P-47 in the ETO

[pbehn]

People have noticed how you continually add things, like "what did the fighters do" or jump to 1943 or later,

The whole discussion started with you drawing a similarity between the USA offensive in Europe with unescorted bombers in 1943 and the Battle of Britain. This is why you always want to change the loss ratio into "bombers shooting down fighters".

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The whole discussion started with you drawing a similarity between the USA offensive in Europe with unescorted bombers in 1943 and the Battle of Britain.

Drawing a similarity? I noted the Battle of Britain exchange rate as 1 to 3 in the first sentence then report the USAAF bomber losses in 1944. Anyway the USAAF data was ignored, only the Battle of Britain picked up on with opinion about how the numbers could not be true or it did not matter. Then came where are the German fighters, apparently they need to be noted in bomber claims but not bomber claims when evaluating fighters.

The continued opinion the loss ratio had to be wrong, the posting of German fighter top scorers, apparently because a similar list is required for bomber gunners before proceeding, rather than look at the air force reports on the cause of loss of their aircraft. Two "Stuka parties" and three good days for the RAF means the ratio for the entire battle must be wrong. The classification of the Bf109 as a bomber for loss and kill claim purposes if it takes off carrying a bomb. No need to use loss lists when claiming the ratio is wrong.

Unescorted US bombers? In January to May 1944?

This is why you always want to change the loss ratio into "bombers shooting down fighters".

Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion for my actions.

Loss ratio? Overall it was about 9 Luftwaffe bombers to 10 RAF fighters, all causes. Reduce that to RAF losses to bombers and Luftwaffe bomber losses to RAF fighters and it becomes 3 bombers to 1 fighter. So please provide what you define as the "loss ratio" and why your definition over rides looking at loss reports to figure out who shot down what. Like say the loss ratio RAF fighters to Bf109 is around 1.6 RAF to 1 Bf109 all causes, versus the 5 RAF fighters shot down by Bf109s to 4 Bf109s shot down by RAF fighters, which requires investigation into the cause of loss, as done by Stephen Bungay.

It is interesting to note how much effort has been expended investigating and matching fighter kill claims versus those from bomber gunners. Investigating the gunner claims to see better what really happened seems overdue.

 

[pbehn]

Drawing a similarity? I noted the Battle of Britain exchange rate as 1 to 3 in the first sentence then report the USAAF bomber losses in 1944. Anyway the USAAF data was ignored, only the Battle of Britain picked up on with opinion about how the numbers could not be true or it did not matter. Then came where are the German fighters, apparently they need to be noted in bomber claims but not bomber claims when evaluating fighters.

The continued opinion the loss ratio had to be wrong, the posting of German fighter top scorers, apparently because a similar list is required for bomber gunners before proceeding, rather than look at the air force reports on the cause of loss of their aircraft. Two "Stuka parties" and three good days for the RAF means the ratio for the entire battle must be wrong. The classification of the Bf109 as a bomber for loss and kill claim purposes if it takes off carrying a bomb. No need to use loss lists when claiming the ratio is wrong.

Unescorted US bombers? In January to May 1944?

Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion for my actions.

Loss ratio? Overall it was about 9 Luftwaffe bombers to 10 RAF fighters, all causes. Reduce that to RAF losses to bombers and Luftwaffe bomber losses to RAF fighters and it becomes 3 bombers to 1 fighter. So please provide what you define as the "loss ratio" and why your definition over rides looking at loss reports to figure out who shot down what. Like say the loss ratio RAF fighters to Bf109 is around 1.6 RAF to 1 Bf109 all causes, versus the 5 RAF fighters shot down by Bf109s to 4 Bf109s shot down by RAF fighters, which requires investigation into the cause of loss, as done by Stephen Bungay.

It is interesting to note how much effort has been expended investigating and matching fighter kill claims versus those from bomber gunners. Investigating the gunner claims to see better what really happened seems overdue.

Bungay also explained why bomber crews claims could be taken with a huge pinch of salt. The number of claims is directly proportional to the number of eyes and guns in the conflict. With one fighter against one fighter if the victor say his opponent go down and crash that is a claim that is reliable. With a bomber formation of 600 aircraft in a box there are over one thousand eyes and guns that can take a shot at the enemy but all seeing and remembering different things from different angles.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

bomber crews claims could be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

So back to this again, despite repeated attempts to have you notice no bomber gunner claims were used in the calculation. Stephen Bungay reports around 90% of RAF fighter pilots shot down by German bombers survived the experience so their reports, plus the reports of the other RAF pilots added to the crash investigations, all used to determine the cause of loss. So how did the dastardly Germans infiltrate their exaggerated kill claims into the RAF intelligence system of interviewing RAF pilots and investigating crashes in Britain and so determining cause of loss?

Next how about explaining your exaggeration of British fighter production and also why a breakdown was not given so people were aware of how many Defiants and Beaufighters were part of the figures, given their usefulness as day fighters in South East England.

Add the exaggeration of the number of fighters being repaired, see the repair system data.

With a bomber formation of 600 aircraft in a box

Please give examples of air forces using a bomber box of 600 aircraft. Especially the Germans in 1940.

 

[pbehn]

So back to this again, despite repeated attempts to have you notice no bomber gunner claims were used in the calculation. Stephen Bungay reports around 90% of RAF fighter pilots shot down by German bombers survived the experience so their reports, plus the reports of the other RAF pilots added to the crash investigations, all used to determine the cause of loss. So how did the dastardly Germans infiltrate their exaggerated kill claims into the RAF intelligence system of interviewing RAF pilots and investigating crashes in Britain and so determining cause of loss?

Next how about explaining your exaggeration of British fighter production and also why a breakdown was not given so people were aware of how many Defiants and Beaufighters were part of the figures, given their usefulness as day fighters in South East England.

Add the exaggeration of the number of fighters being repaired, see the repair system data.

Please give examples of air forces using a bomber box of 600 aircraft. Especially the Germans in 1940.

Your figures for bombers shooting down fighters dont actually include any figures for bombers shooting down fighters?

 

[pbehn]

Next how about explaining your exaggeration of British fighter production and also why a breakdown was not given so people were aware of how many Defiants and Beaufighters were part of the figures, given their usefulness as day fighters in South East England.

Document-42: Aircraft production during the Battle of Britain

Take your complaint about exaggeration up with the Battle of Britain Historical Society and Wood and Dempster's "The Narrow Margin".

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Document-42: Aircraft production during the Battle of Britain

Take your complaint about exaggeration up with the Battle of Britain Historical Society and Wood and Dempster's "The Narrow Margin".

By the way Stephen Bungay does the same basic analysis to determine the RAF fighter pilots killed by Luftwaffe bombers.

Wood and Dempster, Revised Edition, 1969.
Appendix 7 is the source of Available for Operations figures.
Appendix 5, weekly fighter production, week ending 1 June 1940, by type 8 Defiant, 87 Hurricane, 22 Spitfire, the book total is 282.
Appendix 6, is the monthly output figures the Battle of Britain site is using. June 1940, by type 2 Beaufighter, 30 Defiant, 309 Hurricane, 103 Spitfire, 8 Whirlwind, the book total is 1,163.
Want to tell us how the book totals work?

HyperWar: British War Production [Appendix 4]

You may want to take your complaint up with the Battle of Britain Historical Society, explain why you did no basic error checking and how the thousand a month in Wood and Dempster became 500 new and 500 repaired. Also why a breakdown was not given so people were aware of how many Defiants and Beaufighters were part of the figures, given their usefulness as day fighters in South East England. Add the exaggeration of the number of fighters being repaired, see the repair system data.

In reality British fighter production only exceeded 1,000 in a month in March 1944, when it was 1,082. A figure that includes 35 Mosquito PR.XVI and 20 Spitfire PR.XI, by December fighter production was down to 666, again including PR types.

Please give examples of air forces using a bomber box of 600 aircraft. Especially the Germans in 1940.

First page from Air 19/524, other two pages from AIR 8/278

 

[pbehn]

You may want to take your complaint up with the Battle of Britain Historical Society, explain why you did no basic error checking and how the thousand a month in Wood and Dempster became 500 new and 500 repaired. Also why a breakdown was not given so people were aware of how many Defiants and Beaufighters were part of the figures, given their usefulness as day fighters in South East England. Add the exaggeration of the number of fighters being repaired, see the repair system data.

No, I may not, because my original point was that fighter production and fighters returned to use (it makes no difference to a pilot) was massively more per month than the RAF's front line fighter strength, especially in single engined fighters which is what mattered.. That I have shown to be true. This meant that shooting down or destroying aircraft would not win the battle for Goering only killing pilots could do it. This was also my original point which you have spent an age trying to side track with lists of irrelevant "stats". You are again disagreeing with the BoB historical society, take it up with them. There were 1064 Defiants produced between 1937 and 1944 and only 2 squadrons operated it in the BoB, it is therefore utterly irrelevant. The first production Beaufighters were delivered to 4 Squadrons on 2 September 1940 who received 1 each, even less relevant than the utterly irrelevant Defiant in terms of the point I made which I will state again. Only front line trained and experienced pilots mattered, the LW couldnt win just by shooting down planes, they had to kill the pilots.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

You are again disagreeing with the BoB historical society, take it up with them.

Actually the official history and official production reports disagree with the historical society, the historical society is misleading people and you are spreading the error around rather than correcting it, why are the references ignored?

fighter production and fighters returned to use (it makes no difference to a pilot) was massively more per month than the RAF's front line fighter strength, especially in single engined fighters which is what mattered.

Message 120 has the actual figures.

Spitfire and Hurricane end of week strength peaked at 1,096 on 25 August 1940. Hurricane and Spitfire on strength plus ready for issue, 1,232 as of 7 July 1940, it climbs steadily to 1,396 on 11 August, then drops to 1,045 on 15 September, recovering to 1,149 on 27 October, down to 1,137 on 3 November. So massively more production plus repair is 1,000 per month versus a front line strength of around 1,000 once the Defiants and Beaufighters are counted, another one of your unique word definitions. Furthermore in order to get close to the 500 per month new requires including the Whirlwind, Beaufighter and Defiant and even then it falls short. Or to put is another way, average British fighter production July to October 1940 was 477.25 per month, so 500 per month is a nice round up, of which 64 were Whirlwind, Defiant and Beaufighter, leaving 413.25 Hurricanes and Spitfires on average per month.

As for repairs assuming the same number were repaired per month as produced gives about 830 Hurricanes and Spitfires available per month, so in the 5 weeks/35 days 11 August to 15 September the RAF lost or damaged badly enough to have them sent to the repair system something in the order of 830+350 Hurricanes and Spitfires if there were really 415 repairs per month, say 1,175, add another 85 if it was really 500. The Battle of Britain Then and Now lists 975 Hurricanes and Spitfires as lost or damaged in the 5 weeks. Please post the actual output of the repair system since you must have it to claim the 500 figure.

That I have shown to be true.

Try again, the figures show quite clearly the decline in the overall Spitfire and Hurricane strength, there were not 500 fighters per month being built, nor another 500 being repaired.

This meant that shooting down or destroying aircraft would not win the battle for Goering only killing pilots could do it.

Ever noticed the linkage between aircraft and aircrew casualties, and the further linkage between casualties and cause of loss? Also since you think the Wood and Dempster figures are so good, Appendix 11, Fighter Command pilot strength 10 August 1,396 and on 14 September 1,492. I know that hides a major drop in quality, but strengths were 100 pilots up, 350 Hurricanes and Spitfires down in the time period. So it was also aircraft, not just pilots.

However the claim is the, for pilot casualties, utterly irrelevant Defiant and even less relevant Beaufighter should be counted in the total of fighters produced and repaired.

This was also my original point which you have spent an age trying to side track with lists of irrelevant "stats".

The original point was the flat statement from you unsupported by any loss lists that "LW bombers were not shooting down RAF fighters at an exchange of 1 to 3." Then came pilot casualties, then the 500+500 new and repaired aircraft, see message 82. Now we are back to pilots because your production figures are wrong. Why don't you actually provide evidence about what I have said about pilot casualties instead of accusations?

There were 1064 Defiants produced between 1937 and 1944 and only 2 squadrons operated it in the BoB,

So having been shown to be reporting misleading production figures time to throw in total Defiant production, which was 2 prototypes (first flight 31 August 1937), 713 mark I (September 1939 to January 1942), 207 mark II (August 1941 to May 1942) and 140 Target Tugs (1 in January 1942, remainder May 1942 to March 1943), total 1,062. Which source says 1,064 and to 1944?

Only front line trained and experienced pilots mattered, the LW couldnt win just by shooting down planes, they had to kill the pilots.

In which case you will be delighted to know being shot down by a bomber was much less lethal for the RAF pilots than being shot down by a Bf109 as seen by the analysis you are much less delighted about that amongst other things shows it was 1 RAF fighter shot down by bombers to 3 bombers shot down by RAF fighters. By the way Stephen Bungay does the same basic analysis to determine the RAF fighter pilots killed by Luftwaffe bombers.

Stephen Bungay reports around 90% of RAF fighter pilots shot down by German bombers survived the experience so their reports, plus the reports of the other RAF pilots added to the crash investigations, all used to determine the cause of loss. So how did the dastardly Germans infiltrate their exaggerated kill claims into the RAF intelligence system of interviewing RAF pilots and investigating crashes in Britain and so determining cause of loss?

Please give examples of air forces using a bomber box of 600 aircraft. Especially the Germans in 1940.

 

[Greg Boeser]

It makes sense that more pilots would survive being shot down by bombers. RAF fighters had bulletproof windscreens and armoured firewalls to protect the pilot from fire from the front, plus the engine would absorb most of the damage. Also, a badly damaged fighter can disengage from a bomber, whereas a fighter will pursue a damaged plane to finish it off.

 

[pbehn]

It makes sense that more pilots would survive being shot down by bombers. RAF fighters had bulletproof windscreens and armoured firewalls to protect the pilot from fire from the front, plus the engine would absorb most of the damage. Also, a badly damaged fighter can disengage from a bomber, whereas a fighter will pursue a damaged plane to finish it off.

Geoffrey Wellum said in an interview he had no fear of return fire from a bomber he was attacking, a random bullet from a bomber he wasnt attacking was more of a worry.

 

[pbehn]

Actually the official history and official production reports disagree with the historical society, the historical society is misleading people and you are spreading the error around rather than correcting it, why are the references ignored?

Take it up with the society itself, they have special parking for high horses.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Take it up with the society itself

Good to see another someone else's problem allocation. I sent them a basic copy of my message posted here at about the same time. The web site has a number of issues and when I contacted them last year about problems with their Hawker Hurricane pages the resident historian recommended I come here to discuss things, the site's pages have still not changed. Just think how much happier you would have been if the site was more accurate and able to quickly correct things.

they have special parking for high horses.

Actually they do not, another easily disproved statement of yours. Consider if you keep looking up at people high above you who are really sitting in ordinary everyday chairs it has a lot to do with the holes you keep digging for yourself.

 

[pbehn]

Good to see another someone else's problem allocation. I sent them a basic copy of my message posted here at about the same time. The web site has a number of issues and when I contacted them last year about problems with their Hawker Hurricane pages the resident historian recommended I come here to discuss things, the site's pages have still not changed. Just think how much happier you would have been if the site was more accurate and able to quickly correct things.

Actually they do not, another easily disproved statement of yours. Consider if you keep looking up at people high above you who are really sitting in ordinary everyday chairs it has a lot to do with the holes you keep digging for yourself.

Maybe they dont agree with your issues, were you telling them about bombers shooting down fighters, or did you tell them they had the wrong information in the wrong format then shoot off on a tangent about Jerrycans in 1943?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Enough gentlemen. Agree to disagree, or take it to a PM. Knock it off with the tit for bickering and snide comments.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Had no idea that there even was a ferry tank, much less that it was modified for combat!

The second picture was copied from:
Rebirth of the P-47 Naval.