Low number of victories might not be important, if their mission was to prevent bombers from being shot down. I read somewhere. . .this thread or somewhere else, I'm not sure. . . that 332nd pilots were told not to break off and pursue Luftwaffe planes to get a kill, and were chewed out if they did. Kind of like Admiral Spruance at the invasion of Saipan. Many criticized him afterward for not putting enough effort into going after the Japanese fleet to sink more ships, but his mission was to protect the landing beaches, and Admiral King told him later that he did the right thing. So I think we should focus on how many bombers the 332nd saved, not how many fighters they shot down. And if we can get some good numbers for how much opportunity the 332nd had to face Luftwaffe interceptors, and compare that to how much opportunity other groups had to do the same, then we can make a valid comparison. Length of time in service is a useful number only as far as it connects to total number of missions and number of bombers escorted. What do we know about that?
The mustang and the 332nd
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
On how many escort missions did all of these fighter groups actually encounter enemy aircraft? If the documents posted are correct than the 332nd did not encounter enemy aircraft on 80% of their missions. Did the other fighter groups encounter more or less enemy fighters.
From the last page of Dr. Haulman's paper…
The "never lost a bomber" statement is not accurate, but the courage and valor of the Tuskegee Airmen survives. The fact that some bombers were lost does not diminish the legendary contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen to the defeat of Nazi Germany and to the defeat of racism, both within the United States military, and in American society at large.
What he says above is spot on, but why is it necessary to prove they are better than other groups? Whats the point? I think it does an injustice to all those who served and defended the bombers from the Luftwaffe.
They were no better, and no worse. And saying so is not an injustice to them.
The "never lost a bomber" statement is not accurate, but the courage and valor of the Tuskegee Airmen survives. The fact that some bombers were lost does not diminish the legendary contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen to the defeat of Nazi Germany and to the defeat of racism, both within the United States military, and in American society at large.
What he says above is spot on, but why is it necessary to prove they are better than other groups? Whats the point? I think it does an injustice to all those who served and defended the bombers from the Luftwaffe.
They were no better, and no worse. And saying so is not an injustice to them.
Whether or not they were better is exactly what is under discussion right now, and it hasn't been decided to everybody's satisfaction yet, so let's withhold final judgment until we know more.
On the one hand, they lost fewer bombers than the average for other fighter groups. That seems to be a point in their favor. On the other hand, maybe they were in service for less time and had fewer opportunities to lose bombers. Let's wait and see if we can figure out the answer.
But, in any case, you are right about it not making any difference. At the very worst, they were just as good as the all-white groups, which is exactly what the prejudiced white commanders were denying when the idea of training Black pilots first came up. But since we've started discussing whether or not the numbers actually support the idea that the Black pilots were, on average, better than the white pilots (something that I am perfectly prepared to believe as I observe the NBA and NFL, knowing that flying a WWII fighter plane was very much an athletic exercise), then let's just gather as much information as we can, and see where it leads.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I remember reading this in a couple of books.
I see exactly where this conversation is going. 
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I see exactly where this conversation is going.
Let me guess: into the ground, tail-first?
Me too, observing basketball players I conclude they are too tall to fit in a plane. Observing Rugby I conclude that people born in New Zealand and Wales are specially gifted to the game, obviously nothing to do with the game being almost a religion in those countries, as sprinting is in Jamaica. It is an exercise in confirmation bias. Arthur Harris gave his opinion on this. He said the best crews in the RAF were on average of British origin because they were the most numerous, so, since all had basically the same training the British supplied both the best and of course the worst.I see exactly where this conversation is going.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I mentioned the P-39, because I recall reading that many groups stateside (the 99th included) were assigned P-39s and P-40s as "work up" ships.
Has absolutely zero to do with the pilot's color.
And in regards to the 332nd, aside from African-Americans, there were Haitian Air Force volunteers as well as volunteers from the Dominican Republic and people of hispanic ancestry.
Has absolutely zero to do with the pilot's color.
And in regards to the 332nd, aside from African-Americans, there were Haitian Air Force volunteers as well as volunteers from the Dominican Republic and people of hispanic ancestry.
Gather your information, rename all squadrons A,B C,,, etc rename groups 1,2,3 etc then present your results to an independent statistician who hasnt heard of of the 332nd, Tuskagee airmen or red tails to see who stands out as good average or poor.
fubar57
General
That is exactly how a statistics nerd would do it. Unfortunately, that nerd has to start with solid data, which I do not have easy access to. (To give to him, to give to him. I do not by any means claim to be a statistics nerd, although I think I would recognize one if I saw one. And I would enjoy watching over his shoulder.)
Oh, I see where it could go, but it doesn't have to. I think it could be a genuine exercise in finding out, statistically, what is really true, and I find that to be a really interesting possibility. And if we discover that the Tuskegee Airmen really were better on average than most, as is commonly believed, that's great. But if it turns out that they were "only" just as good as everybody else, that's OK, too, because in any case they already demonstrated that discriminating against Blacks in any area solely because of skin color is stupid.I see exactly where this conversation is going.
So, if we can find enough additional hard data, let's go for it. If it turns out to be inaccessible, then I'm OK with the conventional wisdom that the 332nd was better than most.
That is what you have to do, you have already said that you see a link with sport, that is a bias because it is based on your understanding of sport. My understanding is that a fighter squadron and group's performance was purely down to leadership and training. The difference between average pilots and aces was their eye sight, spatial awareness, decision making under pressure and many other things including luck, that are clearly not anything to do with skin colour.
You have been given information already, but you are still talking about skin colour. Apart from the information posted here the only thing I remember about them is that bomber crews liked the way they worked (in a documentary on TV) They were always there, close enough to be identified as escorts but not so close that they interfered with defensive fire, this is borne out by Drgondogs post quote "They had an excellent reputation for close escort to their assigned boxes." They were a disciplined unit, doing what they were told to do, and not doing what they were told not to do. The high command of the bombing campaign may have liked high scores against LW fighters, the bomber crews would be more happy with no US bombers lost and no LW fighters claimed.
In human lives, a B17 had a crew of 10 and a Bf109 had a crew of 1. To keep the scores equal in human lives LW fighters had to be shot down at a rate of 10 to 1.
Last edited:
That's a bizarre thing to say. You might as well say "I know black people, too..."
Last edited:
And those traits can all be considered subsets of athletic ability.
I read somewhere that Richard Bong wasn't really a very good shot, but he was the best flyer (in an aerobatic sense) that (the author of the remark, whoever it was) had ever seen. Athletic ability certainly plays a role in flying a fighter plane, especially an old-fashioned, not-computer-controlled plane.
fubar57
General
Bong was a gunnery instructor because of his high gunnery scores. Bong himself claimed he wasn't a very good shot, "....yet his squadron mates stated that he hit whatever he fired at 90 percent of the time. Bong said one secret of his success was a policy of getting close enough to "put the gun muzzles in the Jap's cockpit." Another was his penchant for engaging his opponents head-on, which gave the P-38, a stable gun platform with firepower superior to the Zero and Oscar, a distinct advantage. At least 16 of his victories were attained in head-on gun duels
Bader had no feet and he had one knee. Many air aces had been shot down many times and bore the scars, only the factor of luck can define why Marseilles and Winkle Brown didnt drown early in their careers, many others did. Eyesight is eyesight, if you are proposing there is a racial element to that, show some proof.
glennasher
Senior Airman
FWIW. and I make no claims to expertise in the matter of the 332nd, all the pictures I've seen of them were in either P-40s or P-51s, and zero pics of any Bell products. I have not, nor do I claim to, have seen any photos of them with the P-39s. I know they got their P-51s after trading in their old P-40s, which they used to great effect in ground support missions. The photos I've seen have shown them training stateside in P-40s, after moving on from various trainers. The Bell? Not that I've seen.
