What did the P51s have over the German fighters?

[davebender]

Germany had almost 600,000 metric tons in stock at the beginning of May 1944. This was the highest it had been since the BoB when it was almost 700,000 metric tons.

Compare number of German aircraft during 1944 with number of German aircraft during 1940 and magnitude of the problem becomes obvious. There was far less fuel available per aircraft during 1944.

 

[Milosh]

The Luftwaffe must have been in dire straights in mid 1942 when there was only 200,000 metric tons of fuel for 3500 /ac. (57t/ a/c)

1940 - 700,000 for 3200 a/c (218t/ a/c)
1944 - 600,000 for 4900 a/c (122t/ a/c)

 

[VBF-13]

[...] despite being heavier and physically larger than many of their contemporaries [...]

Can we say the P47s were better at taking damage? Tell me about the P51s armor.

 

[Shortround6]

The armor pretty much saves the pilot (things like the IL-2 excepted) , it doesn't do much for the aircraft.

It saves aircraft by cutting down on "golden BB" hits where just a couple of hits kill or injure the pilot without hitting (wrecking) anything else.

The plane cannot carry enough armor to protect the engine, fuel, oil, coolant and control systems. And with 20mm and larger shells (or large numbers of .50/12.7mm/13mm) the possibility of structural failure was present.

 

[Ruud]

Another way to look at it is, what would you want the P-51 to have that the 109 has? Probably just the 30mm cannon for some heavy work. Other than that, the P-51 is equal or better than the 109 in almost all aspects. Better pilots, fuel, quality aside, the P-51 is a better plane than the 109 and the 190. Not sure on the D-9.

Then you add to that the fact that the P-51 was very well suited for what the 8th AF wanted, and you get a great fighter being used for what it was best at (until they started strafing down low...). It humors me that the Pacific wanted less P-51's and more P-38's and the ETO wanted the opposite.

 

[Ruud]

Seems like this link has a lot of performance evaluations of the 109. I have not read them, too much there for one sitting.
Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance

 

[parsifal]

To me the Mustang had range and performance at altitude. both these strengths were used to advantage against the LW, to create a snowball effect. Better altitude performance keeps the fight high on the US fighters terms. The range meant that the LW got no rest or quiet spaces any longer. The LW was forced into a terrible dilemma......ignore the fighters and fight the bombers, or fight the fighters and ignore the bombers. they lacked the strength to do both.

Range also meant that though outnumbered, the Mustangs could concentrate at certain points and achieve crucial supeiority of numbers when they really needed to. but it is simply untrue that in raw numbers the LW was outnumbered by the Mustang LR escorts

 

[bobbysocks]

some of the minor details of the 51 i think attributed to some of its success. as said before...in malcom hood and D models it was visibility. many had rearview mirrors that helped keep them from being bounced. also the cockpit was roomy and more user friendly. levers and buttons needed in a flash were closer at hand. the lw tried to fit the 109s and 190s into both a fighter and bomber killer...that in my opinion they watered them down performancewise. had they kept one ( or been able to develop and mass produce something else ) as purely a fighter vs fighter ac it would have been interesting. fortunately, they didnt have that luxury. but the absolute greatest aspect was the range. it left the lw with no where to run and no where to hide. it could never find a safe haven to rest and repair. airdromes deep in germany were strafed and ac shot down taking off and landing. most of the 262s were taken that way. most of the 51 pilots had 250+ hours before they ever entered combat....that experience is a huge advantage.

 

[parsifal]

the bomber killer aspect really came out in the wweapons fit of the LW. Its hard to fault their 30mm weappons, but I have read here and there that cannon armment eith slower rof was not quite as good as a fast firing lighter cannon or MG. The Germans did have some good, fast firing cannon, but a significant number were also fitted with these bomber killer cannons which meant they were not optimised to take on their own kind.

 

[CobberKane]

Seems to me that any way you look at it the Mustang's trump card was speed. Sure, there where specific LW fighters that might have been as quick at lower or medium altitudes, but not many. When you are faster than the opposition you can engage and disengage at your discretion, hence the LW nick naming the P-51 'runstangs' (or if they didn't they should have.) Throw in at least competitive dive and turn performance, reliability and the vital but often undervalued advantage of great visibility and you have a very effective package.

 

[drgondog]

P51 advantages, in my opinion
1) 2-stage supercharger
2) superior fuels allowing higher boosts
3) better building quality beacause no bombing raids in America

Better built because the American mass production techniques and quality of training - and more skilled workers in 1943

4) vastly superior numbers

Not over Central/East Germany until 1945 when Germany shifted much of western defense to Berlin to Leipzig to Munich. In late late 19 44 the Allies had bases in Belgium and France from which all shorter range fighters like Tempest, P-47 and Spitfires had ability to go deep into Germany.
5) better trained pilots
6) Bad LW tactics, P51s always had altitude advantage

Poor quality of pilots led to fewer experienced flight leaders requiring the low time pilots to be formed in gaggles with poor formation discipline in late 1944 - but often had altitude advantage, even with FW 190A-8s. Most encounter reports of large formations attacking bombers downhill are from German formations coming into bomber stream at 27-29000 feet with high cover 109Gs at 32-35000 feet.

7) Alleid units knew about LW moves because of the Ultra

Wasn't a factor in 8th/15th AF tactical operations.

8) german aircraft factories, mid war, had to trade quality for quantity

9) Excellent designed cooling system low drag wing= excellent range speed (but not acceleration!)

Acceleration was excellent, slightly lower than FW 190 and Bf 109. Slightly lower than twin engine P-38, but higher than all other US fighters depending on weight conditions and altitudes. Acceleration is certainly important in going from medium speed to high speed but the differences are insignificant in most air combats - similar to the differences in climb.

The P-38 under medium weight conditions at middle altitudes and middle cruise speed was about 2.3ft/sec/sec and the 51 was about 2.15 ft/sec/sec. Explain how 0.15 ft/sec/sec is going to make a difference in the middle speed range while accelerating to top speed, particularly since it is only relevant until the higher drag of the other ships retards acceleration near top speeds and 51 keeps accelerating?

10). The Mustang had great maneuverability combined with great speed. Less in certain points, greater in others compared to FW 190 and Bf 109. This is an important factor because many victory credits were scored in maneuvering fights in which both pilots were aware of each other and maneuvering for tactical advantage.

I believe P51 has a great record,not because of being a superior design, but because the lucky combination of all the above factors. From these factors only the number 9 has to to with the airframe design itself
Fw 190A8 w MW50 (1945), Fw190D9s, late 109s were superior in close combat at low/mid altitudes if numbers were equal

Record doesn't reflect this, primarily because of relative pilot skill. Look to January 14, 1945 in 357FG engaging superior numbers over Berlin and scoring 56 for 3 losses. While battle started at bomber altitudes, the fights ranged to the deck.

A Fw 190 with 2 stage supercharger (eg D13) , equal building quality, SAME FUELS and equal pilots ,was superior at eveything but range

But it didn't have those items - and for the time of the discussion in 1945 the P-51H was available to start deployment... and it was superior in all respects to the P-51D and B. Not important.

What was important is that none of the Fw 190 or Bf 109 had a credible record against the P-51B when it was critical and when LW had superior numbers and a skilled pilot cadre composed of experienced pilots from East and South during Dec 1943 through May 1944.

 

[stona]

Germany had almost 600,000 metric tons in stock at the beginning of May 1944. This was the highest it had been since the BoB when it was almost 700,000 metric tons. It is also about 3 times what the consumption was.

Stocks are only relevant in relation to consumption.

By late 1944 AVAILABILITY (a product of stocks, production, transport and consumption) of aviation fuels at airfields was so bad that various and sometimes drastic measures were introduced to conserve it. For example aircraft were to be towed from dispersal rather than taxiing to take off.

The effect of the shortages on both training and even combat sorties is well known and well documented elsewhere. Some US day time raids were simply not contested at all.

One Dornier test pilot recalls deliberately landing the Do 335, low on fuel, on Luftwaffe fields rather than back at the test facility in order to at least partially refuel from stocks already apportioned to the Luftwaffe rather that use up Dornier's dwindling stock available for testing and development.

Sounds like they had a problem to me.

Edit. Here's a scene, including a two seat trainer, which you wouldn't have seen on any airfield in Britain during late '44/'45

Cheers

Steve

 

[VBF-13]

The armor pretty much saves the pilot (things like the IL-2 excepted) , it doesn't do much for the aircraft.

It saves aircraft by cutting down on "golden BB" hits where just a couple of hits kill or injure the pilot without hitting (wrecking) anything else.

The plane cannot carry enough armor to protect the engine, fuel, oil, coolant and control systems. And with 20mm and larger shells (or large numbers of .50/12.7mm/13mm) the possibility of structural failure was present.

Yeah, that's true. Still, there are aircraft that have been know to be torn apart on just being hit by a wing of .50s. It's hard to tell in the film, but sometimes you can see it. Just a line of .50s, and pieces are flying all over the place. Of course these German fighters brought a little more to the conflict than just lines of .50s.

 

[drgondog]

The 51 was no more, or less durable than the Fw 190 or bf 109..

 

[stona]

The 51 was no more, or less durable than the Fw 190 or bf 109..

I don't know about the Fw 190. It had a reputation for being able to take damage (somewhat like the P-47). Whether that is borne out in statistics I know not.

It was certainly designed to be more durable, radial engine, electrically operated undercarriage etc.

Late war versions were very heavily armoured. The A-8 fighter carried 145.7 Kg of armour, the heavy "sturm jager" carried an extra 191.6 Kg, a total of 337.3 Kg.

I don't know how that compares with a P-51.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Erich]

an important oversight on most forums concerning this topic is the inadequate LW training of pilots to engage enemy fighters, from June onward attacks were from the rear and prioritizing for destroying heavy 4-engine bombers and then diving down if possible to the deck and home. Over and over again the wingman stayed with his leader and thus both were shot down, the idea of individual combat on any type of regular basis came to a fitting close, and in allied favor.

 

[VBF-13]

I don't know about the Fw 190. It had a reputation for being able to take damage (somewhat like the P-47). Whether that is borne out in statistics I know not.

It was certainly designed to be more durable, radial engine, electrically operated undercarriage etc.

Late war versions were very heavily armoured. The A-8 fighter carried 145.7 Kg of armour, the heavy "sturm jager" carried an extra 191.6 Kg, a total of 337.3 Kg.

I don't know how that compares with a P-51.

Cheers

Steve

Did they have self-sealing tanks? And, while on the subject, just how did those work? I know the later A6Ms had them, and tipped the scales a little higher for them. I assume the P47s and P51s also had them.

 

[drgondog]

ALL US fighters had self sealing tanks after early initial introduction - during which the manufacturers got an earful.

Armor more problematic.. firewall and seat/headrest about common for US ~ 3/8" max.

The 51 was more vulnerable to an engine overheat failure dur to lack of coolant - but its relative 'vulnerabilty' to flak was more about the range to get a crippled ship back to friendly territory (i.e most coolant bleed outs within 50 miles) than absolute structural integrity.

 

[altsym]

@ drgondog; normally I agree with what you say 100%, but from Luftwaffe pilots I talked to, 8 times out of 10 the were more S/E allied fighters then S/E Luftwaffe fighters. Especially in 1944. At this time (mid to late 1944), a common thought for the LW was 'screw the plane, save the pilot'. Which usually meant the LW pilot would bail even with relatively minor damage to his A/C. These tended to be inexperienced pilots. The problem there is that they get a new plane, and with still no adequate training, the same thing happens again (if there lucky).

I believe this is why Adolf Galland's 'Big Blow' would have worked. It would have given time for the LW to replace/rearm/ properly train fledgling pilots.

Cheers.

 

[Ruud]

The LW complains about new pilots coming in too young and inexperienced in 43 already (according to the Jadgwaffe camo book on the Med 43-45 IIRC). They never put as much emphasis on making sure that the new pilots got lots of hours in before going to the front, let alone hours in the plane they would be flying. Once you enter the circle of needing pilots but not having enough of them, then it is really tough to change that course. Even a success of the "big blow" would only have been temporary. Most of the Allied pilots would been alive still and just waiting on replacement planes.