Me 109, Spitfire, Zero or Mustang

Soren said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ditto Soren.

Please understand that my 'bias' toward the Mustang is related to the importance I attach to USAAF strategic campaign against Germany and my belief that was one of the feature battles in WWII - namely control of the air.

It is not a belief that the Mustang was the Best Fighter, or Best Escort Fighter or Best Piston Engine Fighter - but at one time or another it may have been all of those depending on your selection criteria, but I do not believe it was the best Dogfighter by any normal definition, nor the Best anything by May 1945 as the Ta 152 had truly arrived and there were no plans for a Super Mustang to compete beyond the H

I am not even emotionally attached to the P-51 as The Favorite. That for me is the F-86E and F.

But if you understand (not necessarily agree) the above connections it leads to insight about why I think the Mustang was so critical to Allied war effort. If it had not come exactly when it did, given the problems with the P-38, there is no telling whether the Oil campaign would have been started or whether the Me 262 would have made a bigger impact.

Yes, we do agree on so many things and our debate styles clash but the respect is there - just don't describe my baby as a 'pig'! (just kidding Soren)

How did the P-47N compared to it's contemporaries? I always loved the P-47 when talking about Allied planes.

drgondog said:

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)

Click to expand...

Well, that kinda confirms the 8th USAAF`s claims were even more ridiculus than we have previously thought - I can kinda understand why all USAAF fighters have 10:1 claims v losses when on occasion they overclaimed an easy 15:1 ratio, and usually overestimated enemy forced by a factor of 2-3.

But, in itself tells little about the actual Luftwaffe losses occuring, their cause, the ratio of overclaim, the context - ratio of forces, training time, different mission goals - of the whole thing happening.

See below :



Besides I have trouble understanding why this stupid discussion about who`s grandpa had the bigger dick in the air, which I think has been settled a couple of times in a good, amiable, and reasonable way, has to be restarted in such a manner.

As for the USAAF`s effect on the German fighter arm in 1944, please see below :

Kurfürst said:

Well, that kinda confirms the 8th USAAF`s claims were even more ridiculus than we have previously thought - I can kinda understand why all USAAF fighters have 10:1 claims v losses when on occasion they overclaimed an easy 15:1 ratio, and usually overestimated enemy forced by a factor of 2-3.

Several specific examples should be easy to obtain then. What examples do you have at hand? And please consider the below questions?

Kurfurst - a couple of questions for you.

If a german Fighter was say, hit in the coolant by a P-47, was able to crash land, land with say 25% damage.

How did the Luftwaffe treat that scenario. Was it lost in air combat? Probably not by German standards, but the fighter WAS downed in air combat.

If a US fighter belly lands after a fight, in German territory, it is counted as an award correct? - even if the a/c is only 5% damaged (as more than a few Mustangs at Rechlin were).

Second question, how many of the 10-40% damaged German fighters were damaged in air combat and what was the process of differentiating whether it was a.) an operational engine failure not due to combat, b.) battle damage but flyable and able to return to base or c.) battle damage and forced to land or crash land immediately?

What records can you point to that differentiates the above and further, what links can you make between those that were forced down by enemy (Allies) in combat but pilot un injured and a/c salvageable (but effectively shot down) and official LW Losses?

But, in itself tells little about the actual Luftwaffe losses occuring, their cause, the ratio of overclaim, the context - ratio of forces, training time, different mission goals - of the whole thing happening.

Agreed.

As for the USAAF`s effect on the German fighter arm in 1944, please see below :

Click to expand...

Are you saying then, that USAAF had negligible effect on the German Fighter Arm? Do you have a corresponding chart showing the pilots KIA, WIA as contrasted with the a/c production?

Do you have a chart which shows the monthly a/c damaged and/or destroyed on the ground?

Do you have one showing the number of fighters removed from operations due to battle damage and the average number of days such a/c were unavailable?

Do you have a corresponding chart showing 'what didn't get built' as a result of Germany prioritizing fighter production in 1944? How did the increased production, resources and skilled labor reallocation take away from other battlefield capabilities?

And the last question might be "what happened to the prior months production" for each of those months?

Bill,

Not sure if I am understanding one of your points above, so I am just asking so we are comparing apples to apples.

Are you suggesting that Allies vs Axis powers had different opinions on what a kill in combat was?

Yes I know USA considered grd targets kills, but besides that.

Hunter368 said:

Bill,

Not sure if I am understanding one of your points above, so I am just asking so we are comparing apples to apples.

Are you suggesting that Allies vs Axis powers had different opinions on what a kill in combat was?

Yes I know USA considered grd targets kills, but besides that.

Click to expand...

Not what I was trying to convey Hunter.

The eternal debate is Award versus Claim. Both the Luftwaffe and 8th AF had pretty serious conditions. Eye witness and combat film, preferably both.

Despite these conditions (including major component like wing or tail lost, uncontrllable fire (OPINION), seen to explode) there were claims and awards by both sides in which the a/c in question returned to base.

In my own research I count a 355th a/c which was damaged in a gun fight but a/c came back and crash landed/destroyed as "air to air' loss. Which is why some of my numbers are slightly different from other respected folks.

My question to Kurfurst (and Dr Prien) were to get clarification from LW perspective regarding what constitues an air to air loss.

Simply stated I say an a/c that was shot up so badly that it was forced to land immediatley, or crash landed to save the a/c, is an a/c that was 'shot down' if you want to compare apples to apples in the claim/award game.

But a German perspective that says 'hey it wasn't destroyed' is legitimate. So is the 8th AF/RAF pilots claim that he shot it down.. so here is a potential area of dispute in the 'claim/award' debates... THAT was my focus.

A lot of shot up B-17s were salvaged after a crash landing (some fighters-not many) from battle damage. In my opinion that also counts or should count as a 'loss-air to air' - either side.

The difference is that in the former case of forced to land immediately a USAAF pilot and crew is either dead or POW. The German pilot walks away from a damaged aiplane that may be easily repairable or salvaged. But is the latter an 'air to air' combat loss in LW records?

So, how did the LW account for that in it's operational records?

Similarly the Luftwaffe records are not complete, some of ours are not complete. To further complicate the problem many German records were lost in the chaos of the closing days of the war.

A specific example that comes to mind is an 'award' that my father got on July 28, 1944 near Mulhausen. Six 109s bounced a squadron of B-17s, one of the 109s was seen to blow up in the attack and my father lead a flight down after the other 5. He caught the trailing guy and chased him to the ground where the 109 crashed and blew up. Two confirming witnesses, combat film of the shooting, the hits and the burning wreckage.

In 20 years of research I have been unable to find a corresponding LW loss record for either of those two me 109s near Mulhausen or within 100 miles of Mulhausen. I DID find a 7./JG3 listing for two 109s lost in air combat but no location, whereas the other losses for JG3 that day were in France. So, maybe these guys were on TDY in the Leipzig-Mulhausen area? Who knows.

Those exist on both sides. Equal existence is the one where the other guy 'was seen spinning out of control - with no real chance of recovery". Well a lot of those DID recover and fly away.

That is why so much energy is sometimes given to shrill voices citing 'gross over claiming'.. and sometimes right on both sides of the question.

Bomber claims being worst of all. But funny, the overclaims on B-17s and B-24s by German standards (verified crashed) are pretty seriously overstated - frequently, not always but I have never seen 'under claiming on US bombers shot down.

Oh well, we will Never truly have a grasp on this subject.

Guys like Ted Damick come as close as it gets for USAAF Fighters as he has researched every damage report, accident report, salvage record, etc - and guys like me send him our inventories with corresponding Macrs, squadron level engineering reports. He has put together about a 200,000 record data base(IIRC).

I have yet to see a similar collection of data/records from the LW but Prien may have something similar, as well as Leo Etgen and others.

Kurfust - are you aware of any large repositories of LW records including damaged, damaged/repaired, damaged/salvaged?

I don't know if that clarifies the question.

Yes it does thanks.

It's a tough one also. I think a claim is a "kill" when the plane cannot be returned to service due to excessive damage. If it can be repaired and put back into service then it just damaged.

Now countries with poor logistics and spare parts that are at hand....would have more kills as a result then a country with good logistics and lots of spare parts. Oh well what can you do. LOL

Bill, in one of your posts you mention a fellow name of Tolliver. I believe he was a co author of "Horrido" ( I can't reach my copy, it is packed) How do you rate that book?

Good book but with few mistakes overall. But still worth buying, I have it.

Bill made some points of interest. I enjoi the discussion.

What I would find important is the number of A/C written off due to damage. Whether or not the damage was received due to mechanical issues, pilot error or enemy action is of secondary importance.

These number should be obtainable for all sites.

Regarding the everlasting P-51-Bf-109 debate, I have the personal opinion that the P-51 had a distinct edge in performance over the stand. -109G6 with DB-605A when it appeared early in 1944 in the high escort role. This edge must have been serious, it impressed the germans. Of the 109´s, only the GM-1 boosted 109G5´s and G6/U2´s in clean fighter configuration could compete with the P-51B at high altitude on something like close to but not equal terms. And there were never many of those GM-1 boosted A/C in clean configuration avaible. The introduction of G6´s with DB-605 AS and the boosted DB-605ASM should be taken as a response to the P-51B. With them the later Bf-109G was still slightly inferior in performance but not anymore that distinctive at altitude.
The introduction of the boosted 109K in late 44/ early 45 gave them finally a plane which could compete with the P-51D in every respect encountered but it took three important quarters of a year (with respect to the strategic bombing campaign we could equally say: DECISIVE quarters) for this development to happen.

In 20 years of research I have been unable to find a corresponding LW loss record for either of those two me 109s near Mulhausen or within 100 miles of Mulhausen. I DID find a 7./JG3 listing for two 109s lost in air combat but no location, whereas the other losses for JG3 that day were in France. So, maybe these guys were on TDY in the Leipzig-Mulhausen area? Who knows.

Click to expand...

There are several Mühlhausen in Germany. There is a Mühlhausen in central Germany as well as a Mulhausen on the german-french border. If the latter is the case, it would fit the 7./JG-3 nicely.

delcyros said:

Bill made some points of interest. I enjoi the discussion.

What I would find important is the number of A/C written off due to damage. Whether or not the damage was received due to mechanical issues, pilot error or enemy action is of secondary importance.

I agree 100%. This is "a/c destroyed". What I was pointing out is that a USAAF didn't perceive as overclaiming an example given of shooting down a 109 that crash landed - but was repaired.. ditto a P-47 which was landed intact but a/c in perfect condition = was a 'loss' and I would hedge to say if he was forced down but relatively undamaged it is still a LW 'victory' because the a/c is denied from the 8th AF inventory

These number should be obtainable for all sites.

Regarding the everlasting P-51-Bf-109 debate, I have the personal opinion that the P-51 had a distinct edge in performance over the stand. -109G6 with DB-605A when it appeared early in 1944 in the high escort role. This edge must have been serious, it impressed the germans. Of the 109´s, only the GM-1 boosted 109G5´s and G6/U2´s in clean fighter configuration could compete with the P-51B at high altitude on something like close to but not equal terms. And there were never many of those GM-1 boosted A/C in clean configuration avaible. The introduction of G6´s with DB-605 AS and the boosted DB-605ASM should be taken as a response to the P-51B. With them the later Bf-109G was still slightly inferior in performance but not anymore that distinctive at altitude.
The introduction of the boosted 109K in late 44/ early 45 gave them finally a plane which could compete with the P-51D in every respect encountered but it took three important quarters of a year (with respect to the strategic bombing campaign we could equally say: DECISIVE quarters) for this development to happen.

Agreed again. Having said this however, the perimeter of operations was greatly reduced for Germany at that point of the war and numerical superiority of bot fighters and skilled pilots was then overwhelming - as RAF, and 9th AF were operating in Berlin area as much as 8th was at that time

There are several Mühlhausen in Germany. There is a Mühlhausen in central Germany as well as a Mulhausen on the german-french border. If the latter is the case, it would fit the 7./JG-3 nicely.

Click to expand...

This was central Gy 'version' on east side on way back from Leipzig - about 20-30 minutes east of Leipzig on the return.

This sin't the only eample of the mysteries. On 24 April, 1944 the 357FG bounced a Gruppe of Me 110's and theoretically shot down 10 for the loss of two Mustangs which collided with their victims. I have been unable to determine any loss records from LW of any Zerstoyers in Munich area that day.. but eyewitness MACR and Encounter Reports wescribing the loss of a Mustang hitting a 110 ca't be overzealous 'claiming'

Same situation on 7 July with 355th when they were awarded 10 Me-410's for loss of one Mustang colliding in mid air with the debris of one. No record of the Me 410 losses around Erfurt and nowhere near 10 much the rest of the Me 410s shot down by other groups. It is hard to imagine massive overclaiming on a t/e figher that could not escape, maintained nice formation, on a clear day... and the combat film/witness combinations

From my own research I found increasing examples of unobtainable records to validate a battle much less a loss.

At any rate this is a research 'opportunity' that will never be fully complete, even on Allied side.

Regards,

Bill

delcyros said:

Regarding the everlasting P-51-Bf-109 debate, I have the personal opinion that the P-51 had a distinct edge in performance over the stand. -109G6 with DB-605A when it appeared early in 1944 in the high escort role. This edge must have been serious, it impressed the germans. Of the 109´s, only the GM-1 boosted 109G5´s and G6/U2´s in clean fighter configuration could compete with the P-51B at high altitude on something like close to but not equal terms. And there were never many of those GM-1 boosted A/C in clean configuration avaible.

Click to expand...

Two things to consider here : P-51s were few in numbers, and the /AS aircraft appeared at about the same time, also few in numbers initially, and the Mustang was bugged with teething problems with it`s armament, which was too light anyway. The 51 was certainly a lot faster than the G-6 or 190A at altitude, but as long as there weren`t too many of them, such performance advantage of a few aircraft didn`t not weight much in the Big Picture.

The early battles of 1944 were not fought by these aircraft, but G-6s, A-5/A-6s and P-47Ds/P-38Js.

The introduction of G6´s with DB-605 AS and the boosted DB-605ASM should be taken as a response to the P-51B.

Click to expand...

It wasn`t - the AS engines were in consideration - they won out against the two staged, four speed DB 628, itself a 605 deriviate as a simplier solution - before the p-51B did it`s first sortie with the 8th AF, the first /AS protos flew in December 1943..

With them the later Bf-109G was still slightly inferior in performance but not anymore that distinctive at altitude.

Click to expand...

Not quite. The Mustang was a tad bit faster, the 109G with the high alt engines climbed better and had an overall better powerloading, with all that comes from that. In fact, the ASM and V1650-3/7 engines were very similiar in output, but in the 109 it drove a lighter aircraft.

The introduction of the boosted 109K in late 44/ early 45 gave them finally a plane which could compete with the P-51D in every respect encountered but it took three important quarters of a year (with respect to the strategic bombing campaign we could equally say: DECISIVE quarters) for this development to happen.

Click to expand...

Imho, performance differences between the G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 and the K-4 were rather marginal. The 109K (and G-10) initially had the same output of 1800 PS, and was something like 20 km/h faster than the rest due to aerodynamic refinements. That`s it, and 20 km/h of top speed is not a big deal - in practice, even less - it`s about as much as indivual aircraft of the same type from the very same factory differ from each other due to varying production quality.

PS : Bill, sorry I will try to answer later. In a nutshell.

IIRC look up the combat between that 15th AAF P-38 Group in 14 July(or June) 1944 vs. our guys from the 101st.

The graph I posted is not some production figure but first/secondline strenght of daylight fighters, compiled by HoHun from ww2.dk. In theory, it should be possible to compile exact shipments, losses to enemy and accidents etc. per month..

I am afraid I am not proficient on the manner the Germans recorded their losses, but I understand your point. In any case, I am MASSIVELY sceptical about these 10:1 kill ratio claims... look at the known records of the BoB`s loss ratios, rather close to 1:1 overall...

Against the std. Bf-109 G-6 in early 1944 the P-51 held a distinct advantage in speed, esp. above 25,000 ft, and this was a big advantage. The unboosted G-6 had to rely on its superior agility and climb rate to get out of trouble, but above 25,000 ft the climb rate of both a/c wasn't that different.

The same went for the Fw-190 A-5/-6 -7's, they relied on their superior agility to get out of trouble.

The introduction of the G-6/AS in mid 44 finally evened things out, and later the G-10/-14 were introduced as-well, but sadly for the Germans like delcyros points out there were too few available. The introduction of the K-4 as well as the Dora-9 finally gave the Germans the edge in terms of individual performance they had needed 5-6 months earlier.

The Bf-109 K-4 was far superior in turn performance climb rate compared to the P-51 at all altitudes, and on top of this it was faster, however yet again way too few were available. Compared to the P-51 the Fw-190 Dora-9 was superior in turn performance climb rate all the way up as-well, although not by as huge a margin but still considerably, and speed was similar, but again too few were available.

Bill, I hope You will have success with Your research, keep us informed, that´s all very interesting!

Two things to consider here : P-51s were few in numbers, and the /AS aircraft appeared at about the same time, also few in numbers initially, and the Mustang was bugged with teething problems with it`s armament, which was too light anyway.

Click to expand...

I understood that the merlin powered Mustang flew in late 1942 and the P-51B claimed it´s first victim in mid december 1943 over Bremen during an escort mission (Me-110, claimed by Charles Gumm). By march to april 44, Mustang units escorted regularely and provided very effective high cover. The 109G6AS appears to start entering combat units at about late april 44, when Mustangs have already established their strength. You are correct that neither of the planes was overly representative for the large scale. But once the LW engaged those few spoofy Mustangs appearing in december 43 over Germany they found themselve significantly outperformed at the altitudes they had to engage them until they got the later -AS / -ASM in their hands. That´s what established their "healthy respect" for this plane (Günther Rall).

As for claims I know of ! RCAF pilot that was awarded a damaged , a B17 crew called up with his letters on the side of his aircraft and congratulated him for saving them by damaging the 109 ...he never fired his weapons he figures possibly they caught aglimpse of sunlight reflecting off the 109 and said they were hits

Kurfürst said:

Two things to consider here : P-51s were few in numbers, and the /AS aircraft appeared at about the same time, also few in numbers initially, and the Mustang was bugged with teething problems with it`s armament, which was too light anyway. The 51 was certainly a lot faster than the G-6 or 190A at altitude, but as long as there weren`t too many of them, such performance advantage of a few aircraft didn`t not weight much in the Big Picture.

Good observation. The first operational sorties for the 354FG Mustangs were 1 December 1943. It was sole and exclusive Mustang Group until 363rd (9th also) and 357th (1st 8th AF) started in Feb.

The early battles of 1944 were not fought by these aircraft, but G-6s, A-5/A-6s and P-47Ds/P-38Js.

Depends on definition of 'early'. The 354th awards crossed 100 in February and all the early Mustang groups had big months starting in February, escalating in March to peaks in April and May.

Imho, performance differences between the G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 and the K-4 were rather marginal. The 109K (and G-10) initially had the same output of 1800 PS, and was something like 20 km/h faster than the rest due to aerodynamic refinements. That`s it, and 20 km/h of top speed is not a big deal - in practice, even less - it`s about as much as indivual aircraft of the same type from the very same factory differ from each other due to varying production quality.

PS : Bill, sorry I will try to answer later. In a nutshell.

IIRC look up the combat between that 15th AAF P-38 Group in 14 July(or June) 1944 vs. our guys from the 101st.

Agreed - but I believe I was limiting the scope of my points all in to 8th AF

The graph I posted is not some production figure but first/secondline strenght of daylight fighters, compiled by HoHun from ww2.dk. In theory, it should be possible to compile exact shipments, losses to enemy and accidents etc. per month..

I've thought about doing the same as I find ww2.dk to be best source - but I have enough on my plate with the 8th AF. Clearly you have a couple of issues to deal with to get closure. Classic Inventory management.

Inventory on hand plus deliveries (new production and Damaged-returned to service) minus damage WIP and minus those destroyed.

This will yield effectives - then if the subject under discussion is LuftFlotte Riech you have to account for movement/re-assignement of parts of the inventories as a function of the fighter units within that Organization.

I am afraid I am not proficient on the manner the Germans recorded their losses, but I understand your point. In any case, I am MASSIVELY sceptical about these 10:1 kill ratio claims... look at the known records of the BoB`s loss ratios, rather close to 1:1 overall...

Click to expand...

AFAIK the Luftwaffe approach was same. Major component (wing, tail)lost, a/c blow up, a/c crashed as a result of an attack (either mid air or into ground - also a source of USAAF error), major fire not believed to be stoppable if a/c left visible sight (source of error), seen to spin out of control (another major source of error for both sides) but not seen to hit ground. The latter two could result in a Destroyed award or a Probable Award

I would be massively sckeptical about 10:1 also, until much later than 1/44-5/44 when a lot of old hands were still flying.

My rollup for 8:1 air to air, 4:1 for air awards to ALL losses are predicated on a.) high degree of understanding of all 8th AF losses by types, and b.) data for Awards which ARE subject to the challenges of matching an 8th AF 'claim' translated into an Award - but subject to at least the uncertainties introduce by 'shot down' but repaired discussion above.

This is highly variable when you look at the different fighters.. when you look at my Lightning data, compiled with same rules, it is down in the 2:1 ratio, the P-47 in the 7:1 and the Mustang in the 9:1 area. I'm still tweaking and am sending my stuff to Soren soon.

In my opinion, and I'm still building the monthly data, the ratios were 'less' across the board but growing until perhaps May, dipped a little in June-Aug, and climbed in September till end of war. The June-August timeframe found more 8th AF air to air losses as result of getting caught strafing on the deck by roving LW squadrons and Gruppe's.

Kurfurst, the key issue still is completeness of LW records. I have found several significant 'holes' in loss data. And, reflect that the pioneer and major source of all our discussions reside in Prien's excellent work to piece it together. The 8th AF data is pretty solid, the MACRs are nearly 100%, the damaged/written off category is visible and countable, the flight accidents are accounted for over the UK.

What is less certain is the 'award to actual' because we can't match up to central LW reports by theatre and winng and pilot to parse the data and draw conclusions... But I pretty much KNOW which US aircraft were either lost in air combat or lost to Unkown causes that suspiciously SHOULD be in the "air loss" column just to be conservative. My tables reflect this.

But, if Tony Woods' data for his published Award records are considered accurate I could show you huge holes in claims by JG3, JG27, JG26 over Munich April 24, 1944 for example, in consideration for actual USAAF aircraft and crews lost versus what was awarded... It points out that even the highly respected LW awards process had significant flaws which seem to be as serious as the USAAF.

I am not going to get into an argument here because I feel all airpowers struggled with matching awards to actual a/c destroyed. Given that a shot down 109 could be repaired is an excellent example of how a USAAF claim could be an award for an aircraft NOT destroyed, but honest in the context that the Jug pilots cased, shot, hit and watched the 109 crash land. In his mind it doesn't occur that this a/c is not destroyed..

If you want to see what I have generated let me know.

Regards,

Bill

renrich said:

Bill, in one of your posts you mention a fellow name of Tolliver. I believe he was a co author of "Horrido" ( I can't reach my copy, it is packed) How do you rate that book?

Click to expand...

Ray Tolliver was first American that the German Fighter Ace community came to trust to tell their side of the story. Ray coincidentally was trusted by American Fighter Aces for his fairness and contributed to bringing the two groups together (along with Trev Constable).

Ray also was a USAF fighter pilot and Col (retired) with his last assignments including being an F-100 Squadron CO.

Damn good guy and helped me immensely when I started thinking about doing a book. Most of my LW photo collection comes from him or Galland via him

renrich said:

Bill, in one of your posts you mention a fellow name of Tolliver. I believe he was a co author of "Horrido" ( I can't reach my copy, it is packed) How do you rate that book?

Click to expand...

I think all of his books are good, some better. He does not edit the interviews or quotes to fit his own (Toliver or Constable) opinions if they differ - so what you get is unfiltered German POV.

I use Luftwaffe Fighter Aces a lot to go after pilot/unit details and perspectives.

p-51d no contest

fly boy said:

p-51d no contest

Click to expand...

Explain why?