Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
I SEE reality everytime I watch an episode of COPS.
What on earth has that got to do with your earlier remarks?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I SEE reality everytime I watch an episode of COPS.
guess on your end on the pond it would be akin to coronation street.. anyways,What on earth has that got to do with your earlier remarks?
almost every dedicated Luftwaffe website out there. also, lots of books on the subject. too much
to list here. sorry.
Kacha`s Luftwaffe Page
Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
Luftwaffe Experten Message Board
a few books for stats on 109 victories
Hungarian Eagles.The Hungarian Air Forces 1920-1945
KM22-Messerschmitt Bf-109G_K Vol.2
Schiffer - Aircraft of the Luftwaffe Fighter Aces Vol. 2. A Chronicle in Photographs
Jagdgeschwader 53 Pik As
you'll find the info and more. sorry I couldn't have been more help.
Hard to know which aircraft was the better bomber killer IMO. Most of the aces flew the 109, but conversely the FW190 was much more heavily armed. In terms of performance, my humble opinion is that in the critical areas of climb dive and speed, the FW held the edge.
Perhaps the 109 was more the pilots choice, but the 190 was more the killing machine
"Spitfire vs Bf 109" by Tony Holmes also has a slight breakdown of kills during the BoB.
People will start getting infractions if they don't heed Adler's advice.
Maj. Georg-Peter Eder 36.
*snip*
.
Freeman in the Mighty Eighth clearly states that the heavily armed and armored Fw190s were the most effective.
Elsewhere I recall reading that the bomber crews most feared the heavily armed twin engined fighters.
I don't recall reading anything indicating that the Bf109 was feared more than any other attacker.
The vast majority of opinions I have read from participants in the ETO bomber force and of postwar writers conclude that the B-17 was a much more survivable aircraft when under attack and the crew was more likely to survive than in a B-24.
These questions remain and may never be capable of being answered:
Was the USAAF/USAF methodology flawed?
Did the extra speed of the B-24 significantly reduce the time of exposure to attack to make it a statistically safer aircraft to fly missions?
Did the greater numbers of B-24s than B-17s, and the time and type of missions they flew skew the USAAF/USAF statistics to indicate the B-24 was a safer aircraft for a crewman?
I think I would still rather be on a B-17 than on a B-24 flying missions in the ETO. Getting halfway down the path to victory is having the confidence in your weapon to prevent fear from compromising your personal performance.
P-40K,
Presenting an unsorted list does not make for statistical evidence, nor debate.
For example, the first pilot in your list started his service in 109s, but made the majority of his USAAF heavy bomber kill claims in FW 190s (22 of his 36) and then later flew Me 262s, claiming another five heavy bomber kills while doing so.
Seems somewhat contrary to your opinion.
Again, please, do you have any statistical evidence is there that the Bf 109 made the "vast majority" of heavy bomber kill claims by the Luftwaffe?
In today's troubled world - the true democracies - 'the english speaking world' comprising a large measure of the whole - needs to start thinking this way. In the end it is the heroism of Christian Democracies - secure enough to embrace diversity and open-mindedness - and yet remain resolute to Christian democratic traditions - that are all that has stood between the The Evil Empire and The Free World - and now stand between militant Islam and The West.
MM