WWII aerial combat altitude. Reality check.

[stona]

Where do you get these numbers?

About 30,000 Bf 109s were produced alone!

According to the USSBS the Germans produced 46,171 single engine fighter between 1939 and 1944. This excludes whatever they managed in the first three months of 1945.
In 1939 1,541
In 1940 1,840
In 1941 2,852
In 1942 4,452
In 1943 9,626
In 1944 25,860

This is based on German statistics. The large leap in 1944 was achieved at the expense of producing almost nothing but fighters. Total aircraft production in 1944 was 39,807 compared with a total of 25,527 in 1943.

Cheers

Steve

 

[syscom3]

We're really gonna argue numbers from 70 years ago?

Yes. This is what this website is for.

 

[silence]

Let's debate and leave the arguing to the lawyers.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Redressing the original point.

Average combat altitudes depended significantly on both theatre and the period of combat and its actually very difficult to generalise about average aerial combat altitudes. For example, a quick look at Lufftwaffe Eastern Front claims in 1943 shows the majority are below 3000 m. But, at the same time I can find runs of claims above 4500 m and even the occasional claim above 7000 m.


The N/W European campaign provides a case in point, average combat altitudes are all over the place depending on the time and the requirements needed to ensure air superiority:

Combats in 1939/1940 over France were generally at higher altitudes up to the launch of the invastion of France, then there was a switch to medium to low altitudes as the invasion proceeded and tactical superiority air became more important. Combat altitudes then climbed through the Battle of Britain period, returning to medium altitudes as the strategic bombing campaign against the UK got under way. Fighter on fighter combats got progressively higher and higher as the year petered out, with multiple combats above 30,000 ft.

However, at the same time the Luftwaffe pursued a very successful low altitude (roof top) fighter bomber campaign from September, which persisted for almost three years. So there was combat at almost all altitudes.

In the 1941/1942 lean into France, the RAF favoured medium altitudes, but very high altitude combats (30,000 ft or higher) were also relatively common place, with stacked squadrons providing high altitude support to medium altitude bombing missions.

In 1943, when the USAAF joined the fight, its primary domain was above 20,000 ft. However, at the same time the RAF persisted with low atltiude fighter/fighter bomber operations and the RAF/USAAF used their light/medium bombers at medium altitudes. RAF night bombing was also primarily conducted at medium altitudes, but Mosquitos also bombed from very high altitudes and also very low altitudes. Against the background of all this, Fighter Command was conducting Rhubarbs, Rangers, Ramrods, Circuses and Rodeos across a variety of altitudes.

The USAAF's fighter doctrine switched in early 1944 and fighters began to straff ground targets on their return legs. At the same time, the air campaign prior to Overlord meant that there were lots of targets bombed from comparatively lower altitudes in France and the Low Countries, to ensure accuracy. When Overlord was underway, the Western allies increasingly made medium altitude claims and progressively less high altitude claims.

 

[davebender]

167 Me-109 G1. February to June 1942.
1,586 Me-109G1. May 1942 to February 1943.
.....Essentially the same aircraft. Me-109 G1 was high altitude variant.

50 Me-109 G3. January to February 1943.
1,242 Me-109 G4. September 1942 to July 1943.
.....Essentially the same aircraft. Me-109 G3 was high altitude variant.

475 Me-109 G5. May 1943 to August 1944.
Over 12,000 Me-109 G6. February 1943 to fall 1944.
.....Essentially the same aircraft. Me-109 G5 was high altitude variant.


1939 through mid 1944 less then 10% of Me-109s produced were high altitude variants. IMO that says a lot about where most German aerial combat took place.

 

[Aozora]

2 TAF made low-medium altitude combat a priority, which is why, for example, the majority of Spitfire IXs built after mid 1943 were L.F Mk IX with the low altitude rated Merlin 66; in addition the Tempest V was almost tailor made for the role. While the Spitfire XIV worked best at medium altitudes and above, it was still handy at lower altitudes. One reason the Mustang units switched to ADGB and bomber/Coastal Command escort was because most of the fighting was done below the Mustang's optimum altitudes - particularly when the Mustang III used the V-1650-7.

 

[tyrodtom]

167 Me-109 G1. February to June 1942.
1,586 Me-109G1. May 1942 to February 1943.
.....Essentially the same aircraft. Me-109 G1 was high altitude variant.

50 Me-109 G3. January to February 1943.
1,242 Me-109 G4. September 1942 to July 1943.
.....Essentially the same aircraft. Me-109 G3 was high altitude variant.

475 Me-109 G5. May 1943 to August 1944.
Over 12,000 Me-109 G6. February 1943 to fall 1944.
.....Essentially the same aircraft. Me-109 G5 was high altitude variant.


1939 through mid 1944 less then 10% of Me-109s produced were high altitude variants. IMO that says a lot about where most German aerial combat took place.

The G6 had a service ceiling of 39,370, how could that not be termed a high altitude fighter.
Then they were special high altitude specific versions of the G6, the G6AS, ASY and U3, command aircraft and reconnaissance.
The G5 was a pressurized variant for command and reconnaissance.

Just because they had some variants with specific modifications for high altitude, doesn't mean the more common G6 couldn't be or wasn't used at high altitude also.

 

[Njaco]

1. Thanks for the numbers for production. 55,000 just seemed small but then again it is only s/e fighters which might be why I was a little skeptical.

2. I don't like to argue the kill numbers of someone from 70 years ago because at some point someone starts to disparage said pilot's service record which is something we don't tolerate around here. Its NOT what this forum is about/for. Hartmann's score stands at 352 and thats good enough for me.

 

[GregP]

Thanks for confirming that Njaco!

I have always maintined that revisionism is a bad thing. The credits they recieved in the war are what should be recognized today.

Pappy Boyington then has 26 and not 22, as the Marines still maintain.

There is nothing wrong with setting the record straight but, if you're going to do it from ONE guy (or girl), do it for EVERYONE in the conflict, not just for your favorite target of animosity.

 

[redcoat]

I have always maintined that revisionism is a bad thing.

Revisionism to promote an agenda is a bad thing, but revisionism based on facts in order to get a better understanding of what actually happened is never a bad thing

The credits they recieved in the war are what should be recognized today.

Pappy Boyington then has 26 and not 22, as the Marines still maintain.

There is nothing wrong with setting the record straight but, if you're going to do it from ONE guy (or girl), do it for EVERYONE in the conflict, not just for your favorite target of animosity.

My view is that when discussing combat scores for anybody we should always state that they were 'credited with' these victories, not 'they shot down' this number of aircraft/tanks/ships etc, because from a historical viewpoint with are on firm ground with 'credited with' but with 'shot down' we are on the historical equiverlent of sinking sand

 

[Aozora]

The G6 had a service ceiling of 39,370, how could that not be termed a high altitude fighter.
Then they were special high altitude specific versions of the G6, the G6AS, ASY and U3, command aircraft and reconnaissance.
The G5 was a pressurized variant for command and reconnaissance.

Just because they had some variants with specific modifications for high altitude, doesn't mean the more common G6 couldn't be or wasn't used at high altitude also.

The more specialised and pressurised high altitude 109 variants were built in limited numbers to combat specific or perceived threats such as the P.R Mosquitoes and Spitfires, just as the British built the Spitfire H.F Mk VIIs and H.F Mk IXs in small numbers to counter possible incursions by high altitude Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft or the likes of the Ju 86Rs.

Different variants of DB 605s could have different altitude ratings; the DB 605A, for example, generated maximum power at 5,800 m (19,029 ft) while the DCM had a maximum rated altitude of 8,000 m (26,274 ft), so they were essentially medium/medium-high altitude rated engines because they was where they were most efficient. Having a high service ceiling isn't the same as being a high altitude fighter, because an aircraft might not be able to engage in combat at its service ceiling.

 

[swampyankee]

Revisionism to promote an agenda is a bad thing, but revisionism based on facts in order to get a better understanding of what actually happened is never a bad thing

My view is that when discussing combat scores for anybody we should always state that they were 'credited with' these victories, not 'they shot down' this number of aircraft/tanks/ships etc, because from a historical viewpoint with are on firm ground with 'credited with' but with 'shot down' we are on the historical equiverlent of sinking sand

First paragraph: absolutely. A lot of revisionism is re-interpreting fragmentary records; one recent case is the increase in the estimated number of ACW deaths from about 600,000 to 740,000, mostly because the Confederacy's records were so incomplete. When "revisionism" gets controversial are those times when myths -- those things that "everybody knows" -- are debunked. As an example, when I was in high school, we were taught that Colin Kelly earned a Medal of Honor (false) and sunk a battleship (also false); some people got offended when this was corrected as "it dishonors a hero's memory"; since I think the truth can't dishonor anybody's memory, I never understood that statement. Right now, I think some of the worst reactions to "revisionism" are in Japan, where ultra-nationalists have actually killed historians who dared mention Japanese war crimes in books.

Second paragraph: Yes, using less absolutist language when values are uncertain is a good idea.

 

[GregP]

I'll stand by what I said earlier. If you want to revise anyone's score, then either leave it alone or lookat ALL the scores. Not just the guy you think was over or under-credited. If you're not prepared to DO that ... at least for, say, the wntire USAAF and YSN / USMC pilots, then let it go or it becomes selective revisionism.

I can't go along with that ever.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'll stand by what I said earlier. If you want to revise anyone's score, then either leave it alone or lookat ALL the scores. Not just the guy you think was over or under-credited. If you're not prepared to DO that ... at least for, say, the wntire USAAF and YSN / USMC pilots, then let it go or it becomes selective revisionism.

I can't go along with that ever.

Most historical revisionism IS selective. By its nature, and the process by which most history is researched and written, this is inevitable.

As more/better information becomes available, whether about events or individuals, the historical record is improved and previous errors/oversights/deficencies are corrected.

That's what historical scholarship is about.

You're arguing that unless there are sufficient resources available to re-examine/re-verify every case, then none should be. This all or nothing approach gets us nowhere, particularly in the case of fighter combat records.

The field is highly specalised. With limited general interest comes limited resources. Thus, it would be impossible for any single historian, or even a small group of historians, to conduct a general re-write of combat claims for, say, the USAAF or the Luftwaffe.

However, it is not beyond the ability of the avilable resources to revise/improve/correct the historical record for certain individuals, certain combats or even whole battles. Look at the various 'Then and Now' books and how they have brought to light new information on the Battle of France or the Blitz, or the 'Black Cross, Red Star' books, which has corrected longstanding errors in (Western) scholarship about the Eastern Front aerial war.

Large scale revisionism needs either major resources or a major change in how we should interpret something - the best example is the massive revisionism of the hitorical record after the Ultra secret was released in 1974.

 

[GregP]

We all see it differently, don't we?