alejandro_
Airman 1st Class
- 281
- Jul 4, 2005
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
There were heavy losses both operational and non- operational....By December 1941, the LW, according to murray had lost the equivalent of two full airforcesssine 1939....or about 8-10000 a/c. losses in the East from June to December were running at about 2000 a/c. Losses in the BoB were about 1800, and in the period 1939 to the end of June 1940 about 2000 or so as well. adding all that up,
1940-42, the LW was still mounting challenges to the control of the vital air space over the british isles and Western Europe. The sustained....and costly....attrition battles played force back on the LW gave control of the vital air space to the allies and inflicted enough attrition on the LW to make them adopt unsafe pilot replacement programs, and suffer chronic fuel shortages from as early as 1942.
the estimated total losses for the LW Jan-December 1941 in the west (and MTO) were in the order of 3000 a/c.
LW was weak to face at the same time raf AND vvs AND american heavy bombers AND american escort bfighters
Returning to the topic , if we would like to see the true greatness of P51 we should take 10-20-100
P51s and put them in fight with 10-20-100 german fighters with NO bombers attracting the attention of LW
P51 was a good fighter that was blessed by the circumstances
Jim - there are many examples in which smaller numbers of Mustangs attacked a larger force of Me 109s or 190s completely separated from the bombers. Fighter sweeps in which the fights were alone with each other, interceptions 30-50 miles away from the bomber stream... ditto P-47 and P-38.
One may parse LW victory credits and set aside issues of over claiming and look to how few scored three victories in a single day against US fighters in Europe. Conversely there are more than 70 such examples of 3 or more by US fighters against German fighters... despite being 'undergunned' in the opinions of many.
Most of the German pilots were woefully undertrained rookies. Easy bait for the any well trained American pilot.
Also, keep in mind that the job of the P-51 was to shoot down 109s and 190s. The job of the German fighters was to shoot down bombers. Many German fighters were shot down while trying to close in on the bombers.
I have already expressed my great respect for the qualities of the P-51. But the absolute number of kills gives a much distorted picture. Let's stick to one on one comparisons, please.
Kris
VVS and RAF in 41-43 only provided training for german pilots. The vast majority of german aces began their carrers at this period. It was the happy times. Jg 26 and JG2 in the west suffered minimal losses and even less deaths
Despite your wishes ,RAF activities in the west was of little nuissance for the germans. Their twins bombers carried too light bomb loads to cause real damage. Training units were established in France by LW with no problems by RAF
...... Returning to the topic , if we would like to see the true greatness of P51 we should take 10-20-100
P51s and put them in fight with 10-20-100 german fighters with NO bombers attracting the attention of LW
P51 was a good fighter that was blessed by the circumstances
This is simply not true. Fighter sweeps were very common missions in WW2.there are few scenarios where you will get a purely fighter vs fighter confrontation without anything else being the target of one side or the other
Germany lost 116k aircraft? That is more than it produced in WW2 plus that what was operational prior to it.Germany during the war lost over 116000 a/c . in 1944-5 they lost about 49000 a/c.
Germany lost 116k aircraft? That is more than it produced in WW2 plus that what was operational prior to it.
Germany lost 116k aircraft? That is more than it produced in WW2 plus that what was operational prior to it.
Most of these 'lost' aircraft were worn out or lost in non-combat actions.
1944-1945 losses give a totally distorted view on what was going on: most combat losses were suffered on the ground. Add to that, totally undertrained pilots who relative to your opponents. would have been shot down, no matter which aircraft they were flying.
fighters are always going to be providing cover ( bombers, troop transports, ground troops ,truck convoys, etc) or pursuing some sort of attacker. there are few scenarios where you will get a purely fighter vs fighter confrontation without anything else being the target of one side or the other. the few times i can think of where larger battles between them happened ( where no "bombers" were involved) was during mass invasions or troop movements like overlord or market garden...but again the allied fighters were covering ground ops or harassing enemy supply lines. the closest thing i could find to your scenario off hand was sept 18, 1944 during market garden. ~60 ac from the 357th FG tangled with a mixed force of ~60 109s and 190s north of maastricht and south of a drop zone for airborne troops. since they were covering the troop drop they were flying at low altitude and the battle raged from 16000 ft to the deck. no other allied ac were involved according to the accounts i read. the 357th scored 26 to 2 loses. there is one other account i recall off the top of my head where they ( the 357th FG...most of my research revolves around them ) bounced a large group ( of equal size or better ) of 109s forming up near an airdrome and they they came out on top...but i will have to dig for the date and stats.
"The Yoxford Boys" Olmstead pg 43 and 44
This is simply not true. Fighter sweeps were very common missions in WW2.
kris, i agree, and that is one of the few scenarios it where "could" happen. but how often during these sweeps did equal forces meet and tangle? if you know of some please share. that parity ( same number of 51s vs same number of lw ac minus bombers) was what i was looking for as per jim's proposed match up. on sweeps like that one side or the other usually had the upper hand. i can find a lot of stories where the squadron found 4, 8, etc. 109s or 190s and attacked. but have yet to find many where bombers werent involved where the 2 met in equal or where the 51s were at a numeric disadvantage. i could use gentile and godfrey's encounter where4 they got lost and the 2 of them attacked 100 do 217s and an equal number for se fighters....but bomber were involved there as that group was going to meet them. i think jim was wanting a match up where forces were equal and the bombers werent being used as bait. some of the other guys who are better versed in this may be able to come up with occasions but in my limited research i cant find many.
Also, we can loosen up the requirement of 'no bomber escort': part of the fighter escort flew ahead of the bombers and had liberty to attack at will, while part of the interceptors were designated to take on the escort fighters, while their buddies went for the bombers.
again, we agree but i was trying to remove both bomber bait and the high alt as goals...IF you include this it is hard to isolate the same number of each sides fighters as some will claim the skies were full of mustangs
Kris
Indeed the thread is taking an increasingly surreal turn regarding the inflating of German air losses...
Parsifal, for some reason you are making the case that the Luftwaffe suffered significant losses during the first half of the war, while it is often portrayed that the LW was having a walk in the park. I think you are completely right. The LW did suffer.
However, I object to the numbers you use. Most of the losses you talk about are non-combat and retired (worn out) aircraft. While significant in its own right, it does say very little about enemy actions.
Likewise, aircraft destroyed on the ground or aircraft manned by undertrained pilots, says nothing about the qualities of the aircraft. And I believe that is what this thread is about.
.Also, I am strongly disagreeing with the notion that fighters were always protecting bombers/recon or attacking bombers/recon. Just check up on LW doctrine and you will see that the primary task of the LW is to regain air superiority. This means attacking air fields and shooting down planes. In Poland, France, the LCs and Russia, this was achieved very early on. From that moment on, the fighters were free to chase. Also, read Gallands biography and you will see that a large part of the fighter missions were fighter sweeps. After 1940 most bomber missions over Britain were night missions with LW fighters going on the defensive against RAF fighter planes flying rhubarb missons. Later in the war, it was common for the Allies to fly both escort for bombers as well as launch large fighter sweeps. The latter would usually go unopposed by the LW. ("LW did not show up.") Finally, on the Eastern front, it was common til quite late in the war to send bombers without escort. This was possible due to the large extent of the front lines and the air space surrounding them. LW fighters would go on small hunting missions, hoping to find an enemy. Soviet AF had a doctrine of ground support for all aircraft. As such, Soviet fighter planes would often fly on their own, strafing enemy ground forces.
As can be seen, fighter vs fighter was quite common during WW2, like it was in WW1 and in more modern times
Ah no. germany produced about 94000 a/c (combat types) from indigenous sources,and took delivery or expropriated about another 5000 or so from foreign sources. but on topo of that 94000 there were at least 25000 trainers and other non-combat types. The losses also inlcude those surrendered at the end of the war....about 8500 a/c.