Best WWII Air-Force

[Glider]

The bravest attack that I know of by a German fighter unit, had nothing to do with the Defence of Germany.

On the 23rd December 1942 over the By of Biscay, 51 P38's were flying with a Boston acting as a navigator leader were bounced by 4 (yes four) Ju88C.

The Boston was shot down as well as one of the P38's, whilst three of the P38's were badly damaged one being destroyed on landing back in the UK, one crash landed in Portugal and another in Spain, others suffering light damage but continued to Gibralter. None of the attacking Ju88's were lost although another Ju88 who joined the battle after it started, was lost.

 

[drgondog]

The bravest attack that I know of by a German fighter unit, had nothing to do with the Defence of Germany.

On the 23rd December 1942 over the By of Biscay, 51 P38's were flying with a Boston acting as a navigator leader were bounced by 4 (yes four) Ju88C.

The Boston was shot down as well as one of the P38's, whilst three of the P38's were badly damaged one being destroyed on landing back in the UK, one crash landed in Portugal and another in Spain, others suffering light damage but continued to Gibralter. None of the attacking Ju88's were lost although another Ju88 who joined the battle after it started, was lost.

Pretty impressive Glider..which unit of P-38's?

 

[Glider]

The Boston was from 47th BG flown by Capt Martz.
The P38 shot down was from flown by Lt Green of 95th FS.
Lt Broadhead of the 96th FS crash landed in the UK at St Eval.
Capt Strozier of the 96th FS made it to Portugal
Lt Miller of the 97th FS crash landed in Spain

Intestingly, a few days later on the 30th December, the same four German aircraft attacked 17 P39's from the 16th/68th observation groups but this time scoring was even, with one P39 lost and one Ju88.

 

[drgondog]

The Boston was from 47th BG flown by Capt Martz.
The P38 shot down was from flown by Lt Green of 95th FS.
Lt Broadhead of the 96th FS crash landed in the UK at St Eval.
Capt Strozier of the 96th FS made it to Portugal
Lt Miller of the 97th FS crash landed in Spain

Intestingly, a few days later on the 30th December, the same four German aircraft attacked 17 P39's from the 16th/68th observation groups but this time scoring was even, with one P39 lost and one Ju88.

Interesting group, the 82nd - one of the few that flew P-38s all the way during combat ops and scored very well with it. It was on the way to Africa (obviously) to start ops, and started earlier than planned.

Thanks Glider for the little corner insight into history. Wonder if the German pilots survived the war?

 

[str8jax]

one thing to say about having such huge odds against you. An isreali ace said this Only one plane can shoot you at a time there is not room for 2 or more to line up behind you. This pilot sorry forgot his name went up against 10 mig 21s by himself and in 10 minutes had shot down 4 of the ten only missing 5 because of a missile malfunction. The rest bugged out. Oh ya he was flying a mirage.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

one thing to say about having such huge odds against you. An isreali ace said this Only one plane can shoot you at a time there is not room for 2 or more to line up behind you. This pilot sorry forgot his name went up against 10 mig 21s by himself and in 10 minutes had shot down 4 of the ten only missing 5 because of a missile malfunction. The rest bugged out. Oh ya he was flying a mirage.

Giora Even Epstein - Different War, Different Tactics and a wide gap in the skill of the pilots.

 

[Soren]

Yes, on this day the 8th AF lost a lot more airmen KIA, WIA and POW than the LW over Munich - because of the skill of a female controller and the courage and tenacity of the LW pilots.

And because of the excellent quality effectiveness of the German a/c involved.

But don't focus on how well they did against the bombers. It has long been agreed and proven that 8th AF could not continue taking huge losses, or continue daylight bombing over Germany, unescorted. Stick to the thesis.

I am sticking to the thesis Bill, it is you who isn't. You want to base the Mustangs quality on how well it did against heavily armed interceptors concentrating on shooting down bombers, heck the P-47 P-38 could've both done as good a job as the P-51 in this scenario - the interceptors were sitting ducks, and the few dedicated fighters present were massively out-numbered by the Allied escorts. Thats fact Bill, and you can read about it in countless after action reports, books, end of day statistics, loss records etc etc..

Forget Dr.Price...

This day would have two more days in which the LW would claw down 10% of the attacking bombers - 29 April and 12 May. These are the last days when the LW could take a toll on more than one or two Groups of American heavy bombers

Funny how biased individuals love to talk percentages, it sorta camouflages or sugar coats the actual true events.

Now, back on the thesis regarding the role of the Mustang in engaging and shooting down the LW Fighters independent of odds over German territory during daylight? The above ratio is approximately USAAF 5 to LW one for Mustangs over Me110s and USAAF 11 to LW one for Mustangs over Me109G6's. See the debate thesis above Soren. LW records admit to 60 a/c lost or more than 60% damaged, make no mention of a/c crash landed (but less than 60% damaged)

First of all, if you think of this day as a direct matchup between the Mustang and the LW fighters you're awfully ignorant cause it was anything but that. The Mustangs were faced by (For the 100th time) heavily armed interceptors who were rightly focused on shooting down as many bombers as possible and then run for home. The only LW who would mix it with the Mustangs were the hugely out-numbered dedicated fighters.

Secondly, do you have the original German loss records in black white Bill ?

I don't want you (or me) to get hung up over 24 April - I can find worse cases for the LW than this.

Well I wouldn't be surprised seeing that it really wasn't such a bad day for the LW if you consider the losses sustained by the USAAF, but despite this pleaase do refer to another incident if you like.

Just for Your benefit, Soren - pick as many examples that you care to choose for engagements in which the LW fighters trashed USAAF fighters (or RAF) if you choose.. but cite the references please so we can compare notes? See how many engagements in which the LW destroyed say, more than 7 Mustangs or Thunderbolts or Lightnings in one fight.

I actually know of several, particularly during the Normandy campaign where many fights took place on the deck, but there are less than five such examples for the 8th AF.

Again the LW was usually grossly out-numbered, thats fact Bill, face it.

Fighting against heavy odds

And I can go on and on and on and on and on...

 

[Glider]

Soren
I have read the article that you posted as your evidence but its all about the LW being outnumbered in the fighting over France after the Landings. No one will dispute the Germans were heavily outnumbered in these situations. Can I ask why you quote the situation over the landings and France as evidence that the same situation happened over Germany?

But the point being made is that the German fighters over Germany were not badly outnumbered in the first Quarter on 1944. In fact despite having all the advantages and fighting over their home country they incurred heavy losses far outweighing the losses they incurred on the USAAF daylight bombing raids and in particular the P51's.

Just to remind you the max no of fighters the USAAF could send up in March was 180 to defend hundreds of bombers and the Germans had about 900 fighters in homeland defence.

 

[Glider]

Soren
If you want to talk about the losses in France you had better read the rest of that site in particular the following

Thus, while almost two Allied aircraft were lost for every German aircraft loss, these losses should be compared with each side's numerical strength. During this period, the Allied air forces performed 99,000 sorties over France (Clark, p. 98 ), while the Luftwaffe only flew 13,315 sorties over France (Prien, "JG 1/11", p. 1051). Thus, the Allied loss rate was only around 1 % while the German loss rate was almost 5 %.

Out of a total of 13,000 Allied aircraft on 6 June 1944, less than 10 % were lost over France between 6 and 30 June 1944. Out of 1,300 Luftwaffe aircraft in France (the peak number, reached on 10 June), around 50 % were lost between 6 and 30 June 1944.

You should also remember that a very large proportion of the allied losses were to AA fire not fighters.

If you want to stick to the topic and talk about the German losses over Germany then you read the first part of the piece that you posted as evidence to support your claims.

Without doubt, air superiority was a key to the Allied victory at Normandy in June - August 1944. This air superiority was based on both a qualitative superiority and a numerical superiority.

The qualitative superiority manifested itself both regarding the technical field and pilot training. The Allied fighters generally were superior to the German Bf 109 G and Fw 190 A in service in 1944. Moreover, at this stage, the quality of the Luftwaffe pilot standard was being worn down to a mere shadow of what it had once been, and this was the result of a terrible attrition in a long fight against numerically superior US formations over Germany.

In March 1944, the German Luftflotte Reich had performed 3,672 combat sorties and lost 349 fighters. That equals a loss ratio of 9.4 %. (Prien, "JG 1/11", p. 821)

These 3,672 combat sorties were flown against approximately 18,000 sorties by US 8th Air Force (including 8,773 heavy bomber missions; I don't have totals for fighter escort missions, but usually by this time there were more escort fighters than heavy bombers on each mission), plus several thousand sorties over Germany and the Netherlands by the 15th AF and the RAF.

This seems to support the people who are disagreeing with you.

 

[Aussie1001]

Glider does have a very valid point and info to back it up....
Meh GLider, Soren sort it out amongst yourselvs you have already taken over the thread.....

 

[drgondog]

And because of the excellent quality effectiveness of the German a/c involved.

??? thou dost protest too much - this isn't disputed.

Effectiveness against the USAAF Long Range Fighters in January thriu May 1944, when they and only they were deep in Germany battling everything the LuftFlotte Reich could throw at them
I am sticking to the thesis Bill, it is you who isn't.

See above and all preveious references and facts - balance against facts you have (not) presented.

You want to base the Mustangs quality on how well it did against heavily armed interceptors concentrating on shooting down bombers, heck the P-47 P-38 could've both done as good a job as the P-51 in this scenario - the interceptors were sitting ducks, and the few dedicated fighters present were massively out-numbered by the Allied escorts. Thats fact Bill, and you can read about it in countless after action reports, books, end of day statistics, loss records etc etc..

Show an example of one of these battles in which many German Fighters were shot down, that they 'were heavily outnumbered, or even 'outnumbered' - You are very strong in your emotional pleas but woefully short on facts!

Forget Dr.Price...

Works for me - he was more conservative and gave you an extra Day Fighter Shortfall of 100 from my other source.

How about Prien in "Iv./JG3 Cronik einer Jagdgruppe" in which he cites German losses over Munich as 39 KIA, 12 WIA and 60 Fighters 'written off'" with no reference to Damaged in the 30-50% range where a fighter was shot down but successfully belly landed.

Say, I keep throwing German historian references at you and you keep throwing individual pilot's narratives at me - I wonder why?

Funny how biased individuals love to talk percentages, it sorta camouflages or sugar coats the actual true events.

From a true expert at the above, even though you fail to back up with facts, I feel complimented - You, however will never spend the time to research both fact and individual narratives to try to sort out what happened.

General Joseph Schmid (one of your countrymen and Commanding General of I. Jagdkorps) wrote in April, 1944

"American supremacy over the Reich was consolidated. Fighters began strafing attacks on airfields within Germany"

"The Freedom of Action of the US Fighters over Germany had grave consequences for the RLV. single fighters could not escape; assembly and even landing operations were dealt with"

"Good weather allowed a more favorable strength balance in April than March.
April Sortie USAAF Fighter/RLV = 2.2:1"

Note Soren - that ratio includes ALL USAAF sorties including Penetration and Withdrawal missions with P-47s that LuftFlotte Reich did NOT have to battle over Germany.

"US free Jagden added to the strain on RLV aircrews. Inexperienced pilots suffered Jagerschreck (fear of Fighters) owing to the realization of their own vulneraility when forced to fly with damage or in bad weather. This led to pre-mature bailouts."

"American freie Jagden hampered assembly, which had to find areas away from probable US operating Zone. The time available for combat was thus limited"

Schmid " The German AIR FORCE vs. teh Allies on the West 1943-1945" USAFHRA K113 107-158-160 v3 p.559




First of all, if you think of this day as a direct matchup between the Mustang and the LW fighters you're awfully ignorant cause it was anything but that. The Mustangs were faced by (For the 100th time) heavily armed interceptors who were rightly focused on shooting down as many bombers as possible and then run for home. The only LW who would mix it with the Mustangs were the hugely out-numbered dedicated fighters.

More insults Soren?usually a sign of frustration and a degree of impotence in fact gathering. With you legendary grasp of facts and relevence you seem to have come short once again on the mix of German Fighters that were pitifully equipped, by bad planning I suppose, to 'deal with' those inferior Mustangs

So, help me out. Is your premise that the LW as stupid and desired to sacrifice as many experienced pilot as possible by giving them fighters that had no hope of competing with the Mustangs, knowing full well that was the Allied aircraft they would meet deep into Germany - or???

Secondly, do you have the original German loss records in black white Bill ?

No, I dont. Do you? Secondly my LW victory records are sourced from Les Butler and Tony Woods. What do you use? The USAAF records are Encounter Reports, USAAF 8th AF VCB and finally reduced by USAF85 Study. What do you use?

Well I wouldn't be surprised seeing that it really wasn't such a bad day for the LW if you consider the losses sustained by the USAAF, but despite this pleaase do refer to another incident if you like.

You haven't come close to dealing with this one Soren. You are still woefully short of facts - you keep trying to use mine to rebut me?

Again the LW was usually grossly out-numbered, thats fact Bill, face it.

Soren, Prien and other scholars far more thorough than you have noted the order of battle and the strength of the Luftwaffe on this day. I have cited referenceable sources independent of my perspective to present the USAAF Fighter Stength for 1st Task Force attacking Munich area targets. You have yet to cite ONE independent fact to rebut my thesis. Aren't you a little embarrassed?

Fighting against heavy odds

And I can go on and on and on and on and on...

Actually Soren, you are a.) quite right regarding your talents, and b.) dead on regarding your debate style, c.) your talent for changing subjects when you become confused, and d.) resorting to name calling when you perceive no other choices?

Why is it so hard for you to believe, that through either extremely bad tactics or fighting ability or flying outclassed fighters (has to be one of those I think) that LW was defeated - in context of achieveing and holding air superiority - by the USAAF long Range Fighters in the period 1/1/44 through 5/31/44 in circumstances in which the German Fighter Forces over Germany numerically exceeded the USAAF Fighter Forces over Germany.

No other nation or Air Force was attacking Germany in daylight in that period. No other nation was sending Spitfires or P-47s or Typhoons or MiGs or whatever over Germany then.

Only that handfull of Mustangs and Lightnings.

Go Figure!

 

[Aussie1001]

i will only say that in '44 the jerry was critically short on everything except planes. They had planes but nor the piliots to fly them or the fuel....
If i wrong tell me... i need to know these things...

 

[SoD Stitch]

i will only say that in '44 the jerry was critically short on everything except planes. They had planes but nor the piliots to fly them or the fuel....
If i wrong tell me... i need to know these things...

I would guess you are quite close to the truth . . .

I don't have a lot of numbers figures statistics to back-up my arguments like everyone else seems to, but I do know that, due to Albert Speer, production of almost all armaments reached it's peak in late '44, particularly aircraft. If I remember correctly, under his leadership, production of aircraft quadrupled between 1942 and 1944.

So, you're probably right, Aussie; and I think fuel was the critical factor in all of this. I know there was very little fuel available for training (if any) as it was all being diverted to the front lines, further handicapping the training of the new pilots coming into the LW. Synthetic fuel production was ramping up in '44, but it wasn't able to offset their losses in natural fuel production and refinement. My understanding is that, by the end of the War, the LW was using more synthetic fuel than natural fuel.

 

[drgondog]

i will only say that in '44 the jerry was critically short on everything except planes. They had planes but nor the piliots to fly them or the fuel....
If i wrong tell me... i need to know these things...

Aussie - no need to go humble on us. Whether I am right or wrong in the thesis I have argued with Soren, you can view Nazi Germany as a boat in a stream of time, the waters becoming more turbulent and the boat less capable of surviving - 1944 was a good year to illustrate that.

The German High Command was fighting a desparate battle in the East but actually holding their own in the air. The East air battles were no threat to German industry.

In the west it was a different story. While being pushed back in Italy, Germany was not despartate in the south.. but airpower was relentlessly striking at critical industries. Speer performed magnificently to increase production, de-centralize factories and keep the machine running.

But decentralization made him more vulnerable to transportation attacks and he could not decentralize or harden Misburg, Ploesti etc.

Further, the LW could not afford to lose control of the air or the forthcoming Invasion would be impossible to stop.

So, realizing the greater threat to complete collapse he was able to join in with LW commanders and enable more LW fighter forces to be withdrawn into Germany and the LuftFlotte Reich was born late 1943/early 1944..

The Luftwaffe Fighter Strength based within Germany, in the context of concentration of skilled pilots and equivalent performing fighters was never higher than in January 1944.

Sometime between then and D-Day the Luftwaffe went from control of the air over Germany - inflicting prohibitive losses on the USAAF - to powerless to stop any attack on their industry... and specifically Oil which was the achilles heel. Speer said it best in his book when "he knew the end was in sight on May12, 1944 when the uSAAF started the concentrated oil attack's - or words to that effect.

So, back to the analogy of the river. 1944 was a time stream in which the LW started out strong and ended up gasping for survival. Somewhere in between it went from a position of strength - which are the root of my debate with Soren... to one of relative weakness, not only due to the blows from Long Range Fighters but even in the context of the relative numbers of fighters versus fighters over Germany

Regards,

Bill

 

[Hunter368]

Bill,

Just a question, why are you and Soren debating over the number of fighters vs fighters? It seems pointless and futile.

Without reading pages and pages of your guys debate, what in a nut shell are you both trying to prove or disprove?

Thanks

 

[drgondog]

Bill,

Just a question, why are you and Soren debating over the number of fighters vs fighters? It seems pointless and futile.

Without reading pages and pages of your guys debate, what in a nut shell are you both trying to prove or disprove?

Thanks

Soren postulated a long time ago that the only reason Mustangs were successful was their ability to overwhelm by ratios of 8:1 or "12 to 1".

I simply put out a BS alert and proceeded to give him the order of Battle for the 8th AF (and two 9th AF Mustang units) versus the Single Engine Fighter (and pilot) strength of LuftFlotte Reich - all based in Germany and the principal antagonists of the Mustang and Lightning Groups from 1/1/44 -5/31/44.

In other words I said, say and will say that Mustang units were outnumbered over Germany in that timeframe and that they (primarily) broke the back of LuftFlotte Reich. The Operational dates, the numbers available, the fact that they were spread out to be the ONLY target support, along with three less effective Lightning groups, for 35-40 Bomb Groups.

The very nature of the dispersion and the caution the LW controllers applied by ensuring as many Fighters as possible would be concentrated in one local area where the Mustangs "weren't" made most engagements between the German and Americans one in which the LW had Local numerical superiority!

In other words, Soren expressed beliefs that US technology and pilots could only defeat the Luftwaffe if the US had overwhelming numbers... a not uncommon belief held by more than a few Germans.

Interesting or not I had this same discussion, a respectful one on my part, with Ray Tolliver, Gunther Rall and Adolf Galland at the 1984 Fighter Aces meeting in Tuscon. I didn't position the discussion on the performance merits of the P-51 - only the strategic importance of performance equivalency plus the long range to disrupt German operations. They actually agreed with my thesis once I made it clear I wasn't talking about Allied Fighter strength - only USAAF fighter strength over central and eastern Germany.

It has never been about 'who is a better warrior' or more courageous - simply a matter of requesting respect for a pretty small bunch of guys who took the fight into Germany's home skies and defeated them, often outnumbered.

Each of the facts that I draw his (and your) attention to is published and a matter of record - all by noted historians looking at facts and doing the best they could to interpret them.

Hope this answers your question

 

[syscom3]

I have to agree with drgondog.

Soren cant grasp the fact that in early 1944, the LW was more than capable of having numerical suprememcy at a local level. There was not enough P38's and P51's to cover all of the bombers all of the time.

In the end, it resolves itself into this:
1) Pilot quality was equal early on, untill the lack of trained pilots in the LW became apparent.
2) Fighter quality was even, as long as a skilled pilot kept his aircraft within its optimal performace envelope and waited untill his opponant made a mistake.

and

3) Once the AAF figured out how to get the most out of their P38's and P51's, the LW paid a huge price. The AAF fighters and pilots were good and did the job.

Soren has not proven anything.

 

[comiso90]

>>drgondogI simply put out a BS alert and proceeded to give him the order of Battle for the 8th AF (and two 9th AF Mustang units) versus the Single Engine Fighter (and pilot) strength of LuftFlotte Reich - all based in Germany and the principal antagonists of the Mustang and Lightning Groups from 1/1/44 -5/31/44

Soren made a point that i haven't seen addressed-- I may have missed a rebuttal if there was one. He is distinguishing between "Bomber killer interceptors" and "Fighters". In his opinion it is not fair to lump all single engine aircraft together.

>>SorenFirst of all, if you think of this day as a direct matchup between the Mustang and the LW fighters you're awfully ignorant cause it was anything but that. The Mustangs were faced by (For the 100th time) heavily armed interceptors who were rightly focused on shooting down as many bombers as possible and then run for home. The only LW who would mix it with the Mustangs were the hugely out-numbered dedicated fighters.

The mission and configuration of the aircraft merits consideration.

 

[Hunter368]

Well I sort of agree with you both Bill and Soren.

P-51's did do a great job vs LW and it was not just b/c numbers advantage. Thats where I agree with you 100%.

Perhaps where I not so much agree with Soren so much as I just have a little different slant on it then him. I do not believe in any nation having naturally better born warriors then anyone else (I am not saying Soren believes this or not).

Yes during that period LW had more fighters (single engine) over Germany. But they were still did not have enough fighters to get the job done to stop USAF. Here were the problems (which I am just posting not b/c you don't know this already, not b/c I am trying to be difficult......but to make a list for myself to make sure it makes sense to me).

1) Despite radar, LW still had to successfully get many fighters into the air zone where the bombers were to shoot them down.....not easy. Needed a disproportinal large number of fighters to achieve success. There were many German fighter groups that missed their assignments b/c they never were able to find them.

2) Then to successfully inflict enough damage on a bomber box or stream to disrupt the attack or punish the attacking force so she would not able to attack again for some time.....not easy. Again a disproportinal large number of fighters were needed to be successful. This is all assuming there still is no USAF fighter escort.

3) Many of the LW single seat fighters were not great vs large 4 engine bombers that could absorb massive damage and return fire as good or better then she got. While the ME 109 of all types were good fighters through out the war......they were better suited for fighter vs fighter battles. They were not "great" at fighter vs large heavily armed and armored 4 engine bombers. Sure LW added armor and guns to the 109 to help vs bombers but that worked in reverse vs US fighters. Don't get me wrong I love and I mean love the 109, but it was being asked to do something that it was not designed to do. The FW 190 did a better job overall vs bombers but was available in fewer numbers then the 109.

4) By 1943 even Erich Hartmann said he noticed a decline in LW pilot quality being sent to the front as replacements. Shortened training times, too little fuel to train and increasing harder to find safe air space to train newbies all hurt new LW pilots quality (on average).

5) While during this period the USAF was just starting to increase the pressure on Germany, Germany's air defenses were just starting to get really built up also. Yes they were good before but they increased a great deal over the next 6-8 months. (including AA, radar, practice vs large day light attacks the likes the LW had never seen before, procedures, fighter tactics vs 4 engine bombers, etc etc)

6) The USAF choose where to attack and when to attack, its always harder to react to a attack then to attack. IMO

7) The USAF was able to concentrate its attacking forces to take greatest advantage of the numbers it had available to it. It also used feint attacks to disperse defending LW fighters. Well done.

8 ) At this point in the war USAF pilots were receiving more training then LW pilots. They on average were better prepared for what was to come during their first few engagements. As many aces have said, surviving that first few battles is the key. Average USAF pilots at this point were as good or better then any pilots in the world.

9) The P-51 was a equal match on average to the 109 or 190 when talking real battle field conditions over Germany.

10) Just like other points in the war, with other nations.....Germany was defending at this point. Her fighters were to engage enemy bombers and avoid enemy fighters whenever possible. This will lead to a hand full of allied bombers shot down, very very few allied fighters.......vs 20-30 LW often shot down. Looks bad on paper for the LW but in reality it was their only choice.

I could keep going but I don't see it as being needed. I am not pro German or pro USA.........

Germany did a great job considering all the factors above and more.

USAF did a great job considering she had fewer fighters.

Both did a great job......I don't get involved in biased arguments. Germany failed over all, USAF succeeded overall.......the end. Allies succeeded more then they failed during the war or they would of lost the war. Numbers alone do not win wars, the side who commits the fewest errors wins most times.

There is my attempt at being unbiased, right or wrong thats my $0.02. 8)

IMHO Hunter

 

[comiso90]

6) The USAF choose where to attack and when to attack, its always harder to react to a attack then to attack.

I like that Hunter..

That sounds like something Yogi Berra would say! I wanna put it on a T-shirt