What did the P51s have over the German fighters?

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

Hi Jabberwockey,

I stated aircraft operated overseas, so I guess I won't add them. You can if you want to, but they weren't aircraft slated for combat like the ones deployed overseas and I think of them as a cost of training a lot of pilots all at once in warbirds, but not combat losses or operations by aircraft with the potential to see combat.

To be sure, they are a WWII cost, but not a combat possibility. I'm sure some DC-3's crashed in the continental USA carrying civilians, and I wouldn't count them as potential combat planes either or operational losses of potential combat planes ... any planes in the USA weren't going to engage in combat.

But I would add them up as a WWII cost. Of course, there are as many ways to add it up as there are accountants ... and I wouldn't tell you that one way or the other is correct .... just one way to look at a complex issue. I'm sure the USAAF and US Navy had their oiwn issues with how to count a loss, too.
 
But this again is an example of being selective in accepting what is a loss, and renders the US losses not comparable to anyone elses losses. most nations list total losses, and so too must the US if we want to compare apples to apples. If we start to be selective in what we include for just one nationality ,we can no longer make valid comparisons with other nations' losses. Realistically it has to be a total figure.
 

Precisely. German, British, Italian, Russia, Japanese 'losses' would include aircraft lost in training, transport, ect on the home front.

Just because the US had the luxury of doing the vast majority of its fighting on someonelses soil, doen't mean that home front write-offs shouldn't be included in its losses tally. Why should they be excluded?

Extending this logic, could we write off fighter claims for trainers and other 'non combat' types as a 'cost of training'?
 
Yes you would and it IS an operational cost of training unrelated to combat. It certainly is a war cost, but has nothing to do with combat losses. You guys can account for it any way you want and there is no issue. I just do it differently, that's all. In combat there are losses to AAA, enemy aircraft and operational combat losses. I have those numbers, too, at least for the Navy and Marines. All the losses in my files except for the domestic and enroute numbers are from a combat theater of operations, not from domestic operations. All the victories and losses have ETO, PTO, FEAF, C&BI, Alaska, MTO, etc. There is no category for "Domestic USA" in my references except for a single table listing them separately.

I consider the US planes that got to a combat theater as counting in combat and operational losses. The rest, to me, were non-combat operational losses. The UK didn't have the option of basing their planes anywhere but where they did and they were almost all in potential combat except for the far North. I'm sure some were there. Likewise Germany, France, etc.

The Soviet Union DID have the option to base some planes too far from the front lines to be in combat and I bet they don't count those in combat statistics.

So, it isn't an issue .. count 'em any way you like. We may simple not agree on the combat-related losses. Total losses, sure, I add 'em in as domestic operational losses not related to combat. I DO count the planes lost enroute to overseas locations as combat relayed since they were on their way to combat bases and it amount to about 1,000 (actually slightly fewer).

I don't need to "convert" your opinion to match mine ... there is no right and wrong. In the overall number, they are accounted for; I just don't count them as combat-related losses and stated the numbers above were for overseas aircraft in the original post.

Do it however you want, no issue here. Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, my main point was that there was a change in procedure. During the early years, a plane which could be repaired, would have been repaired. By 1944, it was cheaper to dismantle the old one for parts and build a new one.

Today, the car industry works the same way. If a car is damaged while still in the factory, it will be scrapped. Not worth the hassle to repair it.

Kris
 
No formerly active Me 210 were converted to Me 410, they used stored Me 210 fuselages for the initial build series of Me 410A.
 
I think we could sit here until the cows come home arguing over which was the best fighter of it's generation as it seems to me that the Spitfire, Mustang and Me109 amongst others all had areas in which they were superior to each other but that none stood head and shoulders above the rest. From what I read I get the picture that there came a point in the war where the RAF and USAAF could deal easily with Luftwaffe fighters until they met experienced pilots and from that point on it was mostly the pilots that decided the outcome of battle and not the aircraft.
The only thing I have often wondered about with the Mustang escorts is pilot fatigue, I know they were all fit young blokes but even so flying from in England to Germany in a tiny cockpit at altitude and then having to go to work against angry FW190's etc must have been incredibly exhausting work. My legs and backside would have been a nightmare after sitting down for that length of time.
 

I have never even been drive my car for more than 2 hours without getting out to stretch the kinks out of my legs. At least in a Mustanf there is a bit of room to wriggle about and try and get the blood flowing. A Spit would have been worse but a 109 must have been murder for anyone above about 5'8" I am 6' tall with rugby player shoulders and I think they would have to rivet the plane around me to get me in
 
True enough Pattle, mind due they could stretch their legs slightly if when they needed a bit of corrective rudder instead and while trimming... Mmm, I guess wearing all that kit gear, in a smallish cockpit above the clouds for upto 5+ hours, some of these cockpits could end up stinking - hope dehydraytion gets you before you need to water the cockpit floor, let alone the uncomfortable something more...
 
There's no doubt the endurance of the Mustang towards the end of the war really began to push pilots to the limit. Pilots flying missions over Japan often had to be lifted out of the cockpit when they returned. Some basic help was in the pipeline - 'rump vibrators' for instance - and I think the issue was one of the factors in the development of the twin mustang, where it was anticipated the workload could be shared.
 

Indeed, and not just updated (as was very common for the early Bf 109 Es). If you want to see a real "mongrel" you need look no further than the extraordinary composite aircraft stuck on a pole at the AWM museum in Canberra.

I'm not sure that the Luftwaffe knew exactly what it was when it was returned! It started life as Bf 109 G-6 W.Nr.163824 at Regensburg, around the third quarter of 1943 from the werknummer, but that's not what it looks like when it was found at the end of the war.

Brett Green did a good job establishing this airframes trials and tribulations in "Augsburg's Last Eagles" and remarkable they are.


Cheers

Steve
 

Good comment. This certainly must have been exhausting, especially flying back hundreds of miles after intense deadly combat, with no autopilot. I remember flying one approach in a C-141 in moderate turbulence with 500 and a mile weather and 30 degree drift on final and I could hardly get out of the seat when we shut down. And that was with no combat.
 
Flt LT Warren Peglar, RCAF, came to the 355th on an exchange program from a Spitfire Squadron (402?). His first mission was a Ramrod to Munich (6hr 25 min in my fathers logbook). According to the history Peglar needed assistance to get out of the cockpit and complained loudly about his stiff legs and sore butt... quite a difference from Spit operations.
 

Remember, recon Spitfires flew missions as long as the Mustangs'. That would be the worst of both worlds.
 
I assume the same way most nations deal or dealt with that: Methamphetamine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
10
Views
507
eagledad
E
M
So The Germans Really Did Have Flying Saucers in WW2
Replies
15
Views
2K
GregP
Why did the US ww2 fighters have 50 cals instead of 20mms like their european cousins
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
7K
BarnOwlLover
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
7K
GrauGeist
T
Average sorties/kill for German night fighters
Replies
16
Views
2K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Menu
Log in
Register