Bf-109 vs Spitfire vs Fw-190 vs P-51

With regard to "intellectual exercise" I was referring to this statement....Too many posters here think the protagonists in a war are involved in an intellectual debate...

With regard to my respose to your "how many sopwityh camels can a eurofighter shoot down"......I drew the conclusion, perhaps incorrectly that by referring to the "eurfighter - an aircraft conceived to shoot down soviet aircraft primarily, you were drawing a parrallel for the Germans versus the Soviets.


If you are not referring to the Soviets with your "sopwith camel" argument, then who do you thinik are flying the equivalent of sopwith camels

Finally, I dont have any flying experience, but I do have nearly six years experience in tactical warfare operations, backed up by some time in the field. My knowledge is book knowledge, but since the war that is mostly how strategy and tactics are worked out. Most modern COs hate officers who try to "fly" by the seat of their pants. They want well thought out solutions, and that generally means looking at the theory in a lot of detail

drgondog said:

Claidmore and Colin have pretty well summed up the debate points..

John you seem to launch into a lot of diverse subjects and time frames without pausing to put each of your comments into context.

Lets take the one above. First of all, with respect to JG7 in March 1945.

In the last several months of the war the LW was in fact severly outnumbered by the 8th AF alone. Having said that the sky is a very large place and the various bomb divisions were tasked to bomb targets all over eastern and southern Germany. Until the point at which the Bomb divisions (1st, 2nd and 3rd) diverged, the bomber stream was 60 to 100 miles long. At this time in the war the 8th FC would typically send one Fighter Group to sweep out in front of one of the Divisions, sometimes two while keeping two to three Fighter Groups in escort.

Broken down, there are now several concentrated formations of fighters arrayed in a proximity to the Bomb Division.

Two 50+ numbers of Mustangs sweeping 20-50 miles out in front perhaps 20-40 miles from each other, and three more Formations of 50+ covering a 20-30 mile bomber stream of one bomb division.

So a battle formation of JG7 Me 262s would seek unescorted boxes in that 20-30 mile length and attack. The bombers would call for help and 8th AF (or 15th AF) or whatever, would converge.

The Me 262 at altitude would always be in a tactical position to then continue to press the attack or speed away to fight another day.

Summary - no Luftwaffe formation attacking a bomb wing (within the Division bomber stream) ever had to engage more than one to possibly two 8th AF fighter groups - unless they stayed to fight to the finish - which they never did, trying to conserve their strength.

In other words, JG7 was likely attacking one Wing of two bomber groups - perhaps 54 B-17s or B-24s - escorted or not by one Fighter Group of 30 to 60 Mustangs (or P-47s in the case of the 56th FG in March 1945). The rest of the 8th AF combat units were way out in front or behind the action.

That is why the claims that 'we were attacking a force of 1200 bombers and 600 fighters' is analogous to saying the attack on the Battle of the Bulge was taking on the entire Allied command... a little 'overstated'.

I'll get back to you on some of your other comments.

Click to expand...

someone questioned whether 600 escorts were ever sent so I showed some evidence.....Now by answering a query as to my knowledge I am launching into diverse subjects. 37 jets against 1200 bombers with 600 escorts have no chance....even if they took ot 10 USAAF planes for 3 losses they made no impact. I didnt say they were attacking 1200 bombers with 600 fighters the luftwaffe did....sadly they didnt have you to correct them in their errors. You can talk about boxes and bomber streams until you go blue in the face 37 against 600 escorts leaves the luftwaffe no chance at all. And if you want to talk about "facts" dont use terms like perhaps and likely....it was reported as 1200 with 600 escorts and thats what it is it is a FACT. You dont like such facts because you want to believe it was a close fight

parsifal said:

With regard to "intellectual exercise" I was referring to this statement....Too many posters here think the protagonists in a war are involved in an intellectual debate...

With regard to my respose to your "how many sopwityh camels can a eurofighter shoot down"......I drew the conclusion, perhaps incorrectly that by referring to the "eurfighter - an aircraft conceived to shoot down soviet aircraft primarily, you were drawing a parrallel for the Germans versus the Soviets.


If you are not referring to the Soviets with your "sopwith camel" argument, then who do you thinik are flying the equivalent of sopwith camels

Finally, I dont have any flying experience, but I do have nearly six years experience in tactical warfare operations, backed up by some time in the field. My knowledge is book knowledge, but since the war that is mostly how strategy and tactics are worked out. Most modern COs hate officers who try to "fly" by the seat of their pants. They want well thought out solutions, and that generally means looking at the theory in a lot of detail

Click to expand...

I was referring to an advanced modern jet against a WW1 fighter, of course a eurofighter is superior but up against 200 of them what would it do alone......similarly the Me262 was a huge leap but was so outnumbered it needed escorts itself to take off and land

well in the sense that the Me262 was a quantum leap in airborne technology I would agree, but as a war winning piece of equipment it just never quite got to demonstrate its prowess. Some of the arguments are true that you present, but there were also technological "kinks" in the design and manufacture processes that were never ironed out during the life of the aircraft. The 262 was pbably the best part of a year away from making any reall contribution to the German war effort, and it came at a voracious cost in the German R&D effort. So, it probably represented great potential and no real effect, with being outnumbered being just one of those reasons for defeat

john brewer said:

errrrrrr......who mentioned the Russians? I didnt
Think you did: recall if you will FOUR fronts...

Who compared any Soviet aircraft with a Sopwith Camel?
What were we thinking? We'll be comparing it with the Eurofighter next...

what was that about intellectual argument
We could give it a try

since the Luftwaffe had no fuel how come the Mustang gets the credit

Click to expand...

We've seen you before. Different name, different country, different person but always the same MO; you dance from pillar to post firing off half-truths and glib 'facts' and then move the argument on before anyone can pin you down on your errors.

You need to do some research.

john brewer said:

...of course a Eurofighter is superior but up against 200 of them what would it do alone...

Click to expand...

What every in-theatre commander can only dream of; get the mission aircraft in, do the mission and then get out completely unopposed. Strike platforms don't tangle with interceptors for kicks, they'd really rather not see them at all.

For fun, you could fly over the top of them on full burner and watch them disintegrate in your wash through the rear-view. It was a poor analogy.

Colin1 said:

We've seen you before. Different name, different country, different person but always the same MO; you dance from pillar to post firing off half-truths and glib 'facts' and then move the argument on before anyone can pin you down on your errors.

You need to do some research.

Click to expand...

you cannot assert that mentioning four fronts is mentioning the russians without some risk of terminological inexactitude

when I show my errors are not errors I am accused of changing the subject, when my research shows what I said is correct I am confronted with a load of "probablys and likelys" and a completely hypothetical scenario by the resident expert which proves him right (cos he says so)

Colin1 said:

What every in-theatre commander can only dream of; get the mission aircraft in, do the mission and then get out completely unopposed. Strike platforms don't tangle with interceptors for kicks, they'd really rather not see them at all.

For fun, you could fly over the top of them on full burner and watch them disintegrate in your wash through the rear-view. It was a poor analogy.

Click to expand...

the analogy is the eurofighter must stop the camels not the other way round (eurofighter is an interceptor and strike aircraft.....you are just being objuse....the mustang escorts used to "mob" me 262s

which four fronts are you referring to if you are not referring to the eastern front. By the end of 1944, I can think of the following....the western front, which by that time had merged with the reich defenses, the Italian front, which by 1945 had few or no Germaan aircraft, and certainly no 262s, the yugoslavian front, which by then was basically a subsidiary of the eastern front, and the norwegian front, which again had no aircraft.

So, without getting so upset about it, which fronts are you referring to in late '44 when you refer to the four fronts, excluding the eastern front?

john brewer said:

You are patronising in the extreme, you shift the context, demanding inane stats to prove what you already know. For example all later single seaters with approx 2000hp were difficult on take off and landing, the Mustang with full fuel was dangerously overloaded even compared to contemporaries yet I am required to provide stats.
Nobody is patronising you and certainly nobody is shifting the context, you're the one holding the reins here, we merely await your next statement and respond accordingly

Every account I have read of the conflicts in Europe...
Can I ask how many is that?

There were literally thousands of bullets flying all over, they would drop like rain
You're a poet, lad

Of the many accounts I have read...
Can I ask again?

there are many pilots who simply say "I was hit" with no idea of who or what hit them yet I must provide stats
It seems there is nothing you won't hide behind. A pilot has no interest in the statistical bad luck involved in having his aircraft hit. Statistics are what he leaves with the station Intelligence Officer, assuming he makes it home to file his combat report. Those statistics, having served their operational relevance, are passed on, declassified, down the generations to historians of varying shades, who use them to corroborate statements. Or not.

The facts and the reality is that by the time the Mustang was introduced Germany was already beaten it wouldn't matter how good or bad it was so long as it had the range.
Probably. You may however be omitting the symbolic importance of putting a top of the line fighter over the German capital, or the time you would be buying the jet programs with fighters more easily knocked down than the P-51 or fighters that simply didn't have the range.

Similarly the Tempest was superior to the Luftwaffe planes it was up against but there were hardly any by late 1944/45 and few pilots who knew how to fly

Click to expand...

If you've consistently remonstrated that the Me262 was so much more advanced than the P-51, why would life be any different for a Tempest pilot?

john brewer said:

terminological inexactitude

Click to expand...

Is he allowed to say that?

JB

Ease up and chill out my friend. You are being castigated because of your lack of respect for people known to have demonstrated flying expertise. These guys are treated with repect around here, as you will, if you just ease off a little.


Treat people as you want to be treated yourself and things will get easier

john brewer said:

since my first post i have been accused of insulting the pilots involved lack of knowledge etc etc etc.....read your own post and you will see that you have shown the P51 was not superior to either a 109 or a 190. Oh and BY the way Mr expert aerodynamacist what is the washout on a mustang a 109 a hurricane or a P 38?

I would have to look each a/c up but all are close to 1 1/2 degrees. If you read all of my posts you will note that in my opinion what made the Mustang superior to them is that it could, when opportunity arose compete with each quite well in THEIR airspace.

You are patronising in the extreme, you shift the context, demanding inane stats to prove what you already know. For example all later single seaters with approx 2000BHP were difficult on take off and landing, the mustang with full fuel was dangerously overloaded even compared to contemporaries yet I am required to provide stats.

The melody that you hear in the background is the sound of a violin playing to sooth your hurt feelings. As noted by all the above posters you manage to irritate everyone in the debate in remarkably short order with your half truths, lack of comprehension regarding the context of 'generally accepted facts'.

As to the Mustang 'difficulties' - it wasn't hard to take off or land with full fuel. You did need to be conservative with respect to early manuevers and airspeed. End of story.

It was more demanding than a aircraft of generally lower Delta payload capability aircraft (like a Spit) with a high hp/torque engine at low speed simply because the rudder was notably less effective until you had enough airspeed for it to be effective. Having said this many a low time or careless pilot have created depressions in the earth when failing to respect the airplane - this can be said of ALL high Hp/high torque fighters during WWII - and beyond.

Every account I have read of the conflicts in europe has referred to friendly fire incedents. There were literally thousands of bullets flying all over, they would drop like rain. Of the many accounts I have read there are many pilots who simply say "I was hit" with no idea of who or what hit them yet I must provide stats.

I believe you created the illusion of having no clue when you launched into a statement that 10% (IIRC) of fighters lost in BoB were due to friendly fire - and several of us put out the BS net to inquire if you could produce facts? So, yes you must provide the stats to lend your statement more credibility.

When considering all losses of a particular type, considering ops losses due to mechanical failure, engine/coolant failure, weather, pilot error, flak, fighters, running out of fuel - then yes you must provide the facts behind your statement or simply say "gee it seems like a good number - why don't you prove me wrong?"

The facts and the reality is that by the time the Mustang P51D was introduced Germany was already beaten it wouldnt matter how good or bad it was so long as it had the range. Similarly the tempest was superior to the luftwaffe planes it was up against but there were hardly any by late 1944/45 and few pilots who knew how to fly.

Oh, really? how many of the 'hardly any' lifted off on Operation Bodenplatte? There is no question that the skill level and experience attrition was severe during summer of 1943 through Normandy Campaign but the LW still had a lot of the Experten alive at the end of the war. The first four months of 1944 took out 1000+ skilled LW fighter pilots and effectively the Mustang wrested air superiority from Germany over Germany.

Click to expand...

By the time the Mustang started ops in ETO, the LW was taking tolls of 10-25% of the 8th AF attacking bomber force over Germany and neither the Spit, nor the P-47 could do one thing to stop them. The P-38 was a.) too few in number, and b.) not ready, reliability wise, to go deep into Germany and provide effective escort. Simply, even Me 110s and Me 210s were effective by simply biding their time until the P-47s turned back at the Frankfurt line.

The LW was forced to draw down approximately 30 Staffels of Me 109s and Fw 190s from the South and the East Fronts to attempt to stem the tide of the losses of pilots due to the Mustangs effectiveness in the first four months of 1944 - and greatly outnumbered the Mustang groups at the point of attack during that period.

Your statement that Germany was already 'beaten' could be said to exist in mid 1942 when Stalingrad, North Africa, the Battle of the Atlantic failures were testimonials.. but Germany was not beaten in the air over Germany until the Mustangs cut their hearts out over their own cities while the RAF and the rest of the USAAF sat on the borders - only able to wish they had the range.

parsifal said:

which four fronts are you referring to if you are not referring to the eastern front. By the end of 1944, I can think of the following....the western front, which by that time had merged with the reich defenses, the Italian front, which by 1945 had few or no Germaan aircraft, and certainly no 262s, the yugoslavian front, which by then was basically a subsidiary of the eastern front, and the norwegian front, which again had no aircraft.

So, without getting so upset about it, which fronts are you referring to in late '44 when you refer to the four fronts, excluding the eastern front?

Click to expand...

Is this a joke....are you saying that there was no eastern front in late 44? that is a wonderful way to win an argument......just choose what you want to ignore


the air war was a front consuming huge amounts of equipment and man hours and was of primary importance
the air war
the western front
the eastern front (you mayt ignore it I cant imagine many would though, maybe they dont have your thirst for "facts")
the southern front
the northern front

in fact germany was completely surrounded and had lost control of the air all over europe. While few planes flew in italy all operations consume fuel which is what brought the whole thing to a halt

john brewer said:

someone questioned whether 600 escorts were ever sent so I showed some evidence.....Now by answering a query as to my knowledge I am launching into diverse subjects. 37 jets against 1200 bombers with 600 escorts have no chance....even if they took ot 10 USAAF planes for 3 losses they made no impact. I didnt say they were attacking 1200 bombers with 600 fighters the luftwaffe did....sadly they didnt have you to correct them in their errors. You can talk about boxes and bomber streams until you go blue in the face 37 against 600 escorts leaves the luftwaffe no chance at all. And if you want to talk about "facts" dont use terms like perhaps and likely....it was reported as 1200 with 600 escorts and thats what it is it is a FACT. You dont like such facts because you want to believe it was a close fight

Click to expand...

John - you didn't understand what was stated.

Nobody questioned that '600' escorts (or 750 more likely) to escort 1200 (or 1500 or 2000) bombers - and if you want some rational fact base go pick out the day in which the JG7 narrative describes and look up in 8th War Diary by Freeman. He will tell you how many 8th AF task forces were up, how many fighters by types, were escorting the task forces comprised of Bomb Divisions and approximately 35 heavy Bomb Groups and 15 Fighter Groups.

What was stated and carefully explained is the '37 Me 262s' did not attack 1800 airplanes in a small volume of space over Germany. Didn't happen, impossible to make happen. The 8th AF didn't/couldn't assemble and fly 1800 ships in one extremely small airspace - even if they wanted the JG7 narrative 'true'.

What was carefully explained, but clear that the attempt failed, is how the 8th AF planned and executed a mission so that great numbers could be put up in a controlled fashion.

Further explanation - it took 60-90 MILES to assmble and fly 36 Bomb Groups to as many as 10 targets on the same mission, and how the escorts would be organized to fly Penetration until they had to turn back, how the Target escort flew to the point where the Penetration escort turned back, and then how the withdrawal escorting forces picked up where the target escorts left the bombers.

Envision that same scenario executed with 5 eacxh fighter groups comprising three Fighter Wings (each tasked to support one Bomb Division). If you do the math for a three divivion, three Task Force effort, there were approximately 5 Fighter Groups to protect 10 Bomber Divisions. The Fighters had to conserve fuel for deep penetrations so at least one of the five guarding to 400+ bombers only escorted from the coast to say, Nordhausen to provide penetration support to Leipzig, then two Mustang groups which did not have to ESS over the inbound bombers picked up the Task Force at Nordhausen and yest another Mustang Group would range all the way past Leipzig to perhaps Dresden to sweep the area for German fighters assembling. At this time the Withdrawal support group (the last of the 5 available for escort duties) was in the air and heading for the R/V point west of Mulhausen.


Do the math. If JG7 attacked any of the 400 1st BD) bombers escorted by the 65th Wing ( 4, 56, 355, 361 and 479FG) they could expect to run into ONE fighter group inbound to Nordhause, TWO fighter groups between Nordhausen/target and Mulhausen, ONE fighter Group east of Leipzig if they got caught in the sweep, and ONE Fighter group between Mulhausen and the Coast.

Simple - the 37 Me 262's may trip 50 to 100 fighters worst case, and zero if they find an unescorted box of 54 bombers in the 400+ bomber stream of 20-30 miles in length.

In other words ask yourself some simple questions like 'how credible is the claim of fighting 600 fighters and 1200 bombers?"

If a wermacht soldier stated "in our fight against the Allies at Arnhem during the Operation Market Garden, we had to defeat the Allied Airborne forces (including the 82nd and 101st further south)" - would you believe it? Similar analogy..

So, carefully

This thread is being watched. There is a lot of good information going around, but the debate looks like it is going to go in the wrong direction. Debate like adults everyone...

Im not saying there was no eastern front. Quite the reverse. This whole sub argument arose because of your "sopwith camel" argument. Most of us took that to mean you were referring to the Soviets mostly, which you then denied. See your Post 533, wherein you say:

errrrrrr......who mentioned the russians? I didnt
Who compared any soviet aircraft with a sopwith camel?

You also referred to at least four fronts in another post, and then finally above identify the four fronts, for which we were looking for an answer.

Now, I can only repeat that by late 44-45 which is the correct time frame for the 262, there were only two real fronts for the germans (see post 549). These were the eastern front, against the Russians, and the Western front/reich defences, against the western allies. There was no souther front or northern front at that time because the Germans had withdrawn nearly all aircraft from those sectors (ther were about 50 aircraft in Norway, but all were grounded, for lack of fuel) .

So, I can only repeat the question....were you, or were you not referring to the Russians with your "sopwith camel" analogy, and if not, who were you referring to? As a supplementary question, what is the actual time frame for this comment, given that you are referrring to the Me 262 it has been assumed that you are discussing operations within the depoyment times of that type, but if not you had better clarfy when, as well as the previously requested who and what

Colin1 said:

If you've consistently remonstrated that the Me262 was so much more advanced than the P-51, why would life be any different for a Tempest pilot?

Click to expand...

Nobody is patronising you and certainly nobody is shifting the context, you're the one holding the reins here, we merely await your next statement and respond accordingly
You're a poet, lad......Since you love stats calculate for example a big wing in the battle of britain 50 hurricanes with 8 brownings engaging a similar number of me 109 s with 2 guns and 1 cannoin and defensive fire from 30 bombers. Farmers put covers on their tractors as the bullets and casings still stung ...it was litterally like rain...and you are patronising ...bonny lard


Every account I have read of the conflicts in Europe...
Can I ask how many is that?

I am 50 yrs old ....my elder brother used to buy loads of books and "air pictorial magazines" when i was young which I later read....I cannot recall how many but it is a lot.....recently (friday) the churchill speech about the "few" was comemmorated the internet is full of articles and biographies of both fighter and bomber pilots.

There were literally thousands of bullets flying all over, they would drop like rain
You're a poet, lad

Of the many accounts I have read...
Can I ask again?

there are many pilots who simply say "I was hit" with no idea of who or what hit them yet I must provide stats
It seems there is nothing you won't hide behind.
who is hiding? If the pilot doesnt know who hit him how does anyone else. Douglas bader said he was shot down by a german it was almost certainly another spitfire......he peeled off a flight of me109s and was shot...the other spitfire pilot seeing a flight of 109s took out the last one assuming it was also a 109 ......the pilot claimed a 109 cept the luftwaffe didnt lose one in that are that day

The facts and the reality is that by the time the Mustang was introduced Germany was already beaten it wouldn't matter how good or bad it was so long as it had the range.
Probably. You may however be omitting the symbolic importance of putting a top of the line fighter over the German capital, or the time you would be buying the jet programs with fighters more easily knocked down than the P-51 or fighters that simply didn't have the range.
I think the first top line fighter over Berlin was the mosquito

Similarly the Tempest was superior to the Luftwaffe planes it was up against but there were hardly any by late 1944/45 and few pilots who knew how to fly

The tempest was a reasonable match for the me262 but only at low altitude, as far a straight fight 1 on 1 the advantage is always with the jet

Please quote your posts. It really is hard to follow.

john brewer said:

Is this a joke..
If I were you, I wouldn't ask that question

..are you saying that there was no eastern front in late 44? that is a wonderful way to win an argument......just choose what you want to ignore
No, he didn't say that AT ALL, not even close. Re-read the post

the air war was a front consuming huge amounts of equipment and man hours and was of primary importance
the air war
the western front
the eastern front (you may ignore it I cant imagine many would though, maybe they don't have your thirst for "facts")
the southern front
the northern front
what happened to your home front?
the air war was not a front, air power is a capability, used in war, on one or more fronts

While few planes flew in Italy all operations consume fuel which is what brought the whole thing to a halt

Click to expand...

I don't know what point you're making here