Best WWII Air-Force

[The Basket]

I would argue against the Luftwaffe...especially after June 1941.

It was too small and production too limited for the wars that they found themselves in.

Not enough aircraft, not enough new types of aircraft, Idiots in High Command, Couldn't fill roles with the aircraft they had. No maritime long range capabilty or long range bomber or escort fighter to go with it.

It was very good in the blitzkrieg tactical role, but too small for the war of attrition on the eastern front and over the skies of Germany later on.

You could argue that the Luftwaffe was a first class air power that was not designed or had the full capabilty to fight the wars it did. But whose fault was that?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It was too small and production too limited for the wars that they found themselves in.

Sorry but there you are wrong. The Luftwaffe was actually very large. Production of aircraft actually increased throughout the years and even at the end of the war.

Germany was producing massive amounts of aircraft the the Luftwaffe never had a lack of aircraft and equipment. It lacked in fuel...

Not enough aircraft,

Wrong again...

Germany had plenty of aircraft. Hell just look at the Bf 109 which was the most produced aircraft in history if I recall.

not enough new types of aircraft,

Wrong again...

Germany had plenty of new types of aircraft.

What new types are you talking about?

Idiots in High Command, Couldn't fill roles with the aircraft they had.

While I agree there were idiots in High Command, the Luftwaffe never had a problem filling roles with the aircraft they had. Below are just a few and the main ones.

Fighters/Interceptors: Fw 190, Bf 109, Bf 110, Me 262, Me 163, Ta 152

Ground Attack/Dive Bomber: Ju 87, Hs 123, Hs 129

Bomber: Ju 88, Ju 188, He 111, He 177 (granted was not that great of an aircraft), Ar 234

Transport: Ju 52, Ar 232, Go 244, Ju 290, Me 323

Maritime Patrol: Fw 200, Bv 138, Bv 222, Bv 238, Do 18, Do 24, Do 26, He 115

No maritime long range capabilty

Sorry Wrong again....

Bv 138: 4,023km (2,500 miles)
Ha 139: 3,075 miles (4948km)
Bv 222: 6100km (3,790 mph)
Bv 238: 3,790 miles (6100km)
Do 18: 2,175 miles (3,500km)
Do 24: 2,950 miles (4750km)
Do 26: 7100 km (4,412 miles)
Fw 200: 2,760 miles (4,440 km)

or long range bomber or escort fighter to go with it.

Agreed

However it was not for lack of trying. They had plenty of designs that were promising and were flying several.

I will give you this though because in all effect Germany did not have a strategic Bombing force.

It was very good in the blitzkrieg tactical role, but too small for the war of attrition on the eastern front and over the skies of Germany later on.

Actually the Luftwaffe was quite successful on the Eastern Front even until Wars end.

 

[Aussie1001]

well not succesfull really they did lose....
although it was poor tactics that did it....

 

[Hop]

Hard to say the Luftwaffe had "plenty" of aircraft.

Williamson Murray gives some figures to show how the Luftwaffe failed to expand during the war.

In September 1939 they had 2,916 combat aircraft.

Strength increased until the battle of France, at which point they had 3,692 combat aircraft.

It fell rapidly during the summer and autumn of 1940, before increasing again to 3,853 aircraft in March 1941.

In March 1942 the total had fallen to just 2,876, lower than the level they had begun the war with, and well below peak strength.

At the end of June 1940 the Luftwaffe had 1,464 fighters, 1,808 bombers.
At the end of Aug 1943 they had 1,581 fighters, 1,134 bombers.

The Luftwaffe, unlike other air forces, basically failed to expand during the war. Murray sums it up:

A comparison of the figures for
May 1940 and January 1944 are most instructive ; at the start of the French
campaign, the Luftwaffe possessed 1,369 fighters and 1,758 bombers; over three
and one-half years later, the Germans possessed only 1,561 fighters and 1,604
bombers

 

[renrich]

A point that I see all of you are missing in evaluating the best air force although it was mentioned early in the thread is that US Air Force presumerably includes the US Navy and Marine Air Forces. When you add in their capabilities(spring of 1942, Coral Sea, June, 1942, Midway) the scale is even more heavily weighted for the US Forces. In fact the US Navy and Marine Air was more effective and larger than some of National Airforces listed at the top.

 

[drgondog]

A point that I see all of you are missing in evaluating the best air force although it was mentioned early in the thread is that US Air Force presumerably includes the US Navy and Marine Air Forces. When you add in their capabilities(spring of 1942, Coral Sea, June, 1942, Midway) the scale is even more heavily weighted for the US Forces. In fact the US Navy and Marine Air was more effective and larger than some of National Airforces listed at the top.

Ahem - I know I frequently put you to sleep but in this mornings posts I said

"And unlike others I also count a VERY strong Naval/USMC sea based airpower as an added part of the equation.. but would state that USAAF could stand alone in the judgment.

The only aspect of air combat that the USAAF did not excell in was strategic operations at night in a heavily defended target spectrum. No airforce executed like RAF/RCAF in that role."

And you and several others including myself were talking about this all along the thread in one way or another..

 

[pbfoot]

A point that I see all of you are missing in evaluating the best air force although it was mentioned early in the thread is that US Air Force presumerably includes the US Navy and Marine Air Forces. When you add in their capabilities(spring of 1942, Coral Sea, June, 1942, Midway) the scale is even more heavily weighted for the US Forces. In fact the US Navy and Marine Air was more effective and larger than some of National Airforces listed at the top.

On the first page of this thread i made this statement:

"Being as impartial as i can I believe the USAAF/USN were the best air arms of WW2 I really can't see any argument to point towards any other air arm. Numbers Quality and Logistics made them the winning combination"

now if we are just counting ETO/MTO I would switch to the RAF/Commonwealth combo although they didn't have the daylight strategic component the USAAC didn't have the night component and over the years the night factor has proven to be more effective

 

[Udet]

Ok, while travelling i can have some time to sniff around here; took me some 15 minutes to re-read this thread from the onset; i already had made some comments here.

It is clear, the best was the USAAF, but with the necessary remarks for sure.

There is no doubt the arrival of the USAAF in Europe was the factor that made the grass look greener for the allied cause.

Fine planes, fine pilots, fine weapons, good ground support crews and logistics.

Without the 8th and 15th Air Forces, any effort made by the Brits to carry on with the war all by themselves in the west would have lead nowhere.

Try to think of the RAF facing 2 or more large enemy air forces all by themselves...they do not last a weekend.

Now, the Mustang...sure, a fine aircraft manned by very well trained pilots; overhyped to some extent for sure, since it was not necessarily the ultimate marvel to fly the unfriendly skies.

Nobody will deny for sure that this particular fighter made an important contribution, perhaps essential, to get the job done. What type of job? Simple: cut bomber losses. "Seeking and destroying" the Luftwaffe wherever it could be found came later. There lies the importance of the P-51.

Now, was it that technically and technologically superior? I do not think so.

There are times when i try to substantiate this assertion by taking a closer look to battlefield facts. Sure German losses were very high, but so where those endured by the USAAF.

As an hypothetical example, the loss of 50 German fighter pilots on a single day (too many losses!), would imply for the USAAF the loss of at least two or three or four times the German number: 200 pilots and airmen lost.

I have said this since my first days as a member of this honorable place: the argument babbled by the allies, that classical song with such charming rythm and pace composed and arranged during those over extended parties at bars, plenty of beer, bourbon and nuts: "German losses could not be properly replaced, while ours would be replaced in a matter of hours". Illiterate hogwash.

While German losses could have a more profound impact in the ranks of the Luftwaffe, referring to the ability to replace lost/crippled pilots with the same number of properly trained ones, the losses the USAAF had to swallow were not less terrible in their impact, at all.

Those who know me will find this part of my speech quite familiar: unlike the VVS guys, who were serving a regime who did not care AT ALL about their losses, the type of political system to which the USAAF guys were serving is far more sensitive to high losses.

The war ended pretty much when it had to end for the USAAF; they could not go on bearing such losses indifinitely.

If the Mustang had made the superb out-of-this-world craft depicted here and there, then 0% of the Bf 109 G-6/R6 bomber destroyers it confronted would have made it back to base.

Overall, ~70% of those G-6/R6s made it back to base after engaging the enemy, a fact the includes the fierce battles against the escorts of the bombers they tried to hunt down.

Sure that ~30% losses is a critical factor, and also means losing the war in the air.

Also my guncamera collection which was acquired in the under-world of the black markets of Moscow has taught me important lessons regarding the alleged "superb-unmatched" technical capabilities of the P-51.

Featuring some 85 shots of Mustangs getting barbecued -pilot included- by the guns and cannons of Bf 109s and Fw 190s -and possibly a Me 262- i am more than convinced that putting aside bouncing the enemy (neither knew nor saw what killed him), there were so many Mustang pilots that tried to get the best out of their planes and found themselves uncapable to shake off the German boy pursuing them.

The vast majority of those P-51s getting shot down are P-51 D´s, you know German pilots tried to get as close as possible to ensure a kill, an indication most of the material came from German pilots flying during late 1944 and 1945.

As shown on Kurfurst´s excellent webpages, speed was marginally affected due to fitting the 109s with the MG 151/20 cannons under the wings, with a more considerable -negative- impact regarding manouverability of the craft.


Ahhh...after several months without any WW2 reading, i just finished one. As i type here, the book should be in some of those hi-tech waste disposal facilities not far from Hong Kong.

I am referring to John Manrho´s "Bodenplatte: The Luftwaffe´s Last Hope"....what a piece of unholy fiendish crap that book is.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...lots of studio photos of German pilots in their late teens displaying a legend that reads more or less as follows: "Ufz. Karl Heinz Reichsmann, 18 years of old; he would not survive Bodenplatte".

He "would not" survive Bondenplatte? Hilarious. A prophet that predicts events once they have happened and are known to the public.

Yes, German losses were high, but also put the photos of those allied pilots who "would not survive" Bodenplatte. Include photos of the German pilots being greeted by their ground crews and staffel mates upon their return from their combat missions during Bodenplatte and not only lots and lots of photos of U.S. anti-aicraft crews smling and laughing wildly because theiy shot down some enemy planes during the fight.

I am tired of the type of approach displayed by authors like this.

And i am not into pornography, at all...and this author seems to be attracted to it; apart from finding a turn on in publishing photos of young German guys who "would not" survive the day, there is some photo showing a German pilot who got shot and killed -apparently by U.S. soldiers- after having emergency landed his damaged Bf 109; the body of the German pilot is partially lying on the wing of his BF 109, surrounded by very honorable U.S. soldiers with huge smiles on their faces, delighted by the view of the dead german; also this happy U.S. soldiers removed the combat boots of the dead pilot, possibly to have them as trophy upon their return to their homes.

Like the bad author this guy is, he failed to explain why was it that particular German pilot was shot and killed by U.S. soldiers when leaving his cockpit once on the ground.

Finally, for those who do not know me, i am not "anti-American", at all. Apart from my surfing beaches, and isolated islands in the south pacific it is one of my favorite places. Ahhhhhh...have you eaten at Sullivan´s? I´ve been there several times for dinner...at Chicago and Tucson...great atmosphere, great food, order the oysters on the half shell and the Ahi tuna steak...also they have very nice waitresses...the manager of the Tucson Sullivan´s started to hate me, because all his waitresses wanted to have my table, it was a mess; not my fault being perfect though; i am used to female harrasment. (i am humble, when i say i am perfect it is just that; i just wish a was super-perfect).

 

[syscom3]

....
now if we are just counting ETO/MTO I would switch to the RAF/Commonwealth combo although they didn't have the daylight strategic component the USAAC didn't have the night component and over the years the night factor has proven to be more effective

The 12th and 15th AF was still far bigger than the RAF. And still equipped with the same aircraft as the 8th and 9th and supported by the same industrial plant.

The RAF gets the "plus" for a more effective night fighter, but that alone didn't impact the war.

 

[pbfoot]

Contrary to popular belief size isn't everything . As an airpower was dominant globally but in the ETO/MTO I believe all things considered equal the RAF/Commonwealth combo was the equal. Which one of Air Forces listed would you choose to make a precision raid or do special ops . Taranto, the Dams , Peenemunde, Malta, Tirpitz ,Amiens , Shell House in Copenhagen.

 

[syscom3]

Contrary to popular belief size isn't everything . As an airpower was dominant globally but in the ETO/MTO I believe all things considered equal the RAF/Commonwealth combo was the equal. Which one of Air Forces listed would you choose to make a precision raid or do special ops . Taranto, the Dams , Peenemunde, Malta, Tirpitz ,Amiens , Shell House in Copenhagen.

And which air force would you choose to fly medium bombers off an aircraft carrier.....deliver a nuclear bomb......strike shipping in a well defended harbor 500 miles from base......strike oil refineries 1600 miles from base..... put 5000 bombers (heavy and medium) in the air in a single day...... incinerate 20 square miles of a city in a single night......

 

[SoD Stitch]

Ok, while travelling i can have some time to sniff around here; took me some 15 minutes to re-read this thread from the onset; i already had made some comments here.

It is clear, the best was the USAAF, but with the necessary remarks for sure.

There is no doubt the arrival of the USAAF in Europe was the factor that made the grass look greener for the allied cause.

Fine planes, fine pilots, fine weapons, good ground support crews and logistics.

Without the 8th and 15th Air Forces, any effort made by the Brits to carry on with the war all by themselves in the west would have lead nowhere.

Try to think of the RAF facing 2 or more large enemy air forces all by themselves...they do not last a weekend.

Now, the Mustang...sure, a fine aircraft manned by very well trained pilots; overhyped to some extent for sure, since it was not necessarily the ultimate marvel to fly the unfriendly skies.

Nobody will deny for sure that this particular fighter made an important contribution, perhaps essential, to get the job done. What type of job? Simple: cut bomber losses. "Seeking and destroying" the Luftwaffe wherever it could be found came later. There lies the importance of the P-51.

Now, was it that technically and technologically superior? I do not think so.

There are times when i try to substantiate this assertion by taking a closer look to battlefield facts. Sure German losses were very high, but so where those endured by the USAAF.

As an hypothetical example, the loss of 50 German fighter pilots on a single day (too many losses!), would imply for the USAAF the loss of at least two or three or four times the German number: 200 pilots and airmen lost.

I have said this since my first days as a member of this honorable place: the argument babbled by the allies, that classical song with such charming rythm and pace composed and arranged during those over extended parties at bars, plenty of beer, bourbon and nuts: "German losses could not be properly replaced, while ours would be replaced in a matter of hours". Illiterate hogwash.

While German losses could have a more profound impact in the ranks of the Luftwaffe, referring to the ability to replace lost/crippled pilots with the same number of properly trained ones, the losses the USAAF had to swallow were not less terrible in their impact, at all.

Those who know me will find this part of my speech quite familiar: unlike the VVS guys, who were serving a regime who did not care AT ALL about their losses, the type of political system to which the USAAF guys were serving is far more sensitive to high losses.

The war ended pretty much when it had to end for the USAAF; they could not go on bearing such losses indifinitely.

If the Mustang had made the superb out-of-this-world craft depicted here and there, then 0% of the Bf 109 G-6/R6 bomber destroyers it confronted would have made it back to base.

Overall, ~70% of those G-6/R6s made it back to base after engaging the enemy, a fact the includes the fierce battles against the escorts of the bombers they tried to hunt down.

Sure that ~30% losses is a critical factor, and also means losing the war in the air.

Also my guncamera collection which was acquired in the under-world of the black markets of Moscow has taught me important lessons regarding the alleged "superb-unmatched" technical capabilities of the P-51.

Featuring some 85 shots of Mustangs getting barbecued -pilot included- by the guns and cannons of Bf 109s and Fw 190s -and possibly a Me 262- i am more than convinced that putting aside bouncing the enemy (neither knew nor saw what killed him), there were so many Mustang pilots that tried to get the best out of their planes and found themselves uncapable to shake off the German boy pursuing them.

The vast majority of those P-51s getting shot down are P-51 D´s, you know German pilots tried to get as close as possible to ensure a kill, an indication most of the material came from German pilots flying during late 1944 and 1945.

As shown on Kurfurst´s excellent webpages, speed was marginally affected due to fitting the 109s with the MG 151/20 cannons under the wings, with a more considerable -negative- impact regarding manouverability of the craft.


Ahhh...after several months without any WW2 reading, i just finished one. As i type here, the book should be in some of those hi-tech waste disposal facilities not far from Hong Kong.

I am referring to John Manrho´s "Bodenplatte: The Luftwaffe´s Last Hope"....what a piece of unholy fiendish crap that book is.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...lots of studio photos of German pilots in their late teens displaying a legend that reads more or less as follows: "Ufz. Karl Heinz Reichsmann, 18 years of old; he would not survive Bodenplatte".

He "would not" survive Bondenplatte? Hilarious. A prophet that predicts events once they have happened and are known to the public.

Yes, German losses were high, but also put the photos of those allied pilots who "would not survive" Bodenplatte. Include photos of the German pilots being greeted by their ground crews and staffel mates upon their return from their combat missions during Bodenplatte and not only lots and lots of photos of U.S. anti-aicraft crews smling and laughing wildly because theiy shot down some enemy planes during the fight.

I am tired of the type of approach displayed by authors like this.

And i am not into pornography, at all...and this author seems to be attracted to it; apart from finding a turn on in publishing photos of young German guys who "would not" survive the day, there is some photo showing a German pilot who got shot and killed -apparently by U.S. soldiers- after having emergency landed his damaged Bf 109; the body of the German pilot is partially lying on the wing of his BF 109, surrounded by very honorable U.S. soldiers with huge smiles on their faces, delighted by the view of the dead german; also this happy U.S. soldiers removed the combat boots of the dead pilot, possibly to have them as trophy upon their return to their homes.

Like the bad author this guy is, he failed to explain why was it that particular German pilot was shot and killed by U.S. soldiers when leaving his cockpit once on the ground.

Finally, for those who do not know me, i am not "anti-American", at all. Apart from my surfing beaches, and isolated islands in the south pacific it is one of my favorite places. Ahhhhhh...have you eaten at Sullivan´s? I´ve been there several times for dinner...at Chicago and Tucson...great atmosphere, great food, order the oysters on the half shell and the Ahi tuna steak...also they have very nice waitresses...the manager of the Tucson Sullivan´s started to hate me, because all his waitresses wanted to have my table, it was a mess; not my fault being perfect though; i am used to female harrasment. (i am humble, when i say i am perfect it is just that; i just wish a was super-perfect).

I like you, Udet, though some may think you pompous . . . I believe you have a very balanced view of the War, neither too cynical, nor too romantic. And, yes, I've eaten at Sullivan's in Tucson (breakfast, actually), but that was a long time ago. Didn't have the oysters, though; had a Denver omelette, if I recall rightly.

Yes, a messy business war is . . . mistakes and tragedies on both sides, combined with great heroism and sacrifice.

Anyway, I like your attitude; I often feel the same way. Keep up the good work, trying to talk some sense into those whose perception of the War is sometimes skewed one way or the other.

And, who knows? Maybe we'll see each other at Sullivan's some night, you never know . . .

 

[The Basket]

Adler

WW2 was about production. About 33,000 Bf 109s were made and god knows how many were lost due to landing accidents. How many Yaks or Las were built? P-51s, P-47s or Spitfires?

Then the number of Gustavs becones small.

They had to bodge the Fw 200 and didn't have the Ural bomber when they needed it. They were also short on transports.

They couldn't outproduce the enemies they faced. And therefore lost. And put their faith in superweapons that didn't do the biz.

The USAAC power is based on sheer size and financial muscle. They had the industrial capabilty to build in huge numbers anything. I would say aircraft for aircraft the RAF matched the USAAC. But our industrial capacity was nowhere near as powerful and postwar was even worse.

 

[plan_D]

You're right that fighters carry the bombers to their destination to make history, drgondog. But I think you can appreciate that the escort fighters are an obstacle for the defending interceptors, not the target. The most important aircraft in the formation is the bomber, there's no point in the clearing the skies if you're not going to use it. Just to make myself clear, I recognise the importance of every aircraft type and, yes, I recognise the importance of the long-range escort fighters ... but in the end, all is for nought without bombers.

Overall, the RAF I rate as second simply because it performed every role of an airforce - the Luftwaffe never had an effective strategic component. People could argue all day about how the RAF bomber offensive had little effect, but the RAF had the ability to drop that tonnage - the Luftwaffe never did. Making the RAF second and the Luftwaffe third - even if you think the Bf 109 is superior to Spitfire.

Airforce by year is completely different as the Luftwaffe held the gold in 1939, 1940 and 1941. The RAF didn't have the equipment or training for strategic and tactical bombing until late 1941.

 

[drgondog]

You're right that fighters carry the bombers to their destination to make history, drgondog. But I think you can appreciate that the escort fighters are an obstacle for the defending interceptors, not the target. The most important aircraft in the formation is the bomber, there's no point in the clearing the skies if you're not going to use it. Just to make myself clear, I recognise the importance of every aircraft type and, yes, I recognise the importance of the long-range escort fighters ... but in the end, all is for nought without bombers.

Overall, the RAF I rate as second simply because it performed every role of an airforce - the Luftwaffe never had an effective strategic component. People could argue all day about how the RAF bomber offensive had little effect, but the RAF had the ability to drop that tonnage - the Luftwaffe never did. Making the RAF second and the Luftwaffe third - even if you think the Bf 109 is superior to Spitfire.

Airforce by year is completely different as the Luftwaffe held the gold in 1939, 1940 and 1941. The RAF didn't have the equipment or training for strategic and tactical bombing until late 1941.

I agree all your points - no nit picking of any of your points or thesis.

I have tried to make a point several times in this thread that against the USSAF's the Luftwaffe was tenacious and crafty, particularly when outnumbered - often positioning a concentrated strike force at a point vacant of escorting fighters, with devastaing effect - or in some cases simply overwhelm escorted formations with same result.

The prime reason for escort fighters was to GREATLY reduce bomber crew losses, and permit the successful attacks on crital industries... but fighters were never going to influence the war to the degree of bombers.



Regards,

Bill

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Adler

WW2 was about production. About 33,000 Bf 109s were made and god knows how many were lost due to landing accidents. How many Yaks or Las were built? P-51s, P-47s or Spitfires?

Then the number of Gustavs becones small.

They had to bodge the Fw 200 and didn't have the Ural bomber when they needed it. They were also short on transports.

They couldn't outproduce the enemies they faced. And therefore lost. And put their faith in superweapons that didn't do the biz.

Agreed but to say they did not have eneogh aircraft or the ability to produce aircraft is not true.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think just about everyone (except those that are confused and think the Luftwaffe was the best airforce) can agree that the Luftwaffes major mistake was not having a strategic bomber force in the early parts of the war.

Late in the war it was too late for the Luftwaffe to start a program. They needed fighters and by that point it was too late.

 

[ccheese]

I think Germany dabbled in too much experimentation. How about the
great big glider they finally put six engines on ? The Komet was another.
Had this "dabbling" gone into a good four engine bomber, the outcome may
have been different. They used the Condor for anti-shipping.... a waste.

Of course, hindsight being 20/20, we could debate this for years.

Charles

 

[ToughOmbre]

I think Germany dabbled in too much experimentation. How about the
great big glider they finally put six engines on ? The Komet was another.
Had this "dabbling" gone into a good four engine bomber, the outcome may
have been different. They used the Condor for anti-shipping.... a waste.

Very true...

Lot's of wasted resources on "Wonder Weapons", many of which never got off the drawing boards, or could be classified as "too little, too late". Also, many bad decisions by Hitler, which were good decisions from our point of view.

TO

 

[drgondog]

It is clear, the best was the USAAF, but with the necessary remarks for sure.

There is no doubt the arrival of the USAAF in Europe was the factor that made the grass look greener for the allied cause.


Now, the Mustang...sure, a fine aircraft manned by very well trained pilots; overhyped to some extent for sure, since it was not necessarily the ultimate marvel to fly the unfriendly skies.

Nobody will deny for sure that this particular fighter made an important contribution, perhaps essential, to get the job done. What type of job? Simple: cut bomber losses. "Seeking and destroying" the Luftwaffe wherever it could be found came later. There lies the importance of the P-51.

I agree your comments here but would add some of my own

I think "The order" was issued by Doolittle on January 11,1944 which co-incided with the Pioneer Mustang becoming officially operational in long range escort role - so actually the strategy coincided approximately with the introduction of the P-51B in ETO. Clearly the Capability to Seek and Destroy was somewhat limited - but setting the tone that both escort AND seeking out the Luftwaffe had equal priority

Now, was it that technically and technologically superior? I do not think so.

This has been debated ad nausem. It was a superb Fighter with advanced capabilities in air combat over Germay. Better in some cases, equivalent in others and inferior in a few - but possesing those qualities East of Berlin or West of Hannover - wherever it encountered German fighters.

Was it technically superior at bomber escort altitudes - pilot skill equivalent - over Me109G's and Fw 190 A's? Yes.

At low and medium altitudes? in some ways yes others no. The Fw190 would always outroll the 51 and turn with it, and the 109 would out turn it at medium to low speed and certainly climb as well or better in this regime

What is really important is the equivalency to slight superiority of the P-51 in 1944, combined with increasing populations of good to excellent fighter pilots flying them, combined with restrictive Command policies of Luftwaffe - enabling relatively small numbers to turn the control of air over Germany to US

To emphasize a point - it was not the best dogfighter in the world, not even in the ETO, not even in the US arsenal (i.e F4U, F8F)

While German losses could have a more profound impact in the ranks of the Luftwaffe, referring to the ability to replace lost/crippled pilots with the same number of properly trained ones, the losses the USAAF had to swallow were not less terrible in their impact, at all.

This is very true in fall of 1943 and winter 1943/1944. In all the 8th AF losses were roughly equivalent to US losses in Battle of Bulge - majority of which occurred before D-Day. The 8th AF losses during WWII were close to USMC to put the fury of that fight in perspective. However, the greatest bomber (and bomber crew) losses occurred in that period of 8/43 to 5/44.

The greatest fighter losses (majority of POW/KIA/MIA) occurred after D-Day due primarily to German flak, not fighters.

The war ended pretty much when it had to end for the USAAF; they could not go on bearing such losses indifinitely.

Very debateable for spring 1945. Arguable for scenario in which the Mustang failed and losses experienced through May, 1944 continued apace with no let up - that would have posed serious political consequences and may have forced USAAF to switch to night bombing.

The failure to wrest control of German air space coupled with determination to take losses would have serious consequences. But remember the US only mobiled some 14 million of its 140 Million plus population and cut off production of most equipment in late 1944 - it had huge reserves left given political will

If the Mustang had made the superb out-of-this-world craft depicted here and there, then 0% of the Bf 109 G-6/R6 bomber destroyers it confronted would have made it back to base.

You are straying a wee bit into the twilight zone here. That would suppose that the Mustang was always in sufficient strength in the right place to a.) blunt the attack, b.) have the numbers to keep track of surviving 109s in good weather or bad, c.) chase all of them until the caughts up, etc. There were NEVER enough Mustangs to fit that scenario

The converse comment would be if the 109D was such a great fighter it would have always prevailed, or Me 262, etc.??

Overall, ~70% of those G-6/R6s made it back to base after engaging the enemy, a fact the includes the fierce battles against the escorts of the bombers they tried to hunt down.

Sure that ~30% losses is a critical factor, and also means losing the war in the air.

Also my guncamera collection which was acquired in the under-world of the black markets of Moscow has taught me important lessons regarding the alleged "superb-unmatched" technical capabilities of the P-51.

Again a little over the top - the implication is that all the gun camera flim showing me 262s out of the air should teach you important lessons regarding the technical qualities of the Me262?? or Fw190. The world's finest, or great, or simply excellent sword is only as good as the wielder.

Featuring some 85 shots of Mustangs getting barbecued -pilot included- by the guns and cannons of Bf 109s and Fw 190s -and possibly a Me 262- i am more than convinced that putting aside bouncing the enemy (neither knew nor saw what killed him), there were so many Mustang pilots that tried to get the best out of their planes and found themselves uncapable to shake off the German boy pursuing them.

Ditto LW pilots in far greater numbers than the Mustang, with the uncountable examples of Fw190's (including D's) and 109s being out turned, or out climbed, deflection attained.. and aircraft blowing up - and the point is? - in both cases soembody was out flown and paid a terrible price

The vast majority of those P-51s getting shot down are P-51 D´s, you know German pilots tried to get as close as possible to ensure a kill, an indication most of the material came from German pilots flying during late 1944 and 1945.
The vast majority of the film examples perhaps, but the D's arrived in late May and June 1944 not late 1944. For my father's group, the ratio of 51D to 51B in September was probably 5:1, in December probably 10:1.

The 355th FG isn't particularly unique but it lost exactly 9 Mustangs and pilots to 'Unknown" or "confirmed air to air" or "collided with debris from destroyed German fighter" after June 7, 1944 (when it lost three to JG11). Prior to June 8 it lost 30. The same statistics for flak is 65 after June 7, 23 prior.

Actually 85 P-51s might represent the sum of nearly ALL the USAAF MUstangs shot down in Dec 1944 -VE Day period. It won't be much more than that, possibly double but I would have to check

You could also.

Kent Miller did a very good job of compiling awards and losses for 8th Fighter Command during WWII. There are errors in it but given the magnitude of the effort it is well done. I used that as a basis to analyze all the Fighter Groups with respect to scores, losses/types of losses to rank each group in 'air to air' ratios, efficiency in context of number of German a/c destroyed per mission, etc. When I did my own analysis of his loss records, any place he recorded an 'unknown' where German fighters were present I chose to record as 'air to air combat loss' rather than skew the losses too low against the LW.

You may not be suprised but the 56th FG (in P-47s) had the best air to air ratio closely followed by 357th FG and 354th FG (in P-51s) at nearly 12:1. The worst is about 2:1

The awards are based on USAF 85 and the losses based on MACR's. Overclaiming and awards are always a problem (for all air forces) but this is best historical approach..

As shown on Kurfurst´s excellent webpages, speed was marginally affected due to fitting the 109s with the MG 151/20 cannons under the wings, with a more considerable -negative- impact regarding manouverability of the craft.

Yes, and many Mustangs were handicapped with nearly full fuselage tank or wing cells, depending on the timing of combat.. so you fight or flee, depending on your circumstances, right??? 109's so equipped are at a disadvantage in an even fight - true. Is this posed as an excuse, or explanation of callous approach by LW high command regarding the lives of their fighter pilots against a 'now superior' fighter?

I have been researching many of the Gruppe's in the March-May 1944 timeframe to try to get a feel for the numbers/proportions of 109s encumbered this way.

How would you know, for example, which of I./JG3's 109G-5 or -6's were equipped with the underwing gun pods in April 1994 from the following tables? Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, I./JG3

I gotta admit, Udet, even when I was young and good looking, hordes of waitresses never fought over me.. I had to seek them out one at a time.