The mustang and the 332nd

[Greg Boeser]

The 332nd was considered average as a fighting unit. Maintenance was somewhat below average. Politically and socially it was exceptional. As a demonstration unit it shattered the color bar in the US military that had held that "coloreds" were unfit for combat. The success of the unit had a significant bearing on President Truman's decision to abolish segregation in the US armed forces in 1948.
I doubt the Germans knew or cared who was flying escort when they intercepted American bomber streams, so, no they weren't afraid of the 332nd.

 

[BiffF15]

Were the Bf109 MGs and cannon firing on the same axis/plane? If I were a German pilot I would set them (if possible) such that the two hit the same point at a certain distance in front. I think I remember BiffF15 saying the F15 guns were set such that with ballistic drop the munitions crossed the aiming point at a set distance in front.

That is correct. A bit outside 2000' And it's annotated in the HUD.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And that's where the 332nd comes in they were good piolits I don't care what they say .

But were they better than any other group of pilots?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Some people still believe the myth of the 33nd

Exactly, lets just go ahead and forget the BS propaganda that they never lost a bomber. They were good pilots, no better or worse than any fighter group in the war, but lets not make it more than it was.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

This: "I don't care what they say" simply states that you are more interested in good feels than historical context.

I'm giving out a lot of bacon today.

The wine I am drinking plays a part too…

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That's true but your MK108 was so slow and hard to aim you'd never hit the P-51

 

[NTGray]

Some people still believe the myth of the 332nd

If by "myth" you mean the claim that the 332nd never lost a bomber, then, yeah, some people might believe that. They did actually lose a few. On the other hand, the claim that they were no worse but no better than most other fighter groups is also not accurate; according to official records, they were significantly better than most.

This from Wikipedia, which is not a bad source when the topic is straightforward and the article is well-written and properly footnoted:
[Among their accomplishments were] "79 bomber escort missions, with a good record of protection, losing bombers on only seven missions and a total of only 27, compared to an average of 46 among other 15th Air Force P-51 groups."

 

[special ed]

From what I've read, they were better trained and had more hours when they entered combat because those USAAF decision makers kept postponing combat deployment so Col. Davis kept them training. As to fewer bomber losses, Davis did not allow them to leave the bombers chasing individual kills. Some did and were chewed out.

 

[NTGray]

The 332nd was considered average as a fighting unit. Maintenance was somewhat below average. Politically and socially it was exceptional. As a demonstration unit it shattered the color bar in the US military that had held that "coloreds" were unfit for combat. The success of the unit had a significant bearing on President Truman's decision to abolish segregation in the US armed forces in 1948.
I doubt the Germans knew or cared who was flying escort when they intercepted American bomber streams, so, no they weren't afraid of the 332nd.

I just read an article asserting that the 332nd was only average as a fighting unit, and that their commanding officers considered them below average. However, given that those commanding officers in training were all white, and many (most?) were openly prejudiced in their actions, their expressed opinion as to the competence of the trainees could be considered open to doubt.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

They received the same training as all other pilots. They were no better and no worse. Its not like they had a special gene or super human powers.

They did an amazing job, under less than ideal conditions, there is no denying that. They deserve to be honored.

 

[fubar57]

From the Tuskegee University, Dr. Daniel L. Haulman, Air Force Historical Research Agency: Missions, Bomber Losses, 332D FG Reported Fighter Losses

 

[NTGray]

It is easy to show that "The 332nd​ Fighter Group never lost a bomber" is not accurate. All one needs to do is show that one or more bombers were shot down while being escorted by them, and this has been done.

However, it is not as easy to prove whether the 332nd​ Fighter Group was "better than," "worse than," or "about the same as" the "average" fighter group.

On the one hand, let us accept as accurate the statement by Daniel Haulman, PhD, described as "one of the world's leading authorities on the all-African-American Tuskegee Airmen" that "The total number of Tuskegee Airmen-escorted bombers shot down by enemy fighters, by my research, was 27, while the average number lost by each of the other six fighter escort groups in the Fifteenth Air Force was 46."

On the face of it, that statement suggests that the 332nd​ was nearly twice as good as the average of all other fighter groups. However, a real statistics nerd would want to know how the opportunities of all groups compared. How many total missions did the 332nd​ fly? How many total bombers were escorted by the 332nd​? What do those two numbers look like for the other fighter groups?

Without those comparative numbers, we cannot be absolutely certain that the 332nd​ actually had a better record, percentagewise, than the other groups.

But having said that, my inclination is to assume that the number of opportunities was similar for all the groups (i.e. the other groups did NOT, on average, escort twice as many bombers as the 332nd​ did.) And if I am right about that, then the statistical evidence does support the notion that the 332nd​ did have a better combat record than the average of the other groups, and that is indeed how I view the 332nd​. Not perfect, but much better than average.

 

[pbehn]

Why are these discussions about the 332nd, never any other? The others dont even get named.

 

[NTGray]

Why are these discussions about the 332nd, never any other? The others dont even get named.

Because this thread is about the 332nd, and comparing them to the average does not require naming the others.
However, if anybody wanted to claim that the 332nd was good, but not the best, certainly they are welcome to name the group that is even better than the 332nd. Provided, of course, that they can provide statistics to back up the claim.

 

[pbehn]

Because this thread is about the 332nd, and comparing them to the average does not require naming the others.
However, if anybody wanted to claim that the 332nd was good, but not the best, certainly they are welcome to name the group that is even better than the 332nd. Provided, of course, that they can provide statistics to back up the claim.

This isnt the only thread or discussion about the 332nd, but I cant remember any other groups having their abilities questioned.

 

[Greg Boeser]

It is easy to show that "The 332nd​ Fighter Group never lost a bomber" is not accurate. All one needs to do is show that one or more bombers were shot down while being escorted by them, and this has been done.

However, it is not as easy to prove whether the 332nd​ Fighter Group was "better than," "worse than," or "about the same as" the "average" fighter group.

On the one hand, let us accept as accurate the statement by Daniel Haulman, PhD, described as "one of the world's leading authorities on the all-African-American Tuskegee Airmen" that "The total number of Tuskegee Airmen-escorted bombers shot down by enemy fighters, by my research, was 27, while the average number lost by each of the other six fighter escort groups in the Fifteenth Air Force was 46."

On the face of it, that statement suggests that the 332nd​ was nearly twice as good as the average of all other fighter groups. However, a real statistics nerd would want to know how the opportunities of all groups compared. How many total missions did the 332nd​ fly? How many total bombers were escorted by the 332nd​? What do those two numbers look like for the other fighter groups?

Without those comparative numbers, we cannot be absolutely certain that the 332nd​ actually had a better record, percentagewise, than the other groups.

But having said that, my inclination is to assume that the number of opportunities was similar for all the groups (i.e. the other groups did NOT, on average, escort twice as many bombers as the 332nd​ did.) And if I am right about that, then the statistical evidence does support the notion that the 332nd​ did have a better combat record than the average of the other groups, and that is indeed how I view the 332nd​. Not perfect, but much better than average.

Context is everything. What was the number of escort missions flown per FG? What was the loss rate per escorted mission? The 332nd was a latecomer to the party. All other FGs in the 15th AF had been operational since it's inception. The 332nd only began escort missions in June 1944.

 

[NTGray]

Context is everything. What was the number of escort missions flown per FG? What was the loss rate per escorted mission? The 332nd was a latecomer to the party. All other FGs in the 15th AF had been operational since it's inception. The 332nd only began escort missions in June 1944.

That looks like useful information. Enough for a good start. Is there more? (Details, for example?)

 

[GrauGeist]

Also, what was the nature of the bombing missions and were they targeting areas in heavily contested airspace?
For example, a bombing mission to Berlin was going to encounter serious opposition more than a mission to Foggia.

 

[drgondog]

That looks like useful information. Enough for a good start. Is there more? (Details, for example?)

Well, here are some facts about the 332nd.
One squadron, the 99th was operational in 12th AF from April 1943, attached to 33rd, 324th, 79th FG, then to 86FBG for 20 days in June - then attached to 332nd FG.
It was tied with 301st FS with 31 VCs but had more probables and damaged credit.

The 100th, 301st and 302nd were the original 332nd FG and in operations on Feb 5, 1944 with 12th AF in P-40s, then P-47s then assigned to 15th AF in May and converted from P-47s to P-51B/C/D/K in June 1944.

With the addition of the 99th FS it became a four squadron Fighter Group with 1/3 more fighters/pilots than all other FGs in MTO/ETO.

With 113 total victory credits it was in the middle of the pack compared to other FG's in 12th AF (i.e. 33rrd, 79th, 324th, etc) but far below comparable units in 8th, 9th and 15th AF - with more fighters and pilots available to engage.

It had no recognized Fight Aces - but Lee Archer came close with four. I would have to check but final VCs of the 332nd probably ranked in the bottom 20% of all ETO/MTO based Fighter Groups. That said, they were in combat as the 332nd FG for only 11mo.

They had an excellent reputation for close escort to their assigned boxes.

 

[GrauGeist]

Bill, didn't the 99th first start out with P-39s?