Another graphic showing the dramatic Lw losses with the introduction of the P-51.
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Another graphic showing the dramatic Lw losses with the introduction of the P-51.
View attachment 501405
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
Just a thought. What portion of that sudden increase do you think was due to the intoduction of the Zemke fan tactic iin dec 43. This was basically allowing the fighters to fan out ahead of the bombers instead of having to stick close by the bomber formations where they were vulnerable to being bounced as well. The tactic was conceived by and lobied for by Hub Zemke of the 56th hence the name. I once read a quote by a p38 pilot from the Pacific theater comenting on the 8th air forces previous tactic of teathering the escorts to the bombers " if we had used tactics like that the Japanese would have mopped the floor with us" if its true that 80% of planes shot down in ww2 were shot down in a bounce or never saw there assailant, ive seen it frased both ways, and not in a dog fight ,then it would seem that once you have aircraft capable of the speed and altitude requirements ie at least as fast as the opponents and at least as high of ceiling then 80% of the outcome would be determined, outside of luck of course, and assuming equal pilot skill for this exercise, by tactics. There may by holes in my thought process here( wouldn't be the first time) but thats how it looks to me. Thoughts anyone?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 ETO
impossible. The movie "Red Tails" showed us that sticking to the slow bombers was the brave and effective method.
[/QUOTE
Loved that movie. Just for a chance to see the p51s and p40s in flight. Oh cant forget the b17s. But as far as realism? Maybee not so much.
Just a thought. What portion of that sudden increase do you think was due to the intoduction of the Zemke fan tactic iin dec 43. This was basically allowing the fighters to fan out ahead of the bombers instead of having to stick close by the bomber formations where they were vulnerable to being bounced as well. The tactic was conceived by and lobied for by Hub Zemke of the 56th hence the name. I once read a quote by a p38 pilot from the Pacific theater comenting on the 8th air forces previous tactic of teathering the escorts to the bombers " if we had used tactics like that the Japanese would have mopped the floor with us" if its true that 80% of planes shot down in ww2 were shot down in a bounce or never saw there assailant, ive seen it frased both ways, and not in a dog fight ,then it would seem that once you have aircraft capable of the speed and altitude requirements ie at least as fast as the opponents and at least as high of ceiling then 80% of the outcome would be determined, outside of luck of course, and assuming equal pilot skill for this exercise, by tactics. There may by holes in my thought process here( wouldn't be the first time) but thats how it looks to me. Thoughts anyone?
Interesting, I thought I had read the Zemke fan was a dec/ jan thing but I was just recalling from memory so I'm sure you right. Or perhaps I confused the dates with the un teathering of fighters from thee bombers by Dollittle in January. So asside from the fact i used the wrong term for the unteathering in January, the rest of my thoesis remains unchanged. My bad for not knowing the proper name to go with the date of the change in tactics but other than that the reasoning still seams sound. Although I'm certainly prepared for it to be shown to be not so sound if that is the case.Michael - Zemke planned and executed the Fan after May 8, 1944 and its first success was while performing a sweep in Frankfurt to Marburg area May 12. Note that Marburg to Brunswick was nearly to 56FG limit of endurance pre D-Day. So, simple answer is 'the Zemke Fan had zero to do with the 'increase'.
As to P-38 Comment of tethering escort to bombers, yes Monk hunter, CO of 8th FC, did promote that tactic but his replacement Kepner and Eaker's replacement Doolittle killed that in late January 1944. That period is approximately the beginning of the end of the LW ability to inflict unacceptable losses by forming up out of range of US fighter escort.
As to P-38 Comment of tethering escort to bombers, yes Monk hunter, CO of 8th FC, did promote that tactic but his replacement Kepner and Eaker's replacement Doolittle killed that in late January 1944. That period is approximately the beginning of the end of the LW ability to inflict unacceptable losses by forming up out of range of US fighter escort.
I have read that was the thinking but regardless of the motivation it seems the net result of that tactic would be the same.Didn't Doolittle change the role of the escort fighters from the defensive (ie protect the bombers) to offensive (ie to destroy the Luftwaffe), in effect making the bombers the bait?
Didn't Doolittle change the role of the escort fighters from the defensive (ie protect the bombers) to offensive (ie to destroy the Luftwaffe), in effect making the bombers the bait?
Wuzak - I agree your salient point about change in %. That context however, is largely an investment/loss discussion relative to a war of attrition. My view is that the LW was nearly able to carve out the same magnitude of losses in different missions as they achieved July 1943 through October 1943 - which is still a morale issue and certainly doesn't point to Lost Effectiveness of lethality of LW when they hit unescorted boxes before continued attrition made them less and less effective into the summer/fall of 1944.
For specific examples I would point to March 6, 8 and April 29 as very gloomy days for the relatives of some 1800 flight crews that were not consoled by a reduction in % loss rate.
Everyone has their own angle and point of view. I think you made a mistake initially in presenting the common view of the P-51 as being the common view here on the forum. I didn't see any "f" words and you are entitled to complain to moderation about it. My interest is not in the detail of any particular aircraft,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.
Not in so many words, but yes. Go Deep, incite reaction - kill 'em in the air and pursue all
the way to the deck.
What Doolittle reacted to was one of his commanders stating that the role of the fighter was to 'protect' whereas Doolittle believed the role of fighter aviation was to destroy - and he had just received intelligence reports that LW was building strength in alarming numbers (January, 1945) and posed a serious threat to OVERLORD.
Bill, shouldn't that be 1944?
It's all good brother. I went back and looked not because i want to complain but just to make sure i wasnt imagining it and the " word" is still there. Hey no big deal. Im not gonna complain to the moderator. Thats not how I roll as they say. I respect your view. Mine may be a little different( but really not that much ) and lets just leave it at that. Peace.Everyone has their own angle and point of view. I think you made a mistake initially in presenting the common view of the P-51 as being the common view here on the forum. I didn't see any "f" words and you are entitled to complain to moderation about it. My interest is not in the detail of any particular aircraft,
I am not the advocate of any particular aircraft, I enjoy reading about what was done. What was done by the allies as far as the combined offensive was close to a miracle of engineering and logistics. When the P-51 first arrived in UK it was not fitted with the rear fuselage tank, it was not even initially assigned for bomber escort. The plane itself had various mods like the rear tank and increasingly large external fuel tanks, fillets on the tail plane and other "stuff".
At the same time the P-47 and P-38 also had everything done that could be done. While the US forces were building strength in UK, there were airfields built, pilots trained and bombers and fighters modified as quickly as reasonable and safely possible. This is a huge undertaking when the factories are thousands of miles from the place of use. It is easy to discuss a new larger fuel tank, it takes much time to get into production and 800 escort fighters need 1,600 of them.
On this, time is of the essence, it is and was vital. A B-52 or a thousand B-52s would not affect the war if they appeared in December 1945. Over time the various types of the US escort forces had their range and effectiveness increased, along with the effectiveness of its pilots, it bombers and its aerial recon and met recon. To me it is of no interest what the last versions of a P-47 or P-38 could do in the dog days of the war if they could get to Berlin or not is of no importance. The only things of importance were to wipe out the Luftwaffe as an effective force prior to D-Day and to then wipe out the Nazi systems means to produce fuel This was achieved, an all concerned should be proud that it was achieved, it was a team effort the prize doesn't go to one "winner".
of course - I corrected it. Actually, Bodenplatte is as good a date as any to declare LW 'Dead'Bill, shouldn't that be 1944?