Super vrs Uber

[Debonair]

I just recently read Major General Benjamin D. Foulois' autobiography, he was in charge of the USAAC at the time of the B-15/B-17s development.  According to his book, he was trying to modernize the army's strategic bombing capability, but was having a time funding an offensive weapon.  By calling it a long range anti-shiping coastal defense type project he had better luck

[Squire]

Its interesting regarding the B-17, that one of its earliest missions in WW2 was attacking the IJN Fleet off Midway in June 1942.

Of course it was a total failure, as you point out, level bombing of ships was not really a practical idea, you needed dive bombers to hit a moving ship at 30knots, that was weaving.

Did De Havilland really envision cannon on the Mossie originally? I mean, I know there was room, but night fighters were still very much a new idea in 1940/41, and I know the 1st Mossies were all bombers with glass noses.

[Karnak]

Yes, the Mossie was designed as a multi role aircraft from relatively early in it's design process.

Page 34 of Mosquito by C. Martin Sharp & Michael J. F. Bowyer, ISBN 0 947554 41 6 is from the opening chapter describing the designing of the Mossie.  It includes the following:

R. E. Bishop, the Chief Designer, with an eye to basic versatility, all the time made sure that there would be space beneath the cockpit floor for four 20 mm. cannon.
At this stage two cases had to be reconfigured for the Air Ministry:
(a) Three-man bomber with third crew member aft of the wing having windows to look rearward and downward, and a load of 2 X 500 lb. or 4 X 250 lb. bombs, which could be replaced in a fighter version, by four 20 mm. cannon, ammunition drums to be changed by the wireless operator.
(b) Two-man fighter-reconnaissance aircraft with crew in tandem, four 20 mm. guns or three F24 cameras; to ensure a good view the pilot would sit over the wing.

As can be seen from the cases being made and how different they are from what materialized you can see that the space for the cannon was always planned.

[EdXCal]

OttoJ, the battle info, you said you couldn't remember the number of Russian aircraft that were lost you only knew there was alot of loses, well I said 7,000 aircraft within the first we months, well, I looked it up to conferm that number, gotta keep up that historical accuracy.

Edward

[Squire]

Interesting, I thought it was a later idea, as was the case with many other a/c converted to night fighter or attack duties.

[Crumpp]

OttoJ, the battle info, you said you couldn't remember the number of Russian aircraft that were lost you only knew there was alot of loses, well I said 7,000 aircraft within the first we months, well, I looked it up to conferm that number, gotta keep up that historical accuracy.

You do know many of those were destroyed on the ground and did not count toward aerial victories.

Good series on the Air War in the East is "Black Cross, Red Star".

Here is comparisons with the Western Front:

http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm


All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Here's a better one.
The LW only lost some 2000 aircraft on the eastern front in 1944!

[Kurfürst]

Yep, from what I see on that site is they had a staggerly low, 0.7% loss per sortie rate.... not for one fast type, but for all types! But keeping in mind the vast aeras of the Eastern Front, fighter coverage was nowhere near as dense as on the West, on neither side. Neither there was radar network for the russians (the LW made some use of it`s mobile radar stations, ie. kursk), making interceptions quite unlikely unless they bumped into each other or unless fighters reacted quickly to ground observer's alert.

[Kurfürst]

BTW, check out this Russian site for Soviet Air Force losses :

http://pkka.narod.ru/airlosses.htm
24 800 Soviet aircraft were lost in 1944, 9700 in combat!

[Charge]

"The LW only lost some 2000 aircraft on the eastern front in 1944!"

AFAIK that was not because they were "so good" but more like because they were so few of them and they were stretched on a too long front. And because of their small numbers they (fighters) flew mostly in pairs only and engaged very cautiously. Thus the victories kept massing to experten and the losses remained low. But that was, in a way, also a sign of the coming defeat in the east.

-C+

[OttoJespersen]

Originally posted by Charge
"The LW only lost some 2000 aircraft on the eastern front in 1944!"

AFAIK that was not because they were "so good" but more like because they were so few of them and they were stretched on a too long front. And because of their small numbers they (fighters) flew mostly in pairs only and engaged very cautiously. Thus the victories kept massing to experten and the losses remained low. But that was, in a way, also a sign of the coming defeat in the east.

-C+

Two thirds of the Luftwaffe's total strength was deployed in the east. In 1944 the Germans produced 12,807 bf109's alone, then add the Fw's and the various other aircraft deployed in the East.

[Angus]

Well on the eastern front the LW really had success, and LW veterans have often said that it was tougher in the air on the western front. (Apart from the side that the russians often executed POW's). So, this sticks out even better if 2/3 of the LW are on the eastern side while their losses are more on the western side.

[OttoJespersen]

Yup. In the west they had to fly higher, were outnumbered, and was forced to fly defensively by their RoE. In the east the battle was in low to medium altitude (in support of ground forces), and the numbers and RoE were more even.

[Meyer]

Originally posted by OttoJespersen
Two thirds of the Luftwaffe's total strength was deployed in the east..

That could be true until Kursk.... after that most of the Lw planes (specially the fighters) were in the west...

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html

[Bruno]

Well on the eastern front the LW really had success, and LW veterans have often said that it was tougher in the air on the western front. (Apart from the side that the russians often executed POW's). So, this sticks out even better if 2/3 of the LW are on the eastern side while their losses are more on the western side.

The LW had 'real success' in the West. Not only against bombers but fighters as well.

30 LW pilots 'out scored' the top Ami pilot, this only considering their scores against Ami aircraft.

Eder scored 56 kills against the Amis alone; twice the number of the top Ami.

Not to mention the number of  100 kill Experten scored against Western Allied aircraft. The top LW Spitfire killer, Priller, shot down 68 Spits...

What made the West difficult was the objectives the LW was tasked with, that is stopping allied bombers. In the East the VVS was used in conjunction with ground forces and its objectives mostly were ground targets. This gave the LW the advantage. In the West with the majority of the LW were going after bombers this gave the Allied escort fighters the initiative etc...

Not to mention the steady build up or pilots and equipment as the war progressed:

On 6 June 1944, the Allies had a total of 13,000 aircraft ready to support the Normandy invasion. The Luftwaffe had 1,300 aircraft at its peak (reached on 10 June) in France.

 Many LW pilots say the VVS pilots, especially later in the war, were better 'fighters'.

I often found myself alone pursued by eight or ten Mustangs, and was able to survive only by mobilising all my flight skills, twisting and turning around small woods and church towers in low-level flight. I was aided by the lacking skills on behalf of the American pilots, since each one of them wanted to shoot me down, and thus they blocked each other.

Major Hans-Ekkehard Bob Kommodore JG 3

 Despite all the nonsense some of the top scorers in the East scored the majority of their kills post '43...

Fighter Combat in the East and in the West - A Comparison