Glider
Captain
Soren
In case you are wondering, your silence in deafening and we are waiting for some quotes from your unbiased books. I presume you have some, or you wouldn't know that all the quotes from Bill and the others are biased.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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?
If those figures are correct for Luftflotte Reich, why was the Luftwaffe maintaining such a low operational tempo in the face of the US attack? It averages about 5 sorties per fighter per month, or just over 1 a week.
Do you have complete figures for Luftwaffe strength and sorties in the time period?
Hooton gives Luftwaffe Reich strength as 562 day fighters at the end of December 1943, and 853 at the end of March 1944. Yet he gives day fighter sorties for Jagdkorps I, which as I understand it included all the day fighters in Luftflotte Reich, as:
Jan 3315
Feb 4242
Mar 3672
Apr 4505
May 3805
To put those figures in perspective, with a similar sized fighter force in the BoB, the RAF flew up to 5,000 sorties a week. They totalled over 15,000 fighter sorties in July, about 17,000 in August, about 14,000 in September.
So, do Jagdkorps I daylight fighter sorties include all Luftflotte Reich day fighter sorties? (Christer Bergstrom gives the same 3672 figure for March as the total for Luftflotte Reich).
If those figures are correct for Luftflotte Reich, why was the Luftwaffe maintaining such a low operational tempo in the face of the US attack? It averages about 5 sorties per fighter per month, or just over 1 a week.
What am I doing to explain away the losses of the LW fighters Bill ??
Well let me repeat what I've being saying all along:
1.) The LW was low on fuel
2.) The LW was low on trained pilots
3.) The dedicated LW fighters were always massively out-numbered
4.) The LW interceptors weren't there to fight off fighters, they were there to take down the biggest thread, the bombers. It was the bombers which were pounding the German industry, not the fighters, therefore taking down the bombers was the no.1 priority - hence the losses caused by Allied escorts. Most of the interceptors were shot down attacking the bombers.
5.) The interceptors were heavily armed and therefore didn't stand much chance if caught by the escorts.
Now despite all of this the LW still managed a decent kill/ loss ratio, and as you can see JG-26 did very well under the tight circumstances.
I also really suggest you read Willi Reschkes book on JG-301 JG-302.
ROFLMAO - When they had fuel and were in the air, in the presence of Mustangs, in the period we are discussing - and, they got pounded.
If they didn't stand a chance - why not?
Prove your thesis that LuftReich s/e fighters were outnumbered by USAAF MUstangs - you haven't come close yet for the 1/1/44-5/31/44 timeframe
JG26 has very little to do in this discussion as they were not fighting the Mustangs over Germany - they were fighting the RAF and USAAF fighters over lowlands and France with JG2 - LuftReich is the force we are talking about - stay on topic Soren
Wait a minute are you claiming that you've proven me wrong ?! Let me remind you that you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support your theory that the Mustangs weren't present in far greater numbers than the dedicated fighters of the LW !
In the third quarter of 1943 when the air battle over Germany was effectively lost Germany DIDN'T have a shortage of fuel. .What am I doing to explain away the losses of the LW fighters Bill ??
Well let me repeat what I've being saying all along:
1.) The LW was low on fuel.
Wrong again. In 1943 the number of German pilots being trained increased from 1662 new fighter pilots in 1942 to 3276 new fighter pilots in 19432.) The LW was low on trained pilots.
Wrong again. The earlier postings proved that in Europe and over Germany in the third quarter of 1943 the LW a large number of pilots/planes easily outnumbering the small no of long range fighters available to the USAAF.3.) The dedicated LW fighters were always massively out-numbered.
The LW fighters were to deal with the threat that they failed indicates that their fighters were not up to the job4.) The LW interceptors weren't there to fight off fighters, they were there to take down the biggest thread, the bombers. It was the bombers which were pounding the German industry, not the fighters, therefore taking down the bombers was the no.1 priority - hence the losses caused by Allied escorts. Most of the interceptors were shot down attacking the bombers.
That the German fighters had to be upgunned (in particular the 109) to deal with the American bombers leaving themselves vulnerable to the escort fighters indicates that their fighters were not up to the job.5.) The interceptors were heavily armed and therefore didn't stand much chance if caught by the escorts..
I repeat Bill, the dedicated LW fighters were out-numbered big time ! And the interceptors although present in higher numbers were, I repeat, after the bombers NOT the escorts !!
Yes the prime mission was to avoid fighters if possible and defend when not possible
Tell me Bill how much of a drop in performance to you think the extra armament caused alone ??? The reason I'm asking is cause I know you're clueless.
Are we name calling again Soren? I am unconcerned about how much performance the extra armament caused Soren. The thesis is fighter against fighter, pilot against pilot in a period in which the Luftwaffe had local superiority over Mustangs and Lightnings
And to top that off the majority of the interceptors were carrying the ETC-501 rack, which alone robbed allot of performance.
Just for the sake of getting you into a limited research mode, show sources and facts to prove that all of (or the %) of III./JG26, I./JG3, II./JG3, III./JG3, IV./JG3, III./JG27 and IV./JG27 were carrying ETC-501 racks over Munich on April 24.
Wait a minute are you claiming that you've proven me wrong ?! Let me remind you that you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support your theory that the Mustangs weren't present in far greater numbers than the dedicated fighters of the LW !
Only about ten times - citing the dates that the 354th, the 357th, the 4th, the 355th, the 352nd went Operational between January 11, 1944 through April 10, 1944. The 339th went Operational on April 30. I cited the average Effectives per mission for each of these groups to actually achieve target escorts over targets in Luft Reich theatre of operations.
I cited Dr. Price's tables for Total and Effective for LuftFlotte Reich to give you some clues on the daily available comparisons
LoL, stay on topic ?? Bill you're the one who brought up the JG-26 remember
Go back and read the posts. I cited JG26 because in fact III./JG26 was one of the Gruppe's concentrated over Munich on April 24, 1944. If you had asked me where they normally were I would have informed you that as part of LuftFlotte 3, they were in Belgium, Holland and France along with JG2 - but not this day as the controllers moved them to Regensburg area.
But of course I can see why you wouldn't want to discuss the JG-26, the fact that it out-fought the Allied fighters on an individual basis hurts your case.
This is about simple facts that Mustangs more often than not, met superior numbers of German fighters over the assigned targets from January 11, 1944 and May 31, 1944 and thrashed them.
....
You keep claiming that the Mustangs trashed the LW in this incident, yet the LW blew 200 + USAAF personnel out of the sky that day, so who really got trashed this day ?
The LW interceptors went for the bombers, were engaged by the USAAF escorts, an yet the LW interceptors still managed to hand out more damage than they recieved.
You have proven squat Bill !
Show me the number of dedicated fighters available to the LW ! All you've shown so far is the total number of fighters involved in the incident, of which the far majority were bomber interceptors.
The Bf-109's involved were std. G-6's yes, and therefore featured no boost, and again most were armed with MG-151/20 gun-pods for obvious reasons.
Well the problem is you twist the facts Bill. Yes counting the Mustangs alone they met more German fighters in this incident, however by far the majority of those "fighters" were heavily armed bomber interceptors, there being only a handful of dedicated fighters.
You keep claiming that the Mustangs trashed the LW in this incident, yet the LW blew 200 + USAAF personnel out of the sky that day, so who really got trashed this day ?
The LW interceptors went for the bombers, were engaged by the USAAF escorts, an yet the LW interceptors still managed to hand out more damage than they recieved.
You have proven squat Bill !
Show me the number of dedicated fighters available to the LW ! All you've shown so far is the total number of fighters involved in the incident, of which the far majority were bomber interceptors.
You have proven squat Bill !
Show me the number of dedicated fighters available to the LW ! All you've shown so far is the total number of fighters involved in the incident, of which the far majority were bomber interceptors.
Here is a quote you must have overlooked (again) from a couple of posts back "Hop - I do NOT have complete figures for sorties but LuftFlotte Reich, acording to Dr. Price, had approximately 812 Total, 446 Effective Single Engine Fighters in service on May 31, 1944.
Even though not necessarily a good assumption, using 3805 sorties for May divided by only the Effectives - we have only 8 1/2 sorties per s/e fighter for the month. On the other hand, there weren't that many days that the Luftwaffe chose to intercept in force... and when they did a typical force for a strong reaction was 150-200 fighters - or perhaps 1/3 of the available effectives?"
Soren, That is about the third time I quoted Day Single Engine Fighter Strength for LuftFlotte Reich.. per Dr Alfred Price from The Luftwaffe Data Book and those May numbers are probably conservative relative to April 24 Day Fighter totals for the Daily Strength in April as the Luftwaffe Day Fighters took huge losses in April and particularly May when they had to come up and protect the Petroleum Industry, so I would expect late May to be less than late April?
The Bf-109's involved were std. G-6's yes, and therefore featured no boost, and again most were armed with MG-151/20 gun-pods for obvious reasons.
This may be the 10th time I (we) have asked you to produce Facts. List YOUR source for what equipment JG3, JG27 and III./JG26 were flying on 24 April? Prien would be a good place to start if I may make a suggestion?
Interesting side note. Hptn Staiger who led III./JG26 reported that his 30 Me109s were 'opposed by an extremely large escort of more than several hundred aircraft' - when in fact just the two groups, 355 and 357 (approx 93 P-51s) were escorting 5 Combat Wings over 50 miles long. See page 234 of Caldwell's JG26 book for reference.
Staiger's statement of "several Hundred escorts" would have exceeded ALL of the available Mustang units in the entire USAAF on that date and the 4th, 352nd, 354th and 363rd FG were busy guarding the 2nd and 3rd Bomb Divisions elsewhere...
Staiger's statement is fairly common for personal recollections re: overclaiming the numbers the individual pilots remembered.. and perhaps you should reflect on this as you re-read personal accounts rather than perform independent research?
Well the problem is you twist the facts Bill. Yes counting the Mustangs alone they met more German fighters in this incident, however by far the majority of those "fighters" were heavily armed bomber interceptors, there being only a handful of dedicated fighters.
Soren, Soren, Soren - stay on topic or Thesis. The thesis is that "the Luftwaffe Day Fighters often outnumbered the escorting Mustangs over the target" or conversely to your oft stated beliefs, the LW "was always outnumbered by 8 to 1 or even more" dire odds.
Follow me closely because you might be making progress with the statement above in admitting numerical superiority.. but you have yet to establish that the Me109G6 is not to be considered a German Single Engine Day Fighter?
You keep claiming that the Mustangs trashed the LW in this incident, yet the LW blew 200 + USAAF personnel out of the sky that day, so who really got trashed this day ?
The two Mustang Groups shot down 32 Me109G6's, 1 Fw190A7, 10 Me110Gs for the loss of 4 Mustangs to Me109s and 2 to mid air collisions with Me110 debris. I don't wish to mis use the English language and I tip my hat to you for your command of it, so...What does it take to meet Your standard for 'trashed' in the context for air to air battles and victory ratios between me109s and P-51s? I'll try to remember next time
The LW interceptors went for the bombers, were engaged by the USAAF escorts, an yet the LW interceptors still managed to hand out more damage than they recieved.
Any one watch dogfights on the history channel ? I know its not scientific but several of the fights shown are with 15 to 20 german fighters jumping 4 or 5 p47s or mustangs. I have yet to see one yet where its 15 U.S. against 4 german. from what i understand the luftwaffe was putting every fighter they had in the air in large hunting groups trying to stop the onslaught. It however only resulted in more german loses. They even tried Kamikaze type attacks against the bombers trying to stop them.
point taken, and im going to watch the ailerons next time and see if i can catch that ive never noticed lolWhile I have enjoyed many of the History Channel reproductions, I have noticed a lot of errors - The actual accounts of what happened are`pretty accurate but the HC makes a lot of bold claims w/o research - notably matching up Egon Mayer to Bob Johnson's 'Bad Day'... as Mayer was KIA eight months later and wrote no account that I am aware of that matches the encounter from Johnson'd POV - It can't be proved or disproved.
Another thing that is amusing about the otherwise excellent graphics is that frequently the control surfaces are in exactly opposite the required position for a roll... i.e sometimes they have a left aileron up/right down for a right roll.
As to the odds part, there is no great interest or drama in outcome for the example of 12 Mustangs or Jugs bouncing 12 Ju 52's for example..
Regards,
Bill