33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,219
- Jan 31, 2021
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
But he does point out, correctly that the P-47 was responsible for crippling the Luftwaffe before the Merlin powered P-51 was a factor.
I'll reply to your comments in more detail but will simply 'paste' an email that I sent Jackson concerning his claim that the P-47 did all the heavy lifting before D-Day. I basically sent "Greg" the same, plus much more detail to explain why he was filled to the brim with Bovie Fecal Matter i claims that USAAF-bomber mafia conspired to hold the P-47 back - as well as his range estimates for operational combat radius.The P-51 had its good points too and was a fine fighter so the P47 did not out perform it in all respects and Greg explains this in both the speed and the climb performance videos And maybe in "maneuvering". But he does point out, correctly that the P-47 was responsible for crippling the Luftwaffe before the Merlin powered P-51 was a factor. High scoring German aces moving from the Eastern to the Western front were often killed fighting the USAAF and some had nervous breakdowns. Robert S Johnson killed a German ace with 230 odd kills. At bomber escort altitudes, 25000 ft, the P-47 was superior to virtually all the Luftwaffe fighters except a few very late variants. It was faster in all respects and with 130 and 150 octane fuel it was as good a climber at most altitudes. P&W engineers came the England and taught the crew chiefs how to increase boost so that even before the later engines were in use P-47s were running 2600+ hp with the better fuels. And all the leading P-47 pilots, remembering the leading US aces in Europe were P-47 pilots, survived the war. Robert S Johnson in an interview and Greg both point out that the P-47 had decimated the highly experienced Luftwaffe pilots by the time the P-51 arrived on scene in significant numbers. This and the total losses were the primary reason that the Luftwaffe was powerless to interfere with the D-Day landings. Johnson pointed out that many of the P-51 victories were over low time pilots with little or no combat experience. That the Bomber Mafia lied about the range of P-47 is proven with the actual facts. From their arrival in Europe the P-47s were equipped for drop tanks and Republic had a 200 gal fully tested to 30000 ft belly tank but Hap Arnold had ordered that NO pursuit a/c were to use drop tanks. "The Bombers would get through and could not be stopped". And the Army would not even pay for development. The various companies did it on their own. Then when their arrogance and stupidity had killed a LOT of bomber crews they cooked up the false "insufficient range" story to cover their butts. And thus the myth of the P-51's range "allowed escort of the bombers" was born. This no drop tank idiocy was much like the US Navy submarines fighting almost half the war with torpedos with a 50% or higher failure rate. Why? Because high ranking people had said they were OK but they only tested 2 of them and one of these failed. And the LT Commanders actually using the things were at fault. Heck John Wayne made a movie about this. And Johnson had a higher kills per mission rate than Rall. In the P-47. And he was fighting harder targets.
'Greg' was imbibing on prohibited substances when he offered opinions not sourced by fact based reports by AAF Performance Evaluations of P-47 vs P-38 vs P-51B. Fact - the ONLY P-47 that could outclimb a similarly loaded P-51B/D up to 33000 feet was the P-47M. The P-47D was slower at all altitudes, had the same dive speed, and roll rate - but was out accelerated, outturned, outclimbed and out ranged. Check Mike Williams' Spitfireperformance.com site for particulars.The P-51 had its good points too and was a fine fighter so the P47 did not out perform it in all respects and Greg explains this in both the speed and the climb performance videos And maybe in "maneuvering".
As in 'crippling the LW' are you referring to 10-25% loss rates at Schweinfurt/Regensburg, Munster. Schweinfurt II, Oschersleben (1-11-44), Aschersleben (2-22, 44), Rostock/Gotha (2-24), Berlin (3-6), Bernburg/Rostock/Stettin (4-11), Berln (4-29)? You know that a.) the losses were for targets out of P-47 range?, b.) that the LW was still hammering the 8th AF with crippling losses (>40) through May 1944?But he does point out, correctly that the P-47 was responsible for crippling the Luftwaffe before the Merlin powered P-51 was a factor. High scoring German aces moving from the Eastern to the Western front were often killed fighting the USAAF and some had nervous breakdowns.
But Johnson had not the slightest shred of evidence to support his claims. 150 Octane fuel was never available to Johnson, who went home before arrival of the 130/150 fuel in June 1944. The later engines Did run 2600HP - after Johnson went home. All of the leading P-51 Aces survived the war also, except Preddy who was KIA by friendly fire. Offhand I can't think of a high scoring P-51 ace KiA by LW. Several top P-47 ETO aces at one or another were shot down - Mahurin by Do 217 and Beckham and Duncan by flak. Gabreski bent a prop strafing. Several top P-51 aces were downed by flak also, including Hofer, Goodson, Henry Brown but I can't think of any to aces (P-51 or P-47 shot down by German fighter.Robert S Johnson killed a German ace with 230 odd kills. At bomber escort altitudes, 25000 ft, the P-47 was superior to virtually all the Luftwaffe fighters except a few very late variants. It was faster in all respects and with 130 and 150 octane fuel it was as good a climber at most altitudes. P&W engineers came the England and taught the crew chiefs how to increase boost so that even before the later engines were in use P-47s were running 2600+ hp with the better fuels. And all the leading P-47 pilots, remembering the leading US aces in Europe were P-47 pilots, survived the war. Robert S Johnson in an interview and Greg both point out that the P-47 had decimated the highly experienced Luftwaffe pilots by the time the P-51 arrived on scene in significant numbers.
So they put their low time pilots to defend Berlin, Schweinfurt, Regensburg, Brunswick, Munich, Kassel where the P-47s couldn't go? - perhaps to give the Newbies combat experience against the feeble Mustang - then send them within range of the P-47 equipped grups?This and the total losses were the primary reason that the Luftwaffe was powerless to interfere with the D-Day landings. Johnson pointed out that many of the P-51 victories were over low time pilots with little or no combat experience.
Total and utter bovine fecal matter. The 'bomber mafia' was embodied by Eaker and Spaatz perhaps - in 1942. "The Bomber will Always Get Through" mantra died a grisly death in July 1943 Blitz Week. Eaker begged Arnold for the P38 and -51B with the help of Asst SecWar Lovett in June 1943 when Arnold was recovering from major heart isues. The 200 gal tank you speak glowingly of was a Fat/Draggy Ferry tank = not self sealing and unpressurized. They woud not feed above 18K. Thankfully the pressurized 75 gal C/L tank arrived in August (too late for Schweinfurt/Regensurg)and the 110 arrived in September - Combat Radius still WOEFULLY short of Schweinfurt, Brunswick radius. Even when plumbing and pylons for wing mounted tanks arrived, the modifications required to strengthen every P-47D in the ETO was prohibitively time consuming - preventing P-47s from pentrating beyond central German and 150 short of Berlin and Munich until summer 1944- a year after Greg claimed the 'bomber mafia' conspired to kill THOUSANDs of B-17 & B-24 crews 'to make a point'? Do you REALLY believe what you write? The achilles heel of the P-47 was insufficient internal fuel capcity and woefully difficult to modify, Recall, it was designed as a High Altitude Interceptor so the need to add wing tanks or more extensive internal fuel was deemed un-necessary. Both the P-38 and P-51 were much better suitedfor a.) existing long range, b.) adding external tankage (P-38 1941, P-51 1942), c.) adding much more internal tankage (Fuselage P-51B 1943, P-38J mid 1943, P-47 end of 1944.That the Bomber Mafia lied about the range of P-47 is proven with the actual facts. From their arrival in Europe the P-47s were equipped for drop tanks and Republic had a 200 gal fully tested to 30000 ft belly tank but Hap Arnold had ordered that NO pursuit a/c were to use drop tanks.
If you choose to step out of your comfort zone and STUDY Hap Arnold views - you will know that he was very troubled that the Spanish Civil War bombers were being crushed by fighters. He understood that the current state of the art of the B-17 with turbos were faster and flew higher than most of the fighters - save the 109. That said he was aware that pursuit technoloy outpaced bomber technolgy. He reprioritized 1941 R&D objectives to name "1. 1500 mile range Pursuit Fighter." which, BTW, is double the capability of the P-47 until 1944. The Allison powered P-51 in 1942 could fly nearly 1.6x of P-47C on internal fuel for straight line ferry. The P-61 was ultimately the product of that objective."The Bombers would get through and could not be stopped". And the Army would not even pay for development. The various companies did it on their own. Then when their arrogance and stupidity had killed a LOT of bomber crews they cooked up the false "insufficient range" story to cover their butts. And thus the myth of the P-51's range "allowed escort of the bombers" was born.
Repeat, -- 'no drop tank idiocy' lasted until Ben Kelsey spilled the beans to Arnold on how he got the P-38s to England, using 300gal unpressurized tanks on wing pylons which had only emerged as a Lockheed self funded project in December 1941.This no drop tank idiocy was much like the US Navy submarines fighting almost half the war with torpedos with a 50% or higher failure rate. Why? Because high ranking people had said they were OK but they only tested 2 of them and one of these failed. And the LT Commanders actually using the things were at fault. Heck John Wayne made a movie about this. And Johnson had a higher kills per mission rate than Rall. In the P-47. And he was fighting harder targets.
The problem with watching a video, is that you're listening to someone's opinion.
Reading books from the source may not be as entertaining, but far will be far more accurate.
AgreedThe P-47 was one of the best high altitude fighters of the war and it was pretty good at strafing anything. Other than strafing, where the eight 50s shined, the P-47 basically got less good as it got lower than 25,000 feet. It was NOT in it's element down low like it was at 25,000 feet and above.
Greg, the P-47 was sent to replace the P-38s snatched from 8th AF as result of North Africa campaign (1st, 14th and 82nd). It was sole escort fighter after 4th FG converted from Spitfires and 78th FG became operational in Late March 1943. All P-47FG until the lone 55th FG P-38s arrived for first Oct 15th 1943 mission - one day after Schweinfurt. The P-47s tasked for Overlord in the IX FC were assigned escort through late May 1944.While I may not be quite as enamored with the P-51 as Drgondog is, the combat record does tell a story if you look at it, and the P-51 deserves its accolades. A LOT of success at shooting down enemy airplanes in air-to-air combat comes with the opportunities the airplane had while on missions. The P-51, with good range, was primarily assigned the escort missions, which led directly to opportunities for air-to-air combat. The P-47s primarily had other assignments and were assigned a disproportionate number of ground attack missions due to their abilities as a strafer and as a fighter-bomber. Hey, you use what you have to get the missions accomplished.
They were good, but primarily only better than the P-38 in the 25-30K performance envelope. It was only in the narrow envelope of 30-33K that the P-47 and P-51B were more or less matched in performance. To reiterate, VIII FC Hunter and then Kepner had a more favorable opinon of the P-47C/D than the P-51 in 1943 - but the P-51B that belonged to the 'other' 9th AF changed his mind. It is a good assumtion that neither were aware of the enormous jump in intermediate to high altitude performance of the new Merlin/Packard equipped Mustang. It is a possibility that both were victims of 'not invented here' with respect to grudging accolades of the NAA product when compared to P-40/P-39 and even P-38 and P-47 up to 18-20K in 1942 testing.When the P-47s DID get the chance for aerial combat, they weren't bad at all at it. But, they were never assigned as frequently as primary escort fighters like the P-51 was. That being said, there is no evidence that they would have done any better or worse at it had they been assigned and they had the range. Both airplanes were pretty good at what their primary assigned missions were.
See above. Note that P-47C/D was the best above 20K (compared to P-38). Note that Kenney, who selectively ignored Materiel Command/Air Service Command when it suited him, arranged for 348th FG P-47s to obtain bootleg external fuel tanks earlier than 8thAF - of large capacity - and able to provide useful combat radius. He was able to do so because SWP operations enabled long legs with no flak or fghter intervention compared to ETO.It could be that the "powers that be" at the time assigned the missions as they did because that was the best use of the airframes they had to work with to get the missions accomplished. Stranger things have happened than using your assets correctly.
Yes, the FM-2 was excellent. But it had a lot to do with what it was assigned. The FM-2 was a Wildcat and doesn't quite measure up to the Hellcat if you lump all the Wildcats together. The FM-2 alone came in at 32.5 : 1 in air-to-air combat. The Hellcat came in at 19.1 : 1.Excellent coverage, gents, and always good to hear from Bill/Drgndog. This thread goes in The Keep File.
Ref. Hurricane: found this compilation of RAF claims.
Sprifire 6,338; Hurricane 4850.
Which Allied fighter achieved the most victories in World War 2?
Edward Rippeth's answer: This is a heavily revised version of my original article, in which I’ve added some detailed research of all evidence presently available in print and online – including literally logging every score by an RAF or Commonwealth ace by aircraft and campaign, using Shore and W...www.quora.com
==
Frank O's compilations far exceed anything done by the US Govt. But I'll add an attaboy for the mentions of the massive USN statistical survey. Long ago when I had more time, I crunched the numbers and found that the FM-2 "Wilder Wildcat" had by far the highest kill-loss record of US (and likely any) piston fighters at 32-1 with 420-13. Main reason had to do with the CVE mission.
Incidentally, I was acquainted with Ralph Elliot, the top FM-2 ace with 9.5. He had A LOT of experience as a tactics instructor before joining VC-27. A really tough dogfighter whom some students dubbed "Tojo."
From a book I read recently which you may be aware of, my take on it was that the biggest drawback for the P-51B at the time was that it wasnt in service with anyone when the discussions were being had, and even the Allison engined types had little track record with US forces and British use of Mustangs could hardly be further removed from high altitude bomber escort. Making decisions from test reports is fraught with danger, it may be another P-400.Agreed
They were good, but primarily only better than the P-38 in the 25-30K performance envelope. It was only in the narrow envelope of 30-33K that the P-47 and P-51B were more or less matched in performance. To reiterate, VIII FC Hunter and then Kepner had a more favorable opinon of the P-47C/D than the P-51 in 1943 - but the P-51B that belonged to the 'other' 9th AF changed his mind. It is a good assumtion that neither were aware of the enormous jump in intermediate to high altitude performance of the new Merlin/Packard equipped Mustang. It is a possibility that both were victims of 'not invented here' with respect to grudging accolades of the NAA product when compared to P-40/P-39 and even P-38 and P-47 up to 18-20K in 1942 testing.
Greg the only Mustangs Tasked for bombs was the A-36 and P-51A. All Mustangs produced before 1943 had no capability to attach and drop bombs. While the IX AF P-51Bs were originally tasked for FB/CAS/TAC mission, ot one bomb was dropped by 8th or 9th AF Mustangs til May 1944. In the meantime, all the SWP P-47 FGs (I.e. 348th) were flying dual task of escort and CAS, ditto for 12th AF P-47s from 1943 to EOW. The 9th AF P-47s were largely removed from escort (not entirely for medium/light bomber escort) to focus on CAS after May 1944, while the 9th Mustangs were stlll primary escort or recon mission focused. I would speculate that most of the P-51 missions (including A-36 and P-51A) sorties resulted in about 90% escort through EOW. That said, the P-47 flew as many escort missions in ETO as Mustangs, in total, at least through 1944. Remember that 95% of all escort sorties by 8th and 9th AF combined through -Day were flown by P-47s in Penetration and Withdrawal escort - while P-51s and P-38s few target escort, There were still 2x P-47 FGs in ETO through May 1944. There were still four P-47 FGs in 8th AF (to one P-38 and ten P-51) at the end of September 1944.Yes, the FM-2 was excellent. But it had a lot to do with what it was assigned. The FM-2 was a Wildcat and doesn't quite measure up to the Hellcat if you lump all the Wildcats together. The FM-2 alone came in at 32.5 : 1 in air-to-air combat. The Hellcat came in at 19.1 : 1.
But, if you look at ALL Wildcats in U.S. service together, they collectively come in at 6.9 : 1 in air-to-air combat. I see NO reason to lump the FM-2s as anything other than a Wildcat. We don't break out F6F-5s from F6F-3s, why break out the FM-2 all by itself? All it had to differentiate it was a different R-1820 and a slightly taller fin and rudder. And it was largely assigned to Jeep carrier mop-up operations when the big carriers bypassed the smaller Japanese outposts. So, it wasn;'t exactly flying against the best the Japanese had to offer.
The F6F-5 had an R-2800-10W rated at 2,200 hp; the F6F-3 had an R-2800-10 rated at 2,000 hp. Should we break out the F6F-5 from the F6F-3? No.
Same for Wildcats. If we lump them together, like all the Hellcats were lumped together, they don't come out quite so good.
Here is my chart of USAAF/USN/USMC planes together:
View attachment 713523
Look at the "Kill-to-Loss Air-to-Air column for an apples-to-apples comparison.
If you want to be even more fair about it, the next column is "kill to Loss Air-to-Air including Operational Losses." That one is an eye-opener. But the Hellcat STILL comes out comfortably on top. No wonder it was called "The Ace Maker."
The P-51 Mustang flew about one half the missions the P-47 flew (213,876 sorties for the P-51 versus 423,435 for the P-47). The P-47 dropped 113,963 tons of bombs. If the ground support missions were about the same percent, we'd expect the P-51 to drop somewhere about half the tonnage of the P-47. In fact, it only dropped 5,668 tons, or about 5% of the bomb tonnage the P-47 dropped. So, my conclusion is the P-51 didn't fly all that many attack missions where dropping bombs was a factor. That leaves a lot of missions where ground attack wasn't the focus. I'm betting they were escort missions. More escort missions means more air-to-air opportunities, like I said above.
Not true until Mid 1944, wrt to escort sorties. True wrt to 'opportunities per the much longer range and better performance throughout the flight profiles. The P-47 was the Dominant bomber escort in ETO (in strength and sorties) from March 1943 through May 1944, but the P-51 was far more Efficient air to air.In the statistical digest, I don't see a breakout by airplane model of the sortie types flown. My table above uses the ETO table from Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes. If there is another table with a summary by model for the entire war, I'd love to see it. Until then, I believe the P-51 was. far and away, the more frequent escort fighter between the P-47 and P-51. Because the P-47 wasn't the primary escort doesn't mean it never escorted; it did. It means the P-47 was a much more infrequent escort than the P-51 was. Ergo, the P-51 had a LOT more opportunities for air-to-air combat thrown at it, if only by mission selection.
Greg, unfortunately Wagner's table is filled with inaccuracies. including victory credits and air losses when compared to USAF 85 and MACR compilation. You will note from the USAG 85 ETO tables I shared with you - and you assisted with - that his ETO VCs for Mustang are 700 short, and that his totals Globally for the Mustang are 1000 short for AAF and 1450+ for combined AAF and Allies incl. China and Commonwealth.That is not a condemnation of the assignments in the least. I'm just trying to say the P-51 got into aerial combat more frequently with German fighters than the P-47 did and, when the P-47 DID get into aerial combat with German fighters, it was MUCH more likely to be carrying bombs than the P-51 was. To me, that means the P-47 with bombs had to evade the initial firing pass, drop ordnance, get into attack formations, and then engage in aerial combat. The escorts, by contrast, were already configured for aerial combat and were primed and ready for it.
Surely that translates into better initial success upon encountering the enemy by the escorts, if only due to not carrying bombs during the mission.
the USAAF, the USAAC is before of war, kill are heavy underestimated in the table
for the statistical digest they get 26994 air "kills" of this 14682 by fighters
Greg the only Mustangs Tasked for bombs was the A-36 and P-51A. All Mustangs produced before 1943 had no capability to attach and drop bombs. While the IX AF P-51Bs were originally tasked for FB/CAS/TAC mission, ot one bomb was dropped by 8th or 9th AF Mustangs til May 1944.
P-38 29,838 (49.3% of which was the 1,000-lb GP)
P-47 266,139 (66.7% of which was the 500-lb GP)
P-51 9,371 (61.7% of which was the 500-lb GP)
P-61 181 (44.8% of which was the 500-lb incendiary)
A-20 77,206 (96.8% of which was the 500-lb GP)
A-26 66,035 (21.9% of which was the 1,000-lb GP)
B-26 528,592 (28.9% of which was the 250-lb GP)
for wiki was 20th june 1941The USAAC became the USAAF on 9 March 1942, well after Pearl Harbor.
The USAAC remained as a component of the USAAF between June 1941 and March 1942.for wiki was 20th june 1941
Dave - Essentially Personnel, including pilots and crews, were AAC while all else was AAF. They essentially transferred to an organization within AAF. Their serial number was an AAC artifact.The USAAC remained as a component of the USAAF between June 1941 and March 1942.
My two Uncles were fighter pilots in the AAC prior to Pearl Harbor and were transferred to the AAF in late Spring of 1942.
Greg, unfortunately Wagner's table is filled with inaccuracies. including victory credits and air losses when compared to USAF 85 and MACR compilation.
Although Wagner does not cite the Statistical Digest in Mustang Designer for his comparatve victory totals P-51 vs P-38 vs P-47, it is most likely source.Wagner's table does however match pretty closely when compared with the USAAF Statistical Digest. The same is the case for Wagner's table for bomber stats. So where ever he got his numbers from there is some similarity with what was recorded in the Statistical Digest.
SD | SD | SD | SD | SD | 8th AF | 8th AF | 8th AF | 9th AF | Diff- |
Month | Total | Escort | Bomb etc. | Other | Escort | Rodeo, Sweep etc. | ASR | All | erence |
Jan-44 | 7,167 | 6,080 | 201 | 886 | 5,946 | 669 | 0 | 370 | 182 |
Feb-44 | 10,679 | 10,295 | 83 | 301 | 8,738 | 274 | 0 | 1966 | -299 |
Mar-44 | 16,261 | 14,659 | 887 | 715 | 10,810 | 539 | 0 | 5080 | -168 |
Apr-44 | 21,554 | 14,072 | 3,803 | 3,679 | 11,431 | 2,811 | 0 | 7914 | -602 |
May-44 | 36,210 | 26,091 | 6,405 | 3,714 | 14,108 | 1,637 | 248 | 21074 | -857 |
Jun-44 | 55,460 | 27,970 | 11,320 | 16,170 | 13,747 | 11,716 | 442 | 29990 | -435 |
Jul-44 | 42,953 | 20,577 | 9,098 | 13,278 | 15,420 | 2,492 | 299 | 24773 | -31 |
Aug-44 | 45,827 | 23,793 | 4,524 | 17,510 | 13,356 | 6,440 | 266 | 26037 | -272 |
Sep-44 | 33,685 | 13,531 | 11,056 | 9,098 | 9,800 | 5,041 | 148 | 18879 | -183 |
Oct-44 | 29,881 | 15,659 | 11,731 | 2,491 | 13,103 | 453 | 337 | 16540 | -552 |
Nov-44 | 30,120 | 19,082 | 7,542 | 3,496 | 12,471 | 1,613 | 296 | 12829 | 2,911 |
Dec-44 | 35,487 | 15,723 | 12,940 | 6,824 | 13,563 | 641 | 223 | 15953 | 5,107 |
Total | 365,284 | 207,532 | 79,590 | 78,162 | 142,493 | 34,326 | 2,259 | 181,405 | 4,801 |
Time | Fighter | HB Support | Ftr/Bmb | Ftr/Bmb escort | Sweep&Other |
1942/43 | P-38 | 1158 | 0 | 0 | 299 |
1942/43 | P-47 | 16233 | 117 | 283 | 10052 |
Jan-44 | P-38 | 941 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Jan-44 | P-47 | 5020 | 253 | 397 | 4 |
Feb-44 | P-38 | 1432 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Feb-44 | P-47 | 7008 | 83 | 65 | 0 |
Feb-44 | P-51 | 424 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Mar-44 | P-38 | 1813 | 0 | 0 | 95 |
Mar-44 | P-47 | 7015 | 69 | 139 | 187 |
Mar-44 | P-51 | 1982 | 0 | 0 | 49 |
Apr-44 | P-38 | 1993 | 578 | 161 | 343 |
Apr-44 | P-47 | 6118 | 129 | 206 | 680 |
Apr-44 | P-51 | 2895 | 114 | 62 | 413 |
May-44 | P-38 | 2969 | 35 | 0 | 208 |
May-44 | P-47 | 4380 | 470 | 143 | 0 |
May-44 | P-51 | 6502 | 161 | 73 | 338 |
Jun-44 | P-38 | 2757 | 743 | 149 | 3696 |
Jun-44 | P-47 | 3861 | 485 | 81 | 2931 |
Jun-44 | P-51 | 6958 | 204 | 8 | 3277 |
Jul-44 | P-38 | 2927 | 3 | 0 | 687 |
Jul-44 | P-47 | 3928 | 193 | 111 | 919 |
Jul-44 | P-51 | 8281 | 0 | 0 | 529 |
Aug-44 | P-38 | 815 | 0 | 0 | 567 |
Aug-44 | P-47 | 2420 | 82 | 22 | 3196 |
Aug-44 | P-51 | 9844 | 10 | 12 | 2482 |
Sep-44 | P-38 | 348 | n/a | n/a | 335 |
Sep-44 | P-47 | 1265 | n/a | n/a | 2478 |
Sep-44 | P-51 | 7943 | n/a | n/a | 2123 |
Oct-44 | P-38 | 26 | n/a | n/a | 0 |
Oct-44 | P-47 | 2594 | n/a | n/a | 75 |
Oct-44 | P-51 | 10164 | n/a | n/a | 362 |
Nov-44 | P-47 | 1821 | n/a | n/a | 383 |
Nov-44 | P-51 | 10414 | n/a | n/a | 1197 |
Dec-44 | P-47 | 1365 | n/a | n/a | 0 |
Dec-44 | P-51 | 12081 | n/a | n/a | 641 |