WWII Fighter Combat Statistics (2 Viewers)

[Reluctant Poster]

So, I wouldn't be too hard on the early P-47s that went over there. Saying they did almost nothing through 1943, when they actually contributed 414 of 451 claims is a bit disingenuous. It actually means that the P-47 contributed 91.8% of the claims. Does that mean all the other fighters were dogs and not worthy of mention? I don't think so. It rather means we were getting our collective feet wet in actual combat and it took some time to develop the skills and tactics to be successful at it. If I recall, the the Brits went into the war flying the Vic combat formation and it took some time for them to convert to the finger four formation with wingmen for each element leader. They learned that from the Germans, who developed it in Spain, unless I misremember.

I agree that the P47 groups were going through a learning experience. My point is that while the P47s were making 91.8% of the USAAF claims in the ETO that wasn't where most of the damage to the Luftwaffe was being done. The centers of gravity for the Luftwaffe in 1943 were the Mediterranean and the Russian front. The claim however is often made that the P-47s took out the Experten leaving a cake walk for the P-51. That is what I have an issue with. All sorts of aircraft from the Soviets and British and yes even the French as well as the Americans wore down the Luftwaffe over a long period of time.
Its statements like this one from Icorps1970 that I have an issue with
"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."
The P-47 did not decimate the highly experienced Luftwaffe pilots.

 

[Simon Thomas]

As long as Greg is being discussed, has anyone seen his video on the Wright Brothers? He made a video responding to other YouTubers making a claim that the Wright weren't the first.
He disagreed.

Richard Pearse was able to achieve a powered take off and flight in March 1903. He made it ~12' in the air and flew for ~150 metres. He just failed the landing part.
Greg disputed the ability of this plane to fly, but did not mention that there was 21 witnesses who saw it fly.

Edit: Fixed spelling.

 

[Vincenzo]

for help others, like me searching more info, the correct surname is Pearse

 

[GregP]

I agree that the P47 groups were going through a learning experience. My point is that while the P47s were making 91.8% of the USAAF claims in the ETO that wasn't where most of the damage to the Luftwaffe was being done. The centers of gravity for the Luftwaffe in 1943 were the Mediterranean and the Russian front. The claim however is often made that the P-47s took out the Experten leaving a cake walk for the P-51. That is what I have an issue with. All sorts of aircraft from the Soviets and British and yes even the French as well as the Americans wore down the Luftwaffe over a long period of time.
Its statements like this one from Icorps1970 that I have an issue with
"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."
The P-47 did not decimate the highly experienced Luftwaffe pilots.

I haven't heard that one.

Sounds like a true P-47 fan making an attempt to put the P-51 down. Now, I like the P-47, but I like ALL fighters. There weren't any "bad" fighters because the bad ones weren't proceeded with and never made production, along with some of the good ones (think Heinkel He-100, perhaps He-112, and Martin-Baker MB-5, to name three).

 

[SaparotRob]

P-40, Hurricane, Swordfish and Wildcat just don't get no respect. Yeah, I know the Swordfish ain't a fighter.

 

[drgondog]

I have pointed this out before but will do so again. Before the arrival of the Merlin P-51 the P-47 had accomplished virtually nothing. According to the Statistical Digest the ETO fighter claims amounted to 451 to the end of 1943. Of these the P-47 contributed 414 with the rest divided among Spitfires, P-38s and P-51s. Note that up to the end of 1943 the P-47 was only serving in the ETO. To put this into persecutive the Luftwaffe had lost ~22,000 aircraft to operational causes up to the end of 1943. If you give the P-47 the benefit of the doubt and assume the claims are actual kills (I typically discount fighter claims at a ratio of 2:1) this places the P-47 contribution at a minuscule 2 percent. If any American fighter deserves credit for doing the "heavy lifting" it is the P40 and of course at lot of that was in RAF and Commonwealth AF service. The distruction of the Luftwaffe was a long drawn-out war of attrition starting with the Battle of France. I personally find these attempts to credit one aircraft (or air force) to be tiresome.

In fairness to the P-47, the combination of actually penetrating German airspace in July 1943, in combination with Blitz Week, was a shock to LW High Command, That combined with the devastation of Hamburg, then three weeks later at Shcweinfurt, got Speer's attention. It was in this timeframe that exerienced squadrons began transferring from Ost and Sud to Lwbh Mitte. Notably 159 victory credits in Fy 43 of the 1943 total 402 for P-47 (USAF 85/Olynyk) was followed by 144 in January 1944.

Caldwell's Table B of RLV Pilot losses for those three monhs totaled 395 KIA (Lwbh Mitte + LF3) of which the majority was Lwbh Mitte (338), reflecting the reinforcements and engagements.

While all the pilot losses were serious - with some attrition due to VIII BC - there were approximately 100 Bf 110s from Night Zerstroyer Gruppes that were downed with maority of that attrition due to P-47. Those crews were even harder to replace.Source - Caldwells "Luftwaffe in Defense of the Reich" with statistics summarzing Lwbh Mitte and LF 3 operations.

The only point of this dreary recitation is the the comment that P-47 accomplished virtually nothing is overstated. That P-47s 'broke the back of the LW experienced pilots is equally overstated. It should also be pointed out that RAF inflicted losses on LF3 are included in the above recitations

 

[SaparotRob]

Hey guys, Greg's trains, planes and automobiles (whatever) channel just put out a video about the B-26. I didn't watch it. I'm waiting for the Forum reviews.

 

[GregP]

The caption said "unsafe to land at any speed," but it wasn't. The culprit was the fact that the pilots of the day were used to low landing speeds and weren't flying airspeed. If you kept the B-26 at the correct airspeed, it was easy to fly and land. Get slow, and it developed a pretty good sink rate.

The airplane that made that famous is the T-38 / F-5. Get slow and you almost can't recover since you are low and slow in the landing pattern and don't have the altitude to recover.

 

[GrauGeist]

The caption said "unsafe to land at any speed," but it wasn't. The culprit was the fact that the pilots of the day were used to low landing speeds and weren't flying airspeed. If you kept the B-26 at the correct airspeed, it was easy to fly and land. Get slow, and it developed a pretty good sink rate.

The airplane that made that famous is the T-38 / F-5. Get slow and you almost can't recover since you re low and slow in the landing apttern and don't have the altitude to recover.

The B-26B variant had improved aerodynamics incorporated to address the low speed handling, but improved training earlier on, helped reduce the accident rate overall.

 

[Old Crow]

Hey guys, Greg's trains, planes and automobiles (whatever) channel just put out a video about the B-26. I didn't watch it. I'm waiting for the Forum reviews.

Knowing Greg he'll probably somehow work in the limited by bomber mafia, long range P-47, and how it broke the back of the LW, saving D-Day as he is prone to do. I'm not sure what the P-51 and NAA ever did to him to distort history so much. His followers love hearing it though as there is a lot of P-51 bashing on you tube right now. I highly doubt Greg or his P-47 loving followers have read "P-51 Mustang - Development of the Long-Range Escort Fighter" by Paul Ludwig or "P-51B Mustang - North American's Bastard Stepchild That Saved The Eighth Air Force" by James William Marshall. These two books heavily bruise his narrative concerning the ETO air campaign.

 

[GregP]

Just in case you don't know, James William Marshall is also Drgondog.

Personally, I like the P-47 a lot. It is a super fighter in many ways, but not quite the same ways as the P-51B/C/D/K are. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but both bring a lot to the table. It's a good thing we didn't decide to buy all of one and eliminate the other because they both had their very strong points that complimented one another.

Let's just say that if you were a German fighter pilot in a flight of four Bf 109s or Fw 190s, you might be in some difficulty whether you encountered P-47s OR P-51s. I'd hate to try to justify the claim that the German fighter pilot would prefer to encounter one or the other because whether or not there was trouble would depend more on whether or not the P-47s/P-51s saw him or didn't.

Ditto for whether the P-47s/P-51s would prefer to encounter Bf 109s or Fw 190s. Sort of depends on who was flying that day, whether or not they saw you, and also had fuel enough to fight.

Generally, if you ask a WWII pilot which airplanes he preferred to fight, he almost always chooses the one HE SHOT DOWN, and he almost never admits ... unless prodded ... that he got it from ambush. A significant number of shoot-downs never knew they were being attacked until they felt hits on their aircraft. Also, most fighter pilots will tell you the best fighter they know of was the one they flew, but most have little or no time in other fighters because they generally flew what their units were assigned and didn't get to sample the other fighters unless they somehow got lucky enough to do so. Most didn't.

 

[Old Crow]

Just in case you don't know, James William Marshall is also Drgondog.

Personally, I like the P-47 a lot. It is a super fighter in many ways, but not quite the same ways as the P-51B/C/D/K are. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but both bring a lot to the table. It's a good thing we didn't decide to buy all of one and eliminate the other because they both had their very strong points that complimented one another.

Let's just say that if you were a German fighter pilot in a flight of four Bf 109s or Fw 190s, you might be in some difficulty whether you encountered P-47s OR P-51s. I'd hate to try to justify the claim that the German fighter pilot would prefer to encounter one or the other because whether or not there was trouble would depend more on whether or not the P-47s/P-51s saw him or didn't.

Ditto for whether the P-47s/P-51s would prefer to encounter Bf 109s or Fw 190s. Sort of depends on who was flying that day, whether or not they saw you, and also had fuel enough to fight.

Generally, if you ask a WWII pilot which airplanes he preferred to fight, he almost always chooses the one HE SHOT DOWN, and he almost never admits ... unless prodded ... that he got it from ambush. A significant number of shoot-downs never knew they were being attacked until they felt hits on their aircraft. Also, most fighter pilots will tell you the best fighter they know of was the one they flew, but most have little or no time in other fighters because they generally flew what their units were assigned and didn't get to sample the other fighters unless they somehow got lucky enough to do so. Most didn't.

Thanks, yes I know James Marshall is Drgondog and I like the P-47 too, just not to the degree that others are willing to distort history for.

 

[33k in the air]

Knowing Greg he'll probably somehow work in the limited by bomber mafia, long range P-47, and how it broke the back of the LW, saving D-Day as he is prone to do.

Or maybe he'll say again the B-17 could have regularly carried as big a bomb load as the Lancaster without any problem if only the external bomb racks had been used on every mission. But the bomber barons didn't allow it for some (nefarious) reason.

 

[pbehn]

Knowing Greg he'll probably somehow work in the limited by bomber mafia, long range P-47, and how it broke the back of the LW, saving D-Day as he is prone to do. I'm not sure what the P-51 and NAA ever did to him to distort history so much. His followers love hearing it though as there is a lot of P-51 bashing on you tube right now. I highly doubt Greg or his P-47 loving followers have read "P-51 Mustang - Development of the Long-Range Escort Fighter" by Paul Ludwig or "P-51B Mustang - North American's Bastard Stepchild That Saved The Eighth Air Force" by James William Marshall. These two books heavily bruise his narrative concerning the ETO air campaign.

You dont actually need to read a lot, the theory is that the "bomber mafia" sacrificed huge numbers of their own people and aircraft to tarnish the reputation of a particular US fighter.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hey guys, Greg's trains, planes and automobiles (whatever) channel just put out a video about the B-26. I didn't watch it. I'm waiting for the Forum reviews.

He left out the part where Doolittle demonstrated it could take off on one engine.

 

[at ease]

Wonder where he managed to get the numbers when all of us seemingly haven't found them?

We have some lively discussions but, in here, we are chock full of air combat buffs, if nothing else. We may have some "discussions," but we are all looking for the real numers every time the subject come up. We should have run across those numbers if an author can find them, don't you think?

I try to find corroborating evidence any chance I get for the statement by F.K. Mason, but without any luck.

Post # 12 above was the first time I have seen it expressed clearly.

Thanks Slaterat.

I find it hard to believe that the Hurricane can be credited with a higher figure than the Spitfire.

Early on, yes.

Over the whole of WW2, no.

 

[PierreDeveaux]

Dear all,
Wishing to assemble a article/background notes about the Hawker Hurricane, I have been looking for WWII aerial victories per aircraft type (not the best this or that, just numbers). Thanks your pages, I managed to gather the required information about US Forces and the RAF but ... can't find the same for the FAA. Any suggestion about where to look for these ?
Incidentally, I observed the same kind of information regarding the Luftwaffe and the Imperial Japanese Air Forces (Army & Navy) didn't show up. Many thanks in advance !
Pierre Deveaux
Brussels - Belgium

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Dear all,
Wishing to assemble a article/background notes about the Hawker Hurricane, I have been looking for WWII aerial victories per aircraft type (not the best this or that, just numbers). Thanks your pages, I managed to gather the required information about US Forces and the RAF but ... can't find the same for the FAA. Any suggestion about where to look for these ?
Incidentally, I observed the same kind of information regarding the Luftwaffe and the Imperial Japanese Air Forces (Army & Navy) didn't show up. Many thanks in advance !
Pierre Deveaux
Brussels - Belgium

Have you tried Armoured Aircraft Carriers in World War II? They seem to be the best second-hand source on the FAA.

 

[PierreDeveaux]

Dear Thumpalumpacus,
Thanks for the suggestion. No, I hadn't but just gave it a quick glance a moment ago. If there is collated data over there, it's hidden somewhere "down in a hangar". Having said that, I never had visited them before and it's obvious there is a lot of fascinating reading to make there - THANKS A MILLION FOR THE SUGGESTION.
For the time being, the Hurricane "background note" is wrapped up and have switched to different (burial & family) matters but will HAVE TO come back to it using the suggested link. Friendly regards,
Pierre Deveaux - Brussels, Belgium

 

[GregP]

Yeah. Early on, there were more Hurricanes. But, in the end, they built about 14,500 Hurricanes and a little over 20,000 Spitfires.

An extra 6,000 Spitfires ought to more than compensate for getting to the fight a small bit later than the Hurricane. At least, it seems that way to me.