P-47 in the ETO

[SaparotRob]

To the uneducated, it's a strange discussion. What great position for the USAAF to be in. Two great fighters and a third what needs some more kinks worked out. One is easier and cheaper to build and flies farther, right out of the box.

 

[pbehn]

As I read it the claim numbers posted are the wartime awards, not post war investigation.

In the Battle of Britain it looks like the Luftwaffe Bombers, Do17, Do215, He111, Ju87, and Ju88 shot down around 1 fighter for every 3 bombers lost to fighters.

How do you arrive at these statistics and what do you draw from them? LW bombers were not shooting down RAF fighters at an exchange of 1 to 3. LW fighters were trying to stop RAF fighters shooting down their bombers. The loss of an RAF fighter is irrelevant, only the pilot matters. The British were producing 500 fighters a month from August and returning a similar number of damaged aircraft to service. Around 35% of RAF pilots shot down were completely unharmed, a similar percentage killed with injuries of varying severity making up the rest. So the loss rate of RAF fighters can be almost halved. A count of German bombers lost over UK doesnt take account of those that made it back to France and never took off again. Many crash landed or were wrecked on landing and there was very limited capacity to repair them on LW temporary airfields. Also some the crew members were dead or injured even if the plane did land with slight damage. So in round numbers your bomber loss rate can be doubled. This is why Goering stopped bombing attacks with twin engined bombers and switched to Jabo attacks in October, he had lost in the war of attrition.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Some of the criticism for the P-47 seems to be unwarranted.
Please remember that the P-47 was ordered into production in Sept 1940, when the BoB was still being fought. Because it was a large and complex machine to took while to get into service. Please note that the P-40E was only ordered a few months earlier (and wasn't deliver until nearly a year later) and the P-40F wasn't flown until the summer of 1941 (after the XP-47) the first production P-40Fs weren't until the summer of 1942 (after the P-47Bs in trickling out).

In the summer of 1942 the US had plans for 3 high altitude possible fighters. With the 4th somewhat further away. (and others even further way)

They had the P-38 (and with only 300 gallons of internal fuel it had problems too, although the external tanks would help.
The P-40F with Merlin engine was available but didn't have either the performance or range needed.
The P-40Allison engine versions and the P-39 just won't the provided the needed performance for the bombers at any distance (even escorting over the English channel)

That leaves the P-47 and a P-47 with internal fuel has more range ( not a lot more but bit more) than the P-40F even with a 52 gallon drop tank.
Please remember that the P-47 was being introduced on 3 different production lines and they were building about 60 P-47s a month the summer of 1942.
They were cutting sheet metal on the P-51s with 2 stage Merlin prototypes when P-47s went over 100 planes a month.

P-40Fs were sent to North Africa and the P-38s were also sent to North Africa so there were darn few ways for the 8th AF to try to figure out how to use any type of escort fighters in the ETO in late and 1942 or early 1943.
The P-47 was a general purpose fighter for most it's early planned in career in 1941/42. Heck, even the Fisher XP-75 was planned as a fast climbing interceptor in 1942/early 1943 and not an escort fighter.

Blaming the P-47 for not being an escort that could fly 500-600 radius missions in late 1943 or early 1944 seems to be leaning on the retrospectroscope rather heavily.

All I'm saying is that it should have been delivered from the factory with the capability of at lease one external tank. Like the other AAF fighters.

 

[Peter Gunn]

It is a characteristic. It is not the only one.

I personally find it amusing that a P-39 fanboi would slag another fighter for having short range.

Hey Thump, I was looking at your avatar which I assume is you with one of your many guitars, it's a pretty cool shot except that hat threw me, for a second I thought you had one hell of a blond pompadour hairdoo going on there.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

How do you arrive at these statistics and what do you draw from them?

The loss lists were drawn from a number of the many books on the Battle of Britain. The Fighter Command Losses series, the Battle of Britain Then and Now series, Battle Over Britain for example, the occasional archive mention. Losses include write offs.

LW bombers were not shooting down RAF fighters at an exchange of 1 to 3.

How do you arrive at these statistics and what do you draw from them?

The loss of an RAF fighter is irrelevant, only the pilot matters.

Actually no, apart from the losses in combat plus training there were the damaged, then comes the major increase in flying hours meant more and more aircraft were hitting their routine maintenance hours, requiring replacement in the units, plus more aircraft for the training system to try and give new pilots as much experience as possible. Then add the inevitable problems with spare parts supply, bad enough without a major surge in activity. So if the pilot was safe we can discount the loss of the aircraft, does this logic apply when the pilot is lost but the aircraft is not, we can discount the pilot loss?

Using the figures from Stephen Bungay in his book The Most Dangerous Enemy for a moment, the RAF lost a total of 1,023 fighters during the battle to all causes, mostly single seaters, Wood and Dempster note 507 aircrew deaths. So where does the 35% figure pilots shot down figure come from? Bungay also has a break down of RAF losses 10 July to 11 August 1940, 13% of the fighters hit by bomber gunners were shot down, compared with 62% of the fighters hit by Bf109s. In pilot casualties, half the pilots in the fighters hit by Bf109s were killed, compared with 10% of the fighters hit by bomber gunners.

So the loss rate of RAF fighters can be almost halved.

Fascinating non logic. Looking at the loss records of both sides Bungay concludes over the course of the Battle of Britain the Bf109s scored 5 kills against RAF fighters for every 4 Bf109s lost.

The number of RAF losses is well known as is the number of Luftwaffe bombers lost. If you halve the number of RAF fighters lost to bombers take a look at what it does to the fighter versus fighter ratio.

It would be interesting to see what happens if someone uses your sort of logic but the year is 1944, the fighters Luftwaffe and the bombers USAAF.

 

[pbehn]

The loss lists were drawn from a number of the many books on the Battle of Britain. The Fighter Command Losses series, the Battle of Britain Then and Now series, Battle Over Britain for example, the occasional archive mention. Losses include write offs.

You are missing the German fighters, there are quite a lot of them.

How do you arrive at these statistics and what do you draw from them?

I include German fighters in the discussion, see above.

Actually no, apart from the losses in combat plus training there were the damaged, then comes the major increase in flying hours meant more and more aircraft were hitting their routine maintenance hours, requiring replacement in the units, plus more aircraft for the training system to try and give new pilots as much experience as possible. Then add the inevitable problems with spare parts supply, bad enough without a major surge in activity. So if the pilot was safe we can discount the loss of the aircraft, does this logic apply when the pilot is lost but the aircraft is not, we can discount the pilot loss?

Using the figures from Stephen Bungay in his book The Most Dangerous Enemy for a moment, the RAF lost a total of 1,023 fighters during the battle to all causes, mostly single seaters, Wood and Dempster note 507 aircrew deaths. So where does the 35% figure pilots shot down figure come from? Bungay also has a break down of RAF losses 10 July to 11 August 1940, 13% of the fighters hit by bomber gunners were shot down, compared with 62% of the fighters hit by Bf109s. In pilot casualties, half the pilots in the fighters hit by Bf109s were killed, compared with 10% of the fighters hit by bomber gunners.

Fascinating non logic. Looking at the loss records of both sides Bungay concludes over the course of the Battle of Britain the Bf109s scored 5 kills against RAF fighters for every 4 Bf109s lost.

The number of RAF losses is well known as is the number of Luftwaffe bombers lost. If you halve the number of RAF fighters lost to bombers take a look at what it does to the fighter versus fighter ratio.

It would be interesting to see what happens if someone uses your sort of logic but the year is 1944, the fighters Luftwaffe and the bombers USAAF.

You read Bungay and post this? Read it again the text not just the tables. Are the fighters shot down by Bf 109s in addition to those shot down by the bombers (you said 1 to 3) or are they all the same? I have the book, which page does he detail RAF fighters lost to bombers at a ratio of 1 to 3? The RAF started with circa 500 fighters (fall of France), this rose to around 700, but the quality of the pilots dropped which led to the reorganisation into A, B and C class squadrons. Without escorts German bombers got badly mauled which is why the JU87 was quickly removed and unescorted bomber raids across the N Sea were stopped very quickly. Bombers did not shoot down the RAF fighters at a rate of 1 to 3 which was the point under discussion, please do not digress onto other hobby horses.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

You are missing the German fighters, there are quite a lot of them.

So giving details of Luftwaffe bomber losses has the response where are the fighters? Want to add the coastal types? You are so sure of the contents of a loss list you have not seen.

I include German fighters in the discussion, see above.

Which is, "LW fighters were trying to stop RAF fighters shooting down their bombers". Interesting definition of "included", then add the single aim of the Luftwaffe fighters, no mention of them shooting down RAF fighters.

You read Bungay and post this? Read it again the text not just the tables.

You read messages here and come up with this stuff? Go back and read the messages.

Are the fighters shot down by Bf 109s in addition to those shot down by the bombers (you said 1 to 3) or are they all the same?

Bungay reports 5 to 4 Luftwaffe to RAF fighter loss ratio. Things like the Battle of Britain Then and Now loss lists result in a 1 to 3 RAF fighter to Luftwaffe bomber kill ratio. So how do the same RAF fighters get shot down by bombers and fighters?

The RAF started with circa 500 fighters (fall of France), this rose to around 700,

So when is your Battle of France date exactly?

10 May 1940 Luftwaffe 1,076 serviceable single engined fighters, RAF 494 (ignoring Gladiators and Defiants)
29 June 1940 Luftwaffe 856, RAF 459
13 July 1940, Luftwaffe 899, RAF 529
31 August 1940, Luftwaffe 692, RAF 629
28 September 1940, Luftwaffe 721, RAF 604
Luftwaffe Strength and Serviceability Tables, AIR 22/31 and 32, Air Ministry War Room Daily Returns, Strength of Aircraft, Balloons, Searchlights and AA Guns.

I note the running away from air combat losses to announcing the drop in overall RAF pilot quality then further running to how unescorted raids were mauled, except of course the Ju87 had escorts, the trouble being they needed top, dive and recovery cover, which was expensive in terms of numbers of escorts.

Bombers did not shoot down the RAF fighters at a rate of 1 to 3

Great, which loss list are you drawing the conclusion from, what is the correct ratio, where does the 35% unharmed RAF pilots come from, how does the number of pilots being saved mean you can halve the number of aircraft lost? So far all you have provided is claims with no backing. I was able to ask a person who took part in a US Government funded study of the Battle of Britain, who confirmed the loss lists in the Battle of Britain Then and Now were the best ones published, being quite accurate. Those are the main lists I am using.

please do not digress onto other hobby horses.

I leave that to you, given the effort you put in.

 

[pbehn]

Bombers did not shoot down the RAF fighters at a rate of 1 to 3

Great, which loss list are you drawing the conclusion from, what is the correct ratio,

BOMBERS DID NOT SHOOT DOWN RAF FIGHTERS AT A RATIO OF 1-3. I have had enough of this stupidity, you counted one of the bombers as the Ju-87 which got hammered in what was frequently called a Stuka party. The Me110 was a bomber in one squadron. In the last month of the BoB the "bombers" were mainly Bf109s. LF bomber losses were overwhelmingly caused by RAF fighters, and RAF fighter losses were overwhelmingly caused by LW fighters. I am done with this daft discussion, and all the other discussions which stem from your obsession with numbers over context.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

BOMBERS DID NOT SHOOT DOWN RAF FIGHTERS AT A RATIO OF 1-3. I have had enough of this stupidity, you counted one of the bombers as the Ju-87 which got hammered in what was frequently called a Stuka party.

Ju87 losses, all causes, daily, 11 to 18 August 1940, 11, 0, 2, 7, 1, 6, 9, 19. A further 18 all cause losses to end October. So frequently is how many parties? Given how quickly the Ju87 were withdrawn? The Luftwaffe lost 91 Ju87, versus 214 Do17, 292 He111 and 325 Ju88, all causes. So is the idea no Ju-87 ever shot down an RAF fighter?

The Me110 was a bomber in one squadron. In the last month of the BoB the "bombers" were mainly Bf109s.

The Me110 are counted as fighters, there was Erprobungs 210 which used Bf110 and Bf109 as fighter bombers. So how is this relevant? So because the Luftwaffe sent few bombers in October 1940 the loss ratio cannot be 1 to 3 July to September, how does that work? It is amazing you are sure the loss ratio was not 1 to 3, but are unable to actually tell anyone what it is beyond overwhelming.

I am done with this daft discussion, and all the other discussions which stem from your obsession with numbers over context.

You continue to demonstrate mind reading skills below that of the average block of granite. Meantime define overwhelming, backed by loss lists.

 

[pbehn]

Ju87 losses, all causes, daily, 11 to 18 August 1940, 11, 0, 2, 7, 1, 6, 9, 19. A further 18 all cause losses to end October. So frequently is how many parties? Given how quickly the Ju87 were withdrawn? The Luftwaffe lost 91 Ju87, versus 214 Do17, 292 He111 and 325 Ju88, all causes. So is the idea no Ju-87 ever shot down an RAF fighter?

I think the loss of 11 and 19 in a single day would count as a "party". Wouldnt it? How many set off? The Ju87 was impossible to escort during its dive. It was difficult to escort across the widest stretches of the English Channel because it required at least two waves to take in and then take out. If the timing wasnt perfect, the Ju87s were caught without escort and almost defenceless, this was called a "Stuka party" and the exchange rate was not 1-3.

The Me110 are counted as fighters, there was Erprobungs 210 which used Bf110 and Bf109 as fighter bombers. So how is this relevant? So because the Luftwaffe sent few bombers in October 1940 the loss ratio cannot be 1 to 3 July to September, how does that work? It is amazing you are sure the loss ratio was not 1 to 3, but are unable to actually tell anyone what it is beyond overwhelming.

It is relevant because they were bombers. The LW sent a lot of bombers in October, they were called Bf109s. You didnt include these as bombers lost, and the RAF fighter loses will count in your loss ratio of bombers shooting down fighters, or not as you didnt make it clear. You are talking about an exchange ratio which can be a valid expression but not with the BoB. Calling this exchange ratio "bombers shooting down fighters" is nonsense, utter nonsense so dont compare me to a block of granite.

 

[pbehn]

You continue to demonstrate mind reading skills below that of the average block of granite. Meantime define overwhelming, backed by loss lists.

Overwhelming, forces the opposition to give up because they are overwhelmed.
15 of August 1940, 2 raids by Luftflotte 5 on the north east of England suffered OVERWHELMING losses, which caused such raids to be stopped. The Bf110 Dachelbauge was unable to protect the bombers and so the bombers got hammered. From 65 He111s, 8 were lost plus 6 Bf110s, since they didnt reach the target this is a complete victory for the RAF. In the second raid 50 Ju88s hit Driffield bomber airfield, but lost 8 aircraft, in terms of the fighter battle another complete victory for the RAF.

18 August 1940 a force of 109 Ju87s and 24 Ju88s escorted by 150 Bf 109s attacked RAF airfields in the south. 21% of the Ju87s were lost despite the escort. Lw fighters downed 4 Spitfires and 2 Hurricanes. The Ju 87 was withdrawn from the battle as it was impossible for fighters to protect them and they couldnt defend themselves at all.

25 September 1940. Two heavy raids on London where the LW massive escort of Bf 109s and Bf 110s couldnt stay with the bombers resulted in heavy bomber losses, despite the bombers not all reaching the target and turning back over south London. In all the accounts I have read the combat is between fighter and fighter in the initial stages, when the escorts are driven off or turn back and the bombers are alone they get shot down or turn back.
You have Bungay's The Most Dangerous Enemy, here is a thread from the forum This Day in the Battle of Britain Pages 7, 8 and 12 will give you the numbers you need.

Here is a list of LW aces from the BoB who were all flying fighters, apart from 1 in Erp 210 who will have been in a "Bf110 or 109 bomber" Do you have a similar but much bigger list of LW BoB bomber aces, to support your argument of "bombers shooting down fighters"?

Luftwaffe Aces of the Battle of Britain

List​	Rank​	First Name​	Last Name​	BoB Victories​	Units​
1​	Oblt.	Helmut	Wick	42​	I./JG 2
2​	Maj.	Adolf "Dolfo"	Galland	35​	III./JG 26, Stab JG 26
3​	Hptm.	Walter	Oesau	34​	III./JG 51
4​	Maj.	Werner "Vati"	Mölders	28​	Stab JG 51
5​	Oblt.	Hermann-Friedrich	Joppien	26​	I./JG 51
6​	Oblt.	Herbert	Ihlefeld	24​	I./LG 2
7​	Hptm.	Gerhard	Schöpfel	23​	III./JG 26
8-9​	Ofw.	Siegfried "Wurm"	Schnell	18​	II./JG 2
8-9​	Hptm.	Horst "Jacob"	Tietzen	18​	II./JG 51
10-11​	Oblt.	Hans "Assi"	Hahn	17​	III./JG 2
10-11​	Lt.	Erich	Schmidt	17​	III./JG 53
12-13​	Hptm.	Heinz	Bretnütz	16​	II./JG 53
12-13​	Ofw.	Werner	Machold	16​	I./JG 2
14-15​	Oblt.	Arnold	Lignitz	15​	I./JG 51
14-15​	Oblt.	Hans	Philipp	15​	II./JG 54
16-19​	Oblt.	Hans-Ekkehard	Bob	14​	III./JG 54
16-19​	Maj.	Karl-Heinz	Leesemann	14​	I./JG 52
16-19​	Oblt.	Joachim	Müncheberg	14​	III./JG 26
16-19​	Oblt.	Josef "Pips"	Priller	14​	II./JG 51
20-22​	Oblt.	Heinz	Ebeling	13​	III./JG 26
20-22​	Maj.	Erich	Groth	13​	II./ZG 76
20-22​	Hptm.	Hans-Karl	Mayer	13​	I./JG 53
23-24​	Oblt.	Hans-Joachim	Jabs	12​	II./ZG 76
23-24​	Hptm.	Hans	Wiggers	12​	I./JG 51
25-27​	Oblt.	Helmut	Bennemann	11​	I./JG 52
25-27​	Oblt.	Erich	Hohagen	11​	II./JG 51
25-27​	Oblt.	Gustav	Sprick	11​	III./JG 26
28-40​	Fw.	Heinz	Bär	10​	I./JG 51
28-40​	Oblt.	Kurt	Brändle	10​	II./JG 53
28-40​	Oblt.	Josef "Joschko"	Fözö	10​	II./JG 51
28-40​	Hptm.	Dietrich	Hrabak	10​	II./JG 54
28-40​	Lt.	Rolf	Kaldrack	10​	III./ZG 76
28-40​	Oblt.	Karl-Heinz	Krahl	10​	I./JG 2
28-40​	Lt.	Erich	Leie	10​	Stab JG 2
28-40​	Oblt.	Gustav	Rödel	10​	II./JG 27
28-40​	Ofw.	Erich	Rudorffer	10​	I./JG 2
28-40​	Fw.	Walter	Scherer	10​	III./ZG 26
28-40​	Lt.	Heinz	Tornow	10​	II./JG 51
28-40​	Lt.	Eduard	Tratt	10​	I./Erp.Gr. 210
28-40​	Hptm.	Wolf-Dietrich	Wilcke	10​	III./JG 53

 

[SaparotRob]

I do so enjoy being taught English by the English!

 

[pbehn]

I do so enjoy being taught English by the English!

Don't go there, I had two American colleagues who both said the same thing "I dont understand your ffffing English". Talk about leading with your chin? How is that my problem? Since I am fffing English! One accused me of making up the word "datum" as in datum point, the point from where you measure. He worked for another company in the group called AMDATA, when I told him Datum is singular and Data is plural his head almost exploded as he ran to the office to get a dictionary.

 

[SaparotRob]

That's embarrassing.

 

[pbehn]

That's embarrassing.

He was a clever guy, a specialist in computers and ultrasonics, the gear he was using had been developed to check the Shuttle boosters after the Challenger disaster. But the trouble was that computers and ultrasonics was all he knew, he didnt know where he was in Dhahran because he didnt know where Saudi Arabia is. He thought Iraq and Iran were two parts of the same country (we were together when the Iraqi passenger plane was shot down). One night there was the end of an old movie, obviously with British actors but not in Britain there was sun palm trees and sand. The credits rolled up and it said "filmed on location in New Zealand" so he asked the obvious question "Where the F@ck is New Zealand"? "Next to Australia " I replied "and dont you dare ask where Australia is, get a map out"

 

[GrauGeist]

Through the generations in my family, we have had a majority of either military or educators (including a number of Rhodes scholars) and as a youngster, I had no excuse to be ignorant of "proper English" or the world at large.

It also sucked that my Dad, Uncles and Stepdad were all former military, because there was ALWAYS something for me to be doing!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It also sucked that my Dad, Uncles and Stepdad were all former military, because there was ALWAYS something for me to be doing!

I learnt early on to never complain to Dad about being bored.

 

[GrauGeist]

I learnt early on to never complain to Dad about being bored.

Oh...this was a word never uttered.

I'd do my chores and then make myself scarce. If I wanted to be bored, I had to go somewhere else and do it.

Ahh yeah, one also never stood around with their hands in their pockets, either!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh...this was a word never uttered.

I'd do my chores and then make myself scarce. If I wanted to be bored, I had to go somewhere else and do it.

Ahh yeah, one also never stood around with their hands in their pockets, either!

"Dad, I'm bored."
"Here you go, Slim, this pair of boots needs shinin'."

"Dad, I'm bored."
"The grout in the bathroom looks ready for a toothbursh."

Yeah, that was an easy no-go after the first three times.

 

[GrauGeist]

"Dad, I'm bored."
"Here you go, Slim, this pair of boots needs shinin'."

"Dad, I'm bored."
"The grout in the bathroom looks ready for a toothbursh."

Yeah, that was an easy no-go after the first three times.

Years ago, I was with my Uncle Bruce (USAF) at Norton AFB while he had to run an errand.

As we were crossing between buildings, he spotted a shave-tail (E-1) wandering around with a clipboard so he approached the Airmen and asked to see the clipboard. The kid looked terrified and stood stock-still, straight as a post, as my Uncle (at the time) was a First Sergeant.
Uncle Bruce leaved through the blank pages, looking as though he was skimming through documents and then handed the clipboard back to the kid and said, "looks fine, carry on." and the kid disappeared.

Uncle Bruce looked at me, winked and said "that guy is going to go places one day".

Lesson learned: if you look busy, they'll find someone else who needs a chore!