Which popular WW2 aircraft and air combat "histories" are simply not true?

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

The USAAF had a total of 3 P-38 groups available for Europe from late 1942 until mid October 1943, the question being where they were going to be the most effective. Similarly the USAAF had 3 P-47 groups available in April 1943, with a fourth in mid August 1943. The ETO logs first P-47 arrivals in December 1942, the MTO in October 1943 with the 12th Air Force having a P-47 group on strength in December, by which stage there were 9 operational and 1 not operational P-47 groups in Britain.

Why would anyone put a turbo supercharger on a ground attack aircraft? The USAAF in 1942 was acquiring dive bombers from USN production plus had the A-31/35, and as it turned out they could have probably deployed dive bombers in France in 1944 with few problems from enemy aircraft. More A-36, using P-40 as the fighter bombers like the RAF was doing with Hurricanes were also options. The pressing allied need was enough fighters with comparable or better performance to the axis ones and during the first half of 1943 the axis fighters were coming to the allies, or at least disputing the front line. That changed in the second half of 1943.

As of August 1942 the production plan was to leave the P-39 in full production to October 1943, going through the D, F, K, L, M, N and Q versions, then switching to the P-63, P-40 production would end in May 1943 with the P-40L, Curtiss switching to the P-47G, which would start production in November 1942. Republic built P-47 would go to the D version in February 1943, as of September 1943 the planned peak monthly output for each factory would be reached, Curtiss 273, Farmingdale 183, Evansville 133, while over at Inglewood it was 105 P-51, or over 5 P-47 per P-51 per month, all up during 1943 Curtiss would build 1,979 P-47, Farmingdale 2,160 and Evansville 977. Inglewood would resume P-51 production in May 1943, with 825 built by the end of 1943. As it turned out total 1943 production was Curtiss 271 P-47, Farmingdale 3,024 P-47, Evansville 1,131 P-47, Inglewood 1,533 P-51, and the not mentioned in the schedule Dallas 177 P-51. If you like the USAAF scheduled 5,115 P-47 for 1943 and received 4,426.

Part of the question is how much of the self defending bomber idea the 8th Air Force held for so much longer than others was because they had to, given their targets, and then how that played out in the early decision for fighters and bombers to fight their separate battles. Eaker was asking the British for local drop tank production, in February 1943 the 8th had been warned the stretched British industry could not handle rush orders, in June the 8th was interested in large numbers of drop tanks but it took until early October for local production to receive final design approval.

The USAAF had 3 P-38 and 2 Spitfire groups available in early 1943, joined by 3 P-47 groups in April, for the ETO and MTO, the only fighters available that had the altitude ability and performance to at least match the Bf109G and Fw190A. The Luftwaffe spent the first half of 1943 minimising its fighter commitment in the ETO while trying hard to dispute MTO airspace. The losses the Luftwaffe took in the MTO, the tactical and strategic benefits the allies gained there through 1943 all say the USAAF made the correct call on where it put its better fighters in early 1943. Remembering the people in early 1943 were operating off a more optimistic schedule for USAAF growth, so the P-38 groups sent to the MTO were expected to be replaced sooner than what happened.

One thing that was not apparent at the time but clear now, the Mediterranean command team was going to command Overlord, as they were the most experienced allied commanders. Doolittle and Spaatz learnt a lot about heavy bomber raids and their escort requirements in 1943, which needed P-38s. In the period June 1942 to April 1943 inclusive 461 USAAF heavy bomber sorties attacked targets in Germany, according to the statistical digest the USAAF in the ETO launched 3,722 heavy bomber sorties while losing a total of 122 to enemy aircraft in the 10 months, the MTO 5,802 sorties losing 42 to enemy aircraft.

How true or simplified is the story the A-36 was ordered and built as a way to keep the Inglewood production line open when there were no USAAF orders for the fighter version?
 
A-36 was the result of USAAF 1942 fiscal year funding issues. There wasn't a worthwhile enough funding in the fighter budget to buy P-51s, but the attack aircraft budget had plenty left over. Of course, in theory, that budget could've been moved to the fighter allocation, but that would've meant dealing with congress, etc. That's how the USMC got HK416 rifles, by classifying the M27 as a SAW/LMG instead of a rifle like the M16 and M4.

And, of course, after Dec. 7, '41, budgets pretty much eventually went out the window.
 
Caidin was a great fiction (and science fiction) author but unfortunately, he mixed that talent with military history under the auspices that it was fact.

Among some of his better known fabrications (or "Caidinisms") are the "fork-tail devil" name origin and the love story of Lt. Rossi and his captured P-38.
 
Among some of his better known fabrications (or "Caidinisms") are the "fork-tail devil" name origin
This one may be in class by itself as sort of myth contained within a myth.
Pilot's Manual for the P-38 in WW II has the "fork tail devil" quote in the introduction.
Doesn't say where it is from.
Wiki biography of Caidin says he was born in 1927. He was getting articles published in aviation magazines during WW II but for the Army to quote a 15-17 year old kid in a flight manual?

I have no doubt that Caidin used the phrase in his books but then any author who bothered to read the intro in the pilots manual would have seen it.
AAF manual 51-127-1 on page 6.
 
The USAAF had a total of 3 P-38 groups available for Europe from late 1942 until mid October 1943, the question being where they were going to be the most effective. Similarly the USAAF had 3 P-47 groups available in April 1943, with a fourth in mid August 1943. The ETO logs first P-47 arrivals in December 1942, the MTO in October 1943 with the 12th Air Force having a P-47 group on strength in December, by which stage there were 9 operational and 1 not operational P-47 groups in Britain.
True but most forget that 78th FG in December 1942 was trained and scheduled to receive the P-38 as the 4th P-38 FG scheduled for 8th AF Operations when Torch diverted their P-38s and sent them to MTO.

The question of most efffective in MTO vs ETO will always be debated as the P47C and D never actually penetrated German airspace until July 1943 at the end of Blitz week, when the 8th was establishing an operational rythm in deeper strikes to mid Germany. Within three weeks following Blitz week was the disastrous Tidal Wave attack at Ploesti, followed by Regensburg-Schweinfurt missions on August 17th.

The other scenario which I belive more suitable operationally against Germany would have been for the 1st, 14th, 82nd and 78th FG retaining original mission with all P47D fighter groups through September (4th, 56th, 353rd, 352nd and 355th FG) assigned to MTO to begin ops in April, August and September 1943.

The 55th and 20th arrivals in ops October and December brings 6 LR Escort capable of full coverage during Blitz week and Regensburg- Schweinfurt.

Why would anyone put a turbo supercharger on a ground attack aircraft? The USAAF in 1942 was acquiring dive bombers from USN production plus had the A-31/35, and as it turned out they could have probably deployed dive bombers in France in 1944 with few problems from enemy aircraft. More A-36, using P-40 as the fighter bombers like the RAF was doing with Hurricanes were also options. The pressing allied need was enough fighters with comparable or better performance to the axis ones and during the first half of 1943 the axis fighters were coming to the allies, or at least disputing the front line. That changed in the second half of 1943.
Simply because neither the P-38 nor the P-47 were conceived as CAS when brought into service. As to survivavbiilty over France (or Italy), the AAF-HQ CAS planners deviated from the slow dive bomber strategy in early 1942 to that of the fast battlefield air superiorty attack/fighter/light bomber. The Board that evaluated the A-24/31/35 and XB32 deemed them non-survivable due to lack of airspeed and ability to defend against fighter attacks. The Mustang I morphed from superior Pursuit, when compared to P-40 to Low Level Attack/Dive bomber A-36 to Pursuit/glide bomber/rocket attack in P-51A to same for P-51B, when saner heads recognized the potential for LR Escort.

One may argue eloquently that the Allies did very well indeed with the P-40 and Spit and Hurricane - with a slight nod to P-39 - leading the way for multi purpose Fighter role in Africa. IIRC there were only 3, then five BG(H) in 12th AF through re-assignment to 15th AF in November 1943. The P-38, while suitable for MTO medium range attacks, while based in N.Africa and then Sicily - weren't attritting LW any more than the P-40 and Spits combined. May one argue that P38 was critical to early success for Torch? Hardly. The P-38 FG got their heads handed to them unti they learned to capitalize on thier strengths and quit 'dogfighting'.

POINTBLANK on the other hand was the highest priority tasking for the Allied Air Forces - and the 12th AF, save the attack on Ploesti hardly contributed to the Combined Allied Air Forces attacks on German industry or the destruction of the LW as well demanded of 8th AF/RAF BC.

That said I respect your opinion to the contrary.

As of August 1942 the production plan was to leave the P-39 in full production to October 1943, going through the D, F, K, L, M, N and Q versions, then switching to the P-63, P-40 production would end in May 1943 with the P-40L, Curtiss switching to the P-47G, which would start production in November 1942. Republic built P-47 would go to the D version in February 1943, as of September 1943 the planned peak monthly output for each factory would be reached, Curtiss 273, Farmingdale 183, Evansville 133, while over at Inglewood it was 105 P-51, or over 5 P-47 per P-51 per month, all up during 1943 Curtiss would build 1,979 P-47, Farmingdale 2,160 and Evansville 977. Inglewood would resume P-51 production in May 1943, with 825 built by the end of 1943. As it turned out total 1943 production was Curtiss 271 P-47, Farmingdale 3,024 P-47, Evansville 1,131 P-47, Inglewood 1,533 P-51, and the not mentioned in the schedule Dallas 177 P-51. If you like the USAAF scheduled 5,115 P-47 for 1943 and received 4,426.
By August 1942, the production plan also called for 500 A-36 and 1200 P-51A for 1943 delivery. The 'plan' changed in October/November when the P-51B/C-1 contracts were let for 400 and 350 respectively plus changed to deliver 310 P-51A with rest of AC-30749 converted to 800 P-51B-5s - all scheduled for 1943 delivery. All of the 310 P-51A, most of the 500 A-36 (some delivered in 1942), 400 B-1, 177C-1, 800 B-5 were delivered in 1943 for total of ~ 2000 P-51 (incl A-36). IIRC there never was a shutdown of P-51 production from 1941 forward.The thinnest part of theline at Inglewood was the crossover of the P-51-NA/Mustang IA endingin early November while the A-36 proceeded from October to April 1943. The first complete P-51B-1 airframe was complete in March 1943 but engines didn't start arriving unil late April, 1943. In February/March the A-36, P-51A and P-51B-1 existed together at Inglewood.

Part of the question is how much of the self defending bomber idea the 8th Air Force held for so much longer than others was because they had to, given their targets, and then how that played out in the early decision for fighters and bombers to fight their separate battles. Eaker was asking the British for local drop tank production, in February 1943 the 8th had been warned the stretched British industry could not handle rush orders, in June the 8th was interested in large numbers of drop tanks but it took until early October for local production to receive final design approval.
The drop tank question/debate is important, but nothing in the development pipline for the -47D matterered until a.) wing and pylon and fuel feed were incorporated to maximize capability of fixed 305g internal fuel capacity, and b.) the internal fuel capacity was increased from 305g to 370g - delivered in Jan/Feb 1944 and May/June 1944 respectively.

The 8th AF (Eaker) was bitterly disappointed when the P-38FG were removed from his command, but he saluted and soldiered on. It is arguable that 8th AF Command remained optimistic that the B-17 could adequately defend itself into Blitz Week, mostly due to faulty intelligencethat wildly overstated bomber attrition of LW Day fighter strength (AAF only, RAF intelligence were far better informed - but discounted). That said Eaker and Lovett (Asst Secy War) were telling Arnold that they very much needed P-38 and P-51B in June-July 1943.

There was no decision for 'fighters and bombers to fight their separate battles'. Until Doolittle took formal command of 8th AF in January 1944, the role of escort fighters was 'close escort/repel and return'. Even when the authorization to seek and destroy air and ground was issued, it was understood that escort role continued but the fighter leader had discretion to release fligts, sections and even squadrons to attack while escorting continued.

The USAAF had 3 P-38 and 2 Spitfire groups available in early 1943, joined by 3 P-47 groups in April, for the ETO and MTO, the only fighters available that had the altitude ability and performance to at least match the Bf109G and Fw190A. The Luftwaffe spent the first half of 1943 minimising its fighter commitment in the ETO while trying hard to dispute MTO airspace. The losses the Luftwaffe took in the MTO, the tactical and strategic benefits the allies gained there through 1943 all say the USAAF made the correct call on where it put its better fighters in early 1943. Remembering the people in early 1943 were operating off a more optimistic schedule for USAAF growth, so the P-38 groups sent to the MTO were expected to be replaced sooner than what happened.
LuftFlotte 3 was deemed (tentativey) adequate in 1942 through spring 1943, but elements of JG11 and 3 were being moved. Hamburg during Blitz Week raised the 3-Alarm fire warning - and could be cited as the transition from JG26/2 being front line of defense to the layered defense to include t/e day and night fighters - as well as Lwbh Mitte to LF Reich as planning for central defense. Additionally Milch implemented nearly double fighter production over previous levels. JG 27 was gradually pulled from MTO as well units of JG 54 from Ost Front as the migration of units from Ost and Sud fronts began.

The problem with the thesis that P-38s were being moved for altitude ability and performance to the MTO begs the question "Which AF was cited with AWPD-1 and Pointblank against German industry?" Not the 9th or 12 AF.

The MTO had 3 P-38 and 2 Spitfire groups available in early 1943. The 8th AF had ONE Spitfire FG operational (4th FG) with two P-47FGs 'in-training' (The 56th and 78th - and the 78th had P-38 trained pilots trying to learn the buggy P-47C).

Could you highlight strategic benefits in MTO (for P-38) which outweighed having LR escorts to Schweinfurt, perhaps cutting losses by 50% and enabling immediate return to Schweinfurt until bearings capacity was seriously curtailed before Speer could de-centralize?

One thing that was not apparent at the time but clear now, the Mediterranean command team was going to command Overlord, as they were the most experienced allied commanders.
Spaatz was still USSAF, commanding 8th AF and 9th, when he moved to command USAAF in MTO for Torch. Eaker then reported to Arnold with careful co-operation with Spaatz. Eaker fell out of favor gradually in the eyes of Arnold for a variety of reasons - mostly invalid and attributable by Arnold's impatience with 8th Ops slowness in aattacking strategic German targets. That said, NOTHING was clear regarding command structure for Overlord. I suspect that you could cite the olitics and in-fighting between US Army (Marshall, Eisenhower), USAAF (Arnold, Eaker, Spaatz), RAF and probably each of the CombinedChiefs in very fluid kabuka dances from Thanksgiving 1943, through Mid December.

Neither Spaatz, nor Doolittle were any more experienced than Eaker and it wasn't totally clear that Spaatz would retain Control of 8th and 15th AF until the dust settled between him and Leigh-Mallory
Doolittle and Spaatz learnt a lot about heavy bomber raids and their escort requirements in 1943, which needed P-38s. In the period June 1942 to April 1943 inclusive 461 USAAF heavy bomber sorties attacked targets in Germany, according to the statistical digest the USAAF in the ETO launched 3,722 heavy bomber sorties while losing a total of 122 to enemy aircraft in the 10 months, the MTO 5,802 sorties losing 42 to enemy aircraft.
Why would you think that Doolittle-Spaatz gained some advantage in air operations and esort requirements when 8th AF was attacking the French/Netherlands and Germany, 100% protected by LW - the same LW that wrested control of the air from RAF and US? While MTO sorties were not near Germany, were freqently escorted by P-38s to the targets in Africa, Sicily and Italy aainst far less robust air defenses in MTO?

You might note the many joint operations and co-ordination with RAF in Africa as well as the fact that AAF-MTO had ALL to FGs originally tasked for 8th AF and 8th AF not only had to rebuild VIII FC but also had to replace the experienced 97th, 301st BG (H), 81st FG, 1st, 14th and 82nd FG, 31st aand 52nd FG, but also the B-26BG (17th, 310th, 319th, 320th) and the 47th BG (A-20)
How true or simplified is the story the A-36 was ordered and built as a way to keep the Inglewood production line open when there were no USAAF orders for the fighter version?
Mixed. There were in fact FY42 funds for Dive Bomber, as well as the political will and muscle in AAF-Hq Planning&Reqirements and CAS to ignore AAF-MC - to compel a selection of a high performance High-speed dive bombing version of the Mustang. There is significant evidence that Arnold was the King behind the tie breaker when Echols protested the selection, citing the XP-32 as the answer to a mother's prayers. It is a fact that Kindelberger hosted Spaatz and Arnold in Jan 1942 and were shown the A-36 Proposal. It is a fact that Eaker flew the XP-51#2 at Inglewood as e transitioned from CO of 20th PG to CO of 8th AF in December 1941 - and praised it highly, with a follow up letter to Arnold.

Coupled with the fact that the CAS Director had moved the concept of Close Air Support from combination of observation and fast light bombers to recon/dive bombing and fast light bombers to fighters capable of both bombing and defending themselves along with fast recon and light attack bombers by the beginning of 1942. I have evidence but not conclusive facts that the turf war between Hq-AAF and MC as Hq changed philosopy for CAS from "LW like" to completely dismiss A-24/31/35 like airframes as completely vulnerable, was the reason that FY 42 funding was still available for div bombers but not Pursuit.

The A-36 was the camel's nose under the tent with the P-51A and B closely following - and the reason that the P-51B was first destined for TAC/9th AF rather than 8thAF.
 
This one may be in class by itself as sort of myth contained within a myth.
Pilot's Manual for the P-38 in WW II has the "fork tail devil" quote in the introduction.
Doesn't say where it is from.
Wiki biography of Caidin says he was born in 1927. He was getting articles published in aviation magazines during WW II but for the Army to quote a 15-17 year old kid in a flight manual?

I have no doubt that Caidin used the phrase in his books but then any author who bothered to read the intro in the pilots manual would have seen it.
AAF manual 51-127-1 on page 6.
In letters to my Grandmother, my Uncle Jimmy (her brother) was calling the P-38 a "fork-tail devil" in 1942, while he was training on it.

This is the same Uncle who loathed the P-39 and would have gladly taken his P-36 up against the Japanese anytime, anywhere.
 
This one may be in class by itself as sort of myth contained within a myth.
Pilot's Manual for the P-38 in WW II has the "fork tail devil" quote in the introduction.
Doesn't say where it is from.
Wiki biography of Caidin says he was born in 1927. He was getting articles published in aviation magazines during WW II but for the Army to quote a 15-17 year old kid in a flight manual?

I have no doubt that Caidin used the phrase in his books but then any author who bothered to read the intro in the pilots manual would have seen it.
AAF manual 51-127-1 on page 6.
Well I'll be.
 
The reason I mentioned the August 1942 production schedule was to note how much Republic were expecting to tap into Curtiss production know how in 1943, and the way that changed.

In late 1942 the western allies made the decision to invade North Africa, the benefits of that to end 1943 were significant, the experience of launching three major amphibious operations against increasingly strong resistance, the overall gains in allied combat experience, the opening up of the Mediterranean sea lanes, knocking Italy out of the war, the losses the axis powers took and the establishment of heavy bomber bases in Italy. As of end 1942 no bombing campaign had succeeded or even looked like it was going to succeed. For Germany success in the east and south in mid 1943 was far more important than defeating any bombing of Germany, forces were deployed accordingly.
most forget that 78th FG in December 1942 was trained and scheduled to receive the P-38 as the 4th P-38 FG scheduled for 8th AF Operations when Torch diverted their P-38s and sent them to MTO.
The 78th Fighter Group transition from P-38 to P-47 is directly related to P-38 losses, how likely is the P-38 force staying in England taking fewer casualties during the time period? Given your description of the air defences in the Mediterranean as less robust. One thing I do not have is the date when it was decided the RAF Eagle Squadrons would become the 4th Fighter group, the move happened in September 1942, and the subsequent decision to equip them with P-47 given the impact on USAAF requirements, for a start more P-47. The 78th began the transition to P-47 in February and the 4th in March 1943.
The question of most efffective in MTO vs ETO will always be debated as the P47C and D never actually penetrated German airspace until July 1943 at the end of Blitz week, when the 8th was establishing an operational rythm in deeper strikes to mid Germany. Within three weeks following Blitz week was the disastrous Tidal Wave attack at Ploesti, followed by Regensburg-Schweinfurt missions on August 17th.
28 July for P-47 over Germany, with further blitz week strikes on 29 and 30 July.
The 55th and 20th arrivals in ops October and December brings 6 LR Escort capable of full coverage during Blitz week and Regensburg- Schweinfurt.
The 20th FG arrived on 26 August, the 55th FG arrived on 16 September 1943. Neither could be available for July or August operations.

To end July 1943 the 8th attacked targets in Germany on 21 days, 1 in January, 2 in February, 3 in March, 1 in April, 4 in May, 4 in June and 6 in July, in terms of attacking sorties, by month 55, 103, 197, 106, 542, 750 and 871. As of 17 November 1942 the 8th had 4 operational B-17 and 1 B-24, it gained another B-24 group on 25 February 1943. Then between 13 and 31 May 6 more B-17 groups became operational. All up August 1942 to July 1943, 6,158 sorties attacked targets, 2,624 of them in Germany.

November 1942 to July 1943 the 12th managed 6,527 sorties attacking targets, 2,232 against Italy, starting in April 1943, plus 2,326 sorties against Sicily starting in February 1943 with the note some early raids do not have the number of attacking aircraft recorded. The 9th Air Force October 1942 to July 1943 managed 2,972 attacking sorties, 1,451 against Italy starting in January 1943 plus 1,451 sorties against Sicily starting in January 1943. Richard Davis figures.

On 27 July 1942 The Luftwaffe had 1,335 single engine, 131 twin engined and 308 night fighters, of which Luftflotte 3 and Mitte held 313, 42 and 308 respectively. The figures for 17 May 1943 are 1,422 single, 17 twin and 468 night, of which Luftflotte 3 and Mitte held 491, 31 and 419. With the usual rider, Germany was where fighter units refitted, in July 1942 it held all 4 gruppen of JG1, in 1943 it had 2 Gruppen from JG1, and 2 renamed JG11 plus 1 each from JG3, JG27 and JG54 these three holding 122 fighters between them. On 27 July 1942 Luftflotte 2 held 155 single and 42 twin engine fighters, on 17 May 1943 it was up to 309 single and 88 twin engine, plus Sud Ost held another 40 single engine fighters. E R Hooton, Eagle in Flames, reports the following day fighter dispositions, (Based on the figures in K Gunderlach Die Deutsche Luftwaffe in Mittelmeer 1940-45. Band I 1940-1942. Band 2 1943-1945, page 716). All for the year 1943, table is date, Luftflotte Mitte (Reich) / Luftflotte 3 / total Mitte + Reich / total fighters / % in west.

20 Jan / 163 / 241 / 404 / 1,090 / 37.1
20 Apr / 188 / 232 / 420 / 1,328 / 31.6
20 Jun / 343 / 353 / 696 / 1,704 / 40.1
20 Sep / 677 / 222 / 899 / 1,500 / 59.9
20 Dec / 572 / 312 / 884 / 1,588 / 55.7.

Luftwaffe losses, east, west and south from Williamson Murray
month / East / South / West
Jan-43 / 482 / 282 / 176
Feb-43 / 318 / 206 / 162
Mar-43 / 314 / 308 / 256
Apr-43 / 238 / 572 / 255
May-43 / 331 / 333 / 331
Jun-43 / 249 / 235 / 313
Jul-43 / 558 / 711 / 526
Total / 2490 / 2647 / 2019

The point blank directive was 14 June 1943. The priority for the Germans in early 1943 was the summer attack in the east and preventing the western allies advancing out of Africa, the Luftwaffe deployed accordingly. In July and August 1943 the Luftwaffe received a series of significant wake up calls, in date order,

1) On July 5 the Kursk offensive begins, for the first time in the east the Luftwaffe is unable to secure air superiority where it wants it, the Red Air Force is able to intervene effectively. The air force needs to become bigger, given the Red Air Force largely ignores its opposite number the Luftwaffe can still usually operate.

2) 10 July the allied invasion of Sicily, in the air fighting before and during the invasion the Luftwaffe discovers the more aircraft it commits the higher the casualties without changing the overall situation. The air force needs to become much bigger or leave.

3) 27 July the firestorm at Hamburg. Goering makes it clear defence of the Reich is the new priority.

4) 17 August the strikes on Schweinfurt and Peenemunde.

The next day the Luftwaffe chief of staff committed suicide under orders/"suggestion".
Simply because neither the P-38 nor the P-47 were conceived as CAS when brought into service. As to survivavbiilty over France (or Italy), the AAF-HQ CAS planners deviated from the slow dive bomber strategy in early 1942 to that of the fast battlefield air superiorty attack/fighter/light bomber. The Board that evaluated the A-24/31/35 and XB32 deemed them non-survivable due to lack of airspeed and ability to defend against fighter attacks. The Mustang I morphed from superior Pursuit, when compared to P-40 to Low Level Attack/Dive bomber A-36 to Pursuit/glide bomber/rocket attack in P-51A to same for P-51B, when saner heads recognized the potential for LR Escort.
Ignoring the A-24 and A-24A transfers from USN orders which started with 68 in 1941. The A-24B contract date is 1 December 1942, acceptances March to December 1943, 42-54285 to 54899, A-25A contract date is 27 May 1943 but acceptances were December 1942 to March 1944, 41-18774 to 18873, 42-79663 to 80462. The A-36 were 42-83663 to 84162, contract dated 7 August 1942 acceptances October 1942 to March 1943. The problems of the A-24 in New Guinea were later in 1942. As far as I am aware although the USAAF ended up with plenty of A-31/35 the orders were all originally meant for others.
One may argue eloquently that the Allies did very well indeed with the P-40 and Spit and Hurricane - with a slight nod to P-39 - leading the way for multi purpose Fighter role in Africa.
I think you will find Spitfires flew none to very few fighter bomber sorties in North Africa, they were needed for air superiority, it was Malta with its all Spitfire force that began (a few) fighter bomber operations. The allied air situation in North Africa/Tunisia was consider serious enough the RAF formed an elite fighter unit, the Polish fighter flight, gave it the latest equipment and only one mission, air superiority.
IIRC there were only 3, then five BG(H) in 12th AF through re-assignment to 15th AF in November 1943. The P-38, while suitable for MTO medium range attacks, while based in N.Africa and then Sicily - weren't attritting LW any more than the P-40 and Spits combined. May one argue that P38 was critical to early success for Torch? Hardly. The P-38 FG got their heads handed to them unti they learned to capitalize on thier strengths and quit 'dogfighting'.
See above for the heavy bomber activities. We know from the 8th and 15th Air Force reports the P-38 were not good at shooting down large number of axis interceptors. They were very good at enabling the bombers to hit targets with low losses to enemy aircraft. No one is claiming the P-38 were crucial to Torch, they were important for the heavy bomber forces to hit longer ranged targets with acceptable losses and those targets were important axis supply routes.
POINTBLANK on the other hand was the highest priority tasking for the Allied Air Forces - and the 12th AF, save the attack on Ploesti hardly contributed to the Combined Allied Air Forces attacks on German industry or the destruction of the LW as well demanded of 8th AF/RAF BC. That said I respect your opinion to the contrary.
My opinion is the Luftwaffe was set up to fail in 1944 by a whole lot of factors, one of which was the allied tactical air forces had gained control of the front line and to a depth of around tactical fighter, light and medium bomber range by no later than end 1943 as well as inflicting continual losses on the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe fighter force had withdrawn out of that range to defend Germany against the heavy bomber raids, that fight remained, along with a bombing plan that was able to really hurt the German war economy.
The drop tank question/debate is important, but nothing in the development pipline for the -47D matterered until a.) wing and pylon and fuel feed were incorporated to maximize capability of fixed 305g internal fuel capacity, and b.) the internal fuel capacity was increased from 305g to 370g - delivered in Jan/Feb 1944 and May/June 1944 respectively.
With the unpressurised 200 gallon tank belly tank and the 1943 108 gallon types the P-47 was able to make western Germany from mid 1943, the 150 gallon belly tank was next in March 1944. If nothing mattered means attacking targets in most to all of Germany then the statement is correct, if it means enabling the P-47 to encounter large numbers of Luftwaffe fighters the statement is incorrect, given the combat claims.
There was no decision for 'fighters and bombers to fight their separate battles'.
The early period where the fighters would sweep one area and the bombers would bomb another area.
LuftFlotte 3 was deemed (tentativey) adequate in 1942 through spring 1943, but elements of JG11 and 3 were being moved. Hamburg during Blitz Week raised the 3-Alarm fire warning - and could be cited as the transition from JG26/2 being front line of defense to the layered defense to include t/e day and night fighters - as well as Lwbh Mitte to LF Reich as planning for central defense. Additionally Milch implemented nearly double fighter production over previous levels. JG 27 was gradually pulled from MTO as well units of JG 54 from Ost Front as the migration of units from Ost and Sud fronts began.
See above for some of the details and while the Hamburg firestorm certainly made it clear for the first time bombers looked like being a major threat it also happened after the failures in the east and south.
The MTO had 3 P-38 and 2 Spitfire groups available in early 1943. The 8th AF had ONE Spitfire FG operational (4th FG) with two P-47FGs 'in-training' (The 56th and 78th - and the 78th had P-38 trained pilots trying to learn the buggy P-47C).
If Republic are being sent (lots of) reports of buggy aircraft which becomes more important, fixing the bugs or increasing internal and external fuel?
Could you highlight strategic benefits in MTO (for P-38) which outweighed having LR escorts to Schweinfurt, perhaps cutting losses by 50% and enabling immediate return to Schweinfurt until bearings capacity was seriously curtailed before Speer could de-centralize?
See above and many of the benefits were done before July and effectively all by end October. To sustain the raids the 8th needs losses around 5%, or a quarter of the historical losses. Also with the large amount of stocks, supply from other countries and other parts of Germany plus rebuilding the 8th would need repeated attacks. And as the postulated change in force mix does not increase the number of fighters available, but does decrease the amount of axis fighters they can be expected to shoot down there is a long way to go before the long range raids are sustainable.
NOTHING was clear regarding command structure for Overlord. I suspect that you could cite the olitics and in-fighting between US Army (Marshall, Eisenhower), USAAF (Arnold, Eaker, Spaatz), RAF and probably each of the CombinedChiefs in very fluid kabuka dances from Thanksgiving 1943, through Mid December.
Yes, hence my comment about apparent now, Marshall was a candidate for command, Eisenhower could write how the US were now the Mediterranean supporters, not the British (Anvil/Dragoon). Careful selection of material can make it look like the US was dragged kicking and screaming into Overlord by the British for example.
Why would you think that Doolittle-Spaatz gained some advantage in air operations and esort requirements when 8th AF was attacking the French/Netherlands and Germany, 100% protected by LW - the same LW that wrested control of the air from RAF and US?
Mainly as they had to factor in being part of a combined plan that included the army and navy, they had to first gain control of their own airspace, they needed much more immediate results on targets out of tactical air range and were more directly exposed to some of the most experienced air commanders on the allied side. Which dates are you talking about when the Luftwaffe had control and where? The Fw190 was making life very hard for the RAF over coastal France in 1942 for a start.
You might note the many joint operations and co-ordination with RAF in Africa as well as the fact that AAF-MTO had ALL to FGs originally tasked for 8th AF and 8th AF not only had to rebuild VIII FC but also had to replace the experienced 97th, 301st BG (H), 81st FG, 1st, 14th and 82nd FG, 31st aand 52nd FG, but also the B-26BG (17th, 310th, 319th, 320th) and the 47th BG (A-20)
The allied navies had a priority task in 1942/43, win the Battle of the Atlantic, Torch drew large numbers of ships away from that battle and added extra convoy duties, making the victory take longer and be harder. Being part of a combined plan which inevitably has to make trade offs. The 8th Air Force was ultimately going nowhere if it lacked clear supply lines.
 
Italians were chicken. During the Murmansk convoys Italian torpedo pilots flew between ships to drop their fish - German pilots stood off & dropped too early so they got very few hits. Ship crews say they were shooting downwards from the deck to hit the Italians.
-----------------
Pilots know the markings & colours of their personal aircraft -- it's been proved that pilots of all air forces are usually wrong on these points. Best ask the ground crew who maintained that particular airplane as they cared about it rather than just used it -- I did & proved the historians wrong. ;)
 

Which popular WW2 aircraft and air combat "histories" are simply not true?


Almost anything written by by Martin Caidin.

I grew up reading all the WW2 aviation "history" authored or edited by Caidin that I could find. He's undoubtedly a "colorful" storyteller who spun tales that rivaled the best of the 1960s and early '70s war comics. Little did I know then... At least Caidin's work is to a large part responsible for my lifelong interest in military aviation.
Muskeg is spot-on. Caidin and a few others (Hoyt comes to mind) passed for historians in the 50s and 60s. IMO that was because the market had not evolved to the point of knowledgeable readers who began seeking more detail and credibility.

I wrote the foreword to the Naval Institute edition of Sakai's "Samurai" and Martin Strasser Caidin (as he then called himself) was not repeat not happy. But he couldn't refute the glitches I noted.

Similarly, in Y2K CNN interviewed me about a Naval History article I wrote with the late-great Henry Sakaida exposing the lies attending LBJ's bogus Silver Star. The story first appeared in Caidin's 1964 tome "The Mission" which stalled whole the fabrications that LBJ and a couple of Democrat activists floated in an election year. (LBJ's aborted mission from New Guinea in 1942.). However, some fault attended MacArthur et all who accepted LBJ's fairy tale of "coolness under fire" and hung the gong on him without confirmation. LBJ had the medal presented to him back home on the campaign trail after his "fact finding tour."
 
Nope, SM-79s - read the history of "PQ-17 - Convoy from Hell" - my uncle was there.
There were no Regia Aeronautica aircraft attached to Luftflotte 5 in Norway.

The Regia Aeronautica participated in the Battle of Britain and on the Eastern Front but no further north.
 
Nope, SM-79s - read the history of "PQ-17 - Convoy from Hell" - my uncle was there.
imho the book and your uncle are wrong,
i've knew veteran from WWII (&I), also relatives, their tales not ever are "true", they used wrong names for enemy and sometime also own equipment, sometime they combine in the wrong order the events and so on
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back