drgondog
Major
Graphs don't win fights - tactics and skill win fights. The 8th AF Mustangs took out a lot more Me 109s and Fw 190s than were taken out. Why?
Me 109, Spitfire, Zero or Mustang
- Thread starter d_bader
- Start date
Graphs don't win fights - tactics and skill win fights. The 8th AF Mustangs took out a lot more Me 109s and Fw 190s than were taken out. Why?
Not true, not even close to being true.
Come on Bill are you suggesting that the 109 190 were out classed completely by the 51 technically? Your comment is misleading by suggesting such if that was what you were trying to say. While I agree with you graphs do not win war, but it is the most neutral/unbiased way to compare planes.
The 51 was not the best fighter over Berlin, what made it the best fighter "perhaps overall" was the fact that it could "get" over Berlin in the first place and that it was built in such large numbers. Other then that it was a decent fighter based on performance alone (not including range). But this chat is for the best fighter in WW2 thread.
Numbers won the war, attrition won the war, better planning won the war, better strategic planning won the war, better tactical planning won the war (as you hinted at and I expanded on).
That is not a true statement at all. Especially the part about only being able to fight unless it was over its own base. Come on now...
drgondog
Major
Come on Bill are you suggesting that the 109 190 were out classed completely by the 51 technically? Your comment is misleading by suggesting such if that was what you were trying to say. While I agree with you graphs do not win war, but it is the most neutral/unbiased way to compare planes.
No Hunter - and if you read my reply in context, it was about the 51 described as a 'pig' in combat with a 109.
Secondly the 'graphs' will tell you the two airplanes (Latest model 109s) are basically equal... but that wasn't enough is what I was emphasizing
Third in a fight, it's about training and tactical advantage when a/c are equal or nearly equal and frequently the aggressive nature of the combatants
The 51 was not the best fighter over Berlin, what made it the best fighter "perhaps overall" was the fact that it could "get" over Berlin in the first place and that it was built in such large numbers. Other then that it was a decent fighter based on performance alone (not including range). But this chat is for the best fighter in WW2 thread.
See above and see my entire reply for context - I don't disagree with the 'overall' statement either. As I recall it was 'which one do you want to fly in a dogfight' not even best fighter.
Rall and several other notable LW pilots considered the 51 to be the best Allied fighter and Range IS the key - but in context of range, the P-38 was superior but achieved far less against the 109 at altitude.. and as you said whatever you put up over Berlin had to be able to fight and fight extremely well to decimate the German airforce over German skies..
So, is it a 'pig'??
what a silly statement - even for Soren
As to whether it was the best over Berlin? Well if you look at the data and the trade off's in scores to losses in the first half of 1944 - it Was the 'best over Berlin'.
That was the period in which a.) the LW skills had not gone down completely, b.) they Did have tactical and numerical superiority and they mostly chose where they wanted to engage.
and came out 8:1 dogs - maybe worse if just discussing the 109.
Numbers won the war, attrition won the war, better planning won the war, better strategic planning won the war, better tactical planning won the war (as you hinted at and I expanded on).
Increased numbers of adequately trained fighter pilots, not just the aces, and increased training over the LW training capabilities opened the floodgates also.. this is the flip side of attrition. I would say even more important was the aggressiveness of the 8th AF fighter pilot in finding and attacking German fighters wherever they could find them and ignore the odds when under manned in the attack.
In the second half of 1944, what was left of LW Fighter Leader staff to fight against the escorts was further complicated by trying to achieve the mission with less talent behind them and trying to save the rookie during his first series of missions - but if the 8th AF fighter pilot had not been extremely aggressive, even that would have been less of an issue rather than critical
The ad nauseum beliefs that Mustangs had "8:1" or "12:1" numbers advantage in an attack is silly also. in most cases it was 1:4 or 1:2 (Mustangs to LW fighter) because the tactics were to bounce with as few as possible while protecting bombers.
Hunter, there were very FEW Mustangs to protect very large number of bombers in the first half of 1944 - and the 40-50 plane Group that were in the same area as the LW were mostly spread out over 3-6 miles covering the bombers in 8 plane sections.
So, at any given point that the LW chose to fight - there were only 8 to 48 available if the Germans chose to stay.
Someday, more people will look at the individual battles, the orders of battle, and the detailed tactical situations that actually existed when the Mustang came into play and how quickly they decimated the LW over Germany when the very good Jug could not go there and the very fine P-38 had a little too many extreme cold issues were solved and dive brakes were installed..
And at the end of the day, when the P-38L arrived it probably was a better 'dogfighter' than the Mustang until the 51H was in production.
At any rate the sharp remarks were about the 'pig' comment and the implication that the 109 failed to 'sweep the skies' of Mustangs because of other factors than performance.
At the dominant altitudes of 22,000 - 30,000 feet, in which most of the big fights were engaged:
1. Except for the sharp climbing turn perfectly executed and timed it (109G6) could not escape with raw speed or 2.) acceleration in a dive if chased, and 3.) except for the exceptional pilot, it could not out turn the 51 ( it may turn 'with' the 51).
The Me 109K series was the P-51H in concept and it, in my opinion was slightly better than the 51D as a pure dogfighter... but not better than the P51H for example.
So, the choice is a matter of preference rather than crystal clear based on graphical or flight test results. The results that counted were over Berlin when the Mustang was greatly outnumbered and the LW was transferring into Luftflotte Reich large numbers of experienced fighter pilots from other fronts
Regards
Wow I could comment there on many of your points but I am at work so......with limited time at the moment I will say this.
I agree with "most" of your post, but not all. Here is the main points i don't totally agree with:
-The way you say the 51 was out numbered by the LW is suggesting that the LW was there to fight the 51 (or any escorts). They were trying to avoid the escort most times and not engage them in fights. They were after the bombers, not the fighters. The bombers out numbered the LW defenders in most fights, not even including the defending escorts. Attacking bomber boxes has been described by many LW experts as being the worst thing they has ever done or fought vs. So to discount the kills (indirect kills) or not mention them or factor them into this chat is wrong. The defending LW was outnumbered many many times by the combined attacking force of bombers and escorts. BoB where Hurrs and Spits attacked LW med bombers was very different then LW attacking US bomber boxes.
-While there were many Experts left in the LW it is a fact that the general level of training had started to decline in the LW in 43. Allied planners did a better job planning for the future then the LW (or Japan) when talking about pilot training programs. Wars are not won by a few experts, then are won by the average pilot. Allied pilots were receiving better training then the new LW pilots were in 43......then add to the fact that the Allies stepped up the air war on all fronts........you can see how it had the LW training program burning at both ends of the candle. LW ended up sending poor souls up who barely had any real flight training in a real plane.......= easy kills. LW lost many pilots (new and vets) to bomber guns, lost pilots to escorts and had a poor plan in place to replace them with good pilots (hell they even sent bomber pilots to be fly fighter planes) = easy kills. So as the war went on as Allied pilots got better the average LW pilots got worse again = easy kills.
-You like to compare what "actually happened" in WW2 instead of looking at performance tests of the actual planes. Well that is just your choice (and some others) and thats fine......but there is weaknesses in that view (just like there is in believing performance tests blindly). I like to factor in both views, using a balanced unbiased point of view to form a opinion (not saying anything neg about your view point). I just think that believing blindly in what actually happened during WW2 you can not possiblely factor into the debate everything that effected those results during WW2 to make a accurate decision on which is a better plane. You need to look also at performance results from all planes for a unbiased (unclouded) point of view on which was a better plane. If you use real life results from WW2 you are not getting which is the better plane (many other factors effected the results in WW2 besides which was the better fighter and that is not what we are talking about here).
-PS the P-51 was no pig in my eyes, it was a good plane with great range, cheap to produce and available in numbers. It would not be my number one choice in any of the following areas: grd attack, defending fighter, or best long range fighter regardless of price. But overall if I was a country during WW2 who had to fight on many fronts, escorted bombers, it would of been my choice as a overall best fighter. Was it the best dog fighter? Not even close. Was it the best overall fighter used in many roles.....yes IMO. I think the USA made the best choice in making the 51 its main fighter when factoring everything in the big picture.
I agree with "most" of your post, but not all. Here is the main points i don't totally agree with:
-The way you say the 51 was out numbered by the LW is suggesting that the LW was there to fight the 51 (or any escorts). They were trying to avoid the escort most times and not engage them in fights. They were after the bombers, not the fighters. The bombers out numbered the LW defenders in most fights, not even including the defending escorts. Attacking bomber boxes has been described by many LW experts as being the worst thing they has ever done or fought vs. So to discount the kills (indirect kills) or not mention them or factor them into this chat is wrong. The defending LW was outnumbered many many times by the combined attacking force of bombers and escorts. BoB where Hurrs and Spits attacked LW med bombers was very different then LW attacking US bomber boxes.
-While there were many Experts left in the LW it is a fact that the general level of training had started to decline in the LW in 43. Allied planners did a better job planning for the future then the LW (or Japan) when talking about pilot training programs. Wars are not won by a few experts, then are won by the average pilot. Allied pilots were receiving better training then the new LW pilots were in 43......then add to the fact that the Allies stepped up the air war on all fronts........you can see how it had the LW training program burning at both ends of the candle. LW ended up sending poor souls up who barely had any real flight training in a real plane.......= easy kills. LW lost many pilots (new and vets) to bomber guns, lost pilots to escorts and had a poor plan in place to replace them with good pilots (hell they even sent bomber pilots to be fly fighter planes) = easy kills. So as the war went on as Allied pilots got better the average LW pilots got worse again = easy kills.
-You like to compare what "actually happened" in WW2 instead of looking at performance tests of the actual planes. Well that is just your choice (and some others) and thats fine......but there is weaknesses in that view (just like there is in believing performance tests blindly). I like to factor in both views, using a balanced unbiased point of view to form a opinion (not saying anything neg about your view point). I just think that believing blindly in what actually happened during WW2 you can not possiblely factor into the debate everything that effected those results during WW2 to make a accurate decision on which is a better plane. You need to look also at performance results from all planes for a unbiased (unclouded) point of view on which was a better plane. If you use real life results from WW2 you are not getting which is the better plane (many other factors effected the results in WW2 besides which was the better fighter and that is not what we are talking about here).
-PS the P-51 was no pig in my eyes, it was a good plane with great range, cheap to produce and available in numbers. It would not be my number one choice in any of the following areas: grd attack, defending fighter, or best long range fighter regardless of price. But overall if I was a country during WW2 who had to fight on many fronts, escorted bombers, it would of been my choice as a overall best fighter. Was it the best dog fighter? Not even close. Was it the best overall fighter used in many roles.....yes IMO. I think the USA made the best choice in making the 51 its main fighter when factoring everything in the big picture.
drgondog
Major
We can agree depending on how you limit or expand the objective criteria you wish to pose for 'best'. If you want to pose best based on ability to take on the opfor single engine fighters over their capital from 700 miles away, the list diminishes to very few choices..I have no problem not nominating the Mustang as 'best dogfighter' and have been on record that I probably feel the Corsair fits my own choice for 'better' but - opinion based and supported by performance chart - it fails the test of 'what really happened' because the F4U didn't fight the 109.
The candidate for 'best at any price' long range escort might be P-38 (L/K) but until those models it failed (performed lower than expectations) the test of 'what really happened' in the same discussion in context of fighting Me 109.
Doolittle wasn't concerned about 8th AF budget when he chose the 51 and gave the 9th all the P-38s
So, I have no problem bringing 'what really happened' as I have outlined my 'framing' definitions above, nor do I have problems discussing 'chart performance' nor flight tests. They all serve a use in discussing potential versus what 'really happened'
But I don't dwell on it w/o caveating what I mean by it.
Regards,
Bill
Bill I agree with your comments, seems we always do agree with each after a few moments of clarity.
Yes without any concerns about budgets I would also pick the P-38L, although I would have pilots trained on them more hours then they had been early on. P-38 can be tricky to fly for a newbie, but in the hands of a well trained pilot it was a great plane.
PS my point that I guess I did not make very clear was while talking about BoB was it was much harder to take down and much more dangerous to take down US heavy bombers (in BoG) then it was for the UK to take down LW med bombers in BoB. A box of US heavies could train thousands of .5 cal on you as you attacked their box. Scary as hell. I personally would much much preferred to take on the escorts then attack a US heavy bomber box. LW med bombers were much less dangerous to attack during BoB then US heavies during BoG.
Yes without any concerns about budgets I would also pick the P-38L, although I would have pilots trained on them more hours then they had been early on. P-38 can be tricky to fly for a newbie, but in the hands of a well trained pilot it was a great plane.
PS my point that I guess I did not make very clear was while talking about BoB was it was much harder to take down and much more dangerous to take down US heavy bombers (in BoG) then it was for the UK to take down LW med bombers in BoB. A box of US heavies could train thousands of .5 cal on you as you attacked their box. Scary as hell. I personally would much much preferred to take on the escorts then attack a US heavy bomber box. LW med bombers were much less dangerous to attack during BoB then US heavies during BoG.
Glider
Major
I understand that the Germans did a review of the difference between the 109K-4 and the Mustang 'Neiderschrift Nr6730' of Daimler Benz 24th January 1945.
Does anyone have a translation as it could be handy in this thread?
Does anyone have a translation as it could be handy in this thread?
drgondog
Major
You made the point so clearly Hunter that I was compelled to NOT change one word - lol.
Hell, going after a box of B-26 Marauders was a dangereous undertaking and certainly represented more defensive firepower tha Do 17s or He 111's in BoB.
On the other hand attacking a B-17 with an FW 190A8 was a more certain score than attacking a 111 with a Hurricane.
I've often wondered what the outcome would have been if the shipment of dive brake kits destined for the P-38J's had not been sunk. The lack of ability of the P-38 to dive w/o almost immediately going into compressibility prevented a lot of scoring by the 38 versus Fw 190 and Me 109.
I've done a lot of data gathering on the different group award/loss statistics, by a/c type and the 479th FG really stands out. The P-38J equipped 20th/55th and 364th had far better air to air success with the 51 after they converted, but the late arriving P-38L equipped 479th had a better air to air ratio than the 35t7th FG and the 56th FG - each only flying one type (51 and 47 respectively), and then attained a better ratio with 51's.
But time was in 479th favor as the real heart of LuftFlotte Reich had been carved out by May-Sep timeframe and really down hill in fall of 44, so hard to draw serious conclusions about P-38L.
A lightly loaded P-38L was a handful for any piston engine fighter at any altitude.
Regards,
Bill
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Soren, et.al. Here is my argument on this issue: I believe the BF model you are talking about is the Bf 109K-14. My source says that it was introduced operationally the last two weeks of the war so it really had no influence on the war. My source also says that it could attain air speeds of over 450 mph at 35000 ft with MW50. It was armed with 2-MG 131s and 1-MK103 or MK108 cannon. Range would be about 356 miles at 20000 ft. Initial rate of climb about 4820 fpm. If you will notice my original post mentioned contemporary AC. To me that means that a model introduced at about the same time in the war as another model. Therefore the Bf above would probably be compared with the P51H or the F4U4 or the F6F5. Funny thing about paper performance. The manufacturer calculated performance of the P51H was 471 mph at 22700 feet with an intial rate of climb of 5120 fpm and of course the typical range of a P51. Pretty good, better than the Bf. But, in a test the P51H touched 451 mph at 21200 ft with an initial rate of climb of 4680 fpm. Not quite as hot, huh? Do we really know what the real world performance was of the Bf109K? Now the P51B had performance numbers somewhat similar to that of the H model as far as Vmax. The P51D not quite as hot as the B or C but probably made up for it with heavier and more reliable armament and better pilot visibility. The B on average probably had 15 mph on the D at best altitude, but that is probably not tactically significant in the real world. TACTICALLY SIGNIFICANT! To me those are key words. All this paper stuff on performance doesn't prove much. If the Bf above had better V max at 35000 feet than a P51H or D, how tactically significant is that? How much ACM took place at 35000 feet? My guess is practically none. My guess is that the Bf109K was a desperate attempt to get a fighter that could get well above the B17s and 24s and then swoop down on them in a firing pass but it wasn't meant to be an air superiority fighter. If one AC makes a run on another from above and they get in a fur ball they are going to get lower and lower if the fur ball is continued. Which brings us to another point. If the Bf has a range on internal fuel of 365 miles, how much combat time does it have left after it gets to 35000 ft? That is what I meant by referring to only fighting above it's own base. The facts are, the P51 more than held it's own with all the recips the LW threw at them and did it over and over again hundreds of miles away from it's own bases. As far as the Hellcat is concerned, I think we would be talking about the F6F5 which was an honest 400 mph plus airplane. The Hellcat did have some kills in the ETO, 6 or 8 sticks in my mind. I don't know if any Hellcats became kills for the LW. I know that Eric Brown is highly biased(for European fighters) but here is what he says about ACM between an F4F3 and the Bf109G-6. "The Hellcat had a distinct edge over the Me109G-6 but would not be able to overcome it without a lot of pilot sweat." The Hellcat was a very successful warplane. The Corsair was an even better performer.
The thing about attacking a bomber box with thousands of .5 cals pointing and firing at you is that it really removes much of the benefits of being a skilled pilot.
My point being if you are Ace quality pilot fighting in a dog fight vs other fighters......even if out numbered. Your skill as a pilot shows and will keep you alive most times.
But if you are a Ace attacking a heavy bomber box, much of those benefits that you gain as being a Vet and Ace pilot will not help you much when attacking a wall of heavies with their thousands of .5 cals firing at you.
Attacking a heavy bomber box and surviving has as much to do with luck then being a good pilot. Attacking fighters, even being out numbered, and surviving has more to do with pilot skill and less about luck.
Allot of great/Ace LW pilots lost their lives attacking that wall of .5 cals.
My point being if you are Ace quality pilot fighting in a dog fight vs other fighters......even if out numbered. Your skill as a pilot shows and will keep you alive most times.
But if you are a Ace attacking a heavy bomber box, much of those benefits that you gain as being a Vet and Ace pilot will not help you much when attacking a wall of heavies with their thousands of .5 cals firing at you.
Attacking a heavy bomber box and surviving has as much to do with luck then being a good pilot. Attacking fighters, even being out numbered, and surviving has more to do with pilot skill and less about luck.
Allot of great/Ace LW pilots lost their lives attacking that wall of .5 cals.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Hunter, I believe you are on the mark with your observations. Have a book called "Horrido" about the LW aces and the LW held the pilots who shot down 4 engined bombers in high esteem. Actually when attacking a box of bombers, one had to be lucky, not much skill in it, not to be hit. It must have been terrifying.
drgondog
Major
Yes, many did.
A lot of Mustang aces lost their lives, or freedom, strafing, few in air to air combat. They didn't have to attack B-17s and the LW Experten didn't have to shoot up German airfields! Same issue of luck and many fewer probabilities of bailing out when mortally damaged.
The 355th FG for example lost 2x to strafing over air to air.
It had it's top ace Henry Brown lost to flak, my father was shot down (and rescued by another ace), the first 355 ace was KIA strafing an airfield, and an ace (Lenfest) was lost trying to rescue Brown when he got stuck in the mud.
The last 355FG ace shot down was Cullerton who was hit by flak over Ansbach A/F, then survived being shot in the stomach with his ownn .45 after surrendering to an SS Officer. A nearby priest saw it and managed to get Bill to the hospital in time to save him.
attached is a testimonial to the dangers of strafing German airfields. Charlie Sweat was KIA in first 355th airfield attack, and last mission in P-47 on March 8, 1944.
Attachments
![354 WRR_SWEAT_Sweat-KIA_42-8441_8mar1944 [355TFW].jpg](/forum/data/attachments/50/50054-5199da714aec8151700e1aa4bccb73fa.jpg?hash=UZnacUrsgV)
Agreed, I could not think of anything involving air combat being terrifying then flying into a hail of fire from all directions which you could do only so much to avoid then firing at this damn bomber and watch it just absorb everything you fire at it. Terrifying and frustrating to see many of your fellow comrades who you have fought with for years being "wasted" (in a sense) vs these slow moving tanks firing hundreds thousands of .5 cal bullets at you. Most of your experience and abilities as a pilot being useless to help you. Just the finicky "Lady luck" deciding whether you live or die. The escorts guarding the bombers were just the extra nail in the coffin so to speak.
Totally agree strafing / ground attack was another brutal job where much of your skill as a pilot was useless, you had to depend a great deal on luck to survive.
From what many many LW pilots have said there was no harder flak/AA fire more dangerous then in Russia. Russia massed AA fire in their armies from what I have read. Again many many LW pilots were shot down or killed attacking ground targets over Russian targets.
I will say this again, I would be begging to fight enemy fighters before attacking bombers or ground targets (over any target).
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.
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.
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.
Now as to your so called slaughtering of the LW fighters, again you're just spewing out words without thinking. 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. Now taking into account that a B-17 B-24 contains a crew of 9 to 10, costs allot more to manufacture than several single seat fighters and has the ability cripple your industry, well, then shooting one bomber down was worth a whole lot more than shooting down 10 or more escort fighters. It is no mystery that the LW concentrated on the bombers . 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. So in short Bill I'd have to say the only slaughtering taking place was that of the USAAF bombers. And this was accomplished by the German fighters while having to watch out for revengeful escorts and even shooting many down. This is nothing other than remarkable considering the situation the LW was in.
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.
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.
Just check out how many a/c the LW lost alone due to non-combat related accidents.
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.
Mostly, yes exactly.
Now as to the F6F Hellcat, well you've got to be kidding me! The F6F was a slow heavy a/c compared to the small and nimble Bf-109. Performance agility wise the Bf-109 is a far superior fighter to the F6F Hellcat.
This having been said the pilot alone, like pointed out above, can make up for the largest of performance agility disadvantages of an a/c. More than a few pilots demonstrated this during WW2, dive bombers being turned into Zeke killers etc etc..
drgondog
Major
I wonder if comparing German airfield flak to Russian flak is like comparing rear ends on burros - intellectually stimulating but emotionally the same?
I would estimate that 20% of the strafing losses I have examined are from hitting the ground or trees trying to stay low until the very last second - then misjudging.
I know my father cranked in a little 'nose up' trim just before entering the attack - so that if he got hit or distracted he was more likely to pull up slightly rather than make a big skid mark on the grass.
I have no idea which is worse but both the Germans and Russians did a better job of AA than the Allies
