The Ta-152.... The Best High Altitude Fighter?????

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hi,

New guy here and I have some observations and a question.

According to my records, there were 108,219 aerial victories in WWII with a further 4,590 shared victories for a total of 112,809 WWII aerial victories. This includes Allied and Axis losses.

During the war the Germans built about 94,956 aircraft including about 53,470 fighters. Less than 150 were Ta 152s. According to several sources that I don't recall just now (but could dig up) other than William Green's ubiquitous "Famous Fighters of WWII", something like 65 to 67 were actually delivered to the Luftwaffe depending on who you believe and fewer than half apparently saw combat. That's roughly 30 Ta 152s that saw combat. Of course, they couldn't AVOID combat since they were flying over Germany when the Allies were closing in on Berlin. Collectively they shot down about 11 Allied planes. I believe I also read that number in another post in this forum.

That means something like 99.9% of all Allied losses were lost to types other than the Ta 152.

Also, if many different internet and book sources aren't wrong, the Ta 152H models were all withdrawn from service by the end of April 1945 due to extreme problems with the twin-turbo Jumo 213 E engines, leaving just two operational Ta 152 C models to shoulder the Ta 152 portion of the air war against the Allies at a time when the Allies were throwing "1000-plane raids" at the Germans.

The Ta 152 had undeniable potential, but it was potential never realized at any meaningful level. The Brewster Buffalo did better in the hands of the Finns than the Ta 152 did at being a fighter, and it was horrible by almost anyone's level of measure.

So, how can the Ta 152 be a "best" of anything based on its war record?

Despite how it may sound, I am not trying to start a flame war, just asking someone here to tell me how they arrived at his or her assertion that the Ta 152 was anything other than a potentially great curiosity.
 

So using that logic the F-22 and F-35 can not be considered the best fighter aircraft today because they have no war record?

The people who believe that it was the best is not based off war record, but rather based off of performance and handling. They use charts, and pilot accounts on performance and handling (both axis and post war allied accounts).

War record does not make an aircraft good or not....

Now if you want to talk impact on the war, then the Ta 152 had no impact on the war.
 
~ Several C's found at airfields were stripped of their parts to help the H's on hand. Read my posts which came directly from Reschke on the listing of how many were in the Geschwader stab and III. gruppe JG 301. The H-0 and H-1 were never withdrawn from service in JG 301. The kill ratio does not matter in regards whether or not it was the ultimate high altitude machine .........
 
Hi DerAdlerIstGelandet,

According to my own way of thinking, you are correct above.

The F-35 is not in service yet, so it doesn't count. The F-22 is potentially the best in the world, but we'll find out when and if it goes into combat, won't we?

Again, not to denigrate the Ta 152, but when a nation in imminent danger of lsing a world war takes a "brilliant" new fighter out of service, I'd say the shine of "greatness" is dulled a bit.

The planes of WWII were simple in terms of systems other than the powerplant when compare with today's fighters. They had production runs numbering in the tens of thousands as I'm sure you know. A run of about 150 planes is nothing more than a service test group, intended to find out the immediate production problems with the new plane. The problems proved so great that most, if not quite all, of the few that made it into the air were withdrawn from service.

No doubt the problems were made all the more insoluable by the advancing Soviet and British-American forces, but they WERE insoluable, at least at that time.

So yes, I agree with your assertion about the Raptor and the F-35. Each will display its worth when and if called upon. Until then, I think they're potentially great ... but the crucible of combat has certainly not proven it yet.

Once again, just MY opinion.

I realize that many of you differ in your opinions. I'm OK with that without attempting to change your minds or trying to convince you that I alone am right while you are wrong. You have not only the right but also the intellectual obligation to form your own opinions for the reasons you choose. It would be a boring world if we all thought the same, no?

If I read you right, and I might not, you think the Ta 152 was the best-performing (not most effective) high-altitude piston fighter produced during the WWII timeframe. I might have that wrong and you might feel the Ta 152 was the best-performing aircraft of the WWII timeframe, not just high-altitude. I am assuming you mean fighter-versus-fighter combat since multi-mission aircraft were very rarely the best at anything, most especially in piston-engine times.

I understand this contention, and would throw in the P-51H (487 mph), the P-47J (504 mph), the slightly post-WWI Australian CAC-15 (505 mph), and the very late-model Spitfires of several Marks (not as fast but VERY good in a fight). All but the CAC-15 flew within the WWII timeframe, but the CAC-15 was firmly rooted in WWII design times.

The CAC-15 and P-47J never made into WWII combat or even production, but we're talking about best-performing, not most effective, so I feel slightly justified in looking at prototypes.

Choosing among these lofty few airframes would be tough but, yes, the Ta 152 belongs in the group, perhaps at the head of it. So, in this respect, I concur.

I'd sure love to see and hear one flying today, wouldn't YOU?
 
Actually, I didn't miss his post. He said some of the H models in JG 301 were not taken out of service. I have recently moved and my library is in boxes, so I have no idea if some of the H models were in units other than JG 301 at this time ... could be.

I assumed that some were taken out of service and some weren't. Since not many were ever flown to begin with, I can't be too far off ... I almost have to be within 30 or so ... right?

Also, the "C" model had a Daimler-Benz engine and so could not have been much use in keeping a Jumo 213 E running ... other parts of the ariframe, yes. But most of the Ta 152 H models were suffering from engine ills.

Maybe Erich could clarify the numbers for us?
 

Yes I do believe that the Ta 152 was the best high alltitude figher of WW2. It did not see very much service but that does not mean it was not good. I would not go as far as saying it was the best performer overall, but I think if you take all the aspects of it, it was the best. This however is my own opinion and as you said everyone can have there own as well.
 
av8 re-read my post NONE of the H's were taken out of service. where do you get this info from anyway ? I guess the last 30 years of studying JG 301 gives me a slight edge as to knowing what the crap is going on the last days with the unit also J.C.'s work on the Dora, volume 1 may shed light. I have talked at long length with Jerry about his Ta 152 painting , the pilots, missions and the a/c in many respects. the numbers for III. gruppe and Geschwader Stab I have already given in this thread I believe straight from Reschkes own hand........
 
Hey Erich, what's your problem with my information request above? I have ZERO interest in Nazi squadrons, groups, or any other units, so I have no idea or interest in their deployed numbers. Where do I get it from? It is a QUESTION.

I am a huge fan of the aircraft themselves and would love to fly any or all of the WWII planes. I have extensive data on the aircraft and probably some on the units, but I simply don't care about German Luftwaffe units. Since I don't, it means nothing to me that Ta 152Hs were assigned to JG 301 or JG whatever.

Beilevable historic accounts state that very few Ta 152s were delivered to active Luftwaffe units, fewer than half ever flew, and some portion of those saw combat ... I don't know how many saw combat, but they collectively only got 11 kills (or so) in the war, a net zero effect in anyone's book, realistically.

It was a question asking if you knew the numbers. THAT'S WHY I ASKED, and that was the only reason. Calm down.

You state that someone you believe served in a Ta 152 unit (JG 301), maybe the only unit flying them at the end of the war ... I don't know ... says that the Ta 152H models were not grounded as is claimed in several sources that are, for the most part, otherwise credible. Did I get that right?

Now I ask a question that may SEEM insulting, but is NOT intended to be so. Please don't take this wrong, but how do you know this person you spoke with actually did serve in JG 301? Does he show up on an official roster? Is the name common and might he be another person of the same name?

I'm not saying it is so, I was just curious as to the credibility of the claim. Seems like everyone's "proof" is something someone said who claims to have been there. There's at least one "ace" here in the U.S.A. who made the airshow circuit and claimed to have served with the Flying Tigers, but the REAL Flying Tigers, like Bob Scott, had never heard of him or seen him before.

The reason I asked for numbers is because there are at LEAST 4 or 5 sources that state the Ta 152H models were withdrawn from service by the end of April 1945. So ... someone claimg to know differently naturally causes me to ask about it.

Seems like a reasonable question to me and that's really all there is to it.

One last point here, the subject of WWII aviation fascinates me, but is quite out of the mainstream for ordinary people. Most don't care and a good deal of the public couldn't tell you when WWII was, who fought WWII, or who won and lost. At least a few have never heard of Adolph Hitler.

Maybe you should welcome questions about the subject? Whuddya' think?

NONE of the above is intended to be insulting to anyone here. If you can't ask questions about stuff you don't know, what is the point of having a forum?
 
question then, have you read every post in this thread ? have you checked the old threads in Avaition to find out whom I know that served in JG 301... ?

you still have not answered my question - what sources are you using that state that the H was withdrawn from service.... ? the net by chance ?

a little background on myself. just so you know I speak from some truth..........I had a cousin serving in 5./JG 301 in the fall of 44 till being KIA with Mustangs on 26 November 44..now you can see the close ties I have to this Geschwader

check the archivs during this past fall and this year and you will see more on the Ta 152. there are at least 3 topcis including the Ta

Monogram Ta 152 although OOP is going through a reprint with more info in a hardback form. JG 301/302 by Will Reschke the gentleman that I spoke of and served in both units finishing the war with the Ta 152H-1, flew 5 different numbered a/c, the one you are asking whether or not served in JG 301. Look up a google search which is easy enough and there is a host of info, I have even posed pics of him along with friend R. Susil whoa has close ties to him and his son.
Schiffer publications also has a book on the TA 152 although more technical in aspect for reference.

A softbound booklet by Kagero pubs both in English/Polish with interviews of Herr Reschke
 
JG 302 : Bf 109 and Fw 190A

JG 301 first flew the Bf 109G, then in September they were completelyrefitted with Fw 190A-8, A-8/R2's and also A-9, A-9/R11, finally III./JG 301 had up to 35 Ta 152H reduced down to 15. Geschwader Stab flew the Ta 152H as well 6-8 of them
 

Because his name is Willi Reschke. There are photos of him with a Ta 152 and he even has a confirmed killed in a 152 against a Tempest at very low alltitude on April 14, 1945.

He is still alive today and lives several hours away from me. I have written him a letter with many questions regarding the Ta 152 but due to certian reasons he has not been able to get back to me but he will as soon as possible.

I also have recieved some video and interesting letters about him from a personal aquaintance of his as well (Erich you know who I am talking about).
 
Thanks for the info guys. I WILL check the old posts as I get time.

Just for future reference, I really don't want to "tick" anyone off on purpose. I mostly ask questions that arise as I read the posts. When I see some sarcasm, especially a member telling another member to "shut up and stay away from things they don't know about," it is human nature to respond in kind ... I'll try to control it.

Meanwhile, I have seen some posts in here by purported "experts" that make claims about aircraft and aerodynamics that are just wrong. I'll feel free to enter these discussions in the future, but there's no point in hashing over EVERYTHING that is questionable, espeically in the past. Since I'm new here, I'll start from here and not go back to quibble, even if queried about it.



It might be worthwhile to compile the data in aircraft-specific posts into a sticky subject on each aicraft, but that's a lot of work for someone to do. Maybe in a Compiled Data sub forum.

Since we have people interested in individual units of various air forces, it might be worthwhile to do the same for the various aviation squadrons, units, wings, JGs, etc. Again, a lot of work. Maybe in a sub forum called Compiled Aircraft Unit Data or words to that effect.

The thing is, the very people who are interested in these aircraft, air forces, and air force units could do the work a little at a time and submit the collected subject to the moderators for approval with the words "Bf 109 Collected Data" or words to that effect in the title. If the moderators read and concur, the text could be added easily by the moderator with a simple copy and paste.

For the interested parties, it might be acceptable work. For the forum, it might be a good thing or at least a useful thing since the collected data could be easily accessed without reading hundreds of old posts, especially if the subject didn't move in the menu when they are read or added to. The subjects could be alphabetized by aircraft manufacturer, with a folder called "Messerschmitt" and "Bf / Me 109", Me 262", etc. filed under Messerschmitt ... or by Air Force and Unit.

Just a thought ...

I'd could collect data on one subject as a start, assuming anyone is interested ... it may be preferable to the owner / moderators to keep the status quo, and I'd understand that, too.

By and large, a nice forum with good information.
 
Erich, Hi! Just a note on the stats from the Kassel Mission of 27 Sept 1944:

25 planes went down within a 15 mile radius in central Germany, another 4 crash landed--2 in Belgium and 2 in France. My father's plane which landed in Manston was re-classified recently as we heard from Maxwell Field that it did fly again. So we have a total of 29 445th B-24's crashed, 1 emergency landing at Manston (Dad's) 1 crashed at Tibenham and 4 of the original 35 (38 were sent out but 3 turned back) made it back safely. A bad day for the 8th AF.
 
Linda - September 27 bloodbath was an example of very skillfull Luftwaffe Controllers and Spotters detecting both gaps in formations between each wing and gaps in Escort - then rallying a strike force to that area.

Despite hundreds of P-51s and P-47s escorting all three BD that day only the fighters of the 65FW (and only the 4th, 355th and 361st) were in a position to intervene. The 445th somehow separated from the 491st and 489th BG and running south (as I recall) of the main track and all three Fighter wings were with the latter two Wings further north.

The JG4 Sturmgruppe hit the 445th, the 361st and 4th FG were closest and engaged while the 355th sent one squadron south and kept two more to cover 491st and 489th. In all there were only 58 Mustangs from the three groups as effectives but still managed to shoot down 26 for the loss of 1 (4fg - 0, 355-0, 361 -1 ). Didn't do the 445 any good but illustrated how the LW could have overwhelming force in a region in space that had many US fighters within 20 miles.

Didn't do JG4 much good either but they killed a lot more USAAF airmen than they lost this day.

The 'poster child' missions illustrating the consequences of losing connection with the other wings include April 29, July 7, Sept 27 and Nov 26 missions - all almost identical models - and consequences of LW achieving local air superiority.

Eric probably has more deatils on this mission from fighter perspective than I do.. as well as Nov 26 mission in which the 445th BG was hurt also (nothing like Kassel) but the 491st was really hurt.

Regards,

Bill Marshall
 
hey Linda good to see ya hear. Actually I got the 30 count from your dad some years ago by phone as well as e-mail along with another one of the survivors, after re-reading the mission reports I agree with your statements, the thing was during the battle we might as well call it 30 as that number did not come back to
England in 1 piece.

IV.Sturm/JG 3 attacked first shooting down 18 Libs while JG 300 and JG 4 came in just seconds after, possible a couple of minutes depending on what source you use for reading. The 361st hit JG 4 and JG 300 hard, while JG 3 Sturms got in one fast attack and then dove for the deck but getting 6 of their Sturms hiot by return B-24 .50's. confusion still exists as JG 300 members state that they were first inline but also that other JG 300 members stated that during the attack another Sturmgruppe wasahead of them going through the B-24's and pieces of a/c were drifting down and they were flying through the carnage.

In any case it was one of the most horrific aerial engagements of the war
 

I disagree with this. Greatest is not in the performance in test, but rather delivery in the game. Emmit Smith was too small and to slow to be a pro runner, but he will be considered one of the greatest runners to play football. Greg Maddux could not throw a fastball worth a darn, yet he will be considered one of the greatest pitchers ever to play baseball. I have never voted for the F-22 or F-35 as the best fighters ever. My vote is always the F-15, strickly due to performance when bullets are flying. You can't claim to be the greatest when all you've done is spar.

A few Ta-152H were good against previous generation aircaft, but it never was tested against the likes of the P-51H, P-47N/M, F4U-4, or advance Brit fighters. Also, it apparently never overcame its break-in problems. In football, for records to count, a certain number of quarters must be played. The Ta-152H just did not play enough quarters in the game to qualify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
PAT303
P
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
575
spicmart
S
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
S
Why no Fw 190H but the Ta 152H?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
7K
Denniss
D
high altitude bomber
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register