# One Fifty-sixth of a Kill?



## MIflyer (May 20, 2012)

A story told by a friend of mine, a retired USAF officer who entered the USAAF late in WWII as a B-32 gunner.

A formation of 56 USAAF P-51 Mustangs was proceeding into Germany in 1944. Suddenly the US pilots noticed a single BF-109 at about their altitude, proceeding seemingly casually, at right angles to their route of flight, right in front of them. Every American thought the same thing, “What does that guy think he is doing?” but no one broke formation.

They could tell just exactly when the German sighted the P-51’s. The 109 jerked suddenly. And then, with no one as much as firing a shot, breaking formation, or even uttering a word over the radio, the 109 rolled upside down, the canopy came off, and the pilot bailed out.

Finally, a few minutes later came a radio call from someone in the Mustang formation, “Well, do we all now claim 1/56 of a kill?”


----------



## Matt308 (May 20, 2012)

Well, I'm not about to call your friend a liar, so let's just chalk this up to mis-remembrance or repeating a myth.

The B-32 Dominator never served in the European theatre. That was my first flag. And second, if none of the P-51s broke formation the Bf109 pilot would have just hauled azz to avoid a lopsided battle, not abandon a completely good airplane.

Good story, but I'm about 99.999% sure it's BS.


----------



## Njaco (May 20, 2012)

Agree with Matt. B-32 in WWII? Now there were some green LW pilots that are documented as giving up the ghost when in the .50 sights of Allied 51s but just upon seeing them? Naw.


----------



## MIflyer (May 20, 2012)

Excuse me, but just exactly where did I say anything about B-32's in Europe? 

My friend originally was training in the U.S., shooting at RP-63's, and was told that for the invasion of Japan he would be a gunner on B-32's which would be used for low altitude "gunship" strafing missions. The A-bomb attacks eliminated the need for that mission. And B-32's were used over Japan; in the Pentagon there is a painting showing a B-32 fighting Japanese fighters, labled as "The last aerial combat of WWII."

As for what the combat vet told my combat vet friend about the 109 pilot bailing out , I rather would tend to believe them rather than your objections, so excuse me. The fact is, by that time in the war the Luftwaffe was tracking pilots via some of their new IFF and charging them if they failed to engage the enemy. And our bombers reported cases in which German fighters just flew out of gun range and seemed to decide not to get involved.


----------



## evangilder (May 20, 2012)

You can choose what you want to believe, but I can tell you that I heard plenty of stories during my time in the Air Force that were definitely not true. But they grow as time goes on and some people believe them. Hearing a story from a veteran does not necessarily make it true. Allegedly, the P-38 Lightning was called the "Forked Tailed Devil" by the Germans, yet there is no written record of that ever being true.


----------



## muscogeemike (May 20, 2012)

While I do believe a B-32, a heavy bomber, is credited for shooting down the last Japanese plane of the war, it would not be used for low altitude “gunship” strafing missions and gunners were not officers, they were NCO’s.

Did he become an officer later? 

Again since the B-32 was not used in Europe how did your friend (if he was in that airplane) see a Bf 109? The Japanese did not use them.

Is he telling the story as told to him by someone else?


----------



## futuredogfight (May 20, 2012)

Hmmmm. Didn't Japan get a couple of Me-109s? No one knows what happened to them. Anyway, funny story, but I doubt it's true


----------



## Matt308 (May 20, 2012)

MIflyer said:


> Excuse me, but just exactly where did I say anything about B-32's in Europe?
> 
> My friend originally was training in the U.S., shooting at RP-63's, and was told that for the invasion of Japan he would be a gunner on B-32's which would be used for low altitude "gunship" strafing missions. The A-bomb attacks eliminated the need for that mission. And B-32's were used over Japan; in the Pentagon there is a painting showing a B-32 fighting Japanese fighters, labled as "The last aerial combat of WWII."
> 
> As for what the combat vet told my combat vet friend about the 109 pilot bailing out , I rather would tend to believe them rather than your objections, so excuse me. The fact is, by that time in the war the Luftwaffe was tracking pilots via some of their new IFF and charging them if they failed to engage the enemy. And our bombers reported cases in which German fighters just flew out of gun range and seemed to decide not to get involved.



Look MI, you are the guy who posted the story. We members of this history forum are obsessed with facts. There is no need to get your buttocks up around your shoulders when someone questions a premise that you put forward. Your response only raises more issues for the credibility of the story. Your "friend" was training in B-32's to be a gunner, that implies that he was destined for the Pacific theater, was likely very young at the time and that time was probably late 1944 to sometime in 1945 (assuming he was actually in WWII proper - don't panic I don't mean that in a disparaging way  ). You then note that he was a "combat vet" so that now places him in mid-1945+ timeframe. So your friend hears this from another service member. And your friend also notes that the B-32 crews were training for "low altitude 'gunship" strafing missions". Negative. Not under then doctrine.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with an IFF system. It is only a transponder of limited range in WWII that if "pinged" would respond with a code for identification. It is nothing like todays ADS-B transponder with GPS position reporting wherein a ground control intercept station could monitor flight maneuver granularity to make determinations of "being bounced" by the enemy. And your last sentence supports my response exactly.

The facts do not add-up whatsoever. Again, I say this may be an elder gentlemen whose memory perhaps is not quite so clear as it used to be. But do yourself a favor in the future, don't get riled up when your posts are challenged. It's the nature of historical forums on the 'internets'. 

And please don't take this as an admonition. Your posts are most welcome.


----------



## MIflyer (May 20, 2012)

My friend entered the USAAF as an enlisted man, was told that he was training to be a gunner on B-32 on gunship missions, but to my knowledge never set foot in a B-32. He went on to became an officer in the USAF and served until 1970. He was a combat vet because the USAF saw combat after 1945, if you call getting shot at being in combat (some people do not). He was an author - I was reading his stuff for years before I met him - had some fantastic experiences, met a lot of very interesting people, including having dinner with Hans Ulrich Rudel a couple of evenings, and was told a WWII story by Gen Pete Quesda that was absolutely incredible and for some reason has yet to come out - I do not know if it is true but there are some indications that it was. The 1/56th kill story was told to him by another vet. I thought people would enjoy it.

My friend believes that in immediate postwar Germany he was the radar controller that vectored a P-80 for the first ever jet-to-jet intercept, after trying on mutiple evenings with P-51's and P-47's as the interceptors. He never heard what that other jet was or who was operating it. 

As for German IFF, I read of a case where a German fighter was equipped with new IFF and after landing they asked the pilot if he had stayed with the formation. He said yes. They told the formation leader that they knew what the location of the formation was based on the IFF and where the enemy was located, and therefore the leader had avoided combat and they arrested him. That is what I was getting at 

But I do not see people asking questions here but just saying they do not believe something because, well, just because. In one other case I mentioned that I had read a book by a WWII Navy pilot who had trained on the F2A in Florida and said the landing gear operation was quite difficult. I got a response from somebody who said that he read the F2A manual saying that did not sound right. Okay, He Read The Manual. That overrules a book written by a highly decorated Navy pilot.

I was going to post next here a very interesting P-38 story I heard personally from Tony LeVier but I can see that would be pointless. It would only bring more calls of BS. Sorry to disturb y'all.


----------



## Matt308 (May 20, 2012)

..here's your ball. I guess we are done then.


----------



## muscogeemike (May 20, 2012)

MIflyer,

“But I do not see people asking questions here but just saying they do not believe something because, well, just because.”

I did ask questions. I ask if your friend became an officer after his B-32 service and I ask if he was re-telling the story, which was not clear (to me) from your first post.

“My friend believes that in immediate postwar Germany he was the radar controller that vectored a P-80 for the first ever jet-to-jet intercept, after trying on mutiple evenings with P-51's and P-47's as the interceptors. He never heard what that other jet was or who was operating it. “

Technically the first “jet on jet intercept” was RAF Meteors vs. German V1’s during the war.

As Matt308 pointed out all of us on this site should be interested in “facts” and we all probably have been “schooled” by others at one time or another, this is how we learn.

I, for one, would like to hear your P-38 story.


----------



## Njaco (May 20, 2012)

I'll stick with my post with the adendum that I want to thank your friend for his service.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2012)

MIflyer said:


> I was going to post next here a very interesting P-38 story I heard personally from Tony LeVier but I can see that would be pointless. It would only bring more calls of BS. Sorry to disturb y'all.


Tell ya what - bring it on. I knew LeVier personnaly (I also worked at Lockheed Burbank for 10.5 yrs) and interviewed him several times.


----------



## Jack_Hill (May 21, 2012)

One thing is acertained by General A.Galland while flying an observation mission with a wingmang.
The goal was to observe efficiency and tactical methods respect from luftwaffe interceptor pilots against bombers.
What he saw was schwarms of 109 and 190 turning around bomber boxes not even attempting any attack.
Was it usual for LW pilots to be cowards ?
I don't think so.
Anyhow, it's'a strange idea to bail out from a good state warplane.
Maybe a mechanical failure dictated the pilot reaction ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2012)

After looking up some info, I'm going to throw the BS flag on your friend. There were MANY articles and a few books written about the B-32 and NOWHERE does it mention any type of planned low-level "gunship" mission for this aircraft. Here's one very good internet source on the history of the B-32.

Consolidated B-32 Dominator

The only use of a "gunship" during WW2 were the conversion of B-17s and B-24s into bomber formation escorts to counter German fighters and those aircraft didn't last to long. The first air-to-ground fixed wing gunships were not conceived until 1964 when AC-47s were developed for use in Vietnam.

FYI - on this site many of us have been in this business for 20 and 30 years plus and have spent time around some of the hardware. When we hear stories that seem to stretch too far, we question them. If the submitter could provide a viable source (other than an third party's "word") we listen and learn. So with that said, I would like to know where your "friend" went to B-32 gunnery school.


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2012)

> ....third party's ...



Key 2 words.


----------



## Jack_Hill (May 21, 2012)

Hi all !
What about pulling up and slowing revs a bit ?
"Rahan, paleolithic SR 71 pilot while not even knowing wheel", 35000 ad
"Cooking well a fresh fished pike for Family and friends is much more important than upseting about planes stories"
Don't remember exactly who or where, once upon, a long ago.
Have fun my friends !


----------



## Matt308 (May 21, 2012)

I will not even dignify that with a response.


----------



## fubar57 (May 21, 2012)

And the drugs kicked in at exactly 12:55 P.M.

Geo


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2012)

Just to kick this up a notch, here's a page from an enlisted gunner who was with 389th BS and was a B-32 gunner who flew combat with the aircraft. there is no mention of this aircraft being used as a "gunship."

Biography of Julius Adolph "Julie" Kossor, S/Sgt, 42001740, 389th Bomb Squadron and 386th Bomb Squadron, 312th Bomb Group "Roaring 20's", 5th Air Force, USAAF, WWII


----------



## Jack_Hill (May 21, 2012)

Thank You !
So matt, why do you ?
Fubar, what do you exactly mean ? 
I just tried to disrupt a very classic tension situation using HUMOUR.
Thus trying to help returning to a basicly interesting thread.
Sorry my friends, i missed...
"Humour and friendliness should be backbone of humanity"
Do not know who said it, don't know when, but i know who did not,
May 2012.


----------



## Matt308 (May 21, 2012)

Sorry Mr. Hill, your humour got lost in the translation. You lost me with mention of long skinny fish, a Lockheed airplane and an ad campaign with 35k of 'something'. I'll concede your intentions were honorable.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 21, 2012)

There are several documented cases were green Luftwaffe pilots bailed of thier aircraft after an Allied fighter aquired thier "6" and scores more went to thier deaths not even knowing what hit them...but personally, I have never heard of a green-horn jumping ship at the sight of "Indians"...


----------



## stona (May 22, 2012)

Well,I know of several combat reports where a Luftwaffe pilot abandoned his aircraft before actually being engaged.

Late war some Luftwaffe fighter formations were very wary of attacking escorted bomber formations. 8th AF intelligence documents include radio intercepts of individual pilots refusing to engage escorted formations,as well as formation leaders giving all sorts of excuses why they cannot manage the interception. They were very much keener to attack unescorted bombers.

I don't know whether the story is true or not but there is nothing in it,from a German perspective,which immiediately discredits it.

I also note that at no point did the poster mention any US bombers,let alone a B-32 as being present at the time of the incident.The story presumably came from one of the P-51 pilots.

An open mind is the historian's friend! It would be interesting to have a date and unit,maybe an "Encounter Report" would exist...somewhere.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Njaco (May 22, 2012)

We have an open mind. Thats why we question some of the aspects of the story. But to expect everyone to believe it because "this one said that one said" is a bit unfair also.


----------



## stona (May 22, 2012)

Njaco said:


> We have an open mind. Thats why we question some of the aspects of the story. But to expect everyone to believe it because "this one said that one said" is a bit unfair also.



I absolutely agree,but to dismiss a story out of hand on spurious grounds (the original poster never suggested that there were B-32s present for example) is not keeping an open mind. It's not even reading the original post properly but rather jumping to a premature conclusion.
I don't know whether the incident happened as described or not but there is no reason,that I know of,that it couldn't have. The behaviour of the Luftwaffe pilot is unusual but by no means without precedent,that this sort of thing did happen is a matter of historical record. 
Surely that does not make it,as some have written above, "BS".
Stories,and especially war stories,do get embellished in the repetition but I would hesitate to accuse the officer who repeated it of having made it up. There will certainly be a nugget of truth in there somewhere.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Njaco (May 22, 2012)

> ....but I would hesitate to accuse the officer who repeated it of having made it up.



I don't believe that was the initial response. Most of us were questioning the facts of the story - not who was telling it.


----------



## stona (May 22, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> The facts do not add-up whatsoever. Again, I say this may be an elder gentlemen whose memory perhaps is not quite so clear as it used to be.
> 
> 
> > He's also quite wrong about German radio/IFF systems,but that's another topic.
> ...


----------



## Njaco (May 22, 2012)

I'm not going to get into a pissing match over what responses were. The fact remains that the member posted a story heard from a 3rd party and we questioned its facts - as ANY historical forum would.

Like this one I heard onetime....

A LW pilot was on a transfer flight to Norway when, for some reason he ran out of fuel. Not seeing anyplace good to set down, he bailed. When his chute opened and pulled him around he noticed a flight of 56 P-51s flying slightly behind him. He was always grateful afterwards for running out of gas.


----------



## Matt308 (May 22, 2012)

Other than crude triangulation, tell me where I'm wrong about German IFF being technically capable of making a determination of engagement. The CPE is so large as to make that impossible.


----------



## stona (May 22, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> Other than crude triangulation, tell me where I'm wrong about German IFF being technically capable of making a determination of engagement. The CPE is so large as to make that impossible.



Do some reading on the FuG16ZY system,particularly the Y-Verfahren part of the system.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## stona (May 22, 2012)

Njaco said:


> I'm not going to get into a pissing match over what responses were. The fact remains that the member posted a story heard from a 3rd party and we questioned its facts - as ANY historical forum would.



My final word.

1 Not really,several people jumped on him for saying that the original source of the story was on a B-32 which couldn't have been in the ETO.

True,but not really challenging the facts of the story as he never said that,they didn't read his post properly. He shouldn't have mentioned the B-32,it is irrelevant and obviously confused some people.

2 Some people didn't believe a Luftwaffe pilot would simply abandon his aircraft without a shot being fired.

They did on occassion,that is a historical fact. Hopefully the detractors are now aware of it.

This isn't a pissing match,I am trying to establish the salient facts which are in my post above and,as I already said,are perfectly believable.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2012)

stona said:


> An open mind is the historian's friend! It would be interesting to have a date and unit,maybe an "Encounter Report" would exist...somewhere.



While I'm not even going to address the inital part of this story, the rest of it (B-32 gunships) turns out to be utter rubbish. It's one thing to keep an open mind, it's another to filter the source.


----------



## stona (May 22, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> While I'm not even going to address the inital part of this story, the rest of it (B-32 gunships) turns out to be utter rubbish. It's one thing to keep an open mind, it's another to filter the source.



The B-32 is a red herring. It is not relevant to the story and the original post never puts one at the incident,in Europe or anywhere else. The mention of the B-32 is only relevant to the man who REPEATED the story. The story is about a formation of P-51s,no bombers of any type are even mentioned.I'm not filtering the source,I'm simply reading the post.

"A formation of 56 USAAF P-51 Mustangs was proceeding into Germany in 1944. Suddenly the US pilots noticed a single BF-109 at about their altitude, proceeding seemingly casually, at right angles to their route of flight, right in front of them."

The man who repeated the story (our B-32 gunner) never suggests that he was present when this happened. The story must have come,originally,from one of the fighter pilots.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Matt308 (May 22, 2012)

stona said:


> Do some reading on the FuG16ZY system,particularly the Y-Verfahren part of the system.
> Cheers
> Steve



You know what that is a fantastic idea. If you give me 7 days to do the research, I'll give you 7 days at the beach. Fair? Perhaps when you return from your vacation we can discuss this further.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2012)

stona said:


> The B-32 is a red herring. It is not relevant to the story and the original post never puts one at the incident,in Europe or anywhere else. The mention of the B-32 is only relevant to the man who REPEATED the story. The story is about a formation of P-51s,no bombers of any type are even mentioned.I'm not filtering the source,*I'm simply reading the post*.



So am I, and in a SECOND post a story is told about an event that was a figment of one's imagination. After that I question credibility.

Of course still keeping an open mind...


----------

