Me 109, Spitfire, Zero or Mustang

[drgondog]

Do I really have to request you to use that clever mind of yours Bill?

The crucial factors to consider here:

Fuel
By 1944 the LW was in serious lack of fuel, many a/c barely taking off with half a tankfull. This meant less time to hang around and made quick and devastating strikes to the bomber streams absolutely essential.

Sources for 1/2 loads of fuel? You have claimed this before but never give us the source? And, for the moment, would a half load of fuel make a 109 more or less manueverable?

Pilots
By mid 1944 to 1945 the German pilots weren't generally the skilled aviators of the past, training time had decreased dramatically. Thus there were a good load rookies with no business behind the controls of a fighter out there fighting the Allies. A skilled pilot is way more useful than 10 rookies.
The USAAF RAF on the other hand didn't lack well trained pilots. USAAF RAF pilots were good pilots, they knew how to fly and most of them knew exactly how to exploit the weaknesses strengths of their a/c.

So the pilots like Rall coming in from Ost and the units from JG 53, 27, etc from late 1943 to mid 1944 that transferred into LuftFlotte Reich were low time pilots?

In May 1943, according to Price LuftFlotte Mitte had
I. &II./JG1; I./JG3; I and II./JG11, I./JG27 and III./JG54

In May 1944 after re-organizing and transferring from all fronts into LuftFlotte Reich, it was then constituted with;
I,II and III/JG1 (one Gruppe increase)
I,II,III and IV./JG3 (3 Gruppe increase)
I II./JG5 (2 Gruppe increase)
I,II, III. plus 10. Staffel/JG 11 (one Gruppe plus one Staffel increase)
I,II,III,IV./JG3 (3 Gruppe increase)
II./JG53 (one Gruppe increase)
III./JG54 (no change)
I,II,III./JG300 (3 Gruppe increase)
I./JG301 (one Gruppe increase)
I./JG400 (one Gruppe Me 163)
Einsatzstaffels 104, 105 and 108 training units that flew combat missions (one Gruppe)

Essentially 17 Gruppe increase, NOT including the Zerstorer Gruppes - just he single engine fighters.

Are you suggesting that the newly transferred Gruppen into Germany shed all of their experience and re-staffed with recent trainees?

Sources please?


Priorities
Most Bf-109's Fw-190's over the European skies were heavily armed interceptors whose only mission and absolute top priority was shooting down the bombers, the escorting fighters were of no importance what'so'ever and just had to be avoided. Therefore most 109's and 190's carried extra heavy armament in the various Rüstsätze's available. A Fw-190 or Bf-109 caught whilst attacking the bombers didn't stand much chance, and this is undoubtedly what happened to the far majority.

Some were, some weren't. I p[ointed you several times to different sources of TO&E for all of the above Gruppes to demonstrate that you did not really have a grasp of your facts. You have yet to counter any of the sources I provided you... or any source for that matter other than your unimpeachable opinion?

Now as to your so called slaughtering of the LW fighters, again you're just spewing out words without thinking.

Actually no. I thought, I referred to sources and concluded that 8:1 air to air ratios suggest 'slaughter'. If you have a higher threshold in mine, toss it out.

This so called slaughtering you're talking about never took place Bill, the LW fighters did in fact during most of the interceptions manage to shoot down a similar amount of USAAF bombers as they themselves lost in fighter a/c, and yet they still managed to shoot down many escorts despite that.

I am just about finished with 'my frivolous' research but here are the preliminary results.

8th AF FC awards(all fighter types) - 5174 german a/c all types in air combat for 644 losses air to air. Of these the Mustangs were awarded 3621.5 vs 344 losses air to air.

Of the above total 2514 Me 109s were shot down, 1947 Fw 190s were shot down and 112 Me 262's were shot down.

The P-38s lost 101, the P-47 lost 213 and the P-51 lost 340. I'm nearly at the point where I can break out losses and awards type by type (P-38 vs Me 109)

The escorts posed exactly ZERO threat to the German war effort, and thus their destruction was of no importance and thus they just had to be bypassed as effectively as possible to get to the bombers.

Galland had a different opinion, particularly for the long ranging high performance Mustang which interdicted rail traffic, shot up airfields, barge and road traffic and crushed the LW high and low. You think gaining air superiority and taking losses from 10% to 2 % is 'irrelevant'? You are perhaps unique in your opinion

Now Bill, are you as a self proclaimed serious researcher going to try and tell me that these factors are irrelevant and can be overlooked ? If so your bias again seems to shine through.

I'm not going to overstate my research credentials but I will be lloking to your own to demonstrate more factual basis for your comments. Start with a factual debate on references and sources to validate your 'sterling' opinions?

Also as to the P-51 taking out a lot more 109's 190's than it lost in return, well I'd never venture into such a conclusion with such little evidence. LW fighters actually downed in the air by the P-51 wasn't anywhere close to the claimed figure.

Maybe. The records of the Luftwaffe were pretty trashed as well as AWOL near the end of the war. Where German loss records do exist the pretty well dovetail to 8th FC awards - but ALL are overstated in my opinion and the many missions I have researched personally and compared with Tony Woods LW awards lists are frequently 100% overstated. Are you stating that Tony is off/on/close/unfounded? Are you stating that USAF 85 is grossly overstated - and if so what is your souce(s)?

Do you personally have better references that we can look to?

Just check out how many a/c the LW lost alone due to non-combat related accidents.

Ditto to USAAF attrition to mechanical and fuel issues carrying the fight to every corner of the Reich? How many more LW losses would have occurred if Me 109s were forced to fly 600 mile radius missions on a daily basis.. can you spell 'hog' with that much fuel?

Next is your weird theory that because the Bf-109 reached 33,000 examples it is the very reason for why the top aces flew this plane. Well sorry but again you're just spewing out claims. Even with the WW2 aces of the P-51, P-47 and Spitfire put together does the number of aces approach that born by the Bf-109, and this is despite that put together these aircraft were built in far larger numbers. Also explains why most top aces wanted to stay with the Bf-109 even in late 44 to 45, wouldn't make so much sense if it wasn't an excellent fighter.

Ah, but it seems that only 52 LW experten actually shot down (were awarded) 5 or more Mustangs or Thunderbolts (in any combination and the max was 13(?) of any one type - (Bar and Steiman were the only two with double digit awards on both 51 and 47's). Nine LW aces shot down five or more of both types - all theatres, not just ETO

whereas just the 8th AF aces numberd 118 aces shooting down 5 or more German fighters of any specific type and the high 'type and number' was the me 109, with 24 of the 8th AF aces shooting down at least 5 each Me 109 or Fw 190. This does NOT include any of the 50+ aces that flew in the Pioneer Mustang Group (354th) which did the heavy lifting in December through May.

Robert Johnson was high on fw 190 with 15.5 (P-47), Preddy was high on 109 with 21

/QUOTE]

Soren you delight in snide remarks and comments that are frequently made without also referencing your souces.. can you change your approach and have a debate without the catty remarks?

And, if you don't like my research do your own?

 

[drgondog]

Do I really have to request you to use that clever mind of yours Bill?

The crucial factors to consider here:

Fuel
By 1944 the LW was in serious lack of fuel, many a/c barely taking off with half a tankfull. This meant less time to hang around and made quick and devastating strikes to the bomber streams absolutely essential.

Sources for 1/2 loads of fuel? You have claimed this before but never give us the source? And, for the moment, would a half load of fuel make a 109 more or less manueverable?

Pilots
By mid 1944 to 1945 the German pilots weren't generally the skilled aviators of the past, training time had decreased dramatically. Thus there were a good load rookies with no business behind the controls of a fighter out there fighting the Allies. A skilled pilot is way more useful than 10 rookies.
The USAAF RAF on the other hand didn't lack well trained pilots. USAAF RAF pilots were good pilots, they knew how to fly and most of them knew exactly how to exploit the weaknesses strengths of their a/c.

So the pilots like Rall coming in from Ost and the units from JG 53, 27, etc from late 1943 to mid 1944 that transferred into LuftFlotte Reich were low time pilots?

In May 1943, according to Price LuftFlotte Mitte had
I. &II./JG1; I./JG3; I and II./JG11, I./JG27 and III./JG54

In May 1944 after re-organizing and transferring from all fronts into LuftFlotte Reich, it was then constituted with;
I,II and III/JG1 (one Gruppe increase)
I,II,III and IV./JG3 (3 Gruppe increase)
I II./JG5 (2 Gruppe increase)
I,II, III. plus 10. Staffel/JG 11 (one Gruppe plus one Staffel increase)
I,II,III,IV./JG3 (3 Gruppe increase)
II./JG53 (one Gruppe increase)
III./JG54 (no change)
I,II,III./JG300 (3 Gruppe increase)
I./JG301 (one Gruppe increase)
I./JG400 (one Gruppe Me 163)
Einsatzstaffels 104, 105 and 108 training units that flew combat missions (one Gruppe)

Essentially 17 Gruppe increase, NOT including the Zerstorer Gruppes - just he single engine fighters.

Are you suggesting that the newly transferred Gruppen into Germany shed all of their experience and re-staffed with recent trainees?

Sources please?


Priorities
Most Bf-109's Fw-190's over the European skies were heavily armed interceptors whose only mission and absolute top priority was shooting down the bombers, the escorting fighters were of no importance what'so'ever and just had to be avoided. Therefore most 109's and 190's carried extra heavy armament in the various Rüstsätze's available. A Fw-190 or Bf-109 caught whilst attacking the bombers didn't stand much chance, and this is undoubtedly what happened to the far majority.

Some were, some weren't. I p[ointed you several times to different sources of TO&E for all of the above Gruppes to demonstrate that you did not really have a grasp of your facts. You have yet to counter any of the sources I provided you... or any source for that matter other than your unimpeachable opinion?

Now as to your so called slaughtering of the LW fighters, again you're just spewing out words without thinking.

Actually no. I thought, I referred to sources and concluded that 8:1 air to air ratios suggest 'slaughter'. If you have a higher threshold in mine, toss it out.

This so called slaughtering you're talking about never took place Bill, the LW fighters did in fact during most of the interceptions manage to shoot down a similar amount of USAAF bombers as they themselves lost in fighter a/c, and yet they still managed to shoot down many escorts despite that.

I am just about finished with 'my frivolous' research but here are the preliminary results.

8th AF FC awards(all fighter types) - 5174 german a/c all types in air combat for 644 losses air to air. Of these the Mustangs were awarded 3621.5 vs 344 losses air to air.

Of the above total 2514 Me 109s were shot down, 1947 Fw 190s were shot down and 112 Me 262's were shot down.

The P-38s lost 101, the P-47 lost 213 and the P-51 lost 340. I'm nearly at the point where I can break out losses and awards type by type (P-38 vs Me 109)

The escorts posed exactly ZERO threat to the German war effort, and thus their destruction was of no importance and thus they just had to be bypassed as effectively as possible to get to the bombers.

Galland had a different opinion, particularly for the long ranging high performance Mustang which interdicted rail traffic, shot up airfields, barge and road traffic and crushed the LW high and low. You think gaining air superiority and taking losses from 10% to 2 % is 'irrelevant'? You are perhaps unique in your opinion

Now Bill, are you as a self proclaimed serious researcher going to try and tell me that these factors are irrelevant and can be overlooked ? If so your bias again seems to shine through.

I'm not going to overstate my research credentials but I will be lloking to your own to demonstrate more factual basis for your comments. Start with a factual debate on references and sources to validate your 'sterling' opinions?

Also as to the P-51 taking out a lot more 109's 190's than it lost in return, well I'd never venture into such a conclusion with such little evidence. LW fighters actually downed in the air by the P-51 wasn't anywhere close to the claimed figure.

Maybe. The records of the Luftwaffe were pretty trashed as well as AWOL near the end of the war. Where German loss records do exist the pretty well dovetail to 8th FC awards - but ALL are overstated in my opinion and the many missions I have researched personally and compared with Tony Woods LW awards lists are frequently 100% overstated. Are you stating that Tony is off/on/close/unfounded? Are you stating that USAF 85 is grossly overstated - and if so what is your souce(s)?

Do you personally have better references that we can look to?

Just check out how many a/c the LW lost alone due to non-combat related accidents.

Ditto to USAAF attrition to mechanical and fuel issues carrying the fight to every corner of the Reich? How many more LW losses would have occurred if Me 109s were forced to fly 600 mile radius missions on a daily basis.. can you spell 'hog' with that much fuel?

Next is your weird theory that because the Bf-109 reached 33,000 examples it is the very reason for why the top aces flew this plane. Well sorry but again you're just spewing out claims. Even with the WW2 aces of the P-51, P-47 and Spitfire put together does the number of aces approach that born by the Bf-109, and this is despite that put together these aircraft were built in far larger numbers. Also explains why most top aces wanted to stay with the Bf-109 even in late 44 to 45, wouldn't make so much sense if it wasn't an excellent fighter.

Ah, but it seems that only 52 LW experten actually shot down (were awarded) 5 or more Mustangs or Thunderbolts (in any combination and the max was 13(?) of any one type - (Bar and Steiman were the only two with double digit awards on both 51 and 47's). Nine LW aces shot down five or more of both types - all theatres, not just ETO

whereas just the 8th AF aces numberd 118 aces shooting down 5 or more German fighters of any specific type and the high 'type and number' was the me 109, with 24 of the 8th AF aces shooting down at least 5 each Me 109 or Fw 190. This does NOT include any of the 50+ aces that flew in the Pioneer Mustang Group (354th) which did the heavy lifting in December through May.

Robert Johnson was high on fw 190 with 15.5 (P-47), Preddy was high on 109 with 21

Soren you delight in remarks and comments that are frequently made without also referencing your souces.. can you change your approach and have a debate without the catty remarks?

And, if you don't like my research do your own?

 

[drgondog]

The Allies used highly effective proximity fuzes in their larger AA pieces (75mm up) so I'm gonna have to call BS on that one.

Call away. Are you suggesting that 90mm flak was used by Allies to defend against low level attacks by fighters? That WAS what Hunter and I were talking about.

Which one of us 'missed the point"??

If I missed it, could you tell me where this defensive arrangement was the scourge of Ju 87 and me 262 and Fw 190G (and whatever else) attacks on Allied airfields - maybe I missed out on that.

 

[Soren]

Nice attempts at dodging the real issues at hand Bill.

Sources for 1/2 loads of fuel? You have claimed this before but never give us the source?

Try actually talking to the guys who flew the birds Bill. The lack of fuel was so great that by late 1944 that many a/c couldn't take off when needed, and just had to sit and wait to be shot up by Allied grond attacks.

And, for the moment, would a half load of fuel make a 109 more or less manueverable?

LoL, maneuverability has nothing to do with it ! The LW fighters were bounced attacking the bombers and were heavily armed (Thus slower), they were easy targets in this situation.

If maneuverability was the deciding factor then the P-51's P-47's over Europe would've been eradicated.

So the pilots like Rall coming in from Ost and the units from JG 53, 27, etc from late 1943 to mid 1944 that transferred into LuftFlotte Reich were low time pilots?

LoL you bring forth these to prove your point ??!! (And thats despite their being many aces flying on the western front) Yes Bill the LW consisted of MANY rookies by mid 1944 to 1945 trying to defend the Reich. Your little list doesn't in any way disprove this fact. There were also experienced pilots in the LW no doubt, but they had to lead the rookies, so they themselves became targets.

Also you so happily skidded around the fact that the LW were the ones doing the actual slaughtering, rightly concentrating on the bombers as their main targets. Its none other than amazing that the LW fighters managed to additionally shoot down as many escorts as they did whilst they themselves were easy targets when they pounded the bombers, and esp. amazing when you additionally consider the fuel situation and decreasing pilot training.

As to Galland disagreeing with me, no I don't think so Bill, cause Galland was of the exact same opinion that the bombers were the ones who needed to be brought down, not the escorts, the escorts needed just to be bypassed. Or are you under the illusion that Galland shared yout vision and didn't see the sense in one strike taking up to ten Allied personnel out the fight, a far more expensive piece of machinery and meanwhile securing the home industry was more important than fooling around with the escorts ??

Now as to there being only 52 LW pilots shooting down 5 or more P-51's P-47's, Ha !, where did you get that figure ? Kacha's LuftWaffe Page ?? Just so you know that list isn't even near complete yet! And additionally MANY LW pilots were never awarded their kills as they were shot down.

And about the ~2500 Bf-109's and ~1900 Fw-190 claimed shot down, well that's just hilarious, esp. when you look at the actual LW lossess of both types due to air ground attacks.

And about the Me-262's, well again by far he majority were shot down while landing or taking off, atleast 80%.

And as to most of the USAAF fighter losses being to German FlaK, again thats just pure hogwash Bill. The USAAF did the same trick in Korea, claiming that most their fighters were lost due to groundfire in an attempt to glorify their own efforts.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Try actually talking to the guys who flew the birds Bill.

Do you know what is funny Soren, Bill has probably talked with more pilots from the Luftwaffe (and the USAAF as well) except for maybe Erich (I dont know whether Erich or Bill has talked to more) than anyone on this forum and he has the pics to prove it as well.

So you might want to rethink what you just said...

 

[Hunter368]

While I believe I brought up some valid points, as I believe Soren and Bill have also.

I think Soren and Bill you both come off being bias towards USA (Bill) and Germany (Soren). The real truth is somewhere between what you both say. You both bring up good points, I agree with you both.......but you both lose some creditability IMO b/c you both come off bias (each of you to a lesser or greater degree).

I respect both of your knowledge a great deal, both of you know more about WW2 then I do or will ever know. Sorry if I have offended you with this post, but I came here to gain knowledge about WW2. You both have sooooo much to offer but you lose some creditability when you argue like this (instead of debating in a progressive way) and show your clear bias.

Again sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent. My intent was to keep this thread progressing in the right direction without bias twisting the truth.

 

[drgondog]

Nice attempts at dodging the real issues at hand Bill.

Try actually talking to the guys who flew the birds Bill. The lack of fuel was so great that by late 1944 that many a/c couldn't take off when needed, and just had to sit and wait to be shot up by Allied grond attacks.

To be fair (to you) in the argument I stipulated the period when the Mustangs came into the ETO through May to avoid the 'all rookie' - 'no fuel' discussion

LoL, maneuverability has nothing to do with it ! The LW fighters were bounced attacking the bombers and were heavily armed (Thus slower), they were easy targets in this situation.

You keep saying that ignoring the fact that the LW was not stupid and realized they had to provide 'escorts' for the t/e ZG units, and later the Sturmbock 190's. If the 'escort' theory had worked there should have been many Mustangs downed by them? If it didn't work then what was the point?

Secondly, many of the attacks were a.) before the LW reached the bombers, and b.) after they had attacked and were diving away

Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen, I./JG3

Last if you care to actually DO some research here is a site that Michael Holm maintains that I use for Order of Battle - the above list is just for I./JG3

It shows for example that in 3/44 they had 29 Me 109G-6 and 10 G-6/U4's with 16 G-5's coming in. Is your contention that this TO&E is so 'heavily armed and slower' that they could not compete with a Mustang?


If maneuverability was the deciding factor then the P-51's P-47's over Europe would've been eradicated.

Simply silly. The performance at high altitude was close with respect to manueverabilty and speed with trade offs between them. The P-47 performed exceedingly well against the Me 109 and Fw 190 when the training and skill levels were high in 1943.

Also you so happily skidded around the fact that the LW were the ones doing the actual slaughtering, rightly concentrating on the bombers as their main targets. Its none other than amazing that the LW fighters managed to additionally shoot down as many escorts as they did whilst they themselves were easy targets when they pounded the bombers, and esp. amazing when you additionally consider the fuel situation and decreasing pilot training.

Soren - do you dispute that the 8th AF took air superiority away from LW over Germany in the period Fall 1943 through D-Day? One definition could be attrition of skilled pilots, another could be erasing the ability of the LW to take 5-10% of the attacking bomber force.. if you have other definitions or criteria name them

As to Galland disagreeing with me, no I don't think so Bill, cause Galland was of the exact same opinion that the bombers were the ones who needed to be brought down, not the escorts, the escorts needed just to be bypassed.

As Chris mentioned I have had many discussions with perhaps 10 German aces and at least four separate discussions specifically with Galland, the last one after he re-married. I first met him via Jim Brooks and my father and the conversation I referred to was one that Ray Toliver and I both had with him.

He was kind enough to permit me to reprint his letter replying to a question I posed to him in 1982 - namely the tactical chaos the 8th and 9th AF (Mustang) created for the Luftwaffe. You may turn to page 117 of my Angels, Bulldogs and Dragons book to refresh what he actually said versus what you 'think'.

Or are you under the illusion that Galland shared yout vision and didn't see the sense in one strike taking up to ten Allied personnel out the fight, a far more expensive piece of machinery and meanwhile securing the home industry was more important than fooling around with the escorts ??

His 'vision' was twofold Soren. One to make the daylight bombing campaign prohibitive and two, maintain complete air superiority over Germany. He realized to do the first he had to achieve the second.

He was able to do the second as long as fighter range was still a factor until he could get the Me 262 into full operations. The MUstang (in his opinion and Rall's) was the most important Allied fighter precisely because it took away air superiority and kept it until it was too late for any new technology to come into production.

As to the chosing bomber over fighter he UNDERSTOOD he had to achieve both but his orders were clear - to avoid the fighters if possible, mostly hit and "Abschwung"

Now as to there being only 52 LW pilots shooting down 5 or more P-51's P-47's, Ha !, where did you get that figure ? Kacha's LuftWaffe Page ?? Just so you know that list isn't even near complete yet! And additionally MANY LW pilots were never awarded their kills as they were shot down.

Yes, and the number I threw to you for the USAAF comparison was limited to only 8th AF.. and you don't think US pilots that were shot down had all their scores awarded? What the point other than there far more LW pilots shot down by USAAF than vice versa.

And about the ~2500 Bf-109's and ~1900 Fw-190 claimed shot down, well that's just hilarious, esp. when you look at the actual LW lossess of both types due to air ground attacks.

Always willing to learn from an informed source. What do you propose as an 'informed source" -

if LW records I have two questions 1. Where is a complete repository or document or book that is credible and accessible, and 2. Are you posing that the LW records are complete with nothing missing?

The source for my research is the 8th AF VCB, the post war USAF study 85 - 20+ visits to Maxwell AFB HRC to compile the claims by date, type and pilot/squadron. Jeff Ethell and I had planned a project on 8th AF FC but when he died I lost Interest and Kent Miller did what we wanted to do.

So, Miller's 8th AF pilots and units book is as good as it gets for any current published source.

My tables differ a little bit on numbers and loss categories. I tend to move an 'unknown cause' for example to an 'air to air' loss if any German presence was noted... so my air loss total is higher than his.

So, what are your methods and sources to gather data to make some form of an informed comment? Thus far it seems that you deal from opinion w/o facts.

And about the Me-262's, well again by far he majority were shot down while landing or taking off, atleast 80%.

A commonly held belief - facts please? I don't have them either so I choose to not say 'BS"

And as to most of the USAAF fighter losses being to German FlaK, again thats just pure hogwash Bill. The USAAF did the same trick in Korea, claiming that most their fighters were lost due to groundfire in an attempt to glorify their own efforts.

I will wave the 'BS' flag here. The Korean War air loss total has been revised upward as the Soviet records have been obtained. Ditto WWII. I revised my own air loss total from my research based on 1980 data sources about 40% based on cross referencing German reports for KIA/POW 355FG pilots as well as using Woods/Butler to flesh out claims/awards in areas where the 355th had a loss to an 'unknown' cause.

I have broken out flak from 'strafing' to attempt to separate where a pilot hit a tree trying to avoid flak, but at the end of the day it could have been pilot error, a fatal wound causing loss of control or an engine failure at the wrong time - so no evaluation is perfect. You don't like my methods? Trot out yours for comparison.

Nobody (i.e any historian that I know) lies just to inflate scores or glory. It is simply too easy to spot by someone with an opposing view and ability to research

As to 'hogwash'?? How many MACR's have you researched Soren, do you know what that means? How many Fighter Group (USAAF) Squadron and Group Histories have you researched? I have read ALL the Macr's available at NARA and Maxwell and the ones on-line such as passport.com.

So again, you denigrate a comment or statistic that I offer because you don't like the number - but you just can't offer data or a fact driven opinion - just ad hominum attacks on people that disagree with you.

Pathetic.

 

[drgondog]

While I believe I brought up some valid points, as I believe Soren and Bill have also.

I think Soren and Bill you both come off being bias towards USA (Bill) and Germany (Soren). The real truth is somewhere between what you both say. You both bring up good points, I agree with you both.......but you both lose some creditability IMO b/c you both come off bias (each of you to a lesser or greater degree).

I respect both of your knowledge a great deal, both of you know more about WW2 then I do or will ever know. Sorry if I have offended you with this post, but I came here to gain knowledge about WW2. You both have sooooo much to offer but you lose some creditability when you argue like this (instead of debating in a progressive way) and show your clear bias.

Again sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent. My intent was to keep this thread progressing in the right direction without bias twisting the truth.

Hunter - No offense taken, your perspective is your perspective.

Could you offer an example where I 'twisted the truth'? then illustrate the 'real truth' so that I can learn from my error?

 

[Soren]

Pathetic ?? Ha! (Talk about snide remarks ) No, what's pathetic is you totally twisting Galland's own words Bill!

I have Galland's book, and in it he as-well more than once highly stresses the point that the bombers were top priority and that the escorts just had to be bypassed. The orders coming from the OKL emphasizing the exact same.

As for the few dedicated LW fighters tasked with protecting the interceptors, they were the only ones who took the fight to the escorts, and that was while being grossly out-numbered. You should know how many dedicated fighters were assigned to protect the interceptors, VERY few! But despite this they were causing trouble for the P-51's, esp. the later boosted Bf-109's and the new Fw-190 Dora-9's were real menaces and had to be grouped up on.

Also I will AGAIN ask you to realize who was doing the actual slaughtering Bill. Even in 1945 the German fighters mostly shot down a similar amount of bombers as they themselves lost in fighters, now if you consider that a bomber usually contains 10 crewmembers and costs the same as roughly 10 fighter a/c, then who really got slaughtered ??

Moving onwards it is also very strange how you can ever dispute the huge effect the lack in pilot training had on the LW's efforts, how the heck could it NOT be a huge factor ??!!

Anyway in the end I'm not trying to bash the P-51, it did its job as an escort fighter well, it performed well at the altitudes where the bombers were flying and it had the range needed. The escorting P-51 fighters were indeed an important factor to the Allied success, I have never doubted that Bill and I never will. But the P-51 is highly overrated, esp. by you, but that's understandable seeing your father owned one and that you actually flew one. But fact is that the only advantage that the P-51 had over the German fighters was range and early on performance over 22,000 ft, in maneuverability it was no match for the Bf-109 or Fw-190, esp. not at SL up to 22,000 ft. Now that having been said the P-51D enjoyed a good speed advantage over its main oppponents in the beginning, and it wasn't really matched in speed until mid 1944. And like fighter pilots often say, speed is life!

As to the P-51 alone being a threat to the German war effort, it NEVER was, the Allied bombers however were.

One last thing: The Ground attack abilities of the P-51 weren't very good Bill, first of all because it couldn't carry very much and secondly because its guns weren't near powerful enough for the role, and thirdly because it was very vulnerable in the role.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ah I can see how this thread is going to turn out....

 

[Hunter368]

Hunter - No offense taken, your perspective is your perspective.

Could you offer an example where I 'twisted the truth'? then illustrate the 'real truth' so that I can learn from my error?

Like I said I meant to offense to you or Soren, get a feeling from your last sentence I did offend you.

I was not saying you or he was actually twisting to truth, more that the truth can be lost when two people get their defenses up and start talking from the corner that the other person has put them into.

The truth tends to get lost/twist/clouded when two people argue and insult each other like you both are.

Hope I cleared up any potential insult you or Soren might of felt from my one post.......none was meant. I also hope you both see what I am saying and clean up this little insulting match you two are having to the benefit of having the real truth come out (I am not claiming to know the whole truth, just parts of it and I am here to learn from others).

Education is the main idea of this forum, I think we should "all" stick to that theme.

Otherwise this thread will be closed or the Mods will step in and warn you both to chill out. Either way I have tried.

 

[renrich]

Soren, re your remarks about the Hellcat, they don't jibe with Eric Brown's. I know he is biased(toward ETO airplanes) but have you read his book, "Duels in the Sky"?

 

[drgondog]

No, what's pathetic is you totally twisting Galland's own words Bill!

Have you a.) read the letter I am referring too? and if so, would you care to annotate what you believe are examples of twisting his own words?

As for the few dedicated LW fighters tasked with protecting the interceptors, they were the only ones who took the fight to the escorts, and that was while being grossly out-numbered.

Soren - to date you have repeatedly and consistently said this. You have yet to offer one iota of substantiation regarding either the mix or the quantity by type. I have done so, and all you can do is 'claim' otherwise without one single source, or find a credible reference.

I will absolutely agree that if you count bombers as part of the equation they WERE 'outnumbered', but the force mix to survive the escort is a matter of choice, not total number available.

Would you say a standard Me 109G-6 in the inventory with no reference to R6or other pod mounted 20mm or 30mm mod in the TO&E's I have submitted to you, fit the 'escort' role or the dedicated bomber attack role? If you claim the G-6 unmodified was 'bomber dedicated', how would you differentiate the assignments from german records?

All German fighters 'caused troubles' to Allied fighters, some more, some less. This discussion in not in dispute.




My claim, and repeated statement was that the Me 109s were in fact 'slaughtered, mangled, destroyed in great quantities' and other adjectives in the great air battles in Jan-May 1944 timeframe when you compare me 109 and fw 190 losses in fights with Mustangs to Mustang losses in that fight.

The actual numbers can be debated as claims and awards are debated

When I offer USAF Awards (careful post war analysis of ALL USAAF WWII claims/awards) you claim gross overstatement. I agree that all claims including Luftwaffe are overstated but so far you have not pointed to ONE Luftwaffe source/compilation to negate the USAF 85 Awards.

I have pointed you to Woods compilation of LW "awards" to demonstrate that in many cases they were 2 to 3 x the actual losses incurred by 8th AF in Ops (all) which include flak, landing in neutral territory, ditchings, mechanical failures, etc). You have no answer to this other than claiming LW evaluation was impeccable.

I have offered the references, the statistics and they are in turn substantiated in the data from the 8th AF record. In several instances including Caldwell's and Mueller's and Prien's works I have pointed you to their LW sources where the USAAF units and LW units could be pin pointed as to area and time.

What have you done so far to offer one single source or research?


Moving onwards it is also very strange how you can ever dispute the huge effect the lack in pilot training had on the LW's efforts, how the heck could it NOT be a huge factor ??!!

I have NEVER disputed this factor as relevant. I HAVE shown you the Order of Battle for Germany several times and contrasted the 17 Gruppe re-inforcement to LuftFlotte Reich from Mitte from May 1943 to May 1944. I have asked you why you think the discussion should be focused on 'trainees' for that period when so many experienced fighter pilots and units were transferring into Germany to try to defeat the 8th AF.

So, what was the percentage of low time fighter pilot to say, 300 hour plus and above for jan-May 1944 in LufFlotte Reich? Point your source?

I have repeated many times that the 8th AF FC achieved numerical superiority in the number of escort fighters the USAAF could deploy over the target - AFTER normandie campaign.. and demonstrated referencable statistics of the order of battle and timing of conversions from P-47s to Mustangs.

I have demonstrated that it is simply impossible to find and attack the LW with more than two Groups of Mustangs in a 20 mile area EVER, during the period through even November.

So, to use your prior claims in previous threads of '8:1 or 12:1" you would never have more than 12 Me 109s in a formation finding and individually seeking out ALL the Mustangs in 3-6 separate squadrons along a 20 mile path... is that what you believe?

You have yet to find an example to demonstrate otherwise. I am willing to be converted but substantiate!

I have demonstrated 8th AF tactical doctrine which in effect permits rational deployment of sections and squadrons but rarely even and entire Group in a fight. In the example of April 24, 1944 one of the squadrons of the 355th (358FS) never engaged when the 200+ Me 109s were concentrated in the Munich area simply because there was nobody left to perform escort duties.

When I press you on this set of facts you regress into a.) rookie pilots, b.) clumsy Me 109s but when I rebut the 'clumsy/heavily armed/defenseless Me-109 with published souces indicating otherwise you fail to find contrary data.


But the P-51 is highly overrated, esp. by you, but that's understandable seeing your father owned one and that you actually flew one. But fact is that the only advantage that the P-51 had over the German fighters was range and early on performance over 22,000 ft, in maneuverability it was no match for the Bf-109 or Fw-190, esp. not at SL up to 22,000 ft.

I'm OK with some of this statement but believe I have many times acknowledged the excellence of the me 109. I have similarly stated that not only my father but many fighter pilots I have talked to will say that the 109 was the most closely matched opponent until the Fw 190D and me 262 arrived in numbers.

But to say 'it was no match for Me 109s and Fw 190s is a prime example of you overstating the relative match between the fighters. If what you said is true the Mustang and P-47s would have been decimated in late 1943 and Spring of 44 when there were MANY experienced and talented pilots 'remaining' from the massive transfers into LuftFlotte Reich.

As to the P-51 alone being a threat to the German war effort, it NEVER was, the Allied bombers however were.

I agree but offer the points made by Galland in his letter on this subject specifically - and I direct you to the letter reproduced with his permission in my book.

1. It had a huge tactical footprint with excellent performance which in turn enabled it to create absolute chaos in interferring with German tactics.

2. The combination of Doolittle's directive to 'seek and destroy' the Luftwaffe wherever it could be found and enabling escort fightrs to go to the deck after relieved of escort duties unleashed the 8th AF FC to be completely aggressive - an enablement Galland repeatedly states as 'enviable'

3. The roaming on the deck well before P-47s were able to reach central Germany, enabled great destruction of German a/c on the ground, catching all types of a/c taking off to try to form up, or landing, shooting up rail and barge traffic complicating Speers's dispersement of German Industry strategy by interdicting movement of sub assemblies from one factory to another, etc, etc

4. This set of strategies, combined with the high level of performance at altitude and the deck, was decisive in wresting control of the air over Germany.

5. Wresting control of the air was decisive in Allied daylight bombing being the critical factor in destruction of German oil/chemical industry.

To summarize, HE believed the Mustang to be the most important fighter the Allies had.

Nowhere have I said it was the Best, I have stated Most Important and stand by that statement!

One last thing: The Ground attack abilities of the P-51 weren't very good Bill, first of all because it couldn't carry very much and secondly because its guns weren't near powerful enough for the role, and thirdly because it was very vulnerable in the role.

Well, I won't argue 'best' ground attack simply because the Tempest, Jug, Fw 190 were more duarble to small arms and light flak. But if no other fighter type is available in numbers to get to central and eastern Germany and achieve those results - how 'not very good' is that?

Having said that the Mustang destroyed more German a/c on the ground than the other 8th AF fghters combined.. and also suffered the most casualties in that role. If one Mustang destroyed a specialized Ju 88 or Do 217 on the ground and prevented that a/c from destroying a bomber that day (or night) how do you judge the value? The strafing attacks destroyed a very large number of t/e night fighters - how many RAF crews survived because of that?

If that Mustang destroyed 10 me 262s at Lechfeld and damged 10 more to point of missing ops for prolonged time, preventing loss of 10-20 to whatever B-17s or B-24s - and no other fighter could get there, what is the value or trade off if you lost three Mustangs and their pilots?

You tell me whether that is 'good' or 'poor'?

Final note - ground victories were awarded on basis of a.) combat film AND the number of fires observed. The 51 might put 200 rounds of 50 cal, breaking main spars, destroying engines etc but only be awarded a 'damaged'

The number of actual a/c destroyed beyond repair could be overstated because a fire could go out and the a/c repaired - but a larger number were damaged w/o award to point of salvage. How many? Who knows.

 

[Soren]

Bill this response will be very short as I'm busy...


I see you're stilling clinging to that 8:1 12:1 disadvantage facing the LW I've talked about before. Well just so you know this came from Erich in an earlier thread and I trust him very much on the subject. IIRC I was in that thread originally talking about the LW fighters being out-numbered in the air by mid 1944 till the end of the war, mostly around 5:1, but this was from pilot anecdotes. So I hope we're done talking about this now.


Re. the std. 109 G-6 without Rüstsätze being a dedicated fighters, no this role was assigned to the best performing fighters. Also in the list you posted (Please do again thank you) that no Rüstsätze's are mentioned but this doesn't mean that the particular a/c didn't feature one, unless the list specifically lists others that do ofcourse, so does it ?

But to say 'it was no match for Me 109s and Fw 190s is a prime example of you overstating the relative match between the fighters. If what you said is true the Mustang and P-47s would have been decimated in late 1943 and Spring of 44 when there were MANY experienced and talented pilots 'remaining' from the massive transfers into LuftFlotte Reich.

I said the P-51 was no match in terms of maneuverability, assuming the planes are cleanly loaded ofcourse, and esp. not at SL and up to 22,000 ft. But I also said that the P-51 enjoyed a good speed advantage early on, esp. above 22,000 ft, and like fighter pilots say: SPEED IS LIFE!. If we were to believe that maneuverabilit was the deciding factor then how come the Zeke were litterally decimated by the US Navy fighters ??

Now I have to cut it short cause work is calling, so I'll address the rest later.

 

[drgondog]

Bill this response will be very short as I'm busy...


I see you're stilling clinging to that 8:1 12:1 disadvantage facing the LW I've talked about before. Well just so you know this came from Erich in an earlier thread and I trust him very much on the subject. IIRC I was in that thread originally talking about the LW fighters being out-numbered in the air by mid 1944 till the end of the war, mostly around 5:1, but this was from pilot anecdotes. So I hope we're done talking about this now.

Why pick 5:1? or 12:1 or 1:3? What is your basis for any ratio? If you agree that there was no such numerical advantage of Mustang escorts over German targets in the first half of 1944 then we're through debating this.

If you maintain that is not the case, then display the data and the logic to refute.

I respect Erich very much but he and I would disagree if we focus the discussion to a.) available fighters to defend the bombers from Munster and Stuttgart to all points east and we focus on the period in which I believe the control of the air was wrested from Germany - namely Jan through May 1944.

I have done a LOT of research on this subject and quite comfortable in the discussion points.

But that begs a question - it avoids what YOU think based on your personal assessment of the available data?



Re. the std. 109 G-6 without Rüstsätze being a dedicated fighters, no this role was assigned to the best performing fighters.

Before the A/S came into units, what was the 'best performing' Me 109? And what did that say about 109G-6 w/o gondola wing kits? What about the G-5 and G-4? 'Not good enough'? Does that mean before the A/S came to squadrons in numbers that no Me 109 was considered adequate to defend against Mustang? Seems implausible.

Also in the list you posted (Please do again thank you) that no Rüstsätze's are mentioned but this doesn't mean that the particular a/c didn't feature one, unless the list specifically lists others that do ofcourse, so does it ?

No, do you have a list that does? I notice he does delineate between 109G-6 and 109G6/U4, etc. I have also noted that his list ties very nicely to historical accounts for example III./JG 26 in April 1944.

I suspect Michael Holm is updating the English section so I posted the german version as it has the types and quantities in all languages he uses.

He is best source so far that I have found... BTW his tables are in pretty close agreement at end of May, 1944 with Price's OrB for the units assigned to LuftFlotte Reich that I have shown you earlier.


I said the P-51 was no match in terms of maneuverability, assuming the planes are cleanly loaded ofcourse, and esp. not at SL and up to 22,000 ft. But I also said that the P-51 enjoyed a good speed advantage early on, esp. above 22,000 ft, and like fighter pilots say: SPEED IS LIFE!. If we were to believe that maneuverabilit was the deciding factor then how come the Zeke were litterally decimated by the US Navy fighters ??

I believe the phrase that started this last round of debates was that the P-51 was a 'pig' in comparison with 109? but my thinking on the Zero/Hellcat start below and blend into the 109/190

For similar reasons the Me 109 and Fw 190 fell in many multiples to Mustangs and Thunderbolts. The US Fighter pilot learned to capitalize on it's advantages and were aggressive about attacking enemy fighters. That is one key reason.

The more fundamental reason is that German fighter pilots first instinct to fight, pre-8th AF and extended into Fall 1943, was neutered. At some point the SOP was to avoid a fight because of their orders 'to ignore the fighters' That put initiative and aggressiveness in the hands of equal pilots with equal a/c. When you run you have lost half the battle to fighters that dive as well or better.

The last similarity is that when the first two reasons above took their toll of experienced pilots, the replacements were not good enough even with slightly better a/c. The LW was never short of fighter a/c not quite as good, as good as, or better, than the Allies depending on introduction of later models and the timing. The Japanese lost these orderly progressions and the cream of their fighter pilots at the same time. They NEVER had the Air Force the LW had to start with and got worse as the war progressed.

I would cite the above three reasons as the ones I believe the most effective at taking control of the air away from Germany beginning in last quarter 1943 and culminating in the first half of 1944.. and NONE more important than Hitler/Goering taking away experienced aggressiveness and confidence away from good to very good German pilots with their stupid orders.

Now I have to cut it short cause work is calling, so I'll address the rest later.

Ok.

I will ask you how your world changes if someday you decide that data does not support local air superiority of 8th AF fighters over German day fighters at the point of attack for this period of discussion. It shouldn't alter your world view but what conclusions would you draw?

If I were to take your position and decide that USAAF pilots always outnumbered their opponents in the multiple you talk (say 5:1) about I would wonder why any bombers were shot down by German fighters until the Me 262 came around..

If LuftFlotte Reich had 400-550 s/e day fighters in the inventory at any given point during 1/44 - 6/44 it would imply 2000-2500 fighter 'effectives' in the air over the target on any day.. in other words two to three fighters guarding every B-17 and B-24 bomber to and from the target, plus all the P-47s that didn't have the range to do target escort.

Back to the math.
Since the average effectives for each Fighter Group was 40-50 each that would mean at least 40 to 60 individual Fighter Groups of long range fighters (P-38 and/or P-51)..

What does your research tell you about the 8th (and 354th FG - 9th) AF long range equipped groups in our 1st half 1944? Do you suppose 60 Fighter Groups, 30?, 10?.. what would your answer be?

Just food for thought Soren. We can both be bull headed about our convictions but hopefully we can learn from each other. I'm willing to be convinced that my research is wrong but yo gotta show me yours to refute mine

 

[Soren]

It seems we agree quite well with each other after-all Bill.

If we're talking early 1944, then yes I agree that the US escorts were not out-numering the defending German interceptors. I was primarily thinking mid 44 to 45 however, and so was Erich.

And ofcourse before the boosted AS version of the 109G-6 fighter appeared the std. G-6's as-well as lightened Fw190A-6 -7's were used as dedicated fighters. Against these the P-51 held a clear advantage in performance above 22,000 - 25,000 ft, and thus the Mustangs could litterally just run away from the LW escorts and attack the occupied interceptors. The P-51 was a menace for the LW, there's no doubt about it.

As to the list, well thats my point Bill, whether the a/c were equipped with kits or not, it isn't listed.

Again a short post, I'm sorry, but work is calling....

 

[drgondog]

It seems we agree quite well with each other after-all Bill.

If we're talking early 1944, then yes I agree that the US escorts were not out-numering the defending German interceptors. I was primarily thinking mid 44 to 45 however, and so was Erich.

And ofcourse before the boosted AS version of the 109G-6 fighter appeared the std. G-6's as-well as lightened Fw190A-6 -7's were used as dedicated fighters. Against these the P-51 held a clear advantage in performance above 22,000 - 25,000 ft, and thus the Mustangs could litterally just run away from the LW escorts and attack the occupied interceptors. The P-51 was a menace for the LW, there's no doubt about it.

As to the list, well thats my point Bill, whether the a/c were equipped with kits or not, it isn't listed.

Again a short post, I'm sorry, but work is calling....

Tip of the hat to you Soren.. good exchange and I enjoyed (most) of it.

Chris did we suprise the crap out for you? LoL I DO respect Soren and recognize that while I am often wrong I am RARELY uncertain.

Soren, send me your email address via PM or if Erich has it I will see that you have my latest roll up on 8th AF ops - that way you whip my ass using my own stuff

 

[Hunter368]

LOL you guys!!! Lets all have a big group hug now!!!!

 

[drgondog]

LOL you guys!!! Lets all have a big group hug now!!!!

No thank you Hunter and I am not singing Kumbaya..

 

[Soren]

Roger that Bill!

I just switched internet phone company recently so I don't have a mail until tomorrow, but I will send you my new Email first thing in the morning.

The reason we sometimes to get into a furball is I sense we're very much alike you and I, and ofcourse we have a bias as-well. Hunter was absolutely right, we were putting each other in corners spewing snide remarks at one another, and that will make anyone put up their parades, which will make people misunderstand each completely to which we're both guilty. We started nitpicking again as previously.

I also respect you Bill, I have so since the beginning of your membership but esp. lately. You've made good contributions to this board for sure and I've come to respect you very much lately. And as a matter of fact, despite from your occasional slight bias toward the P-51, I generally don't see you as a biased person Bill.

PS: Hunter I never took any offense by what you said, after-all you were right about what you said.