Author Topic: Best Heavy Fighter  (Read 33913 times)

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #570 on: December 11, 2013, 02:53:18 PM »
& in the final 18 months there were more LW fighters available than at any previous time in the war, most units having been drawn back to Germany, including the 'experten' who were flying the newest equipment, plus the fanatical defenders of the fatherland, ready to fight to the death for their folk & Fuhrer..

The PTO, & even the Russian front was of a much lower intensity than the ETO.

There was never a 'Turkey Shoot' against the LW, & by Schweinfurt they had the 8th AF stalled
-'til the P-51 showed its stuff over Berlin in 'Big Week'..
 
& Bodenplatte  - surely -  ought to have been a 'T.S'., instead of an Allied embarrassment..
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #571 on: December 11, 2013, 03:12:46 PM »
My understanding was despite the increase in production through '44 in war equipment, the LW didn't have enough fuel so having the planes was useless.
Yeah, that's right, you just got your rear handed to you by a fuggly puppet!
==Army of Muppets==
(Bunnies)

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #572 on: December 11, 2013, 03:26:00 PM »
In mid `44 the LW shut down most bomber production & operations [ 'çept for JABOs & Jets],
& redirected [not altogether successfully] bomber pilots to the Jagdwaffe.

When the Allies did a post VE-day inventory they found fairly large stocks of av-gas,
- as well as planes.

& in fact,  the LW had finally started using their hi-test C3 juice in `109Ks & `190Ds to
enable higher boost/performance in their V 12s.
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline stealth

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1338
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #573 on: December 11, 2013, 03:27:24 PM »
P-51D has always served my preference for an air to ground fighter. I can fling bombs a mile with high accuracy. Rockets are amazing as well, I can fire all 6 off with direct hits before even being in range of auto ack. It doesn't prove to have the heaviest of loadouts though. For me it's all about being accurate, in any other aircraft for ground bombing it can prove difficult. Factor in how many seconds you can survive auto ack and other threats it can be difficult to have a definitive answer.
My Email is ACalex88@gmail.com if you want to contact me

"I shall fear no evil, for I am 80,000 feet and climbing"

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15737
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #574 on: December 11, 2013, 03:28:16 PM »
Both the LW and the Japanese had a shortage of experienced pilots by the later stages of the war.  That makes a huge difference.

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #575 on: December 11, 2013, 03:47:17 PM »
Fighter production is less important than actually getting those fighters in the air, and in combat.


I'll try and find some sources, but IIRC, in September of 1944 almost 30% of German fighters were inoperable due to lack of maintenance materials alone. Of those that were operational, fewer had the fuel to fly.


And again, you completely ignore the quality of the pilots. Drop the pilots from 1942 into the 1944 and '45 airframes, and the K/D ratio of every allied fighter in the ETO would plummet.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #576 on: December 11, 2013, 03:53:40 PM »
The pilot experience factor was a big thing.

The Allies ran 'tours' of ops for pilots, then rotated them out of combat, into support roles
whereas the Axis kept their pilots in service [with leave & course/promotion breaks]
until lost by death, injury or capture.

This meant that while the wartime standard of training was better for the Allies,
a disproportionate number of the really expert ace pilots,
 with hundreds of op sorties flown - were Axis.

The analysis of combat claims shows that experts/aces shot down most of the e/a
claimed, way out of proportion to their actual numbers in service.

This is part of the reason that they had higher victory totals too.

It is interesting to read combat reports which comment on A2A against these
aces & the obvious differences in impact they had.

The Axis AFs were ground down by sheer weight of numbers, but the technical
standards were highest in the ETO, which meant that it was real tough,
& the LW considered fighting the Soviet VVS a much lower intensity deal.

The fact that P-38 aces [& the USN] did so well in the PTO - also shows it was of a lower
technological level than the ETO, where only the best could make a real impression.
A surprising number of Axis aces survived the war.
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #577 on: December 11, 2013, 08:33:31 PM »
Wartime recognition film in early `44  of series one 486 NZ Squadron Tempest V.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKq51LdJ-ZU

Listen to those 24cyls purr.. & good - for 4,000 RPM  - in 540 mph Vne combat dives.
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #578 on: December 11, 2013, 08:33:45 PM »
Sure there was a large stock of avgas at the end of the war.



http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/ussbsoil.html

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #579 on: December 11, 2013, 08:46:16 PM »
Quote
& in fact,  the LW had finally started using their hi-test C3 juice in `109Ks & `190Ds to
enable higher boost/performance in their V 12s.

109s were using C3 fuel in late 1940.

When did the Jumo 213 start using C3 fuel?

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #580 on: December 11, 2013, 08:58:28 PM »
M.M., do try to post some data of what quantities were actually captured & assessed by the Allies,
post VE-day..

The graph does show stocks of ~100,000 tons in Feb '45,
- not much for thousands of thirsty turbo-charged radial ops daily perhaps,
but plainly enough for LW Jagdwaffe operations to continue 'til the end..

AFAIK, until the end of `44, C3 was reserved for BMW radials, since they needed it, & V12s didn't..

The V12s would make more boost/power/performance on C3 though.

There are documents relating to this on the www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o rg site,
& Barbi/Kurfurst has some on her site too..
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #581 on: December 11, 2013, 09:25:53 PM »
Incorrect. 109's began using C3 fuel in 1940, although they weren't running on it exclusively by any means. And the 801C engine, as used on the Fw 190A-1 and A-2, used B4 fuel, while the D2 as used on the A-3 through A-8.


And on the point of fuel reserves and Luftwaffe operations, while they continued, there certainly wasn't enough fuel for them to operate anywhere near to their maximum potential.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #582 on: December 11, 2013, 09:35:59 PM »
The USSBS is a US government document.

What Luftwaffe a/c were using radial turbocharged engines? There was a Fw190 that tried turbocharging but it never got past the experimental stage.

Bf109s were using C3 fuel from late 1940.

In late April 1945, some pilots from JG53 went to pick up some new Bf109s and their tanks were only half filled due to fuel shortage.

:x Kurfurst is now a female. When did he have a sex change operation?

Fw 190 D-9, Climb and Level Speed Performance with C3 Fuel (calculated estimate)

I didn't see any mention of C3 for 210001 and 210002.

Offline J.A.W.

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #583 on: December 11, 2013, 10:59:06 PM »
M.M., How many 109E's were operational in late `44? Or 190A3's T-A? Not many..

In normal ops up to end `44, V12s ran B4 & BMW radials C3,
& the BMW ADI used C3, not MW-50..

& Barbi is a girls name isn't it? L.o.l...

The USAAF had many thousands of thirsty turbo-charged radials flying over Germany,
-my point was, while ~100,000 tons wouldn't last long for them, it was enough for Jagdwaffe ops.

If particular LW airbases were having logistical supply difficulties in the last year of the war,
that is hardly a surprise, as the USSBS [& thanks for the excerpt, M.M.- now find the real deal],
pointed out..
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 11:08:13 PM by J.A.W. »
"Cybermen don't make promises..
Such ideas have no value."

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Best Heavy Fighter
« Reply #584 on: December 12, 2013, 01:27:55 AM »
M.M., How many 109E's were operational in late `44? Or 190A3's T-A? Not many..

In normal ops up to end `44, V12s ran B4 & BMW radials C3,
& the BMW ADI used C3, not MW-50..

Irrelevant, you made a factual error and I was correcting you.

Also, the end of '44 has nothing to do with C3 fuel usage in the early-mid war period.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"