What did the P51s have over the German fighters?

[drgondog]

Bill, do you mean, "Ed Horkey, as well as the rest of the Mustang design team took notable exception to Atwood"?

Riding on the coat tails of others? Shame...

Yes and yes - to syntax and sentiment

 

[nuuumannn]

Having never met Atwood, onr any other of the Mustang design team I can't comment on their character, but I remember Atwood went on a visit to the UK and gave a talk at the Yorkshire Air Museum about the Mustang in the mid/late 1990s, 1996 I think; I was living in Scotland at the time but didn't go, a colleague of mine went and enjoyed his presntation, which discussed the aerodynamics of the Mustang, principally about the Meredith effect. The text was reprinted in a British aviation magazine; I have a copy somewhere.

 

[parsifal]

Explain the state of the Luftwaffe from mid'ish 1944 up, in way of tactics, doctrine, fuel supplies, pilot training, etc., etc., etc. Compare that to the East front with no heavy bombers to contend with. There's more to the success of the P-51 then its aerial dominance, it was a combination of many, many events. In the east the Luftwaffe was wildly successful for the most part. In the west, without the B-17, the P-51 is nothing, without the P-51, the B-17 was nothing. Those two aircraft complimented each other very well. It wasn't that the P-51 was a great aircraft at anyone thing, it was good aircraft at almost everything, which overall made it a great aircraft. Combine all those factors, and that's why the P-51 was so successful. Just my honest opinion.

I have to disagree. The LW was shooting down about 3 for every 1 Soviet aircraft, but overall losses were about 1.5:1 when losses and write offs from all causes are concerned. i am talking the post Kursk situation. And the LW had no appreciable effect on Soviet air operations. Or ground operations either.

German win loss ratios were the result of conscious decisions by the VVS to no longer seek air superiority as the primary mission for their air force. They were there primarily as a ground support force....the role of their fighters was not to wrest control of the sky from the Germans, merely to keep their fighters busy whilst the Sturmoviks got in and did what they needed to be done. They were very successful at that, and the germans very unsuccessful at stopping them.

The idea of the LW having heavily one sided effects on the eastern front is a post war myth. they were a very efficient force that achieved virtually nothing of strategic significance after July 1943.

 

[OldSkeptic]

I have to disagree. The LW was shooting down about 3 for every 1 Soviet aircraft, but overall losses were about 1.5:1 when losses and write offs from all causes are concerned. i am talking the post Kursk situation. And the LW had no appreciable effect on Soviet air operations. Or ground operations either.

German win loss ratios were the result of conscious decisions by the VVS to no longer seek air superiority as the primary mission for their air force. They were there primarily as a ground support force....the role of their fighters was not to wrest control of the sky from the Germans, merely to keep their fighters busy whilst the Sturmoviks got in and did what they needed to be done. They were very successful at that, and the germans very unsuccessful at stopping them.

The idea of the LW having heavily one sided effects on the eastern front is a post war myth. they were a very efficient force that achieved virtually nothing of strategic significance after July 1943.

Good point. I am reminded about the absurd claims by the USAAF against the North Koreans in the Korean war. Now that the USSR is no more and records are available the kill/loss ratio was probably only 1:1, at least against the experienced Soviet pilots, quite possibly more against less experienced NK ones, but not the absurd 10:1, 20:1, or 30:1 or whatever that had been claimed.

With roughly equivalent aircraft, roughly equivalent tactical situations and roughly equivalent pilots you would normally expect an overall average of 1:1. Any more than that then it is because of a very significant aircraft advantage (ie North Africa 109Fs and Gs vs Hurricanes and P-40s), poor tactical situations (eg the the RAF's 'push' into France in 41/42) or very inferior pilots (eg Gulf War 1).

 

[altsym]

Total Luftwaffe losses in the east was about 4000 (+/-) aicraft. Source on that is Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger. According to Russian archives, the combat losses of the VVS between 1941 and 1945 amounted to 46,100 (+/-) a/c. This doesn't even include the VVS losses of the summer of 1941 which even the Russians didn't have. That's accepted facts friends.

 

[parsifal]

err nope.

This is from Caldwells site

"The data needed to answer the question are operational strength, losses, and sortie rates. (A sortie is one combat mission by one airplane.) Luftwaffe research has always been hampered by a lack of data. The existing records are fragmented and inconsistent. In the 1970s Prof. Olaf Groehler, a prominent East German military historian, was allowed to travel to the West German archives and gather data that he combined with his own to produce a major journal article".

Betweem September 1943 and June 1944, the LW lost 8600 a/c on the eastern front to all causes. you can verify this from Grohlers book

O. Gröhler, "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Militärgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336 (1978).


Bergstrom agrees with Grohler, and whilst LW records are not complete, making the excercise difficult, the claims about 4000 aircraft being lost on the eastern front for the entire war are just part of the postwar LW mythology. Just to give some idea of the total spurious nature of these claims, in 1941 the LW crossed the border in the USSR with 2900 aircraft. By August, according the LW quarterly returns they were down to less than 1200 operational aircraft with about 500 under repair. Already, mostly due to ground fire and the harsh conditions, the LW had been forced to write off cannibalise, or had just plain lost over 1200 aircraft....in 3 months of a 34 month war.

Murray in his book (LW Attrition) shows that in two years on the eastern front, June 41 to June 43, the LW had gone through twice as many aircraft as they had started the war.....thats about 6000 aircraft. Add to that the 8900 contained in Grohlers work and you get a loss figure of about 14-16000 a/c for the eastern front, which is much closer to the truth than 4000. Hayworth ("Stopped At Stalingrad) also confirms these sorts of figures.

I believe these to be combat losses, because the total German losses in aircraft for the entire war 116584 (according to Costello). Using Grohler, 27000 aircraft were lost in the west during that period when 8900 were lost in the east (September 1943-June 1944). If we assume this proportion was about constant, then the Germans lost 75% of their aircraft in the west. That would mean that total German losses to all causes on the eastern front are around 30000. I think its more than that.....the period September 1943-June 1944 was a period of unprecednted air activity in the west, whilst in the east, tyhat same period was not nearly as busy,due mostly to the poor weather.

Soviet losses are undeniably very heavy. according to Krivosheev, about 45000, but most westyern estimates put it at around 109000 from all causes. im prepared to concede that loss percentages are closer to 3:1 overall Soviet to German and my memory has failed me yet again in my earlier claims. However, the claims about 4000 a/c lost on the eastern front is a total fabrication I am afraid.

 

[altsym]

Err yep. You know 'Gemeinschaft der Jagdflieger' is the German Fighter pilots association, right? IE: day fighters. Not talking bombers here.
So my apologies I should have made that clear.

Anyways here are some figures:

1941 VVS loss 5000 / LW loss 600
1942 VVS loss 8000 / LW loss 500
1943 VVS loss 9000 / LW loss 800
1944 VVS loss 7000 / LW loss 1100
1945 VVS loss 2000 / LW loss 1000

I'm too lazy to scan at the moment

Cheers.

 

[parsifal]

That is a notoriously biased and innaccurate source. You do know that dont you? LW records are known to be incomplete and caqnnot in any way be relied upon to give a complete answer or picture. They dont even align to the Quartemeister reports.

 

[altsym]

So now we don't believe Russian reports, or German reports. Who should we believe? Americans? British? Aliens? I'll tell you right now, German reports are miles more accurate then anything from Russia. And most of the Luftwaffe claims were confirmed by the VVS documents. Now I'll just sit back and wait for the quote of that Russian Doctor who said that Hartmann only shot down 30-40 Russian aircraft.

Guess I'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[fastmongrel]

I can believe the LW lost 4,000 fighter pilots in 4 years in the East but not only 4,000 fighters. Wasnt Hartman supposed to have gone through about 20 to 25 planes in his career.

 

[jim]

That is a notoriously biased and innaccurate source. You do know that dont you? LW records are known to be incomplete and caqnnot in any way be relied upon to give a complete answer or picture. They dont even align to the Quartemeister reports.

While the stalinist archieves that you use as source are the definition of accurancy...
Parsifal, i salute your objectivity....

In autumn 43 , the LW fighter units, fighting at odds 20-1 , saved the army during its retreat by total distruction by the communists air attacks. But it dosnt not fit your agenda , does it? Lets ignore it

Yes , i agree with you. Three (3) fighter wings ( less than 300 fighters) failed miserably to achieve strategical results in 44/45 fighting against 20000 soviets aircrafts plus the american 15th air force, plus the rumanian traitors.

Rudel s Stukas fighting the russians, suffered their heaviest losses at american fighter sweeps. Thats "easten front" losses too.

German fighters were shooting down Il2s and their escorts in hudrends , but simply it was drop iin the ocean
You seem to admire the soviet tactics. Put the escort fighters just above the bombers, truly as human shields. No problem their casualties as far as german were forced to shoot at the fighters first. Great tactic.
But explain me something else. What did achieve your great soviet airforce at the six battles of Kurland? With massive superiority against just two trapped Jagdgruppen without fuel and with boys as pilots , they failed a) to cut the sea communications ,the evacuation and the supply operations b) to inflict enough damage to german ground forcres to allow the also massive red army to capture the ports) to destroy JG54 . The Green Hearts fought to the last day (last vivtory 8/5/45,G.Thyben) and then fled to the west.
60 fighters against an airfleet kept the ports open THATS STRATEGICAL SUCCES , you like it or not

 

[altsym]

I can believe the LW lost 4,000 fighter pilots in 4 years in the East but not only 4,000 fighters. Wasnt Hartman supposed to have gone through about 20 to 25 planes in his career.

4000 pilots killed in the east? Hell no. Hartmann made 8 or 11 forced landings, never by an enemies guns, never took to his chute.

 

[parsifal]

Im relying on the LW quartermaster reports, Ellis, Bergstrom Grohler Caldwell, Murray and Hayward. Grohler might be accused of being stalinist. I really dont know, but his work is well respected and accepted by most as fairly independant. it has some annoying omissions admittedly. the others...not a chance. Bergstrom is acknowledged as one of the formaost experts on the eastern front.

As far as my objectivity, well, maybe, except these are not my own views. Thats the problem you see. if I were expressing my own views, my objectivity would definately be an issue. im just giving you guys the opinions from mutliple, independant, credible sources. Do with that what you want. you guys are arguing with the best exeperts on the eastern front that there are. Good luck with that

 

[parsifal]

4000 pilots killed in the east? Hell no. Hartmann made 8 or 11 forced landings, never by an enemies guns, never took to his chute.

They are still losses. The Soviets lost 109000 aircraft, the germans 116000, less than half in each case are losses due to enemy action.

 

[Milosh]

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

Grohler data for Sept '43 to Oct '44.

In that time the Lw wrote off ~17,000 fighters, 14,720 in the West and 2,294 in the East.

 

[parsifal]

fighters yes, agree, but I was referring to total aircraft losses, which Grohler sys were in in the order of 8900.

My apologies for misreading his table...I thought it was to June 1944. Not a big mistake, but worth acknlowedgiing.

The claim is that there were 4000 a/c (in total) for the entire war on the eastern front. Thats what i am responding to

 

[altsym]

you guys are arguing with the best exeperts on the eastern front that there are. Good luck with that

Challenge accepted.

They are still losses. The Soviets lost 109000 aircraft, the germans 116000, less than half in each case are losses due to enemy action.

58000 lost to combat? Those were day fighters according to your source? Becouse we're talking about day fighters here!

The claim is that there were 4000 a/c (in total) for the entire war on the eastern front. Thats what i am responding to

Day Fighters!

 

[drgondog]

Good point. I am reminded about the absurd claims by the USAAF against the North Koreans in the Korean war. Now that the USSR is no more and records are available the kill/loss ratio was probably only 1:1, at least against the experienced Soviet pilots, quite possibly more against less experienced NK ones, but not the absurd 10:1, 20:1, or 30:1 or whatever that had been claimed.

With roughly equivalent aircraft, roughly equivalent tactical situations and roughly equivalent pilots you would normally expect an overall average of 1:1. Any more than that then it is because of a very significant aircraft advantage (ie North Africa 109Fs and Gs vs Hurricanes and P-40s), poor tactical situations (eg the the RAF's 'push' into France in 41/42) or very inferior pilots (eg Gulf War 1).

We covered this extensively in days past.. It is worthwhile noting that the Soviets claimed about 3:1 over all the F-86s ever lost to any cause..

Below from Joe B. who has analyzed the PTO as well as Korea extremely well

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/post-war/mig-vs-sabre-10228.html2.

That's not a 'myth', it's just the ratio between credited US victories and official US air combat losses. It's the same situation we encounter with many or most WWII combat results still quoted. It's not always possible to know the actual losses on both sides. But in Korea it's pretty well known overall, 319 Soviet AF MiG-15's lost in air combat (best documented number IMO among several in the same ballpark), 224 PLAAF (their official number, combat only), and probably at least several dozen, but not likely more than a 100, NK, say 50. 78 F-86's were officially lost in air combat, but reviewing one by one I estimate 90 including those written off from combat damage. Not all but the great majority of those MiG losses were to F-86's. So the Sabre:MiG ratio was ~6+:1 in reality overall, *less* of a discount than would need to be applied to most US WWII ratio's of credited victories to official losses.

One can estimate it separately v the Soviets and Chinese/NK's based on proportion of claims against F-86's (it comes out around 5:1 and 11:1 respectively if you assume all MiG claims were equally [not very] accurate). But that's somewhat artificial IMO. The US pilots didn't know their opposition in detail (things incorrectly assumed about the MiG pilots at the time are still repeated now, see point 1), so could hardly 'ignore the Chinese and NK's and focus on the Soviets'. If you saw a MiG flying in a straight line, that's the one you were going to go after (as in Gabreski's comment to that effect after one of his Korean victories).

Joe

 

[parsifal]

Challenge accepted.


58000 lost to combat? Those were day fighters according to your source? Becouse we're talking about day fighters here!


Day Fighters!

I think on the basis of the above, we are arguing two different things. Im looking at total losses, you appear to be looking at day fighter losses only for the LW, versus total Soviet losses. I dont see much correlation there.

Soviet sources claim that they lost 45000 a/c in total to combat related incidents during the war. that includes aircraft destroyed on the ground and losses to ground fire (westermann in his book on German flak claims about 58% of LW shoot downs on the eastern front were from ground fire). the rest of Soviet losses are not related to combat....wear and tear, training accidents, and the like.

To get comparability of the relative effcetiveness of the LW fighters versus the VVS fighters, we would need to know the Soviet (fighter) losses versus shoot downs, versus LW (fighter) losses versus shoot downs. i dont believe such data exists.

That forces us back to a much more basic set of stats....total LW losses, versus total Soviet losses. There might be some refinement possible by looking at total German losses in combat versus total Soviet losses in combat. that might be information that is obtainable, but I dont have it. at least not in a really reliable form.

So at this point we only have some raw basic numbers.....around 35000 LW aircraft lost on the eastern front to all causes, to about 109000 Soviet. Thats about an exchange rate orf around 3:1 in favour of the LW give or take.

 

[swampyankee]

I wonder if the P-51 would have done as well if it only ever had a 3 bladed prop upon it like the rest of the vast majority of European WW2 single engined A/C... Yes, I understand the earlier ones did have the 3 bladers, before a storm of critism wafts upon this posting.

Or if the Germans realised earleir that a 4 (or 5 bladed) prop with or without 'paddled' design would have improved the 109.. IMHO, they (LW/RLM/TechAmt etc) assumed the extra weight and syncronisation loss to RoF verses improved altitudinal power co-efficient was too detrimental too their mob/group/mass thinking(s).

While there are advantages to more blades -- the induced losses are reduced as the number of blades increases -- there are also disadvantages, in that more blades will result in a propeller that is, overall, heavier, more complex, and more expensive to produce and more difficult to maintain.

Advantages of more blades:
Reduced losses to induced drag
Reduced loads on pitch change mechanism (the forces the pitch change mechanism have to exert are proportional to chord squared)
Reduced weight of individual blades

Disadvantages:
Increased parts count, resulting in increased cost, increased maintenance requirements, and reduced reliability
Narrower blades are less tolerant of FOD
Increased overall weight
Blades may be less efficient, as root thickness has to be increased (root dimensions are dictated by structural loads during takeoff, when a significant part of the blade may be stalled)

So, would a 4-bladed prop help the German fighters or a 3-bladed one harm the P-51? Maybe, but that's entirely dependent on the details of the design.