Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Another thing to consider with Berlin is a straight line from East Anglia to Berlin takes you nicely over many major cities and industrial areas in Netherlands and Germany all ringed by flak, as the ground forces advanced these gradually fell silent.
Yup a bit longer than the straight line would suggest.
I will leave you to work out on your own how defeated the LW was on 4-11, -13, -15, -24, -29, 5-8, -12, -28, -29.
April 11 1944
Mission 700: 1,160 bombers and 890 fighters are dispatched in 6 forces to make PFF attacks on the oil industry in W Germany; 5 bombers and 2 fighters are lost:
1. 228 B-17s are dispatched to hit the oil plant at Neunkirchen (151); secondary targets hit are the marshaling yards at Saarbrucken (35) and Neunkirchen (13); 5 B-17s are damaged. Escort is provided by 76 of 77 P-47s and 50 Ninth AF P-51s without loss.
2. 210 of 222 B-24s hit the Misburg oil plant at Hannover; 3 B-24s are lost and 93 damaged; 28 airmen are MIA. Escort is provided by 371 P-47s and P-51s; they claim 0-0-1 aircraft on the ground; 1 P-51 is lost (pilot MIA).
3. 257 B-17s are dispatched to hit the Harburg oil plant at Hamburg (238); targets of opportunity are the aviation industry at Nordholz (9) and other (2); 9 B-17s are damaged. Escort is provided by 124 of 139 P-51s; they claim 0-0-1 aircraft on the ground; 1 P-51 is lost (pilot MIA) and 1 damaged beyond repair.
4. 186 of 193 B-17s hit the Rhenania oil plant at Hamburg; 2 others hit targets of opportunity; 2 B-17s are lost and 61 damaged; 1 airman is WIA and 18 MIA. Escort is provided by 110 P-51s without loss.
5. 91 of 119 B-17s hit the Welhun oil plant at Bottrop; 26 others hit the secondary, the marshaling yard at Hamm; 24 B-17s are damaged. Escort is provided by 37 of 40 P-51s; they claim 0-0-1 aircraft; 1 P-51 is lost.
6. 133 of 141 B-24s hit Gelsenkirchen/Nordstern without loss. Escort is provided by 50 of 54 P-47s
Missions
As someone once said, I just can't let that one go. The everyone has been extremely cordial part that is. ( thhe rest is fascinating and informative). Cordial? Really? One person used the f word when responding to me. Several more basically acused me of basically just pulling stuff out of my @ on the verry same page where I had just given what are, at least as far as I know, verry good sources. And that's when I was agreeing with there basic premise i.e. p51 great. I can only imagine if I had said " Ah maybe the p51 aint so hot" When I did not have a specific source but it was something I read for years and just understood to be true I always qualified it as such and often asked if others had differing info I would want to hear it. I don't know how one can be any less pulling stuff out of ones @ than that. Please don't misunderstand me, although considering the nature of the previous decision I am reasonably confident you will( forgive me that one just wrote its self) , it is not that I can't take someone flipping the f word at me. God knows I hear it at work all day and I have even used it myself once or twice( although in what should be friendly discussion) or that I can't take someone accusing me of basically pulling stuff out of my @ when I did not. It's that a: seems like things would be more fun without that sort of thing and b: if someone trys to call that cordial, ya I'm not lettin that slide by.As I said on the Regensburg Schweinfurt mission Spitfires handed over to P47s which turned back over Eupen in Belgium. from wiki
The Schweinfurt task forces followed the same route as the Regensburg force. Because of the delayed start of the mission, eight squadrons of RAF Spitfire fighters (96 aircraft) from 11 Group and 83 Group had been added to escort the Schweinfurt force as far as Antwerp, where P-47s would take over and escort it to Eupen.[citation needed] The field order for the mission specified that the B-17s would fly at altitudes between 23,000 and 26,500 feet (7,000-8,000 m), but approaching the coast of the Netherlands at 13:30, it was confronted with developing cloud masses not present earlier in the day.[citation needed] The commander of the first task force estimated that the bombers would not be able to climb over the clouds and elected to fly under them at 17,000 feet (5,000 m), increasing the vulnerability of the bombers to fighter attacks.[citation needed]
. drgondog posted a typical mission profile years ago. Berlin required at least 4 possibly 5 waves from memory plus others to escort individual stragglers that had dropped out of formation. It wasn't a question of p-47s or p-38s or P51s they needed all of them and pilots too. This is why even when the P-51 was arriving they were still pushing to extend the range of others with internal and external fuel. There had to be massive safety margins built in. Sometimes the rendezvous was missed, sometimes the pilots were in combat longer than 15 minutes, sometimes the ground speed of the bombers going into a head wind was as low as 120MPH. The escorts had to stay with the bombers no matter what and that meant huge "contingency", despite this, reports of pilots landing exhausted with little more than fumes in the tank are common. I believe everyone here has been extremely cordial, but if you hadn't considered that the escorts operated in waves then maybe you could consider that it is a more complex issue than you thought. It is certainly not an issue of whether a plane could reach Berlin or not.
The problem is, that the B-17s (and B-24s) had the long range fuel advantage. For the Fighter escort, it would have been possible to fly with the bombers *IF* they were leaned out at cruise, loaded down with drop tanks.But Michael the Mustang's radius of action reached far beyond Berlin - it could stay with the bombers to the target, fight the Luftwaffe, and have enough gas to provide cover for the returning bombers back to England. The other two "options" couldn't and didn't.
The reason i keep repeating is that im trying to point out that the arguments on the other side so to speak I actually agree with at least for the most part but have nothing to do with my position. They are two different subjects. Perhaps you are right , i should just forget it . I guess i thought that by comming back to my p reasons for picking the p51 as most overrated while at the same time explaining i think it was a great plane( yes both are possible simultainiously)(thank god for that spell check again) i would make at least a few say" hay wait a minute, he also thinks the p51 is the best of the 3 majors " and " maybe he does have a point on the overrating thing" at least as it pertains to maybe one of those particular issues or if not at least a recognition that we are talking about 2 seperate issues that may seem in conflict on the surface but in fact can exist simultaneously. But alas, people are if nothing else tribal. That is they join groups and defend that groups position at all costs. I made every effort to see thngs from others point of view conceding and agreeing with there sats for rhe most part but pointing out thats different subject. At one point one person said well maybe you have a point when it comes to the range thing with the p38 out of all those posts. I thought people were starting to understand my position. Not that they necessarily agreed with it but at least were understading it was a completely separate issue from whether the p51 was overall the best of the 3 aircraft but of course that hope faded quickly. Last but not least I don't know why things need to be hostile. Acussing me of not using sources when I did and also said repeatedly i am all ears on opposing vews on my two reasons. Its all good, just seems lime this would be a bit more fun without that. And how about a sense of humor ? Anyone? My poor spelling alones gotta make you s lagh right? Away i tried. And yes as I have repeated countless times by now the p51 was a great plane. But thats not the subject of this thread is it ?
No i didn't think you were being rude at all. And as i have said i certainly think it was the superior of the three planes. I don't think anyone really doubt s that. I do think however when it comes at least to the two often used quips about it in popular press( no need to rehash those now) it is overrated. At least when it comes to those two specific things. That is completely different than saying it wasn't a great plane. It was. That was why I picked it for the topoc of the thread. I'm learning that it's verry hard for people to hear the word overrated without making that synonymous with bad in there minds. Even Mohamed Ahli could be overrated beyond how good he really was. That was my only point. On this next one I will of course defer to your expertise but werent the L series p38s fairly competitive? With the hydrolic assist i have read the had verry good high speed roll rates and with the dive flaps well let me try and quote a p38 pilot as close as I can from memory" it was good to see a p38 chase a 109 straight down to the deck" and the 474th racked up an almost 5 to 1 kill ratio from mid 44(cant remember the exact month right now) on. And that last one is research I did do myself. Considering the most common mission profile of the p38 during this time it seems to me thats nothing to sneez at so to speek. Just seems from what limited knowledge i have that p38 f to j and j25 to L are two different animals. You certainly have more expertise than i but just my thoughts from what i have read and the limited research i have done.Michael,
I will anchor for one last round then I will let it go.
First, regarding your comments quoting "others" who said the Mustang was the only plane who could do the distance. It wasn't the only airplane that could do the round trip so your basing at least part of your argument on info from the uninformed. I was not under the impression it was the only plane that could do the trip, and assumed the Mustang did it best which is why it was phased in while other aircraft were pushed out. There was a reason the USAAF kept improving the range during the late war on the P47 / P51 and not the P38. Think P47M or N, P51BCD /H.
Second my background is retired USAF fighter pilot with 17 years in the Eagle. As such I have fought F16s (Dutch, Belgium, US, Taiwanese, Sings plus more I'm sure), F4 (US and German), F5, F18 (USMC, Canadian, Super and regular flavors), F15 (US, Saudi), Mirages of various flavors, Mig29s, Tomcats, A6s, Harriers, Tornados and probably a few others. I was also operational in OV10s and the RC26. I've had 9 backseat rides in F16s and 1 in a CF18. I did the takeoff in the Hornet, rejoined and flew both close a wide formations, ran the radar, and killed my Operations Officer in my first pass in it. We then did some acro and felt VERY comfy in it right away.
While the P38 and P47 could both do the round trip to Berlin and back that is not the whole picture. The P38 in particular had several vices that could be used to neutralize it, those being maneuverability (particularly in roll) and limiting Mach. I lived strength and weaknesses in the air battle arena for the majority of my adult life (my wife would argue the adult part of that statement). Trust me when I say the German fighter pilots were aware of it and used their strengths against its weaknesses. The P47 would in my opine be more difficult an opponent than the Lightning due to it being easier to fly than Lockheed's big twin. I flew the Eagle for a long time and watched new and experienced guys in various types of aircraft. The F16 being the best for a new guy, the Hornet next and the Eagle a distant third in that trio for one reason. Experience in type required to be lethal. The Viper and Hornet are fly by wire, so the new guy can pull for all he is worth and not hurt the plane or worry about over G'ing it. Not so on the Eagle. My point is some aircraft are much easier to use as a tool than others and there in lies one of the true strengths of the P51. Read Robin Olds book and he speaks to this as a guy who flew P38s and Mustangs in that order in combat. Overrated, I honestly don't think so. The right tool, at the right time, in the right place, flown by the right guys.
Also just because the P38/P47 might have been able to close the door on the Luftwaffe doesn't mean the Mustang was overrated. Also why did the powers that be keep bringing Mustangs into the ETO while pushing the other two out.
Lastly I hope you don't think I was being rude. While I can be unbelievably sarcastic/ obnoxious (reference the previously mentioned time in fighter squadrons) it was not in the least my intent.
Cheers,
Biff
Americas 100, 000 chapter 4 page 283. Galland posters on this site largely although I have read this quoted in several articles through the years. Is it your contention that this was not his view? If you can point me to a quote or better quotes by him that it was later I am certainly not resistant to reading them.
"and the p51s had only accounted for a small minority of kills up to that time so by definition the often quoted" the p51 turned things around" is not true and an example ot the topic" most overrated aircraft", "the only fighter that could take the bombers to Berlin and back "being another sterling example."
This is a great opportunity to use the map as an illustration of a P-51B LR escort to Berlin. On the 29th April, 1944, the 355th made R/V at Cuxhaven to perform target escort from there to Berlin and back. Cuxhaven is on coast north of Bremerhaven. From there to Uelzen/Wittenburg and thence to Brelin, around the target and back to west of Brunswick where P-47D's were picked up for Withdrawal Support. P-47Ds made the Penetration escort from UK to Cuxhaven.
Has anybody looked into these mission dates?
Just to be clear, they are:
April 11, 1944
April 13, 1944
April 15, 1944
April 24, 1944
April 29, 1944
May 8, 1944
May 12, 1944
May 28, 1944
May 29, 1944
Just had a look at April 11, 1944.
64 bombers lost (52 B-17, 12 B-24), 16 fighters lost (7 P-47, 9 P-51), 406 bombers damaged (343 B-17, 63 B-24) and 29 fighters damaged (16 P-47, 13 P-51).
A total of 643 bombers were sent. 819 fighter escorts (124 P-38, 454 P-47, 241 P-51) were used.
So, the bombers had a 10% loss rate, which I do not believe was sustainable.
More than that, 73% were lost or damaged. Some of that damage would have been from flak, but it still is quite heavy losses.
And it shows that the main difference in loss rates between the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission (16% of 376), the second Schweingfurt mission (22% of 351) in the latter half of 1943 and the escorted missions in early 1944 was primarily the number of bombers sent on the raid.
Very good illustration example. Conversely look at the relatively Small increase in LW losses between Period Jan-June 1943, and Jul-Dec 1943, when the P-47C/D force dramatically increased and the P-38 was re-introduced to ETONotice the dramatic increase in Lw losses with the introduction of the P-51 escorts.
View attachment 501404
Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945