Indeed, the best looking jet fighter ever imo.Hi Marcel
showing my favorite British jet - great
Regards
Jagdflieger
Top Ten Twin-Engine Fighters of World War II
- Thread starter MarshBulb
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
drgondog
Major
Well, no. The LW (and Milch) recognized the Potential danger that 8th AF posed to German industry in early to mid 1943 and began planning to consolidate resources to Day Fighters and AAA defenses. That said, the pressures from East and South prevented en masse reinforcements of experienced s/e staffeln for that reason until late summer 1943. At the same time, the night fighter units WERE in place to augment fighter forces deployed against the 8th - and were very effective so long as they were deployed out of reach of escort fighters. As fighter range increased, the deployment engagement radius from German bases shrunk.
The LW had NO Choice but to deploy t/e Day and Night fighters. LW recognized that increased lethality of s/e fighters had to be increased to match the capability of the Me 110/410 in taking down B-17/B-24. The Fw 190 brought this to the fight but the 109G w/30mm was just being introduced in 1943 and it was deemed necessary to augment with underwing 20mm packages to bring to Fw 190 capability.
The 'problem' once again was the ever increasing range of escort fighters with same performance as the defending S/E fighters - unencumbered by the draggy external armament - and increasing attrition of average pilot capabilities and experience. While attacking US and RAF fighter pilots experienced attrition from LW, it was less than optimal due to Hitler/Goering orders to attack the bombers and avoid the fighters. Somewhat unmolested, US pilots gained experience with higher survival rate, and were augmented with improved versions of basic fighters (P-38/P-47 and then P-51B) with more range and a steady flow of new aircraft and well trained new pilots.
Back to the point - Allied airpower increased in strength and experience in 1943 while the LW went in the other direction. Because of imposed tactics by Hitler/Goering the LW was forced to deploy t/e fighters in a shrinking tactical base under increasing threat from much more agile US fighter attacks.
What a simple notion. At the time the 190D was deployed operationally, it could be said to be the 'equal' of the P-51B/D, P-47D and 400 well trained and experienced pilots would comprise about the same as Three US Fighter Groups (out of 15) escorting 8th AF. A couple of points:
1. Attrition of the 'experienced 400' would evaporate the force and unlikely to achieve better than 1:1 due to the flexibility of American fighters sweeping in front to catch forming LW forces, strafing airfields during take off and landing windows, etc.
2. At the same time the Tempest and Spitfire XIV squadrons were based on the continent and augmenting daylight pressure on German forces.
3. At the same time the Allied TAC (P-47s, P-38s, Tempests, Typhoons and Spits) were imposing relentless pressure on German logistics and mobility on the ground - resulting in yet another wave of 'where is the LW' - imposing more pressure on the LW to do 'something' across the entire spectrum of airborne operations.
So, No. The Fw 190D was not going to take 'care' of the escort fighters with the best talent possible in Earlier days. By that time there were at least 1000 allied fighter pilots with arguably the same skill sets flying aircraft equal in performance to the FW 190D.
No problem with your argument here.
drgondog
Major
While compressibility was and remained an issue for the P-38, it's performance from SL to 42,000 feet was always superior to the Me 410. While a Bf 109 and FW 190A could 'escape' via a Split Ess and dive - it/they removed themselves from the field of battle. Even after dive flaps were installed the attribute was to enable controlled dives rather than enter control 'lock down' until lower altitudes were reached. At medium altitudes, there was no 'lock down' in dives. As MTO and Pacific operations were much more oriented to 20,000 feet and lower than ETO/8th AF bomb groups.
The P-38 performance above 20,000 feet was superior to both the Bf 109 and Fw 190 - save dive. Even turn with the sustained HP from 20000 feet and higher in comparison to rapid loss of available HP above 22K for both FW 190 and Bf 109. Ditto for P-47 and P-51. Yes, there were operational difficulties in maintenance and engine/turbo system at high altitude - but only in the 8th AF did the air to air ratio hover around 1:1.
You have a tendency was 'wax poetic' in both praise and criticism.
Bomb load and range are a variable factor of Gross Weight at take off. The combat of a P-38 with external bomb load of 2000 pounds is probably less than 100+mi. So, perhaps 'waxing poetic' again? If you delve into 9th AF operations for battlefield interdiction from 50 to 300 mi in the rear of front lines, you may glean why a B-26/A-26 bomb load of 4000 pounds was extremely effective (compared to P-38 Fighter Bomber operations beyond 100mi). The 'A-20/Havoc/Boston' mission was low to medium level fast attack in support of battlefield per US Army doctrine pre-1942.
So enumerate the mission(s) that Me 410 performed 'better' than P-38? Or, the performance envelope in which the Me 410 was superior in climb, speed, acceleration. I'll give you firepower but only important enough to apply against a target in Front of you. I know of a couple of cases in which a US fighter was brought down by a Me 410 gunner in defense, but really not a reliable path to survival with a P-38/P-47/P-51 in chase.
Excellent after jettisoning the bomb load. The P-38 FGs got their heads handed to them in North Africa, but the scenario you just hypothesized was very rare. Only in rare instances were more than 100-120 P-38s in the air at the same time in MTO. There were never more than the 1st, 14th and 82nd FG in ops in the MTO and the only time a bombing experience of the type you described might be Ploesti experiment in which two Groups flew escort for the one carrying a bomb load of 2000 pounds.
A long time ago someone posted a map showing where the fighters opposing a US raid came from. Until I saw that it wasnt obvious to me how important the range of Bf 110s was. Increasing the fire power of the Fw190 and Bf 109 solves one problem and creates another, you need many more of them and obviously many more pilots to get the same coverage.
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
Hi drgndog,
I don't really understand as to what you are trying to proof or express. Most of what you wrote is correct and is known.
Attacking a US Pulk with e.g. 400 Fw 190D9 in a single encounter, to me at least, begs the necessity of having 2000-3000 Fw190D9 incl. well trained pilots in the so called Jagdwaffe
and a steady supply of new aircraft's and well trained pilots. At least downed surviving Luftwaffe pilots could have been retrieved - not so for the Allies. Aircraft loss would equal to
more or less loosing a well trained Allied pilot as well.
But this due to all kind of known reasons did never happen - Which is why Nazi-Germany amongst multiple other reasons lost a war it could never win.
So again - what is the point of judging Allied aircraft's contra Luftwaffe aircraft's - which never had the numbers to succeed and as such no prospects to maybe proof that they might
have been the better aircraft's.?
A head on head or dogfight, voluntarily between a Me 410 against a P-38 would have been suicide since the Me 410 was never intended to engage fighter aircraft which essentially
a P-38 is, independent of being multi-mission capable. The desperate hope and fantasy vision behind the Me 410 was that its speed might make it suitable to break through the escort fighter defense and then unleash its weaponry onto the bombers. Off course a Fw 190 or Bf 109 could have done the same - but since the Luftwaffe didn't have enough of those, some mindless idiot said; bring in the Me 410 to do the job.
An A-20/Havoc/Boston or any other Allied bomber could only perform its task in the long run if enough allied air supremacy was given - otherwise axis fighters ranging from Re 2001 to Fw 190 would have taken them apart. see e.g. Schweinfurt right down to those Wellingtons being pitted onto Bremen in 1940.
Just as a Bf 110, He 111 or Ju 88 without Luftwaffe air-supremacy was without a chance against allied fighters. - see BoB.
As for your last example e.g. the P-38 jettisoning off it's bomb-load in order to survive - great! Mission failure - some axis ground target survived, well done Luftwaffe.
The day Churchill came to power - Nazi Germany was destined to lose that war.
And now gents - please understand my given reasons, and thus not wanting to continue in this threads lopsided discussion any more.
Regards
Jagdflieger
I don't really understand as to what you are trying to proof or express. Most of what you wrote is correct and is known.
Attacking a US Pulk with e.g. 400 Fw 190D9 in a single encounter, to me at least, begs the necessity of having 2000-3000 Fw190D9 incl. well trained pilots in the so called Jagdwaffe
and a steady supply of new aircraft's and well trained pilots. At least downed surviving Luftwaffe pilots could have been retrieved - not so for the Allies. Aircraft loss would equal to
more or less loosing a well trained Allied pilot as well.
But this due to all kind of known reasons did never happen - Which is why Nazi-Germany amongst multiple other reasons lost a war it could never win.
So again - what is the point of judging Allied aircraft's contra Luftwaffe aircraft's - which never had the numbers to succeed and as such no prospects to maybe proof that they might
have been the better aircraft's.?
A head on head or dogfight, voluntarily between a Me 410 against a P-38 would have been suicide since the Me 410 was never intended to engage fighter aircraft which essentially
a P-38 is, independent of being multi-mission capable. The desperate hope and fantasy vision behind the Me 410 was that its speed might make it suitable to break through the escort fighter defense and then unleash its weaponry onto the bombers. Off course a Fw 190 or Bf 109 could have done the same - but since the Luftwaffe didn't have enough of those, some mindless idiot said; bring in the Me 410 to do the job.
An A-20/Havoc/Boston or any other Allied bomber could only perform its task in the long run if enough allied air supremacy was given - otherwise axis fighters ranging from Re 2001 to Fw 190 would have taken them apart. see e.g. Schweinfurt right down to those Wellingtons being pitted onto Bremen in 1940.
Just as a Bf 110, He 111 or Ju 88 without Luftwaffe air-supremacy was without a chance against allied fighters. - see BoB.
As for your last example e.g. the P-38 jettisoning off it's bomb-load in order to survive - great! Mission failure - some axis ground target survived, well done Luftwaffe.
The day Churchill came to power - Nazi Germany was destined to lose that war.
And now gents - please understand my given reasons, and thus not wanting to continue in this threads lopsided discussion any more.
Regards
Jagdflieger
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
Any thoughts on the P-39?
John Vasco
Senior Airman
Oh dear! Oh dear, dear!
I don't think you are fully up to speed with the performance of the Bf 110 in the Battle of Britain...
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
The Russians seemed to have been very fond of it.
Erich Hartmann IIRC his book correctly, wasn't impressed by it, but okay that is a remarkable Aces opinion, maybe not shared by thousands of Luftwaffe pilots who never managed to get a kill
and those who were downed by it.
Also I seem to remember that amongst all US fighters or even allied fighter it hat he best performance record in regard to mission loss or kill ratio
As such it must have been a good aircraft - or at least it's pilots
Regards
Jagdflieger
Jagdflieger
Senior Airman
- 580
- Mar 23, 2022
Weren't the Ju 87 and the Bf 110 the only Luftwaffe aircraft that were pulled out during the BoB?
The Bf 110's lack of agility in the air was its primary weakness. This flaw was exposed during the Battle of Britain, when some Bf 110-equipped units were withdrawn from the battle after very heavy losses and redeployed as night fighters, a role to which the aircraft was well suited.
And this is confirmed by hundreds of books and articles by all kind of authors and researchers - incl. my father and some of his surviving Luftwaffe Flieger mates.
Two of them later serving in Bf 110 night-fighter units.
Regards
Jagdflieger
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
An A-20 could do the job of a P-38?
John Vasco
Senior Airman
First of all, take a look at the the information below. You may be surprised to see that the Bf 110 performed as well as the other three main fighters. Yet no one ever mentions that the Bf 109 got absolutely BATTERED in the Battle of Britain...
Too many people still think that the Battle of Britain was this scenario of fighters swirling around in the skies of southern England carrying out 'knightly jousts'. That is totally incorrect. Most fighter victories involved one pilot sneaking up on another and shooting them out of the sky, and then heading off before they get clobbered. One notable exception to this was Gerhard Schöpfel of JG 26 on 18th August when he came upon 501 Squadron unseen from behind and knocked down four of them in quick succession. But the principle was still the same. Go examine the victories of the likes of Galland and Mölders, and you will see the same thing: Advantage - get in - clobber - get out.
'...This flaw was exposed during the Battle of Britain, when some Bf 110-equipped units were withdrawn from the battle after very heavy losses and redeployed as night fighters, a role to which the aircraft was well suited.' Which Bf 110 units were withdrawn from the Battle? Bf 110 units were gradually withdrawn from the Channel Front in October due to the Luftwaffe's change of direction to night bombing, when daylight escort was obviously no longer needed. The last major daylight escort was by Zerstörergeschwader 26 on 7th October 1940.
And not all of those withdrawn were deployed as nightfighters immediately. Go check out the historical path of ZG 26 and ZG 76, for example.
As you probably know, the first nightfighter force was set up in June 1940 under Wolfgang Falck following dusk incursions by RAF bombers in early 1940, and as these incursions increased, so the nightfighter force was increased (cf. John J. Vasco & Peter D. Cornwell, 'Zerstörer, The Messerschmitt 110 and its units in 1940).
As for this: '...And this is confirmed by hundreds of books and articles by all kind of authors and researchers - incl. my father and some of his surviving Luftwaffe Flieger mates.
Two of them later serving in Bf 110 night-fighter units....' Perhaps you could mention some (not the hundreds, obviously) of these books and articles that that you say confirm your assertion. But please, not the myths and falsehoods that were published from the 1960s onwards (and that still perpetuate in the mind of many even to this day). And perhaps the names of the authors and researchers. Let me guess: these books/articles said the Bf 110 in the Battle of Britain needed Bf 109 escort -hilarious! Did not happen, apart from the Bf 110 fighter-bombers of Erprobungsgruppe 210, who were classed as bombers, and therefore were given escort to the target in order to unload their payload safely. And on a lot of occasions, their escort came from the Bf 110 unit, Zerstörergewschwader 26!
John Vasco
Senior Airman
Maybe Saparotrob can explain why he thinks this reply is funny...
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
It is funny, John -- it's got this hand-wringing tone to it that cracked a smile on my own mug too.
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
"I don't think you're up to speed.…". That line broke me up before I read the rest of the post.
John Vasco
Senior Airman
Sometimes the truth hurts. Too many people still cling to the outmoded and simply untrue stuff that was published many decades ago, without any foundation in fact.
John Vasco
Senior Airman
You know me well enough, Thump, to know I don't wring my hands, just laugh at the falsehoods that are still being perpetrated. There are still some researchers/authors (who I will not name) who have a lot to answer for...
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
That's why I scrupulously study from Martin Caidin's work for the facts.
John Vasco
Senior Airman
Also, Sap, I do not confine my views to Luftwaffe aircraft. I've seen on many forums and Facebook pages totally incorrect information about US fighters in WW2. I read the misinformation with total disbelief. I believe it happens across the board...
Thumpalumpacus
Lieutenant Colonel
The contrast between your normal self and that tone is precisely what made it funny, dude. Just go with it!
John Vasco
Senior Airman
Uncross your fingers, take the tongue out of your cheek, and try to carry on!
There's another who fabricated interviews with pilots. When Peter Cornwell and I interviewed the brother (a pilot also) of one very famous pilot, and told him of the whole chapter in a certain person's book which quoted him voluminously, we were told that he had had no contact with the author whatsoever! This is the kind of garbage that was going on decades ago.
- Status
