By the way, no matter how sophisticated the B-29 might have been, had it seen action in numbers over Europe its fate would have been no different to that suffered by the B-24s and B-17s.



One thing, the overal loss for the AAF heavy bombers in the ETO was 5,548 of which 2,452 were from German Aircraft. Anti Aircraft fire got 5,439. 

The average percentage before the escorts were 5% to 6% of the whole bomber stream. Yes there were missions that were significantly higher, but those numbers are included. Starting with the P-38 escorts the percentage dropped to 1% to 2% of the sorties flown.

The B-29 at altitude would be even less vunerable esp to the AA fire. 

I'm not convinced the Ta-152 and the B-29 are totaly unrelated, the performance envelope is too close, though it is possible it's coincidence.

wmaxt


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2005)

one thing friend your losses cannot be summarized using AA. It is too incomplete. One thing is that during the summer of 44 with the quick SturmFw 190 tactics many US bomber crews thought they had been hit by Flak but they were not. Same goes for many RAF crews flying heavies over the Reich, they were downed by Schräge Musik, 15th AF B-24 crews flying over Austria/Hungary at night came up with the same response if they made it back to base luckily....it had to be Flak.

The losses due to German a/c cannot be counted as complete as many claims/kills records have been lost and during the fall of 44 the processing and officially awarding claims was discontinued. In other words there are no official counts whether German or US/RAF


----------



## wmaxt (Aug 26, 2005)

Erich said:


> one thing friend your losses cannot be summarized using AA. It is too incomplete. One thing is that during the summer of 44 with the quick SturmFw 190 tactics many US bomber crews thought they had been hit by Flak but they were not. Same goes for many RAF crews flying heavies over the Reich, they were downed by Schräge Musik, 15th AF B-24 crews flying over Austria/Hungary at night came up with the same response if they made it back to base luckily....it had to be Flak.
> 
> The losses due to German a/c cannot be counted as complete as many claims/kills records have been lost and during the fall of 44 the processing and officially awarding claims was discontinued. In other words there are no official counts whether German or US/RAF



You may be right. The numbers I showed above are AAF Statistical Records and they may be off a little in the AA/Aircraft kills ratio but considering the majority of the time the German aircraft did not go into AA zones it's most likely very close. As to the overall nomber (which includes 657 losses to other causes) are the actual numbers the AAF lost. 

I have read that aircraft that made it home but were not repairable may not be included in that number. 

wmaxt


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2005)

it is up to discernment unfortunately........

for night time losses are as follows. total for the Night gruppen : 7,308 confirmed day and night victories.

Day time activities as I previously mentioned. Göring in his own assinine way ordered the single enigine fighter units to intercept bomber pulks even during the bombers prescence in Flak barrage segments.
Imagine thinking that your own AA would blast you as well as .50's


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 26, 2005)

Scary thought! I bet Goring would still call them cowards!


----------



## Erich (Aug 26, 2005)

The fat Ass actually did on several occassions to the SturmFw pilots telling the Gruppen Kommandeurs/pilots that they were not closing in with the bombers and taking more of them down. also in 44 it was ordered for single engine day fighters in the Reich to keep the drop tank in place when engaging enemy a/c as fuel was to precious to waste............another lame brain idea from the big boy


----------



## plan_D (Aug 26, 2005)

I have one thing for you Udet -  


Fact of the matter is, concerning the Spitfire, it's already been proven that the Spitfire didn't lose handling as it went up through the marks. 

I don't need to bring my knowledge into a discussion with you because you just show yourself up. 

I was wrong before, you're not an ass. You're a pussy. And I'm a dick, and we fuck pussies. 

Carry on with your real discussion the rest of you lads. It's great.


----------



## Gemhorse (Aug 27, 2005)

IMO the Ta152 was a superlative aircraft designed to tackle High-altitude enemy aircraft....

One aircraft that consistently flew high-altitude missions over Germany from 1942 throughout the War, was the PR Mosquitos, and often they thwarted multiple attacks by Luftwaffe fighters, to bring the photos home. They also built a variant specifically to deal with the Ju86P, back in 1942, but the Luftwaffe cancelled their missions before this Mossie variant could be used...and as mentioned, the other successful PR variant was the Spitfire, and a model of this was also developed for use against the Ju86P's...

I read with interest about all these ''hairy-assed fighters'' that would n' could bring down the Ta-152, but I for one think it was quite a tribute to Tank's inventiveness to come up with this aircraft, albeit rather late in the fray, to try and stem the torrent of Allied aircraft pummeling Germany. I for one had fallen under the spell of Green's books on Luftwaffe aircraft, but the fact remains, they built some exceptionally innovative aircraft, I've always found Capt. Eric Brown's reports most informative about them, and the mention of the Ar-335 and Ar-234 indicate a continuing potential to inflict damage to the invading air armada, if they hadn't become starved of fuel and seasoned pilots. Considering that the Lufwaffe's complement of defensive aircraft in the ETO was always limited, they did a remarkable job right to the bitter end with what they had, and the USAAF bombers at great cost to themselves managed to dispatch 3000-odd enemy fighters during the overall offensive...

Some believe the Ta-152 was developed for action against the B-29, one of which deliberately came to the UK, via it's trip eastward, to entice enemy intelligence into believing they were indeed scheduled for service in the ETO...which would have been interesting, considering the problems the B-29 was plagued with concerning engine-overheating while trying to achieve it's claimed altitude...

Ironically, the Mosquito continued it's trips in and out of Germany throughout the War, with negligable losses, compared to other aircraft....
For example, the 'Battle of Berlin', which was fought exclusively with Lancasters, supported by Mosquitos, of the 2,034 sorties the bomber- Mossies flew, they only lost 10 aircraft...They had help from 100 Group Intruder Mosquitos keeping watch on Luftwaffe airfields, while 'Serrate' Mosquitos stalked around the bomber streams for enemy nightfighters...

The Mosquito was always a thorn the Luftwaffe never quite effectively dealt with, day or night, by fighters or flak....
At high-altitude, Fw-190's had alot of difficulty bagging them, great l'il fighters they were, so it seems logical that the 'Dora' and Ta-152 development may have had 'Mosquito-swatting' in mind, as well as the bomber-hordes with their ever-increasing number of escorts, relentlessly coming over....

My ''what-if'' aircraft to tackle the TA-152 would be the DH Hornet, which was flying in 1944, and if adapted for high-altitude combat may have been an interesting contender.....

Gemhorse


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 27, 2005)

Erich said:


> sorry but the Luftwaffe ceased to exist in May of 45 or should we say by March of 45 when Me 262's were about the only things that faced the RAF and US, the Reich defence depleted since 9/10ths of the gruppen went to the Ost front for the last battles for Berlin.



Although my response to you should be put into a whole different thread, I want to correct a misconception you have about the Luftwaffe.

The statistics dont bear out your quote. The Luftwaffe was around to the end, but its capacity to fight with any effect was long over by summer of 1944. 

Heres some facts:
Sept 1944 showed the 8th AF flew 16 missions into German air space (several other missions that month were for support of Market-Garden) with an average of 1000 bombers per mission. 222 bombers were lost. Out of those 16 missions, 7 were flown with no Luftwaffe intercepts with 40 bomber lost due to flak.
The mission on Sept 11 was a major effort against several oil targets, with the vaunted Luftwaffe up in force. Out of 1131 bombers, only 40 bombers were lost, with at least 1/2 due to flak. Figure it out, 20 bombers lost out of 1131. So much for the Luftwaffe existing.

Oct 1944 was even worse for the Luftwaff. 18 bomber missions (with an average of 1200 bombers per mission) with only 121 loss's. In the whole month of October, the Luftwaffe flew only two (thats right, two) intercepts. The -17's and -24's lost 59 planes those two missions, with at least 1/2 due to flak.
Oct 7th was when the Germans had their best success. 1422 bombers attacked several oil installations, with flak bringing down at least 1/2 of the 40 planes shot down.

As the war progressed the final several months, fewer and fewer bombers were being lost to the fighters. The Luftwaffe had simply ceased to exist.

I was also interested in seeing the rockets mounted on the wings of that fighter. I wonder the performance degredation the plane had with so much stuff under the wings. I'd say it would have lost quite some top end speed and maneuverability.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 27, 2005)

Syscom, just an FYI, but Erich is probably the most well-versed individual on this board when it comes to the Luftwaffe. I would be very careful saying that he has a "misconception" about the Luftwaffe. 

The reason less bombers were being lost is because there were more fighter escorts for the bomber formations. The Luftwaffe was still giving our guys hell right up until the end.


----------



## Gemhorse (Aug 27, 2005)

What you may have found to be the case, was on 1st Jan. 1945, the Luftwaffe initiated Operation 'Bodenplatte', an early morning attack on Allied European airfields, involving about a 1,000 fighters....They may have been husbanding their depleting resources for this operation, which had mixed results for them [I don't have the figures on hand], but they were much reduced after that, but the Nachtjagd was still very active and deadly to the end.....

Gemhorse


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 27, 2005)

Facts are facts. In the grand picture, they werent giving anyone problems after the summer of 1944. So you say they put up 1000 planes on a single day? Wow, Im impressed. And within a week or so, all those planes were gone. On the other hand, on a daily basis, week after week, The 8th was putting up 2000 bombers and 800 fighters, the 9th AF several hundred more, the Brits had thousands more. And Im not counting the 12th and 15th AF, nor the Soviets. Just look at that stat for October.... TWO intercepts the whole month. Thats the sign of an air force that was beaten and on the ropes.

Plain and simple, the Luftwaffe had ceased to exist. Just like a gopher in a field, they could pop out their head and make their presence known, but alter the outcome of the fight? Hardly.

For those that want to see a Beautifull print of Gunter Rall flying his FW190 high in the stratosphere, check this link out. I bought it 1988! I have it hanging right next to my print of a flight of 4th FG Mustangs!

http://www.oliversart.com/acatalog/swansong.htm


----------



## Erich (Aug 27, 2005)

big friking deal about to engagements in October 44 with the Sturm Fw's dealing out the damges............

September 11, 12, 27, ( Kassel castastrophe when the 445th bg nearly gets wiped out, 30 B-24's shot down ) and the 28th all killing missions of 4 engine heavies primarily by SturmFw's

October I will agree 2 missions but there were others that month although lightly defended.

November 2nd a bomber kick in the balls.

November 21st where one B-17 bomb group gets its stuff kicked out of it by my cousins JG ~ JG 301

November 26th my cousins JG attacks again with 6 others in one of the fiercest aerial battles of the war for the Oil refinery of Misberg.

December if you are familiar with the Ardenne battles: B-26's get their rear almost annihilated and on another mission in late December one of the top US leaders is killed going down with his B-17 while his unit loses another 9-10 B-17's in the process before they even get into Germany.

Look you say say the losses were limited but go ask a US bomber group veteran about those mission that he flew and he will tell you the Luftwaffe was still up giving it to them even when US P-51's were about.
I've got the interviews from both sides the last 36 years.............March 18th 1945, III./JG 7 unleasehes what will probably change aerial combat. R4M's. so confused are the US bomber reports the kills by the jets are given as Flak // on it goes


----------



## Erich (Aug 27, 2005)

sys:

I had to go back and do a double take of your 16 missions of September 44.

11 September 1944, 14 grouppen in the air, JG 4's first engagement as a Gefechtsverband with Sturmgruppe and III./JG 4 as a high cover: result was over 20 plus B-17's shot down.
IV.Sturm/JG 3 takes on another bomb group and shoots down 13 B-17's

12 September 1944, 13 gruppen in the air. IV.Sturm/JG 3 shoot down 7 B-17's, JG 300 as a whole shoot down 10 B-17's. JG 4 shoots down 11 B-17's with another 9 shot out of formation. I./JG 11 shoot down 6 P-51's. Bf 109G equipped III./JG 53 claim 4 B-17's and a P-51.

27 September 44 over Kassel that I mentioned, Iv.Sturm shoots down 18 of the B-24's confirmed without loss, the rest by SturmFw's of JG 300 and JG 4 // the largest single loss by any one US bomb group during the war (Looks like the Luftwaffe was active to me)

28 September 1944 IV.Sturm/JG 3 shjoot down 10-11 B-17's. Jg 300 as a whole shoot down 10 B-17's, II.Sturm/JG 4 claim 4 and 5 HSS but are given credit for 2 B-17's. 

Go check our old web-pages : Sturmgruppen missions 1944, and by the way I am helping write the book on the Kassel misison 27 Sept. 44 with the 445th bg vets.

As to your view on the 1000 plane raids I will totally agree it just didn't happen anymore but the attacks after June of 44's end were more concentrated with indeed much more firepower and the term Blitzschlact became a household word.........

E ~


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 27, 2005)

From your statistics, it looks like the Luftwaffe was effective only in four instances, which is only 1/2 the story. (Note, I dont count cat-e loss's in my numbers as they usually were quite low in numbers, and it is impossible to quantify German loss's due to similar damage)

Sept 11 40 bombers lost out of 1131, 17 US fighters lost, 115 German planes lost.

Sept 12 35 bombers lost out of 888, 12 US fighters lost, 54 German planes lost.

Sept 11 28 bombers lost out of 1192, 2 US fighters lost, 31 German planes lost. This was the 445th BG debacle. 25 lost with three Cat E loss's. However, the Germans lost 25 that same intercept, with one 376th FG pilot becoming an ace-in-a-day.

Sept 11 34 bombers lost out of 1049, 7 US fighters lost, 26 German planes lost.

End result, a couple German groups got into the thick of things, did a good job, and then took high loss's in return. Not all German loss's ended up in the loss of the pilot due to death or injury, but at that stage of the war, the Luftwaffe was gettingsmaller and smaller in the numbers of pilots. And it was reflected in the fewer and fewer missions they were sent up to fight.

Later today, I will cover Nov/Dec time periods to further prove my point. The Luftwaffe didnt exist after Summer 1944.


----------



## Erich (Aug 27, 2005)

go do sosme more research. you in your haste and like mine have put wrong dates down. Sept. 11 was not the 445th destruction. It is 30 bomber confirmed as I have the info stragiht from 445th bg vets and the historian. there ws no 376th fg in the air on the 28th it was the 361st yellowjackets and Jg 3 was out of the area 

your facts are incorrect on losses from the US point of view besides.

The luftwaffe did exist but not in the great numbers thrown at the US heavies in 43 or early 44.

You obviously are not reading the two previous postings very well........go ask some US bg vets if the Luftwaffe did not exist in the summer of 44 till February 45. 

7-7-44 56 US heavies were lost confirmed by US sources during the Blitzschlacht über Oschersleben. The US 492nd almost ceased to exist as well the 15th AF flew to far north into Germany and received the second round of attacks, something the 15hth AF histories do not include or should I say are very reluctant to share information on. I have more if you would like.

Are you so concerned about numbers of Luftwaffe a/c in the air that it would make that much difference to US losses overall ? .......... it would appear so to me and the other board members.

You mention a few Luftwaffe units only but it is quite simple and true the SturmFw gruppen, all three of them made a huge impression especially upon 8th AF command that US P-51 Mustang escorts were increased to drive the Fw heavies off if at all possible


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 27, 2005)

Oops, my mistake. The last two dates should have been Sept 27th and 28th.

Sorry about that!!!!


----------



## Erich (Aug 27, 2005)

Ok sys lets have the mods move our debate and I would rather call it that than argument to the Reichsverteidigung thread in Aviation, so if someone would plese be kind enough to do so. I have the German losses confirmed according to source log books from the JG's as well as BA/MA in Freiburg, Berlin and Aachen. these of course will not agree with US standings, the same of course will be told of RAF/German NF losses and claims.

v/r E ~


----------



## Erich (Aug 27, 2005)

27th September 1944.

German losses were as follows. 

18 Killed
8 wounded
32 a/c shot down 60-100%
0 a/c under 60% damage

7 October 1944

11 killed
4 wounded
21 a/c shot down with 60-100%
6 a/c under 60% damage

21 of November 1944

42 killed
22 wounded
83 a/c shot down with 60-100% damage
18 a/c with under 60 %

13 gruppen attack B-17 and P-51 units. Jg 301 is only given claims for 5 B-17's and 2 P-51's; according to the bomb group historian of the 398th bg. one squadron the 603rd loses 7 in a fiercest several second attack out of the clouds, the total lost was 15 B-17's

just a few notes....


----------



## Lunatic (Aug 29, 2005)

Udet said:


> ...
> 
> Now, the P-51 H? It did not even fly in Europe Jabber.
> 
> ...



Perhaps. But your argument is had the Ta152 been produced in significant numbers, rather than the 60 or so that were actually fielded. So the counter argument that the P-51H might have been fielded to counter it is reasonable. More P-51H's existed on VE day than Ta152's, the reason they were not deployed was because they required different logistics support (parts) and it was deemend the P-51D and P-47's were sufficient to defeat Germany in 1945. Had significant numbers of TA's been in the air over Germany this decision would probably have been different. Likewise, the P-38K would likely have been produced (at the cost of about 10 days P-38L production). The P-47N would probably have been deployed in force to Europe (a few were sent to Europe) as well.

What you seem to wish to argue is the merits of the TA vs. the P-51D, P-47D, and Spitfire XIV. And against these foe's it did have some significant advantages, but we cannot really assess its real relative performance as it did not see enough action to really know. The TA had a huge advantage in that it was an unknown quantity, giving its pilot an edge over an adversary that would have been lost had the TA been more common. As for its turn rate, the only combat account of worth shows the TA barely out-turning a Tempest on the deck. The Spitfire and P-51 both significantly out-turned the Tempest, and so assumedly they would out-turn the TA.

Another, bigger issue, was servicablity. The TA was a plane racked with innovations, most of them complicated and requiring expert maintanence. IIRC never were more than about 1/2 to 1/3 of the available TA152 airframes airworthy. With the P-51's and P-47's typically 85% or more were ready for combat.

The TA was also very expensive to build. The P-51 by comparision, was relatively cheap to build. This combine with the higher servicabilty of the P-51 means that even had equal numbers been available on both sides, the P-51 would still have enjoyed a huge numerical advantage in the air.



Udet said:


> As Erich correctly once put it, it is silly to debate if the 152 was conceived to deal with the dreaded B-29. By the way, no matter how sophisticated the B-29 might have been, had it seen action in numbers over Europe its fate would have been no different to that suffered by the B-24s and B-17s.
> 
> The Ta-152 (quoting Erich) was designed to deal with anything that flew over the Reich, as simple as that. The yak is frequently depicted as the "best low altitude fighter" of the wat. Whatever. The Ta-152 proved the Yaks were no match against it, at very low altitudes, suffering no losses against the VVS.



Again, there is far too little data to make such an evalunation. Remember, over 90% of the pilots who survived being shot down in WWII stated they never saw the plane that shot them down or if they did it was not until after they were taking hits. Given the huge numbers of Yaks, often flown by inexperianced pilots, and in 1945 often flying ground support missions, and the very high level of experiance amoung the TA pilots and the hunter nature of their missions, it is not suprising that no TA's were shot down by Yaks. There were so few such engagements no real conclusions can be drawn. By 1945 the Soviets saw so few German fighters that they were probably easily caught by surprise in these very few instances - and of course they knew nothing about how to counter a TA, where the TA pilots knew exactly what to expect from a Yak.

=S=

Lunatic

(one of my rare opportunities to post)


----------



## Erich (Aug 29, 2005)

Lune :

Remember what I have said in previous posting about the Gemrna day fighter force in 1945.

Over 1/2 of the Reich defence left at Janaury 45's end to go to the Ost front for the final battles over and near Berlin, and in fact several NJG were ordered to perfomr ground attack during the night and day agasint Soviet build-ups. there were plenty of a/c on hand to take on the Soviets and many victories were claimed, but end result was the fuel shortage and the reduction of the Reich due to the soviet steamroller on the ground, airfields were changed almsot every other day if not weekly come February onward.

From what we can see of the Ta 152 pilots although some of them highly experienced their own careers by admission was on the western front with practically no experience fighting Soviet flyers. could the Soviet pilots due to their mid level tactics been easier prey ? ............ possibly


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2005)

Wow good arguments here guys. It is goign to take me a while to sift through all this stuff. Damn Vacations you miss a lot!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 30, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> Another, bigger issue, was servicablity. The TA was a plane racked with innovations, most of them complicated and requiring expert maintanence. IIRC never were more than about 1/2 to 1/3 of the available TA152 airframes airworthy.



Agh?

The Jumo had seen service. MW50 had been used previously. GM1 had been used previously. So what was so complicated?

It had nothing to do with requiring expert maintainance. It just the state of affairs at that point in the war. As with any other German a/c of the time, manufacturing was not the best. 

So if the Ta152 was expensive to produce, then so must be the Doras and Antons?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2005)

I think one of the major problems would have been as stated about the manufacturing. Everything at that time was having to be produced quickly to try and get as much out as possible and that reduced the quality of the product, also as many have stated the lack of raw supplies.


----------



## Erich (Aug 30, 2005)

as I said if someone would move the tjhis pages to Reichsverteidigung as it is not applicable to the Ta 152H

September 11, 1944, first action of a unified JG 4

15 different gruppen in action

56 piltos kia
23 wounded
113 a/c destroyed
20 with under 60% damged.

100th bg and the 92nd get rifled by JG 4 but JG 4 loses 21 pilots and 50 a/c in process.

12 September 1944 against the US 8th AF

15 gruppen again take to the skies

42 pilots kia
14 wounded
76 a/c destroyed
5 with under 60 % damage

JG 4 again takes the brunt of the losses with 12 kia and loses 17 a/c


----------



## plan_D (Aug 31, 2005)

The Ta-152 carried the wing twist that made it more stable in a stall. The Dora and Anton did not have that. That alone would make the Ta-152 harder to build than previous Fw-190s.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 31, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Ta-152 carried the wing twist that made it more stable in a stall. The Dora and Anton did not have that. That alone would make the Ta-152 harder to build than previous Fw-190s.



The Anton/Dora had 2 degrees of wing twist.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 31, 2005)

Not as much as the Ta-152 though.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Aug 31, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Not as much as the Ta-152 though.



 Naturally it did as the H had a greater wing span. The twist from the A/Ds was just continued further out.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 31, 2005)

You have a serious attitude problem. It seems to me that you're just trying to make me look foolish or wrong but you're failing quite badly. You attempt on attacking my remark about the wing twist on the Ta-152 being more than the Fw-190s, why? You know that I'm right and the longer the wingspan, the more twist, the harder to build. Are you really stupid, or just an asshole?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 31, 2005)

Take it outside fellas. We don't want no blood on the walls in here. Too hard to wash out.

And D, calm the f*ck down.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 1, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You have a serious attitude problem. It seems to me that you're just trying to make me look foolish or wrong but you're failing quite badly. You attempt on attacking my remark about the wing twist on the Ta-152 being more than the Fw-190s, why? You know that I'm right and the longer the wingspan, the more twist, the harder to build. Are you really stupid, or just an asshole?


Me making you look 'foolish or wrong'?  I don't have to try to for you sure are doing a good job of that all by your lonesome yourself. The only one being the AH is you pD, as usual.  Your just POed 'Mr Expert on everything' because your were proven to be wrong.

The one with the serious attitude problem is you pD. Take NS's advice, "_calm the f*ck down_"!!! Do not worry NS, he is not worth it. He reminds me of a certain Hungarian lawyer who is always going off the emotional deep end.



plan_D said:


> The Ta-152 *carried the wing twist* that made it more stable in a stall. The Dora and Anton *did not have that*.


You never said in your original post that the H had greater twist. All I said was that the A/Ds did have some twist. I then said why the H had more degree of twist, not you.  Then we see one of your rants.   

Ever hear of jigs? The twist is built into the jig. Not hard to build the wing, at all. Every build a long wing span model glider (6-8')? No harder than building a 4' wing.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 1, 2005)

It doesnt matter if the Ta152 had a wing twist or not, cause they still would have been easily shot down by allied aircraft.

Now take your anger out on me......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 1, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> It doesnt matter if the Ta152 had a wing twist or not, cause they still would have been easily shot down by allied aircraft.
> 
> Now take your anger out on me......



Seriously doubt that, but okay you can keep on thinking that.  

By the way I think everyone needs to take a chill pill. Everyone is getting wild out over stupid shit. Take a deep breath and drink a beer.


----------



## Erich (Sep 1, 2005)

Syscom whom do you think III./JG 301 and the Geschwader Stab/JG 301 faced ?

they shot down US, RAF and Soviet a/c


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 1, 2005)

I saw the specs of a top secret project to fit an R3350 to a Piper Cub to give it the ability to deal with the Ta152 at low and middle altitudes.

Now reread my prior posted comment, drink a beer, relax and have a laugh.

8)


----------



## Erich (Sep 1, 2005)

actually having a glas of Deutsche wein, will pass on the bier.


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 1, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Another, bigger issue, was servicablity. The TA was a plane racked with innovations, most of them complicated and requiring expert maintanence. IIRC never were more than about 1/2 to 1/3 of the available TA152 airframes airworthy.
> ...



Just because they'd been used did not make them uncomplicated. The Jumo engine was by all accounts I've see difficult to maintain, especially in the fighter airframes. The much touted German fuel injection system also required more maintaince than a carberated engine. SEP power (
GM1) was not used very much and was a complication for actual combat use. MW50 metering in a fuel injection engine is more difficult than in a carberated engine because in the carberated engine the same venturi effect is used to meter both fluids where on the fuel injection engine they are seperate systems which must be coordinated.



KraziKanuK said:


> It had nothing to do with requiring expert maintainance. It just the state of affairs at that point in the war. As with any other German a/c of the time, manufacturing was not the best.



Look at the servicablity levels of German, British, and American aircraft through out the war and I think you will see this is not the case. Even in early 1944 German servicability was generally on a par with the Brits, i.e. a squadron required 12-16 aircraft to be able to expect to have 8 available for combat.



KraziKanuK said:


> So if the Ta152 was expensive to produce, then so must be the Doras and Antons?



Not sure about the Anton. But I remember the estimated cost of the Dora9 in 1945 USD after factoring out slave labor was something on the order of $100,000, which was in line with a P-38 but much more expensive than a P-51 (~$65,000).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 2, 2005)

You have some really weird ideas and assumptions. 

Can you list the *complicated innovations* requiring expert maintanence that the 152 that had not already having been seen of previous German a/c? This is what you said, "_The TA was a plane *racked with innovations*, most of them complicated and requiring expert maintanence._" The 213, MW50 and GM1 were not innovations. You can put any spin you want on those three (boost juices and FI) but the Germans had years of experience, especially with FI.

Boost juices and FI systems were not the problem with the 152, or any other German a/c, but manufacturing quality sure was. And, that is why the 152s were U/S.

One can not compare American and German manufacturing costs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2005)

I agree KK - The -152 with all these alleged "innovations" would be no less or no more complicated to maintain than say a P-47 or a late model Spit. Airframe maintenance, supercharger set-up ignition timing, fuel injection adjustment are very similar to many of the aircraft of the period. The only thing I could see being more burdensome on the -152 than allied aircraft was the possible use of non-stategic dissimilar metals which would set up corrosion on the airframe. Aside from that, "a plane is a plane is a plane...."


----------



## Erich (Sep 2, 2005)

gents its very tough to come up with conclusions about the Ta 152 C or H as there is nothing in print from the black men-mechanics point of view. all we have is exerpts from about 15-20 pilots chatting about operations and testing the Tank at high altitude, and pics of the Tank in D. Harmanns work of it being pieced together.

I still await the EE book on the craft which will give some answers but not all to the varying degree of questions posed


----------



## Udet (Sep 2, 2005)

Lunatic, hi:

What´s wrong with the german fuel injection system (FI)?

Of course a fuel injection device is a more complicated one than a simple carburetor. More moving parts!

That could be one of the very rare "cons" of the FI when compared to the carbureted engines.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 2, 2005)

Mechanical fuel injection is not only simple but very reliable as long as dirt is not allowed into the system. In mechanical FI the tolerances are so tight to allow the high pressure precision metering of the fuel that a very small amount of dirt will wreck it. Once set up you shouldn't need to touch it unless its run dry.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 3, 2005)

Udet said:


> Of course a fuel injection device is a more complicated one than a simple carburetor. More moving parts!



Not all the time - look at a pressure carbuerator.....



wmaxt said:


> Mechanical fuel injection is not only simple but very reliable as long as dirt is not allowed into the system. In mechanical FI the tolerances are so tight to allow the high pressure precision metering of the fuel that a very small amount of dirt will wreck it. Once set up you shouldn't need to touch it unless its run dry.
> 
> wmaxt



Perfect!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

Was there any major differences between American, British, and German carbuerators and fuel injection devices?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Was there any major differences between American, British, and German carbuerators and fuel injection devices?



In a nutshell - no. The operating principals are the same. With fuel injection, there might of been slight differences on how the fuel was metered (mechanical pistons in lieu of diaphragms or bellows within the fuel injection unit). Where there was a difference were the use of "pressure carburetors" found US designs and used on I believe the R-2000, 3350 and 4360 (I think the 2800 had a Stromberg Carburetor that might of been one too). Instead of a float there is a metering system like on fuel injection, but the fuel-air mixture is still distributed through an intake manifold in lieu of fuel injection nozzles. We know about float carbs on early Sptis and know the Germans favored fuel injection.

One innovation that I could think of off the top of my head was the fuel metering system on the -190A. From what I understand there is no mixture control, everything is done automatically. This system did not emerge until the early 1970s when Beech incorporated it on their Bonanza with an IO-470 engine I believe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

Ah thanks for the info.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 4, 2005)




----------



## Lunatic (Sep 5, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Was there any major differences between American, British, and German carbuerators and fuel injection devices?
> ...



British carbs had floats controlling fuel metering, causing the famous engine stall when inverted problems of the early spitfires. The US Bendix carb did not have this problem, and I believe was used on later model Spitfires.

My point is that the fuel injection system is seperate from the the MW50 injection system. Both must be coordinated through seperate metering systems, which is more complex than simply using airflow past a venturi to manage the mixture ratios.

Again, look at the records of how many planes were in a units inventory vs. how many were ready to fly and I think my point is made. Even in 1943 German (and British) ratios are comparitively low.

Someone here (Erich?) once made a post indicating the ratios of available Dora's and TA's that were able/unable to fly on any given day, and as I recall it was down around 50%.

And the unified control system on the 190A was one of its greatest weaknesses. Had it had a manual system it would have been able to operate at the higher altitudes where it was needed. The flight control computer failed at around 24-25K forcing the plane into a low power rich fuel mode (70% power?). It relies on relative pressures with the ambient pressure acting as a divisor. When the ambient pressure got too low a divide by zero error condition occured. The Beech system did not rely on purely analog logic to control the system, and I believe it was not made to operate above 20,000 feet anyway (not sure of this). Modern unfied control systems of course use digital logic and have no problem with altitude.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> British carbs had floats controlling fuel metering, causing the famous engine stall when inverted problems of the early spitfires. The US Bendix carb did not have this problem, and I believe was used on later model Spitfires.



Or Strombergs.....



Lunatic said:


> The Beech system did not rely on purely analog logic to control the system, and I believe it was not made to operate above 20,000 feet anyway (not sure of this).



Unless it was turbosupercharged, an option offered by Beechcraft in the day.....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 5, 2005)

Still waiting for the complicated innovations requiring expert maintanence that the 152 had added that had not already had been seen of previous German a/c.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Thanks for the info on the carborators.

About the any given aircraft that could be used on any one day, at one point around Jan 1945 (will have to look up the dates in my "Diaries of the OKW) the Luftwaffe was only able to put about 75 aircraft in the air at any given time. This one not however due to maintenance practices or the aircraft being to complicated but rather due to the lack of fuel.


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 5, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Still waiting for the complicated innovations requiring expert maintanence that the 152 had added that had not already had been seen of previous German a/c.



Why is it significant if they'd been seen on previous German AC? These technologies were all quite new in the 40's and they were all combine onto the TA152. They reduced the servicablity of earlier AC as well as the TA.

Fuel injection is harder to maintain than carberation - there are 12 injectors to be serviced rather than a carb and you have to get to the injectors which are often covered by other components. The location and design of the cooling system also made engine maintainence more difficult.

The point remains. Typcially only about half (or less) of the Dora's and TA's available were flyable on any given day.

And I agree it is hard to compare German vs. US cost of arms figures - mainly because of the large slave labor component of German production. But you can look at the relative resource draw and in this respect come up with a fair comparision. I've seen relative comparisons of the cost of a Tiger I vs. the cost of a Sherman done this way.


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 5, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thanks for the info on the carborators.
> 
> About the any given aircraft that could be used on any one day, at one point around Jan 1945 (will have to look up the dates in my "Diaries of the OKW) the Luftwaffe was only able to put about 75 aircraft in the air at any given time. This one not however due to maintenance practices or the aircraft being to complicated but rather due to the lack of fuel.



The figures I was refering to were number of aircraft that were flight worthy according to German records, not the number that were actually flown.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> Fuel injection is harder to maintain than carberation - there are 12 injectors to be serviced rather than a carb and you have to get to the injectors which are often covered by other components. The location and design of the cooling system also made engine maintainence more difficult.



Once set up and adjusted, fuel injection systems can be easier to maintain than carburetor systems, but they are very temperamental; as a maintainer overall fuel injection isn't much more difficult.

If you consider pressure carburetors, I consider the system the same as Fuel injection as far as maintainability.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the info on the carborators.
> ...



And according to German records that I have (and mine are actual copies of the German records in several volumes of books printed here in Germany from the OKW) that most of the worthy aircraft were grounded because of Fuel Shortages. For instance a report here dated 26 Januar 1945 shows that only 9000 tons of fuel was available for the month of February. Speer had planned for 39,000 tons but due to the attacks on Dec. 31, 1944 on Harburg the Reichs fuel amount was reduced to 20%, and that this was even questionable because all other fuel supplies and production were at a halt.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 5, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> Again, look at the records of how many planes were in a units inventory vs. how many were ready to fly and I think my point is made. Even in 1943 German (and British) ratios are comparitively low.
> Lunatic



Fw190A units in May 1943

Russian Front

Stab/JG 54 > 4(on hand) - 4 (operational)
I/JG 54 > 36 - 30 
II/JG 54 Bf 109G 40 - 40 

95% operational

Stab/SchG > 1 6 - 6 
I/SchG 1 > 41 - 32 

80% operational

I/JG 26 > 36 - 30

83% operational

Stab/JG 51 > 14 - 11 
I/JG 51 > 39 - 20 
III/JG 51 > 40 - 21 
IV/JG 51 > 28 - 20

60% operational

Average 79.5% operational on the tough Russian front


Western Front

Stab/JG 2 > 4 - 4 
I/JG 2 > 40 - 40 
II/JG 2 > 24 - 18 
III/JG 2 > 40 - 37 

92% operational

Stab/JG 26 > 4 - 4 
II/JG 26 > 40 - 40 
III/JG 26 > 40 - 35

94% operational

11. (Jabo)/JG 54 > 16 - 9 

56% operational

Stab/SKG 10 > 6 - 6 
I/SKG 10 42 > - 42 
II/SKG 10 > 40 - 38 
IV/SKG 10 > 30 - 23 

97% operational

85% operational average for 190 units in the West

An 82.5% for all 190 units using the complicated and maintainance intensive FI.

Yes, for sure a LOW operational status.  Now what point was that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Good info there. I will see what it says in my OKW charts.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 5, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> The figures I was refering to were number of aircraft that were flight worthy according to German records, not the number that were actually flown.



Jan 10 1945 

Courland Pocket 

Bf 109G 
Stab/JG 54 > 20 - 16 

Fw 190A 1 - 1 

Fw 190A 
I/JG 54 > 35 - 32 
II/JG 54 > 41 - 40 

Fw 190F 
III/SG 3 > 39 - 35 

91% operational 

Poland 

Fw 190F 

Stab/SG 1 > 5 - 5 
II/SG 1 > 39 - 38 
III/SG 1 > 38 - 36

Stab/SG 3 > 9 - 8 
I/SG 3 > 47 - 43 
II/SG 3 > 34 - 31

Stab/SG 77 > 6 - 6 
I/SG 77 > 40 - 34 
II/SG 77 > 38 - 31 
III/SG 77 > 38 - 30 

89% operational. Not bad for the complicated and maintainance intensive FI. 

Austria, Hungary and the Balkans 

Fw 190F 
Stab/SG 2 > 32 - 23 
II/SG 2 > 34 - 29 

Stab/SG 10 > 3 - 1 
I/SG 10 > 22 - 17 
II/SG 10 > 23 - 19 
III/SG 10 > 21 - 20 

82.6% operational. Not bad for the complicated and maintainance intensive FI. 

Western Germany

Fw 190 

Stab/JG 1 > 5 - 4 
I/JG 1 > 27 - 22 
II/JG 1 > 40 - 30 
III/JG 1 > 40 - 35 

Stab/JG 2 > 4 - 3 
I/JG 2 > 28 - 23 
II/JG 2 > 3 - 2 
III/JG 2 > 19 - 6

IV (Sturm)/JG 3 > 35 - 24 
Stab/JG 4 > 2 - 1 

II (Sturm)/JG 4 > 25 - 18 

Stab/JG 11 > 7 - 6 
I/JG 11 > 23 - 20 

III/JG 11 > 42 - 26 

Stab/JG 26 > 3 - 3 
I/JG 26 > 60 - 36 
II/JG 26 > 64 - 26 
III/JG 26 > 56 - 28 

Stab/JG 27 > 2 - 2 

III/JG 54 > 47 - 31 
IV/JG 54 > 50 - 39

Stab/SG 4 > 49 - 17 
I/SG 4 > 29 - 24 
II/SG 4 > 40 - 36 
III/SG 4 > 34 - 24 

66% operational dispite the complicated and maintainance intensive FI.


The question is still, how many were U/S due to combat damage and how many were U/S due to the complicated and maintainance intensive FI. ? 

Alfred Price. Luftwaffe Data Book, 1997.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

Where can that Luftwaffe Data Book be found?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 5, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Where can that Luftwaffe Data Book be found?


http://books.stonebooks.com/cgi-bin/foxweb.exe/feedback/feedback?1006892

I took the data off the web. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html


----------



## me262 (Sep 5, 2005)

i have that book,


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 5, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> Why is it significant if they'd been seen on previous German AC? These technologies were all quite new in the 40's and they were all combine onto the TA152. They reduced the servicablity of earlier AC as well as the TA.
> 
> Fuel injection is harder to maintain than carberation - there are 12 injectors to be serviced rather than a carb and you have to get to the injectors which are often covered by other components. The location and design of the cooling system also made engine maintainence more difficult.
> 
> The point remains. Typcially only about half (or less) of the Dora's and TA's available were flyable on any given day.



Yes the Germans were very stupid using technologies that were new dispite producing 50,000 fighter a/c plus untold number of bombers that used these so called complicated innovations.  It is only your supposition that FI and/or 'boost juice' was the cause of U/S a/c. Battle damage, flat tires, faulty instruments, and so on could all make an a/c U/S, especially in 1945 when component supply was almost non existant. Me109s must have spent much time in the maintaince hangers since they also used 'boost juices' and FI.

For sure the radiator of the Dora/152 was in the way, although it was positioned in front of the gear reduction case at the front of the engine.

Well the injectors were not covered by other components on either the Jumo213 and the BMW801. 

Access to German engines was very easy, unlike Allied engines which required the removal of numerous fastners to remove the panels.

MW50 was fed at a constant 150l/min.

Oh yes, it is *Ta* not TA.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 5, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Access to German engines was very easy, unlike Allied engines which required the removal of numerous fastners to remove the panels.



Now there you are wrong KK - US aircraft had a little invention used on most access panels on most US combat aircraft - it was called a DZUS fastener, it allowed easy access to engine compartments and any other frequently removed panel. The Brits still liked structural screws and from what I could remember on German aircraft, they liked big, course thread slotted fasteners.....


No , I blow out a little Yankee pride here - US aircraft were probably the best maintainable aircraft because of the Dzus fastener.....


----------



## evangilder (Sep 6, 2005)

As an aside, most warbirds have dzus fasteners in them when they get restored. I know of at least one Zero that has Dzus fasteners.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2005)




----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 6, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Now there you are wrong KK - US aircraft had a little invention used on most access panels on most US combat aircraft - it was called a DZUS fastener, it allowed easy access to engine compartments and any other frequently removed panel. The Brits still liked structural screws and from what I could remember on German aircraft, they liked big, course thread slotted fasteners.....



The Germans used DZUS fasteners, as well as latches. The access panels for the engine did not have to be removed completely since they were hinged unlike on American and British a/c. Hinge being the key word. Agree on the Brits. 

The P-51 had over a 100 (lost count) 1/2 turn Dzus fasteners just for the engine cowlings. The Dora/152 had 1/2, maybe (will look later), a dozen latches for the engine cowling. The access panels to the fuel tanks on the 190/152 was by Dzus fasteners. Access to the P-51's ammo was by 12 Dzus on each wing. The Germans used latches.

I ask you, which gives quicker access?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2005)

Ok - I agree latches can be quicker - providing they don't break while in use, a typical problem with latches and why Dzus fasteners are still popular today. Dzus fasteners, when they wear out can be replaced in about a minute, a latch may involve drilling out rivets and re-riveting a new latch in place.

Don't have a Dora or -152 latch assembly photo in fromt of me so I can't comment on construction or reliability, I wonder how the -109 stacks up??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Ok - I agree latches can be quicker - providing they don't break while in use, a typical problem with latches and why Dzus fasteners are still popular today. Dzus fasteners, when they wear out can be replaced in about a minute, a latch may involve drilling out rivets and re-riveting a new latch in place.



Yeap, we still used Dzus fasteners and Cam Locks today. They are used all over my Blackhawk. To be honest though I hate them. For instance the ones on my Tail Rotor Gear Box Cover break out all the time and after about each flight I have to replace about 2 or 3 of them on that cover alone. However as you said though it takes on average about 20 seconds to put a new one in and put a star washer on the back. Presto replaced! Now if you have to replace the nut plate or the leaf spring that holds it on then you have to replace rivets and it can take a while because you have to remove the cover or fairing and take it into the shop most of the time.


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Sep 7, 2005)

DZUS fasteners?! Damn we used those in training. We were taught to carry a quarter or nickel with us always to refasten them if they came loose. Funny that.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 8, 2005)

Ok, Ive figured this out. 

The Ta-152 was probably the superior very high altitude fighter of WW2.

However, as it got to the middle and low altitudes, it wasnt.

If I were a P51/P38/P47 pilot and want to tangle up 1 on 1 at 35,000 feet with it..... id be very carefull about it.

If I was down to 20,000 feet, Id go for it.

Below that, it would be meat on the table.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Sep 8, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> And the unified control system on the 190A was one of its greatest weaknesses. Had it had a manual system it would have been able to operate at the higher altitudes where it was needed. The flight control computer failed at around 24-25K forcing the plane into a low power rich fuel mode (70% power?). It relies on relative pressures with the ambient pressure acting as a divisor. When the ambient pressure got too low a divide by zero error condition occured. The Beech system did not rely on purely analog logic to control the system, and I believe it was not made to operate above 20,000 feet anyway (not sure of this). Modern unfied control systems of course use digital logic and have no problem with altitude.
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



This is a US report on the Kommongerat, http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-wr-e-192/naca-wr-e-192.pdf.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 8, 2005)

Rememer syscom, the -152 knocked several Yaks outta the skies over Berlin at medium and low altitude....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 8, 2005)

Monkeysee1 said:


> DZUS fasteners?! Damn we used those in training. We were taught to carry a quarter or nickel with us always to refasten them if they came loose. Funny that.



North American Aviation had a Dzus tool for the Mustang that could also be used to straighten out the edges of the engine cowlings if they distorted. I have one! 8)


----------



## evangilder (Sep 8, 2005)

Hmmm, I'll keep that in mind when I get my Mustang!  But I have to win the lottery before I can do that!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 8, 2005)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2005)

Yeah atleast Blackhawks are still filled with those fasteners.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 8, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah atleast Blackhawks are still filled with those fasteners.



Eurocopters (A-Stars) use latches and for the most part they are pretty reliable, but they do break and have to be drilled out. If you have a broken latch on that thype of helicopter, you're not allowed to fly.....

I would like to see say a -190 latch and make a comparison....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 8, 2005)

Yeah that would be interesting. We have latches also for the really large compartments like the Engine Cowlings, APU Access Panels, Oil Cooler Access Panels, Main Rotor Sliding Cover, and so forth.


----------



## Erich (Feb 6, 2007)

I am bringing this back up as a **** bump **** to edit and take off information to be strengthened as maybe we can go through and add this with the replies from Herr Reschke through Adlers letter at some point ? we can still add to this old thread......yes ?


----------



## Erich (Feb 6, 2007)

whew I just re-read all the posts, what an interesting lot it has been with fact/myth and who knows what. really wish the Monogram publishers would get there book out on the bird as it will be a treasure of tech specs so we can all get on the same page. the firm has reduced the price down to US $ 50.00 suppose to be released the last quarter of 2006 ......... ah ok where is it then ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 6, 2007)

Erich said:


> I am bringing this back up as a **** bump **** to edit and take off information to be strengthened as maybe we can go through and add this with the replies from Herr Reschke through Adlers letter at some point ? we can still add to this old thread......yes ?



I really hope he replies. I am very excited about this. If this works out as I hope it does, I would like to write letters to other pilots who flew different aircraft and ask about there experiences.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 6, 2007)

I have seen mentioned of serviceablity problems on the 152. I think these mainly arose from the plane being rushed into production before all the bugs where sorted. Another major factor(and this effects all german WWII planes) is Goring insistance on frontline numbers without sufficent spares and the engine manufactures difficulty in meeting demand.

A correction to a post that stated the 152 wing being 'twisted root to tip'. The 152 like the 190 had washout for approx 2/3 of the wing only the last 1/3 had no washout.

Erich I symphase with you on the Mongram book(Paid for mine as soon the offer started in 2005). Can't wait to see more photos on the 152E.


----------



## Erich (Feb 6, 2007)

hopeful our wait will not be in vain. I was not impressed with D.H.'s Ta 152 effort through Schiffer, though he tried to cover JG 301 ops I thought it was rather lame.

part of the problem with other JG 301 vets I have had replies from was just the plain chaoticness in spring of 45, everything was left not much taken as the Soviets were rolling up the grass in the Reich too quickly. haphazard fields to fly from and even returning from a mission finding that the men were moving to other fields. no a/c with specific pilots in mind anymore, if it had gas and ran it was going to get flown by anyone. anything in need of repair was left and forgotten.........a real indicator for JG 301 but other JG's and NJG's as well in spring of 45


----------



## bigZ (Feb 6, 2007)

Erich said:


> hopeful our wait will not be in vain. I was not impressed with D.H.'s Ta 152 effort through Schiffer, though he tried to cover JG 301 ops I thought it was rather lame.
> 
> part of the problem with other JG 301 vets I have had replies from was just the plain chaoticness in spring of 45, everything was left not much taken as the Soviets were rolling up the grass in the Reich too quickly. haphazard fields to fly from and even returning from a mission finding that the men were moving to other fields. no a/c with specific pilots in mind anymore, if it had gas and ran it was going to get flown by anyone. anything in need of repair was left and forgotten.........a real indicator for JG 301 but other JG's and NJG's as well in spring of 45



Schiffer had also much the same info in their 190D book. 

I hear what your saying about the last days. Not forgetting how many groundcrew where sholdering a rifle against the Russians.

Ps. I have an original factory copy of the ta 152 fuse profile dated 1943. If someone would like to compress it, I would be happy for it to go in the tecnical section.


----------



## Erich (Feb 10, 2007)

Leutnant Hagedorn (still alive and I have a signed bookplate via Weisenr from him), flew Yellow 2 on 2 February 45 while in III./JG 301 along with pilots Bübi Blum and Hauptman Benno Rühe. Hagedorn says they flew to 43,290 feet and flew at an incredible speed of 508-515 mph. "I'd never had such a fast aircraft under my behind in all my life".

I totally forgot about this little episode






this craft was a hot rod . . . ........


----------



## Udet (Feb 10, 2007)

Great piece of information Erich. Thanks!


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 10, 2007)

Nice tidbit Erich...


----------



## davparlr (Feb 10, 2007)

Erich said:


> Leutnant Hagedorn (still alive and I have a signed bookplate via Weisenr from him), flew Yellow 2 on 2 February 45 while in III./JG 301 along with pilots Bübi Blum and Hauptman Benno Rühe. Hagedorn says they flew to 43,290 feet and flew at an incredible speed of 508-515 mph. "I'd never had such a fast aircraft under my behind in all my life".
> 
> I totally forgot about this little episode
> 
> ...



I am highly doubtful of pilot reports of top speeds in aircraft. Without proper instrumentation like outside air temperature and calibrated air data installations, and elimination of variables such as vertical velocity, level flight TAS calculations are unreliable. The are many are many pilots that reported high airspeed for various aircraft, very few have been accepted by knowledgable sources as accurate, the ones that are are verified by proper test procedures. So, a level flight speed of 508-515 is indeed incredible.

There is no doubt Ta-152H is fast, but the highest speed I have seen in 469 mph, which is very fast and reasonable when compared to other high performance aircraft at the end of the war, P-51H-474 mph, P-47N-468 mph, Fw-190D-12-483 mph. Even the Do 335A-1 with dual inline engines developing 3600 hp was capable of only 474 mph.

But my vote is still that the Ta152H was the best high altitude fighter.


----------



## Erich (Feb 10, 2007)

469mph at what altitude ? 

my quote is from him confirmed by two other pilots one besides being a Captain. the three were followed by ground control with also confirmation by one of the chief test pilots witnessing the event through ground control procedures which was the rule of thumb at the time for Germany.

Reschke performed several speed mods at 472mph at over 41,000 feet in the Tank

hey what can I say if we are going to take what is evident in todays world compared what was done 59 years ago then they all lied ........... NOT

A 56th fg Jug pilot that flew Loos Green 4 admitted back in the states it was everything that the German techs and pilots claimed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

I will add some questions about Willis 472mph hour flights into the letter that is going out tomorrow.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 11, 2007)

Good stuff Erich, very interesting to read. Adler it should be interesting to see what Willie says on this subject.


----------



## Erich (Feb 11, 2007)

side note I am going to write Herr Hagedorn later in the month to get more specific I hope if he responds. The Do 335 was purely experimental who knows how far it would go had it been on ops. Personally it was too fricking big. the P-51H was not in the ETO. The Fw 190D-12 did maybe a couple of missions. the P-47N on the other hand I have no data. The tank flew missions from end of January 45 till wars end against the Soviets, British and the Americans so it does have a track record and remember the rep for JG 301 clearly states that ALL of JG 301 was to have been equipped with the Ta 152H; now that might have been an interesting challenge for 8th AF P-51 D's and K's....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

Erich I will send you a PM in a bit about some stuff.


----------



## Erich (Feb 11, 2007)

am sending Willi a note on the whereabouts of L. Bracht and R.M who both flew the Ta in III./JG 301. they maybe off the planet but then maybe not ......

send a pm any time


----------



## davparlr (Feb 11, 2007)

Erich said:


> 469mph at what altitude ?



Looks like 9.2 km (30,100 ft)

Interpreted from FW charts provided by Soren and my general reference "German Combat Planes", Ray Wagner and Heinz Nowarra.



> my quote is from him confirmed by two other pilots one besides being a Captain. the three were followed by ground control with also confirmation by one of the chief test pilots witnessing the event through ground control procedures which was the rule of thumb at the time for Germany.



Are there test reports? Was the aircraft instrumented? Witnessing the event through ground control? Without an instrumented aircraft and data downlink, this is worthless.



> Reschke performed several speed mods at 472mph at over 41,000 feet in the Tank



The FW charts shows that it would be significantly slower than that at that altitude. Max speed is shown at around 30k ft, airspeed drops off rather quickly above that. Something appears wrong.



> hey what can I say if we are going to take what is evident in todays world compared what was done 59 years ago then they all lied ........... NOT



I am not sure I understand this statement. I would not say they lied, you just can't confirm that it was tested with the proper constaints and data to verify an observation.



> A 56th fg Jug pilot that flew Loos Green 4 admitted back in the states it was everything that the German techs and pilots claimed



Test report? Another observation?



> interesting challenge for 8th AF P-51 D's and K's....


The P-51Ds and Ks would be very hard pressed as they would be easily outperformed by the Ta-152H.


----------



## Soren (Feb 13, 2007)

Davparlr,

You have misread the chart, note the speeds achieved with GM-1.


----------



## Erich (Feb 13, 2007)

my understanding is YES there were many test reports as III./JG 301 besides Bruno Stolles test Kommando which trained III. gruppe pilots with of course minimal training - hop in take er for a spin. As to where the reports have fallen ? probably along with many important docs of 1945 in one of those 12 ton trucks vapourized near Berlin.


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 14, 2007)

Erich said:


> Leutnant Hagedorn (still alive and I have a signed bookplate via Weisenr from him), flew Yellow 2 on 2 February 45 while in III./JG 301 along with pilots Bübi Blum and Hauptman Benno Rühe. Hagedorn says they flew to 43,290 feet and flew at an incredible speed of 508-515 mph. "I'd never had such a fast aircraft under my behind in all my life".


That is a *ground* speed of 508-515mph. The speed was worked out with the help of Fw test pilot Kneemeier after the flight.


----------



## Soren (Feb 14, 2007)

Ground speed equals TAS.


----------



## twoeagles (Feb 14, 2007)

Soren said:


> Ground speed equals TAS.



....oops....those doggone headwinds....


----------



## Soren (Feb 14, 2007)

In zero wind conditions ofcourse..

I doubt they were flying with the wind during all those speed runs.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 14, 2007)

Soren said:


> In zero wind conditions ofcourse..
> 
> I doubt they were flying with the wind during all those speed runs.



This is not a valid statement. Finding zero wind at high altitude is not a reasonable criteria for an aerodynamic test. Because of uncertainty of wind speed, TAS is generally calculated using atmospheric data not including wind.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 14, 2007)

Erich said:


> my understanding is YES there were many test reports as III./JG 301 besides Bruno Stolles test Kommando which trained III. gruppe pilots with of course minimal training - hop in take er for a spin. As to where the reports have fallen ? probably along with many important docs of 1945 in one of those 12 ton trucks vapourized near Berlin.



A loss for all of us.


----------



## Soren (Feb 15, 2007)

You're right Davparlr, hit myself on the head with that one


----------



## twoeagles (Feb 15, 2007)

Gotta watch out for old Air Force and Navy Pilots!


----------



## davparlr (Feb 15, 2007)

Soren said:


> You're right Davparlr, hit myself on the head with that one



We all hit ourselves on the head at times. Mine is pretty dinted!


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 17, 2007)

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened had the TA-152 been available earlier. They could have made life quite difficult for US Bomber crews.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 1, 2007)

Just for fun here fellow forum travellers... How would a Ta-152C get on in a Reno Air race?


----------



## davparlr (Apr 1, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Just for fun here fellow forum travellers... How would a Ta-152C get on in a Reno Air race?



The plane is pretty clean. Clean it up, and modify/replace the engine to generate 3000 hp (like all a the other racers) and it probably would do just fine.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 1, 2007)

Would it have the manevourability to make it easy to get through the gates at that speed?


----------



## davparlr (Apr 1, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Would it have the manevourability to make it easy to get through the gates at that speed?



I think that aircraft line was noted for being quite maneuverable.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 4, 2007)

Okay then it would probably go well at Reno, although first you have to find one and my understanding is that they are sort of rare...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2007)

There is only one and it is in Washington DC.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 4, 2007)

Probably would cost an obscene amount of $$ to make a flyable exact replica like they have done with the Me 262....


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2007)

there still is the hope that the techs at the Smithsonian will get W. Loos Grüne 4 H-0 up and running, doubtful but I have hope .......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Probably would cost an obscene amount of $$ to make a flyable exact replica like they have done with the Me 262....



Dont think so, there is a company here in Germany that is building Fw-190s and soon to be Bf 109s.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 4, 2007)

Would have been fantastic to see those graceful lines take to the air once again.... Sounds interesting Adler, get yourself a "key ready" 109 or 190... something to have out at the field, while everybody else is puffing around in their Cessna 182's etc.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 7, 2007)

I remember reading somewhere that in late 1944 Kurt Tank claimed that, while flying a Ta 152H, he was bounced by four P-51 Mustangs during a flight to a meeting at the Focke-Wulf plant in Cottbus. It was mentioned that he had stated that his plane had no ammunition on board, so he had no means whatsoever to fight the enemy. He claimed to have made his escape by engaging the MW 50 boost, opening the throttle wide to attain the aforementioned 755 km/h (472 mph) velocity to escape the pursuing American fighters, and left the four Mustangs floundering behind him. Unfortunately there is no evidence at all to support this account, there is no record of any such encounter in Allied records and Tank's unsupported word remains the only suggestion that it ever took place. What do you fellow forum travellers think about this?


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 7, 2007)

Dr. Tank had no reason to lie, and I personally have no reason to believe that he did...


----------



## Soren (Apr 7, 2007)

I don't believe he lied either, and IIRC the P-51 pilots who took chase have even confirmed the incident - I remember something about a USAAF after action report noting the encounter.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 7, 2007)

I don't believe that he'd lie in any way either. Was the identity ever known of the Ta-152 that he flew in this occasion, was it one of the prototypes or a production machine?


----------



## Civettone (Apr 7, 2007)

Well I'm not saying he was lying either. But I disagree that he had no reason for it. Really, what better way to promote your fighter?!  "Yeah, I was flying in the 152 and then I get bounced by the best allied fighter, I just pushed a button and left them coughing up my smoke!". 

The story was never confirmed by allied pilots.
Kris


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 7, 2007)

Allied pilots wouldnt know what to think... A new aircraft....

At this stage of the game Tank didnt have to impress anyone or sell anything... His designs were at the pinnacle of prop engined craft, and he knew it..


----------



## bigZ (Apr 7, 2007)

Flugwerk who build the replica 190's are going to build the D version aswell.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 7, 2007)

Sounds like it's time to start saving money for a pilot licence and a FW-190D then....yummy!


----------



## Civettone (Apr 7, 2007)

> Allied pilots wouldnt know what to think... A new aircraft....


Few aircraft have such a distinctive wing as the Ta 152H. It's one you don't easily confuse with another fighter. As the allied pilots often reported new types which later appeared to be misidentifications, I doubt a Fw 190D with ultralong wings would not have been reported.



> At this stage of the game Tank didnt have to impress anyone or sell anything... His designs were at the pinnacle of prop engined craft, and he knew it..


Les, until the very end Tank was in a power struggle with other companies (especially Messerschmitt) to get production contracts. Remember that alternatives for the Ta 152 were being developed until the very end: the Bf 109H, the Me 209, the Me 262, the BV 155, ... 

Also, one thing led to another. If the Ta 152 was accepted, Tanks next designs would be favoured over others. That's how Messerschmitt built of his supremacy from scratch. From 1938 till 1941 he held the monopoly on fighter aircraft which made him Hitler's favorite, a position he was able to hold until the very end, enabling him to get more resources than any other company and allowing him to work on more designs than any other.

You also claim that Tanks designs were at the pinnacle of prop engined aircraft, yet the Ta 154 was a total failure, one of the worst constructed aircraft in German aviation ever. 

But again, I'm not saying Tank was lying. I'm saying two things: it cannot be proven. And second, he would have benefitted from it as the P-51 was considered the plane to beat in 1944.
Kris


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 7, 2007)

> But again, I'm not saying Tank was lying. I'm saying two things: it cannot be proven. And second, he would have benefitted from it as the P-51 was considered the plane to beat in 1944.
> Kris


I would agree with u 100%...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 8, 2007)

I dont think he lied about. As stated though it can not be proven. Having said that though the Ta-152 certainly could have flown faster than a P-51D so the story is not hard to believe either way.


----------



## Denniss (Apr 8, 2007)

AFAIR he was not bounced by the P-51, Tank saw them first and escaped unharmed. It's not known whether they actually saw him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 8, 2007)

That is probably case.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 8, 2007)

You're right Denniss. Totally forgot about that. 
I think that's the most likely story. Tank encountered those Mustangs, evaded and bragged about it later. Who wouldn't? 

Kris


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 8, 2007)

I would... My Granpa always said the 152 was the finest prop job.... 

Ive been re-reading Willi's book for the umpteenth time, and just got back into the Tank part, chapter 9, where III/JG 301 re-equips with it...

The assessment of the 152H-0 over the 190A-8/R11's and 12's shows superiority through the entire flight envelope, including smaller turning radius with less tendency to stall at lower airspeed, rates of climb, speeds at various altitudes, on the wing, powerplant and load factors... Most trial took place from ground level to 3,000 meters.... 

Not exactly the 152's ideal fighting altitude huh???

ANother thing was that the test were conducted with a very good pilot at the stick of the 190, while the 152 pilot had just 2 flights in the type...

The A-8 was a formidable adversary for the Tempests, Spits and Stangs, with many Aces under her canopy... The 152, from the men who flew it operationally, was superior to anything that the Luftwaffe could put into the skies over Germany...

I love the plane..


----------



## Soren (Apr 9, 2007)

Civettone,

Considering that there are incidents of FW-190 A-8's out-running P-51's on the deck I don't see why the Ta-152H which is faster at this alt shouldn't. 

As to identification, well from long distance there was no way to tell what a/c the Ta-152 was related to, not only the wings were different from the 190, the nose was longer as-well.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 9, 2007)

Soren, I never said that the Ta 152H couldn't outrun the Mustang. As you no doubt know, and as your example of the theoretically slower Fw 190A shows, there are more factors than speed to outrun an aircraft. There's visibility, manoeuvring, reflexes, identification, ... and probably the one which took place in that encounter: not detecting the enemy aircraft. 

What was the exact date of the encounter? Wasn't the Fw 190D in service yet?
Kris


----------



## Soren (Apr 9, 2007)

The nose of the Ta-152 was longer than that of the Dora as-well.


----------



## Erich (Apr 9, 2007)

Kris :

The Dora was in service in III./JG 54 in September 1944

remember the JaPo volume(s) 1 and 2 on the Dora already published and then following up is E.E.'s 2 volume set on the bird.

as to the Tank case of spotting the P-51's and running I believe he was testing a C variant........

♫


----------



## Civettone (Apr 9, 2007)

Soren, most people can't tell the Fw 190D and Ta 152 apart if not for the wings. For your average pilot the Ta 152H would look like a Dora with long wings. In any case, they didn't report any aircraft which looked like this. 

Kris


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

The Tank does not have the cowl mounted guns...


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

On 2 March 1945, II/JG 301 and its 12 Ta 152H-0's and 1's were flying as the fighter escort of the Heavy Gruppe at 8,000 meters, when they were attacked by Bf 109G-10's of IV/JG 301, wearing the same yellow and red fuselage band....

The Tank Staffel was ordered to "climb up and stay with the formation", but still the 109s pursued and attacked the new 152H's...

The 152H's easily disengaged from the 109s without loss....

One thing this showed was that the Ta 152H could climb away from the fighters of the other Gruppen, showing the superiority of the Tank...


----------



## Erich (Apr 9, 2007)

and that the former bomber pilots flying as fighter pilots in IV./JG 301 couldn't tell what was a German fighter or no.

side note IV./JG 301 flew maybe 2-3 missions and were almost totally wiped out


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

Yea, the number of former bomber pilots throughout the Luftwaffe in 1945 was nothing more than lambs for the slaughter...


----------



## Udet (Apr 9, 2007)

side note IV./JG 301 flew maybe 2-3 missions and were almost totally wiped out

Erich, how come?


----------



## Erich (Apr 9, 2007)

slaughtered in action by P-51's. Also IV./JG 300 never amounted to much either and were in a similar condition, too few missions flown by in-experienced fighter pilots and overwhelmed and shot to pieces.

IV./JG 301 was made up from personell of III./KG Hindenburg and also crews of II./JG 77


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2007)

The majority of pilots that of this Jagdgruppe came from the disbanded III/KG 77 and flew the He 177.... On 2 Mar 1945, it was their very first mission against American fighters and bombers... 

IV/JG 301 (13, 14, 15 Staffel) lost the following KIA:
Patek
Rummell 
Heilberger
Zietlow
Appel
Ruh
Keil
Welsch
8 dead
4 wounded
13 aircraft lost

These heavy losses suffered began a disbandment that finalized in April... The remaining pilots were distributed throughout the other 3 Gruppen...

On 2 Apr 1945, Easter, Redlein and Bunk were killed while stafing...


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Soren, most people can't tell the Fw 190D and Ta 152 apart if not for the wings. For your average pilot the Ta 152H would look like a Dora with long wings. In any case, they didn't report any aircraft which looked like this.
> 
> Kris




Civettone please take a look at just the side profile of the two fighters - the Ta-152 is longer, and from above it doesn't look like a Dora.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 10, 2007)

Profile shots...


----------



## Civettone (Apr 10, 2007)

Soren, you see the difference. I see the difference. But most people won't. And especially not when it's passing by at high speed. 
American pilots will clearly recognize it as a Fw 190D with longer wings. The resemblence is bigger than the differences.

Kris


----------



## Erich (Apr 10, 2007)

well to tell the truth US P-51 pilots just called the Dora a long nosed Fw 190. Nearly all had never even seen a Ta 152 as only 1 P-51 was confirmed shot down in combat with a Ta of Stab./JG 301

Les the combat that Willi took place with the Tempest he was flying white 1 from what I understand, now I am going to have to look further on this


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 10, 2007)

Well I know there is a difference, but they do look very similar. I mean in deadly combat you are hardly going to say, "Hang on, that isn't quite a Dora" because you aren't going to be looking or concentrating on that part of it. You are going to be more concerned with "Here's an enemy lets shoot him down before he shoots us." If you get my drift, this was kill or be killed between the Luftwaffe and the USAAF.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> Well I know there is a difference, but they do look very similar. I mean in deadly combat you are hardly going to say, "Hang on, that isn't quite a Dora" because you aren't going to be looking or concentrating on that part of it. You are going to be more concerned with "Here's an enemy lets shoot him down before he shoots us." If you get my drift, this was kill or be killed between the Luftwaffe and the USAAF.




I agree. They look a lot alike from the side. I don't think an Allied pilot would know the difference from that angle.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 13, 2007)

If they couldn't tell the difference by sight of a Ta-152, maybe they could by the aircrafts maneuverability etc... The D's had been around for a while and they had been fighting them. So if they ran into a Ta and started to tangle with it mybe they'd think "hang on a minute, this one's behaving different..."
Or am I wrong?


----------



## Civettone (Apr 13, 2007)

Don't think so Lucky. Experienced pilots know that an aircraft is only as good as the pilot flying it. If a pilot is suddenly surprised to see the same type of Bf 109 he shot down just yesterday suddenly outmanoeuvring him, he'll say "damn, that Gerry's good". 

Kris


----------



## Erich (Apr 13, 2007)

Gentlemen : let's remember that most 8th/9th AF fighter pilot's never ran up against a Dora 9 and would have no idea at all if they encountered a Dora or a Ta in combat at 25,000 ft plus. As I posted in US combat reports the Dora was considered a long nose Fw


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 13, 2007)

Erich is correct...


----------



## Soren (Apr 14, 2007)

Civettone the chances of you clearly seeing the side profile of an enemy fighter during WW2 was very slim - even in a head-on encounter with both a/c passing right by each other the sheer speed of the conversion alone would ruin any chance of recognition. What you are most likely going to see in combat is the top, bottom, back and rear profile, and mostly at an angle, and in this case the Ta-152H-1 and Dora-9 are pretty different - more than enough for the Ta-152H not to be considered a Dora. 

In RL there is a difference:


----------



## mkloby (Apr 14, 2007)

Soren - I think that it'd be VERY difficult to tell the two apart in the air. When I'm flying around, it's difficult to ID exact models until close unless you have MAJOR distinguishing features. Now, take similar looking birds, and the fact that a dogfight is about to ensue... they're not tooling about at 100 knots, and the fact that once spotted ACM is going to begin. I'd sure as hell ID it as a Dora...


----------



## Civettone (Apr 14, 2007)

Soren, we are in agreement. I'm a bit confused as to why you're discussing this with me. 
I believe my statement is clear cut. I say the allied pilots would have noticed the Ta 152 and that they would have identified it as a Dora with longer wings.
You said it had more differences than the wings and then I replied that the allied pilots wouldn't have noticed this right away. Your argument that the pilots rarely see the profile of the enemy plane only confirms my argument. 

Imagine that you had never heard of the Ta 152 but would recognize a Fw 190D. Now imagine you get to take a look at a 3D model of the Ta 152H during a split second. What would you think you had seen? A Dora with longer wings...

Kris


----------



## Soren (Apr 15, 2007)

Like you guys said, you'd have to be close to see all the differences but by the same token you'd have to be close to see all the resembling features as-well. At relatively long range, which is where you will most likely see each other, the big difference in wing design alone is more than enough to make sure you won't ID it as a Dora - cause the only thing that stands out at a distance is the "big differences".

For example lets say you're a pilot who has never seen a Ta-152 before and you suddenly spot one passing by you like on my avatar, would you ID that as a Dora ? While an experienced pilot might see some resemblance the long slender wing, longer fuselage and different cockpit position would certainly put great doubt in his mind as to exactly what a/c he's dealing with here.


----------



## Erich (Apr 15, 2007)

c'mon you guys you are all speculating with the what if the 
allied pilot saw this a/c and then (?) what it was. A long nose Fw was the result and then then the P-51 pilots mixed the Dora and the Anton up in combat anyway when it was a battle for literally seconds or diving down on the deck with another close on the tail


----------



## Civettone (Apr 16, 2007)

I disagree Soren and for the following reason. An Allied fighter in early 1945 is not ignorant. He has a limited number of fighter aircraft to recognize: besides the Fw 190D, the Bf 109, Me 163, Me 262 or Fw 190A. 

When fighter pilots engaged or shot down enemy fighters, they usually identified them correctly. So it's not like they wouldn't have any idea on what to see in the skies. As soon as they would see an aircraft like in your avatar they would limit it down to a Fw 190D with longer wings, as the tail and long nose were too distinctive for it to be a Bf 109 or Fw 190A. That would only leave one more option open and that's the Dora. 

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I disagree Soren and for the following reason. An Allied fighter in early 1945 is not ignorant. He has a limited number of fighter aircraft to recognize: besides the Fw 190D, the Bf 109, Me 163, Me 262 or Fw 190A.
> Kris


Allied fighter pilots were also identifying He 112s and Me 209 in combat as well. I'm telling you from experience - Identifying aircraft that have a similar layout is not easily done. Throw in the chaos and confusion of air combat and it's that much more confusing - I think gun cameras helped with most of the identification confusion.

Attached is a famous photo of P-47 ace Robert Johnson - he has 3 "Me 209" kills on his aircraft....


----------



## Civettone (Apr 16, 2007)

I'm quite aware of those He 113s and others. I said they _usually_ identified them correctly. Don't see any discussion in that. 

Kris


----------



## Soren (Apr 16, 2007)

Civettone what you seem not to understand is that in reality you will in the far majority of cases not see your opponent as clearly as a picture. I bet a pilot wouldn't have a chance of noting any similarity between the Dora and Ta-152 if he sees the same profile as my avatar pass by his windscreen at 500 + km/h - all he will ID is a single engined a/c with a long slender wing.

At speed similar features such as the elevators simply arent noticed, not only because elevators tend to look the same on many a/c, esp. at a distance, but the heat of battle tends to blur things.


FLYBOYJ,

The Italian fighters, the Macchi C205 and Fiat G-55's, were also frequently mistaken as Bf-109's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I'm quite aware of those He 113s and others. I said they _usually_ identified them correctly. Don't see any discussion in that.
> 
> Kris




If they were identified so well, why did Allied intelligence believe there were squadrons of He 113s, Me 209s and He 280s deployed? Simple - aircraft recognition as you put it is not as easy as you think, especially in combat.

I read somewhere during the Vietnam conflict, some F4 drivers swear they were attacked by F-86s!!!!




Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> The Italian fighters, the Macchi C205 and Fiat G-55's, were also frequently mistaken as Bf-109's.


Yep!!!


----------



## Civettone (Apr 16, 2007)

You're missing my point. The vast majority of fighters were correctly identified. What you are given are exceptions to that rule. I thought that would have been clear as I had already repeated my original phrase with the 'almost' in italic. 

Soren, the identification of this plane would happen through elimination. It was a single piston engined fighter, so only the Fw 190A, D and Bf 109 remain. Even seen in a flash one can easily single out the Fw 190D. Of course one would doubt because the wings wouldn't match. So the pilot would report the plane as "similar to the Fw 190D but with longer wings".

Kris


----------



## Jank (Apr 17, 2007)

As FLYBOY has indicated, it is often far from clear. There are a number of instances where P-47's were mistaken for Fw-190's.


----------



## HealzDevo (Apr 17, 2007)

Too true, this was especially true with the B-17 crews that decided that the Spitfires were enemy aircraft and started blasting away at them for Bf-109s... Also Hurricanes could be confused with Bf-109s and the Blenheim was confused for a Heinkel He-111. I know they were saying on Wikepedia that a RAF Hurricane was shot down by a RAF Spitfire in the Battle Of Barking Creek in a case of mistaken identity leading to the first British pilot fatality of WW2.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 17, 2007)

Fine, as long as you agree that the identification was _usually_ correct. And now I'll stop repeating myself before I get schyzo.

Kris


----------



## Erich (May 4, 2007)

back onto this a most interesting and discussed thread. A recent letter to me>

Will Reschke flew in III. and Geschwader Stab/JG 301 white 1 and 2, green 1 and 9, Black 13

In III./JG 301 there were initially 35 Ta 152H's later down to 15 for combat by März of 45.

Geschwader stab had a steady 6 Ta 152H's in the staff unit.

Willi flew on 14 April 1945 when he downed a Tempest, flying a Ta 152H-1, white 1

more later ......


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2007)

Erich...what kind of machine was Black 13?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 5, 2007)

> Erich...what kind of machine was Black 13?


It was a Ta 152H-1


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> It was a Ta 152H-1



Any photos?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 5, 2007)

U cant delete, only Mods can...

Negative on the Black 13 pic...


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Negative on the Black 13 pic...


Darn....!


----------



## bigZ (May 7, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Any photos?


 Their are pics of ta-152 Black 13. Unfortunately I have no scanner but the pics are in Schiffer's book on the 152. 3 in total one shows the tail with a number 7 on the rudder and the Black 3 on the fuse.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 8, 2007)

bigZ said:


> Their are pics of ta-152 Black 13. Unfortunately I have no scanner but the pics are in Schiffer's book on the 152. 3 in total one shows the tail with a number 7 on the rudder and the Black 3 on the fuse.



*GET A ****ING SCANNER!!!!*


----------



## AV8 (May 16, 2007)

Hi,

New guy here and I have some observations and a question.

According to my records, there were 108,219 aerial victories in WWII with a further 4,590 shared victories for a total of 112,809 WWII aerial victories. This includes Allied and Axis losses.

During the war the Germans built about 94,956 aircraft including about 53,470 fighters. Less than 150 were Ta 152s. According to several sources that I don’t recall just now (but could dig up) other than William Green's ubiquitous "Famous Fighters of WWII", something like 65 to 67 were actually delivered to the Luftwaffe depending on who you believe and fewer than half apparently saw combat. That's roughly 30 Ta 152s that saw combat. Of course, they couldn't AVOID combat since they were flying over Germany when the Allies were closing in on Berlin. Collectively they shot down about 11 Allied planes. I believe I also read that number in another post in this forum.

That means something like 99.9% of all Allied losses were lost to types other than the Ta 152.

Also, if many different internet and book sources aren’t wrong, the Ta 152H models were all withdrawn from service by the end of April 1945 due to extreme problems with the twin-turbo Jumo 213 E engines, leaving just two operational Ta 152 C models to shoulder the Ta 152 portion of the air war against the Allies at a time when the Allies were throwing “1000-plane raids” at the Germans.

The Ta 152 had undeniable potential, but it was potential never realized at any meaningful level. The Brewster Buffalo did better in the hands of the Finns than the Ta 152 did at being a fighter, and it was horrible by almost anyone's level of measure.

So, how can the Ta 152 be a “best” of anything based on its war record? 

Despite how it may sound, I am not trying to start a flame war, just asking someone here to tell me how they arrived at his or her assertion that the Ta 152 was anything other than a potentially great curiosity.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2007)

AV8 said:


> So, how can the Ta 152 be a “best” of anything based on its war record?
> 
> Despite how it may sound, I am not trying to start a flame war, just asking someone here to tell me how they arrived at his or her assertion that the Ta 152 was anything other than a potentially great curiosity.



So using that logic the F-22 and F-35 can not be considered the best fighter aircraft today because they have no war record?

The people who believe that it was the best is not based off war record, but rather based off of performance and handling. They use charts, and pilot accounts on performance and handling (both axis and post war allied accounts).

War record does not make an aircraft good or not....

Now if you want to talk impact on the war, then the Ta 152 had no impact on the war.


----------



## Erich (May 16, 2007)

~ Several C's found at airfields were stripped of their parts to help the H's on hand. Read my posts which came directly from Reschke on the listing of how many were in the Geschwader stab and III. gruppe JG 301. The H-0 and H-1 were never withdrawn from service in JG 301. The kill ratio does not matter in regards whether or not it was the ultimate high altitude machine .........


----------



## AV8 (May 16, 2007)

Hi DerAdlerIstGelandet,

According to my own way of thinking, you are correct above.

The F-35 is not in service yet, so it doesn't count. The F-22 is potentially the best in the world, but we'll find out when and if it goes into combat, won't we?

Again, not to denigrate the Ta 152, but when a nation in imminent danger of lsing a world war takes a "brilliant" new fighter out of service, I'd say the shine of "greatness" is dulled a bit.

The planes of WWII were simple in terms of systems other than the powerplant when compare with today's fighters. They had production runs numbering in the tens of thousands as I'm sure you know. A run of about 150 planes is nothing more than a service test group, intended to find out the immediate production problems with the new plane. The problems proved so great that most, if not quite all, of the few that made it into the air were withdrawn from service.

No doubt the problems were made all the more insoluable by the advancing Soviet and British-American forces, but they WERE insoluable, at least at that time.

So yes, I agree with your assertion about the Raptor and the F-35. Each will display its worth when and if called upon. Until then, I think they're potentially great ... but the crucible of combat has certainly not proven it yet.

Once again, just MY opinion. 

I realize that many of you differ in your opinions. I'm OK with that without attempting to change your minds or trying to convince you that I alone am right while you are wrong. You have not only the right but also the intellectual obligation to form your own opinions for the reasons you choose. It would be a boring world if we all thought the same, no?

If I read you right, and I might not, you think the Ta 152 was the best-performing (not most effective) high-altitude piston fighter produced during the WWII timeframe. I might have that wrong and you might feel the Ta 152 was the best-performing aircraft of the WWII timeframe, not just high-altitude. I am assuming you mean fighter-versus-fighter combat since multi-mission aircraft were very rarely the best at anything, most especially in piston-engine times.

I understand this contention, and would throw in the P-51H (487 mph), the P-47J (504 mph), the slightly post-WWI Australian CAC-15 (505 mph), and the very late-model Spitfires of several Marks (not as fast but VERY good in a fight). All but the CAC-15 flew within the WWII timeframe, but the CAC-15 was firmly rooted in WWII design times.

The CAC-15 and P-47J never made into WWII combat or even production, but we're talking about best-performing, not most effective, so I feel slightly justified in looking at prototypes.

Choosing among these lofty few airframes would be tough but, yes, the Ta 152 belongs in the group, perhaps at the head of it. So, in this respect, I concur.

I'd sure love to see and hear one flying today, wouldn't YOU?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 16, 2007)

> Again, not to denigrate the Ta 152, but when a nation in imminent danger of lsing a world war takes a "brilliant" new fighter out of service, I'd say the shine of "greatness" is dulled a bit.


I guess u missed Erichs post right above urs confirming infact that the Tank was NOT removed from service...


----------



## AV8 (May 16, 2007)

Actually, I didn't miss his post. He said some of the H models in JG 301 were not taken out of service. I have recently moved and my library is in boxes, so I have no idea if some of the H models were in units other than JG 301 at this time ... could be.

I assumed that some were taken out of service and some weren't. Since not many were ever flown to begin with, I can't be too far off ... I almost have to be within 30 or so ... right?

Also, the "C" model had a Daimler-Benz engine and so could not have been much use in keeping a Jumo 213 E running ... other parts of the ariframe, yes. But most of the Ta 152 H models were suffering from engine ills.

Maybe Erich could clarify the numbers for us?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2007)

AV8 said:


> Hi DerAdlerIstGelandet,
> 
> According to my own way of thinking, you are correct above.
> 
> ...



Yes I do believe that the Ta 152 was the best high alltitude figher of WW2. It did not see very much service but that does not mean it was not good. I would not go as far as saying it was the best performer overall, but I think if you take all the aspects of it, it was the best. This however is my own opinion and as you said everyone can have there own as well.


----------



## Erich (May 17, 2007)

av8 re-read my post NONE of the H's were taken out of service. where do you get this info from anyway ? I guess the last 30 years of studying JG 301 gives me a slight edge as to knowing what the crap is going on the last days with the unit also J.C.'s work on the Dora, volume 1 may shed light. I have talked at long length with Jerry about his Ta 152 painting , the pilots, missions and the a/c in many respects. the numbers for III. gruppe and Geschwader Stab I have already given in this thread I believe straight from Reschkes own hand........


----------



## AV8 (May 17, 2007)

Hey Erich, what's your problem with my information request above? I have ZERO interest in Nazi squadrons, groups, or any other units, so I have no idea or interest in their deployed numbers. Where do I get it from? It is a QUESTION.

I am a huge fan of the aircraft themselves and would love to fly any or all of the WWII planes. I have extensive data on the aircraft and probably some on the units, but I simply don't care about German Luftwaffe units. Since I don't, it means nothing to me that Ta 152Hs were assigned to JG 301 or JG whatever.

Beilevable historic accounts state that very few Ta 152s were delivered to active Luftwaffe units, fewer than half ever flew, and some portion of those saw combat ... I don't know how many saw combat, but they collectively only got 11 kills (or so) in the war, a net zero effect in anyone's book, realistically.

It was a question asking if you knew the numbers. THAT'S WHY I ASKED, and that was the only reason. Calm down.

You state that someone you believe served in a Ta 152 unit (JG 301), maybe the only unit flying them at the end of the war ... I don't know ... says that the Ta 152H models were not grounded as is claimed in several sources that are, for the most part, otherwise credible. Did I get that right?

Now I ask a question that may SEEM insulting, but is NOT intended to be so. Please don't take this wrong, but how do you know this person you spoke with actually did serve in JG 301? Does he show up on an official roster? Is the name common and might he be another person of the same name?

I'm not saying it is so, I was just curious as to the credibility of the claim. Seems like everyone's "proof" is something someone said who claims to have been there. There's at least one "ace" here in the U.S.A. who made the airshow circuit and claimed to have served with the Flying Tigers, but the REAL Flying Tigers, like Bob Scott, had never heard of him or seen him before.

The reason I asked for numbers is because there are at LEAST 4 or 5 sources that state the Ta 152H models were withdrawn from service by the end of April 1945. So ... someone claimg to know differently naturally causes me to ask about it.

Seems like a reasonable question to me and that's really all there is to it.

One last point here, the subject of WWII aviation fascinates me, but is quite out of the mainstream for ordinary people. Most don't care and a good deal of the public couldn't tell you when WWII was, who fought WWII, or who won and lost. At least a few have never heard of Adolph Hitler.

Maybe you should welcome questions about the subject? Whuddya' think?

NONE of the above is intended to be insulting to anyone here. If you can't ask questions about stuff you don't know, what is the point of having a forum?


----------



## Erich (May 17, 2007)

question then, have you read every post in this thread ? have you checked the old threads in Avaition to find out whom I know that served in JG 301... ?

you still have not answered my question - what sources are you using that state that the H was withdrawn from service.... ? the net by chance ?

a little background on myself. just so you know I speak from some truth..........I had a cousin serving in 5./JG 301 in the fall of 44 till being KIA with Mustangs on 26 November 44..now you can see the close ties I have to this Geschwader

check the archivs during this past fall and this year and you will see more on the Ta 152. there are at least 3 topcis including the Ta

Monogram Ta 152 although OOP is going through a reprint with more info in a hardback form. JG 301/302 by Will Reschke the gentleman that I spoke of and served in both units finishing the war with the Ta 152H-1, flew 5 different numbered a/c, the one you are asking whether or not served in JG 301. Look up a google search which is easy enough and there is a host of info, I have even posed pics of him along with friend R. Susil whoa has close ties to him and his son.
Schiffer publications also has a book on the TA 152 although more technical in aspect for reference.

A softbound booklet by Kagero pubs both in English/Polish with interviews of Herr Reschke


----------



## Lucky13 (May 18, 2007)

Erich, what kind of aircraft did the JG301 and 302 operate during its operational life? What's their final number in aerial victories?


----------



## Erich (May 18, 2007)

JG 302 : Bf 109 and Fw 190A

JG 301 first flew the Bf 109G, then in September they were completelyrefitted with Fw 190A-8, A-8/R2's and also A-9, A-9/R11, finally III./JG 301 had up to 35 Ta 152H reduced down to 15. Geschwader Stab flew the Ta 152H as well 6-8 of them


----------



## Lucky13 (May 18, 2007)

Cheers Erich, much appreciated!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2007)

AV8 said:


> Now I ask a question that may SEEM insulting, but is NOT intended to be so. Please don't take this wrong, but how do you know this person you spoke with actually did serve in JG 301? Does he show up on an official roster? Is the name common and might he be another person of the same name?
> 
> I'm not saying it is so, I was just curious as to the credibility of the claim. Seems like everyone's "proof" is something someone said who claims to have been there. There's at least one "ace" here in the U.S.A. who made the airshow circuit and claimed to have served with the Flying Tigers, but the REAL Flying Tigers, like Bob Scott, had never heard of him or seen him before.
> 
> The reason I asked for numbers is because there are at LEAST 4 or 5 sources that state the Ta 152H models were withdrawn from service by the end of April 1945. So ... someone claimg to know differently naturally causes me to ask about it.



Because his name is Willi Reschke. There are photos of him with a Ta 152 and he even has a confirmed killed in a 152 against a Tempest at very low alltitude on April 14, 1945. 

He is still alive today and lives several hours away from me. I have written him a letter with many questions regarding the Ta 152 but due to certian reasons he has not been able to get back to me but he will as soon as possible.

I also have recieved some video and interesting letters about him from a personal aquaintance of his as well (Erich you know who I am talking about).


----------



## AV8 (May 18, 2007)

Thanks for the info guys. I WILL check the old posts as I get time.

Just for future reference, I really don't want to "tick" anyone off on purpose. I mostly ask questions that arise as I read the posts. When I see some sarcasm, especially a member telling another member to "shut up and stay away from things they don't know about," it is human nature to respond in kind ... I'll try to control it.

Meanwhile, I have seen some posts in here by purported "experts" that make claims about aircraft and aerodynamics that are just wrong. I'll feel free to enter these discussions in the future, but there's no point in hashing over EVERYTHING that is questionable, espeically in the past. Since I'm new here, I'll start from here and not go back to quibble, even if queried about it.



It might be worthwhile to compile the data in aircraft-specific posts into a sticky subject on each aicraft, but that's a lot of work for someone to do. Maybe in a Compiled Data sub forum.

Since we have people interested in individual units of various air forces, it might be worthwhile to do the same for the various aviation squadrons, units, wings, JGs, etc. Again, a lot of work. Maybe in a sub forum called Compiled Aircraft Unit Data or words to that effect.

The thing is, the very people who are interested in these aircraft, air forces, and air force units could do the work a little at a time and submit the collected subject to the moderators for approval with the words "Bf 109 Collected Data" or words to that effect in the title. If the moderators read and concur, the text could be added easily by the moderator with a simple copy and paste.

For the interested parties, it might be acceptable work. For the forum, it might be a good thing or at least a useful thing since the collected data could be easily accessed without reading hundreds of old posts, especially if the subject didn't move in the menu when they are read or added to. The subjects could be alphabetized by aircraft manufacturer, with a folder called "Messerschmitt" and "Bf / Me 109", Me 262", etc. filed under Messerschmitt ... or by Air Force and Unit.

Just a thought ... 

I'd could collect data on one subject as a start, assuming anyone is interested ... it may be preferable to the owner / moderators to keep the status quo, and I'd understand that, too.

By and large, a nice forum with good information.


----------



## Erich (May 18, 2007)

Av8:

I go back to my original question with you. what sources written or otherwise state the Ta 152H was removed from service ??

E ~


----------



## Linda Alice Dewey (Jun 3, 2007)

Erich, Hi! Just a note on the stats from the Kassel Mission of 27 Sept 1944:

25 planes went down within a 15 mile radius in central Germany, another 4 crash landed--2 in Belgium and 2 in France. My father's plane which landed in Manston was re-classified recently as we heard from Maxwell Field that it did fly again. So we have a total of 29 445th B-24's crashed, 1 emergency landing at Manston (Dad's) 1 crashed at Tibenham and 4 of the original 35 (38 were sent out but 3 turned back) made it back safely. A bad day for the 8th AF.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2007)

Linda - September 27 bloodbath was an example of very skillfull Luftwaffe Controllers and Spotters detecting both gaps in formations between each wing and gaps in Escort - then rallying a strike force to that area.

Despite hundreds of P-51s and P-47s escorting all three BD that day only the fighters of the 65FW (and only the 4th, 355th and 361st) were in a position to intervene. The 445th somehow separated from the 491st and 489th BG and running south (as I recall) of the main track and all three Fighter wings were with the latter two Wings further north.

The JG4 Sturmgruppe hit the 445th, the 361st and 4th FG were closest and engaged while the 355th sent one squadron south and kept two more to cover 491st and 489th. In all there were only 58 Mustangs from the three groups as effectives but still managed to shoot down 26 for the loss of 1 (4fg - 0, 355-0, 361 -1 ). Didn't do the 445 any good but illustrated how the LW could have overwhelming force in a region in space that had many US fighters within 20 miles.

Didn't do JG4 much good either but they killed a lot more USAAF airmen than they lost this day.

The 'poster child' missions illustrating the consequences of losing connection with the other wings include April 29, July 7, Sept 27 and Nov 26 missions - all almost identical models - and consequences of LW achieving local air superiority.

Eric probably has more deatils on this mission from fighter perspective than I do.. as well as Nov 26 mission in which the 445th BG was hurt also (nothing like Kassel) but the 491st was really hurt.

Regards,

Bill Marshall


----------



## Erich (Jun 3, 2007)

hey Linda good to see ya hear. Actually I got the 30 count from your dad some years ago by phone as well as e-mail along with another one of the survivors, after re-reading the mission reports I agree with your statements, the thing was during the battle we might as well call it 30 as that number did not come back to 
England in 1 piece.

IV.Sturm/JG 3 attacked first shooting down 18 Libs while JG 300 and JG 4 came in just seconds after, possible a couple of minutes depending on what source you use for reading. The 361st hit JG 4 and JG 300 hard, while JG 3 Sturms got in one fast attack and then dove for the deck but getting 6 of their Sturms hiot by return B-24 .50's. confusion still exists as JG 300 members state that they were first inline but also that other JG 300 members stated that during the attack another Sturmgruppe wasahead of them going through the B-24's and pieces of a/c were drifting down and they were flying through the carnage.

In any case it was one of the most horrific aerial engagements of the war


----------



## davparlr (Jun 3, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So using that logic the F-22 and F-35 can not be considered the best fighter aircraft today because they have no war record?
> 
> The people who believe that it was the best is not based off war record, but rather based off of performance and handling. They use charts, and pilot accounts on performance and handling (both axis and post war allied accounts).
> 
> ...



I disagree with this. Greatest is not in the performance in test, but rather delivery in the game. Emmit Smith was too small and to slow to be a pro runner, but he will be considered one of the greatest runners to play football. Greg Maddux could not throw a fastball worth a darn, yet he will be considered one of the greatest pitchers ever to play baseball. I have never voted for the F-22 or F-35 as the best fighters ever. My vote is always the F-15, strickly due to performance when bullets are flying. You can't claim to be the greatest when all you've done is spar.

A few Ta-152H were good against previous generation aircaft, but it never was tested against the likes of the P-51H, P-47N/M, F4U-4, or advance Brit fighters. Also, it apparently never overcame its break-in problems. In football, for records to count, a certain number of quarters must be played. The Ta-152H just did not play enough quarters in the game to qualify.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 4, 2007)

davparlr said:


> I disagree with this. Greatest is not in the performance in test, but rather delivery in the game. Emmit Smith was too small and to slow to be a pro runner, but he will be considered one of the greatest runners to play football. Greg Maddux could not throw a fastball worth a darn, yet he will be considered one of the greatest pitchers ever to play baseball. I have never voted for the F-22 or F-35 as the best fighters ever. My vote is always the F-15, strickly due to performance when bullets are flying. You can't claim to be the greatest when all you've done is spar.
> 
> A few Ta-152H were good against previous generation aircaft, but it never was tested against the likes of the P-51H, P-47N/M, F4U-4, or advance Brit fighters. Also, it apparently never overcame its break-in problems. In football, for records to count, a certain number of quarters must be played. The Ta-152H just did not play enough quarters in the game to qualify.



I actually agree with you dont take me wrong. My beef is that the same people that discredit the Ta-152H say that the P-51H as the best. Using that same arguement how can one say the P-51H is the best? It never saw any combat in WW2 at all...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 4, 2007)

I agree with both of you. However I must never remain silent on this subject.

I will always maintain that the 51H is the Best Version of the Most Important Fighter for the most crucial mission of WWII. There, I've said it and as always often wrong - never uncertain. 

IMHO The most crucial mission was the destruction of the Luftwaffe, wresting air superiority to point of making Strategic Bombing the most decisive factor in the air war. The lesser capability 51's broke the lesser capable Fw190s and Me109s and their experienced pilots (a huge percentage) over Targets in Central North and Southern Germany as well as Poland and Czech targets... when the 47's didn't have the range and daylight bombing doctrine was somewhat on a knife edge.

I will then put my foot in my mouth and say that the Ta152 was the Best (even though it really was fresh design - it still get's lumped in with the Fw190) of one of the Best Fighters of WWII..the same reason I love the 190D.

Regards to you both

Bill


----------



## davparlr (Jun 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I actually agree with you dont take me wrong. My beef is that the same people that discredit the Ta-152H say that the P-51H as the best. Using that same arguement how can one say the P-51H is the best? It never saw any combat in WW2 at all...



That's why I have never said that the P-51H was the best of anything. The Ta-152H had the potential of being the best high altitude fighter, even compared to the other similar aircraft I mentioned. The P-51H was a hot rod and probably would have been a formidable fighter, it just never had the chance to prove itself.


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2007)

Wasn't GregP banned ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2007)

I think so...


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2007)

Throwing a slightly different angle to this argument. How would the Meteor III far in this discussion. It was faster than the TA152, lacked its agility was better armed, performed well at altitude and had a good range. 
In most respects it was considered a better fighter than the Tempest which was no slouch.

Thoughts anyone?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 6, 2007)

The pilots appreciated the additional power provided by the Meteor III relative to the Meteor I, as well as the improved view with the new canopy. However, the ailerons had been deliberately wired to be "heavy" to prevent aerobatic maneuvers from overstressing the wings, and pilots complained that flying the aircraft could be very tiring; this had not been a problem with the Meteor I, since it hadn't been cleared for aerobatic maneuvers. Pilots also complained that the machine tended to "snake" at high speed, limiting its accuracy as a gun platform, and it tended to become uncontrollable in a dive due to compressibility buffeting. However, the aircraft was basically liked. A flight combat exercise against the excellent Hawker Tempest V piston fighter concluded: 

*BEGIN QUOTE: 

The Meteor III is superior to the Tempest V in almost all departments. If it were not for the heaviness of its ailerons and the consequent poor maneuverability in the rolling plane, and the adverse effect of snaking on it as a gun platform, it would be a comparable all-round fighter with greatly increased performance. 

END QUOTE*


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> I think so...



Yes Adler banned him. He kept registering with different aliases after having been banned multiple times.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 6, 2007)

Multiple personalities??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 6, 2007)

Yes and the ban was only a temp ban of a few days.


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2007)

Roger.


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2007)

to get us back on topic I am going to add a little suspense .... got something via Germany/Czech in the email today ..........

and yes it has something to do with the Ta 152H-1

back soon ~


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2007)

guess who's decorations ?? courtesy of R. Susil and and the winners son


----------



## twoeagles (Jun 6, 2007)

Holy cow! That is really a beautiful and historic set of chest candy!
I think my hair would stand up if I ever touched something authentic like this.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 6, 2007)

Almost felt my neck hair rising there....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 6, 2007)

Willi Reschkes awards....


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2007)

yes you are right Chris, I gave it away with my header to R.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2007)

Cool......


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2007)

am going to ask Will what happened to his DK in gold - pretty well beat up


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 6, 2007)

Soren and all, what would the scenery have been if there had been as many Ta 152H-1's and C's as P-51D at the end of 1944?


----------



## Jackson (Jun 6, 2007)

considering alll the 152 H's were grounded for poor design and manufacturing problems

the scenery would have been brown dirt, grass and the bottom side of P47 Jabo's zooming overhead


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2007)

Dream on Jackson.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 6, 2007)

TA152 GROUNDED - Google Search


----------



## Jackson (Jun 6, 2007)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/p51d-k-vs-me109k-14-a-4120-6.html


NOBODY DISPUTES IT HERE


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2007)

Davparlr mentions that he's heard they were grounded - I however have seen no evidence of that yet.

Besides I was responding more to your ridiculous remark about the Ta-152H being a poor design, poor design had nothing to with the bugs apparent in some of the Ta-152H's in service - manufacturing conditions on the other hand did. The Ta-152H was a brilliant design and no less, and it scored itself an 11 to 1 kill ratio before wars end.

PS: 
Don't rely on the internet as your source of reference, so much false crap has been and is written on it.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 6, 2007)

Nobody seems to dispute the fact that all the 152-H were grounded here

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/p51d-k-vs-me109k-14-a-4120-6.html


Maybe you should look around..

TA152 GROUNDED - Google Search

Later I will give you more, if you feel it is necessary


but with less than 70 delivered and having them all grounded ...

They seem obviously overrated- by some people here..


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2007)

Dublicating your last post doesn't get you anywhere Jackson. 

You're relying entirely on rumors.


----------



## bigZ (Jun 6, 2007)

Jackson said:


> Nobody seems to dispute the fact that all the 152-H were grounded here
> 
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/p51d-k-vs-me109k-14-a-4120-6.html
> 
> ...



As far as I recall they overcame the early engine fires and Monograms book on the 152 mentions a pilots account of using a 152 after the armistice. Of course this is from one source only, but it seems most of those articles listed in your searck are copies from Wiki.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 6, 2007)

Well it says: By the *end of April 1945*, caused in part to the issues seen in testing and early production and the lack of spare parts, the Luftwaffe eventually grounded all Ta 152 H's, leaving only two Ta 152C's operational.
A lot could have happened before the end of April 1945, right?

I've been thinking to contact todays Luftwaffe to see who they recommend to talk to....


----------



## Jackson (Jun 6, 2007)

Les, Adler etc. did not have any problem with what is common knowledge.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 6, 2007)

internet? I used to know Rudolf Hess's son ( An F104 pilot) fairly well.

I will talk to my father to see if he can ask him


----------



## Soren (Jun 6, 2007)

> Les, Adler etc. did not have any problem with what is common knowledge.



Wait and see Jackson....


----------



## DonL (Jun 6, 2007)

sorry Jackson,

but I can't find any source in my books and no source in german that say all TA 152H were grounded! The engine Jumo 213 was built 9000 times between the war! There is no Problem with this engine and the TA 152H.

Also I have a source that over 150 TA 152H were built in Cottbus till the end of the War!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 6, 2007)

"In the spring of 1945, Reschke was transferred to the Stab/301, which was equipped with new Ta 152. Flying this machine, Reschke shot down a Tempest piloted by Warrant Officer O.J. Mitchell, of 486 Squadron on 14 April 1945. On 20 April, Reschke was awarded the Knights Cross for his 25 victories. Four days later, five Ta 152s were surrounded in a dogfight with a formation of Yak-9s. Reshcke destroyed two of them, being his two last victories, and losing the group a Ta 152."

"Walter Loos was born on 11 April 1923 at Oppenheim in Rheinhessen. Following flying training he was sent to III./JG 3 in January 1944. He claimed his first aerial victory in the big aerial battle over Berlin on 6 March 1944 claiming a USAAF B-17 Herausschuss. Later he was transferred to IV. Sturmgruppe/JG 3. When Oberst Walter Dahl (129 victories, RK-EL) became Kommodore of JG 300 in July 1944, Loos joined with him to serve on the Geschwaderstab. On 29 September, Loos was awarded the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold. Loos was posted to undertake instructing duties with Ergänzungs-Jagdgruppe Ost in October 1944. He returned to combat duty with JG 301 where he was assigned to the Geschwaderstab. With this unit he flew the Focke-Wulf Ta 152 for the first time at Soltau-Hannover. He gained several successes over Russian fighters around Berlin flying the Ta-152 in the dying days of the war. On 20 April 1945, Walter Loos was awarded the Ritterkreuz for 36 victories. Walter Loos flew 66 combat missions to achieve 38 confirmed victories and 8 unconfirmed. 30 enemy aircraft were claimed on the Western Front, 22 of them four-engined bombers. He himself was shot down nine times."


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2007)

well jackson your statement and internet sources for H's being grounded is pure Bull **** I sure do not know why you believe in pulling up short straws without factual evidence, same B.S. stating the Ta 152H via the net and lousy books was produced for popping B-29's; what a joke !

sorry man but that is plain wrong and I dispute it 100 % and that is according to the pilots that flew that crate..........

I can also give you of evidence of C's being stripped from themselves being used for the operating H's and several not just 2 V's used on ops against the soviets..........

guess I am getting a bit peeved but can tell you are all going - to get some real eye opening stuff in your face in about 2 years time if things go well in the publishing realm, monogram book or no. Now enough of these joking myths please ~


----------



## davparlr (Jun 6, 2007)

Erich said:


> guess I am getting a bit peeved but can tell you are all going - to get some real eye opening stuff in your face in about 2 years time if things go well in the publishing realm, monogram book or no. Now enough of these joking myths please ~




I am afraid that we are going to be stuck with the data we have until they are indeed proven myths. Hopefully, in a couple of years, some enlightenment will occur, one way or another.


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2007)

the two that I mentioned are and that is proven from Flugbuchs as well as the pilots mouths

yes myths are going to abound and I could even bring some up if I felt like it. no matter some conclusions will be taken within a 2 yr period


----------



## Jackson (Jun 6, 2007)

Focke-Wulf Ta152H

Between October 1944 and February 1945 when production ended, Focke-Wulf managed to roll 67 completed Ta 152 aircraft (H-0, H-1, and C-1 models) off the line but these fighters put on a disappointing show. Some aircraft were lost to engine fires while a variety of other engine problems and spares shortages grounded most of the fleet. By April 30, 1945, only two Ta 152C-1s remained operational. The Luftwaffe had grounded all H-models--an ignominious end for combat aircraft with great potential. 


(as written by the only people in the world who actually currently *OWN* a TA-152)

Show me yours and I will drive about 10 minutes away and ask my friend, the docent at the museum, to check his sources..


I will accept the word of someone who actually OWNS one...as being knowledgable as to the aircrafts history. 


If you have 'better' sources than the only OWNERS in the world, who may be the worlds premier aircraft historians, let me know. I will have them correct the plaque where the worlds only Ta-152 sits on display.





Yeah, it is an merely 'internet source' as posted by the OWNERS of such an aircraft... I wonder, did any of you even check/read this previously posted link? - and it's source 



let it roll...




OVER


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2007)

According to Mr. Reschke, Loos scored a Yak-9 on 30 April 45 in a 152, and then the Geschwaderstab JG301 moved airfields to Leck and were supposed to turn over their aircraft to JG11, and stayed there till the surrender on May 8th.... *There was no grounding of these aircrafts....*


----------



## Jackson (Jun 7, 2007)

They own a JG 301 TA-152H..the only one in existence.

The people who own one, and restored it said it was sabotaged, wood held together with chewing gum and boogers.. (built by slaves?)

You would have thought taking one apart, piece by piece, they would have learned something. It never flew any high altitude combat, probably for a reason..I gather from what the owners say..It was junk.

But with a one or two billion dollar aircraft collection, the worlds largest, they probably make a few mistakes once in a while.


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2007)

ok Jackson I have been in contact with NASM and of course friend Jerry Crandall who helped get this hot rod cleaned up and find the original base layer camo underneath the US "fake" one.

so what I hear you saying is that the JG 301 veterans including my cousin are idiots then.............if I hear you correctly you are going to get your butt kicked right off this site. Nasm for your own information does not have the low down on the TA 152H altogether let alone all the info on JG 301 except the veterans that flew the bird. By the way it is NOT restored in full flying condition ........and Grüne 4 did not fly high altitude missions but medium to low. by the way did you see when the article you posted was written-------- ? 6 years ago man, much has been found about this a/c since then.

have you ever read anything on JG 301 and it's operations ? Do you know any of the vets, and I do not mean the US guys trying to re-fabricate an a/c some 60 plus years old


----------



## seesul (Jun 7, 2007)

Erich said:


> am going to ask Will what happened to his DK in gold - pretty well beat up



Hi Erich,

W.R. told me that he had to hide all these decorations at his backyard all the time till 1989 as he lived in East Germany... So maybe weather conditions caused this damage... But anyway, I´ll ask him yet.

Roman


----------



## seesul (Jun 7, 2007)

Erich said:


> am going to ask Will what happened to his DK in gold - pretty well beat up



Erich,

I got it. I just phoned to W.R. and was told that when he got this DK im Gold (April '45) they had no new one for him. So his Geschwaderkomodor got an older DK from somewhere and gave it to W.R.... 

Roman


----------



## Jackson (Jun 7, 2007)

Axis History Forum :: Ta - 152

Erich are you the same guy on this thread?

If so, back in 2003 why didn't you dispute the same points.. which were subsequently raised here on this forum by others.


I am trying to remember where I first heard this, maybe in Rudy Opitzes book, back in 1965, from the RAF Lakenheath or Ramstien library. (Jagd something? Pilot= "Fighter Pilot") or maybe the squadron library of the 55th tfs. Or maybe Hess's son, a '104 jock. Could have been from my grandfather the Spitfire pilot, a Vickers and later Skunkworks engineer. Opitz's book was out of print in the 50' s I believe. 


My point... even "newbie" here can have 40+ years with this stuff, or have a great grand father named John Dunne, the inventor of swept wings..

almost 100 years family aviation history - that's years older than this site, we all got family

But heck, I know more about this stuff than my dad, F100-F4-F111, then NASA Houston or my sister @ Boeing.


I could be wrong.. and so could the Smithsonian about this wooden crate.
So.. I disagree.. and even first hand accounts of the same events differ/ often.


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2007)

Roman thanks for the update on Willi's DK that makes sense............. thumbs up

Jackson in reality and research proves it, 1 Geshwader Stab pilot did make a Mustang kill confirmed. And yes I am the same Erich. I was moderator on that forum and I fell out of disfavour with many posters as mr. E. was disproving myths even by some of the other mods. the forum went down hill and I relinquished my mod responsibilties. Personally the Luftwaffe and A/C sections on that forum are a joke.

I go by my stand on the TA 152H via questions to Willi Reschke through my friend Roman who has seen the answers by the former pilot and who is the representative for all of JG 301


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 7, 2007)

Jackson said:


> considering alll the 152 H's were grounded for poor design and manufacturing problems
> 
> the scenery would have been brown dirt, grass and the bottom side of P47 Jabo's zooming overhead



Thats funny. Several people here are in contact (I am still waiting for a response from him) with Willi Reschke and several other people who flew the Ta 152 right up until the end of the war.

I will believe Reschke and the other pilots who actually flew it before I believe you or the NASM anyday.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 7, 2007)

Jackson said:


> I will accept the word of someone who actually OWNS one...as being knowledgable as to the aircrafts history.



So basically what you are saying is this:

The men who actually flew the aircraft are worthless for information. 

That is what you are saying?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 7, 2007)

I can't believe that Kurt Tank would do something of poor design.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 7, 2007)

He didn't.

They were hastily built though and in that process may have had some manufacturing faults because of the lack of materials and so forth near the end of the war but Tank was not an idiot as some people wish for you to believe. He was one of the best designers of aircraft during the war and contributed much to post war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 7, 2007)

Jackson said:


> or have a great grand father named John Dunne, the inventor of swept wings..



That is funny where do you come up with that?

The idea of swept wings was developed in Germany in the 1930s. The first person to even bring the idea up was Dr. Adolf Busemann at the Volta Conferrence in 1935. Albert Betz also worked on the idea.

There were several German Jet aircraft that were swept wing designs during WW2 including the Messerschmitt P.1101 which was sent to the US in 1948 to the Bell Aircraft Works. Unfortunatly the aircraft was damaged beyond repair when it fell off of a train. Bell however took the design and components and built the the Bell X-5 out of it.

In case you dont know anything about Busemann he was working on developing swept wing designs for the Germans in the 1930s and 1940s and after the war worked in the US with NACAs Langley Research Center and in the 1960s was a Professor at the U. of Colorado where he came up with the idea for the tiles on the Space Shuttle.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 7, 2007)

Just sounded far fetched you know Adler. Just been looking at some of the aircraft that he designed for Argentina and India, nice machines. I'd say he's just as profilic (right word?) as Heinemann, the father of the SBD, Skyraider and the Skyhawk....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 7, 2007)

Oh and just wanted to add something here. This goes for all posters in this thread.

We the moderators are getting tired of people becoming insulting to one another in these threads. A good debate is fun but when it gets out of hand with insults it has gone to far.

As stated by another moderator in the Most Overated.... thread this is the only warning.

Instulting posts will warrant infractions. I dont care who starts it it goes for everyone.

Eneogh is eneogh...


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 7, 2007)

I don't if I have been insulting to anyone or not...but anyhoo just to make sure, let me be the first to apologize if that would be the case. Sorry.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 7, 2007)

anyway, history and personal recolections are funny

and yeas, the shortage of materials and time compression could affect fielding a suitable aircraft..

Does the fact that my sister is a Boeing engineer involed in the ISS and previously the Shuttle give me the right to dismiss out of hand anyones opinions?

no


Or because of my grandfathers in involement in the development of the Spitfire make anything I say more correct than anyone else

no


John Dunne the inventor of swept back wings..

The Historical Burgess-Dunne

HistoryLink Essay: Boeing B-47 Stratojet Bomber -- A Snapshot History

Your German was 30 years late....



doubt it? Mebbe I will PM you my a listing for John Dunn(e) not that far from Palmdale and you can ask my granny, she is 90 +

lol

Despite poor health, however, John Dunne resumed his aeronautical investigations, and by 1904 was ready to progress from the model phase to experiments with gliders and later, powered aircraft. Dunne sought an experienced engineer to assist him in the difficult job of putting theory into practice. His problem was solved when he was assigned in 1905 to the Army Balloon Factory at South Farnborough, England, then under the able leadership of Colonel John Capper. With Capper's guidance and support, Dunne began the design and construction of the the first British military airplane.

Months of tests with model gliders were followed in the spring of 1907 by the first passenger-carrying glider. It was the first of many craft with the distinctive V-shaped wing designed by Dunne, frequently described as an arrowhead minus a shaft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 7, 2007)

Jackson said:


> anyway, history and personal recolections are funny
> 
> and yeas, the shortage of materials and time compression could affect fielding a suitable aircraft..
> 
> ...



Nope but I will stake first hand accounts over what a museum currator or restorer who did not fly the aircraft in 1945 has to say.




Jackson said:


> John Dunne the inventor of swept back wings..
> 
> The Historical Burgess-Dunne
> 
> ...



Funny every book you read says the first real use and idea came from someone else.

Oh and the German is not mine, so dont make smart ass comments about "Your German"....

You are on very thin ice Jackson.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 7, 2007)

and BTW I am a big fan of all the WWI WWIIgreat planes designers

Including Kelly Johnson, Messerschmitt, Tank etc..

My grandfather and my great grand father


----------



## Jackson (Jun 7, 2007)

Early Flying Wings

check the photos..


----------



## Jackson (Jun 7, 2007)

my grand father on the other side was Northup Boeing, dad was Rockwell Link (after retiring from the Pentagon)

Grandpa also worked in that big building near Rossmore, between Los Alamitos Seal Beach Ca


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

Jackson, Dunne understanded squat of what advantages the swepped wing possessed over a straight one, he was just experimenting with different shapes just as all other engineers at the time were doing. The first swepped back wing was designed by Da Vinci, but somehow I don't think he really understood the difference of this over a straight wing 

The Germans were the first to widely use and fully understand the advantages of the swepped wing design.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 7, 2007)

Great Grandad -he sold many aircraft to the US British military...That is a little beyond experimenting.


Sweptback wings date to the first decade of the powered airplane. Britain’s John Dunne flew a sweptback wing biplane with inherent stability (the reason he used swept wings) in 1910. The U.S. Army and Navy evaluated his later swept wing designs, as armed warplanes in 1914-1915; the first military services to do so. Interestingly, their 32° wing sweep was nearly the same as the B-47. In the late 1930s, U.S. light planes with 25° sweptback wings were in production. 



Like my grandfather, and the wings on the Spit U2 

Oh Please..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 7, 2007)

This will go know where...


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

Exactly Adler.

Jackson, you're clueless and I advice you to stop before you embarrase yourself any further.


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2007)

well gents this whole page is OT and should be completely deleted and it just may. get back on the Ta 152H as nothing else from some other persons viewpoint even before the war and after war is going to help understand the subject matter. the point about H's not being in service or grounded by wars end has already been disproved as well as the result of manufacture believing the Ta was designed for B-29 hunting. this is all dark myths perpetuated by those that did not interview JG 301 personell nor even flew or had hands on experience with the Ta during the war, nor the Dora 9 nor the A-8, and A-9 nor the Bf 109G-6, on it goes

question still stands was the Ta 152H the best high alt job.

well it could of been had it been allowed to perform it's function it was designed for " to fly in combat with high alt. Allied a/c like the P-51 Mustang "


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2007)

Erich said:


> well gents this whole page is OT and should be completely deleted and it just may. get back on the Ta 152H as nothing else from some other persons viewpoint even before the war and after war is going to help understand the subject matter. the point about H's not being in service or grounded by wars end has already been disproved as well as the result of manufacture believing the Ta was designed for B-29 hunting. this is all dark myths perpetuated by those that did not interview JG 301 personell nor even flew or had hands on experience with the Ta during the war, nor the Dora 9 nor the A-8, and A-9 nor the Bf 109G-6, on it goes
> 
> question still stands was the Ta 152H the best high alt job.
> 
> well it could of been had it been allowed to perform it's function it was designed for " to fly in combat with high alt. Allied a/c like the P-51 Mustang "



Simply stated and correct. 

For Soren's benefit 'and as a high altitude interceptor, better than a P-51H OR F4U-5, (or Tempest, Spit, P-47, P-38 and maybe than a Meteor or P-80 or Me 262 at the extreme altitudes) - although what would it be intercepting above 45,000 feet?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 7, 2007)

Which was the intended altitude for the Ta 152H-1 to operate?


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2007)

did the late war Luftwaffe know something that nobody seems to think or care about ............ opinion, because of the ceiling and as I already said, the P-51 so were they going to be ready for late marks like the H and even do another redesign of the wing, as there were other variants thought of including a night fighter version 

Willi R got to almost 42,500 another pilot was covered at hitting well over 45,000' possibly up to 47-48,000'

Bill has a point about what would they attack at such a high ceiling, but as the P-51 escorts liked the idea of altitude supremacy and the typical drop, bump and fly back up it would suit Ta 152 pilots the same type of procedure. come on up for some action Mustang boys, or I should say "Komme sie hier, Indianer !" ~ Dora 9 pilots were hoping for the same type of treatment but ..........having the edge in altitude but it was a rarity


----------



## Jackson (Jun 7, 2007)

Embarassed, Hardly

lol

over


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2007)

At any altitude but best vs 51 (or Tempest or Spit XIV) above 30,000 feet (I think). Let Erich or the delicate Cape Buffalo weigh in on this one


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2007)

well you will be in the near future jackson as it will become clear in everyones mind

will say no more for the time being


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 7, 2007)

Erich said:


> did the late war Luftwaffe know something that nobody seems to think or care about ............ opinion, because of the ceiling and as I already said, the P-51 so were they going to be ready for late marks like the H and even do another redesign of the wing, as there were other variants thought of including a night fighter version
> 
> Willi R got to almost 42,500 another pilot was covered at hitting well over 45,000' possibly up to 47-48,000'
> 
> Bill has a point about what would they attack at such a high ceiling, but as the P-51 escorts liked the idea of altitude supremacy and the typical drop, bump and fly back up it would suit Ta 152 pilots the same type of procedure. come on up for some action Mustang boys, or I should say "Komme sie hier, Indianer !" ~ Dora 9 pilots were hoping for the same type of treatment but ..........having the edge in altitude but it was a rarity



Erich that cant be true, the boys at NASM say that Reschke and the other 301 pilots are wrong...


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2007)

damn you're right Adler.............sorry .........


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

> but as the P-51 escorts liked the idea of altitude supremacy and the typical drop, bump and fly back up it would suit Ta 152 pilots the same type of procedure.



Bill doesn't believe this fact to be true however..


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2007)

Soren said:


> Bill doesn't believe this fact to be true however..



Correct with respect to attacking LW fighters attacking bombers. They (51's met them at same altitude and/or frequently climbing to meet LW formations which had successfully climbed ahead of the bomber stream to meet the attack.

For the LW formations which had not enough time to respond - and many examples exist for the Fall/Winter or when the 8th sent out a wing to Free Lance and run 50 miles out in front, then obviously it was Dive, kill and come back, if possible - otherwise in two's and four's come back on the deck and shoot hell out of airfields, trains barges, trucks, cows, troops and stray students plugging along w/o a clue.

Having said that, Soren, the standard tactic of 8th FC was to 'loose' a flight or a section of 8 to make an attack while the other remaining fighters (4 to 8 depending on aborts) in that squadron, would stay so that the bombers still had an escort.

When a very large formation of LW fighters was encountered (high or Low) it was frequently All Hands and not only would two or all three of the escorting squadrons attempt to attack (if all three could see and be in a position of attack) and call for help for another nearby group to help. This occurred multiple times in the war but not really all that frequently.

I am aware of two big airbattles in which the 355th was engaged in which another group joined in. 

One was 24 April, 1944 when the 357FG and 355FG joined to repulse (unsuccessfully) many squadrons of JG3, JG27, ZG26, JG26 between Regensburg and Munich. Erich would have the numbers but the estimates were 200-250 fighters attacking the Munich area B-17s raid.

As I recall the two groups shot down 44 (awards, claims were nearly 50 (for total loss of 7 all causes), and as a result, one wing of B-17s was later caught unescorted and 7-10 (can't remember how many) were shot down by a force of 30 JG26 fighters between Munich and 40 miles west. 

In this example the 358FS of the 355th did NOT engage, and only 5 flights of the combined 354 and 357 Squadrons were in the fight. The bombers lost at least 25 total from flak and fighters, probably more, but I don't have the source in front of me. This was a great example of the LW putting max force in a small area, overwhelming the fighter support.

The 355th were awarded 20 for the loss of three in the air and one to flak on the way home.

Erich is very aware of the other 355FG example in Frankfurt region of Novemner 26. In this fight the 339th FG was in that same area of strung out B-24 wings and the LW put nearly (what Erich? 150-200?) fighters into a two bomber wing volume. The 355th put 1 flights of 2SF, 3 Flights of 354FS, 3 flights of 357FS and 2 Flights of 358 FS - not quite 36 fMustangs to try to protect the bombers - I don't know how many effectives engaged from the 339th. 

Combined the 355th and 2SF shot down 26 for no losses in the fight - but lost two to a mid air coming home asfter the fight was over. The 339th bagged 29. The LW bagged 20+ B-24s before either Group could intercept.

Let me give you a clue? Do you think either of these were a 'climbing attack with inferior numbers by the Luftwaffe?"

These two examples are about as good as it gets to describe what really happened in most defenses of LW attacks when they had a chance to form (always in Jan-May 1944), frequently in June-Jan 1945, rare Feb-April 1945.

In the latter period all the 8th and 9th AF plus RAF and RAF Tac had the legs to go all over Germany and simply disrupt everything - so the LW didn't get big gaggles up high and in front - in dramatic contrast to 12 months earlier.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Jackson (Jun 7, 2007)

I dunno, if you read quotes from Fritz Bayerlein, according to him Panzer Lehr lost more tanks during Cobra (the Breakout) than the OKW says he lost June thru September 1944

I trust the German staff records better than his recollections. He makes for interesting reading, but he is totally incorrect in many of his comments. 
He reminds me of Nixon writing his own biography in this regard. 

If ya know what I mean.


.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

Bill,

Why is it then that LW pilots were attacked from above by the P-51 when'ever attacking the bombers ? And why is it that the LW's dedicated fighters almost always had to climb to engage the Mustangs ?

The P-51's stayed high and above the B-17's for obvious reasons, the LW interceptors only had time enough to climb to altitude, form up, and attack the Allied bombers head on - head on attacks being std. procedure as the B-17's were extremely vulnerable to this. Meanwhile the grossly out-numbered dedicated fighters had to climb to intercept the Allied escort or attempt to follow as they zoomed up and down, which was a problem considering the large difference in energy in that state.


----------



## twoeagles (Jun 7, 2007)

Jackson said:


> I dunno, if you read quotes from Fritz Bayerlein, according to him Panzer Lehr lost more tanks during Cobra (the Breakout) than the OKW says he lost June thru September 1944.



Jeez, now I know I missed something. How did this thread jump
onto tanks? Or is it somehow germane?


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2007)

Bill yes you are probably right even if not more concerning the fate of the LW on 26 Nov. 44. JG 301 did face the 2nd SF and the 339th plus 355th attacking B-24's popping 21 and then over-rode two B-17 formations and scored 3-4 additional Forts. JG 301 on the other hand lost 50 Fw 190A-8's and A-9's from which they never fully recovered. it isn't called "Schwarze Tag für JG 301" for nothing. this is going to be covered in a future work........

my reference Soren was: had the Ta 152H been in full gruppen strength of 35 machines and not a dwindled down 12-15 for III. gruppe due to mechanics and pilot failures then yes they would of most likely replaced a I. or II./JG 301 high staffeln at some point trying their best to bring up the P-51D/K's to "their" altitude and for a chit chat but in the very real sense it was not going to happen due to the fact that Berlin was supposed to be defended at all costs and with all of the Luftw. might, JG 301 and the Ta 152H included - thus for the very reason the craft flew at medium to the deck alt.'s to combat the Soviets. there is still such a mix-up for JG 301 even Willi in his own personal bio and work does not include all the airfields listed for JG 301 as the movement was incredibly chaotic with the Soviet ground forces moving too fast to get any established field point, the stafflen of the gruppen were all split up and they flew off from where they could knowing well enough that upon retun from a mission their ground crew personell may have already moved to another location.

Soren your questions about head on attacks could almost fill a book. the head on attacks were nearly given up in July of 44 with the angriff von hinten being standard due to the prevalence of the SturmFw's of the 3 Sturmgruppen in July of 44. I cannot give any % as to how many ops the LW had to climb to the Mustangs or were on even keel during a defensive operation but there were the cases where the escorts could not be everywhere at once and the LW paid it to the bomber pulks and did get away, the escorts coming in right at the moment of the LW fleeing for the deck in all directions
back to the rear attacks; heavy Fw gruppen were covered a 1000 feet higher, the altitude of the P-51's by souped up Bf 109G-6 later AS version and then G-14/AS and finally G-10 with some K-4's before wars end. Expressly for the mixing up with P-51's and when the P-51's were not in the immediate area then the 109's were allowed to dive down and make a rear attack on the bombers


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2007)

I am in 100% agreement with you.. my reference to Soren (and his to me) had nothing to do with this thread. His assertion is that Mustangs only won because the attacked from above in overwhelming numbers - which I tried to gently steer him through time based comparisons.

It was still a good tactic later in the war for the LW to attack from altitude advantage, carve em out and head for the deck to fight another day - and like you said hope to stay in contact with the moving vans.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 7, 2007)

Erich and all..... Just thought about the feeling of landing where you took off in your Bf 109, Fw 190 or Ta and finding that nobody is there, they've all moved on to the next field....PANIC!


----------



## Jackson (Jun 7, 2007)

twoeagles said:


> Or is it somehow germane?



It goes to "personal recollections" versus the historical record.


Neither can be absolutely correct 100 percent of the time.


Historians and individuals can and do often slant the facts to fit their world view, as is sometimes seen on Internet forums. 

People will simply refuse to accept studies, analysis, photographs, detailed records, sworn testimony, impeccable sources and other evidence if they don't want to.


I might go down to the library of Congress tomorrow and pull a document, scan it and post it and still get dissent as to it's authenticity. 

Even with an FBI handwriting expert and two witnesses some would not accept such a document.





I believe you knew what exactly I was referring to but you made your obviously disingenuous comment anyway. Where as if I had made such a comment here, your respose would be a threat to ban me.


go ahead


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2007)

Bill yes agreed. even with the rear attacks it was a real rairity for the 3 Sturmgruppen in whatever attack mode they were in and even if they flew back to back or alone with their high defense cover, could only get in one attack from the rear through the front of the bombers and then bank right or left and then belly up an down due to the ever present escorts and again when not avialable they could then do an about face, form up together enmasse fly the opposite direction of the bombers and pursue from the rear again 

lucky - yes indeed, and hopeful the pilot had full radio contact with the ground and paying attention to his 4 by 4 inch ground map of other possible landing - field locations. We wonder why there was so much abandoned Luftw junk lying all over the fields with no-one present ..... ?


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

Erich, I hear you. The head on attacks were alos most succesful with experienced pilots - the sheer conversion speed making sure it took good experience with deflection shooting in order to be certain of scoring a lethal barrage of hits.

As to the dedicated LW fighters having to climb to engage the Mustangs, well I must admit I can hardly recall an account where this wasn't the case.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2007)

Soren said:


> Why is it then that LW pilots were attacked from above by the P-51 when'ever attacking the bombers ? And why is it that the LW's dedicated fighters almost always had to climb to engage the Mustangs ?
> 
> The P-51's stayed high and above the B-17's for obvious reasons, the LW interceptors only had time enough to climb to altitude, form up, and attack the Allied bombers head on - head on attacks being std. procedure as the B-17's were extremely vulnerable to this. Meanwhile the grossly out-numbered dedicated fighters had to climb to intercept the Allied escort or attempt to follow as they zoomed up and down, which was a problem considering the large difference in energy in that state.



Soren - in this arena you simply do not know what you are talking about. 

The LW controllers were picking up 8t AF attacks when they were warming up, were tracking them (and fighter escorts) with airborn shadows and radar - and the LW fighter pilots picked their noses, conducted briefings for the daily plan, if necessary started moving fighters around and, when set, the fighter pilots were picking their noses until it was time to go!

Now, the occasional 51 squadron or flights that happened to be raoming around could simply ruin the nose picker's day if he was unlucky in the Jan1944 thru May 1944- the latter time, less 'luck'.

You must think that LW commanders, controllers and planners were dumber than dirt if if you think they had to 'climb to intercept the allied escort'. Read the operational diaries of JG26, 54, 4, 301, etc if you don't believe me. They knew they had to be above the 51's to have a chance of survival.

The standard 8AF FC doctrines were for one squadron to be high (i.e 2,000 feet higher than the High box of the wing they were covering , then a mixture of front and rear or side to front, or put one high fron and one each high side - but not the same every mission - and the ships didn't stay together - they mostly criss crossed in 8 ship sections

Do the math, read more and look at the millions of pictures of fighter escort contrails with the bombers.

The math is 20-22,000 feet for the 2ND Division B-24's and 24-26,000 feet for the 1st and 3rd B-17s (yes it varied but not much because the 24 was a major Hog at B-17 altitudes. Add 2,000 (go for broke add 3,000 feet) to each of those numbers..

Then tell me LW could not climb to 30,000 or that Me109G-6 and beyond could not fly at 34-36K to provide escort to the Fw190A8s and Me410's at 28,000 if necessary? Then tell me, "well they of course could do that - but they didn't want an altitude advantage!"

OK Soren.

Bill


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

When attacking the bombers the LW bomber-interceptors (G-6, A-8, A-9 etc etc) were extremely vulnerable to escorts, which the escorting fighters took full advantage of.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

34,000 ft is not a good altitude for either the A-8, A-9 or G-6, at this alt these a/c were at a distinct disadvantage in performance, and on top of this when the LW fighters reached the escorting P-51's they found themselves out-numbered 8 to 1 ! It would take a fleet made out of Ta-152's or Me-262's purely in order to overcome such odds.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2007)

oh - Is the altitude advantage talk (briefly?) suspended, and now we're talking about performance advantage at altitude? 

and those nasty brutish american knuckledraggers had the audacity to take advantage of and 'advantage'??? The Brits would be mortified.

How dreadful.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2007)

well there was a numerical advantage from come after Normandie, the Luftw stalled and blew several chances to score big. Bill is right and I have also mentioned that the lw knew how many escorts and bombers were taking off from England as disheartening as it was, the typical non com pilot did his duty knowing well enough it might be his last mission. what gets me after reading after action-luftw reports is the stupidity of some Staffelkapitäns in having his formation of fighters not loosen up when attacked from the rear-behind but to stick close at had thinking there was safety in numbers. I remember this case when P-51's of Blue noser 352nd decimated a small band of A-9's and Dora 9's of II./JG 301, the small flight had an altitude advantage as they were seeking 4-engines and the blue nosers climbed banked and got in behind and shot all of them down. the Luftw flight leader in red 1 Fw 190Dora 9 made a fateful decision: date 2 March 45.

Incidently the Bf 109G-6/AS used by JG 1, and 11 in April of 44 and I./JG 3 were designed exclusively for taking on the P-51's over the 30,000 ft altitude with the help of MW 50 injection

ok we are digressing from the Ta 152H in some respects ...........


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2007)

Soren said:


> 34,000 ft is not a good altitude for either the A-8, A-9 or G-6, at this alt these a/c were at a distinct disadvantage in performance, and on top of this when the LW fighters reached the escorting P-51's they found themselves out-numbered 8 to 1 ! It would take a fleet made out of Ta-152's or Me-262's purely in order to overcome such odds.



OK let's do the math.

With an 8:1 numerical advantage in January 11 to mid February 1944 the entire force of Mustangs was about 40 for the 354FG on loan to 8th. Let's say they were 100% at the target (lucky in reality to get 20 in the early days)

So, for that period the Luftwaffe engaged 5 (total) against any attack in Germany, closely enough to engage that massive P-51 force? Right?

and after the 357FG went operational in mid Feb, the 4th on Feb 28, the 355th on March 6-8 and the 352 in 1st and second week in April through the end of April - That was It! So by 28 Feb (150 up, 110 effective but go with 150 through the 7th of April)

That means the Luftwaffe never attacked the Bomber formations with ALL of the MUstang formations in that same space, escorting them, with more than 18 total aircraft? Right? 8:1? 

352nd comes on line and we are up to 200 for MAXIMUM Mustang coverage for ALL US Bombers (12th, 9th, 15th, 8th AF) through the end of April... and your premise is that when all 200 are effective (Never Close to 80%), that only 25 total LW fighters were available to attack the entire USAAF Heavy Bomber Command at the target where no P-47 can engage and ALL 25 are engaged with only the Mustangs? Ang in the case of going after different task forces in different locations, the LW cleverely 'split the 25' to attack - in order to maintain the 'inferiority'??

Really? I've Always been confused how the Luftwaffe managed to achieve 1:8 numerical inferiority but now I know. Thank you.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

LoL, nice math Bill


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

I even remember Erich talking about incidents where the LW fighter were out-numbered 12 to 1.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2007)

I wish some people would realize that 85% of all German armed forces were pre-occupied in the east.


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2007)

the 12 to 1 came in 1945. think Bill is talking of the first escort missions in late 43 through spring of 44 Soren ........

this does go back in my opinion to the pre-Normandie conflict where it is evident that with 8th AF bombers and escorts whether P-47 , P-38 or P-51 the Luftwaffe could not be everywhere where it wanted to be. yes it could still challenge but not so great a numbers as in the 1943 and early 1944 realm.

After mid January 45 it was all over for the Luftwaffe defending Germany with units like JG 300 and 301 doing double duty - taking on the US as well as the Soviets. most of the Reich defense units had gone to the Ost front for the final battles and in the ending months March - May of 45 the odds became greater even up to 12 to 1


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2007)

I'm ready to bury the hatchet - and not in your head.

I do harp on the 51 - not because it's 'under-rated', it IS over -rated in the context of the very best for all things.

But I studied 8th, 12th and 15th Operations all my lfe (of at least 5-62 years of adult study. As strange as it may seem I am well versed with respecto why I think it is the most important, and pretty darn good.

The Mustangs success was multi fold. It was an exceptional performer at the altitudes it operated in to make Strategic Bombardment Doctrine work. It had the range to take on the best of the Luftwaffe everywhere. It had the latitude from Command to do just that.

It's role and importance was assisted by German High Command stupidity in that they would not let their Fighter Commanders take on the 51s early and fight them when they were 'slugs' with the 85 Gal tank and wing tanks still nearly full. Had they done so, the 51's would have to jettison external and maybe not make the entire target penetration/early withdrawal cycle.

They (the LW) got smarter and put 109s at high altitude to try to be Mustang Repellant w/limited success as more skilled pilots were killed and the 109 series thru the G10 still was not 'good enough' to consistently defeat the 51's (or the longer range 47's) at bomber altitudes. 

And the better the LW interceptors got, the fewer pilots they had to fly them and the more (entire Allied Fighter Command) they had to fight

BUT

The Mustangs were nearly always numerically outnumbered at the point of attack (in the timeframes I described) - but not all the fighters they met were capable of engaging as the war dragged on - until 1945 then the ratios ? well pick a numer.

this is why I jump in when I hear the perpetual harp on 'we were always outnumered, they swarmed us' chatter if we steer the conversation like I did in these last posts? I had this conversation w/Galland and Krupinski and Rall at Tuscon in 85/85 timeframe and it was lively - but my point was conceded very gentlemanly by all three (and maybe to be polite-lol)


----------



## Soren (Jun 8, 2007)

Bill, the dedicated LW fighters were almost always out-numbered 8 to 1 by the Mustangs - hence why the G-6/AS, G-10, -14 and Dora-9's only achieved limited success - they were swarmed. The bomber-interceptors weren't in any position to fight off escorting fighters as they were heavily armed and carried multiple loads limiting their performance.

Std. practice for the bomber-interceptors was attack, look is there any escorts, if so dive for cover if not a second attack could be made. They certainly had no desire to fight against the much more lightly loaded escorts at their current state, that job was given to the dedicated fighters.

The period I'm talking about is 1944 - 1945 - in 1943 the odds were more even, and the Allied sorties certainly took some very heavy tolls in this period.

As to the Mustang and its performance;

At the altitudes where the bombers operated the P-51 featured great performance and held a clear advantage at this height over all the Anton versions and the G-6 - Only the G-6/AS, G-10 -14, K-4, Dora-9, and Me-262A-1 proved a match to more than a match at those altitudes, but they were hopelessly out-numbered. This fact is ofcourse also a big contributor to why the P-51 enjoyed the success it did. - The Ta-152H was ofcourse far superior at any alt but it was only fielded at low to medium alts, fortunately for the Mustang pilots. 

The Mustang pilots can be happy that the fights weren't fought at the same altitudes as on the eastern front, as that would've left P-51 at a disadvantage in performance to most LW fighters.

OT: There was never any bad feelings involved from my side Bill.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 8, 2007)

The Ta-152H was ofcourse far superior at any alt but it was only fielded at low to medium alts, fortunately for the Mustang pilots. 


this just does not sound right..


The Germans are not stupid.. not hardly, why was it not deployed? What were the problems preventing it's use in its designated high altitude role? 

It was obviously needed. 


The Germans had radar, ithe TA-152 was not even used to get P38 (F5) recon flights at 44-48 thousand feet? I submit, Walter Boyne is correct in his assesment. 

Flying with Walter J. Boyne

I have an email to him asking for the necessary location of the Luftwaffe documents at the Library of Congress Archives that was the basis for his comments about the air worthyness of the TA-152. 



I believe the founder / director of the NASM, and noted historian is not far off base.

I recommend all of his books.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 8, 2007)

Sir, 

I am researching the TA-152 and at the Smithsonian's web site I noticed that it is said this plane was grounded before the end of the war. Do you have any idea where in the Archives or Library of Congress I can find the necessary captured Luftwaffe documents that support this notion? I am also curious to find out if any documents are available as to why this plane was not used in the role of high altitude interceptor.



Thank you 


J E S CPA

703-

Fairfax Va

Focke-Wulf Ta152H


----------



## AV8 (Jun 8, 2007)

I have to repsond to something Soren said above. He claims that 85% of all German forces were preoccupied on the Russian front.

Not true. See below.

Percent of German Forces on Russian Front by Year

Unit	1941	1942	1943	1944
Divisions	67%	75%	60%	57%
Troops	84%	74%	72%	40%
Aircraft	64%	65%	42%	45%

The Germans never committed 85% at ANY time, and only approached that in troops. during 1940 and 1941. By 1943 and 1944, the Germans, not being stupid, had most of their aircraft in the West to combat the bombers that were decimating the Reich.

The Russian Front was very important to the war effort, and it took a lot of ground troops, but the air forces were mostly about half and half on the fronts after 1942.

In point of fact, the Germans MAY have seen disadvantages of 10 or 12 to 1 but, if so, it was due to lack of propellers, fuel, pilots, or a com,bination of the three. It was NOT due to lack of airframes being available and late in the war. MOST German aircraft were being used to defend against the Allied bombers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2007)

AV8 said:


> I have to repsond to something Soren said above. He claims that 85% of all German forces were preoccupied on the Russian front.
> 
> Not true. See below.
> 
> ...


Good post AV8 - what's your source?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 9, 2007)

Good post.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

Hello J e s cpa

The Ta-152 was not grounded before the end of the war (except perhaps for some reason common to all airplanes) but of course it did not see extensive service. It would have been used as a high altitude interceptor if time and circumstances had permitted. I don’t know that either the Library of Congress or the archives would have the documents you want, but I’d start with the National Archives, as they are generally the most helpful. You might also write the Deutches Museum in Munich for assistance.


Best

Walt





I guess I should read "Ta152 Herrmann Dietmar", I gather this is the best chronicle on the subject.

I still believe, given the P-38's problems with British gasoline and the German use of coal syn fuel, there was a problem fielding this aircraft at altitude. 

I doubt the Luftwaffe had the 151 octane gas that was really needed to perform at the stated max altitudes.


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2007)

@ AV8

for the number of units your post is right, but that's only one Point.

Nearly all mot. and Tank (Pz.) Divisions were in the east accept the 2 Tank Div and the one mot.Div for the Africakorp!
The lost of matrial (tanks, aircrafts, units etc......) was much higher than in the west or africa.
One exampel: The casualties of Units was 110000 soldiers per month without a Battle with a battle it was 150000-180000 per month! (That is only for the east)

Your post is right for the number of Units and for the aircraft Units but not for the material and the potential Units!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2007)

Jackson said:


> Hello J e s cpa
> 
> The Ta-152 was not grounded before the end of the war (except perhaps for some reason common to all airplanes) but of course it did not see extensive service. It would have been used as a high altitude interceptor if time and circumstances had permitted. I don’t know that either the Library of Congress or the archives would have the documents you want, but I’d start with the National Archives, as they are generally the most helpful. You might also write the Deutches Museum in Munich for assistance.
> 
> ...



So we tell you that German pilots who actually flew the 152 tell us that it was not grounded and you dont believe us. It takes this for you to believe what the actual people who flew the aircraft have allways said. 

Sometimes you have to swallow your pride...


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

as I posted before, Bayerliens recollections of Cobra losses do not match (greatly exceed) OKW reported losses for the period June - September 1944 for Panzer Lehr

I will report back after my trip the the National Archives..

Pride? not an issue, resolving conflicts in data (reconciling) is one of my fortes. If that were the case I would not have posted the response, or the question possibly. 

I still have no clue why the Ta-152 was not used in it's intended role.. I believe there is a reason. I have outlined my thoughts and theories, including a lack of high octane aviation gas and teething problems. 

I find it hard to accept the Ta 152 as a successful high altitude fighter in that it never fulfilled this role with any degree of notable praise. 


My own background as an auditor keeps me a cynic, as what you learn after you think you 'know it all' is what is most important. 

When I go after, what is in my own mind, an unresolved issue, I have been known to be what scan be considered, well beyond is merely obsessive. 

Your help in writing or visiting the Deutsches Archives would be appreciated. 


over


----------



## Soren (Jun 9, 2007)

DonL said:


> @ AV8
> 
> for the number of units your post is right, but that's only one Point.
> 
> ...




What GregP ( AV8 ) doesn't get is the fact that the German forces in the west were split into a greater number of units, hence the figures above.


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

jackson besides the US archivs which will not tell you much you need to go after every conceivable source especially German. Aas having a relative serve and die in JG 301 I have done that. Monograms attempt was to provide answers but the book may never see light of day, I am working on something right now concerning ............... well I am leaving that open. unless you have first hand knowledge from veterans of JG 301 then most probably you will never know what happened through defaults of the a/c insufficient means of combating difficulties arising from being to far from the factories and one of the largst probs is the constant move which I pointed out earlier in this thread............attacks on proposed airfields, there was no time to warm up and get into action knowing that you may come back to an over-run field held by the enemy.. anyway this is all going to be coverd in a future work


----------



## Jackson (Jun 9, 2007)

Yes it is all very difficult, I wonder if Kurt Tank wrote a book..Shame on me, I never read Gallands book..

that goes on the list..I understand it is more political than zoom-zoom dogfights. Rudy Opitz's book is the best that I have read of L/W aircraft development. I can't find it, I was 10-12 when I read it. 


Heck even my father can't remember, today, all the details of his first DFC, never mind the other medals and oak leaves


My grand father mostly focused on aircraft crashes, a friend being sucked into a propeller and his home being bombed. 

My own early recollections of his work are faded except for his tears, limp and scars.. That and his love for tinkering. I believe his engineering work was more sanding, milling, jigs and filing than protractors and such.


He was always building model aircraft from scratch, fiddling with wings, he never had fewer than 50 of them in his garage. I gather he started as a boy in his fathers workshop and continued to his death. 


He was my mothers father, my dad took up his hobby.. 

I always had the best 'kites'.. and toy gliders..


----------



## drgondog (Jun 9, 2007)

Before I jump in with facts about distributions of German S/E fighters is this the right forum and does anyone accept the figures from Dr Price's "The Lufwaffe Data Book"? He has a thorough Order of Battle for the

Compositions of the Main Operational Units by Luftflotte and types for 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945.

I would only be interested in digging the May 1943 and May 1944 snapshot for Luftflotte 3 (France/Lowlands) and Reich (Germany/Denmark).

For those that have this fine research tool we're talking about pages 75-128

Having said this here are the preliminary figures for s/e fighters ALL fronts for the May snapshots

All S/e L3 Reich Total(1) %
1942 945
1943 980 198 207 405 41
1944 1063 115 439 554 52

1. % of ALL operational s/e Fighters in Luftwaffe - not including Italian, Romanian, etc fighters not assigned to a JG.

This does not include the Luft's assigned to Norway, To Italy, to Romania/Hungary/Austria/SW Russia, the W Russia, the NW Russia

These figures do not include any of the Kamp's assigned 190's - this is strictly the total number of Single engine day fighters assignable to attack USAAF bomber and fighter forces from England.

To the debates between Soren and me regarding 'Ratio's', only the Reich numbers should be used at it can be presumed that Lufflotte 3 *JG/2 and JG26* would have their hands full with P-47's and Spits over France and Lowlands while JG1, 3, 5, 11, 27, 53, gruppe of 54, 300, gruppe of 300, gruppe of 301, gruppe of 302 (effectives only/much less than 'authorized' had to defend all of Germany.

To Soren, these figures represent the Maximum number of Me 109s and Fw190s available to take on Mustang escort for deep penetrations.

At this moment in time the 339th had come on operations on April 30 so the Mustang Groups had climbed to 6 groups with approximately 60 total TO&E P-51s each and perhaps 40-50 effective each over the target

Two facts should be considered based on Price's numbers - First, the maximum percentage available to East Front is 48% - and that is only if all of Italy, Norway, Rumania, Austria, Czech and Poland based fighters were applied.

Second, it seems intuitive that great numerical superiority of German S/E Mustang Killers could be focused on any one or two Mustang groups covering a Task Force. Not saying impossible for Mustang groups always at a disadvantage - but I hope this illustrates why I don't accept the legends of 'swarms of Mustangs attacking us' at face value in every debate.

Regards to All,

Bill


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

Three questions....

Is the plans still around for the Ta 152's?
Would it be possible to build one new?
How much would it cost?


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2007)

Bill I trust A.P.'s work as much as I could throw the man. the two of us had a tiff and I would rather not even go there. he has published some unique works especially about the German nf and radar war which is still a classic, his older book on the Fw 190 was heraled as something quite great, re-published it is quite old news with some inaccurate info. the SturmFw pilots quoted in the book have told me other versions of their own stories and said that Herr P. did not have it down correctly..........

well anyway the Luftw date in 1943 early 44 is well documented through several sources late 44 till wars end is documented and was burned up through explosions and vaporization via Allied and Soviet bombings and shellings in and around Berlin. One of the main reasons we cannot confirm many the later war kills from fall of 44 onward as it was not recorded and if it was on a very private level through the Geschwader administration. Talk about evidence showing the complete loss and or breakdown of the higher realm of the Luftwaffe

yes Lucky the plans for the 152H still exist, when friend Jerry Crandall viewed the NASM Grüne 4 there for his 1992 painting JG 301 Stabschwarm he measured every square inch of that a/c to have the most up to date configs of the a/c in schematic form, he even explains in some detail whom he worked with to perform this feat in a double-sided placard included with his beautiful painting which hangs framed right above my oak office desk with a wonderful signed pic of Will Reschke wearing his Ritterkreuz.

would a new one be built ...............good question and price ? yikes


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 9, 2007)

Better start to save empty beer cans, bottles then, eh? Or win on the lottery...
Wonder if $1 000 000 would cover the costs?
What kind of fighter would the Ta have been if the Jumo 222 hadn't been failure and they had fitted them with that engine?


----------



## Erich (Jun 19, 2007)

well I am totally bummed out ..........

just got a mail stating that Herr Reschke had a heart Attack this past Thursday and is in the hospital. doing good but is not allowed any physical activity nor anything do do with outside veterans programs the rest of the year.

hang in there Willi !!

mit Respekt ~ Erich ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2007)

Hang in there Willie! Gute Besserung!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 20, 2007)

Get well soon!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 20, 2007)

Damn thats some really bad news Erich....


----------



## seesul (Jun 21, 2007)

Hi ya all,

good message- Willi is back at home since today afternoon and doing well again. 

Roman


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 21, 2007)

That's great news!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 21, 2007)

Okay, I'm new to this (old) thread . . .

Anybody ever heard of that "other" late-War high-altitude fighter, the Fw 190 V18 with the "big" DB603G? It had a huge, four paddle-bladed propeller (ala Hawker Typhoon Mark 1B); top speed was supposed to be around 480 mph at altitude. 

Quote: "The FW 190 V18 was designed and built as a prototype for the high-altitude FW 190 C, and in V18/U1 form it had the DB 603 A engine driving a four-bladed propeller. The FW 190 C was a projected high-altitude fighter that never came to fruition; even so five prototypes were completed, the FW 190 V18, V29, V30, V32 and V33. Each of these aircraft had DB 603 inline engines, annular radiators, Hirth 9-2281 turbochargers and four-bladed propellers. The FW 190 V18 was coded CF + OY and received a white outline Balkenkreuz and Hakenkreuz. By 1944 the project had been halted by technical problems and opposition to use of the DB 603 (which was needed for other aircraft types)."

Here's what it looked like:


----------



## seesul (Jun 22, 2007)

Hi,

even though I know this has nothing to do with this thread I thought you could be interested in. Here is a picture of Willi´s ''white 6'' after his crash landing on August 29th 1944 near Banov (Czechoslovakia). I got this picture from mayor of Banov last year.

Nice weekend boys

Roman


----------



## seesul (Jun 22, 2007)

...and on the same place 62 years later...
More at http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/album/showphoto.php?photo=14110&cat=602

Roman


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 22, 2007)

Absolutely freakin awesome...


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 22, 2007)

Seconded.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 22, 2007)

Excellent stuff Roman!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 22, 2007)

I agree!


----------



## Erich (Jun 22, 2007)

thanks Roman I was hoping you would add to this thread...........

thumbs up friend !

E ~


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2007)

Very Cool!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2007)

Agreed, very cool. You are very fortunate.


----------



## seesul (Jun 22, 2007)

Thank you guys,

I got more pictures with Willi yet. Will add them later as I leave for 1 week holiday tomorrow morning.

Bye

Roman


----------



## Erich (Jun 22, 2007)

Roman :

Is that J. Brooks P-51 in your avatar ?

have fun on holiday/vaction

E ~


----------



## seesul (Jun 22, 2007)

Erich said:


> Roman :
> 
> Is that J. Brooks P-51 in your avatar ?
> 
> ...



Yes Erich, you´re absolutely right. I´m in touch with the owner of this beautiful replica.

Roman


----------



## seesul (Jun 22, 2007)

seesul said:


> Yes Erich, you´re absolutely right. I´m in touch with the owner of this beautiful replica.
> 
> Roman



...and Erich, BTW, in Sept. 26th-30th there will be Gathering of Mustangs and Legends. Jimmy Brooks ans Replica of his 'February' (owned by Chris Woods) will be there. More at The Gathering of P-51 Mustangs and Legends, Sept 27-30, 2007, Columbus, Ohio, Rickenbacker Field.
To you all- I´m very sorry for going out from your theme 

Roman


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2007)

Enjoy your vacation.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 26, 2007)

Did the Ta-152 ever fly a high altitude mission? If not I would select another aircraft like the P-47 since I tend to rate actual combat performace much higher than theoretical combat performance.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 27, 2007)

What was the altitude performance of the Me-262? Surely that would be a better bet than a Ta.

Also the Ta-152 would have been totally outnumbered when ever it flew.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 28, 2007)

The Basket said:


> What was the altitude performance of the Me-262? Surely that would be a better bet than a Ta.
> 
> Also the Ta-152 would have been totally outnumbered when ever it flew.



My data shows the Me-262 has a ceiling of 37500, quite low compared to some other high altitude fighters. The P-47D had a ceiling of 42000, the P-47N was 43000, the P-51D was 41600. The TA-152 ceiling was 48500, or two mile higher than the Me-262!


----------



## Erich (Jun 28, 2007)

small notation the Ta 152 is going to be covered at length soon and I do not mean in the Monogram book that was expected nearly 2 years ago either .......

wait for the answer for the high altitude mission and it's service ceiling as there is going to be a surprise to two - actually quite a few really

E


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 28, 2007)

Goody.....


----------



## seesul (Jun 30, 2007)

Hi ya all,

just got back from vacation. I promised to show you another pics of Willi Reschke so here they are. They come from our visit of him last year in June and were taken in Willi Reschke´s house...

Roman


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2007)

Very cool pics, I have seen them somewhere on the net too. Do you have a website?


----------



## seesul (Jun 30, 2007)

Not yet... no time. But wanna create them in year or so... 
Interresting- should you find them on internet again let me know the link please.
Maybe Erich sent them to you as I sent them to him 1 year ago...

Roman


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2007)

Hmmm maybe it was just Erich that showed them to me because I did a search for the images and could not find them anymore.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 30, 2007)

Ive seen them as well guys.... Erich posted them...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2007)

Aha I knew I saw them somewhere.


----------



## Rapecq (Jul 3, 2007)

Hello



davparlr said:


> Did the Ta-152 ever fly a high altitude mission? If not I would select another aircraft like the P-47 since I tend to rate actual combat performace much higher than theoretical combat performance.



Well, I've read that on March 13, in late afternoon Willi Reschke had a chance to shoot down Mosquito. British aircraft was returning to base at over 9 km. The Ta 152 were flying lower than Mosquito, so Willy Reschke increased engine's rpm and started climbing. After one minute he reported over the radio that he was beginning an attack. When Reschke was trying to catch Mosquito's silhouette in his gunsight, the Ta 152 shook and slowed down suddenly. It appeared that the 3rd gear of supercharger (or the second stage of compression, I don't remember exactly) stopped working. The Mosquite flew away quite easily and German pilot decreased engine's rpm and returned to base.

Regards


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2007)

No one has mentioned the Spitfire, which after all holds the record for shooting down an enemy aircraft at extream altitude.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 3, 2007)

Glider said:


> No one has mentioned the Spitfire, which after all holds the record for shooting down an enemy aircraft at extream altitude.



Good point. Nothing like getting in the record books for the highest kill for making yourself a viable candidate. 

Very good point.


----------



## Erich (Jul 3, 2007)

hold onto your fly boys you will hear about the Ta 152 in the near future ........


----------



## seesul (Jul 29, 2007)

Hi guys,

even though I know this thread is a discussion about Ta152, I have to show you another photo of Willi Reschke´s on 29/8/44 crash landed Bf109G from another point of view. Note the engine cover- all the sources, even Willi Reschke in his book speak about G-6 version, but there are no ''Beulen'' on the engine... so it seems to be G-14AS version


----------



## Soren (Jul 29, 2007)

Great picture Seesul, thanks ! 

PS: The 109 on the picture is a G-6/AS.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 29, 2007)

Great pic.......


----------



## seesul (Jul 30, 2007)

Soren said:


> Great picture Seesul, thanks !
> 
> PS: The 109 on the picture is a G-6/AS.



Hi Soren,

a friend of mine, really crazy Bf-fan, says it´s a G-14AS version. Are you sure with your G-6AS version?
Anyway, I´m going to send a letter with this photo to Willi Reschke today and let you know his answer as soon as I get it...


----------



## seesul (Jul 30, 2007)

...and Soren, there´s another picture of the same machine on the page # 31 of this thread. It might help you in the A/C version identification...


----------



## seesul (Jul 30, 2007)

...and BTW, this picture comes from that girl that is on the left side and still living. I was told she has more pictures yet but doesn´t know where as she was afraid of communists till ´89 and was hidding them everywhere because of svastika. Hope she will find more of them yet...


----------



## Soren (Jul 30, 2007)

Hi Seesul,

Yes I'm confident thats a G-6/AS, everything indicates it to be so, nothing indicates otherwise. This also explains why Reschke speaks of a G-6.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2007)

seesul said:


> Note the engine cover- all the sources, even Willi Reschke in his book speak about G-6 version, but there are no ''Beulen'' on the engine... so it seems to be G-14AS version



I might just missunderstanding you but by "Beulen" do you mean the bulges that are the Bf 109G varients.

Because if you are, there are bulges present on this Bf 109G in the picture. I have circled them in red.


----------



## seesul (Aug 1, 2007)

Hi Adler,

it´s very hard to recognize it but you´re maybe right  !

Roman


----------



## Erich (Aug 1, 2007)

Gentlemen :

JG 302 the I. gruppe which Willi was flying in had the Bf 109G-6 as standard equipment from March 44 till end of August 44 before disbandment, the unit never had G-6/AS

Roman thank you for the enlarged photo that came the other day of Willi's 109, been busy on my JG 301 book 8) 

E ` back to it ............ some exciting stuff ahead folk !


----------



## seesul (Aug 1, 2007)

Erich said:


> Gentlemen :
> 
> JG 302 the I. gruppe which Willi was flying in had the Bf 109G-6 as standard equipment from March 44 till end of August 44 before disbandment, the unit never had G-6/AS
> 
> ...



Erich,

thanks for you message. So it must have been really G-6, because:
-your database says I./JG302 was equiped by G-6
-Willi says in this book the same
-Adler has recognized these identifying bulges (Beulen)

I´m sorry for this mess   but the bulges are really very hard to recognize  

Roman

P.S. take a look at the discussion at LBB « Luftwaffe Bullet Board » Forum zur deutschen Luftfahrtgeschichte


----------



## Erich (Aug 1, 2007)

Roman yes I just followed all the posts on Luftarchiv. There were no G-14 or G-14/AS or G-6/AS as I said in JG 302, the Geschwader was not flying much in the summer of 44 and disbanded with many Kameraden going into other single engine fighter units including JG 301, especially the new Fw 190A-8 equipped III./JG 301 Schwere Gruppe

good posting ..........

E `


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 2, 2007)

seesul said:


> Hi Adler,
> 
> it´s very hard to recognize it but you´re maybe right  !
> 
> Roman



No problem I had to look twice as well.


----------



## seesul (Aug 3, 2007)

I don´t know guys, I should maybe create a new thread about this matter... 
Take a look at this:

OK, weitere Spekulation.... 

Die Gruppe bekam im August ´44 auch Flugzeuge aus der Instandsetzung zurück, 
daher währe es denkbar, dass da eine "normale G6" bereits auf "AS" umgebaut wurde. 
Und dann sollte die Werknummer als "G6" weiter geführt worden sein, und taucht dann auch weiterhin als solche in den Bestandslisten auf. 

Genaues könnten aber nur die Lebenslaufakten hergeben, und die sind ja bekanntlich nicht verfügbar. 

Gruss 
Hilmar 

For those that don´t know speak German: the group get back in August 44 some overhauled A/C´s und they could be modified to AS version. But even after that modification the same Wrk.Nr can be still enlisted as normal G-6 version.... source: LBB « Luftwaffe Bullet Board » Forum zur deutschen Luftfahrtgeschichte

Nice weekend flyboys!

Roman


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2007)

Go ahead and start up a thread about it. Would be an interesting discussion probably.


----------



## Soren (Aug 4, 2007)

The bulges on the 109 on the picture look like the bulges on later versions, such as the G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 K-4 - but obviously pictures can be decieving. To me it looks 100% like a G-6/AS though.

Is there a possibility that it was a G-10 ? I remember Willi talking about that they got some of these.


----------



## Erich (Aug 6, 2007)

I'm here and then I am gone for awhile........

JG 302 was disbanded before the acceptance of AS bf 109's. as I said the personell was divided up between the Geschwaders and sent off with special emphasis to JG 301 whcih needed a revamp as they were dumbstruck wiped out due to attrition, during August into septembers end JG 301 was put on brand new Fw 190A-8's and A-9's.

E


----------

