DerGiLLster
Airman
- 70
- May 1, 2015
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The one who posed the original question didn't ask about pilots he asked about planes and this forum is "Flight Test Data" after all. American pilots were very well trained and significantly outnumbered their Luftwaffe counterparts. The Luftwaffe basically had to replace every single one of it's fighter pilots in the West during 1944. No comparison between the combat skills of the average German pilot and the average American pilot....to say nothing of the 8 to one advantage in numbers.
Agreed, the question is simple....He asked, "Why did the Fw 190 sink compared to a battle to the P-51 Mustang?"
This forum is about WW2 aircraft and I would imagine that this would encompass all aspects of a WW2 aircraft, from it's inception, to the operational history of the various types - and of the men who flew them.The one who posed the original question didn't ask about pilots he asked about planes and this forum is "Flight Test Data" after all.
The question is simple but the answer is complex.Agreed, the question is simple....He asked, "Why did the Fw 190 sink compared to a battle to the P-51 Mustang?"
The Fw-190A really didn't stink compared to the P-51 Mustang. The Fw-190 was second to no plane at a roll. It dove well. The Fw-190A-5 could make about 422mph at near 20,000 feet and climb there at 2100 feet per minute. The Mustang at 20,000 feet had a top speed of 424 mph and climbed at about 2900 feet per minute. The Fw-190's best performance was at or below 20,000 feet, while the Mustang just kept getting better, up to about 28,000 feet. The Mustang's top speed at 28,000 was 441 mph. The Fw-190A made 394mph at 28,000 feet. The Mustang could just do so many things so well. And the Mustang was a newer airplane. The Fw-190A entered combat in the fall of 1941, the Merlin powered Mustang in December 1943, so the Mustang was about 2 years newer than the Fw-190A. In 1944, the Germans sent their Me-109s after the escorting Mustangs and the Fw-190A's with the four 20mm cannons after the 4 engine bombers. Even then, the Germans fighters were outnumbered by the escorting Mustangs 6 or 8 to 1. That's 6 or 8 Mustangs for every German fighter. Being out numbered so badly is probably the real reason the Fw-190A fared so badly in comparison to the Mustang. The Luftwaffe did experiment with lightening the Fw-190A by taking off some of the armor and all but two of the 20mm cannons, and lengthening the wings. Speed improved a little at a slightly higher altitude and the turn radius improved, but nothing revolutionary. And we haven't even mentioned the Fw-190D...
The RAF thought it stank so badly they stopped going over to France to avoid the smell for a while, after studying its various odours they eventually managed to develop perfumes to match it.And the answer to that question is simple too...
Did it really stink?
The RAF thought it stank so badly they stopped going over to France to avoid the smell for a while, after studying its various odours they eventually managed to develop perfumes to match it.
Happily for American Bomber crews the Germans never thought about a Bouchon which could scythe down P51s at a 6-1 loss rate. I really dont know where some of these ideas are given birth. Did any WWII P51 or P47 pilot say the FW190 "Stank"?
Happily for American Bomber crews the Germans never thought about a Bouchon which could scythe down P51s at a 6-1 loss rate. I really dont know where some of these ideas are given birth. Did any WWII P51 or P47 pilot say the FW190 "Stank"?
The LW had approximately 500 s/e day fighters in LuftFlotte Reich based out of range of P-47s but positioned to put up as many as 400 in a concentrated attack. Net - an attack by LW on April 24, 1944 by 250+ day fighters from Ulm to Erding, around Munich and back to Oberpfaffenhofen could only be defensed by the 355th and 357th FG. The LW destroyed (or chased to Switzerland) 27 B-17s of 1st TF plus six P-51s - but lost 34 109Gs, 10 Me 110s and 1 FW 190A to the 355th and 357th. 250 LW vs 88 P-51s is an example of how Germany could achieve local superiority - and did so, often.
I suspect that Bill could break that down further, by type to give a closer idea of the engagement, as the Bf110 would have been targeting the bombers and not the fighters. I suspect that the Fw190 fighters (perhaps Fw190A-8) may have been also primarily engaging the bombers as well.Great post, on the face of it in fighters 250 v 88 giving losses of 45 and 6 respectively but that ignores the fact that they weren't actually fighting each other as such.
I am sure he could, he posts excellent info. The point I was making was that the escorts job is to minimise losses of bombers while maximising losses of enemy fighters if practicable. An unescorted bomber formation inflicted about 10% losses on the LW which at the time were mainly twin engined fighters. However the LW inflicted heavy losses on the bombers. I was just commenting on the general nature of the combat.I suspect that Bill could break that down further, by type to give a closer idea of the engagement, as the Bf110 would have been targeting the bombers and not the fighters. I suspect that the Fw190 fighters (perhaps Fw190A-8) may have been also primarily engaging the bombers as well.
The Bf109s would have been the "top cover" for the interceptors, tasked with drawing off and engaging the Allied escorts.
So the question is how many Bf109Gs engaged the 88 P-51s directly?