History Channel "Dogfights"

[davparlr]

I saw a new Dogfights on the History Channel last night. I hope this means that it will be back.

One of the pilots highlighted was Donald Bryan and his escapades in shooting down five Bf-109s in one mission on Nov.22, 1944. A couple of things were interesting, one was that the pilots of the 352 FG considered the Bf-109 as "easy meat", the other was that, while he said he had the fastest P-51 in the group (the crew chief had hopped it up), a Bf-109 got on his tail and he could not shake it. The Bf-109 outperformed his P-51 in everything he did. He escaped by doing a fancy snap roll. He said that he did not go looking for that guy again. I was wondering if that could have been a "K" Bf-109. Would anybody know if Bf-109Ks were involved in the fight that day? It involved a B-17 raid on an Oil Refinery in Maresburg (?) Germany.

 

[Erich]

Dave it was probably a G-10 which was faster than the K variant.

did he cover his attempts and final shoot down of a an Ar 234 near the Remagen bridge in 45 ? I interviewed Don at length about this, what a neat guy and a character I must say.

 

[drgondog]

I saw a new Dogfights on the History Channel last night. I hope this means that it will be back.

One of the pilots highlighted was Donald Bryan and his escapades in shooting down five Bf-109s in one mission on Nov.22, 1944. A couple of things were interesting, one was that the pilots of the 352 FG considered the Bf-109 as "easy meat", the other was that, while he said he had the fastest P-51 in the group (the crew chief had hopped it up), a Bf-109 got on his tail and he could not shake it. The Bf-109 outperformed his P-51 in everything he did. He escaped by doing a fancy snap roll. He said that he did not go looking for that guy again. I was wondering if that could have been a "K" Bf-109. Would anybody know if Bf-109Ks were involved in the fight that day? It involved a B-17 raid on an Oil Refinery in Maresburg (?) Germany.

Most every Mustang pilot considered the 51 to be superior to the 109 as a blanket statement. Only when they ran into a pilot of considerable skill was doubt introduced and only in models from G-6/AS and beyond.

For those that found that pilot and a/c it was clear that a 109 would turn with the 51 ('turn with' being relative in a lufberry to pilot's ability to carve the turn on just above ragged edge on the stall) and a 51 would not be able to match a steep climbing turn from same speed.

With these two a/c and equivalent combat position it was pretty much up to pilot skill and who didn't make a mistake first.

 

[Thorlifter]

I watched that show. It had three different stories about the Mustang from both the ETO and PTO. They (history channel commentators) just went on and on about how the Mustang ruled the sky and was so superior. I wanted to throw a brick through the TV. I hear what your saying, drgondog, and agree. I believe we have discussed this many time that one of the main reasons the Mustang was superior is, one, they outnumbered the 109's and would pounce on them when they got airborne, and two, 1944-45 most of the Luftwaffe aces were dead and they were going up against green pilots.

Just Donald Bryan said, he ran across a plane that he couldn't shake and only because of an extreme snap roll was he able to get away from the guy. So he ran up against either a veteran pilot or a G-6 or newer 109.

 

[Erich]

it was no G-6 ............

 

[drgondog]

I watched that show. It had three different stories about the Mustang from both the ETO and PTO. They (history channel commentators) just went on and on about how the Mustang ruled the sky and was so superior. I wanted to throw a brick through the TV. I hear what your saying, drgondog, and agree. I believe we have discussed this many time that one of the main reasons the Mustang was superior is, one, they outnumbered the 109's and would pounce on them when they got airborne, and two, 1944-45 most of the Luftwaffe aces were dead and they were going up against green pilots.

Ah no, I have not said that nor do I agree that. I have illustrated in about 50+ threads that the number of Mustangs available to intercept attacking LuftFlotte fighter forces in the Jan 1944 through May 1944 was one and maybe two groups in 100 miles square area during that time frame.

The early 8th AF Mustang groups were far outnumbered and often ayyacked from above during escort missions. Bryan's scores were in November 2, 1944 battle in which many of the German vets were long dead from those winter/spring battles.

Having said that all of the illustrated battles were 1-2 against many which didn't illustrate the superiority of the P-51 so much as the average pilot skill of 8th/9th and RAF pilots against the average pilot skill of the Germans. It was no unusual feat for a small number of Allied pilots to jump a much larger force of Luftwaffe - contrary to popular belief.

Just Donald Bryan said, he ran across a plane that he couldn't shake and only because of an extreme snap roll was he able to get away from the guy. So he ran up against either a veteran pilot or a G-6 or newer 109.

So, he DID shake it did he not? and the excellent pilot in a very good airplane failed to shoot him down despite starting from a higher altitude and closing on his six o'clock w/o warning?

So what do we make of that?

Regards,

Bill

 

[Erich]

ah but did the 109G pilot have a fellow blue noser coming down on his little you know what to cause him to bank off ? we may never know

 

[uberdave]

I saw the same episode as drgondog. In one of the dogfights, 8 P-51s attacked approx 50 Me-109s. I've read other accounts of P-51s attacking large gaggles of German fighters and accounting well. It's not simply a matter of US fighters outnumbering the Germans.

 

[Erich]

but it's a matter of few experienced Staffelkapitäns and staffelführers leading a very inexperienced band of kids......sorry but it sounds lame but it is very true. drop tanks still fitted according to fool fat mans orders, do not break formation even when being assaulted from above and the rear by Allied escorts as the main objective is to attack the bombers at all costs.......insane !

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Does this mean we will get to see the Blue Nosed Bastards this Christmas fight it out with the Luftwaffe?

Whoopie!

 

[Erich]

ah probably not wait till 08 or if the H.C. will still exist .......

 

[machine shop tom]

Seems like the 109F was considered superior to the G in maneuverability and comparable (in later F marks) in firepower.

tom

 

[davparlr]

but it's a matter of few experienced Staffelkapitäns and staffelführers leading a very inexperienced band of kids......sorry but it sounds lame but it is very true. drop tanks still fitted according to fool fat mans orders, do not break formation even when being assaulted from above and the rear by Allied escorts as the main objective is to attack the bombers at all costs.......insane !

The show indicated this somewhat and it confused me until I read your post. On one of the encounters, a large number of German fighter, Bf-109 I think, was attacked by a hand full of P-51. The Germans maintained formation and the P-51 chewed away at them like wolves attacking moose. Another similar event, the one Don Bryan participate in, protrayed the Germans breaking up into melee. In both cases, the Germans took a battering. Was the Luftwaffe so depleted of experienced pilots in the fall of 44? I have heard on other shows of former Luftwaffe pilots complaining that they wanted to attack the escort planes and "teach them a lesson" but were not allowed to do so. No matter what, for 8 pilots to take on 50, that certainly takes courage and confidence in their ability and their aircrafts ability.

The maneuver Bryan used was showed him by another pilot that had evaded his fighter in play. The plane just seem to disappear. He pulled the stick full back, and kicked full rudder followed by pushing the stick full forward. A very abrubt maneuver that probably worked on the Bf-109.

 

[JoeB]

I don't know about "Dogfights" in general, I've only watched some parts of some episodes, and heard about others on forums. Aside from the graphics etc. seems like the basic approach is an oral history approach, IOW what first hand participants perceived to have happened, rather than trying to rigorously determine what actually happened, in a given episode. Oral history has value, but has definite limits.

On the issue of numbers in air combat, I think it tends to get oversimplified. There's a learned published author on another forum neither of which I'll name basically insists the tendency to positive exchange ratio's by USAAF fighters against LW ones ETO ca. 1944 is meaningless as measures of quality because the overall numbers were so much in favor of the Allied by then. This is very shallow and oversimplified IMO. Order of battle superiority in numbers is very important to the overall outcome of a campaign, but theater-wide order of battle numerical superiority can be a pretty poor predictor of the outcome of a given air combat engagement. In ETO much of that numerical superiority was the Allied TAF's (9th and Brit) which encountered German fighters on a small % of their missions. And has been mentioned here, even over Germany once 8th/15th numbers were superior, it doesn't mean that larger formation of US fighters always met smaller ones of German fighters. Rather, often some US units would not meet German fighters, and accomplish their escort missions easily, while others would have their hands full. If anything as was already mentioned, there seemed some tendency for smaller USAAF formations to run across bigger German ones.

Of course the German veterans liked to see the later defeats of the Luftwaffe solely in terms of numbers, or 'green' pilots under them, not USAAF fighter units that may have been the most effective fighter units the LW ever had to face. Of course the USAAF fans would like the latter explanation. There's a lot of subjectivity possible. But the problem IMO is when people basically make up generalized facts to back their predispositions, quotes like 'there were 8 Mustangs to each of us by then what could we do' and make that quote into a generalized fact, rather than study engagements and see if that was actually a common type of engagement. Again the limits of oral history.

Joe

 

[drgondog]

I don't know about "Dogfights" in general, I've only watched some parts of some episodes, and heard about others on forums. Aside from the graphics etc. seems like the basic approach is an oral history approach, IOW what first hand participants perceived to have happened, rather than trying to rigorously determine what actually happened, in a given episode. Oral history has value, but has definite limits.

On the issue of numbers in air combat, I think it tends to get oversimplified. There's a learned published author on another forum neither of which I'll name basically insists the tendency to positive exchange ratio's by USAAF fighters against LW ones ETO ca. 1944 is meaningless as measures of quality because the overall numbers were so much in favor of the Allied by then. This is very shallow and oversimplified IMO. Order of battle superiority in numbers is very important to the overall outcome of a campaign, but theater-wide order of battle numerical superiority can be a pretty poor predictor of the outcome of a given air combat engagement. In ETO much of that numerical superiority was the Allied TAF's (9th and Brit) which encountered German fighters on a small % of their missions. And has been mentioned here, even over Germany once 8th/15th numbers were superior, it doesn't mean that larger formation of US fighters always met smaller ones of German fighters. Rather, often some US units would not meet German fighters, and accomplish their escort missions easily, while others would have their hands full. If anything as was already mentioned, there seemed some tendency for smaller USAAF formations to run across bigger German ones.

Joe - you have tapped into a study area for me for the past 30 years. I have maintained, and believe I have proven, that the order of Battle for Mustangs and Lightnings from December 1943 through May 1944 would almost guarantee that no more that 2 groups of Target escort fighters would be between the LuftFlotte Reich and what ever forces they concentrated from 1 to 300 and an entire DIVISION of B-24s or B-17s over a 40 mile stretch.

Of course the German veterans liked to see the later defeats of the Luftwaffe solely in terms of numbers, or 'green' pilots under them, not USAAF fighter units that may have been the most effective fighter units the LW ever had to face. Of course the USAAF fans would like the latter explanation. There's a lot of subjectivity possible. But the problem IMO is when people basically make up generalized facts to back their predispositions, quotes like 'there were 8 Mustangs to each of us by then what could we do' and make that quote into a generalized fact, rather than study engagements and see if that was actually a common type of engagement. Again the limits of oral history.

Joe

The situations in which Mustangs had a numerical superiority would occur most likely during a Sweep when one group ranged out in front ant caught a smaller unit organizing.. other than that it was usually one group against whatever the german controllers put into that specific area - and most likey overwhelming numbers of s/e and te/e fighters.

 

[AL Schlageter]

There's a learned published author on another forum neither of which I'll name basically insists the tendency to positive exchange ratio's by USAAF fighters against LW ones ETO ca. 1944 is meaningless as measures of quality because the overall numbers were so much in favor of the Allied by then. This is very shallow and oversimplified IMO. Order of battle superiority in numbers is very important to the overall outcome of a campaign, but theater-wide order of battle numerical superiority can be a pretty poor predictor of the outcome of a given air combat engagement. In ETO much of that numerical superiority was the Allied TAF's (9th and Brit) which encountered German fighters on a small % of their missions. And has been mentioned here, even over Germany once 8th/15th numbers were superior, it doesn't mean that larger formation of US fighters always met smaller ones of German fighters. Rather, often some US units would not meet German fighters, and accomplish their escort missions easily, while others would have their hands full. If anything as was already mentioned, there seemed some tendency for smaller USAAF formations to run across bigger German ones.

Why do I have this feeling that this author is Scandinavian?

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

hmmm.....I don't know. Why?

 

[1.JaVA_Sjonnie]

The way they show these dogfights is very nice and most of the a/c look realistic, yet I think nothing beats IL-2.

352 FG were re-deployed to the Ardennes in december of 1944 and if you happen to have IL-2 version 4.05m or up this will show you what happened during the battle of the Bulge:

Mission4Today › Downloads › The legend of Y-29

cheers8)

 

[Erich]

3rd download of the G-14/AS is bogus............the fuselage band is yellow and there was NO + on any of JG 11's II.gruppe 109's

 

[Soren]

Dave it was probably a G-10 which was faster than the K variant.

G-10 faster than K-4 ?? The K-4 had a top speed of 719 km/h, the G-10 685 - 690 km/h. Not saying it wasn't a G-10 he met though..

The fact that the 109 managed to stay on him was probably because of all his evasive maneuvers, none of which the 109 would have had any problem following.