Spitfire Mk VIII

[Crumpp]

The 109s and 190s quit playing after the 20th.

It most certainly was not because of the performance of the Spit XII.

If I was signifcantly outnumbered in the air and charged with defending the ground troops, I doubt I would lose all my altitude to come after some fighters.

More likely I would save it and try to find the ground attack units flying planes which could carry enough ordinance to do some damage.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Crumpp
It most certainly was not because of the performance of the Spit XII.

If I was outnumbered 10 to 1 in the air and charged with defending the ground troops, I doubt I would lose all my altitude to come after some fighters.

More likely I would save it and try to find the ground attack units flying planes which could carry enough ordinance to do some damage.

All the best,

Crumpp

I'd suggest it was both.  As the Spits performance caught up to the 190, any Spit bounced became more of a threat.  The odds weren't going to be as good that the 190 could totally control the fight.

The Spits were escorting bombers on the majority of the flights.  Looking at the logbooks for October 43-January 44, it's mainly escorts of USAAF Marauders and RAF Bostons and Mitchells.  The usual comment is "72 Marauders", or "36 Mitchells" etc.  The LW wasn't coming down to hit the bombers either.

Just as you talk about how 190 vets weren't worried about a single Allied fighter while flying the 190, the same would apply for the Spit IX and XII drivers as well as the Mustang, Jug and 38 drivers.  That confidence stuff plays a big role in how aggressive the pilots were.

I don't think there is any doubt that the Spit V drivers felt that lack of confidence when the 190 appeared and only got the confidence back with the arrival of the IX and the later Spits.

[Squire]

There was a kind of fighter pilot in WW2 that never gave a worry about the enemy, they were the ones that were posted as missing in action.

[Crumpp]

I'd suggest it was both.

Again,

It is not an assumption, feeling, my conclusion, or a guess.

The men who lived it say:  "I feared not allied fighter I could see in my Focke Wulf".  They also laugh if you talk about a "one on one" fight.  Generally speaking they were heavily outnumbered in the air in almost every engagement.

USAAF Operations on the 28 June 1944:

EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (ETO)

STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 445: 992 bombers and 638 fighters are dispatched to targets in France, Germany and Belgium; 2 bombers and 2 fighters are lost. 485 B-17s attack targets in France: 72 hit Laon/Couvron Airfield, 64 hit Juvincourt Airfield, 60 hit Laon/Athies Airfield, 36
hit Fismes bridge, 28 hit Denain/Prouvy Airfield, 24 hit targets of
opportunity, 20 hit Anizy le Chateau bridge, 19 hit Le Bourget Airfield and
18 hit the Dugny oil depot; 1 B-17s is lost, 1 damaged beyond repair and 99
damaged; 2 airmen are WIA and 9 MIA. Of 378 B-24s, 331 hit Saarbrucken
marshalling yards, 11 hit Florennes/Juzaine Airfield and 1 hits Givet Bridge;
1 B-24 is lost and 125 damaged; 8 airmen are WIA and 10 MIA. Escort is
provided by 188 P-38s, 169 P-47s and 231 P-51s; they claim 1-0-0 Luftwaffe
aircraft; 1 P-47 and 1 P-51 are lost (pilots are MIA) and 2 P-51s damaged
beyond repair. About one-third of the escorting fighters afterward bomb and strafe transport targets, claiming 3 locomotives and an armored vehicle destroyed.
  30 of 50 P-47s fly a fighter-bomber mission against La Perthe Airfield
without loss.
  18 B-24s fly CARPETBAGGER missions in France.

  TACTICAL OPERATIONS (Ninth Air Force): 220+ fighters, based in France, attack railroad facilities, bridges, fuel and ammunition dumps, artillery,
troop concentrations, vehicles, and other targets;

Throw in 3 RCAF Spitfire wings and the 2nd TAF.......

356 sorties the Luftwaffe launched was not even a drop in the bucket towards a defense.

The day before, the 9th USAAF was able to launch 700+ fighters by itself!  

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

The Spits were escorting bombers on the majority of the flights. Looking at the logbooks for October 43-January 44, it's mainly escorts of USAAF Marauders and RAF Bostons and Mitchells. The usual comment is "72 Marauders", or "36 Mitchells" etc. The LW wasn't coming down to hit the bombers either.

Interesting because the Luftwaffe was clearly still dishing it out in that time period.  Granted they did not always attack every formation that intruded.  Doing so would have been a disaster.

In fact most Military Historians conclude the Luftwaffe still had air superiority over Europe during that time.  It was not until Feb-April 1944 timeframe that the air superiority passed to the allies.

I think you are trying to draw conclusions about individual aircraft performance from a tiny snapshot of the battlefield.  

Conversely, if he tries to defend everywhere, if he commits his forces piecemeal, if he fails to concentrate, he will lose -- and may even lose against a much smaller air force if the attacker outsmarts him.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/warden/wrdchp04.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

[Squire]

Thats all fascinating, and has nothing to do with the specific engagements that I focused on, which were between individual RCAF fighter units and the LW over the NORMANDY battle front, not the 8th Air Force over Germany. 8th AF claims are not included, or discussed, the book details specific LW units engaged on the French front, against 2nd TAF specifically. The author includes USAAF claims made in the same area for a complete overview where applicable. It details specific combats, gives the locations, the strengths, and the units involved, both RAF and LW.

Quoting OOBs and total sortie rates for the Allies does little to counter any of that. Its just general background.

If 443 Sqn meets a staffel (or two) from JG/2 in a peice of sky over Caen at 1445 hrs on June 15th, it matters little to either what the on paper OOB is, the battle will likely last less than 5 minutes, with both  sides probably spending no more than 90 minutes in the air total. It hardly matters in that fight if the 8th AF has 900 a/c over Berlin 30 minutes later, or that Bomber Command is sortying Lancs for a night raid to Hannover, or that the 9th TAC is flying Jabo with P-47s 20 miles south of them, or that Coastal Commands Mossies are strafing ships off Norway, or what Churchill is mixing with his scotch at 10 Downing.

[Crumpp]

Thats all fascinating, and has nothing to do with the specific engagements that I focused on, which were between individual RCAF fighter units and the LW over the NORMANDY battle front, not the 8th Air Force over Germany.

Squire,

It shows that there was a lot more to the action than just a few RCAF squadrons.  The RCAF had three Spitfire Groups involved in that action.

The Luftwaffe units involved that day fought quite a few more fights than you present.  Since you cited the entire Luftwaffe losses for the day, I thought we should examine the entire battle that day.  It is relevant.

Hardly a case of the allies being outnumbered.

It hardly matters in that fight if the 8th AF has 900 a/c over Berlin 30 minutes later,

Guess you did not read the part I highlighted about the several hundred 8th USAAF fighters joining the battle over beachheads.

In the "little" piece of sky the battles were fought were hundreds more allied fighters only a push of an RT xmit button away.  Which is exactly what the Luftwaffe veterans say happenend.  Generally speaking if they did happen to locally outnumber an allied unit in the air, it was not long before the air was swarming with other allied fighters who got the radio call.

That is the facts.  We correctly built up our strength to an overwhelming force and then applied it on the Luftwaffe.  Why some people want to paint a distorted picture is beyond me.

You actually picked one of the better days for the Luftwaffe as far as numbers go.  The majority of the 9th AF fighters were socked in due to weather and only 220+ got off the ground instead of the usual 700+.


All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Judging by the Luftwaffe claims for the day:

JaFü II. Jagdkorps/Lfl. 3:

28.06.44 Uffz. Faltin: 5 5./JG 11 P-38 OG-OH at 7.500 m. [Tournai-Ath] 07.40-50 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr.39

28.06.44 Hptm. Walter Krupinski: 192 Stab II./JG 11 P-38  NH-OH at 9.000 m. [Zottegem-Ath] 07.45 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr.27

28.06.44 Ltn. Clemens Walterscheid 3./JG 2 Spitfire UT-2.3 at 1.000 m. [Caen] 09.27 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr.158

28.06.44 Uffz. Erich Lindner: 2 7./JG 26 Spitfire  TT-9 at 3.2-3.500 m. [Bayeux-Caen] 11.21 Film C. 2027/II VNE: ASM

28.06.44 Obfhr. Wolfgang Schmitz: 6 Stab/JG 27 P-47 UU-1 at 1.200 [N.W. Caen] 11.35 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: ASM

28.06.44 Uffz. Knoblauch: 2 2./JG 1 Spitfire  UU Caen at 3.000 m. 17.20 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr.49

28.06.44 Uffz. Fritz Rathofer: 8 3./JG 1 Spitfire  UU-1.2.4.5: 3.000 m. [Caen area] 17.25 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr.55

28.06.44 Ltn. Hans-Gunnar Culemann: 14 7./JG 27 Mustang  UU-4 at 1.500 m. [S.W. Caen] 20.16 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr.164

28.06.44 Ltn. Adalbert von Lipcsey: 7 1./JG 27 P-47  UT-2-3: 1.200 m. [Tilly-sur-Seules] 20.20 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr.182

28.06.44 Uffz. Günther Wiegmann: 4 1./JG 27 P-47 UT-3: 1.000 m. [Tilly-sur-Seules] 20.22 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr.183

28.06.44 Uffz. Fritz Rathofer: 9 3./JG 1 Spitfire  BT-7.8: 1.5-2.000 m. [Le Teilleul/Domfront] 21.36 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: ASM

28.06.44 Oblt. Hiebl: 8 1./JG 11 Spitfire  BT-7.9/CT 1: 1.500 m. [Le Teilleul 180°] 21.38 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr.37

Supplemental Claims from Sources:

28.06.44 Obfhr. Karl-Otto Clauss: 2 Stab/JG 27 P-47 N.W.Caen 11.35 Reference: JG 27 List

28.06.44 Uffz. Rahner: 2 7./JG 51 Spitfire UU-1 to UU-5 Caen - Reference: JG 1 List f. 1211

28.06.44 Ofw. Jochim I./JG 11 Spitfire  BT-7 to CT-1 Domfront-Mayenne - Reference: JG 11 List f. 1211

28.06.44 Oblt. Raimund Koch: 22 * 8./JG 3 B-17 - - Reference: JG 3 List f. 504

Looking at the variety of aircraft encountered and location (Caen), I would say yours or the authors contention that the few cited RCAF squadrons inflicted the entire daily loss of the Luftwaffe on 28 June 1944 is highly suspect.

Without a doubt there were plenty of allied fighters in the sky.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Interesting because the Luftwaffe was clearly still dishing it out in that time period.  Granted they did not always attack every formation that intruded.  Doing so would have been a disaster.

In fact most Military Historians conclude the Luftwaffe still had air superiority over Europe during that time.  It was not until Feb-April 1944 timeframe that the air superiority passed to the allies.

I think you are trying to draw conclusions about individual aircraft performance from a tiny snapshot of the battlefield.  

 

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/warden/wrdchp04.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

I guess it depends on where the air superiority was. Clearly the USAAF was paying a heavy price with the 17s and 24s going to Germany at that time.  

I'm not trying to say one plane was superior to the other and that it impacted on the engagements.  I don't know that it's fair to say that the LW had air superiority over France.  I'd guess that Allied fighter range dictated that to some degree along with numbers.

That the Spit XII guys could go on 15-20 escort missions a month during that time frame and not see LW fighters does say something about what was going on though, wouldn't you agree?  Obviously because I've focused on the XII, it's the resource I have most handy in terms of pilots logbooks and mission records too.  

I can say, much as you say regarding the 190 drivers, is that the Spit XII drivers I got to know  saw it as the better of the two aircraft, whether by the numbers it was true or not.

[Guppy35]

BTW, lets please not do the air superiority argument again.  That one was a real pain last time

Kinda like everytime the Battle of Britain comes up around here

[Crumpp]

I can say, much as you say regarding the 190 drivers, is that the Spit XII drivers I got to know saw it as the better of the two aircraft, whether by the numbers it was true or not.

All I am pointing out is that the FW190 pilots felt the same about their aircraft.  

Speaking of the numbers, more than one former FW-190 pilot has told me "I don't care what your numbers say, My Focke was the fastest thing in the sky at treetop level."  

I guess it depends on where the air superiority was.

I don't want to get into that discussion either.  My date was picked from the USSBSR.
 
As for the pilot anecdotes, I think it is very easy when looking at an event in the weeds to forget about the surrounding forest.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Squire]

Im not painting anything a certain way, its you who gets all knotted up every time somebody dares cite an example of a Spit unit doing well. I said nothing about  "the allies fought outnumbered all the time, look I have proof". Show me where I said that, or implied that.  I simply illustrated some good combats they had in France.

Here is another good day, July 28th 1944, 2nd TAF lost 3 Spits.

"Altogether Spitfire pilots had claimed 25 destroyed, 3 probs and 27 damaged, the Mustang pilots of 65 Sqn adding one destroyed, 1 prob, and 1 damaged. US claims on this date ammounted to just 2 Bf 109s. II Jagdkorps lost at least 20 fighters possibly 23, JG2, JG3, JG 26, JG27 and JG53 all suffering multiple losses."

One excerpt: "401 Sqn undertook a sweep during which 24 Fw190s and Bf 109s were met east of Caen around 1550". - No other units were reported in the fight. When they were, the combat AARs mentioned them.

Nowhere in the combats outlined do they mention hordes of P-51s magically coming to their rescue that day (or any US fighters at all, in fact, in their area), nor did they in my previous examples either.  

In any case, like I say, you can get the books yourself, if you have a problem with them write Christopher Shores I guess, Im not the author.

[Angus]

Hehe this:
"They also laugh if you talk about a "one on one" fight. Generally speaking they were heavily outnumbered in the air in almost every engagement."

I remember some one-on-ones but truly they were rather the exception.
I also remember a squadron engaging a "gaggle of some 50 fighters or so" - P51 attacking LW fighters.

You know I've been peeking into the 24th of June 1944. Heavy fightings broke out into individual fights, and I know of some 1 on 1 and 1 on 2 engagements that day. Turning at treetop level and such.

[Crumpp]

its you who gets all knotted up every time somebody dares cite an example of a Spit unit doing well. I said nothing about "the allies fought outnumbered all the time, look I have proof". Show me where I said that, or implied that. I simply illustrated some good combats they had in France.

BS Squire.  You posted information trying to back the performance implications of Guppy anecdotes.

Your information obviously only takes into account one sides claims as it does not line up with any Luftwaffe data.    It has been my experience usually turn out differently when the other sides information is included.

Facts are if the Luftwaffe or any airforce for that matter are able to concentrate their forces to achieve numerical superiority on the correct target, they will win the battle.  Does not have anything to do with individual aircraft performance unless there is a huge technology difference.  That simply did not exist then unless we want to start discussing Jets.

As for your assertions that it was just a big "gang bang",

It's not my assertion, it is the doctrine of most of the worlds Air Forces.  The Force that achieves the "big gang bang" first wins.

BBS mythology to the contrary...

The "mythology" is your own invention and does not exist.   Maybe if you were not so paranoid someone might upset your game fantasy, you would be more inclined to discuss instead of attack.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Squire]

If you dont like the info in the book, get a freaking tissue.  

Its your little LW fantasy that they fought every single engagement in WW2 outnumbered, even in the BoB, and when somebody points out an actual source that doesnt agree with that you come apart.

Email your good buddy at the USAF museum again, im sure he can set us all straight.