Me 109, Spitfire, Zero or Mustang (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter d_bader
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
drgondog
Major
drgondog
Major
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
Major
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
Major
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?
Pathetic ?? Ha! (Talk about snide remarks
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.
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.
Ah I can see how this thread is going to turn out....
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
Major
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.
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 ?
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.
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 ?
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
Major
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
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....
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
Major
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
drgondog
Major
No thank you Hunter and I am not singing Kumbaya..
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.
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.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="1px" width="1px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)