Best WWII Air-Force

The Typhoon did suffer some structural problems, you're right Glider. But as to LW a/c, well besides the He-162 Condor I can't really find any at all.

And as to the Bf-109F and exhaust fumes, well I really can't understand this as I've heard nothing of this before, only the Buchon suffered this problem because of the exhaust re-arrangement. Ofcourse I can't say that there might not have been a batch of a/c which suffered from leaking gaskets, the exhaust fumes escaping into the cockpit via the engine compartment.

Now about the He-177, well do you know what the actual problem was ? It wasn't that it was susceptible to catch fire if hit, it was oil dripping onto the exhaust manifolds which was the problem.

The 109F could certainly have been a bad batch or something that was addressed.

As for the 177 I do know what the problem was and it was caused by the complexity of the engine. Too many pipes, in too small a space, close to too much hot metal, a recipe for disaster. Any damage is more likely to start a fire than in most aircraft and as such, it was a problem.
After all, if it wasn't a problem, then why switch to four individual engines for the He277?

All I can say is I am finished with this conversation. Soren you contradict yourself so much it gives me a headache.

Enjoy...

No I do not contradict myself Adler, but if you believe so you should atleast provide an example.

Soren said:

Adler

Bill,

Ofcourse, cause incase you didn't know Bill shooting down the bombers was the main task.

Why, yes Soren I do know that. However, The Thesis is that a.) there were many occasions in which the LW single engine fighters had local numerical superiority over the USAAF escort - and were trounced when engaged

I remember, and you have yet to provide evidence that the dedicated LW fighters weren't on a general basis out-numbered 8:1.

I gave you the order of battle for the LW over Munich in the air battles with 355 and 357FG. One, Strumstaffel 1 flew Fw190s (not A8's) and one, III./Zg26 flew Me110's. All of the rest were Me109Gs from JG26, JG3, JG 27 - there were a total of 7 Gruppe's comprised solely of Me109Gs. You committed to doing your own research to verify/deny my statement - which so far is waving your arms and babbling about 'bomber destroyers"

I stated that when we were done with this one we could move to another quick 10-20 examples.

For you to claim 8:1 in this fight that would mean approximately 1 Me 109 from each of the Staffel was 'available' to meet the 93 Mustangs. Is that your story? that all the rest were inferior bomber destroyers and therefore such Me109s don't 'count'?? Do you, really??

The bomber-interceptors don't count cause they were easy pickings, the escorts simply coming down from above picking them off either as they attacked the bombers or before or emmediately after - now what is a FW-190A armed with gunpods going to do against a Mustang at 30,000 + ft ??

Exactly two Fw190's were claimed in this fight of the 43 claimed destroyed by the two Fighter Groups, plus 10 Me110's and 31 Me109G's. Caldwell states 60 LW a/c lost in this fight. The separate engagements resulted from a.) climbing to meet the 109s to b.) diving after 109s and c.) meeting them head on. A high percentage of the scores were on the deck.

Is your thesis that because the "escorts simply picked them off" that the German pilots were stupid and didn't recognize the danger - therefore chose not to fight?, or Afraid to fight? or were just outfought? I suspect the latter but you can have your own opinion

Not only is this well above the Antons FTH, but its also directly inside the Mustangs FTH ! And the Bf-109's, well if they were after the bombers they were equipped with gun-pods, otherwise they were there to fight the escorts.

What does this have to do with the thesis of numerical superiority of LWsingle engine fighters? And, the mix is Easy for you to find out. If you don't believe my order of battle, Tony Woods has done an excellent job of listing the claims, by pilots of each staffel which made a claim - and not all staffels did. So, use your own sources to determine which of the Gustavs had 30 or 20mm pods - or which Fw190s had pods, and ask yourself "So, what" am I no longer a fighter pilot?

And b.) You're not being objective about any of it !

How do you suppose all those LW fighters got shot down Bill ?? In dogfights ?? Sorry but the answer is NO, nearly all were shot down never knowing what was coming whilst engaging the bombers. And again I ask you, what is a Anton armed with gun-pods, above its FTH, going to against a P-51 ?

They got shot down because they were outflown and outfought. The four Mustang pilots were shot down because they were outflown and outfought by Dahl and Bartels and possibly Stiglar - all superb LW Me109 Experten. The other two were downed by mid air collisions with Me110s. Nobody is making excuses about why the Mustang pilots were shot down

The bomber interceptors were easy pickings for the escorts, hence the number shot down. However as perfectly illustrated in your supposedly bad day for the LW the bomber interceptors did their work as-well, shooting down a good number of bombers, each of which holding a crew of 7-10 men. So how bad was that day really for the LW compared to how it was for the Allies ??

The thesis is not whether the LW was 'easy pickings' for the Mustang - which it mostly was - the thesis is that from Jan1-May, 1944 the LW single engine fighter force attacking bombers (or fighters) over Germany beyond the range of P-47s, FREQUENTLY outnumbered the escorts at the point of attack. But now you want to change the discussion to some nebulous 'air superiority' fighter configuration? Do you consider all Me109Gs as 'equally' helpless against the Mustang? Isn't the strategy of fighter types and mix to throw against the 8th AF a tactical decision by LW Kommandeurs?

If the Luftwaffe started getting pounded by 51s in January and didn't change tactics - wasn't that pretty stupid? But still didn't alter the fact that they frequently had numerical superiority of Fw190s and Me109s over the Mustang in that time frame.

It was a bad day for both 8th AF 1st Div bombers and JG3 and JG27 and ZG26 but a good day for the outnumbered 355th and 357th FG.

No but you have denigrated the LW huge effectiveness against enemy fighters which considering the operational enviroment was unpresidented really, and esp. on an individual plane.

Yes, I have, relative to 8th AF. Simply because the LW did Not have a huge (or even medium) effectiveness against the 8th AF Fighter Command, despite having local numerical superiority in the months I have been citing to you. As I recall the top LW scorer (Steinmann) over Mustangs had only 12 confirmed victories...with only five total (Steinmann, Bartels, Bar, Schell and Hofman) scoring more than 9 Mustangs and six over 9 Thunderbolts with top at 13 - wow THAT's EFFECTIVE, particularly for Experten that fought against the Mustang in a target rich environment for many months.


The Me-262 suffered NO structural failures or design flaws, it did however "suffer" the pitch down behavior in the transsonic speed region, however this region wasn't well explored and therefore this can't be seen as a design flaw.

Sigh - Stormbird Rising page 32 re: Me262V2 PC+UB Wk/nr 262 0000002 ""test pilot Wilhelm Ostertag was at the controls when it hit the ground. The accident was caused by a spontaneous change of tailplane incidence, and further similar crashes in other Me 262s indicated that the problem lay in the switch controlling the tailplane incidence. Following investigations, a stronger layout of the relevant moving parts - especially the hydraulic jack appear to have eradicated the result"

Soren sez 'act of god - not a flaw in teutonic design excellence' Right?

Pg 42 VI+AK "was the aircraft Hptm Thierfelder was killed in following a separation of turbine stator rings"

Soren sez - nothing to do with design - all a conspiracy to embarass Germans


Pg 30 PC+UA "On July 7, 1944 this airplane was severely damaged in a forced landing following one aft turbine section of one of the engines burning out"

For Americans in XP-80 this type incident renders the P-80 'too dangerous' despite exactly one such issue.

So -it's OK to describe the pitch down and tuck issue of the 262 as 'a region that wasn't well explored and therefor not a design flaw" but dismiss compressibility problems in 51s and 38s as "design flaws"


Read the Me-262A-1a POH as-well as this please: The Me262 and The Race to Mach1

Ive read it


And the third was the fact that the wings couldn't take more than 7-8 G's.

Soren, where in the world to you find these jewels? Facts please and I still have my Flight Manuals and FARs associated w/51s

I say the P-51 Mustang did have flaws which weren't because of borderline science but were just a plain simple error. I'm not saying it was a huge flaw as 7-8G's wasn't reached that often combat seeing that most shoot downs were the result of bounces.

Click to expand...

Soren, you can 'say it' as you often do, but you should occasionally back up your comments with facts and sources? And so, most shoot downs were the result of 'bounces' - what were the rest? And, despite the apparent design limitations that you state the Mustang had - it trounced its adversaries in spite of the so called 'design superiority of the Fw190 and Me109'???

Quit dodging Bill, a FW-190 or Bf-109G with gun-pods, the story is the same, maneuverability performance is decreased and this no doubt did prove decisive on many occasions. Thats fact and sorry but nomatter how much you wish to forget this Bill, you can't get around it.

By early 1944 allot of the 109's in service were G-6's with no form of boost available, but even with boost flying around with gun-pods serverely hampered maneruverability performance. Yes Bill, the Bf-109's present during the incident you presented were almost exclusively carrying Gun-pods - the prime goal was after-all the bombers.

The Bf-109's Fw-190's weren't out-flown, fact is that most shoot downs were the result of bounces and the guy at the recieving end never knew what was coming. As for why many kills were on the deck, well std. practice for the bomber-interceptors was to hit the deck directly after their attack if Allied escorts were present, the dedicated fighters maintained altitude fought.

That the bomber interceptors hit the deck emmdiately after their attack wasn't stupid, the LW pilots knew their a/c were at a disadvantage because of their heavy armament. And so running away after having successfully attacked the bomber stream and live to fight another day was infact the smartest move.

As to the "Mustang killers" such as Steinmann who shot down 12, well that alone is more than the highest scoring P-51 ace in the ETO IIRC, but what this doesn't account for is that there are many other LW pilots with 1 to 2 to 3 Mustang kills who aren't listed.

They got shot down because they were outflown and outfought.

Click to expand...

A romantic thought but so very wrong.

By far the majority LW fighters shot down weren't out-flown, they were simply bounced shot down.

And the dedicated LW fighters who stayed and fought were grossly out-numbered.

The four Mustang pilots were shot down because they were outflown and outfought by Dahl and Bartels and possibly Stiglar - all superb LW Me109 Experten. The other two were downed by mid air collisions with Me110s. Nobody is making excuses about why the Mustang pilots were shot down

Click to expand...

LoL you crack me up !

Bill you are made up of excuses, they were shot down by experten you claim !

Quit your glorification of the Mustang please, cause it was nothing special besides having better range than most fighters.
_________________________________

Another fact you so happily keep avoiding is the fact that fuel was in low supply for the LW, so low that a full tank wasn't always possible, which meant that is some cases LW fighters had to leave the fight in fear of running out of fuel. And on top of this the a/c who went flying were many times piloted by men who lacked sufficient training - but ofcourse in your imaginary world this has no significance at all


__________________________________

As to the Me-262,

You just qouted the flight results of a PROTOTYPE model !


Good luck next time Bill

Soren said:

Quit dodging Bill, a FW-190 or Bf-109G with gun-pods, the story is the same, maneuverability performance is decreased and this no doubt did prove decisive on many occasions. Thats fact and sorry but nomatter how much you wish to forget this Bill, you can't get around it.

Has the Fw190 and Me109 that up-gunned now become a trainer, or a transport or light bomber - some other description other than 'Single Engine Fighter'?? Did the Luftwaffe give these two aircraft a difference classification?Is that your excuse?

By early 1944 allot of the 109's in service were G-6's with no form of boost available, but even with boost flying around with gun-pods serverely hampered maneruverability performance. Yes Bill, the Bf-109's present during the incident you presented were almost exclusively carrying Gun-pods - the prime goal was after-all the bombers.

Facts please. What was the 'new' description for the 109 without boost? Mustang and Thundebolt fodder?

The Bf-109's Fw-190's weren't out-flown, fact is that most shoot downs were the result of bounces and the guy at the recieving end never knew what was coming. As for why many kills were on the deck, well std. practice for the bomber-interceptors was to hit the deck directly after their attack if Allied escorts were present, the dedicated fighters maintained altitude fought.

Good Herrenvolk should be looking, no? Only bad Germans died against the inept Mustangs whose only 'real' attribute was range - isn't that what you say below - well gee a C-47 had range over a 109 - so it must have been very formidable indeed.. suppose a 109 could whip it with 30mm pods?

That the bomber interceptors hit the deck emmdiately after their attack wasn't stupid, the LW pilots knew their a/c were at a disadvantage because of their heavy armament. And so running away after having successfully attacked the bomber stream and live to fight another day was infact the smartest move.

so they were shot down high, medium and low

As to the "Mustang killers" such as Steinmann who shot down 12, well that alone is more than the highest scoring P-51 ace in the ETO IIRC, but what this doesn't account for is that there are many other LW pilots with 1 to 2 to 3 Mustang kills who aren't listed.

There were only 48 ETO aces with more than 12 air victories - not including the MTO.. quite a few had 262 scores. As to how many had 1 or more Mustang scores you can get the pilots and the total number with awards for the P-51 from Tony Woods Data base - I know the answer Soren but accept the challenge to find out for yourself - not that many.

The point is that there are many USAAF aces with 5 or more 109s shot down - far more than the LW Experten with 5 or more Mustangs



A romantic thought but so very wrong.

By far the majority LW fighters shot down weren't out-flown, they were simply bounced shot down.

ROFLMO - facts Soren

And the dedicated LW fighters who stayed and fought were grossly out-numbered.

Brave fellows , those 7 1/2 LW fighters who challenged the 93

Facts Soren

LoL you crack me up !

Facts, Soren - although on this subject I acknowledge your expertise!

Bill you are made up of excuses, they were shot down by experten you claim !

I do MY research Soren. I know when Hillman and Norman were shot down and where they were shot down and where they were buried. One was Muhldorf 1345-1347 and one was Waldkraiburg in same time. Jack Sturm was 'probably (not certain) with them when he was shot down by a 109 and became POW. Look to see where Bartels (2 Mustang claims), Dahl (one) at 1345-1347.. then make your own judgements - but look! rather than beat your gums!!

If you accept Tony Woods Claim Lists for 24 April, 1944 please reference it to see what you might see and make your own judgement. The operative instruction is do the RESEARCH and post FACTS

Quit your glorification of the Mustang please, cause it was nothing special besides having better range than most fighters.

But somehow it just struggled along against the superior German skills and tools - what luck, Bon Chance!
_________________________________

Another fact you so happily keep avoiding is the fact that fuel was in low supply for the LW, so low that a full tank wasn't always possible, which meant that is some cases LW fighters had to leave the fight in fear of running out of fuel. And on top of this the a/c who went flying were many times piloted by men who lacked sufficient training - but ofcourse in your imaginary world this has no significance at all


OFF Topic Soren, you keep avoiding the Thesis of Mustangs locally outnumbered, trashing single engine LW fighters, being flown with fuel in their tanks by rated German Fighter pilots.

You keep describing the 109s with gun pods as 'bomber destroyers'. You keep finding excusses for why the great LW pilots in far superior aircraft in the Best Air Force were somehow defeated by those mongrels from America

As to the Me-262,

You just qouted the flight results of a PROTOTYPE model !


Good luck next time Bill

Click to expand...

Quite right, Soren, as you were describing the 'terribly' flawed YP-80 and X-P80's three fatal accidents in 1944 and early 1945. Dick Bong was killed in a P-80A in August, 1945.

Are you, ah, now postulating that there were no accidents in the production Me262??

I was gleefully pointing the BS you attempt to propagate re: No accidents, No flaws in the superior designs of the LW with respect to structure, function and - gosh - just overall perfection.

When we have direct quotes from LW ace that flew the airplane and described the fatal consequences of compressibility dives - it suddenly becomes a novel thing 'testing the boundaries of science' - well, yeah - but in a P-47 or P-38 or P-51 encountering and solving compressibility issues, its all about flawed design??

Soren, you are just plain silly sometimes

I think we can quantify that the AAF was at least 3 magnitudes better than the LW when it came to manufacturing and industrial capabilities.

The US completely swamped the LW in 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944. In 1943 alone, the US was producing nearly triple the number of aircraft (of all types) as compared to Germany. That means not only did the AAF have far more material resources, but indirectly, far more scientific and industrial expertise.

Soren also inadvertantly proved my case by his statement that German aircraft were built to higher standards. Well thats all fine and dandy for commercial products, and some types of weapons, but for a product that needs to be built quickly and has a lifetime measured in weeks, then its a flawed manufacturing concept. The Germans simply introduced inefficiencies into their system. The quality was there for no gain.

Soren also didnt provide any examples of AAF aircraft that were structurally flawed while in production and operations. Saying an aircraft had issues in the prototype or early production stages is one thing, but to suggest it existed at all times of its service life is quite preposterous.

Soren has also yet to prove that the -109 and -190 were superior to the P38, P47 and P51 in every catagory. He simply thinks in terms of fighter vs fighter in the LW planes optimal performance envelope and refuses to consider what would happen if those two planes were trying to fight inside the AAF planes optimal envelope. He even refuses to ackknowledge the P38 was the best fighter in the PTO simply because it would prove that the LW would have been inferior in this theater (thus "global" rankings).

Soren then is going off on a tangent saying that the LW had the best pilots even when many of their best aces had been shot down themselves on numerous occasions. Of course he completely ignores factual encounters when AAF pilots out flew their LW counterparts and shot them down, or he dismisses them as being lucky shots or "bounces".

Soren has not produced one iota of evidence proving that LW pilots were inherintley superior. Its a factual statement for me to say "any pilot of any AF that had lots of flight time and had demonstrated flying skill's was as good as his opponant with similar levels of ability".

I can say that when we compare the two AF's in:

Industrial Capacity: The US was at least three to four times better than Germany.

Pilot training with "if" resources present: Equal

Real world pilot training with resorces available: AAF was at least three magnitudes better by the end of 1944. (Sorry Soren, not having fuel available is just simply tough luck in the actual events of war).

Fighter quality: Even.

Syscom - good post.

I would only comment that Soren states higher quality w/o demonstrating any facts. He 'states' a lot of things, backs up few statements with facts

High quality is a.) achieving or exceeding design and manufacturing standards and b.) attaining high standards of operability and reliabilty in service.

Where are Soren's facts or fact base? He is all over the map in every argument and can't stick to any one thesis to prove or disprove his cases.

Its funny Bill cause you don't provide facts yourself, all you do is quote lines from already biased books on the subject.

Anyways keep on the dodging Bill, you're doing an excellent job at doing so so far.

Soren said:

Its funny Bill cause you don't provide facts yourself, all you do is quote lines from already biased books on the subject.

Anyways keep on the dodging Bill, you're doing an excellent job at doing so so far.

Click to expand...

Soren - you made astonishing claims regarding Germany's fabled devotion to 'quality'. You were challenged with regard to facts and sources as well as definitions.

Syscom and I both argued that US quality was high with respect to finish and reliability and wondered what basis you made your claim of superiority? Why must we research your claim?

When I make a claim and it is challenged by you I have quoted sources and references. - why not you?

Bill,

I checked the history behind the incident you quoted earlier, and I can't believe I forgot to ask but, tell me Bill how many enemy fighters do you believe the USAAF bombers alone comitted to that area claimed that day ??

Suddenly the claims made by the Mustangs present that day don't seem all that credible...

Lol - so the bomber claims were 'accurate'??

Soren - what else have you 'checked out' - Read any of the JG3, JG27 histories for that day and that battle?

Thanks to Kustcha for the following reference and tables

The Jagdgeschwader 26 Homepage


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


Would you draw your attention to the day fighter strength and losses in Reich Defense for the period we have been debating - namely Jan-May 1944? The only forces acting against the Reich Defense were the heavy bombers and the long range escorts - which were outnumbered in that timeframe.

Is it conceivable that you will draw your attention to losses on Eastern Front in those periods and care to comment on your claim that "losses on Eastern Front far exceeded those in West"

Is it possible that you will explain the huge loss numbers in single engine day (forget t/e as they were too easy to shoot down) in Reich Defense for the period as both a percentage of ALL LW losses versus any and all other theatres? and explain that as the 8thFC Mustang strength grew from one to 6 Gruppen in the period - or the equivalent of 1/3 to 2 JG's?

Is it conceivable that you will provide sources and references someday? That would be refreshing.

This will be my last post to you on this subject Soren.

Excellent posting and first class site, many thanks. For me the most telling line is at the and of the page containing these statistics.

4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.

Glider said:

Excellent posting and first class site, many thanks. For me the most telling line is at the and of the page containing these statistics.

4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.

Click to expand...

Dead on, Glider, and remember JG26 and JG2 are in the "West" (Kanalfront) column, not the Reich.

Those poor bastards had to fight EVERYBODY inluding RAF, RAF TAC, 9th AF, and 8th AF P-47s during that period - whereas LW Reich was basically battling ONLY the 4th, 352nd, 354th, 355th, 357th Mustang Groups gradually building from one in January to five at end of April, plus 3 Lightning groups.

Facts are like bullets in an argument, if you don't have em' its like throwing stones...
That sounds good maybe i should be a philosipher.

From the site you quoted from Bill:

"The figures represent a remarkable ratio of claim v loss, especially when the hectic activities of the late war period are taken into consideration. Often outnumbered and fighting a defensive campaign against mass RAF and USAAF bomber formations escorted by hundreds of fighters, the "Schlageter" Geschwader did it's best to help stem the onslaught."

http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/claims.htm

The above doesn't exactly strenghten your little theory Bill.

Also you have yet to answer my question of how big a tragedy that day supposedly was for the LW considering that each USAAF bomber they shot down contained 7 or more men ? If you ask me the tragedy was alot more apparent at the USAAF.

The tragedy was with the LW.

The AAF had so many pilots coming out of flight school, the loss of a heavy bomber and its crew was just a statistic.

The loss of a single LW pilot was irreplacable.

Sys has got a point Soren....

Soren said:

From the site you quoted from Bill:

"The figures represent a remarkable ratio of claim v loss, especially when the hectic activities of the late war period are taken into consideration. Often outnumbered and fighting a defensive campaign against mass RAF and USAAF bomber formations escorted by hundreds of fighters, the "Schlageter" Geschwader did it's best to help stem the onslaught."

http://les_butler.drivehq.com/jg26/claims.htm

The above doesn't exactly strenghten your little theory Bill.

Also you have yet to answer my question of how big a tragedy that day supposedly was for the LW considering that each USAAF bomber they shot down contained 7 or more men ? If you ask me the tragedy was alot more apparent at the USAAF.

Click to expand...

Soren, the subject was not the tragedy inflicted on the bombers that day. I specifically stated that the Luftwaffe was manuevered with great skill to apply 200-250 s/e fighters into the bomber stream in a way that the two fighter groups were unable to stop them and shot down or forced down a lot of B-17s. Go back and re-read.

The subject and the constant subject is that a much smaller force of Mustangs DID inflict far more losses on the Me109s (plus Fw190 plus Me110s) than the German fighter pilots were able to inflict on the Mustangs.

Your constant thesis has been that the LW was only defeated (and by definition "defeatable') by overwhelming numerical advantage on part of Mustangs. I have shown and would continue to show specific examples, historically and fact based, in which small numers of Mustangs dealt terrible blows to Luftwaffe single engine fighters and pilots.

The author of the quote, Les Butler (and complimentary works by Tony Woods), has done a great job of researching Luftwaffe claims. Their works are the specific source for the 'claims' I cited for you to research when you derided me for stating that the three 355th FG pilots shot down, were probably (NOT 100% certain) shot down by Bartels and Dahl. I cited the Macr reports, the burial locations and the times and locations contained in the Macrs as the link between the losses and Tony Woods accounting of the LW claims by specific time and location. These three match exactly in both time and location.

What are YOU doing to cite and reference facts on this subject?

What are you doing to explain away the huge number of single engine losses for LuftFlotte Reich in January - May, 1944 timeframe? A time when only the Mustangs and 3 Lightning groups were available over Germany for daylight escort? At no time during that period were any other fighters, RAF or USAAF, available to meet and defeat German Fighters from Munster to the farthest reaches of Germany.

Where are YOUR facts, and tables, from corresponding researchers?