Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
My Master Warning light is flashing, Betty is bitching, and the BS and TROLL annunciators are lit, compromising my night vision!Your not debating in good faith, your just stirring the pot to annoy people.
Didn't the B24 have higher loss rates on comparable missions?if you swap the B17 for another 4 engine heavy do you get the same results? I.e large casualties when unescorted but sustainable losses when the escorts are around.
I never said they "shot down' 1500, I said that the French were responsible for the loss of about 1500 aircraft. not all aircraft were lost in the French campaign were shot down. I went out of my way to make that very clear.
In May and June 1940 the Luftwaffe lost 1,482 aircraft destroyed in the air and a further 488 written off on landing. A further 219 were written off after being returned to the factories. Calculated losses inflicted by the RAF and the minors amounted to no more than 650 LW a/c. By deduction that means the FAF caused the loss of over 1500 LW aircraft, either as direct shoot downs or subsequent write offs. Because the campaign was so short, relatively few of the LW machines were lost in non-combat related incidents. Ive read somewhere it was in the order 200 a/c. French flak was negligible, perhaps 50 LW a/c in total. The lions share of LW losses were at the hands of the French fighter forces, which tore into the LW causing it damage from which it never recovered fully.
I pointed out that the H-75 claims accounted for some 33% of FAF fighter claims . 3 x 230 is 700a/c.
You responded by saying that" we both know that claims are notoriously inaccurate" I agreed but pointed out that these were post war corrected claims,
to which you said total losses to all sources for the LW were about 1000, and from there we came to the realisation that total losses for the LW, from all causes and all sources, was much higher than "about 1000" that you initially were suggesting
For my part, using a process of what other nationalities could reasonably establish as their contribution to that overall loss rate for the LW, i arrived at a figure of 1500 for the french. There are difficulties with that, as we cant be 100% sure who was responsible for each loss. What we do have are reasonably accurate figures for the overall loss rate. Murray says 1916 a/c, plus a further 370 scrappings. Campbell says 1814 (you say, on the basis of a comment made in another forum that Cornwell is saying about 1400, without the benefit of actually having read the original source), .
At one point you were making some rather unsupportable observations.... such as this gem
"The figures I have seen is over a 1000 LW a/c claimed by all the French flown fighters, not just by the H 75 units; while the likely actual number shot down by French flown fighters is 355".
Really???? And then misquoting the source material on which that observation was made.
Then give us some real sources and not this made up crap.
You claimed the B-17 had poor altitude performance, poor compared to what? if you don't compare it to any other aircraft what is your frame of reference.
OK, nearly half is is not 50% but then the real loss rate was was under 2% which is a whole lot different than nearly half isn't it.
give me some real statistics that make sense, not that mish-mash of confusion between missions and sorties.
Look at the RAF data sheets. I will freely grant the B-17 seldom carried 10,000lb on operations. (although it carried 9000lbs on four missions, 78-79 sorties when using the Disney bomb). However as used and possible are often not the same thing.
There are pilots manuals in the tech section of this site. I would suggest that you read then before claiming what was possible and what was not unlees you are claiming that the manuals were rewritten by the victors after the fact to make the B-17 look good.
Charts in manuals says that a B-17 with 6000lbs inside and 4000lbs outside could still hold 2280 gallons (US) of fuel at a take off weight of 65,000lbs and that includes a crew of 9, nine guns and 3500 rounds of ammo, 144 gallons of oil, 900lbs of misc equip and 1500lbs for the auxiliary wing tanks.
Care to show any weight charts you have?
When discussing the Mosquito when people mention it could carry 4'000lb to Berlin it's often dismissed because it was the cookie bomb and not a typical load.
Surely we need to look at the B17 in the same way? What was it's biggest practical load? Not theoretical maximums that were never used as a regular thing due to not being a practical load.
Also on the question of it being overrated, if you swap the B17 for another 4 engine heavy do you get the same results? I.e large casualties when unescorted but sustainable losses when the escorts are around.
Firstly i apologize for some of my comments towards the end, that was unfair judgement of character. I just feel a little offended by the amount of people ready to jump on any and every mistake. Facts are important yes. But these manuals you refer to. Surely you are smart enough to understand the difference between whats on paper compared to how things work when the aircraft is actually flying. Even the manufacturers couldnt (and often didnt, admit to) certain actions or flight control systems. Especially pre, during, and post ww2. Many aircraft were on the cutting edge of technology and knowledge is often gained by unexpected/overlooked factors. The other problem is those manuals and stats are copied and re-printed over the years without any correction.
But ok, if you want me to strip down the Wright cyclones, the turbochargers used and the aircrafts flight/handling and loading/altitude performance i will. It may take some time but i'd rather get stats from a working unit than trust any manual. It wont be 100% after all these years but i just happen to know a man that has a R-1820 on a jig. i wont confuse the issue by bringing the few 17's that were converted to Allison V-1710's, which ironically performed better. WTS....
Firstly i apologize for some of my comments towards the end, that was unfair judgement of character. I just feel a little offended by the amount of people ready to jump on any and every mistake. Facts are important yes. But these manuals you refer to. Surely you are smart enough to understand the difference between whats on paper compared to how things work when the aircraft is actually flying. Even the manufacturers couldnt (and often didnt, admit to) certain actions or flight control systems. Especially pre, during, and post ww2. Many aircraft were on the cutting edge of technology and knowledge is often gained by unexpected/overlooked factors. The other problem is those manuals and stats are copied and re-printed over the years without any correction.
But ok, if you want me to strip down the Wright cyclones, the turbochargers used and the aircrafts flight/handling and loading/altitude performance i will. It may take some time but i'd rather get stats from a working unit than trust any manual. It wont be 100% after all these years but i just happen to know a man that has a R-1820 on a jig. i wont confuse the issue by bringing the few 17's that were converted to Allison V-1710's, which ironically performed better. WTS....
Well wiggled, Sir!
not wiggling, just setting the record straight
So I have misunderstood?
Yes
Post war? Still claims though, unless you mean that these are verified.
Cornwell comes the closest to the level of accuracy you are looking for , since he goes through each individual combat and records the result. I know that Foreman has done something similar, though I don't believe he has done it (yet0 for the period we are looking at
Ah no, I have pointed out that the FAF claimed about a 1000 enemy aicraft shot down. I have written that LW losses were in the range of 1400-1500 destroyed; this is for period May-June 1940, just to be clear.
You have made any number of suggestions about LW losses, from 355 to about 1000 to 1400. it seems to change according to the point you are trying to make at the time
Murray's total is for destroyed and damaged to all causes May-June 1940; the 370 scrappings is a figure you have arrived at just like the 1500. You derived the 370 from 488 damaged aircraft in Murray's chart; so it doesn't make sense that you then add it to the total of 1916 a/c.
Cornwell says 1814, but it is unclear whether that figure is for Sep 3 '39- May 10 '40 or whether its May 10 -June 24 '40. However, the conclusion of the exchange between Mars and Juha, in the link that I posted twice already, was that Mars had got it wrong, and that the correct dates is Sep 3 '39- May 10 '40.
It does make sense, because for the polish campaign, the numbers damaged and the numbers destroyed appear as separate tallies as well. But of the 273 damaged in the Polish campaign Murray 203 were written off. Eventually....Why would the numbers damaged (and then eventually scrapped) be significantly different in proportion to the experiences following Poland?
I can see that you are up to your old tricks of misquoting and misrepresenting your source material. The exchange between Juha and that Mars person from the Axis history forum was never a discussion of September 3 1939 to May 1940. It was always relating to a date in June 1940, plus the discussion was whether a portion of the alleged Cornwell totals should be added or subtracted. in the finish they concluded that the smaller total should be subtracted. None of which has any relevance to what the source they are actually referring to actually says. If you want to hold up a discussion between a couple of average guys from another as your proof, be my guest, but that is hardly a proof dont you think?
I linked to Arnaud Gillet's figure of 355, so what did I misquote? I have also linked to Philippe Garraud, who has arrived at a figure of 500.
What unsupportable observations?
Yes you did misquote
Maybe you could but why would you, if you were Harris, it was against Harris' philosophy. Lighter pay loads means you need more planes to drop the same bomb load. Higher altitude means less accuracy and vapour trails which could be seen by moonlight. The use of both Halifax and Lancaster together in a bomber stream meant that the Halifax with its higher drag and weight carried a lower bomb load and the longer the mission, the bigger the difference, which is why Harris hated the Halifax and the company that made it.I wasn't suggesting using Mosquitoes, that argument has been done to death, I'm just saying you shouldn't be looking at theoretical maximums but practical limitations.
Could you fix a Lancaster to fly at higher altitudes? Lighter bomb loads? A change of engines?