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

[pbfoot]

1 , why do you think the pilots were falling asleep as soon as they touched down? and someone here accused me of disrespecting the pilots

2 some sorties lasted minutes....squadrons were scrambled just so they wernt bombed on the ground as soon as ammunition was exhausted (14 seconds firing) that was sortie over

that is why I rounded it off to a low number like an hour when they were capable of 1.3 to 1.15 hours , sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

 

[john brewer]

that is why I rounded it off to a low number like an hour when they were capable of 1.3 to 1.15 hours , sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

colin 4.30 AM to 9.30PM is 17 hours that is 2-3 hrs to each sortie ...........when it comes to little knowledge you hold all the cards ....Einstein

you dont seem to know how many hours there are in a day


to assist you 3hrs x6 sorties is 18hrs
2hrs x8 sorties is 16 hrs

 

[Glider]

colin .........as with many forums this one has its "regs" who are invariably a pain in the ass...you are conspicuously a pain in the ass........what is this apart from juvenile abuse
I want a pet john brewer
I'll buy him a cage, some bedding and an exercise wheel
He'll have his own box of straw to hibernate in and an unlimited supply of peanuts to store in his cheeks
I'll put him on the coffee table when I've got friends round and when they ask "What is it?" I can say "It's a john brewer"

bonny lard[/QUOTE]

The problem I am afraid is that if you act like an ass you will be treated as an ass.

The only thing anyone has initially asked for is something that supports your sometimes unexpected comments. I know that I have asked you
a) Twice how you arrived at the 10% figure for blue on blue losses.
b) How you arrived at the comment about the P51 was more at risk than others for stalling in a turing combat
c) Others have asked how you arrived or have examples of RAF pilots flew up to 8 missions a day.

On a) and b) you have just ignored the question and on c) the comments made indicate to me that you are guessing at potential reasons why it might happen, not an example of when it did happen.

I invite you to prove me and others wrong and support these statements with evidence or examples.

 

[drgondog]

you are describing a front in the first world war not the second. The Atlantic war was a front which we had to control but a submarine could sink a ship anywhere from Liverpool to the USA coast, similarly German airspace was a front if the germans didnt control it their industry was crippled and cities destroyed.

In the context of MLR? the term has vaidity today for any set piece engagement.

How was the Atlantic war a 'front'. and a submarine could sink a ship anywhere from Liverpool to Tokyo Bay and back to Liverpool. The 'front' was where? German airspace was a 'front? did the front end at the Austrian or Belgian border?

How do you define 'front'??

The quote I made about 37 me 262 attacking an american formation clearly states that 37 was the largest group they had assembled so far....hardly surprising then that many escorts didnt see one ....eh bonny lard? Dunno what the stuff about enola gay or vectors is about...have you been drinking?

As much as I can when I get into a what seems to be a dialogue with ?? How do you define yourself?

As to Enola Gay you zipped off into a tangent describing German flak defense

You said - 'please do some research.. the men equipment and munitions required to provide air defence for the ruhrgebeit berlin munich and all other centres was equivalent to another front, it would be in interesting question as to who used most explosives the allies dropping them or the germans firing them in the air. A large part of gun manufacture was used to defend the homeland rather than fighting on east or west.'

I took that to infer that you thought volume of fire or munitions is equivalent to another 'front'. I merely asked you that if an equivalence of firepower pointed to a front, then where does the Enola Gay work into your 'front' definition?

John - you have been an amusement but methinks the effort to stay with your ramblings is more than the value of poking fun at your curious notion of 'reality'.. have a good day!

 

[parsifal]

Before this thread gets shut down....and thats a certainty now, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SIMPLY NOT ACTING LIKE ADULTS I thought I would try and summarise the issues that have domninated this thread for the last 100 or so posts.

It seems that the first point of contention was this claim that 10% of losses were due to friendly fire incidents. My opinion is that no doubt there were FF losses, but nowhere near that proportion. I have detailed daily loss sheets for every engagement from February through to July 1941, and having now looked at thoses losses, including loses at night, the losses due to FF incidents was about 2% of the total losses. Maybe there were other trends in other theartes, but apart from vagyue gneralities, we have not seen any hard information to back that claim up.

The second point of contention seems to be that the allies,, whether they be western or Soviet, won simply by overwhelming the defences with numbers. We have had this discussion so many times before its almost laughable, facts are that numbers did play a part, but only a part. The case in point in this particular argument revolves around the 262.....if only a moderately larger proportion of the force structure was Me 262s, then the losses for the allies would have been prohibitively heavy....well all I can say is maybe, but there is nothing in the statistics to support that. Me 262 formations were not greatly more successful than conventional types in shooting down enemey (allied) bombers. They were good at surviving, but this was more than offset by the non-combat related attrition that the type suffered due to its teething issues. Therer were good reasons why despite producing more than 1300 of the type, the Germans could only ever field about 100 at any given time. Given time, it might have made a difference, but in the context of late 1944, not a chance

The third point is the relative effectiveness of bombing, whether that be by four engined heavy bombers, or more tactical types. I happen to believe that a greater role by the Mosquito types of this world may have helped, but then to turn around and say that the entire strategic bombing campaigns by all nations was a waste of time, is highly debateable. There are numerous analyses to refute that position. The USSBS estimates that the bomber offensive against Germany accounted for 40% of her productive potential. It killed approximately 1million people, diverted 80% of artilleryto home defence Flak, accounted for 56% of total Reich defence exenditure into Reich defences (aircraft production, civil defence etc) absorbed 1.5 million men that could be otherwise employed at the front, and forced the withdrawal of the LW from the tactical fronts to the defence of the Reich itself. The LW tore its heart out trying to defend Germany from the effects of this so-called inneffective campaign. Speer thought that any more raids like Hamburg (July 1943) would have forced Germany to the peace table.

Bombing was only unsuccessful if measured against the unrealistic claims made before the war. It was a highly important instrument leading to the defeat of Germany.

Its a pity this discussion will not see another 24 hours. We could have expanded all our knowledge if people had acted a little more a maturely.

 

[john brewer]

As much as I can when I get into a what seems to be a dialogue with ?? How do you define yourself?

As to Enola Gay you zipped off into a tangent describing German flak defense

You said - 'please do some research.. the men equipment and munitions required to provide air defence for the ruhrgebeit berlin munich and all other centres was equivalent to another front, it would be in interesting question as to who used most explosives the allies dropping them or the germans firing them in the air. A large part of gun manufacture was used to defend the homeland rather than fighting on east or west.'

I took that to infer that you thought volume of fire or munitions is equivalent to another 'front'. I merely asked you that if an equivalence of firepower pointed to a front, then where does the Enola Gay work into your 'front' definition?

John - you have been an amusement but methinks the effort to stay with your ramblings is more than the value of poking fun at your curious notion of 'reality'.. have a good day!

The Atlantic front is between UK and North America when you control it you can transport goods across it when you dont you cant.....The question was who lost most the germans attacking it or the Allies defending it and who could afford the losses. Similarly North Africa and Italy were fronts which had no real significance apart from costing both sides men and munitions. The germans expended huge resources protecting their airspace with ground fire radar and aircraft. Since all fronts are to wear down the opposition the air over germany was a front to them just as the battle of britain and protection of our airspace was a front to us.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not the most deadly attack on Japan, firebombing tokyop killed more, the nuclear bombing served only to persuade the Japanese military and emperor that they had no chance ....dunno whether that qualifies as a front or not....its sad though


I dont know whether you could describe one airplane as a front....The nuclear attacks on Japan certainly changed warfare

 

[john brewer]

Before this thread gets shut down....and thats a certainty now, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SIMPLY NOT ACTING LIKE ADULTS I thought I would try and summarise the issues that have domninated this thread for the last 100 or so posts.

It seems that the first point of contention was this claim that 10% of losses were due to friendly fire incidents. My opinion is that no doubt there were FF losses, but nowhere near that proportion. I have detailed daily loss sheets for every engagement from February through to July 1941, and having now looked at thoses losses, including loses at night, the losses due to FF incidents was about 2% of the total losses. Maybe there were other trends in other theartes, but apart from vagyue gneralities, we have not seen any hard information to back that claim up.

The second point of contention seems to be that the allies,, whether they be western or Soviet, won simply by overwhelming the defences with numbers. We have had this discussion so many times before its almost laughable, facts are that numbers did play a part, but only a part. The case in point in this particular argument revolves around the 262.....if only a moderately larger proportion of the force structure was Me 262s, then the losses for the allies would have been prohibitively heavy....well all I can say is maybe, but there is nothing in the statistics to support that. Me 262 formations were not greatly more successful than conventional types in shooting down enemey (allied) bombers. They were good at surviving, but this was more than offset by the non-combat related attrition that the type suffered due to its teething issues. Therer were good reasons why despite producing more than 1300 of the type, the Germans could only ever field about 100 at any given time. Given time, it might have made a difference, but in the context of late 1944, not a chance

The third point is the relative effectiveness of bombing, whether that be by four engined heavy bombers, or more tactical types. I happen to believe that a greater role by the Mosquito types of this world may have helped, but then to turn around and say that the entire strategic bombing campaigns by all nations was a waste of time, is highly debateable. There are numerous analyses to refute that position. The USSBS estimates that the bomber offensive against Germany accounted for 40% of her productive potential. It killed approximately 1million people, diverted 80% of artilleryto home defence Flak, accounted for 56% of total Reich defence exenditure into Reich defences (aircraft production, civil defence etc) absorbed 1.5 million men that could be otherwise employed at the front, and forced the withdrawal of the LW from the tactical fronts to the defence of the Reich itself. The LW tore its heart out trying to defend Germany from the effects of this so-called inneffective campaign. Speer thought that any more raids like Hamburg (July 1943) would have forced Germany to the peace table.

Bombing was only unsuccessful if measured against the unrealistic claims made before the war. It was a highly important instrument leading to the defeat of Germany.

Its a pity this discussion will not see another 24 hours. We could have expanded all our knowledge if people had acted a little more a maturely.

Parsifal thankyou.

whereas we may disagree (although no need for us to) about percentages I did read that as an estimate. Friendly fire in war is a bit taboo even now. Basically if you open fire you must be firing on the enemy, if you dont then you must have identified a friend. When Sailor malan shot down those hurricanes he didnt report shooting down hurricanes but Me109s. Its like the spitfire snobbery of the luftwaffe they all seemed to be shot down by spitfires even though hurricanes made approx 75% of kills. If I was a gunner in a B17 I doubt whether I could tell a 109 from a mustang approaching at 400MPH and if one was chasing the other I could easily fire at one and hit the other.

I am not constructing a scenario where germany could have won. In my opinion so long as Germany didnt succesfully invade the UK then the USSR would eventually have beaten Germany. People refer to the bombing campaign as ineffective only in its bombing accuracy....the real reason was to wear germany down and occupy it defending itself and not fighting in the east west or anywhere else which is why I refereed to it as a front. The stats you quote for men and materials show that defending german airspace cost more than trying to defend Normandy and france.


Britain USA and Germany all believed in strategic bombing but had only theories as to how to get it done. none of the bombers did what they were supposed to do bomb unaided in daylight and bombing a city didnt achieve what everyone predicted. I have read Speers comments before but he was wrong. even flattening berlin and dresden in what became completely unoposed raids didnt bring about surrender.

Thje mosquito was basically laughed at when first seen it didnt fit into what a bomber should be....it turned out to be the best all round bomber in the RAF

 

[Milosh]

Milosh you obviously havnt read much so instead of so instead of posting "got proof" go read a book....june july in UK has daylight hours of 4AM to 9.30PM and BTW many german fighters were doing the same

Actually I have read much on the BoB which is why I asked for proof. Must not be the same books you have read. Since you are being evasive and back up your statement, I take it you can't answer.

Sept 15 1940

During the day of 15th September - 115 patrols involving 705 sorties by 47.5 squadrons.

First Major Attack

At 1100 hours enemy aircraft began to mass in the Calais/Boulogne area and at 1130 hours the leading wave of about 100 aircraft crossed the coast between Dover and Dungeness, followed by a second wave of 150 aircraft. Objectives appeared to be in the London district.

No 11 Group sent up 16 Squadrons to meet the attack, and No 12 Group provided 5 Squadrons to patrol Debden and Hornchurch.

Approximately 100 enemy aircraft succeeded in reaching Central London.

Second Major Attack

At 1400 hours a wave of approximately 150 enemy aircraft crossed the coast near Dover, followed by a second wave of 100 aircraft. These formations spread over South-east and South-west Kent and the Maidstone area, and about 70 penetrated Central London.

No 11 Group sent up 16 Squadrons and No 12 Group 4 Squadrons. Targets in South London and railways in London and Kent appeared to be the chief objectives.

Attack on Portland

At 1530 hours a formation of 25 enemy aircraft attacked Portland. It was engaged and successfully driven off by our fighters.

Attack on Southampton

At 1725 hours about 50 enemy aircraft flew over the Isle of Wight and attacked objectives in the Southampton district. This formation was intercepted and driven off by 6½ Squadrons.

from The Battle of Britain - Home Page

Hardly the 6-8 sorties per day you stated.

Btw,11 Group consisted of 28 squadrons and 12 Group consisted of 15 squadrons.

 

[john brewer]

bonny lard

The problem I am afraid is that if you act like an ass you will be treated as an ass.

The only thing anyone has initially asked for is something that supports your sometimes unexpected comments. I know that I have asked you
a) Twice how you arrived at the 10% figure for blue on blue losses.
b) How you arrived at the comment about the P51 was more at risk than others for stalling in a turing combat
c) Others have asked how you arrived or have examples of RAF pilots flew up to 8 missions a day.

On a) and b) you have just ignored the question and on c) the comments made indicate to me that you are guessing at potential reasons why it might happen, not an example of when it did happen.

I invite you to prove me and others wrong and support these statements with evidence or examples.[/QUOTE]

a I didnt arrive at it I read it it seems reasonable to me in a conflict like the BoB if it doesnt to you well then we will just disagree.....people dont brag about friendly fire
b didnt say it was more at risk did I again I read it and also heard it on an interview discussing the relative merits of fighters
c again I read it


I am still waiting for the washout of the mustang thunderbolt hurricane and Me109...I am reliably informed they all had washout but ive only read about it on a spitfire...it made the wings hard and expensive to make

 

[drgondog]

I am still waiting for the washout of the mustang thunderbolt hurricane and Me109...I am reliably informed they all had washout but ive only read about it on a spitfire...it made the wings hard and expensive to make

The SPECIFIC washout for the P-51A-K was 1 degree, for the P-51H it was one degree 18 minutes....the washout for the Fw 190 was 1 1/2 degrees for ~ the external 25% span, while the Mustang was continuous. I would have to take the time to look up the P-47 and the Me 109 specifics - but, candidly I don't care.

With well designed tooling it is no harder to make than for a wing with no washout...

On the other hand a wing with no washout is less stable in roll at low speeds and/or high angles of attack because the wingtip region tends to stall out at the same time as the inboard wing..

You don't listen John, nor do you absorb what you have already been told on this forum. I mentioned yesterday that all of them were in the 1 1/2 degree 'range'... and that ALL had washout as a design feature. Therfore I am wondering what you are waiting for. Look it up!

Washout tends to improve the spanwise lift distribution of a non-elliptical wing to more closely approximate the elliptical distribution found for elliptical planform wings as well as improve aileron control at the low speed of the airplane's performance threshold.

The eliptical wing represents the lowest possible induced drag plan form, but a well designed trapezoidal wing with a good tip/chord ratio and wing twist with approximately 1-1 1/2 degrees of twist will close the gap significantly.

Edit - having said this there is a slight increase in inviscid drag due to wing twist.

 

[john brewer]

and this was where? directly underneath the combat? Or all over SE England? Was there a probability density function of falling spent cases peaking over the capital or can we assume uniform distribution over, say, Kent? This stuff is straight out of a boys-own comic, you would NOT want to get hit on the head by a falling spent case from a cannon but you'd probably have more chance of being killed and eaten by a lion in Piccadilly Circus

read this

As they returned to Biggin Hill, children watched in breathless excitement. One elderly man, in those days a small boy, says wryly, 'I was aeroplane-mad anyway'.
Like all his generation, he thrilled to the sight of Hurricanes roaring overhead, the clatter of battle debris falling from the sky onto roads and into fields. 'Shrapnel filled the air like rain - hot rain.'

not boys own...what happened .......i have read many such statements

 

[Njaco]

wow, my eyes and brain hurt.

JB, you've got some misinformation about the BoB -


" 6 to 8 sorties a day"
Squadron log of RAF No. 74 squadron (Manston and Hornchurch: Spitfire I and II) commanded by South Africa's "Sailor" Malan - read:- "take off at 0749 hrs., second patrol: take off 0950, third patrol: take off 1145, fourth patrol: take off 1356." Thats for 11 August 1940, hardly the 6 to 8. This was the more common amount although on a few, very few days it might reach 6 sorties.

"The Luftwaffe used the same routes all the time"
Hardly. Tactics and routes and equipment used changed on a weekly basis. Why would Fighter Command need radar if the Luftwaffe came over the same way all the time?

"the clatter of battle debris falling from the sky onto roads and into fields. 'Shrapnel filled the air like rain - hot rain.' "
Shrapnel is not the same as bullets although it may include them. You have to sit back and look at this whole scenario. There may have been 200 planes vs 200 planes but they were not occupying the exact same square mile of sky. They were spread out with individual combats taking place over a wide range. And the figures you gave several posts ago didn't take into account that at least 25% to 50% of the action would take place over water. Yes, debris and bullets did fall but I doubt you could walk from Portsmouth to Glasgow without touching a blade of grass for the amount of junk falling from the sky.

.......i have read many such statements

How about some sources?

 

[parsifal]

John

so, are you saying that losses to FF were about 10% or were they less as is shown by the actual squadron daily loss sheets?:

Are you saying strat bombing as a campaign was sucessful or unsuccessful. I hear you when you say it did not turn out as had been envisaged in the pre-war planning, but that was not the position you adopted in your earlier post. Did it have an appreciable effect on the outcome of the war. Was it worthwhile, or was it a waste of time, in your opinion?

I acknowledge that you dont accept the opinions of the Reich armaments minister, and to a degree you may be right, however, I also think his assessments were at least partially plausible. At the time the Hamburg raids were the most devastating in history....50000 dead, with over 250000 homeless. The city did not return to any meaningful level of production for 4 months, and never returned to pre-raid levels of production ever. If only that could have been repeated in the vital Ruhr district, things may have been different. Instead, Harris committed the strategic blunder of pressing onto Berlin, a hard target if ever there was one. All this raises a question.....if you dont believe Speer, the USSBS(which reaches similar conclusions) and other sources, who then are you relying on. I would like to examine the evidence....

 

[Colin1]

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not the most deadly attack on Japan, fire-bombing Tokyo killed more
and in the 65 years since both events, how many has the fire-bombing continued to kill?

the nuclear bombing served only to persuade the Japanese military and emperor that they had no chance
the Japanese military weren't persuaded, they were to the right of hard-line and were more than ready to fight to the last, it was the Emperor alone who was persuaded

I don't know whether you could describe one airplane as a front

The answer, John, is you couldn't, it demonstrates clearly why your notion of a front breaks down under scrutiny

 

[Colin1]

Parsifal
I regard you as one of the read-up, well-informed members of the forum and I don't want to get into the wrong sort of argument with you for any reason, but:

Its a pity this discussion will not see another 24 hours

Why?

We could have expanded all our knowledge if people had acted a little more a maturely

How?

This individual walked a ragged line of rapid-fire glib statements and unsubstantiated half-truths, his response to questions on those submissions was to fire off another, unrelated volley. He still hasn't substantiated the statement he made about 10% of BoB kills going to friendly fire. What were we going to learn from him?

Several posters, most eminently more qualified than I tried to correct or substantiate on his behalf some of the mostly incoherent babble that he was coming out with, he either ignored it or failed to understand it. What was he going to learn from us?

The last straw was aiming defamatory remarks at said eminently qualified posters. At what point did you think dialog with JB was salvageable?

I wouldn't condone my own behaviour for a second but I'm finding it difficult to come up with an apology, he behaved like an ass.

 

[Kurfürst]

The SPECIFIC washout for the P-51A-K was 1 degree, for the P-51H it was one degree 18 minutes....the washout for the Fw 190 was 1 1/2 degrees for ~ the external 25% span, while the Mustang was continuous. I would have to take the time to look up the P-47 and the Me 109 specifics - but, candidly I don't care.

Just as a matter of interest AFAIK - and I could be well wrong in this! - the 109 didn't have washout at all, as it had leading edge slats to perform the same function instead.

 

[parsifal]

Hi colin

I hope that my prediction was wrong, but my reasons for saying what I did relates to the fact that people were continuing to hurl abuse at each other despite repeated warnings from Adler. We will have to wait and see his reaction to what has transpired. Hopefully he will relent by seeing that things have calmed down a little and let the thread continue. But we more mature and senior memebers have to live by the standards of this place, and set the example, even if the newer young turks decide they are not going to behave properly.

I understand the frustrations with this guy, he doesnt answer the questions put to him and tends to shift about in his position from post to post. That still doesnt mean we can drop our standards....if anything we have to exercise even more self restraint than when we are dealing with more familiar members.

I understand the frustration, I really do. Lord knows I have lost patience with people on a number of occasions. Still doesnt make it right. People are entitled to take whatever position they like. People are free in this place to express whatever opinions they like, but we are not allowed to deride each other.

When I see this sort of thing happening, I try and remember that convincing the poster I am responding to is not necessarily the main game. Ther are a lot of onlookers to this forum....this particular thread has had just under 600 posts, but over 30000 hits. The silent onlookers are looking at us all the time. They are the important ones to convince.

Hope that explains why I said what I did

 

[john brewer]

John

so, are you saying that losses to FF were about 10% or were they less as is shown by the actual squadron daily loss sheets?:

Are you saying strat bombing as a campaign was sucessful or unsuccessful. I hear you when you say it did not turn out as had been envisaged in the pre-war planning, but that was not the position you adopted in your earlier post. Did it have an appreciable effect on the outcome of the war. Was it worthwhile, or was it a waste of time, in your opinion?

I acknowledge that you dont accept the opinions of the Reich armaments minister, and to a degree you may be right, however, I also think his assessments were at least partially plausible. At the time the Hamburg raids were the most devastating in history....50000 dead, with over 250000 homeless. The city did not return to any meaningful level of production for 4 months, and never returned to pre-raid levels of production ever. If only that could have been repeated in the vital Ruhr district, things may have been different. Instead, Harris committed the strategic blunder of pressing onto Berlin, a hard target if ever there was one. All this raises a question.....if you dont believe Speer, the USSBS(which reaches similar conclusions) and other sources, who then are you relying on. I would like to examine the evidence....

Parsifal

what I am saying is that for (for example) both sides claimed approximately 2 times the kills they actually made so they wernt sure of what they hit or missed. In the case of hitting a target the pilot automatically claims a kill even though it was FF (this happened with Sailor Malan) Sim ilarly all evidence now points to Bader being shot down by a spitfire, the spitfire claimed a 109 and Bader himself said he was shot down by a German. Similarly two planes attacking a bomber and colliding would be claimed as two kills by the bomber

quote
Recent research indicates that Bader was shot down – but by a Spitfire. By 1941, the shape of the Me 109 had changed to resemble the more curved shape of the Spitfire. It is possible that Bader, in the chaos of battle, joined a flight of Me 109's (mistaking them for Spitfires) before pulling away from them once he realised his mistake. Another Spitfire pilot, Buck Casson, saw the 'lone' Me 109 and attacked it to such an extent that the tail of the Spitfire with the DB recognition was shot off. In his post-flight report, Casson clearly stated that he saw a lone Me 109 peeling away from others. He attacked it and shot it down. Yet the sole Luftwaffe plane shot down that day has been accounted for. Given the speed both planes flew at and the merest of seconds any fighter pilot had to make a decision, it would appear that Bader was shot down by another Spitfire.

unquote
In the above Bader miss identified the Me 109s and Casson missidentified baders spitfire

At the time of the battle people were only interested in kills and losses friendly fire wasnt much talked about unless it was chronic like ack ack batteries shooting at everything. In the melee of a battle pilots crossed others paths and got hit missidentified friend and foe it was chaos. Malan was cleared at the court martial, he probably wouldnt have been cleared if he reported that he shot down a hurricane, no one would ever admit to a friendly fire kill even iff they knew they had done it.

The figure of 10% is a ball park, no one knows for sure or will ever know, it has more to do with the psychology of pilots under battle conditions. The main factor in identification seems to have been not what a plane looks like but where it is coming from or going too. A twin engined plane heading from france was seen as enemy when it could be RAF, a single seat fighter climbing towards a bomber formation was seen as a friend when it could be a 109. It was only at very close quarters that actual visual recognition played a part.

 

[john brewer]

The answer, John, is you couldn't, it demonstrates clearly why your notion of a front breaks down under scrutiny

If you consider the airspace over Japan as a front then Japan lost it a long time before the enola gay dropped the bomb. However for the Japanese many prefered suicide to surrender and for the Americans and Allies to invade Japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides. Losing control of the front in the air lead to Japans surrender but that doesnt make the enola gay a front as it didnt win control, it was able to drop the bomb unhindered because of the fact though.

and in the 65 years since both events, how many has the fire-bombing continued to kill?
The people who died after the surrender did not have any effect on the decision to surrender]


the Japanese military weren't persuaded, they were to the right of hard-line and were more than ready to fight to the last, it was the Emperor alone who was persuaded

I said the military and the emperor didnt I? I wasnt there when the military discussed the situation with Hirohito, the Japanese are different to others, the military had to fight on, it was what honour demanded in their code. Whether they believed they had any chance or even wanted to was immaterial, the Emperor was a God on earth

 

[Glider]

Parsifal

The figure of 10% is a ball park, no one knows for sure or will ever know, it has more to do with the psychology of pilots under battle conditions. The main factor in identification seems to have been not what a plane looks like but where it is coming from or going too. A twin engined plane heading from france was seen as enemy when it could be RAF, a single seat fighter climbing towards a bomber formation was seen as a friend when it could be a 109. It was only at very close quarters that actual visual recognition played a part.

The 10% figure isn't a ball park figure, its a guess, a wild guess, a wild guess based on nothing, if fact its a wild guress based on absolutely nothing. A ball park figure is an estimate based on some research or information.
The implication seems to be that because Bader was shot down by a Spitfire 10% of all losses of all airforces were Blue on Blue. A pretty amazing leap of logic that left me way behind.

Suggest you pick a unit, track its losses and than come up with a figure.