The Best Fw-190 Variant...?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well every source that I have found says that 674 Doras were built but something like 13000 A were built and I am not sure of the F or the G varients.

RG as for you post about the "extreme high alltitude" label. What makes you think I labeled it that. I never said that. As for the P-51H and the Ta-152H Im sorry but atleast the 152 saw service and as far as I am concerned with everything I have studdied on it and what pilots have said there was nothing finer in the sky then the 152H and nothing could match it. Unless the 51H saw service against it (which it did not) you can not convince me that it was the best thing ever built and that it would outfly a 152H. As for the 51D's and 47's beating the Luftwaffe you are wrong my friend. The Hitler, Goering, and the Luftwaffe beat the Luftwaffe.

More P-51H's were available for WWII than TA152's. The fact that Germany was so badly on the ropes that it threw its prototypes into the air as they came off the production line, rather than methodically introducing them into service should not exclude contemporary designs from consideration.

What the hell is your point really? Did the P-51H see any service that would prove it was the greatest thing since bread and butter like you make it out to be? Nope sure as hell was not. Again your objection is without any merit here! I dont give a flying *%@$ how many were available! What I care about is how it compared but you dont know anything about that because it did not ever get a chance to! I think the Ta-152H would have more then a match for you beloved P-51H had it been given a chance to prove itself. Can I prove it, No but neither can you prove your argument so give it up!

Besides, it was you who brought up the P-51H for comparison this time, so your objection is totally without merit on all grounds.

Who the hell are you to tell me what has merit and what does not, tell me how yours does. You have not proven shit to me or probably anybody else except that as KrazyKanuk posted that you are very onesided in your reading and dont learn to much about anything of relevence unless it is about the "GREATEST PLANE TO EVER FLY: THE ONE AND ONLY P-51!" or how GERMAN BRAINS WERE SMALLER AND THEY WERE INFERIOR IN EVERYTHING COMPARED TO THE USA

I agree the German high command hurt the Luftwaffe', but the P-47 and P-51 did their part too. It was the ability to put competitive fighters in the air, over Germany, more than anything else that beat the Luftwaffe'.

Sorry there you go again. P-51 this and P-47 that. Why do you completly and consistantly forget about the British and there Hurricanes and the Spitfires? Hey they were fighting the war longer and they did most of the damage. Sorry I understand taht the Hurricane and Spitfire are not US made but they did more of the share.

Again I am sorry but if Hitler and his government Goones had left the RG up to the developers and allowed more of Germanies more successfull and better designs to unfold much ealier and let them be used for there purposes as they were designed the Luftwaffe would have faired much better. Oh any by the way the fuel shortages of the Luftwaffe did more to hurt the Luftwaffe then your P-51 and P-47.

Read the Soviet Fighter Tactics manual concerning the 190 and 109 cooling problems. I've posted it before, and it's on RING's website (see my post of that source for data). I've seen comments about limited full speed performance from other sources too, I'll try to locate them and post them for you.

First of all Soviet Fighter Tactics Manual? Give me a break please. The Soeviets did not know tactics if you had implanted them in your brain. The Soviet Airforce was slaughtered up until the very end. Erich Hartmann happened to fly one of these inferior Me-109's that they supposadly talked about in there Tactics Manual. I dont think it did them any good. And dont give me any crap about they Soviet Planes were inferior and the aircraft shot down were Il-2's Why have a Tactics Manual if it is not going to save you? Lastly what a great source you posted since you always want to talk about "WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE" "THAT IS NOT AN AMERICAN SOURCE CANT BE TRUE!" This post of yours has no merit at all (sound familier)!

Hmmm... I see it the other way. You and a few others keep trying to tout about how great German technology was. It had its strong points and its weak points, but for the most part it was inferior to Allied technology. Some German technology was more advanced, but when looking at the big picture, in the most important technologies such as radar, industrial process technology, and of course nuclear physics, the Allies had the significant advantage. But more than that, the German's just didn't seem to understand that at some point you have to stop striving for the ultimate in quality and focus on quantity and servicability - two things that never sunk into Germany's WWII thinking.

Actually here again you are dead wrong. We just seem to think you know a hell of a lot less then you try to make us believe! Please stop! You are hurting my head with all this P-51 and P-47 crap! All this Germans were inferior crap along with the British and everyone else. The US technology was not as great as you make it out to be!

No, you are trying to elevate German aircraft to a stature they did not attain.

And you do the same to the US fighters. You are very one sighted and know a hell of lot less then you think you do! Yes I said it again because it is very true!

So where is this supposed superiority?

Theres more to just paper stats that you always come up with. If anyone ever writes an artical about how they flew against a Luftaffe aircraft and it gave them a hard time or was supierior to them, you call them a lyer! Sorry paper stats dont count, but again for someone who has never flown a combat aircraft you would not know this!

And visa versa. Didn't Yeager bag a few FW's on his seventh combat sortie?

And there were many FW pilots who did the same thing. Oh wait not in your picture perfect world!

The only way you can bolster your ego is to try to claim the German's were superior engineers and scientists. Well, I have two words to say to that - "ATOMIC BOMB"

I have 6 words to say to that - "ALBERT EINSTEIN AND OTHER GERMAN SCIENTISTS!"

And RG as for the Ta-152 being a prototype being put into the sky to "alter the war" it was not a protype or experimental aircraft it is called "Evolution" and making a better aircraft then before! You can argue this fact all you want and I know after what I post below you are going to say that it is all lies about outflying P-51's but you know what can you prove it did not happen? No you can not!

The Focke-Wulf Ta 152 name refers to the final developments of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 aircraft which was redesignated with the 'Ta' in honor of Kurt Tank who headed the design team. The name started with the last Ta 152 models although only 67 production aircraft were delivered. The Ta 152H models were among the fastest fighters of the war, capable of speeds up to 755 km/h (472 mph). It is reported that Kurt, who occasionally test flew his own designs, encountered some P-51 Mustangs towards the end of the war when he was flying a 152 and was able to out-run them by engaging the methanol-water injection system of the engine - but it is not clear if the Mustangs actually saw him and pursued.
The total number of Ta 152 production is not well known but it should be ~150 aircraft of all types including prototypes.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

of all types including prototypes.

whice the germans always seemed to make tons of..........

 

[cheddar cheese]

The Fw190 alone went up to the V80

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

we make 3 or 4, the protoypes then themselfs often being used in service or for some other perpose........

 

[mosquitoman]

The one thing that America and Russia were good at was numbers, they just overwhelmed Germany, Italy and Japan even though they had some very good equipment

 

[Udet]

I wholeheartedly agree with DerAdler when he refers to the "Soviet Fighter Tactics Manual".

Noteworhty to mention is the fact ancient Chaikas and Ishaks are still included in a manual describing the combat tactics for planes of late 1943. (!)

It is just like if by late 1943 the Germans had had the Henschel Hs123 biplanes -while not exactly fighters, but rather used as bombers- included in their manuals, encouraging their pilots that depending on some specific circumstances of the engagement, they could manage to shoot down Spitfires or Thunderbolts.

That is the kind of madness one can expect to find from such a regime as that of Stalin.

 

[Anonymous]

Besides, it was you who brought up the P-51H for comparison this time, so your objection is totally without merit on all grounds.

Who the hell are you to tell me what has merit and what does not, tell me how yours does. You have not proven s**t to me or probably anybody else except that as KrazyKanuk posted that you are very onesided in your reading and dont learn to much about anything of relevence unless it is about the "GREATEST PLANE TO EVER FLY: THE ONE AND ONLY P-51!" or how GERMAN BRAINS WERE SMALLER AND THEY WERE INFERIOR IN EVERYTHING COMPARED TO THE USA

Hmmm.. first you bring up the Ta152 vs. P-51H as a hypothetical matchup, then when I reply to it you get upset because the P-51H didn't see actual combat... What is your problem Alder?

And I never said anything about German brains being smaller. The fact is Germany just had a smaller techno-industrial complex, and in the end that was what mattered.

I agree the German high command hurt the Luftwaffe', but the P-47 and P-51 did their part too. It was the ability to put competitive fighters in the air, over Germany, more than anything else that beat the Luftwaffe'.

Sorry there you go again. P-51 this and P-47 that. Why do you completly and consistantly forget about the British and there Hurricanes and the Spitfires? Hey they were fighting the war longer and they did most of the damage. Sorry I understand taht the Hurricane and Spitfire are not US made but they did more of the share.

Because the Hurricane's and Spitfire's were defensive fighters, they did not take it to and destroy the Luftwaffe'. They didn't have the range.

Again I am sorry but if Hitler and his government Goones had left the RG up to the developers and allowed more of Germanies more successfull and better designs to unfold much ealier and let them be used for there purposes as they were designed the Luftwaffe would have faired much better. Oh any by the way the fuel shortages of the Luftwaffe did more to hurt the Luftwaffe then your P-51 and P-47.

And the same argument to a lesser degree for some and to a higher degree for others (Japan) could be made w.r.t. the Ordinance procurement process in every nation.

Oh any by the way the fuel shortages of the Luftwaffe did more to hurt the Luftwaffe then your P-51 and P-47.

Ummm... it was the P-51 and the P-47, along with the bombers, which created that shortage.

Read the Soviet Fighter Tactics manual concerning the 190 and 109 cooling problems. I've posted it before, and it's on RING's website (see my post of that source for data). I've seen comments about limited full speed performance from other sources too, I'll try to locate them and post them for you.

First of all Soviet Fighter Tactics Manual? Give me a break please. The Soeviets did not know tactics if you had implanted them in your brain. The Soviet Airforce was slaughtered up until the very end. Erich Hartmann happened to fly one of these inferior Me-109's that they supposadly talked about in there Tactics Manual. I dont think it did them any good. And dont give me any crap about they Soviet Planes were inferior and the aircraft shot down were Il-2's Why have a Tactics Manual if it is not going to save you? Lastly what a great source you posted since you always want to talk about "WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE" "THAT IS NOT AN AMERICAN SOURCE CANT BE TRUE!" This post of yours has no merit at all (sound familier)!

Ummm... I quote lots of German sources. The Soviet fighter tactics manual includes information about observed German aircraft and tested captured units. It was classified until after the fall of the Soviet Union.

I find it funny that in the same paragraph where you falsly accuse me of not considering the data from all sides you dismiss the Soviet data out of hand simply because its Soviet!

Hmmm... I see it the other way. You and a few others keep trying to tout about how great German technology was. It had its strong points and its weak points, but for the most part it was inferior to Allied technology. Some German technology was more advanced, but when looking at the big picture, in the most important technologies such as radar, industrial process technology, and of course nuclear physics, the Allies had the significant advantage. But more than that, the German's just didn't seem to understand that at some point you have to stop striving for the ultimate in quality and focus on quantity and servicability - two things that never sunk into Germany's WWII thinking.

Actually here again you are dead wrong. We just seem to think you know a hell of a lot less then you try to make us believe! Please stop! You are hurting my head with all this P-51 and P-47 crap! All this Germans were inferior crap along with the British and everyone else. The US technology was not as great as you make it out to be!

And the German technology was not as great as you make it out to be.

So where is this supposed superiority?

Theres more to just paper stats that you always come up with. If anyone ever writes an artical about how they flew against a Luftaffe aircraft and it gave them a hard time or was supierior to them, you call them a lyer! Sorry paper stats dont count, but again for someone who has never flown a combat aircraft you would not know this!

So when it supports your argument, stats and historical documents are valid. When it does not, they arn't. And just who is supposed to be "one sided" here?

I seem to detect a theme here - the test of validity of documents or other data is whether or not it supports your beliefs.

And visa versa. Didn't Yeager bag a few FW's on his seventh combat sortie?

And there were many FW pilots who did the same thing. Oh wait not in your picture perfect world!

Grrrrr... that was exactly my point. You have put this out of context. Udet claimed that there were many FW's who killed mulitple P-51's in a sortie, I was just pointing out that the reverse was also true.

The only way you can bolster your ego is to try to claim the German's were superior engineers and scientists. Well, I have two words to say to that - "ATOMIC BOMB"

I have 6 words to say to that - "ALBERT EINSTEIN AND OTHER GERMAN SCIENTISTS!"

If you study the Manhatten project, you will see that Albert Einstien had very little to do with it, and that only two members of the primary team were of German/Austrian descent. In all likelyhood, even without them the USA would have developed the A-bomb. Einstien's biggest contribution was his endorsement of the concept.

Of those members of lower levels of the Manhatten project team that were German, almost all of them were Jews - AND THEY WEREN'T REALLY GERMANS ANYWAY WERE THEY?

And RG as for the Ta-152 being a prototype being put into the sky to "alter the war" it was not a protype or experimental aircraft it is called "Evolution" and making a better aircraft then before! You can argue this fact all you want and I know after what I post below you are going to say that it is all lies about outflying P-51's but you know what can you prove it did not happen? No you can not!

The Focke-Wulf Ta 152 name refers to the final developments of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 aircraft which was redesignated with the 'Ta' in honor of Kurt Tank who headed the design team. The name started with the last Ta 152 models although only 67 production aircraft were delivered. The Ta 152H models were among the fastest fighters of the war, capable of speeds up to 755 km/h (472 mph). It is reported that Kurt, who occasionally test flew his own designs, encountered some P-51 Mustangs towards the end of the war when he was flying a 152 and was able to out-run them by engaging the methanol-water injection system of the engine - but it is not clear if the Mustangs actually saw him and pursued.
The total number of Ta 152 production is not well known but it should be ~150 aircraft of all types including prototypes.

Yes, I do not consider Kurt Tank's unwitnessed account of how good his creation was to be credible. This would be true of any engineer/designer making such a claim - there is just too much personal agenda involved. Besides, down low the P-51 was faster than the Ta152, so it simply does not fit with what we know about the planes.

And that 472 mph figure is a Kurt Tank projected speed. There is no evidence any Ta152 ever achieved it in actual flight.

As for the prototype comment, you are taking it too literally. No the TA152 was not purely a prototype. But then, neither was the P-51H. The point was that deploying such aircraft in small numbers would have no impact on the outcome of the war. Therefore, the USA, which was winning the war did not rush them into service. Germany, which was loosing the war and was desperate, threw them into the meat grinder.

And as for US fighters, I really prefer the F4U-4 over the P-51 in most repsects.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

About the Fw-190 and P-51.

Read AFDU's test with the Fw-190A4 and P-51B.

The AFDU's test revealed that the Fw-190A4 was equal in turning to the P-51B at slow speeds, and superior at high speeds. And in roll rate the FW-190A4 was very much superior.

The Fw-190D9 was superior in every aspect of flight to the P-51 except in diving, and this is scientifically and historically proven !

The "Dora" would outturn and outroll a P-51 anytime, and the "Dora" also had a better climbrate !

These are all facts wich are supported by "Reliable" Sources.

------------------------------------------------------

As for the Atomic Bomb........ In 1938, three chemists working in a laboratory in Berlin made a discovery that would alter the course of history: they split the uranium atom.

 

[Zamex]

Fw 190 V16 achieved 724 km/h in 7000 m, and with MW 50 even 750 km/h. So I dont see why Ta 152 could not reach 755.

 

[Anonymous]

Soren, would you care to provide that AFDU report? Or do you expect me to hunt it down too?

 

[Anonymous]

Fw 190 V16 achieved 724 km/h in 7000 m, and with MW 50 even 750 km/h. So I dont see why Ta 152 could not reach 755.

I'm not saying it couldn't, just that I've not seen that it actually did.

One reason it might not be as fast as the fastest of the Dora series would be the wider wings make more drag.

 

[Udet]

Even the heavy Sturmböcke Focke Wulf 190s, with the rough 250 kg of extra armour, reducing the maximun speed to some 625km/hr, in a one against one match could tangle with the P-51.

There are recorded and confirmed victories gained over the Mustangs by the Sturmböck kids.

 

[blackeagle_I]

A perspective from Germany pilot about late version of 190A.

I quote the following paragraphs from Ace High Forum. Crumpp, a well know FW190 enthusiast interviewed a Luftwaffe ace.


What a great conversation! Learned some great stuff and raised some new questions. Don't want to get too detailed as I am writing a book.

Little background. This guy has plenty of confirmed kills. He flew Me-109's from the beginning up until the Bf-109G6. From there he transferred over to the FW-190A8 in 1944. His "training" on the FW was an orientation to the cockpit and a circuit around the field. He then took off and flew his first combat mission in the type. No additional training and no pilots manual.

On fighting the airplane:

He primarily TURNFOUGHT Mustangs, Yaks, and La 5's. Spitfires he fought in the vertical. None of them were a problem for the FW-190A in the dogfight.

Aileron adjustment was extremely important to the turn performance of the type. There are THREE different ailerons that can be mounted on the FW-190A. Each has different hinge type and different performance. All were the pilot's choice to have mounted. He named the ones he preferred.

Additionally his crew chief would mount the ailerons with a spacer, which gave them additional height. This came from a FW Technical bulletin. Said it helped with low speed performance.

On the Flaps:

He did not mention the exact speed. I will press him for that later. He was in a very talkative mood but is not completely comfortable with English. Between my German and his English though the points were made.

He did use them in every engagement that he turned. They did decrease the turn rate considerably.

On the Prop:

The FW-190A8 had three props available for pilot use. Again it was the pilots choice. He preferred the broad chord wooden propeller. Said it had more flex and he felt it gave more of a bite in the air during low speed maneuvering.

Normal Metal Prop - VDM 9-16176A
Wide Chord Wooden Prop - VDM 9-12157H3

Manual mentions some others, anybody got any info on this?

On the boost systems:

GM-1, MW-50, and C3 "emergency power" were ALL used on the FW-190A. The FW-190A8 was rated for 1.58ata/1.65ata for 10 minutes. He also mentioned another alcohol based boost system but I need more information from him on it. MW30 perhaps, I wrote the name down and it is not an MW system. I am thinking an EW system similar to the later 109's.

GM-1 and MW-50 were more common than we would believe. This is confirmed by Dr Timken who has several of the systems laying around his hanger and they are listed on the FW-190 parts catalog. Anyway, I have more interviews with him later.

Surprised to learn on the boost systems though was:

He never used them! The alcohol based system took almost 3 minutes to develop power. He said bullets were much faster than all the boost systems. Roll and shallow dive was his best maneuver when an enemy fighter got on his six. He said the FW-190A8's dive acceleration would slam you to the back of the cockpit. He also said the acceleration when the second stage supercharger gear kicked in was very noticeable. Sounded like a modern automatic transmission. The supercharger would whine for a few seconds and followed by a "clunk" as the gear engaged. Then the acceleration would push you back.

He mentioned several times "I feared no Mustang." Looking at his record, I have no doubt he did not!

Oh he mentioned he always performed a 3 point landing and take off in the FW-190. Said prop strikes were common if you did not.

Let me clarify this statement. After talking with him a few more times I want to say:

He did NOT level turnfight these planes. He use a High Yo-Yo and a Low Yo-Yo to gain advantage. He would get in close and use the initial accelleration performance of the FW-190A8. Remember 1.58ata/1.65ata was a throttle setting on the FW-190A8 not a function of boost.

He said you could drop the take-off flaps and considerable tighten the turn. First he would back off the throttle, drop flaps, and then increase the throttle. When fitted with the VDM 9-12157H3 the initial accelleration of the FW-190A8 was much better than his 109G6 and would easily overcome the drag of the flaps leaving you with plenty of energy to yo-yo.

He also flew the 4 MG151's loadout.

 

[Anonymous]

Even the heavy Sturmböcke Focke Wulf 190s, with the rough 250 kg of extra armour, reducing the maximun speed to some 625km/hr, in a one against one match could tangle with the P-51.

There are recorded and confirmed victories gained over the Mustangs by the Sturmböck kids.

Any plane could kill any plane if the situation were right. For purposes of these discussions, I assume we are talking about mutually aware combat, not instances where one plane sneaks up on the other without being spotted and blasts it out of the sky.

Interestingly, something around 90% of surviving pilots who were shot down in WWII reported they did not know the enemy plane was there and their first awarness they were under attack was when they started seeing tracers or taking hits. So the great majority of kills on all sides are really not the kind of kills we are discussing when we are trying to compare the relative merits of different fighters.

So can you document cases of FW190A kills that involved actual mutually aware combat where the FW managed to out manuver the P-51 and achieve the kill?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

Blackeagle,

I cannot take that supposed interview seriously.

Surprised to learn on the boost systems though was:

He never used them! The alcohol based system took almost 3 minutes to develop power. He said bullets were much faster than all the boost systems. Roll and shallow dive was his best maneuver when an enemy fighter got on his six. He said the FW-190A8's dive acceleration would slam you to the back of the cockpit.

1) Water/alcohol injection does not take any 3 minutes to develop power. It simply allows higher manifold pressure to be attained without detonation. It is almost instantaneous (however long it takes to push the lever to a higher MP setting). On most systems, this is tied to the mp regulator and pushing the MP handle forward (or whatever control it's tied to) past a certain point initiates the water/alcohol injection.

GM-1 (nitros oxide) boost would even be more dramatic. On a car, you learn to put your head against the headrest before engaging it if you don't want a neck ache. It is instantaneous and you can really feel it!

2) No plane would "slam you back" in the cockpit in a dive. Gravity pulls on the pilot just as it does on the plane. None of the WWII prop planes got more dive acceleration from the engine than from their own weight, so the feel of being slammed into the back of the cockpit would be lower in a dive than in level flight or in a climb. Any experianced flyer would know this.

As for Yo-Yo manuvers, the FW had no special capaiblity in this regaurd. And furthermore, they are generally only effective if you have considerably more energy than your opponent.

I'd like to hear who this supposed German pilot was and confirm his existance as an actual WWII Luftwaffe' pilot. I seriously doubt he really exists. If he does, I seriously doubt this Crummp guy really interviewed him.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Udet]

RG, you ask for evidence? Let it be my pleasure:

Evidence 1.

"Schlageter" Emil Lang (The Bully), flying his Fw190 A-8, fried four (4) Mustangs in quick succesion TWICE.


Evidence 2.

"Pitt" Bauer, of JG 300, flying his Fw190 A-8 destroyed 3 Mustangs in less than 6 minutes.

Evidence 3.

This time, against the P-47, which in my view deserves far greater praising than that the Mustang has got.

Egon Mayer, JG 2, flying a Butcher Bird shot down 4 P-47s in real quick succesion.


While i agree with you many pilots never knew what hit them, there are cases where of course the rule does not apply.

You are not going to suggest flights of Mustangs got "bounced" in such a manner they´d not notice their nemesis shooting down 3 or 4 of their own flock one after another are you?

Furthermore if the Mustang was "so clearly superior" to the Butcher Bird, how come most Fw190s and Bf109s engaging them -yes after taking their losses as well- would return to their base?

What kind of logical explanation do you have for this when the Mustang squadrons engaged were conducting free sweeps?

If it was so superior -additionally enjoying a true far greater range and numerical superiority on most engagements- why did not they continue to pursuit the German guys wherever they might go? Or if they did, how come they could not get them all? Perhaps because neither the Butcher Bird and the Bf109 pilots were that easy to catch?

As to the victories gained over by Mustangs by the Sturmbock kids, they were not that rare.

 

[Anonymous]

While i agree with you many pilots never knew what hit them, there are cases where of course the rule does not apply.

But probably none of those cases.

You are not going to suggest flights of Mustangs got "bounced" in such a manner they´d not notice their nemesis shooting down 3 or 4 of their own flock one after another are you?

It happened all the time, to both sides. If an enemy plane got in position behind and below a fight group, and picked off the tail end charlie, no one else might notice for quite a while.

Furthermore if the Mustang was "so clearly superior" to the Butcher Bird, how come most Fw190s and Bf109s engaging them -yes after taking their losses as well- would return to their base?

"Most" combatant aircraft usually returned to base after an engagement, so this question is just silly.

What kind of logical explanation do you have for this when the Mustang squadrons engaged were conducting free sweeps?

Well, first off this usually happend when the P-51's were headed home, after expending their ammo on ground targets. Also, the Luftwaffe' had a distinct advantage in that they had radar and ground spotting directing their fighters to the US aircraft. And radar tracking often could tell the German fighters that a flight would be found headed home in a given area, knowing it was pretty well spent.

If it was so superior -additionally enjoying a true far greater range and numerical superiority on most engagements- why did not they continue to pursuit the German guys wherever they might go? Or if they did, how come they could not get them all? Perhaps because neither the Butcher Bird and the Bf109 pilots were that easy to catch?

Because that is an unrealistic expectation of any air combat. It is very hard to successfully pursue all enemy fighters if they are trying to escape. Also, the FW was a very good diver, and the US planes would have been loath to go low early in their sortie. And of course it was well known that German pilots would lead US fighters who did follow them down to near the ground into AA traps. And finally, even though the P-51 had great range, by the time it had gone into Germany and executed its primary mission, fuel was limited. Often the option to give up altitude and continue an extended pursuit would have meant not being able to return to base, which was hundreds of miles away.

As to the victories gained over by Mustangs by the Sturmbock kids, they were not that rare.

So? You do admit the Luftwaffe' position was the advantageous position right? Flying over their own territory, having radar and ground spotters, and not having flown for hours to get into the combat area nor having hours of return flight in front of them, were all advantages to the German pilots. Offense is harder than defense - the Germans tried to do to England what the US did to Germany in the BoB, and they failed even though the task was easier!

Just look at Big Week, the US had fewer P-51's than the Luftwaffe had defensive fighters, but took fewer losses. In that week, something like 1000 Luftwaffe' fighters were destroyed, and 1/3rd of the Luftwaffe' pilots were killed. How do you explain that?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

As for the P-47 deserving "greater praise" than the P-51, well in some respects I agree. But, it didn't have the range to take the fight to the Luftwaffe' who were hiding deep in Germany. That was something the P-51 alone was able to do.

Clearly, the Anton was superior to the P-47C (unmodified), but the P-47D with water injection enjoyed a small advantage, and with water injection and the paddle prop, a significant one.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[blackeagle_I]

In that week, something like 1000 Luftwaffe' fighters were destroyed, and 1/3rd of the Luftwaffe' pilots were killed. How do you explain that?
Lunatic

Did Luftwaffe fighters suffered 1000 destroyed in that week?

 

[Anonymous]

Did Luftwaffe fighters suffered 1000 destroyed in that week?

The "Big Week" campaign actually lasted about 5 weeks, that is what they called the start of the "kill the Luftwaffe'" campaign in late Febuary and the name has kinda stuck. I should have stated it better. Over that 5 week period, prior to the switch to tactical operations at the start of April in preperation for D-Day, the German's lost about 1000 fighters.

On February 20, 1944, five days of coordinated USAAF/RAF assaults on the German aircraft industry began, that historians later named "The Big Week". On that day, the first thousand-plane raid took place, with fighter plane factories at Brunswick, Oschersleben, Bernberg, and Leipzig being attacked. The cost of the "Big Week" was heavy, with 244 heavy bombers and 33 fighter planes being lost. However, these raids played an important role in helping to reduce the strength of the Luftwaffe, paving the way for the D-Day landings. The onset of bad weather brought an end to the "Big Week", which was merciful since crews were exhausted and losses had been high. Nevertheless, during this offensive, the back of the Luftwaffe was broken. After this date, the Luftwaffe was never able to throw up the same amount of strength that it had before, and was generally effective only on sporadic occasions or when targets of critical importance were being attacked.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_21.html

=S=

Lunatic