Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on September 23, 2005, 11:21:29 AM
-
Gents,
I have a idea that I will probably be beaten over the head for even proposing but I have to ask because of the non-stop threads on 109's with 1.98 boost and Spits with 150 octane fuel. It seems to be a contest of who got the fastest prop plane into combat 5 minutes before the end of the war.
Based on this and what I (just my opinion) believe to be true.
1. The war in Europe was "Fate D'compli" after D-Day June 1944.
2. The War in Japan was really over after??? Some would say Midway 1942 but I would say after Iwo Jima or maybe even Okinawa. Call it 1944 to make it even.
3. Therefore all of the aircraft that really won the war were in service before this time. This means before, not like the D9, P-51D and others coming into service right before that time either and that would many late model aircraft in AH today.
Based on these points I would argue that after that time everything else needs to fall under a different catagory.
SUPER VRS UBER
This catagory includes many such as
109K
TA152
190D9
ME262
ME163
etc
However this catagory would also include
P-51H
F8F
F7F
P-80
Meteor
etc
Why?
Because all of these AC were in service by wars end and the ONLY differentiating factor is the fact the war was being fought in Germany and in Japan at that time and not in the US or Britian.
The only reason these AC did not see combat was because of
1.logistics- Spare parts, training, deployement etc.
2. Need- Why rush AC into service when the ones you have are doing fine.
3. German aircraft of this variety saw combat in proto-type aircraft with testpilots behind the controls. Corky Meyer (Grumman), Boone Guyton (Vought) , Tony LeVier (Lockheed) never had to worry about 109's or Zero's flying CAP over their fields.
I would luv to see my F4U-3 with a Turbo Supercharger flying 490MPH at 28K but the Japanese could not even fly at 350MPH TAS at that altitude so the F4U-1D was more than fast enough.
If you really want to know what was the best aircraft compare apples to apples and just use the best of the bunch. If you want to know what AC won the war you have to tone down the rhetoric a tad.
-
I agree that there is entirely too much emphasis on late 44-45 a/c, in general.
...However, the threads are just as long and hotly debated over BoB 1940, 1943 ETO or 1942 PAC when the subject comes up, and it does.
-
Aircraft that in my opinion won the war:
USA:
B-17E/F/G
B-24D/J
B-25
B-26B
C-46
C-47A
F4F-4
F4U-1
F6F-3
P-38F/G/H/J
P-47D-5
UK:
Beaufighter Mk X
Halifax Mk I/II/III
Hurricane Mk I/Mk II
Lancaster Mk I/III
Mosquito Mk IV/VI/IX/XIX
Spitfire Mk I/II/V/VIII/IX
Swordfish
Typhoon Mk I
Wellington Mk I/III/IX
USSR:
I-16/24
Il-2
La-5/5F/5FN
LaGG-3
MiG-3
Pe-2/2FT
Yak-1/7/9D/9T
If I read you right that is what you are talking about instead of F4U-4s, P-47Ns, Spitfire Mk XIVs, Tempest Mk Vs, La-7s and Yak-9UTs.
-
Indeed,
Maybe we should have a 1944 and 1945 theater where the best A/C of both sides could beat each others heads in.
Frankly I would like to see the P-51H and F8F vrs anything.
Also the P-80 would be a nice touch. The Meteor should definitely be in AH now.
-
This catagory includes many such as
109K
TA152
190D9
ME262
ME163
etc
The only reason these AC did not see combat was because of
3.German aircraft of this variety saw combat in proto-type aircraft with testpilots behind the controls.
All the above aircraft saw combat at the squadron level and were in 'squadron service', all have confirmed kills etc...
Not proto-types or by test pilots but by pilots at the squadron level.
I am not sure what difference this makes in regards to your post I just thought I would correct that.
YMMV
-
Originally posted by Bruno
All the above aircraft saw combat at the squadron level and were in 'squadron service', all have confirmed kills etc...
Not proto-types or by test pilots but by pilots at the squadron level.
I am not sure what difference this makes in regards to your post I just thought I would correct that.
YMMV
Let's be accurate...
The below aircraft were in deployed active duty squadron service when he war ended, they were not prototypes. They were combat ready aircraft. Meteors were shooting down V-1s long before Germany surrendered.
P-51H: Deployed to Iwo Jima August, 7 1945.
F8F: VF-19 deployed on the USS Langley, enroute to Japan at surrender.
F7F: Deployed with VMF(N)-533 on August 14, 1945.
Meteor: See above.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Let's be accurate...
?
What does anything in your post have to do with what I wrote?
Nothing, I responded to this:
3. German aircraft of this variety saw combat in proto-type aircraft with testpilots behind the controls.
Which as written is not necessarily correct.
I made no mention of the other planes listed in the orignal post.
-
Fait accompli
-
Hi Widewing,
I'd say F4UDOA put some of the Luftwaffe aircraft in the Über category for their performance, not for their late appearance :-)
>The below aircraft were in deployed active duty squadron service when he war ended, they were not prototypes. They were combat ready aircraft.
Note that they were ready only after VE day, so pitting them against Luftwaffe aircraft ready before VE day might still be a bit hard on chronology ;-)
However, I'm a great fan of "what if" scenarios, and I'd like to see all the late-war planes implemented, plus a number of promising early-war designs such as the Westland Whirlwind and the Fw 187 :-)
In fact, I'm still holding my breath for the Do 335 that was promised for Confirmed Kill in the Computer Gaming World 10 years ago!
About the coolest thing in flight simulation games was the historical availability of new aircraft types as the simulated war ran on, first implemented in Dynamix' Red Baron. Aces High doesn't feature such a concept, but it would be just perfect for bringing what-if-aircraft and überplanes into the mix just to see how good they really were.
>Meteors were shooting down V-1s long before Germany surrendered.
I wish Meteors were implemented!
Though the RAF didn't consider them completely combat-ready due to high-speed snaking problems, with a simulation that can model these problems there's no reason not to include the Meteor in the game. In the game, every player can then reach his own conclusion on how serious this handicap really was.
I mean, it's a game, not a virtual re-enactment session. It's supposed to be fun! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Bruno,
I seem to remember a story of un ungunned TA-152 taking on two Tempest causing one to crash?
If I am not mistaken it was from an experamental field. I sure someone can regurgitate that story from somewhere.
The point is the 109K does not have to fly at the absolute penultimate performance numbers that it ever achieved and either does the Spit XIV or P-51. The fact is that there were superior fighters in transit to the war zone with fresh pilots in large numbers on the way.
How many Ta-152's were built by wars end?
There were over 2,000 F4U-4's built by the end of hostilities and Goodyear had yet to build one.
The point is there is simply no point argueing about a couple inches of manifold pressure when these aircraft were on the edge of obsolenses by wars end.
-
The Spitfire gave a number of years of good service after WWII as well. It aged better than most fighters ever have.
But I think it was mostly a fluke that it did so.
-
I seem to remember a story of un ungunned TA-152 taking on two Tempest causing one to crash?
No it wasn't 'ungunned'. It was Willie Reschke and JG301. Yes it was already deployed to squadron service. Reschke and JG301 also engaged in combat with Yak 9us over Berlin shooting a few of them down.
The point is the 109K does not have to fly at the absolute penultimate performance numbers that it ever achieved and either does the Spit XIV or P-51. The fact is that there were superior fighters in transit to the war zone with fresh pilots in large numbers on the way.
Instead of dealing with speculation lets deal with what happened. That fact is the K-4 saw service, it and the pilots who flew it had 'confirmed kills'.
What K-4 (G-10 )does AH have that flies at 'penultimate performance'? There's no 1.98 ata or 2.03 ata Kurfurst in AH nor will there be (or should be).
How many Ta-152's were built by wars end?
Ta152H-0 Work Number: 150001 to 150020: production by Focke Wulf at Cottbus. (19)
Ta152H-1 Work Number: 150021 to 150040, 150167 to 15169: production by Focke Wulf at Cottbus. Many more Ta152 H-series planned but not build., although possible one Ta152H-2 build at Cottbus. (21/1)
Source: "Focke Wulf 190, Production Line To Frontline" by Malcolm V. Lowe
19 Ta152H-0´s,
21 Ta152H-1
1 Ta152H-2.
Ta-152s saw more combat then any of the allied planes you listed. If you want to speculate about what would have happened if the war in Europe didn't end then why stop there? We can speculate all sorts of other things.
IIRC at the time of introduction into AH the Ta-152 was never a plane folks asked for. Its not a plane that sees a lot of usage. It could disappear from the plane set and all but a few folks would give it a second thought.
The point is there is simply no point argueing about a couple inches of manifold pressure when these aircraft were on the edge of obsolenses by wars end.
No offense but you seem not to know much about LW aircraft. If you want to turn this into a thread about performance then we can but none of the LW planes you listed were or would have been 'obsolete' even compared to those 'super' allied aircraft you listed.
However, I am not arguing anything along those lines. I am correcting your claim that:
3. German aircraft of this variety saw combat in proto-type aircraft with testpilots behind the controls.
All those LW aircraft you listed were deployed into squadron service and had confirmed kills.
Hohun,
I wish Meteors were implemented!
616 Sqn received 2 Meteors Is on 12 July '44. By 2 Aug '44 they had 8. These were in 'service evaluation' and not fully deployed. They did fly sorties against V-1s shooting a couple down on 4 Aug '44. By Sept '44 the V-1 launch sites in Europe were over run and in total the Meteors only intercepted about 16.
Claiming that the Meteor was 'in service' well before the end of the war Europe is an exaggeration on the part of Widewing.
Meteor Is were never in 'full production'.
Beginning in Dec '44 the Marks IIIs (the first variant that can be considered as 'full production') entered production. After receiving Meteor IIIs in Jan '45 one flight from 616 Sdn was set up to defend against 262s for the 2nd TAF but saw no combat.
Sometime in April '45 616 Sqn even flew a few ground attack sorties but other then that saw no 'combat'.
I agree with Squire:
I agree that there is entirely too much emphasis on late 44-45 a/c, in general.
A lot of folks want the latest and 'bestest' late war wonderwaffe or Allied super plane. I for one would prefer more planes from before '44 on down. Even then I would prefer planes that most represent what was common at the the time rather then rare.
I am not sure how much influence the players have over the developers in deciding which planes get added to this game but even so it appears a lot of folks think WW2 air combat only revolves around the last 6 months of the war.
I am not to sure what this thread is about and I don't want to hijack it any more so I will leave it to you...
-
Bruno,
I recall that there was a dogfight between those Meteors and some Fw190s before some Spitfires arrived and chased the Meteors off thinking they were German (being jets and all).
While no kills were claimed by either side, both were trying to kill. That is combat by some measure of the word.
I do agree with you about the Meteor Mk I not being combat ready. The Meteor Mk III was really the first regular service version.
-
The 262 is far from being in the same "nearly made it" or "just made it" category as the Comet and Bearcat etc. The 262 entered limited production in September 1943. 262 fighterbombers of Erprobungskommando Schenk saw action in June 1944 against the Allied invasion, and the first documented air combat involving a 262 took place on 25 July 1944 when a Schwalbe pounced on an RAF Mosquito that barely managed to escape. One 262 was shot down near Brussels on 28 August 1944 by a pair of USAAF P-47 Thunderbolts, the first Me-262 to be lost to direct enemy action. Before the wars end more than 1400 262 were produced.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
There were over 2,000 F4U-4's built by the end of hostilities and Goodyear had yet to build one.
Two. Just two FG-4, not one.
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
The 262 is far from being in the same "nearly made it" or "just made it" category as the Comet and Bearcat etc. The 262 entered limited production in September 1943. 262 fighterbombers of Erprobungskommando Schenk saw action in June 1944 against the Allied invasion, and the first documented air combat involving a 262 took place on 25 July 1944 when a Schwalbe pounced on an RAF Mosquito that barely managed to escape. One 262 was shot down near Brussels on 28 August 1944 by a pair of USAAF P-47 Thunderbolts, the first Me-262 to be lost to direct enemy action. Before the wars end more than 1400 262 were produced.
These are squadron service dates not production / trial / proto-types:
Definately June / July '44 for Erprobungskommando 262...
D9 entered service with JG26 Sept '44
K4 / G-10 - Oct '44
G-6/U2 (+ MW50) May '44
G-6/AS* May '44
G-14 / G-14/AS* July '44
*AS (DB603 supercharger) engined 109s performed similiar to a G-10 at alt.
Me-163 Service (http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/units.htm)
All saw more combat then the F8F, F7F, P-51H, P-80 and Meteor combined.
-
I myself beleave that some of the lesser planes on many sides help out more then the 43-44 buntch. Say the P-40B through N, this plane held on every front till better planes came along, by no means was it a bad plane, just not nearly as good as the ones it fought! lol
The P-38 in all it's forms domonated the the PTO, though most would agree that this was a war turner.
I also beleave that aircraft like the Fw-190 changed the war, an outstanding fighter and a large suprise for the allies when it entered service. I think the germans would have had a tought time staying in the war with only the 109's and 110's.
What gets me the most if how many "what if" aircraft that endded up being crap in the long run for different reasons.
The P-39, I looked up it's history and it wasn't build as a ground attack fighter at all! It was build under the same rules as the P-38, a fast climbing bomber interecepter. It met those requirment (though that was without weapons and armor) but for a single engine plane for the time it would have been better then the 109's or possably most other single engine planes of the time!
Then the US government got its nasty little hands on it, removed it's turbo super charger because they said the air scoop on the side made to much drag, so they removed that all together, removed 2 squar feet of wing area and smothed down the aircraft. Total resault:
2 mph faster at low alt.
30 mph slower at 20K and above.
better low alt turning rate and far worse at high alt.
With this now new low alt performance the US though "why not make this a low alt ground attack fighter?" and they did.
Once armor, self sealing fuel tanks, pilot armor and all weapons an pylons added, the aircraft was 40mph under it's original speed, WAY out of balance and low alt only.
Think of it, if the government didn't get ther hands on the P-39, we could have gone into the war with a single engined mass build fighter able to match the Zero, 109, spit and yaks on it's own ground at the start of the war... Ahh, that would have been beautiful.
Now that might have been a war turner had it been given a real chance, which the performance it was suppost to have didn't really hit the battlefield till the P-39Q-20 and the P-63 Kingcobra, which were both good planes we just didn't need them by the end of the war with all the other aircraft in production so we sent them to russa where they kicked ass!
But they needed a low alt fighter there, good tank buster too with that 37mm cannon.
I just almost cry when I think of what the aircobra could have been. But I can dream can't I? lol
Edward
-
The top Allied 'Ace' flew P-39s...
-
Which aces? The top US Aces flew the P-38's and P-51s.
Edward
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Bruno,
I recall that there was a dogfight between those Meteors and some Fw190s before some Spitfires arrived and chased the Meteors off thinking they were German (being jets and all).
While no kills were claimed by either side, both were trying to kill. That is combat by some measure of the word.
I do agree with you about the Meteor Mk I not being combat ready. The Meteor Mk III was really the first regular service version.
I think you will find that the Spits attacked the Meteors as the Meteors were manuevering to attack the Fws. Spit logic > 2 jets engines = 262
EdXCal, the Soviets were part of the Allies.
-
Soviet (allied) aces flew the P-39. Many of them did anyways.
-
Oh lord, here comes yet another month's rendition of the "Give me the P80, Bearcat and P51H" becaudse the axis were loosing the war in 1945 thread...
If we are to take the thread starters ridicuous premise at face value then apparently all of the 700 Bf109K4 produced by Christmas 1944 were all prototypes that only saw combat because rampaging P51s and P47s bounced the LW test pilots on facxtory tesrt flights of the 700 Bf109K4 prototypes produced by Christmas 44.
:rofl
-
Hi Bruno,
>A lot of folks want the latest and 'bestest' late war wonderwaffe or Allied super plane.
That's true, and I'd say it means that it makes sense commercially to implement these planes into Aces High :-)
Aces high is set in the WW2 era because that's the era when propeller fighters ruled the skies. However, the peak of propeller fighter performance was reached shortly after WW2, and I don't see any reason not to extend the scope of the game towards a broader perspective if the customers are asking for it.
>but even so it appears a lot of folks think WW2 air combat only revolves around the last 6 months of the war.
Well, without an RPS, in-game air combat does indeed only revolve around the last 6 months of the war. I'm sure that with an RPS, the pre-1945 aircraft would get more attention from the players, but on the other hand I'm sure that this wouldn't stop the interest in the peak performance planes either.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
No plane can be more 'Super' than the Brewster BW-239.
No matter how you look at it, its combat record with the FAF is beyond comparison.
-
I know Russa was part of the Allies, I'm asking for names.
The P-39 only faired well on the eastern front, and still only to a limited amount! Against the early 109s I heard it had done well, but by the time the Fw190's came out it was very out classed.
Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of the P-39 but it's combat record is still not very good. It had to many flaws, and by the time they were worked out in the N, Q and P-63 there were already better aircraft flying in it's place.
But I've noticed allot of people not liking HTC's chose of aircraft to remodel, allot my old squad mates want the F4u's remodeled and I beleave the N1K needs it more then any other model in this game! (God it's ugly, it hardly even looks like an N1k) But I finallly cought on, it's all ETO aircraft, but with that being the case why didn't they remodel the Ta-152 when they remodeled the Fw190's?
Edward
-
Originally posted by EdXCal
I know Russa was part of the Allies, I'm asking for names.
The P-39 only faired well on the eastern front, and still only to a limited amount! Against the early 109s I heard it had done well, but by the time the Fw190's came out it was very out classed.
Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of the P-39 but it's combat record is still not very good. It had to many flaws, and by the time they were worked out in the N, Q and P-63 there were already better aircraft flying in it's place.
The P-39 had a good combat record, not only in east with Soviets but with the 'western allies' as well (maybe not in kill totals but it was used quite effectively in New Guinea for example).
Top 5 Soviet Aces who flew the P-39:
Aleksandr Pokryshkin 59 kills / 48 in P-39s
Nikolay Gulaev 57 kills / 41 in P-39s
Grigori Rechkalov 56 kills / 50 in P-39s
Dimitriy Glinka 50 kills / 41 in P-39s
Vladimir Bobrov 43 kills / ? in P-39s
-
Well, once again, in Russa it did well, in Afriica (which I beleave it was used in limited numbers) it did horrably, agains the japs the P-400 (a british P-39D given on lend-lease taken back by the US) was known as "The P-40 with a 0 (zero) on it's tail." The plane was almost a joke against the japs.
In fighter combat the engine was often the first thing to go do to most fighter shots being from the tail. Do to this though crew servivabliaty was very high, the engine took the damage, not the pilot. In the ETO it's kill to lose was 1 to 3!!! It did horrably! But in ground attack it was outstanding.
But on the eastern front at frist from what I've read it started out horrably do to balance problems, the CG was to far back, the aircraft would often fall into a very deadly flat spin, so tight flat and vertical turns were limited.
But the Russians figured that out fast, they removed the .30 cals from the wings, they'ed removed some pilot armor and often fuel tanks aswell! Thats when it really started to show it's true colors! And if you read into it the Russians didn't even use the P-39 for ground or AT attack, though other countries found it useful in this role (Read into the development of the game Il-2 they talk all about it from the russian pilots they used to test the game) the Russians found it to be a great fighter below 10k, but only on the russian front did you find such low alt fighting on a normal bases.
So the plane was crap with the way it entered service, but once touched up like all combat aircraft of ww2 it became a good fighter, but only in the hands of russians. To the US on the other hand it wasn't worth there time, it flew in africa and italy, but were almost only used for ground attack. (I've have one of those walk around books on the history on the P-39)
The US had other, better aircraft already in service, so upgrades to the P-39 were limited.
HAH! I found my book on fighter sorties in the ETO! (wow it's worse then I thought)
ETO 1942-45:
P-39:
Number of Sorties: 30,547
Bomb Tonnage: 121
Aircraft lose in combat: 107
Enemy aircraft destroyed in air: 14
Enemy A/C destoryed on ground: 18
So thats roughly a 1-9 kill ratio, every 9 P-39's shot down they would destroy an aircraft in the air and an aircraft on the ground.
Yet as said before in the hands of the russians it was outstanding. Mmm, I love stats.
But the whole point I was trying to make in the first place was, what if the P-39 was built to specs!!! The way the Yp-39 was, it could have been the best fighter at the start of the war, it might have even been the US's Me-109! Who knows, I was just saying, I would have liked to have seen that.
And on that subject, theres a game called Targetware, I'm thinking of making a prototype or "what if" mod for it. I think that would be great, all the aircraft that other games won't add, we could just make them our selves! Anyone interested?
Edward
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Oh lord, here comes yet another month's rendition of the "Give me the P80, Bearcat and P51H" becaudse the axis were loosing the war in 1945 thread...
If we are to take the thread starters ridicuous premise at face value then apparently all of the 700 Bf109K4 produced by Christmas 1944 were all prototypes that only saw combat because rampaging P51s and P47s bounced the LW test pilots on facxtory tesrt flights of the 700 Bf109K4 prototypes produced by Christmas 44.
:rofl
hmmm ... I proposed one time to enable the late war Germand plane to people having logged either less than 30 hour in AH or more than 2000 :D
-
Boy did this thread take a dump.
I find it humorous that there is at least one new thread a week trying to get the 109K to fly at just one more inch of manifold pressure and then maybe it will be as uber as it is supposed to be. Or maybe if it just rolled a little better, or dived a little better.
You might as well call this game "Desperate Frolines" with all of the week attempts to bleed a little more performnce out of outdated airplanes. The 109 was at it's end in 1943 let alone 1945.
Give it rest already:cry
-
The two allied aircraft this thread clearly applies to are the meteor and the F7F. The meteor was in active service...simply in a specific role that did not provide for air to air combat. The F7F was accepted for operational deployment in May 1944. So it was "on the books" as an operational airframe at the same time as any other "mid 1944" ride. It is the anomaly of the war, a plane that would have dominated on either front and been the premier fighter of the war was simply left on the shelf.
-
I find it humorous that there is at least one new thread a week trying to get the 109K to fly at just one more inch of manifold pressure and then maybe it will be as uber as it is supposed to be. Or maybe if it just rolled a little better, or dived a little better.
Those threads are started by the same person, one who doesn't even play AH. Not everything discussed in this section of the forum directly relates to how a plane is or should be modeled in a game.
Either way those threads are a whole different line of discussion then wanting planes that saw no combat at all in WW2 included in AH.
The 109 was at it's end in 1943 let alone 1945.
Maybe you should educate yourself a bit.
fyi...
What's a 'frolines' (honestly)?
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
You might as well call this game "Desperate Frolines" with all of the week attempts to bleed a little more performnce out of outdated airplanes. The 109 was at it's end in 1943 let alone 1945.
Give it rest already:cry
Yes it must be embarrassing that the "outdated" 109 could outperform the F4U in every respect except fuel endurance. No wonder you're desperately trying to get post-war planes included in the game.
-
Otto,
Really? Take a 1943 F4U-1 and a 1943 109G and see if you can outrun it? Now try turning or diving.
You can climb but that is it.
I am not trying to get any postwar F4U's introduced into AH. There is no need, the entire game of Aces High Almost shut down because a simple F4U-1 from 1943 with 4 20mil cannons brought the MA to it's knees until it had to be perked.
Bruno,
I have been playing this game since the Beta in 1999. You should take some time to educate yourself.
-
Tempest V
Spit XIV
F4U-4
P-47N
P-51D
La-7
I think the allies have their share of good late war fighters (almost all perked). As for the Meteor F.III, it would be fun to fly them vs the Me 262, but there are so many other planes AH needs 1st.
Personally I think the Me163 was a mistake to add, I would have put in an axis prop bomber or something to fill out the Russian plane set before adding a rocket fighter?, but I guess it has sex appeal, and that sells subscriptions. Just my 2 cents.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
The top Allied 'Ace' flew P-39s...
The Top Allied ace flew Lavochkin's........... the 2nd highest Allied Ace flew P-39's
-
The F4U was, in my opinion, the best all round fighter to see active service in WWII. Doesn't mean it is my favorite fighter, but it was dang good.
The Bf109 did not age particularly gracefully. Well trained and experienced pilots could still use it to tremendous success, but for new pilots being thrown into combat in it things were much harder.
The Spitfire aged a bit better, but with the Griffon engined marks it can be felt that the airframe is giving all it has.
Designs like the Fw190, F4U, P-51 and Tempest clearly had more potential than did the Bf109 or Spitfire, and this can be seen in the post war development of the F4U and Tempest series in particular.
-
Many flew Yaks.
Damn I forgot the Yak-9U. I love that plane.
-
I have been playing this game since the Beta in 1999. You should take some time to educate yourself.
What's your time playing a game have to do with your lack knowledge about the 109 series?
I am not trying to get any postwar F4U's introduced into AH. There is no need, the entire game of Aces High Almost shut down because a simple F4U-1 from 1943 with 4 20mil cannons brought the MA to it's knees until it had to be perked.
That's nonsense, the Chog was perked because every other player in the main was flying one (near 20% of kill totals). It wasn't perked based on aircraft performance but because of the hizookas alone is made it popular...
Its not at '43 plane at that...
Even this statement is incorrect...
Take a 1943 F4U-1 and a 1943 109G and see if you can outrun it? Now try turning or diving.
Don't confuse how AH only models a 109G-6 with a max speed of 385mph with real life, or assume that the only '43 109 was G-6.
As I said get yourself an education, as any anyone can see by your replies you just make one thing up after another...
You still haven't told me what a 'frolines' is?
Tilt,
The Top Allied ace flew Lavochkin's........... the 2nd highest Allied Ace flew P-39's
That's correct, I worded my point incorrectly...
Karnak,
The F4U was ok, but nothing special even in the Pacific.
The Bf109 did not age particularly gracefully. Well trained and experienced pilots could still use it to tremendous success, but for new pilots being thrown into combat in it things were much harder.
Complete Myth. Nachwuchs flying any plane had a rough time not just those in 109s. New 190 pilots didn't have a longer a life expectancy then a new 109 pilot. This was due to overwhelming superiority of Allied numbers not aircraft design. The G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4 were all contemporary aircraft with all the late war Allied aircraft.
-
Bruno,
You rather come across as a wee bit biased in favor of the Bf109 as it is your pet aircraft. My pet aircraft would be the Mossie, Spit and Ki-84, none of which do I insist are the best or fully competitive with the late war fighters. This may sound natural to you as you think less of them compared to your favorite, but I see it as a more realistic view. The fact is that the Spitfire and Bf109 were pushing the end of their development capacity in the Bf109K-4 and Spitfire Mk XIV. A little more could be done, but both were having performance issues already in those forms. Both suffered from high aileron forces at high speeds, the Bf109 also suffered high elevator forces at high speeds and the Spitfire had serious issues with wing warping and aileron reversal. They are both great and classic aircraft, but they were really being pushed at the end.
"froline" is almost certainly a misspelling of "frauline", the German word for a young, or unmarried woman.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Bruno,
You rather come across as a wee bit biased in favor of the Bf109 as it is your pet aircraft.
Heh this is a wee bit of an understatement .:D
Bronk
-
Hi Karnak,
>"froline" is almost certainly a misspelling of "frauline", the German word for a young, or unmarried woman.
Ouch :-) It's phonetically correct, more or less, but I didn't recognize it.
Fräulein = Miss
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
I had a feeling I was butchering it too, but I figured I could get closer. German was 10 years ago and my memory of it is spotty at best.
-
Bruno,
You should check your home for a gas leak.
Froline is a mispelling, I think you can figure it out, your a bright boy.
What's your time playing a game have to do with your lack knowledge about the 109 series?
It has to do with you saying I don't play the game. You are wrong allot for an Uber Mensh.
That's nonsense, the Chog was perked because every other player in the main was flying one (near 20% of kill totals). It wasn't perked based on aircraft performance but because of the hizookas alone is made it popular...
Nearly 20% of the total kills at a 2 to 1 ratio. That's pretty dominate. I don't see the G-10/K-4 racking up those kill numbers and it has plenty of cannons. There are several other aircraft with quad 20mills in AH none of which have had the same effect. How do you explain it? Must be a conspiracy against the 109.
Don't confuse how AH only models a 109G-6 with a max speed of 385mph with real life, or assume that the only '43 109 was G-6.
Bruno,
This goes to my original post. Stop crying like a baby about MW-50 this 10W-40 that. It doesn't matter. The G-6 in AH is as accurate a representation of that aircraft as you will ever see. Guess what, the F4U-1 can be faster too. But the one here is fine.
Stop the Wah, Wah, Wah. Maybe it is not your airplane, maybe it is you?
-
Froline is a mispelling, I think you can figure it out, your a bright boy.
You mean misspelling? Well its not even close to Fräulein.
Since you want to insult maybe you should sign up for a refresher grammar lesson as well.
It has to do with you saying I don't play the game. You are wrong allot for an Uber Mensh.
Uber Mensh..? Do you mean Übermensch?
You have yet to prove one thing I said is wrong.
OTOH let us examine your own posts:
3. German aircraft of this variety saw combat in proto-type aircraft with testpilots behind the controls.
Wrong...
I seem to remember a story of un ungunned TA-152 taking on two Tempest causing one to crash?
Wrong (or made up)...
The 109 was at it's end in 1943 let alone 1945.
Wrong...
Stop crying like a baby about MW-50 this 10W-40 that.
You ability to be wrong is only surpassed by your inability to spell.
As I said if you want to insult I have no problem responding in kind.
Nearly 20% of the total kills at a 2 to 1 ratio.
That's because it vulched more then any other plane. Its cannons and ability to carry ordnance made it an excellent base attacker. It could kill gvs with a pop, strafe down buildings etc...
It was not perked because of its flight performance. It was perked because of the performance of its hizookas. Search the old posts and quit whining about the CHOG.
Karnak,
You rather come across as a wee bit biased in favor of the Bf109 as it is your pet aircraft.
Maybe so but what does that have to do with the claims and exaggerations made by F4UDOA in this thread. Post one quote of his regarding the 109 that is 'right'.
As for bias a quick search of this section of the forum using F4UDOA's name will show you bias. He complains about everything from AH favoring cannon armed aircraft to claiming all 109s controls should be locked in concrete above 350mph. His posts are there waiting for you.
He accuses others of crying but please find a reply by me that could be considered whinging (its a word F4UDOA look it up) by me in this thread. Or heck search all my replies.
Even this thread is a 'whine' by him. When his claims are contested he doesn't defend his points he squirms about dropping insults.
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>Take a 1943 F4U-1 and a 1943 109G and see if you can outrun it? Now try turning or diving.
Well, not judging from the game, but the technical data I've collected for the Me 109, a 1943 Me 109G-2 running at 1.3 ata, 2600 rpm would not be that much slower than the F4U-1D at low to medium altitude, and actually slightly faster above full throttle height. It would be able to outclimb the F4U-1D readily, and it would also enjoy a noticable turn rate advantage.
The bottom line is that a fighter stays competitive as long as its engine stays competitive. The 1943 Messerschmitt certainly does not compare as favourably as it might have because the DB605A engine didn't live up to the expectations, but that was not an airframe problem but a temporary engine development problem. The Me 109's engines of 1944 were superior to those of 1943, so this wasn't a dead-end.
Of course, the airframe limitations of the Me 109 are well-known and they undoubtly count as tactical disadvantages, but that doesn't mean the Me 109 was "at its end in 1943".
Sure, if I were to advise an air force in 1943 on which of the two types to buy, I'd recommend the F4U (even if the buyer had no carriers! :-) since it offers comparable performance combined with much greater operational flexibility. I'd assume in that consideration, the Me 109's most important advantage would be its low price tag ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
LOL How many C-Hogs were made? Why didn't they make more of them? Because it was a POS that only works in the mechanically perfect world of AH. The Bf109 will accelerate, climb and turn better than any contemporary F4U as well as be faster at altitude and similar in SL speed (usually faster). Seems to me the F4U was "outdated" right off the drawing board.
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
Seems to me the F4U was "outdated" right off the drawing board.
Nice troll....Utter BS, but nice effort anyway.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Just returning the sentiment Widewing. Fact is neither aircraft was outdated.
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
LOL How many C-Hogs were made? Why didn't they make more of them? Because it was a POS that only works in the mechanically perfect world of AH. The Bf109 will accelerate, climb and turn better than any contemporary F4U as well as be faster at altitude and similar in SL speed (usually faster). Seems to me the F4U was "outdated" right off the drawing board.
Any contemporary F4U? Outdated? Yeah right.
-
Otto aside,
...despite some good points, I still think it's a bit pushing it to say that the contemporaries for some of the Luftwaffe planes listed are those you've listed, F4UDOA.
Sure, there are many reasons on why some of the allied prop-fighters weren't fighting yet, perhaps one of them being that the Allies, by the end of 1944, were pretty much confident in their air superiority and would rather push their priorities to researching the jet aircrafts and such.
However, facts fact, and history just didn't happen that way. Even Widewing's post makes people raise eyebrows rather than really support your point... I mean, P-51H deployed 8 days before VJ day... F8F not arrived at the front yet... F7F deployed 1 day before VJ day.... ?
The Gloster Meteor would probably be the only plane that should be rightfully considered as a possibility in the roster. However, on the contrary, all of the LW aircraft listed were already at squadron service, some deployed at large numbers, and have been fighting for quite some time before VE day. Be it one day or even one week, if a plane did not fight in the war, then it's not part of the war. If we can grant a waiver on such "what-ifs", no matter how tempting it might be, what's their to stop some planes that were in pre-production phase, or even prototype phase, to stop them from appearing in the game?
Bf109Zs? Do335s? He162 Volksjager jets?
I know how tempting it could be, especially if some people keep comparing planes out of context.. however, I don't think two wrongs would make a right. I don't want any what-ifs in the game.
Seeing 1C:Maddox waste their resources on cheap attractions to boost interest in their otherwise very well made game, was the biggest disappointment upto date. I don't want HTC to walk the same path.
-
Widewing,
OttoJ manged to finally do what even Kurfurst hasn't managed to do, get me to put somebody on the ignore list.
-
Kweassa I thought the peoples fighter was in action before VE day.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Widewing,
OttoJ manged to finally do what even Kurfurst hasn't managed to do, get me to put somebody on the ignore list.
Again? Didn't you put me on ignore in the Lanc thread?
-
Originally posted by Larry
Kweassa I thought the peoples fighter was in action before VE day.
Yes the Volksjager was in squadron service before VE day.
-
People seem to not get my sarcasm. Perhaps I should use sarcasm-tags or something.
Obviously the F4U wasn't an outdated design. I just find it funny that F4UDOA says the 109 was outdated when the 109 still outperformed (marginally) the F4U. Pointing out that flawed logic seems to upset people. Go figure.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Otto,
Really? Take a 1943 F4U-1 and a 1943 109G and see if you can outrun it? Now try turning or diving.
Depends on which 109G you talk about. The 109G-2 did 666kph/415 mph at altitude. At 1942 ratings, that is. Probably the Corsair would outrun it at lower alts, depending on boost, but they were different birds, the Gustav was meant for high altitudes, the Corsair for low-medium.
The F4U from 1943 wasnt any faster, even a bit slower than that.
Now if I want to be really mean, add GM-1 to the 109G, and try to outrun it at 30000 feet. I very much in doubt that even the F4U4 could catch it.
A for turning, I see no reason why the F4U should be so superior, even equal to the plane that was well known to be excellent in turning.
As others said, if you dont really know Axis planes, dont make statements on them, but educate yourself.
BTW:
ca1600 FW 190D-9s were produced
ca1700 Bf 109K-4s were produced
ca 2600 Bf 109G-10 were produced
ca 1400 Me 262s were produced.
I can educate you on operational numbers as well, should you bring up the arguement "they never reached to front anyway". Lets see 109K. Introduced in Oct 1944, there were about 150 by the end of the month. By November, it rose to 200, at it stayed at that in December. By the end of January 1945, there were 314 around, or 25% of all Bf 109s in the frontline.
Now compare that to the planes you mentioned. The analogy simply doesnt stand.
-
Bruno,
Sorry the Allies won the war, I don't need to learn that language nor do I care to. If you live there great, if you don't then you should probably stop wearing the Lederhosen (And I hope that spelling is butchered too).
Everyone else.
Was the 109 outdated? What was the design purpose of the airplane? What role did it fill?
It is simple really.
1. The 109 was the best aircraft of it's type prior to the war. It was not just a point defensive aircraft. It was used as an offensive weapon. It had a head start on all other types.
2. Mid-war it's performance is matched by many other aircraft and even surpassed by some. Meanwhile the airplane is putting on weight. Wing loading is increasing as is power to keep up with more contemporary designs.
3. Late war, now it is really bloated. High wing loading, still marginal range, high power, fast with fast climb and marginal at best bomb carrying. Compare that to the P-51D, P-47D and P-38L (Not including British aircraft)?
Did it still have a head start on the others? Was it faster, did it have better range? Did it carry heavy ordinance? Or was it limited to defensive duty? And all with poor wingloading.
It had no more room for operational growth on it airframe. In other words it reached it's design limits. The heavier it go the more useless it became. Where as the P-47, P-51 and P-38 became more useful and versatile.
Hence the 109 became outdated and there is only one end to this story and we all know it.
-
Sorry the Allies won the war,
What does 'who won World War 2' have to do with anything in this thread?
It's really pathetic that you need to get so defensive when someone challenges your argument. You go so far as to hijack your own thread in order to 'score some point'. You ramble from one nonsensical point to another...
Are you a professional clown? Maybe a frustrated one at that...
I don't need to learn that language nor do I care to.
Its obvious that you don't care to learn English, look at your replies.
Hence the 109 became outdated and there is only one end to this story and we all know it.
No, its only you clinging to that opinion. It seems to be based on your own irrational bias. This bias is easily spotted when reading some of your other replies in this section of the forum. Its equally apparent by your defensive attitude here.
Hohun answered you directly in regards to the 109. Both he and Kurfurst went into some detail explaining the performance relationship between your '43 F4U and a '43 Gustav. As I suggested above if you expect to be taken seriously then maybe you should research the 109 and educate yourself a bit.
-
When the F4U's were being rolled over the side of their carriers and the P-47's were chopped up for scrap, the 109 was still in production. Funny the 109 outlived all its wartime rivals.
-
Except the C-47, which was in combat into the 1970s. So it is settled, C-47 best combat plane of WWII.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
Except the C-47, which was in combat into the 1970s. So it is settled, C-47 best combat plane of WWII.
The C-47 wasn't a rival of the 109, more like a target, but still you make an excellent example. The C-47 sure wasn't outdated by 1945, despite being a pre-war design.
-
Wasn't the radar equiped [F4U-5n I think] used during the soccer war in 1969 ?
Also the P51
Bronk
-
I forgot to put this in the last post . When was the 109 used in combat last ?
Bronk
-
Otto,
The F4U was in US service until almost 1960. It fought in Korea, Vietnam with the French, In the Argentinian Navy until the mid 1960's and fought in the Soccer war between Honduras and El Salvador flying for both countries until approximately 1970.
Funny I don't remember the 109 doing much in the 60's or is that my imagination.
Bruno,
Weren't you the one that said the 109 could out perform the F4U in every catagory?
Other than climb what could the G do better than the F4U-1?
Before I crush you I want to hear you say something else that is completely wrong.
Please list the G-6 performance numbers you are so in love with.
-
F4U-DOA,
They claim that the Bf109 will out turn the F4U. By how much depends on who you ask. Kurfurst may be able to provide some quotes about it.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
F4U-DOA,
They claim that the Bf109 will out turn the F4U. By how much depends on who you ask. Kurfurst may be able to provide some quotes about it.
Listen I might be new here but asking kurfurst ?
According to him the 109 out turned the zero.
Out ranged the 51 with drop tanks.
Out climbed the 163.
And was just as fast as a 262.
I know this is exagerated a bit. I now read all his posts with a grain of salt. I feel the 109 was an exceptional fighter. Just not the end all be all fighter he thinks it was.
Ohh still waiting on the last 109 combat flight .
Bronk
P.S. I believe that the honduran F4U-5n shot down an El Salvadorn P-51 . I'm not sure if it was a D or not.
-
Heh, all these "new" guys, talking like forum tards who've seen all...
:D
-C+
-
Bronk,
Oh, I wasn't endorsing the accuracy of any quote or statement he might have, just saying that he might have one. He has a lot of 109 quotes.:p And honestly, when limited to just the 109 with no references to the relative capablities of any other aircraft, he has some good data.
When the comparisons come up then there are "issues" and I have been called a Nazi by him on multiple occasions for not bowing to the absolute mastery of the Bf109. Most recently he refered to Goebbels as my master.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Vietnam with the French
Are you sure ? I don't remember ,don't you think of Suez ?
-
Bronk, how big is that grain of salt? ;)
Soccer War.
El Salvador
- FG-1D: FAS-201 (grey overall, giant title “FAS” in black on rear fuselage and yellow band around engine cowling: it is unclear if this aircraft ever even entered service with FAS: it was damaged during the ferry flight while still in Texas, USA)
- FG-1D: FAS-201/67087 (not operational in 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-202/? (camouflage unknown; shot down by FAH F4U-5 “605”, on 17 July 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-203/67070 (crashed on 19 May 1958)
- FG-1D: FAS-204 (camouflage unknown; shot down by FAH F4U-4 “605”, on 17 July 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-205/? (not operational in 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-207/92460 (decoy, not operational in 1969; reportedly put together from four derelict FG-1Ds, not certain if became operational during the war; fuselage apparently in mid-nite blue, with engine cowling in COIN-grey and part of anti-glare panel; unknown insignia on the fuselage behind the engine, and rest of USN insignia behind the cockpit; cockpit framing also in grey; title “FAS” was apparently applied over the USN insignia on the rear fuselage)
- FG-1D: FAS-208/92489 (not operational in 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-210/? (not operational in 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-213/? (crashed in June 1964)
- FG-1D: FAS-215/92629 (camouflage similar to FAS-219, yellow bands around engine cowling and rear fuselage)
- FG-1D: FAS-219/? (sand and light green over dark green or mid-nite blue over, grey undersurfaces and yellow band around engine cowling; shot down by Honduran AAA, on 17 July 1969)
- FG-1D: FAS-220/92697
- TF-51: FAS400
- F-51 Mk.II: FAS-401 (no details known)
- F-51D (P-51D-25-NA): 44-73273/YS-210P/FAS-402 (originally painted grey overall and registered YS-210P; wore no fuselage roundel; black strip on the fin, outlined in yellow – came from the civilian scheme; the aircraft was later camouflaged, and re-camouflaged again when the original colours faded before being sold to the USA, in 1974)
- F-51 Mk.II: FAS-403 (SEA camouflage, white serial, yellow band on the rear fuselage and white skull with wings bellow the engine cowling)
- F-51 Mk.II: FAS-404
- F-51 Mk.II: FAS-405 (SEA camouflage, white serial)
- Cavalier Mustang 750: FAS406 (arrived only on 15 July and did not take part in fighting as it first had to be armed)
- F-51D: FAS-407 (version of SEA camouflage, reportedly shot down on 18 July 1969)
- SNJ-5: 76 (camouflage in dark olive green and grey, serial applied in white on the fin)
- SNJ-5: 78 (camouflage and markings as above)
- C-47: FAS-101 (damaged by FAH F4U on 15 July 1967)
Honduras
- F4U-5N: 601/124724 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 602/124560 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 603/124447 (damaged in rough landing on 13 February 1968, used as decoy at Tegucigalpa during the war)
- F4U-5N/P: 604/123168 (mid-nite overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N/P: 605/122184 (mid-nite overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 606/124486 “El Guajiro” (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 607/124692 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 608/124493 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 609/124715 (mid-nite blue overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green)
- F4U-4: 610/93788 (operational in 1969)
- F4U-4: 611/93782 (operational in 1969; crashed in 1974)
- F4U-4: 612/92688 (operational in 1969)
- F4U-4: 614/96995 (non-standard camouflage in - what was apparently – mid-grey overall, with black anti-glare panel and standard national markings)
- F4U-4: 615/97280 (seen at Toncontin in 1969, mid-nite blue overall, with white checkerboard over the engine cowling; damaged the FAS C-47 “FAS-101”, on 15 July)
- F4U-4: 616/97320 (under repair during the war, used as decoy at San Pedro Saula)
- F4U-4: 617/97059 (look unknown, but known to have been active during the war: interned in Guatemala after running out of fuel during combat sortie over El Salvador, on 15 July 1969; crashed in 1977)
- F4U-4: 618/96885 (operational in 1969)
- SNJ-4: FAH-202
- SNJ-4: FAH-205
- T-6G: FAH-206
- T-6G: FAH-208
- T-6G: FAH-211
- T-28A: (5)0-272/FAH-212 (COIN-grey overall, engine cowling in yellow)
- T-28A: (5)0-267/FAH-213 (COIN-grey overall)
- T-28A: (5)0-293(?)/FAH-214 (COIN-grey overall)
- T-28A: (5)0-234/FAH-215
- T-28A: (5)0-???/FAH-216
- C-47: FAH-301
- C-47: FAH-302
- C-47: FAH-304
- C-47: FAH-305
- C-47: FAH-306
- C-47: FAH-307
from http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_156.shtml
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Bronk, how big is that grain of salt? ;)
How big do you have? Ohh and thanks for the link.
Bronk:aok
-
I'm always amazed when I read the "uber 109" threads. The reality is quite simple....the plane was overmatched in BoB and it never got any better. Obviously the above statement will obviously draw alot of hostile comments but if you look at it logically its true.
First and formost the plane didnt have the range for offensive operations. This was never addressed at any time...
The germans hit on the better armourment 1st but never really improved the planes hitting power....which doomed it as a bomber interceptor.
The planes limited visability hampered it throughout its service life (although it did get better with the galland hood)...
The exceptionally narrow landing gear caused high loses throughout the war...
Its lack of ground attack capability further limited its role
So you have a plane with significant shortcomings which effectively cost the germans any chance at "winning" the BoB. The same plane then sits 26 miles from Great Britain from late 1940 thru mid 1944 and is both unable to project force at any time to GB or realistically defend the occupied countries from airborn attack. This is a harbringer of germanies defeat later on when they were unable to defeat unescorted bombers in 1943 or seriously contest allied escorts in 1943 or 1944. The tremendous dependence on an inferior plane lost the war for the germans long before D-day......
-
Get ready for it. :D :D :D
Bronk
-
Karnak,
The 109 out turning an F4U would be an interesting challenge. A 109F or early probably could, maybe even a G2, I would have to see the wing loading. But I am pretty sure that the later models G6 and up would have a pretty hard time doing that even without the F4U using it's combat flaps.
I don't beleive the people I am arguing with are either trying very hard or don't know very much about what they speak.
Humble,
You did a much better job than me in explaining why the 109 was outdated almost before it ever got started. The small design with high wingloading left no room for growth and limited the capability of the aircraft before if ever left the drawing board.
Is Germany really just 26 miles from England?? So much for the myth of German engineering.
Kurfurst,
The point of my original post was simply that the war was really over by mid 1944 anyway. All of the newer German designs were on hand for combat because
1. They were already at the front.
2. The aircraft the allies had were doing a fine job.
The aircraft I mention were on there way to the front when the war ended. Since the war was effectively over in 1944 anyway why not have a 1945 Super Vrs Uber theater were the best late war Axis planes can fight the Best late war allied planes.
What I cannot stand is the weekly "the 109 needs another 2" of Boost, it's a conspiracy" post". The aircraft in AH unless there is a major oversight are a fair representation not an optimal representation.
There are several less than optimal features on the F4U that could be changes or added but you don't see those threads popping up every day.
-
One of the more interesting facts in luftwabble history is the very very strong push made by factions of the luftwaffe to replace the 109 with a german made C205. The 205 was regarded by the germans to be superior across the board to the 109....the combination of politics and retooling defeated the effort. But a "upengined" 205 would have been a much formidable plane then the K-4 or G10.....
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
The 109 out turning an F4U would be an interesting challenge. A 109F or early probably could, maybe even a G2, I would have to see the wing loading. But I am pretty sure that the later models G6 and up would have a pretty hard time doing that even without the F4U using it's combat flaps.
I don't beleive the people I am arguing with are either trying very hard or don't know very much about what they speak.
How about you speaking of turnrate of 109 when you don't know what was the wingload?
Is Germany really just 26 miles from England?? So much for the myth of German engineering.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
-
Erich Hartmann 352
Gerhard Barkhorn 301
Gunther Rall 275
Otto Kittel 267
Walter Nowotny 258
Wilhlem Batz 237
Erich Rudorffer 224
Heinz Bar 221
Hermann Graf 212
Heinrich Ehrler+ 208
Theodor Weissenberger 208
Hans Philipp 206
Walter Schuck 206
Anton Hafner 204
Helmut Lipfert 203
Walter Krupinski 197
Anton Hackl 192
Joachim Brendel 189
Max Stotz 189
Joachim Kirschner 188
Kurt Brandle 180
Gunther Josten 178
Johannes Steinhoff 178
Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert 174
Gunther Schack 174
Emil Lang 173
Heinz Schmidt 173
Horst Ademeit 166
Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke 162
Hans Joachim Marseille 158
Heinrich Sturm 158
Gerhard Thyben 157
Hans Beisswenger 152
Peter Duttmann 152
Gordon Gollob 150
Fritz Tegtmeier 146
Albin Wolf 144
Kurt Tanzer 143
Friedrich-Karl Muller 140
Karl Gratz 138
Heinrich Setz 138
Rudolf Trenkel 138
Walter Wolfrum 137
Horst-Gunther von Fassong+ 136
Otto Fonnekold 136
Karl-Heinz Weber 136
Joachim Muencheberg 135
Hans Waldmann 134
Alfred Grislawski 133
Franz Schall 133
Johannes Wiese 133
Adolf Borchers 132
Adolf Dickfeld 132
Erwin Clausen 132
Wilhelm Lemke 131
Gerhard Hoffmann 130
Franz Eisenach 129
Walther Dahl 129
Heinrich Sterr 129
Franz Dorr 128
Rudolf Rademacher 126
Josef Zwernemann 126
Dietrich Hrabak 125
Wolf Ettel 124
Herbert Ihlefeld 123
Wolfgang Tonne 122
Heinz Marquardt 121
Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer 121
Robert Weiss 121
Erich Leie 121
Friedrich Obleser 120
Franz-Josef Beerenbrock 117
Hans-Joachim Birkner 117
Jakob Norz 117
Walter Oesau 117
Heinz Wernicke 117
August Lambert 116
Wilhelm Crinius 114
Werner Schroer 114
Hans Dammers 113
Berthold Korts 113
Helmut Lent 113
Kurt Buhligen 112
Kurt Ubben 110
Franz Woidich 110
Reinhard Seiler 109
Emil Bitsch 108
Hans Hahn 108
Bernhard Vechtel 108
Viktor Bauer 106
Werner Lucas 106
Gunther Lutzow 105
Eberhard von Boremski 104
Heinz Sachsenberg 104
Adolf Galland 103
Hartmann Grasser 103
Siegfried Freytag 102
Friedrich Geisshardt 102
Egon Mayer 102
Max-Hellmuth Ostermann 102
Josef Wurmheller 102
Rudolf Miethig 101
Werner Molders 101
Josef Priller 101
Ulrich Wernitz 101
And those are only the 100+ aces. Guess what plane most of them flew? :D
The 109 shot down more than twice as many planes as any other combat aircraft in history. More aces flew the 109 than all allied fighters combined. The 109 was in service for more than 30 years and with at least 8 nations.
Lets face it, the F4U was a mediocre fighter only suited for slaughtering slow defenseless jap planes. In the ETO it would just have been another target for the 109s and 190s.
The 109 is the most prolific and successful fighter in history.
-
Only one a/c got shot down more than the 109, that was the Il-2.::aok At the time of Germany's unconditional surrender there was ~1000 left out of the 33,000 or so produced.
-
Weren't you the one that said the 109 could out perform the F4U in every category?
No, please quote where you think I said that.
Other than climb what could the G do better than the F4U-1?
See Hohun's and Kurfurst's posts.
Before I crush you I want to hear you say something else that is completely wrong.
You keep saying 'I am wrong' but you have yet to demonstrate even one point I made that is 'wrong'.
OTOH every claim you made is wrong. From your very first post until now. Even your replies to me in your post above are 'wrong'.
Your to much of a mental midget to crush a grape and I am not to worried about what else you think you can 'crush'.
As an obvious example:
Is Germany really just 26 miles from England??
Where did you go to school?
-
Still waiting on that last 109 combat flight.
Bronk
-
Someplace that taught basic subjects like history and geography....Duh.
So how far are the cliffs of dover from Calais....
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Bronk, how big is that grain of salt? ;)
How big do you have? Ohh and thanks for the link.
Bronk:aok
Big enough to turn my lake at the cottage into the Dead Sea.:rofl
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
Erich Hartmann 352
Gerhard Barkhorn 301
Gunther Rall 275
Otto Kittel 267
Walter Nowotny 258
Wilhlem Batz 237
Erich Rudorffer 224
Heinz Bar 221
Hermann Graf 212
Heinrich Ehrler+ 208
Theodor Weissenberger 208
Hans Philipp 206
Walter Schuck 206
Anton Hafner 204
Helmut Lipfert 203
Walter Krupinski 197
Anton Hackl 192
Joachim Brendel 189
Max Stotz 189
Joachim Kirschner 188
Kurt Brandle 180
Gunther Josten 178
Johannes Steinhoff 178
Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert 174
Gunther Schack 174
Emil Lang 173
Heinz Schmidt 173
Horst Ademeit 166
Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke 162
Hans Joachim Marseille 158
Heinrich Sturm 158
Gerhard Thyben 157
Hans Beisswenger 152
Peter Duttmann 152
Gordon Gollob 150
Fritz Tegtmeier 146
Albin Wolf 144
Kurt Tanzer 143
Friedrich-Karl Muller 140
Karl Gratz 138
Heinrich Setz 138
Rudolf Trenkel 138
Walter Wolfrum 137
Horst-Gunther von Fassong+ 136
Otto Fonnekold 136
Karl-Heinz Weber 136
Joachim Muencheberg 135
Hans Waldmann 134
Alfred Grislawski 133
Franz Schall 133
Johannes Wiese 133
Adolf Borchers 132
Adolf Dickfeld 132
Erwin Clausen 132
Wilhelm Lemke 131
Gerhard Hoffmann 130
Franz Eisenach 129
Walther Dahl 129
Heinrich Sterr 129
Franz Dorr 128
Rudolf Rademacher 126
Josef Zwernemann 126
Dietrich Hrabak 125
Wolf Ettel 124
Herbert Ihlefeld 123
Wolfgang Tonne 122
Heinz Marquardt 121
Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer 121
Robert Weiss 121
Erich Leie 121
Friedrich Obleser 120
Franz-Josef Beerenbrock 117
Hans-Joachim Birkner 117
Jakob Norz 117
Walter Oesau 117
Heinz Wernicke 117
August Lambert 116
Wilhelm Crinius 114
Werner Schroer 114
Hans Dammers 113
Berthold Korts 113
Helmut Lent 113
Kurt Buhligen 112
Kurt Ubben 110
Franz Woidich 110
Reinhard Seiler 109
Emil Bitsch 108
Hans Hahn 108
Bernhard Vechtel 108
Viktor Bauer 106
Werner Lucas 106
Gunther Lutzow 105
Eberhard von Boremski 104
Heinz Sachsenberg 104
Adolf Galland 103
Hartmann Grasser 103
Siegfried Freytag 102
Friedrich Geisshardt 102
Egon Mayer 102
Max-Hellmuth Ostermann 102
Josef Wurmheller 102
Rudolf Miethig 101
Werner Molders 101
Josef Priller 101
Ulrich Wernitz 101
And those are only the 100+ aces. Guess what plane most of them flew? :D
The 109 shot down more than twice as many planes as any other combat aircraft in history. More aces flew the 109 than all allied fighters combined. The 109 was in service for more than 30 years and with at least 8 nations.
Lets face it, the F4U was a mediocre fighter only suited for slaughtering slow defenseless jap planes. In the ETO it would just have been another target for the 109s and 190s.
The 109 is the most prolific and successful fighter in history.
Bravo sir , Bravo
Now tell us how many of those were from the Spanish civil war untill the end of fighting in europe.
Not enough man power to rotate people out ehh.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Bravo sir , Bravo
Now tell us how many of those were from the Spanish civil war untill the end of fighting in europe.
Bronk
Erich Hartmann, the world's leading ace didn't start flying until October 1942, and scored his first of 352 kills on November 5 1942. He flew 109s exclusively.
Your point?
-
If i remember the Israeli Defence Force used the 109s in 1948. They hated the 109 (other than the fact that it was designed for a massive Eurasia conquest and genocides of "undesirables") flight qualities. The Israelis got used to it and its a success. They even shot down some Egyptian SPIT 5s:D
-
Yes the Israeli/Egyptian desert remake of the Battle of Britain was exceptionally ironic. :D
-
Originally posted by tikky
If i remember the Israeli Defence Force used the 109s in 1948. They hated the 109 (other than the fact that it was designed for a massive Eurasia conquest and genocides of "undesirables") flight qualities. The Israelis got used to it and its a success. They even shot down some Egyptian SPIT 5s:D
Avia S-199 in Czechoslovakia using Jumo engines.
The last 109s built (Spanish) used Rolls-Royce Merlin engines.:aok
Several 109s flew in Spain until 1965.
Flying on the Russian Front was easier than in the West. All one has to do is look at the LW's aces claims against Western a/c.
-
Originally posted by humble
Someplace that taught basic subjects like history and geography....Duh.
So how far are the cliffs of dover from Calais....
Calais is in Germany?
-
Thats 1 and now post the rest.
My point is most of those pilots racked up those kills because they flew from the spanish civil war to the end of the war in
europe. That mean they were shooting down mostly obsolete aircraft. Probably biplanes.
Also you made some comment about naval crew pushing off F4Us
off the sides their carriers. While the mighty 109 saw service untill the end of the war.
Lemme fill you in on the soccer war. The f4u and the p51 were in use . This was in 1969. Again i ask, when was the last combat flight of a 109.
Bronk
-
Bruno, Calais was situated in the lands of the Third Reich for several years so could be considered part of Germany.
-
I never said it was, I said that from 40 to 44 german 109's were stationed ~ 26 miles from Great Britain.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Thats 1 and now post the rest.
My point is most of those pilots racked up those kills because they flew from the spanish civil war to the end of the war in
europe. That mean they were shooting down mostly obsolete aircraft. Probably biplanes.
I'm not going to research the service histories of HUNDREDS of 109 aces for you. Do your own research. You tell me, how many of the 109 aces served in Legion Kondor?
-
Bruno, Calais was situated in the lands of the Third Reich for several years so could be considered part of Germany.
It was always 'France'. It was occuppied and adminstered by Germany but it was never 'in Germany' or incoporated into Germany proper.
I never said it was, I said that from 40 to 44 german 109's were stationed ~ 26 miles from Great Britain.
But you made a point of replying to me.
I replied to F4s question:
Is Germany really just 26 miles from England??
You defended his question...
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
I'm not going to research the service histories of HUNDREDS of 109 aces for you. Do your own research. You tell me, how many of the 109 aces served in Legion Kondor?
Probably some good reading and i'll probably check a few out.
Now how about answering my 109 question. Either you dont know orrrr you dont want to answer. Probably becuse the last 109 to fire a shot in anger was at least a decade before f4u and the p51d .
Bronk
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>But I am pretty sure that the later models G6 and up would have a pretty hard time doing that even without the F4U using it's combat flaps.
Don't get fixated on wing loading, power loading plays an important role, too, and is considerably improved in the late-war Messerschmitts with MW50-injection. The Me 109 has camber changing flaps and flaperons, so it would benefit from "combat flaps", too.
>The small design with high wingloading left no room for growth and limited the capability of the aircraft before if ever left the drawing board.
It was not a Mustang, but to translate that defect into "outdated in 1934" is rather silly, especially as the Luftwaffe didn't need a Mustang.
>The point of my original post was simply that the war was really over by mid 1944 anyway.
The USAAF heavy bomber attrition levels remained high right to the end of 1944, but dropped after that, indicating the ineffectiveness of Luftwaffe after that. The Luftwaffe was mostly limited to the defense of the Reich, but they lasted longer than mid-1944 in that role.
>All of the newer German designs were on hand for combat because
>1. They were already at the front.
>2. The aircraft the allies had were doing a fine job.
You're understimating the difficulties of technological development, and overestimating the difficulties of shipping aircraft. That the air war was fought over Germany meant the German factories were bombed, so the introduction of new German types was delayed, not speeded up.
On the other hand, aircraft that didn't make it to the front, whether Axis or Allies, were invariably late for a reason. The P-80 for example was sent to Europe, where one example crashed and burned, leading to the type being grounded. It was not even fit for demonstration flights at that point, and the type wasn't cleared for operational use until long after VE day (maybe even after VJ day).
>There are several less than optimal features on the F4U that could be changes or added but you don't see those threads popping up every day.
The F4U lobby is doing a poor job, that's all ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I would think the Israelis were the last to use the 109 in war. Why is this important to you?
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
When the F4U's were being rolled over the side of their carriers and the P-47's were chopped up for scrap, the 109 was still in production. Funny the 109 outlived all its wartime rivals.
Just seems funny when the f4u was in actual combat. When the spanish had some 109 to get rid of. I guess the hondurans and the el salvadorans didnt want an inferior plane.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
[.
The last 109s built (Spanish) used Rolls-Royce Merlin engines.:aok
Several 109s flew in Spain until 1965.
F[/B]
Gee why didnt hondras and el salvador buy them up cheap.
According to kurfurst and otto they should have easily wiped out those pesky f4u-4 and f4u-5ns. Not to mention those out of date p51 Ds AND Ks ?
Bronk
-
Originally posted by HoHun
....On the other hand, aircraft that didn't make it to the front, whether Axis or Allies, were invariably late for a reason. The P-80 for example was sent to Europe, where one example crashed and burned, leading to the type being grounded. It was not even fit for demonstration flights at that point, and the type wasn't cleared for operational use until long after VE day (maybe even after VJ day)...
Thought you might be interested in a slightly more accurate version of the history of the P-80 in Europe, which I guess you'd never seen. Although I'd bet this has been in this forum at least a dozen times by now, so sorry for the rehash
"...four YP-80As were deployed to Europe in order to demonstrate their capabilities to combat crews and to help in the development of tactics to be used against Luftwaffe jet fighters. YP-80As 44-83026 and 44-83027 were shipped to England in mid-December 1944, but 44-83026 crashed on its second flight at Burtonwood, England, killing its pilot, Major Frederick Borsodi. 44-83027 was modified by Rolls-Royce to flight test the B-41, the prototype of the Nene turbojet. On November 14, 1945, it was destroyed in a crash landing after an engine failure. 44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to the Mediterranean. They actually flew some operational sorties, but they never encountered any enemy aircraft. Both of them fortunately managed to survive their tour of duty in Europe, but one of them crashed on August 2, 1945 after returning to the USA. The other one ended its useful life as a pilotless drone..."
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_12.html
-
So, of four deployed YP-80s, three of them met their ultimate demise due to crashing?
75% casualty rate due to accidents alone.
Wow! Doesn't sound all that battle-ready to me.
-
That wasn't my point, i was just correcting a slight inaccuracy. I'm sure the pilotless drone didn't fare very well either
-
F4UDOA
What about Goodyear F2G Super Corsair then?
What about F4U-4 shooting down a MiG-15 during Korean Conflict?
-
It was not a Mustang, but to translate that defect into "outdated in 1934" is rather silly, especially as the Luftwaffe didn't need a Mustang.
I'd disagree completely, every nation "needed" a mustang. By that I mean a flexible platform that combined range, performance and multimission capability. Had the germans possessed a plane with any similiar capability in 1942 (when the mustang originally entered service) or a plane similiar to the -1 hog which 1st flew May 29, 1940 and entered service in June 1942 the war would have proceeded completely differently. The lack of a "strike fighter" crippled the luftwaffe thru out the conflict. On the otherside the US had 4 distinct generations of such aircraft on the USAAF side alone (the P-39, P38, P-47 and P-51). All of them combined a reasonable air to air capability along with significant range and ground attack capability. The germans lack of vision in this regard is probably the single greatest reason they lost the war.
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
The 109 is the most prolific and successful fighter in history.
You have to define this precisely.
Personally I don't think the 109 was sucessful at all,didn't the German lost the war ?
-
The single greatest reason why Germany lost was the attack on the Soviet Union.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
"froline" is almost certainly a misspelling of "frauline", the German word for a young, or unmarried woman.
And all this time I was thinking it was a German chick with an Afro.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Debonair
Except the C-47, which was in combat into the 1970s. So it is settled, C-47 best combat plane of WWII.
IIRC, so did the P-38 in some of the Central and South American countries.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Just seems funny when the f4u was in actual combat. When the spanish had some 109 to get rid of. I guess the hondurans and the el salvadorans didnt want an inferior plane.
Bronk
I said the 109 was still in production when the F4Us and P51s were being scrapped (in US/UK service). That some 3rd world countries still flew them is irrelevant. Several 3rd world countries still fly the MiG-15/17, that doesn't mean the F-86/100 was outdated.
-
I've never read about that anywhere.
P-51 & F4U I've heard of in lesser airforces in that era, but not the Lightning. Would greatly appreciate a link to that info if you have one.
I think A-26s may have been active for quite some time also, it was in Vietnam also, wasn't it?. I know there is at least one A-26 is still flying around converted to a private plane (sort of an early bizjet conversion was done to some A-26s in the 50s or 60s. It was apparently considered a great plane for cocaine smuggling also, another job the 109 never did)
-
Originally posted by straffo
You have to define this precisely.
Personally I don't think the 109 was sucessful at all,didn't the German lost the war ?
You are attributing the failure of the Luftwaffe to the machines they flew. That's a fallacy. The Americans lost the Vietnam War, however the F-4 Phantom II was an immensely successful fighter. The Americans didn't lose the war because their equipment was inferior. Nor did the Germans.
As a final input in this entertaining, but stupid argument; by June 1944 all piston-engined fighters were sorely outdated.
(http://www.kheichhorn.de/assets/images/lrg0728.jpg)
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
You are attributing the failure of the Luftwaffe to the machines they flew. That's a fallacy.
yep ,I know :D
It's a fallacy to attribute the succes of some pilots to their plane (even if it's a non negligible factor)
Instead I could had posted a liste like that :
Gunther Hartmann KIA 1st mission jan45
Wilhlem Barkhorn KIA 1st mission jan45
Erich Rall KIA 1st mission jan45
Otto Kittel KIA 1st mission jan45
Heinz Nowotny KIA 1st mission jan45
GerhardBatz KIA 1st mission jan45
Erich Rudorffer KIA 1st mission jan45
Walter Bar KIA 1st mission jan45
It would have been a fallacy also :)
-
Originally posted by humble
It was not a Mustang, but to translate that defect into "outdated in 1934" is rather silly, especially as the Luftwaffe didn't need a Mustang.
I'd disagree completely, every nation "needed" a mustang. By that I mean a flexible platform that combined range, performance and multimission capability. Had the germans possessed a plane with any similiar capability in 1942 (when the mustang originally entered service) or a plane similiar to the -1 hog which 1st flew May 29, 1940 and entered service in June 1942 the war would have proceeded completely differently. The lack of a "strike fighter" crippled the luftwaffe thru out the conflict. On the otherside the US had 4 distinct generations of such aircraft on the USAAF side alone (the P-39, P38, P-47 and P-51). All of them combined a reasonable air to air capability along with significant range and ground attack capability. The germans lack of vision in this regard is probably the single greatest reason they lost the war.
Complete humbug. The P-51 was a purpose designed and dedicated escort fighter. Its armament and climb rate made it a poor interceptor, and the placement of its radiator and fuel tanks made it unsuited for ground attack. In the fighter-bomber role the Fw190G series was eminently more effective with some specialized versions even having longer range than the P-51.
-
Originally posted by straffo
yep ,I know :D
It's a fallacy to attribute the succes of some pilots to their plane (even if it's a non negligible factor)
Instead I could had posted a liste like that :
Gunther Hartmann KIA 1st mission jan45
Wilhlem Barkhorn KIA 1st mission jan45
Erich Rall KIA 1st mission jan45
Otto Kittel KIA 1st mission jan45
Heinz Nowotny KIA 1st mission jan45
GerhardBatz KIA 1st mission jan45
Erich Rudorffer KIA 1st mission jan45
Walter Bar KIA 1st mission jan45
It would have been a fallacy also :) [/B]
My list was BIGGER! ;)
-
Originally posted by Karnak
When the comparisons come up then there are "issues" and I have been called a Nazi by him on multiple occasions for not bowing to the absolute mastery of the Bf109. Most recently he refered to Goebbels as my master.
Why are you shy mentioning that it was YOU who started argueing this way, calling me a NAZI just for expressing a technical opinion?
Truth is that after you run out of arguements and you couldn`t bear that you were not right, you escaped into a sorry lame-prettythang namecalling about who is being nazi for liking Luftwaffe aircraft. Nonone m8, I just return the favour to you. And now you are being a hypocrite and complaining to people about a custum YOU started, but it came back to you. How pathethic, really.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Karnak,
The 109 out turning an F4U would be an interesting challenge. A 109F or early probably could, maybe even a G2, I would have to see the wing loading. But I am pretty sure that the later models G6 and up would have a pretty hard time doing that even without the F4U using it's combat flaps.
[/B]
109s had combat flaps as well now you mention, so...?
As for the lineage, the F4 weighted 2900 kg, the G-2 3050 kg (+150kg), the G-6 3150kg (+100kg). Point is, the whole weigh diffo is a mere 500 lbs between the F4 and G-6, with the latter having the better engine.So I don`t see why the G-6 would be so poor. Seeing the fact that you didn`t get into 109G performance a lot (it varied a LOT), I don`t know how you can make valid statements on relative performance. I`d say the 109G-6 basic variant and the contemporary F4U are quite close in everything. As for G-6 performance, it varied a lot, there were many versions, different engines and boosts. It all depends the timeframe.
And as HoHun said, wingloading is grossly misleading since there are other factors such as lift coefficient (the slats on the 109 greatly add to this in turns), and powerloading and drag. I do not really had look up it, but I`d safely bet that drag, powerloading favours the 109, so it`s a tough nut.
-
Awhile back OttoJ posted all those 109 aces from WW2, well if you notice most of the fighting from Germany was with Russia, Russia lost over 7000 aircraft in the first few months of the war!!! Germans were ripping the VERY outdated and under trained early Russian airforce apart.
So no wonder you had so many 109 aces, it was there main fighter aircraft that flew through the whole war and on every german front! And when you send it up against (at the time) one of the worst though largest airforces in the world, you get: alots of high scoring aces!
No doubt the 109 was a good plane through out the war, good training in the pilots, good aircraft tactics and good planes, but near the end of the war the 109 was a rocket sled. It was way to heavy and over developed, it went from being a nimble small fighter to bring a very over weight though fast interceptor. They just tried doing to many thing with that plane and it didn't end up to well.
Edward
-
Originally posted by EdXCal
Awhile back OttoJ posted all those 109 aces from WW2, well if you notice most of the fighting from Germany was with Russia, Russia lost over 7000 aircraft in the first few months of the war!!! Germans were ripping the VERY outdated and under trained early Russian airforce apart.
So no wonder you had so many 109 aces, it was there main fighter aircraft that flew through the whole war and on every german front! And when you send it up against (at the time) one of the worst though largest airforces in the world, you get: alots of high scoring aces!
No doubt the 109 was a good plane through out the war, good training in the pilots, good aircraft tactics and good planes, but near the end of the war the 109 was a rocket sled. It was way to heavy and over developed, it went from being a nimble small fighter to bring a very over weight though fast interceptor. They just tried doing to many thing with that plane and it didn't end up to well.
Edward
DING,DING,DING,
Give that man a cigar.
Bronk
-
The vast majority of the Red Airforce was destroyed on the ground, and the Luftwaffe did not count those as kills. In our western culture both movies and history books have focused more on the western front of the air war. The biggest air war was fought in the east however, so it is natural that the Russian Front aces had more kills. Russian pilots also accumulated more kills than their western counterparts and the leading allied ace of WWII is a Russian. After all the real war was fought in the east.
Just for clarification here's a list of the 50+ kills Luftwaffe aces of the western front. First number is rank, second number (immediately behind the pilot's name) is kills over western/southern Europe and Africa, third number is kills over the eastern front, the fourth and final number is the kill total for all fronts.
1
Hptm. Hans-Joachim "Jochen" Marseille 158
0
158
2
Obstlt. Heinz "Pritzel" Bär 125
96
221
3
Obstlt. Kurt Bühligen 112
0
112
4
GenLt. Adolf "Dolfo" Galland 104
0
104
5
Maj. Joachim Müncheberg 102
33
135
6
Maj. Werner Schroer 102
12
114
7
Obstlt. Egon Mayer 102
0
102
8
Obst. Josef "Pips" Priller 101
0
101
9
Obst. Gustav Rödel 96 (97)
2 (1)
98
10
Hptm. Josef "Sepp" Wurmheller 93
9
102
11
Maj. Siegfried "Wurm" Schnell 90
3
93
12
Maj. Erich Rudorffer 86
138
224
13
Obst. Walter Oesau 73
44
117
14
Hptm. Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert 71
103
174
15
Hptm. Siegfried Lemke 70~
1 ?
70~
16
Oblt. Adolf "Addi" Glunz 69
3
72
17
Maj. Werner "Vati" Mölders 68
33
101
18
Maj. Georg-Peter Eder 68
10
78
19
Maj. Hans "Assi" Hahn 66
42
108
20
Maj. Anton "Toni" Hackl 61
131
192
21
Maj. Gerhard Homuth 61
2
63
22
Oblt. Herbert Rollwage 60+
11
85~
23
Maj. Klaus Mietusch 60
15
75
24
Maj. Gerhard Michalski 59
14
73
25
Lt. Hans-Arnold "Fiffi" Stahlschmidt 59
0
59
26
Obst. Herbert Ihlefeld 56
67
123
27
Oblt. Günther Seeger 56
0
56
28
Maj. Helmut Wick 56
0
56
29
Oblt. Karl-Heinz Bendert 55
0
55
30
Maj. Wilhelm-Ferdinand "Wutz" Galland 54 (55)
0
54 (55)
31
Maj. Friedrich-Karl "Tutti" Müller 53
87
140
32
Hptm. Franz "Nawratil" Schiess 53
14
67
33
Maj. Rolf-Günther Hermichen 53
11
64
34
Maj. Julius Meimberg 53
0
53
35
Oblt. Willi Kientsch 52
0
52
36
Oblt. Rudolf "Rudi" Pflanz 52
0
52
37
Ofw. Heinrich Bartels 50
49
99
-
Her we have the Spitfire killers. First number (immediately behind the pilot's name) is Spit kills, second number is kill total.
Obst. Josef "Pips" Priller 68
101
JG 51, JG 26
Hptm. Josef "Sepp" Wurmheller 56+
102
JG 53, JG 2
Maj. Hans "Assi" Hahn 53
108
JG 2, JG 54
Obstlt. Egon Mayer 51
102
JG 2
Genlt. Adolf "Dolfo" Galland 50
104
JG 27, JG 26, G.d.J, JV 44
Maj. Siegfried Schnell 49+
93
JG 2, JG 54
Obstlt. Kurt "Bu-mann" Bühligen 47+
112
JG 2
Maj. Joachim Müncheberg 46
135
JG 26, JG 51, JG 77
Oblt. Rudolf "Rudi" Pflanz 45
52
JG 2
Maj. Erich Rudorffer 42
224
JG 2, JG 54, JG 7
Obst. Walter "Gulle" Oesau 38+
127
JG 51, JG 3, JG 2, JG 1
Maj. Wilhelm-Ferdinand "Wutz" Galland 37
54
JG 26
Maj. Siegfried Freytag 34
102
JG 77
Oblt. Adolf Glunz 34
72
JG 52, JG 26, JG 7
Hptm. Johann Schmid 34
45
JG 2, JG 26
Obstlt. Johannes Seifert 32
57
JG 26
Maj. Erich Leie 30
118
JG 2, JG 51, JG 77
Obstlt. Gerhard Michalski 29
73
JG 53, JG z.b.v., JG 11, JG 4
Obstlt. Heinz "Pritzel" Bär 28
221
JG 51, JG 77, JG 1, JG 3, EJG 2, JV 44
Maj. Karl Borris 28
43
JG 26
Hptm. Kurt Ebersberger 27
30
JG 26
Obst. Herbert Ihlefeld 26
132
LG 2, JG 77, JG 51, JG 52, JGr.25, JG 11,JG 1
Obstlt. Werner "Vati" Mölders 25
115
JG 53, JG 51
Hptm. Siegfried Lemke 25
70~
JG 2
Maj. Helmut Wick 24
56
JG 2
Hptm. Hermann-Friedrich "Jupp" Joppien 23
70
JG 51
Oblt. Herbert Rollwage 22
71+
JG 53, JG 106
Hptm. Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert 21
174
JG 77, JG 27
Hptm. Hans-Joachim "Jochen" Marseille 20
158
LG 2, JG 27, JG 7
Hptm. Heinz-Edgar Berres 20
52
LG 2, JG 77
FjOfw. Emil Babenz 20
24
JG 26, JG 53
Maj. Klaus Mietusch 19
75
JG 26
Hptm. Franz "Nawratil" Schiess 18
67
JG 53
Hptm. Bruno Stolle 18
35
LG 1, JG 51, JG 2, JG 11, EKdo Ta 152
Hptm. Friedrich Geisshardt 17
102
LG 2, JG 77, JG 26
Hptm. Wolfgang Tonne 16
122
JG 53
Oblt. Karl "Charly" Willius 16
50
JG 51, JG 26
Oblt. Erich Schmidt 15
47
JG 53
Lt. Jakob Augustin 14
15
JG 2
Hptm. Robert "Bazzi" Weiss 12
121
JG 26, JG 54
Maj. Herbert Huppertz 12
78
JG 51, JG 1, JG 5, JG 2
Oblt. Walter Brandt 12
43
LG 2, JG 77, JG 3
Maj. Karl-Heinz Greisert 11
34
JG 2, JG 3
-
P-47 killers.
Oblt. Wilhelm Hofmann 13
44
JG 26
Maj. Theodor Weissenberger 13
208
JG 5, JG 7
Obstlt. Egon Mayer 12
102
JG 2
Maj. Julius "Jule" Meimberg 12
53
JG 2, JG 53
Obstlt. Heinz-Edgar "Pritzel" Bär 10
221
JG 51, JG 77, JG 1, JG 3, EJG 2, JV 44
Maj. Georg-Peter Eder 10
78
JG 51, JG 2, JG 1, JG 26, Kdo Nowotny, JG 7
Obstlt. Kurt "Bu-mann" Bühligen 9+
112
JG 2
Ofw. Heinrich Bartels 9
99
EJG 26, JG 1, JG 5, JG 27
Oblt. Adolf "Addi" Glunz 9
71
JG 52, JG 26, EJG 2, JG 7
Oblt. Waldemar-H. "Waldi" Radener 9
36
JG 26, JG 300
Hptm. Siegfried Lemke 8+
70~
JG 2
Lt. Hans Prager 8+
21
JG 26, JG 54
Hptm. Alfred "Martello" Hammer 8
26
JG 53
Hptm. Walter “Graf Punski” Krupinski 7
197
JG 52, JG 11, JG 26, JV 44
Maj. Jürgen Harder 7
64
JG 53, JG 11
Lt. Heinz Kemethmüller 7
89
JG 3, JG 26
Maj. Wilhelm Steinmann 7
44
JG 27, JG 4, EJG 2, JV 44
Lt. Waldemar Söffing 7
34
JG 26
Oblt. Herbert Rollwage 6+
85~
JG 53, JG 106
Lt. Gerd Wiegand 6+
23
JG 26
Maj. Anton Hackl 6
192
JG 77, JG 11, JG 76, JG 26, JG 300
Hptm. Emil "Bully" Lang 6
173
JG 54, JG 26
Maj. Klaus Mietusch 6
75
JG 26
Hptm. Lutz-Wilhelm Burkhardt 6
69
JG 77, JGr. Süd, JG 1, EJG 2
Lt. Paul Becker 5
21
JG 27
Maj. Wilhelm-Ferdinand "Wutz" Galland 5
54
JG 26
Lt. Wilhelm Mayer 5+
27
JG 26
Hptm. Otto Meyer 5
21
JG 26, JG 27
Maj. Hermann Staiger 5
63
JG 20, JG 51, JG 26, JG 1, JG 7
Oblt. Heinz-Gerhard Vogt 5
48
JG 26
Hptm. Franz "Nawratil" Schiess 18
67
JG 53
Hptm. Bruno Stolle 18
35
LG 1, JG 51, JG 2, JG 11, EKdo Ta 152
Hptm. Friedrich Geisshardt 17
102
LG 2, JG 77, JG 26
Hptm. Wolfgang Tonne 16
122
JG 53
Oblt. Karl "Charly" Willius 16
50
JG 51, JG 26
Oblt. Erich Schmidt 15
47
JG 53
Lt. Jakob Augustin 14
15
JG 2
Hptm. Robert "Bazzi" Weiss 12
121
JG 26, JG 54
Maj. Herbert Huppertz 12
78
JG 51, JG 1, JG 5, JG 2
Oblt. Walter Brandt 12
43
LG 2, JG 77, JG 3
Maj. Karl-Heinz Greisert 11
34
JG 2, JG 3
-
P-51 killers.
Maj.
Wilhelm Steinmann 12
44
JG 27, JG 4, EJG 2, JV 44
Ofw.
Heinrich Bartels 11
99
EJG 26, JG 1, JG 5, JG 27
Obstlt.
Heinz Bär 10
221
JG 51, JG 77, JG 1, JG 3, EJG 2, JV 44
Hptm.
Franz Schall 10
133
JG 52, Kdo Nowotny, JG 7
Oblt.
Wilhelm Hofmann 10
44
JG 26
Hptm.
Emil "Bully" Lang 9
173
JG 54, JG 26
Hptm.
Walter Krupinski 8
197
JG 52, JG 11, JG 26, JV 44
Maj.
Georg-Peter Eder 7+
78
JG 51, JG 2, JG 1, JG 26, Ekdo 262, Kdo Nowotny, JG 7
Maj.
Jürgen Harder 7
65
JG 53, JG 11
Oblt.
Heinz-Gerhard Vogt 7
48
JG 26
Lt.
Hans Fritz 7
12
JG 3
Obst.
Walther Dahl 6+
128
JG 3,JG z.b.v., JG 300, EJG 2
Hptm.
Siegfried Lemke 6+
70~
JG 2
Hptm.
Lutz-Wilhelm Burkhardt 6
69
JG 77, JGr. Süd, JG 1, EJG 2
Oblt.
Hans Dortenmann 6
38
JG 54, JG 26
FhjOfw.
Alfred Müller 6
16
JG 27
Hptm.
Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert 5
174
JG 77, JG 27, JG 7
Lt.
Oskar Zimmermann 5
34
JG 51, JG 3
Oblt.
Peter Crump 5
31
JG 26, JG 54
Lt.
Wilhelm Mayer 5
27
JG 26
Lt.
Hans Riedel 5
15
JG 77
Fw.
Otto Florian 5
12
JG 3
-
P-38 killers.
Hptm.
Franz "Nawratil" Schiess 17
67
JG 53
Ofw.
Heinrich Bartels 14
99
EJG 26, JG 1, JG 5, JG 27
Obstlt.
Kurt "Bu-mann" Bühligen 13+
112
JG 2
Hptm.
Herbert Puschmann 9
57
JG 51
Oblt.
Wilhelm "Willy" Kientsch 9
53
JG 27
Oblt.
Herbert Rollwage 8+
85~
JG 53, JG 106
Oblt.
Anton Hafner 8
204
JG 51
Maj.
Werner Schroer 8
114
JG 27, JG 54, JG 3
Maj.
Erich Rudorffer 7
224
JG 2, JG 54, JG 7
Hptm.
Joachim Kirschner 7
188
JG 3, JG 27
Maj.
Kurt "Kuddel" Ubben 7
111
J/186, JG 77, JG 2
Oblt.
Karl Paashaus 7
26
JG 53, JG 106
Maj.
Klaus Mietusch 6
75
JG 26
Hptm.
Hans Roehrig 6
75
Erpr.Gr. 210, JG 53
Hptm.
Gustav Frielinghaus 6
74
JG 3, JGr Süd, EJG 1
Oblt.
Günther Seeger 6
56
JG 2, JG 53
Ofw.
Siegfried Zick 6
31
JG 11
Obst.
Johannes "Mäcky" Steinhoff 5
176
JG 26, JG 52, JG 77, JG 7, JV 44
Hptm.
Robert "Bazzi" Weiss 5
121
JG 26, JG 54
Obst.
Gustav Rödel 5
98
JG 21, JG 27
Maj.
Eduard Tratt 5
38
ZG 1, SKG 210, ZG 26
Hptm.
Alfred "Martello" Hammer 5
26
JG 53
Oblt.
Paul Bley 5
7+
ZG 26, Kdo Nowotny
-
Four-engined bomber killers.
Maj. Georg-Peter Eder 36
78
JG 51, JG 2, JG 1, JG 26, Kdo Nowotny, EJG 2, JG 7 -
Maj. Anton Hackl 34
192
JG 77, JG 11, JG 76, JG 26, JG 300 -
Oblt. Konrad "Pitt" Bauer 32
57
JG 51, JG 3, JG 300 -
Obst. Walter Dahl 30+
128
JG 3, JG z.b.v., JG 300, EJG 2 maybee 36 Viermots
Maj. Werner Schroer 26
114
JG 27, JG 54, JG 3 15x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 7x B-24
Obstlt. Egon Mayer 26
102
JG 2 21x B-17, 5x B-24
Maj. Rolf-Günther Hermichen 26
64
ZG 1, ZG 76, SKG 210, JG 26, JG 11, JG 104 -
Maj. Hermann Staiger 25
63
JG 20, JG 51, JG 26, JG 1, JG 7 21x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24, 1x Viermot
Lt. Anton-Rudolf Piffer 26
35
JG 1 17x B -17, 5x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24, 1x Stirling
Hptm. Hugo Frey 25
32
LG 2, JG 1, JG 11 19x B-17, 5x B-24, 1x Viermot
Lt. Alwin Doppler 25
29
JG 1, JG 11 16x B-17, 9x B-24
Obstlt. Kurt Bühligen 24
112
JG 2 -
Hptm. Hans Ehlers 24
55
JG 3, JG 1 18x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24
Maj. Friedrich-Karl "Tutti" Müller 23
140
JG 53, JG 3 15x B-17, 6x B-24, 2x B-24 HSS
Hptm. Heinrich Wurzer 23
26
JG 302 7x B-17, 12x B-24, 4x B-24 HSS
Ofw. Walter Loos 22
38
JG 3, JG 300, JG 301 -
Hptm. Hans Weik 22
36
JG 3, Erg.Gr.Ost, EJG 2 15x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS
Oblt. Werner Gerth 22
27
JG 53, Sturmstaffel 1, JG 3 16x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24
Obstlt. Heinz "Pritzel" Bär 21
221
JG 51, JG 77, EJGr. Süd, JG 1, JG 3, EJG 2, JV 44 11x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 8x B-24
Hptm. Fritz Karch 21
47
JG 2 -
Lt. Willi Unger 21
24
JG 3, JG 7 13x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS
Hptm. Josef "Sepp" Wurmheller 20+
102
JG 53, JG 2 -
Oblt. Wilhelm "Willy" Kientsch 20
53
JG 27 11x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 7x B-24
Hptm. Hans-Heinrich Koenig 20
28
ZG 76, NJG 3, Jasta Helgoland, JG 11 10x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 7x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS
Ofw. Willi Reschke 20
27
JG 302, JG 301 9x B-17,1x B-17 HSS, 1x B-17 e.V., 9x B-24
Oblt. Adolf "Addi" Glunz 19
71
JG 52, JG 26, EJG 2, JG 7 14x B-17, 1x B-17HSS, 1x B-17 e.V., 2x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS
Lt. Klaus Neumann 19
37
JG 51, JG 3, JG 7, JV 44 12x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS
Hptm. Heinz Knoke 19
33
JG 52, JG 11, JG 1 15x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24
Hptm. Rudolf Engleder 19+
22+
JG 1, EJG 2 7x B-17, 10x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24
Hptm. Alfred Grislawski 18
133
JG 52, JGr. Süd, JGr. 50, JG 1, JG 53 17x B-17, 1x B-24
Ofw. Siegfried Zick 18
31
JG 11 12x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS
Lt. Anton Benning 18
28
JG 302, JG 301 -
Maj. Emil-Rudolf Schnoor 18
23
JG 1 15x B-17, 3x B-24
Maj. Herbert Huppertz 17
78
JG 51, JG 1, JG 5, JG 2 13x B-17, 4x B-24
Ofw. Eduard Isken 17
56
JG 77, JGr 200, JG 53 -
Oblt. Klaus Bretschneider 17
34
JG 300 7x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 6x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS, 1x B-24 e.V.
Oblt. Gustav Sturm 17
22
JG 27, JG 3, JG 51, EJG 2, JG 7 5x B-17,3x B-17 HSS,5x B-24,2x B-24 HSS,1x Lancaster, 1x Halifax
Uffz. Rudolf Hübl 17
20
JG 1 8x B-17,6x B-17HSS,2x B-24,1x B-24 HSS
Ofw. Johannes Pichler 16
75
JG 77 -
Maj. Ernst Börngen 16
41
JG 27 -
Lt. Hans Iffland 16
18
JG 3 5x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24, 2x B-24 HSS
Lt. Rudolf "Rudi" Rademacher 15
97
JG 54, JGr. Nord, JG 7 -
Lt. Leopold "Poldi" Münster 15
95
JG 3 9x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS
Oblt. Otto Wessling 15
83
JG 3 9x B-17, 6x B-24
Lt. Oskar Zimmermann 15
48
JG 51, JG 3 -
Maj. Günther Specht 15
34
ZG 26, JG 1, JG 11 12x B-17, 3x B-24
Lt. Walter Köhne 15
30
JG 52, JG 1, JG 11, EJG 2 8x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS
Ofw. Willi Maximowitz 15
27
Sturmstaffel 1, JG 3 10x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24
Oblt. Herbert Rollwage 14+
85~
JG 53, JG 106 -
Obst. Walter "Gulle" Oesau 14
125
JG 51, JG 3, JG 2, JG 1 10x B-17, 2x B-24, 1x Lancaster, 1x B-17 e.V.
Ofw. Erwin Laskowski 14
46
JG 51, JG 11 -
Oblt. Franz Ruhl 14
37
JG 3 10x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24, 2x Lancaster
Maj. Walter Matoni 14
34
JG 27, JG 26, JG 2, JG 11 -
Maj. Peter Werfft-Wessely 14
26
JG 27 4x B-17, 6x B-24, 4x B-24 HSS
Oblt. Ernst-Erich Hirschfeld 14
24
JG 54, JG 300 -
Hptm. Gerhard Sommer 14
20
JG 1, JG 11 10x B-17, 4x B-24
Obst. Gustav Rödel 13
98
JG 27 -
Maj. Klaus Mietusch 13
75
JG 26 8x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24
Obstlt. Gerhard Michalski 13
73
JG 53, JG z.b.v., JG 4 8x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24, 1x Lancaster
Maj. Armin Köhler 13
69
JG 27 -
Maj. Erich Hohagen 13
56
JG 51, JG 27, JG 2, JG 7, JV 44 -
Hptm. Harry Koch 13
30
JG 26, JG 1 10x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS
Fw. Karl-Heinz Böttner 13
25
JG 77 -
Fw. Otto Pritzl 13
19
JG 51, JG 302, JG 3, JG 7 -
Lt. Emil-Karl Demuth 13
17
JG 1 9x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24
Oblt. Waldemar-H. Waldi" Radener 12+
37
JG 26, JG 300 6 Viermots as unconfirmed and probably further with JG 300
Maj. Erwin Clausen 12
132
LG 2, JG 77, JG 11 11x B-17, 1x B-24
Maj. Siegfried "Wumm" Schnell 12
93
JG 2, JG 54 -
Hptm. Karl Paashaus 12
26
JG 53 8x B-17,3x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS
Lt. Rudi Dassow 12
22
ZG 1, ZG 76, JG 6 -
Lt. Jürgen Hoerschelmann 12
18
JG 3 7x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24
Fw. Hans Schäfer 12
18
JG 3 2x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24, 2x B-24 HSS
Hptm. Peter Jenne 12
17+
ZG 1, ZG 26, JG 300 -
Ofw. Ernst Haase 12
16
JG 302 4x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24, 2x B-24 HSS
Fw. Otto Ehrhardt 12
14
JG 3 8x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24
Obst. Josef "Pips" Priller 11
101
JG 51, JG 26 7x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24
Oblt. Hans Grünberg 11+
82
JG 3, JG 7, JV 44 5x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24, 2x Lancaster
Oblt. Eugen-Ludwig Zweigart 11
69
JG 54 9x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24
Lt. Walter Brandt 11
57
LG 2, JG 77, JG 3 -
Oblt. Karl "Charly" Willius 11
50
JG 26, JG 51 8x B-17, 3x B-24
Maj. Karl Rammelt 11
46
JG 51 -
Maj. Wilhelm Moritz 11+
44
ZG 1, JG 77, JG 1, JG 51, JG 3, EJG 1, JG 4 2x B-17, 2x B-17HSS, 3x B-24, 4x B-24 HSS
Ofw. Friedrich May 11
29
JG 2 8x B-17, 2x B-24, 1x Lancaster
Hptm. Ekkehard Tichy 11
25
JG 53, JG 3 6x B-17, 4x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24
Hptm. Rüdiger von Kirchmayr 10+
50
JG 1, JG 11 2x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS
Ofw. Karl-Heinz Munsche 10+
20+
JG 2 9x B-17, 1x B-24
Fw. Hubert Engst 10+
15~
JG Hermann, JG 300 -
Maj. Erich Rudorffer 10
224
JG 2, JG 54, JG 7 -
Maj. Jürgen Harder 10
65
JG 53, JG 11 4x B-17, 6x B-24
Lt. Hermann Buchner 10
58
LG 2, St.G. 1, SG 2, SG 151, Kdo Nowotny, JG 7 -
Maj. Horst Haase 10
56
JG 51, JG 3 6x B-17, 4x B-24
Oblt. Karl-Heinz Bendert 10
55
JG 27, JG 104 -
Maj. Ernst Düllberg 10
45
JG 3, JG 27, JG 76, EJG 2, JG 7 5x B-17, 4x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS
Hptm. Herbert Schob 10
28
LG 1, ZG 26, ZG 76 -
Lt. Otto Russ 10
27
JG 53 -
Fw. Horst Rippert 10
26
JGr. 200, JG 27 -
Ofw. Hans-Gerd Wennekers 10
24
JG 1, JG 11 7x B-17, 3x B-24
Fw. Kurt Gren 10
23
JG 51, JG 3 -
Lt. Leo Schuhmacher 10
23
ZG 76, JG 1, JG 3, EJG 2, JV 44 -
Lt. Karl Wünsch 10
22
JG 27 -
Lt. Helmut Beckmann 10
18
JG 27 -
Lt. Hans Schrangl 10
14
JG 11 -
Ofw. Franz Steiner 10
12
JG 27, JG 1, JG 11, JV 44 6x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24
Oblt. Heinz Seidel 10
11
JG 302 6x B-17, 3x B-24, 1x B-24 HSS
Fw. Gerhard Vivroux 10
11
Sturmstaffel 1, JG 3 7x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24
Fhj.Fw. Heinz Angres 10
10
JG 3 4x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24
Oblt. Hans Pancritius 10
10
JG 1, JG 11 -
Lt. Rudolf Metz 10
10
JG 5, Sturmstaffel 1, JG 3, JG 4 3x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24
Oblt. Fritz Stehle 9+
26
ZG 26, JG 7 -
Oblt. Erich Hondt 9+
14
JG 11, Jasta Helgoland, JV 44 -
Lt. Karl "Quax" Schnörrer 9
46
JG 54, JG 7, Kdo Nowotny 8x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS
Lt. Fritz Gromotka 9
29
JG 27 3x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 4x B-24
Hptm. Hans Remmer 9
26
JG 27 3x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 5x B-24
Hptm. Otto Meyer 9
21
JG 26, JG 27 -
Lt. Siegfried Müller 9
17
JG 51, JG 3, JG 7 2x B-17, 1x B-17 HSS, 6x B-24
Lt. Walter Hagenah 9
17
JG 3, JG 11, JG 7 4x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 3x B-24
Hptm. Eberhard Schade 9
11
JG 27 -
Oblt. Heinrich Klöpper 8
94
JG 77, JG 51, JG 1 -
Oblt. Oskar "Ossi" Romm 8
92
JG 51, JG 3 4x B-17, 4x B-24
Ofw. Helmut Rüffler 8
88
JG 3, JG 51 3x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24
Hptm. Otto Schultz 8
73
JG 51 -
Oblt. Günther Seeger 8
56
JG 2, JG 53 6x B-17, 2x B-24
Oblt. Gerhard Vogt 8
48
JG 26 3x B-17, 3x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24 HSS
Maj. Rudolf Klemm 8
42
JG 54, JG 26, JG 7 5x B-17, 3x B-24
Fw. Oskar Bösch 8
18
Sturmstaffel 1, JG 3 4x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 2x B-24
Oblt. Kurt Gabler 8
14+
JG 300 2x B-17, 6x B-24
Lt. Alexander Ottnad 8
14
JG 27 -
Ofw. Artur Groß 8
11
JG 302 -
Lt. Hans-Ulrich Jung 8
10
JG 3 5x B-17, 2x B-17 HSS, 1x B-24
Fw. Bernhard Kunze 8
9
JG 1 -
Maj. Heinrich Ehrler 7
208
JG 77, JG 5, JG 7 -
Maj. Theodor Weissenberger 7
208
JG z.b.v., JG 77, JG 5, JG 6, JG 7 -
Hptm. Hermann Segatz 7
40
JG 51, JG 26, JG 5, JG 1 -
Hptm. Johannes Naumann 7
34
JG 26, JG 6, JG 7 -
Oblt. Karl-Heinz Kapp 7
12
JG 27 -
Lt. Hannes Löffler 7
11
JG 27 -
Ofw. Eberhard Kroker 7
9+
JG 302, JG 300 -
Fw. Georg Schanz 7
9
JG 27 -
Lt. Willi Hallenberger 7
8
JG 51,JG 302 -
Ofw. Herbert Stephan 7
8
JG 302 -
-
Up till the Normandy landing the air war in the west was little more than a sideshow to the huge bloody war in the east. It is only natural that the kill tallies reflect this fact.
-
otto take the brown shirt off and step away from the beer you have had 1 to many.
The germans had no need for a long range escort?!!!??
Tell that to the 109 pilots that had to ditch in the channel.
Geee there is you need for a long range escort rite there . How about a medium range escort even.
Bronk
-
They fixed that by adding drop tanks. You know, like the ones the P-51 needed to get anywhere far.
-
Sure what ever you say Otto, aka Fw190fan.
Sept-Dec 1943
West - losses - 5153
East - losses - 1736
Jan-May 1944
West - losses - 10,745
East - losses - 3214
Yes for sure some sideshow with the LW suffering 75% (Sept-Dec 43) and 77% (Jan-May44) of their total losses in the West. Note that this was all before D-Day.
You need to improve your a/c recognition skills. It was the P-47, not the P-51, that needed drop tanks to get anywhere far. The 109 could not even match the range of the Spitfire.
-
Fw190fan? I'm a 109/262 fan. (or isn't that obvious?)
Without drop tanks the P-51's operational range was limited to France.
(http://www.luchtoorlog.be/Images/me109g/g23.jpg)
Bf109G-2 R1 and R2 variants had range to spare. This R1 long-range fighter-bomber also carried a 500kg bomb. The G-2 R1/R2 had a range that rivaled that of any allied fighter, dwarfing the Spit's range.
(http://www.luchtoorlog.be/Images/me109g/g24.jpg)
(http://www.luchtoorlog.be/Images/me109g/g25.jpg)
If the Germans were to find themselves in need of a long range escort fighter they already had a solution. Fact is, the Germans didn't need a long range fighter except for very specialized tasks such as reconnaissance. For those tasks they HAD long range versions of the 109 and 190.
-
Before the Normandy landings the war in the west WAS a sideshow to the war in the east. How many soldiers got killed on the eastern front in that same timeline? The war was won on the ground ... in the east.
-
Yep, OttoJ's point is valid on the long range possibility for the 109/190. It was never needed for them, that is.
Besides, the 109F, G-K had a range with a single droptank of 1000-1200 miles. Someone should tell me why more would be required. They never needed to escort bombers from GB to Berlin...
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The 109 could not even match the range of the Spitfire.
Nice flamebait, Milo.
-
"I'm always amazed when I read the "uber 109" threads. "
Über 109 threads usually try to state that 109 was competitive with aircraft of the same era, not obsolete cr4p.
:)
"Personally I don't think the 109 was sucessful at all,didn't the German lost the war ?"
Eh? So the 109 could have won it if it were a better plane?
:p
"The germans lack of vision in this regard is probably the single greatest reason they lost the war."
Heh, this sounds like that outdated "small wingloading" line.
I'm sure overwhelming numers of opponents had nothing to do with Germany losing the war... I'd point that responsibility to one person with funny moustache...
:D
Ed: The Jumo engined 109 was called a "Mule" by Israelis and it was very much disliked by its pilots because of bad handling qualities.
-C+
-
Oh yes the Avias were deathtraps. Says a lot for the skill of the Israeli pilots that they manage to score victories in them.
-
We are taking about airplanes Otto.:rolleyes: I don't see any kill tallies for the number of Ivan foot solders. Why do you hide your other nick? Fw190fan was, and most likely still is, Barbi's little lapdog. There is a simularity between you and him.
The P-47 was limited to the French/German border. The P-51 had a range of almost 1000mi on internal fuel at max cruise speed. This was 3 times the range of the 109 at max cruise speed. This P-51 range, with internal fuel, is almost the same as the 109 with d/t at most economical speed. Barbi has you brainwashed.
The Fw190 with wing drop tanks was a female dog to fly and you want us to believe the 109 was not as well. Nice report in Andrew Arthy's Fw190s in Africa book.
Show me that the 109 had greater range than the Spit Kurfy. The range you state is for most economical speed. On internal fuel, the 109 could do just over 600mi at most economical speed while the Spitfire could do over 800 mi at most economcal speed.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
On internal fuel, the 109 could do just over 600mi at most economical speed while the Spitfire could do over 800 mi at most economcal speed.
Really, I`ve got 434-450 miles for the mid/latewar Spits, 615-725 miles for the 109 on eco cruise.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
We are taking about airplanes Otto.:rolleyes: I don't see any kill tallies for the number of Ivan foot solders. Why do you hide your other nick? Fw190fan was, and most likely still is, Barbi's little lapdog. There is a simularity between you and him.
No you're talking about airplanes. I said: "Up till the Normandy landing the air war in the west was little more than a sideshow to the huge bloody war in the east. It is only natural that the kill tallies reflect this fact."
The war in the east was a war of annihilation. The war in the west was a nuisance until Normandy and had little or no real effect on the outcome of the war.
And I'm not Fw190fan.
-
I suggest you dig out that Spit VIII document that you saved Kurfy. On it the Spit got 10mi/gal > 85 x 10 = 850mi(1367km)
850 - 615 = 235mi
850 - 725 = 125mi
average range advantage of +180mi for the Spitfire. :eek:
Would you like to try again? :)
-
Btw. Milo, fully fueled the P-51 was also a female dog to fly. Dangerous even.
-
The Spit VIII datasheet says 740 miles on eco cruise on internal, Milo.
If you really want to use comparable figures, use the 10 mpg given for the 109G, it had 88 gallon internal, so its 880 miles. Of course, its quite theoretical, like your figure, and not many MkVIIIs were built.
-
Kurfurst/HoHun
Wingloading is probably the single greatest indicator of an aircrafts turning capability unless the flaps are deployable at combat speeds and provide significant lift. Almost all fighters in WW2 had Clmax's of between 1.3 and 1.6 with no flaps and engine power off. Based on this and the very small wing area of the 109 as soon as the weight of the 109 begins to reach 7000lbs the wingloading hits 40lbs per SQft. And the G6 was a 7000lb aircraft. The F4U-1A at 12,000lbs had wing loading of 38lbs per Sqft. and combat flaps deployable up to 200Knots IAS. And at 12,000lbs it was carrying enough fuel (237 gallons 1422lbs) for a 1,000mile range and 750lbs of .50cal ammo. The actual "Interceptor" Loadout was half fuel and half ammunition. That is more than 1,000lbs lighter. At that weight the wingloading is 35lbs per SQft and the climb to 20K is reduced by 1 minute while the range is still comprable to the 109.
Also the power loading of the 109G6 at 6,950LBS and 1475HP is 4.7. The F4U-1A is at 5.3 at gross weight but only 4.8 at 11,000lbs. Almost equal.
Otto,
I am not sure were the 109 was being produced (I think it was in Czechoslovakia) or in what year, but the F4U was being produced at the Vought factory in the 1950's for use in the US and sold to the French to be flown off of their carriers and then the Argentinian's Carrier into the 60's. Not third world countries or the Yugo factory in Czechoslovakia.
Bruno,
Your getting boring. Bring something to the table to make an arguement please.
-
The range listed would most likely include a reserve, so if you look at consumption and fuel load numbers they will usually yield a greater range. This will most likely vary depending on aircraft and nationality.
Spits and 109s are very similar in range on internal. Depending on version the real advantage can go either way. The Spit carried more fuel, but the 109 had a more economical engine.
-
Oh yes Otto, the P-51 was so unsuited for ground attack that the A-36 flew some +23,000 sorties and only lost 177 a/c to enemy air and ground weapons. That is 1 A-36 lost for every 130 sorties flown. Naturally the 109 with 2 radiators under the a/c was not as suseptable to ground fire.:rolleyes:
Only with the fuselage tank filled was the P-51 hard to fly.
-
F4UDOA, the 109 was produced in Spain until the late '50s. I forget the exact year.
-
Yes Milo the 109 would be more survivable because of the two radiators. They had shut-off valves. One bullet in the P-51's radiator and it is doomed. One bullet in a 109's radiator and it can fly home with 50% of its cooling intact.
I have read nothing that says the 109 G-2 R1/R2 was difficult to fly. The R2 version was perhaps the most used recce 109 in the mid-war years.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Kurfurst/HoHun
Wingloading is probably the single greatest indicator of an aircrafts turning capability unless the flaps are deployable at combat speeds and provide significant lift. Almost all fighters in WW2 had Clmax's of between 1.3 and 1.6 with no flaps and engine power off.
[/B]
If thats true it would mean that two planes with exactly the same wingloading can differ by 20% on the actual amount of lift delivered. And you obviously dont take into account the leading edge slats of the 109, which will allow AoA that normal airfoils simply cannot follow without stalling. It`s just not that simple.
Based on this and the very small wing area of the 109 as soon as the weight of the 109 begins to reach 7000lbs the wingloading hits 40lbs per SQft. And the G6 was a 7000lb aircraft. The F4U-1A at 12,000lbs had wing loading of 38lbs per Sqft. and combat flaps deployable up to 200Knots IAS. And at 12,000lbs it was carrying enough fuel (237 gallons 1422lbs) for a 1,000mile range and 750lbs of .50cal ammo. The actual "Interceptor" Loadout was half fuel and half ammunition. That is more than 1,000lbs lighter. At that weight the wingloading is 35lbs per SQft and the climb to 20K is reduced by 1 minute while the range is still comprable to the 109.
[/B]
So if your data is correct, they are very close and you havent even looked into details like the slats and CLs.
In the lightened condition it has 500 miles range and little ammo, and still not much of a diffo for turning. I don`t know for climbing, havent checked it yet. It would be best to plot the data on charts, its easiest to see that way.
Also the power loading of the 109G6 at 6,950LBS and 1475HP is 4.7. The F4U-1A is at 5.3 at gross weight but only 4.8 at 11,000lbs. Almost equal.
[/B]
Yep, not much of a difference, and the 109 is likely to have much less drag. Would that mean F4U was totally obsolate since it matched the 109G-6? ;)
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
Spits and 109s are very similar in range on internal. Depending on version the real advantage can go either way. The Spit carried more fuel, but the 109 had a more economical engine.
Actually the only Spit carryign more fuel is the MkVIII and its offsrping MkXIV, ie 111/120 imp gallons. The other Spits carried 85 impg vs. 88 on the 109, pretty much the same.The VIII had good range, thats why it was used in the PTO, but the XIV had the big griffon that eat so much that it would range with 111 gallons to same as the IX with 85 gallons.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Yep, not much of a difference, and the 109 is likely to have much less drag. Would that mean F4U was totally obsolate since it matched the 109G-6? ;)
lol :D
-
:lol
Kurfurst,
I called you a Nazi? I see your revisionist history doesn't just extend to WWII, but also to the recent past. You have repeatedly called me a Nazi whenever you can't make solid points. It is your typical method to resort to ad hommes.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Spit VIII datasheet says 740 miles on eco cruise on internal, Milo.
If you really want to use comparable figures, use the 10 mpg given for the 109G, it had 88 gallon internal, so its 880 miles. Of course, its quite theoretical, like your figure, and not many MkVIIIs were built.
You do have your troubles don't you Kurfy, as well as being selective on which documents you use. Try doc A58-315 which was posted here some time ago.
The LF MkVIII and LF MkIX used the same engine, a 66. The HF MkVIII and LF MkIX used the same engine, a 70. The only difference in the engines was the supercharger gearing. It does not really matter if it was a HF or a LF, it still got 10mi/gal in eco cruise mode.
eco cruise milage for the G-6:
725/88 = 8.2mi/gal
615/88 = 7.0mi/gal
Not up to the 10mi/gal the Spit got on eco cruise, is it?
740mi is not eco cruise but for high cruise speed. Eco cruise is 1800rpm while your range data is for 2650rpm.
Otto, why would short range tactical recon a/c need the extra wing drop tanks.
-
Yep, not much of a difference, and the 109 is likely to have much less drag. Would that mean F4U was totally obsolate since it matched the 109G-6?
Exactly,
The G-6 would accelerate faster, climb better and turn, at least initially, with his state of the art F4U-1. His issue with 'top speed' depends on the boost.
For instance in AH2 the top speed of the G-6 is:
20K
Military Power – 20000 FT 38.9 MP @ 2600 RPM = 378 MPH
Emergency Power – 20000 FT 42.2 MP @ 2800 RPM = 388 MPH
630km/h @ 6600m is the top speed for a G-6 @ 1.30 ata
At 1.42 ata the top speed should be around 655km/h (depending on whose numbers you believe cleared for 1,42ata in June/July '43 or Nov '43).
As an example the F-4 was flight tested:
635 km/h with 1.30 ata / 2500 rpm.
670 km/h with 1.42 ata / 2700 rpm
and in regards to the G-2 at least according to Butch:
In fact when first issued to units the G-2 was cleared for 1.42ata, hence faster than the F-4 with a top speed around 700-710 km/h IIRC. Then serious troubles with the DB605A appeared with mass production of the engine, which resulted in the boost being limited to 1.30ata. Keep in mind that G-2 top speed in the later condition is around 660-670km/h roughly similar to an F-4 cleared for 1.42ata.
The Gustav certainly wasn't outdated by '43, not even if we believe F4U's math...
By early '44 new variants improved upon the standard G-6 (G-6/AS, G-14, G14/AS, and later in '44 G-10, K-4).
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
Complete humbug. The P-51 was a purpose designed and dedicated escort fighter. Its armament and climb rate made it a poor interceptor, and the placement of its radiator and fuel tanks made it unsuited for ground attack. In the fighter-bomber role the Fw190G series was eminently more effective with some specialized versions even having longer range than the P-51.
Obviously you are somewhat uneducated on the realities as indicated by all your posts here. The pony was easily the best production design of WW2 (since the F7F was never put in service). The P51-D was a very capable interceptor (superior to any 109 flavor)....more importantly it had the ability to project that capability. What made the pony so special wasnt just its raw capabilities...but the fact that it could project that capabilitiy over Berlin. IMO the 190 was a far far superior airframe to the 109 however it had a combat range of ~600km and had nowhere near the performance envelope of the P-51 (or P-38/P-47)...hence the need for so many specialized versions. A total of 800 or so G models were produced. Range could only be extended via drop tanks which reduced bombload. Even with the ETC-503 "bomb rack" the plane didnt have the range and payload a P51-D had. The G was a build out of the 190A8 so it had the same poor performance that forced development of the D-9 and Ta-152....in fact all german planes had to be modified from 1944 on do due there marked inferiority in some aspect of performance. Meanwhile the USAAF had the luxury of swapping out 38's for jugs for P51's and could utilize all planes in any role as needed without the need for any modifications.
-
Bring something to the table to make an argument please.
My argument is well established, you are ignorant even on a basic level when comes to the 109 series .You have yet to provide one thing that contradicts that opinion. Not I only have I shown that but others have as well. I am no 'experte' myself but Hohun and Kurfurst can provide you with anything you need.
-
But the G6 is pretty not fit for operating from a CV :p
What about stoping comparing apple && oranges ?
Not only you Bruno.
-
Originally posted by humble
Obviously you are somewhat uneducated on the realities as indicated by all your posts here. The pony was easily the best production design of WW2 (since the F7F was never put in service). The P51-D was a very capable interceptor (superior to any 109 flavor)....more importantly it had the ability to project that capability. What made the pony so special wasnt just its raw capabilities...but the fact that it could project that capabilitiy over Berlin. IMO the 190 was a far far superior airframe to the 109 however it had a combat range of ~600km and had nowhere near the performance envelope of the P-51 (or P-38/P-47)...hence the need for so many specialized versions. A total of 800 or so G models were produced. Range could only be extended via drop tanks which reduced bombload. Even with the ETC-503 "bomb rack" the plane didnt have the range and payload a P51-D had. The G was a build out of the 190A8 so it had the same poor performance that forced development of the D-9 and Ta-152....in fact all german planes had to be modified from 1944 on do due there marked inferiority in some aspect of performance. Meanwhile the USAAF had the luxury of swapping out 38's for jugs for P51's and could utilize all planes in any role as needed without the need for any modifications.
It is rare for someone to be so completely wrong in every aspect of a post. Congratulations. There is not one correct assertion in your entire post. It is common practice to present some form of documentation that support your argument, like I and others in this thread have done. Can you back up anything of what you've said? No of course not, because it's all BS. Why do you even bother posting?
-
Hi F4UDOA,
>Wingloading is probably the single greatest indicator of an aircrafts turning capability unless the flaps are deployable at combat speeds and provide significant lift.
I guess you're not aware of the "Zulässige Geschwindigkeit in Abhängigkeit vom Klappenausschlag" graph for the Emil? 10° flaps are possible up to 780 km/h, 20° up to 470, 30° up to 350 and 40° up to 290 km/h.
>Almost all fighters in WW2 had Clmax's of between 1.3 and 1.6 with no flaps and engine power off.
Does that mean you used neither the historical F4U Clmax nor the historical Me 109 Clmax for your comparison?
Anyway, if you have to drain your tanks and sacrifice your operational advantage to get an advantage over the (relatively) poorest performing of all Me 109s, rumours of the Messerschmitt's obsolescence have been wildly exaggerated :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Debonair,
>Thought you might be interested in a slightly more accurate version of the history of the P-80 in Europe, which I guess you'd never seen.
Actually, what I'd like to see is how you verified the "accuracy" of Baugher's research :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Anyway, if you have to drain your tanks and sacrifice your operational advantage to get an advantage over the (relatively) poorest performing of all Me 109s, rumours of the Messerschmitt's obsolescence have been wildly exaggerated :-)
But then, what did a 109 have to do to carry 2,000 lbs. of bombs, 2,350 rounds of .50 ammo, 273 gallons of fuel and eight 55 lb. HVAR rockets? Or 3,000 lbs. of bombs with full fuel and ammo (and anecdotally much more from land bases over short distances)?
Or fly in an A2A role with a range of 1,000 miles (internal) or 1,500 miles (maximum)?
And do all that while operating from a carrier with the required folding wings and carrier gear?
This is just the F4U1d series. I don’t think the F4U-4 had to make too many compromises to get pure 1945 quality A2A performance.
The 109 was clearly more than competitive as a point defense interceptor against other fighters or medium bombers, and as a short-ranged tactical fighter. For countries where multi-mission capability was not essential, it was certainly not obsolete :)
Charon
-
Yes the F4U was a better bomber than the 109, and that's hardly a positive trait for a fighter comparison.
-
Originally posted by Debonair
I've never read about that anywhere.
P-51 & F4U I've heard of in lesser airforces in that era, but not the Lightning. Would greatly appreciate a link to that info if you have one.
I think A-26s may have been active for quite some time also, it was in Vietnam also, wasn't it?. I know there is at least one A-26 is still flying around converted to a private plane (sort of an early bizjet conversion was done to some A-26s in the 50s or 60s. It was apparently considered a great plane for cocaine smuggling also, another job the 109 never did)
The Honduran Air Force flew P-38s. It was their first high performance fighter, which they later complimented with the F4U and P-51. IIRC, all three took part in the "Soccer War" of 1969 against El Salvador.
ack-ack
-
Who won?
-
Not to say there wasn't any P-38s, P-51s but there is none listed below.
Honduras
- F4U-5N: 601/124724 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 602/124560 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 603/124447 (damaged in rough landing on 13 February 1968, used as decoy at Tegucigalpa during the war)
- F4U-5N/P: 604/123168 (mid-nite overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N/P: 605/122184 (mid-nite overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 606/124486 “El Guajiro” (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 607/124692 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 608/124493 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 609/124715 (mid-nite blue overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green)
- F4U-4: 610/93788 (operational in 1969)
- F4U-4: 611/93782 (operational in 1969; crashed in 1974)
- F4U-4: 612/92688 (operational in 1969)
- F4U-4: 614/96995 (non-standard camouflage in - what was apparently – mid-grey overall, with black anti-glare panel and standard national markings)
- F4U-4: 615/97280 (seen at Toncontin in 1969, mid-nite blue overall, with white checkerboard over the engine cowling; damaged the FAS C-47 “FAS-101”, on 15 July)
- F4U-4: 616/97320 (under repair during the war, used as decoy at San Pedro Saula)
- F4U-4: 617/97059 (look unknown, but known to have been active during the war: interned in Guatemala after running out of fuel during combat sortie over El Salvador, on 15 July 1969; crashed in 1977)
- F4U-4: 618/96885 (operational in 1969)
- SNJ-4: FAH-202
- SNJ-4: FAH-205
- T-6G: FAH-206
- T-6G: FAH-208
- T-6G: FAH-211
- T-28A: (5)0-272/FAH-212 (COIN-grey overall, engine cowling in yellow)
- T-28A: (5)0-267/FAH-213 (COIN-grey overall)
- T-28A: (5)0-293(?)/FAH-214 (COIN-grey overall)
- T-28A: (5)0-234/FAH-215
- T-28A: (5)0-???/FAH-216
- C-47: FAH-301
- C-47: FAH-302
- C-47: FAH-304
- C-47: FAH-305
- C-47: FAH-306
- C-47: FAH-307
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
The vast majority of the Red Airforce was destroyed on the ground, and the Luftwaffe did not count those as kills. In our western culture both movies and history books have focused more on the western front of the air war. The biggest air war was fought in the east however, so it is natural that the Russian Front aces had more kills. Russian pilots also accumulated more kills than their western counterparts and the leading allied ace of WWII is a Russian. After all the real war was fought in the east.
Just for clarification here's a list of the 50+ kills Luftwaffe aces of the western front. First number is rank, second number (immediately behind the pilot's name) is kills over western/southern Europe and Africa, third number is kills over the eastern front, the fourth and final number is the kill total for all fronts.
IIRC, only a small few, like 5-6 pilots (if that) scored +100 kills against the Western Allies. The majority of the aces in the LW padded their scores against the Soviets during the early part of the Eastern Front war, where superior LW equipment and training over came the outdated and poorly trained Soviet air force, who's main fighter at the onset of the Eastern war flew the I-16. It wasn't until late '42 and early '43 that the Soviets were able to make gains against the LW.
ack-ack
-
Hi Charon,
>The 109 was clearly more than competitive as a point defense interceptor against other fighters or medium bombers, and as a short-ranged tactical fighter. For countries where multi-mission capability was not essential, it was certainly not obsolete :)
I, too, said "Buy the F4U" :-)
The Me 109 was limited in its roles, just like the Spitfire. However, it's traditionally seen much more critically than the Spitfire - just look at this thread :-) In my opinion, the Spitfire and the Messerschmitt could have switched sides in WW2, and it would have changed nothing at all.
The Spuckfeuer would have failed to achieve air superiority in the Battle of Britain just the same, as the Knife-Smith would have stepped aside to let the USAAF fighters do the long-range work, too.
(The Messerschmitt was designed as a pure air superiority fighter. That it didn't carry a heavy load and couldn't perform long range work is not really a function of the age of the design, but rather a result of the original specification. So "obsolete" is not the correct term for this capability disadvantage - just to rule out definition-fueled disagreements :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
IIRC, only a small few, like 5-6 pilots (if that) scored +100 kills against the Western Allies. The majority of the aces in the LW padded their scores against the Soviets during the early part of the Eastern Front war, where superior LW equipment and training over came the outdated and poorly trained Soviet air force, who's main fighter at the onset of the Eastern war flew the I-16. It wasn't until late '42 and early '43 that the Soviets were able to make gains against the LW.
ack-ack
You didn't read the whole thread did you? I listed all the western front aces with more than 50 kills on page 3. Also I posted how Erich Hartmann didn't start flying until October 1942.
You really should read the whole thread before commenting. Saves us a lot of bullchit.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
IIRC, only a small few, like 5-6 pilots (if that) scored +100 kills against the Western Allies.
Actually, they were 8 http://luftwaffe.cz/western.html (http://)
The majority of the aces in the LW padded their scores against the Soviets during the early part of the Eastern Front war, where superior LW equipment and training over came the outdated and poorly trained Soviet air force, who's main fighter at the onset of the Eastern war flew the I-16. It wasn't until late '42 and early '43 that the Soviets were able to make gains against the LW.
Quite wrong... lets' see:
Hartmann first victory: November 1942
Barkhorn: 198 post/43 victories
Rall: most of his victories are post/1943
Kittel: 243 post/1943 victories
Nowotny: 159 post/1943 victories
Batz: first victory march 1943. (total 237)
-
The Me 109 was limited in its roles, just like the Spitfire. However, it's traditionally seen much more critically than the Spitfire - just look at this thread :-) In my opinion, the Spitfire and the Messerschmitt could have switched sides in WW2, and it would have changed nothing at all.
I can certainly agree with that. It's interesting how WW2 launched the multi-mission platform, then, almost immediately, the limitations of the early jet engine pushed platforms back to niche roles until the F4 Phantom era (though some of the century series fighters like F-100/F-104 and foreign equivalents were getting there). That brings up the equally never ending F4/Mig 21 debate :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by straffo
What about stoping comparing apple && oranges ?
Not only you Bruno.
I agree that the comparison is some what stupid, but I didn't make it.
F4U did on page 1 of this thread:
Take a 1943 F4U-1 and a 1943 109G and see if you can outrun it? Now try turning or diving.
I made no reply on the comparison until page 3, even then I only expanded on a reply made by Kurfurst.
Read F4U's replies and ask him why this thread ended up with:
"the F4U's noodle is big and better then the noodle on a 109G."
After all that's his line of hijack. I only stated that the 109G was not obsolete by '43.
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
You really should read the whole thread before commenting. Saves us a lot of bullchit.
wow, someone's liederhosen got all bunched up. Take it easy Francis...
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Not to say there wasn't any P-38s, P-51s but there is none listed below.
Honduras
- F4U-5N: 601/124724 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 602/124560 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 603/124447 (damaged in rough landing on 13 February 1968, used as decoy at Tegucigalpa during the war)
- F4U-5N/P: 604/123168 (mid-nite overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N/P: 605/122184 (mid-nite overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 606/124486 “El Guajiro” (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 607/124692 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 608/124493 (mid-nite overall; operational in 1969)
- F4U-5N: 609/124715 (mid-nite blue overall, with anti-glare panel in dark green)
- F4U-4: 610/93788 (operational in 1969)
- F4U-4: 611/93782 (operational in 1969; crashed in 1974)
- F4U-4: 612/92688 (operational in 1969)
- F4U-4: 614/96995 (non-standard camouflage in - what was apparently – mid-grey overall, with black anti-glare panel and standard national markings)
- F4U-4: 615/97280 (seen at Toncontin in 1969, mid-nite blue overall, with white checkerboard over the engine cowling; damaged the FAS C-47 “FAS-101”, on 15 July)
- F4U-4: 616/97320 (under repair during the war, used as decoy at San Pedro Saula)
- F4U-4: 617/97059 (look unknown, but known to have been active during the war: interned in Guatemala after running out of fuel during combat sortie over El Salvador, on 15 July 1969; crashed in 1977)
- F4U-4: 618/96885 (operational in 1969)
- SNJ-4: FAH-202
- SNJ-4: FAH-205
- T-6G: FAH-206
- T-6G: FAH-208
- T-6G: FAH-211
- T-28A: (5)0-272/FAH-212 (COIN-grey overall, engine cowling in yellow)
- T-28A: (5)0-267/FAH-213 (COIN-grey overall)
- T-28A: (5)0-293(?)/FAH-214 (COIN-grey overall)
- T-28A: (5)0-234/FAH-215
- T-28A: (5)0-???/FAH-216
- C-47: FAH-301
- C-47: FAH-302
- C-47: FAH-304
- C-47: FAH-305
- C-47: FAH-306
- C-47: FAH-307
The Fuerza Aerea Hondurena received 12 P-38Ls in 1947 and continued to use them until they were eventually replaced by P-51s and F4Us in the '60s. The last P-38 in the Fuerza Aerea Hondurena flew in the early '70s. A lot of restored P-38Ls came from the Fuerza Aerea Hondurena.
Pre-communist Cuba also flew P-38s that they had confiscated from the Partido Revolucionario Dominicano (PRD) after the U.S. planned over throw of Trujillo was exposed. The Cuban government flew those until they ran out of parts or were scrapped.
When Italy joined NATO, they received 50 P-38s (J, L and F-5) until they were finally replaced by jets.
France flew the F-5 until 1953 when they were replaced by the F-84G.
ack-ack
-
"Wingloading is probably the single greatest indicator of an aircrafts turning capability unless the flaps are deployable at combat speeds and provide significant lift."
I'd like to comment this.
To bring this comparison to modern fighters, compare Mirage2000 and F16. AFAIK the Mirage has more wingarea and lower wingloading but still its superiority against F16 in dogfight is very debatable. So there are other factors, too, which affect the effectiveness of a fighter as a dogfighter.
Sry for this off-topic post once again...
-C+
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
It is rare for someone to be so completely wrong in every aspect of a post. Congratulations. There is not one correct assertion in your entire post. It is common practice to present some form of documentation that support your argument, like I and others in this thread have done. Can you back up anything of what you've said? No of course not, because it's all BS. Why do you even bother posting?
LOL.....there are literally a hundred "best fighter" of WW2 threads done by all kinds of aviation magazines, think tanks etc.. The judges are all military pilots, most of whom have fired shots in anger and many of whom have flown a significant number of the birds in question. To the best of my knowledge not one such "contest" has ever been won by any varient of 109. Your post regarding the P-51D shows the depth of your ignorance. It's range, speed, climb and armourment were all outstanding....it was not significantly inferior in any aspect to anyplane it faced with the exception of the 262 and the rare Ta-152 at alt. In fact at the operational altitudes it was deployed at it markedly superior to almost every flavor of 109. Even the high alt versions of the 109 had numerous issues at the altitudes the pony handled with ease. If you want to see an idiot....just look in the mirror son...
-
The Me 109 was limited in its roles, just like the Spitfire. However, it's traditionally seen much more critically than the Spitfire - just look at this thread :-) In my opinion, the Spitfire and the Messerschmitt could have switched sides in WW2, and it would have changed nothing at all.
I'm not sure I completely agree with that statement. The planes were in no way interchangable to an experienced combat pilot. Without question the the 109 was clearly the dominant "E fighter" (at least from 1939-43) {I'm guessing the G10 was double negative to the XIV and the K4 to the XVI}. Given the significant advantage the LW had in tactics thru (1942 at least) the combination gave the LW a significant early edge. However even in 1939/40 german loses over the continent showed that the 109 suffered significantly in any true "dogfighting" encounter. Losing rather badly on occasion to inferior planes and pilots when they chose to "mix it up". German doctrine called specifically for a slash & run style of attack and the 109 excelled in that specific type of combat. However it tended to fair rather poorly when forced to enter sustained combat. Erich Hartmanns "Kill & a coffee break" mentality epitomized "proper usage" of the german tactical doctrine. I'm not certain that swapping out for the spitty would have changed the outcome for the germans (but possibly)....however had the british built a similiar style of plane to the 109 they would have lost the BoB without question simply due to an inferior plane for the mission at hand....
Which is what happened to the germans 4-5 years later. The 109 simply wasnt a suitable platform for the task at hand.
-
Ah, calling me an idiot will surely prove your point. :lol
Originally posted by humble
Obviously you are somewhat uneducated on the realities as indicated by all your posts here. The pony was easily the best production design of WW2 (since the F7F was never put in service).
Wrong. The Me262 was EASILY the best production design of WW2.
Originally posted by humble
The P51-D was a very capable interceptor (superior to any 109 flavor)....more importantly it had the ability to project that capability.
Wrong. An Interceptor needs climb rate, speed and firepower. The P-51 had speed, but was lacking in the other two categories. Even if the RAF had Mustang IIIs and IVs they preferred Spitfires and Tempests for V-1 intercepting since the P-51's firepower wasn't even adequate to shoot down doodlebugs.
Originally posted by humble
IMO the 190 was a far far superior airframe to the 109 however it had a combat range of ~600km and had nowhere near the performance envelope of the P-51 (or P-38/P-47)
Wrong. The 190 was a superior design, but not "far far superior". In fact for high altitude interception the 109 was still superior to the 190. That's why the Luftwaffe tasked the 109s to engage allied fighters while the 190s went after the bombers.
Originally posted by humble
A total of 800 or so G models were produced. Range could only be extended via drop tanks which reduced bombload. Even with the ETC-503 "bomb rack" the plane didnt have the range and payload a P51-D had.
Wrong. 950 G-3 models alone were made, so a LOT more than 800 Gs were made. As for payload the 190 could carry an 1800kg bomb on a centerline rack. That bomb alone exceeds the P-51's payload, and in addition the 190F could carry rockets or bombs on wing racks. All 190F, G and some A models had the plumbing for carrying wing drop tanks. However, most pilots had them removed to save weight; there simply wasn't a need for the additional range.
Originally posted by humble
The G was a build out of the 190A8 so it had the same poor performance that forced development of the D-9 and Ta-152....in fact all german planes had to be modified from 1944 on do due there marked inferiority in some aspect of performance.
Wrong. The G series was a parallel long range fighter-bomber development. The G-1 was based on the A-4, the G-2 on the A-5 etc. The A-8 did not have poor performance. Ask Crumpp about the performance of an A-8 fighter, you and most of the rest of the community seems to think the heavy A-8 bomber destroyer was the only version of the A-8.
All WWII fighters were under continuous development and modification throughout the war. That includes the P-51, P-47, P-38 and other allied aircraft as well. The D-9 was just the natural next step in the 190's development. Development on the D series started in the spring of 1942, with prototype development based on modifications of FW-190A-0 fighters, the first of six flying in March 1942. These machines were given a rear fuselage extension to compensate for the lengthened nose, which had been stretched to fit the Jumo 213 engine, and were armed with twin MG-17 machine guns in the cowling and an MG-151/20 cannon in each wing root. Some problems were encountered, but the type seemed promising enough for the RLM to authorize the construction of "FW-190D-0" preproduction prototypes in late 1943. These machines were similar to the development prototypes, but were based on FW-190A-7 airframes.
Tank continued to tweak the inline-powered designs, resulting in the "Ta-152" series, with work along this line begun in late 1942. So no, the D-9 and Ta-152 were NOT some "forced" development in 1944 to alleviate the "poor performance of the A-8".
Originally posted by humble
Meanwhile the USAAF had the luxury of swapping out 38's for jugs for P51's and could utilize all planes in any role as needed without the need for any modifications.
Wrong. The P-38, P-47 and P-51 saw extensive modifications thought WWII. Take the P-38 for example: P-38D, RP-38D, P-38E, RP-38E, P-38F, P-38G, P-38H, P-38J, P-38L, and with a myriad of specialized versions including reconnaissance, bomber and night fighter versions.
You really should stop watching Discovery and do a bit more research next time.
Oh and btw. take you own advise:
Originally posted by humble
If you want to see an idiot....just look in the mirror son...
-
Hi Charon,
>That brings up the equally never ending F4/Mig 21 debate :)
I actually learned the hypothetical side switch of aircraft types technique from a book discussing jet aircraft, applying it to just this pair :-) I believe it's a good technique as it highlights the asymmetry of the two sides' positions.
In the case of the F-4 vs. MiG-21 debate, it was pretty clear that the MiG-21 would not have been a good choice for the US forces because it lacked the range for effective penetration. (Don't mention carrier capability ;-)
The F-4 in Viatnamese hands, however, would have been a very valuable reinforcement for their air defense system. If it would have received the identification of radar targets from the Viatnamese ground-control system, the F-4 would have been able to make full use of its BVR capability, which would have been a major threat to US operations, and one they didn't have to face historically.
I thought this was a highly interesting way of looking at it! :-)
By the way, weaponry was one area where the RAF would have benefitted from replacing their Spitfires with Messerschmitts for the Battle of Britain - a cannon-armed interceptor was just what they were badly missing historically. However, that would merely have speeded up the (Spitfire-equipped) Luftwaffe's defeat a bit - the end result would have been just the same.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
OttoJ, I'd love to know what you were using to get those kill stats, because as said above, there were very few 100+ kills against the other allies besides Russia. And to say otherwise is BS.
If you can give me links to other refrences that you've got, I'd love to read it since the popular view of history seems to be otherwise and your fighting teeth and nail here!
Once again as said before, the Germans destroyed over 7000 aircraft in the first few months of the war, the first few days it was almost on the ground, but your trying to say for the first few months, even the first year all germans kills were on the ground?!?! And the fact that often punishment in the German military was being sent to the Eastern front?
Also, how can you claim there were more kills over Africa then Russia?! The war in Africa didn't last nearly as long nor with nearly as many aircraft or pilots. And as said before there were far fewer 100+ kill pilots against the other allies then the russians and half of the pilots you posted had close to if not more the 100+ kills.
I'd need alot more proof to beleave that statment, if you make a large claim like that then you should show just as much proof from multiple sources.
If you can show me that and totally without a doubt (or as close to it as you can come) prove me wrong, I'll admit to being wrong.
Edward
-
Wingloading is probably the single greatest indicator of an aircrafts turning capability unless the flaps are deployable at combat speeds and provide significant lift.
For turn rate, sure. This has become the most important characteristic of a fighter only in computer sims.
Minimum radius of turn is extremely important for a fighter.
Allow me to repost this:
You will see that airspeed is very important. I also think the results will surprise many of you. This is not a “high speed” characteristic but rather a low speed one!
Why is airspeed important in the turn? The slower you go the less your aircraft can trade energy for bank angle. The higher the angle of bank, the smaller turn radius a fighter pulls. A smaller turn radius will beat a faster turn rate.
Surprisingly, wing loading and wing design is not the most important factor in determining turn radius. Turning radius is a function of thrust.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1127054266_turnperformance.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1127054220_paequalspr.jpg)
The aircraft that can pull a tighter angle of bank at a given speed will have the smaller turn radius.
This is why a heavier fighter with more power can equal or outturn a lighter fighter with less power to a point.
For example, the Spitfire Mk IVX gained considerable weight over the Mk IX yet matches the turn performance of the lighter Mk IX:
The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).
The turning circles of both aircraft are identical.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html
We can also see this in the following reports:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1127223258_pro_190_survey_c_3.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1127223654_p47-fw190-2.jpg)
IMHO, this is not reflected very well in the FW190 series.
The FW190 series gained as much power and less weight than the Spitfire or P 51 series.
Granted:
The RAF report is very little science. We only know that Mustangs were met in the air, they matched speeds and did their best to get on each others tail. Further highlighting the arbitrary nature of the report is the pilot is asked to give his opinion on the FW190 vs Spitfire based solely on this 30-minute familiarization flight. No actual flying against a Spitfire Merlin 66 was conducted.
We also do not know the type of Mustang. Given the timeperiod and area, IMHO, the most likely candidates are RAF Mustang I's.
The USAAF report is much better. It gives us airspeed, altitude, aircraft condition, aircraft configuration, and pilot experience.
That's why the Luftwaffe tasked the 109s to engage allied fighters while the 190s went after the bombers.
The main reason 109's can be found in the escort role is 109 did not have the firepower required to bring down the 4 engine heavy bombers. It was much harder for the average pilot to achieve the minimum number of hits. Adding Gondolawaffen limited the 109's maneuverability.
A clean configuration 109 was hardly an outdated design. IMHO, this myth stems from RAE tests of a Bf-109G6. IIRC, Mtt was surprised with a requirement to increase the firepower of the 109 series in the Bf-109G6. This led to the early version being somewhat underpowered.
The FW190 performance did fall off above 23,000 ft, however it was far from helpless. While the 190's performance fell off at high altitudes, the 109's improved. The two fighters were very complimentary on their performance much like the Tempest and Spitfire. Each fighter weakness was covered by the other fighters strength.
With that said, the FW190 did not require escort unless it was an R7/R8, bomber, or ground attack variant.
The G series was the only FW190 equipped with plumbing to carry wing tanks AFAIK. Its performance was very poor compared to the fighter variant as it had a different engine set up and increased drag. It was considered a bomber and not a fighter-bomber. The fighter-bomber variant was the FW-190A when equipped with the ETC-501 rack and ordinance.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1128211374_differentmotors.jpg)
The FW-190 did have a superior range to the 109 but it was hardly greatly superior. Depending on the altitude of the bombers, the FW-190 had about 8-10 minutes more combat time than the Bf-109. The greatly superior range comes from test's of the FW-190 G series during which the motor was run at most economical cruise for the entire flight profile. This is hardly representative of a combat mission.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crump I read somewhere that the G series used the A8 wing, and that it had plumbing for 2x under wing DTs (and a centerline bomb). That means that the A8 must have had the same plumbing. It is possible that it just wasn't needed, as most missions were short range interceptions, and the like.
-
Originally posted by EdXCal
OttoJ, I'd love to know what you were using to get those kill stats, because as said above, there were very few 100+ kills against the other allies besides Russia. And to say otherwise is BS.
This is a good site: http://www.luftwaffe.cz
There were 8 Luftwaffe aces that got 100+ kills on the western front. I've never said "otherwise".
Originally posted by EdXCal
Once again as said before, the Germans destroyed over 7000 aircraft in the first few months of the war, the first few days it was almost on the ground, but your trying to say for the first few months, even the first year all germans kills were on the ground?!?!
No, but most of the Red Airforce was destroyed on the ground in the opening months of the invasion of the USSR. I don't have exact numbers, I doubt anyone has.
Originally posted by EdXCal
And the fact that often punishment in the German military was being sent to the Eastern front?
What's that got to do with anything?
Originally posted by EdXCal
Also, how can you claim there were more kills over Africa then Russia?!
I have never claimed that. Please read my posts rather then make them up.
Originally posted by EdXCal
And as said before there were far fewer 100+ kill pilots against the other allies then the russians and half of the pilots you posted had close to if not more the 100+ kills.
For the last time; no, only 8 had more than 100 kills in the west.
Originally posted by EdXCal
I'd need alot more proof to beleave that statment, if you make a large claim like that then you should show just as much proof from multiple sources.
If you can show me that and totally without a doubt (or as close to it as you can come) prove me wrong, I'll admit to being wrong.
It would be very difficult for me to prove something I've never even claimed to be true. I suggest you read my posts a bit more carefully instead.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW190 performance did fall off above 23,000 ft, however it was far from helpless. While the 190's performance fell off at high altitudes, the 109's improved. The two fighters were very complimentary on their performance much like the Tempest and Spitfire. Each fighter weakness was covered by the other fighters strength.
With that said, the FW190 did not require escort unless it was an R7/R8, bomber, or ground attack variant.
I didn't mean to imply that the 190 was helpless at altitude, only that the 109 had superior performance, mostly due to its engine. Had the 190 possessed equal performance at high altitude I think the 109 might very well have been phased out of service before the war ended.
-
Crump I read somewhere that the G series used the A8 wing,
They do use the same wing and the G series is plumbed for zusatzkraftstoffbehälter
None of the FW-190A series wings we have are equipped with plumbing for zusatzkraftstoffbehälter.
I think someone could be confusing the universal wiring harness or the authors wording was confusing. The FW190F's wiring harness was pre-wired with all the external stores it could carry. There is a plug block in a recessed compartment near the wing rack mounts that contains all the different female fittings for the different stores. When the ordinance was mounted, it's male fitting was simply plugged into the appropriate outlet for the grossebombenelektrik. The FW-190A's cannot use the wingmounted racks of the G series or the F series.
The FW-190A's have a similar system but it is wired for the R6 kit and it plugged into their simplified bombing system.
This is opposed to say the P 38's system. When the different wing ordinance was mounted, the wiring would have to be run through the wing to a switchbox in the cockpit.
I didn't mean to imply that the 190 was helpless at altitude, only that the 109 had superior performance, mostly due to its engine. Had the 190 possessed equal performance at high altitude I think the 109 might very well have been phased out of service before the war ended.
I was just clarifying. You posted nothing incorrect.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Alright, if you like scrap all above... The main thing you seem to gun for is the fact that the Me109 is one of the most succesful aircraft in histroy, and you even claim that the 109 could out perform the F4u models.
Now my point is, the 109 was good plane, but not as good as numbers might make it out to be. All those 100+ kill aces, if they had flown here in the states they would have most likly had 1/3rd as many kills, they would have been rotated back to the states after so many missions.
And I beleave ealier statments about the 109 being outdated is very true, I say this because of the same thing that happend to the poor P-39... The 109 started out as a great fighter I beleave up too the 109G2 model, all the models after that we being more or less retrofitted for missions they were not built for. I also have a quote from a pretty good book for this subect.
"As the war progressed, the 109 was developed further, reaching it's peak performance parameters with the Me 109F, a plane that surpassed 400 mph (644kph) with all the climb and maneuverability of the earlier models. In the long run, however, Messerschmitt's dominace turned into a liability. The 109 was laden with heavier armament, bomb loads, electronices for night flying and even rockets (never head anything about rockets on a 109 before). The plane went through five further major modifications, each sacrificing performance for the sake of some mission capability. Instead of developing new designs to meet these mission profiles, the Luftwaffe stayed with the 109 and hoped the the added weight would not seriously diminish performance. But these expectations were not fulfilled, and in one of the great ironies of the war, Messerschmitt's power, responsible for the building of the dreaded war machines that was the Luftwaffe, became the root cause of the defeat of the German Air Force."
Me 109 section of Classic Airplanes
Now, everything is debaitable, but this is what I also beleave, it was often said that in '44 the germans should have stopped all production of all other aircraft other then the Fw190s and the Me 262s! The 109 was a great plane, but near the end, (what I beleave started at the G6) the aircraft got just to outdated.
Now to claim the aircraft was the most successful fighter in history is going a long way, I bet if the He-100 or He-112 was there main fighter in the start of the war history would have been much the same, same stats and everything... Pitty though, I would have loved to have seen that.
Edward
-
There is also an oft overlooked aspect to all the WW2 combat a/c that is not often discussed.
That is simply that fate, or the fortunes of war, as it were...played a part in how they were developed and used.
The P-51, as one example, was not built as an escort fighter. It was built to an RAF requirement (British) as a tactical fighter for them. Not the USAAF. The 1st versions had Allison engines, not Merlins. As fate would have it, as the USAAF started needed a long range escort fighter (1943), a version of the P-51 with a Merlin engine came along, almost as a fluke. Voila, 60 years later, its reffered to as a "great escort fighter".
The Bf 109 was designed, like the Spitfire, to be a short range fighter to defend against bomber attacks (both fighters developed in the late 1930s, neither had drop tanks untill 1941). As it turned out, they both ended up doing things they were never designed for, escort duty, and heavy bomber interception, and many other roles (tac recon, fighter-bomber ect).
Mosquito was designed as a fast, unarmed bomber, in 1940.
Fw190 was almost was rejected by the LW in 1941, for technical problems with its powerplants.
P-39 was not a great success for the western allies, but then we shipped some off to the Russians...
The B-17 was envisioned as a long range anti-ship bomber, defending a nuetral USA. Not as a heavy bomber flying in "combat boxes" over a hostile Europe.
Its always good to see the background and reasons they ended up doing what they did. 20/20 hindsight can also blind sometimes. None of the major combatants in WW2 knew the course the war would take, and I guarantee you few a/c designers did.
-
Great last posts, Crummpp and Squire! Keep it up!
-
Hi Edxcal,
>The 109 started out as a great fighter I beleave up too the 109G2 model, all the models after that we being more or less retrofitted for missions they were not built for. I also have a quote from a pretty good book for this subect.
There is a tendency to look at the switch from the G-2 to the G-6, which added some weight without improving the power, and make conclusions about the entire series from that one step. That the G-6 was followed by much more powerful variants is conveniently forgotten ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
EdXCal, you may of course believe whatever you want. If you want to adopt the opinion of the author of Classic Airplanes (or more likely he's just propagating the opinion of another author), then so be it. However I do not understand why you feel the need to post that authors opinion here instead of your own. You see, the popular beliefs and commonly accepted facts were founded by authors in the '50s and '60s who were working with very limited documentation. With the advent of the internet and a new generation of WWII historians and enthusiasts a wealth of new information has been mad available. Do your own research into the 109's performance and history and form your own opinions. If this is beyond your scope of interest, then I suggest you listen to those who have made the effort instead, because your uneducated opinions are then of little interest to anyone.
-
There is a tendency to look at the switch from the G-2 to the G-6, which added some weight without improving the power, and make conclusions about the entire series from that one step. That the G-6 was followed by much more powerful variants is conveniently forgotten ...
Absolutely,
It is no different from the belief that the FW190 kept the same exact horsepower output, CG limits, and "there is no difference between an A, G, or F" junk that is always repeated.
Therefore the series just got heavier and did not perform as well.....
:huh
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, there were night-bomber modified 190 A5's equiped with wing drop tanks.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Edxcal,
>The 109 started out as a great fighter I beleave up too the 109G2 model, all the models after that we being more or less retrofitted for missions they were not built for. I also have a quote from a pretty good book for this subect.
There is a tendency to look at the switch from the G-2 to the G-6, which added some weight without improving the power, and make conclusions about the entire series from that one step. That the G-6 was followed by much more powerful variants is conveniently forgotten ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Yep and regarding the differnces, what were they ? The G-6 weighted a mere 100 kg more than the G-2, and was bit slower in max speed but that`s it. Slovakian pilots I read said they coud not see a difference, and the G-6s soon got a power uprate in sept/oct 1943 which evened things out.
Otoh they gained something effective instead of the puny 7.92 rifle calibers that were too small even in the spanish civil war to penetrate pilot armor, and the Erla hood finally offered very good view from the cocpit.. very good tradeoff for a few kph of max speed that doesn`t have much significane in dogfights imho.
-
Crumpp, there were night-bomber modified 190 A5's equiped with wing drop tanks.
There is no such thing as an FW-190G1 or FW-190G2 that rolled off the production line at Focke Wulf.
All FW-190A4/U8's and FW-190A5/U8's were blanket redesignated G-series when the decision was made to stop producing Umrüstbausätze.
Some these U8's were modified as night bombers.
Most of these aircraft went to SKG 10.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hmm, well in my research oh the 109 I've found some interesting things...
First off, of the of the G models there were over 22,000 of the total 33-35,000 built (I've seen many numbers in between). From most things I've read so far (reviews, dogfights and just statments among documents) the F was thought to be one of the best models, still very nimble and fast (for the time). The early G models were liked by the pilots, the G1, and G2 (G1 being pressiorized), but problems begain to show, mostly in turn rate and high angles of attack, though engine power in the G2 could often make up for this. Now in the G5 and G6 models (G5 also being pressiorized) the added weight and drag without any engine power changed the CG and lowered the all around performance. The G10 was liked but from what I've read had alot of tech problem in it's release and early models had problems with the landing gear (added weight was a problem aswell as the new tail wheel) and the new engine had many teething problems. Though in the air it was as fast if not faster then many of the allies fighters it's turn rate was horrable even with the much increased HP.
Now I couldn't mind much on the G-14 oddly enough, but as far as I know it was basicly an improved G-10.
Now the K-4 I heard was wonderful, all the best parts of the later 109s peiced together, good performance, but far to little far to late. First models entering service in mid-late '44 and less then 800 total.
Now, as far as battle info I've found much of what I was saying earlier.
In the early war with Russia I was pretty much right, I found this:
"The preemptive German air strikes began on June 22, 1941. By the fall, Soviet air losses may have exceeded 7,000 aircraft."
But the Russians were very outdated in terms of aircraft and training.
Edward
-
The G-14 was a G-6 with MW50 injection and entered service in late 1943/early 1944. The G-10 was a G airframe updated to (or close to) K-4 standards.
-
Originally posted by EdXCal
Now, as far as battle info I've found much of what I was saying earlier.
In the early war with Russia I was pretty much right, I found this:
"The preemptive German air strikes began on June 22, 1941. By the fall, Soviet air losses may have exceeded 7,000 aircraft."
You were right about what?
-
Now I couldn't mind much on the G-14 oddly enough, but as far as I know it was basicly an improved G-10.
The G-14 is not an improved G-10.
The G-14 is official name of the G-6 / MW-50 designation. Originally the G-14 designation was used internally by MTT for the G-6/R2 (recce G-6 with MW-50).
G-14 = G-6 + MW-50 (MW-50 = Water-Methanol 50% - 50% and is similiar to Ami ADI).
The G-6 had a DB605A, the G-14 DB605AM (M = MW-50)
The G-10 is an evolution of the G-6 using MW-50 (same system as G-6/R2) and the DB605DM.
It's a myth that some folks repeat that the G-10s were made from old airframes. This isn't necessarily true. The G-10 was produced alongside the G-14 as an evolution of the G-6 with DB605D and MW-50 while the G-14 was the evolution of G-6 with DB605A with MW-50. (DB605AM). Now some of the first airframes used for the G-10 were originally slated for G-6 production, or from airframes planned for mounting the DB605AM (G-14) in case no DB605AM were available. This is why you may find twin data plates on some G-10s.
You then have G-6/AS (DB605A + the larger SC of the DB603) and G-14/AS (DB605AM + the larger SC of the DB603).
As for the rest of this discussion its just silly to debate a particular aircraft's performance or obsolescence when one side has no idea what they are talking about.
-
"Great last posts, Crummpp and Squire! Keep it up!"
Ya, im pretty terrific.
Crummps ok when he's sober. ;)
-
Originally posted by Squire
Mosquito was designed as a fast, unarmed bomber, in 1940.
[/b]
Wel, it was designed as a multi-role aircraft. It was sold as an unarmed PR aircraft initially because that was the only way de Haviland could keep it in development. The RAF would only accept an unarmed, wooden aircraft as a PR bird. de Haviland still made sure it had room for a bombbay and for cannons under the cockpit when he designed it.
The B-17 was envisioned as a long range anti-ship bomber, defending a nuetral USA. Not as a heavy bomber flying in "combat boxes" over a hostile Europe.
[/b]
The B-17 was developed as a heavy bomber without anything else envisioned. It was sold to Congress by saying it would be used for defending the USA against enemy fleets because Congress would not approve funding for any offensive weapons, which a heavy bomber blatantly is. Heavy level bombers are all but useless against fleets at sea, and this was known to USAAF planners but not to Congress.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Interesting, I thought it was a later idea, as was the case with many other a/c converted to night fighter or attack duties.
-
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
-
Here's a better one.
The LW only lost some 2000 aircraft on the eastern front in 1944!
-
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.
-
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!
-
"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+
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/bc-rs/text.html)
-
Originally posted by Meyer
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
No. On 1 April '44 the Jagdwaffe disposition was about 50/50 east/west. Out of a total strength of 1675 109's and 190's 850 were in the Defense of the Reich. The vast majority of the Luftwaffes other assets (bombers, recce etc.) were in the east. So at least two thirds of the Luftwaffes total strength was in the east at that time.
-
Well, I just did a fast calculation with the Lw OOB of may 31 of 1944, and even taken Scandinavia and the Balcans as the "east", the west units had more planes (something like 2700 west vs 2200 east)
The difference is even bigger if we only calculate the combat types.
-
Ahemm
"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."
They had no success except a nice looking scoreboard and then again also a completely lost game.
The LW failed in their western offensive, then turned mostly to the east while keeping a steady guard on the west with stunning scores in both cases. Then the Allied western offensive began, where the LW could cause a lot of attrition while stopping very little.
It went to the desert as well, where the LW lost again, drawing resources to the sands, both in the Stalingrad fight, then at the fight of Kursk, - those events matching with operation Torch and then Sicilyt. Anyway....
Suck on scores and count the aces, it doesn't really matter. What the real gritty life was for a LW fighter pilot in the late war meant being intruded all over the LW airspace. What the gritty side for the allied pilot meant was that you could possibly toast a Luftwobble some hundreds of miles into enemy territory.
This seems to be a very convenient forgotten case when scores are suddenly brought up to the highlight.
BTW, I presume that Mr.Bruno is a German, - owing the recognition to the famous "ami" remark
-
"Overlord" by Hax Hastings:
The entire allied air strength in the West, 6th June 1944, which included:
RAF Bomber Command
ADGB (Fighter Command)
2nd TAF
8th USAAF
9th USAAF
Was 9901 a/c of which 7774 were effective strength (crews available). Thats for the entire western front, the bombing of France and Germany, Air Defence, all of it.
Allied OOB for France consisted of the RAF 2nd TAF with @ 1254 combat a/c total (bombers and fighters), and USAAF 9th TAC with @ 2339 combat a/c total (bombers and fighters). Of that, about 2790 were effective strength (had crews).
"On 6 June 1944, the Allies had a total of 13,000 aircraft ready to support the Normandy invasion"
Maybe if you included every single a/c in Britain, from every RAF, RCAF and USAAF command, including liason and transports (C-47s, Piper Cubs ect), and only gave totals, as opposed to operational, you might get a bloated # like that.
-
They had no success except a nice looking scoreboard and then again also a completely lost game.
The LW failed in their western offensive, then turned mostly to the east while keeping a steady guard on the west with stunning scores in both cases. Then the Allied western offensive began, where the LW could cause a lot of attrition while stopping very little.
It went to the desert as well, where the LW lost again, drawing resources to the sands, both in the Stalingrad fight, then at the fight of Kursk, - those events matching with operation Torch and then Sicilyt. Anyway....
Suck on scores and count the aces, it doesn't really matter. What the real gritty life was for a LW fighter pilot in the late war meant being intruded all over the LW airspace. What the gritty side for the allied pilot meant was that you could possibly toast a Luftwobble some hundreds of miles into enemy territory.
This seems to be a very convenient forgotten case when scores are suddenly brought up to the highlight.
The LW didn't 'loose' in any theater alone. The Wehrmacht (entire German Armed Forces) lost due to the overwhelming superiority of the Allies in the air and especially on the ground. Both the 'desert' and Western Europe were secondary theaters to the East. What happened in the East dictated how the entire war would go. The LW didn't loose Stalingrad because of the 'LW'. Stalingrad was lost the minute Adolf ordered his 2 armies split and because he failed to destroy several Soviet Bridgeheads Southwest of the Don. It was from these Bridgeheads that the Soviets launched the northern pincer. Re-supplying 6th Army by air was a pipe dream even if the LW faced no VVS. The Wehrmacht was also engaged in the Central sector defending against Operation Mars, which was a sound defeat for the Soviets on the same scale as Stalingrad.
The LW didn't 'loose' Kursk either. The Soviets knew the entire German plan at Kursk, had time to build defense rings 100s of miles deep. The Soviets defeated the Germans at Kursk on the ground.
While all this was going on the LW only kept 2 Geschwaders in the west to face the Western Allies going into mid '44, only 1 defending the Reich until late '43. The LW's only goal in the west was to hold the line until the situation in the East could be resolved. The Western Allies only established clear Air Superiority late in the war, at which time the war was all but decided on the ground.
Early in the bomber campaign the LW was ordered not to engage allied fighters at all but to attack bombers. With the industrial capacity and un-ending supply of new pilots the Western Allies got control of the air through attrition.
You brought up 'kill counts' by saying the following:
Well on the eastern front the LW really had success,
Don't try to squirm out of it by now saying 'well Germany lost'. Germany lost in the East as well. Now you bring up 'Suck on scores and count the aces' in the quote above. The fact is LW pilots were able to be successful on all fronts. The LW doesn't bare the responsibility of losing the war alone any more the the Allied Air Forces alone are responsible for winning it. Wars are won on the ground, and World War 2 was no exception.
-
Originally posted by Squire
"Overlord" by Hax Hastings:
The entire allied air strength in the West, 6th June 1944, which included:
RAF Bomber Command
ADGB (Fighter Command)
2nd TAF
8th USAAF
9th USAAF
Was 9901 a/c of which 7774 were effective strength (crews available). Thats for the entire western front, the bombing of France and Germany, Air Defence, all of it.
Allied OOB for France consisted of the RAF 2nd TAF with @ 1254 combat a/c total (bombers and fighters), and USAAF 9th TAC with @ 2339 combat a/c total (bombers and fighters). Of that, about 2790 were effective strength (had crews).
"On 6 June 1944, the Allies had a total of 13,000 aircraft ready to support the Normandy invasion"
Maybe if you included every single a/c in Britain, from every RAF, RCAF and USAAF command, including liason and transports (C-47s, Piper Cubs ect), and only gave totals, as opposed to operational, you might get a bloated # like that.
Read the quote carefully:
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.
It includes all aircraft available to the allies in support of the Normandy landings. The LW number 1300 includes all aircraft in direct opposition.
The effect of Allied numerical superiority in the air over Normandy in 1944 (http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/normandy.htm)
The November 1944 battles between the Luftwaffe and the US Air Force (http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/nov44.htm)
-
HEHEHEHE
BRUNO:
"The LW didn't 'loose' in any theater alone"
Yes they bloody well did.
The BoB
Can't blame that one on the Wehrmacht can you :D
-
And for theaters, well, Where did the LW win? Blimey, I sort of get the feeling that they lost most ..... or all.
The Eastern front.
The desert war
The western front with the bombing campaign
However, success was insured together with the Wehrmacht's success in the Blitzkrieg. LW's hayday was parallell to Guderian's :D
-
Thats fine, as long as we are talking about combat types to combat types, and are including relevent commands.
Your 13,000 quote is for the entire air component (combat types and transports) of the allies in Britain, nothing more, and it has little to no bearing on a discussion regarding the strengths of combat types facing each other in France.
I could quote the entire military a/c strength of the Soviet Union in the summer of 1944 and then compare it to deployed, operatonal, LW fighter groups in Poland too, and it would be just as meaningless.
-
Originally posted by Angus
HEHEHEHE
BRUNO:
"The LW didn't 'loose' in any theater alone"
Yes they bloody well did.
The BoB
Can't blame that one on the Wehrmacht can you :D
That was a 'battle' not a theater. There were many battles fought in one theater...
And for theaters, well, Where did the LW win? Blimey, I sort of get the feeling that they lost most ..... or all.
The Eastern front.
The desert war
The western front with the bombing campaign
The LW wasn't designed to 'win wars' alone...
If you really knew anything about Guderian you would know that.
But that's enough of your strawmen.
The sequence of replies went as follows (obviously you can't follow a straight line):
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.
LW success in the east can only be defined in their kill counts, after all the defeat in the East was epic. The worst military defeats the world has known (occurring on both sides depending on the time frame) took place in the east. Not a single one was determined by air power alone. So since its you who brought up success, and in your opinion the LW lack of success in the west I only replied to that nonsense. If, like you have done in the east, we define success in the context of this line of discussion as 'kill counts' then its clear LW experten were 'successful' every where they went, after all in all theaters they out scored their opponents, whether they be Tommy, Ami, or Ivans.
If you don't care to address those points, or are incapable of, at least build a better strawman. The 'ole 'well the German's lost' is played out.
Squire
Your 13,000 quote is for the entire air component (combat types and transports) of the allies in Britain, nothing more, and it has little to no bearing on a discussion regarding the strengths of combat types facing each other in France.
Read the quote again. The '13,000' is for all aircraft 'supporting' the allied invasion.
Who brought up only 'combat types facing each other in France'? That quote was provided just to show the quantitative superiority of allied aircraft in comparison to the LW.
See page 3 of the article I linked:
Figures for the air war over Normandy in June 1944
Here are the aircraft loss figures for the air war over France during the period 6 June 1944 - 30 June 1944:
2nd TAF: 322 aircraft (Clark, "Angels Eight", p. 170)
9th AF: 302 aircraft (Rust, "The 9th Air Force in World War II", p. 90)
8th AF: 359 aircraft (137 bombers, 222 fighters) (Freeman, "The Mighty Eighth War Diary", pp. 259 - 283 - only losses in France included)
Total losses by 2nd TAF, 9th AF and 8th AF in France 6 June 1944 - 30 June 1944: 983.
Since losses sustained by ADGB, RAF Bomber Command (which alone lost over 300 bombers in June 1944, many of them over France), and other commands must be added to the figures above, the total number of Allied aircraft lost over France during the period 6 June 1944 - 30 June 1944 definitely exceeds one thousand, I would say approximately 1,200 Allied aircraft were lost over France during this period.
During the same period, the Luftwaffe lost 646 fighters, fighter-bombers and medium bombers in France. (Clark, "Angels Eight", p. 170)
Thus, while almost two Allied aircraft were lost for every German aircraft loss, these losses should be compared with each side's numerical strength. During this period, the Allied air forces performed 99,000 sorties over France (Clark, p. 98 ), while the Luftwaffe only flew 13,315 sorties over France (Prien, "JG 1/11", p. 1051). Thus, the Allied loss rate was only around 1 % while the German loss rate was almost 5 %.
Out of a total of 13,000 Allied aircraft on 6 June 1944, less than 10 % were lost over France between 6 and 30 June 1944. Out of 1,300 Luftwaffe aircraft in France (the peak number, reached on 10 June), around 50 % were lost between 6 and 30 June 1944.
-
Any badmouthing I ever did against the F4u4, I take back.
I went out and absolutely DOMINATED La7's, B24's and P51's. I'm a convert.
-
So, again which theatre or campaign was won by the LW?
-
The LW wasn't designed to 'win wars' alone...
Which did RAF win? VVS? USAAF etc...
More stupid strawman by you...
-
Exactly what theater of operations was it where the Luftwaffe did not surrender AIR SUPERIORITY, with air superiority defined as the ability to have control over the skies and prevent the enemy from being able to launch successful major operations?
-
Hi Hilts,
>air superiority defined as the ability to have control over the skies and prevent the enemy from being able to launch successful major operations?
From http://en.wikipedia.org:
Air superiority: "That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force."
Air supremacy: "That degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference."
The problem with the latter is that it fails to define "effective" :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Exactly what theater of operations was it where the Luftwaffe did not surrender AIR SUPERIORITY, with air superiority defined as the ability to have control over the skies and prevent the enemy from being able to launch successful major operations?
That's the result of attrition and limited industrial capacity. Allied Air superiority didn't materialize overnight in any theater, it had to be won. There was a lot fighting and dieing that did that over time. Look at the quote I provide above (posted again just as an example):
Figures for the air war over Normandy in June 1944
Here are the aircraft loss figures for the air war over France during the period 6 June 1944 - 30 June 1944:
2nd TAF: 322 aircraft (Clark, "Angels Eight", p. 170)
9th AF: 302 aircraft (Rust, "The 9th Air Force in World War II", p. 90)
8th AF: 359 aircraft (137 bombers, 222 fighters) (Freeman, "The Mighty Eighth War Diary", pp. 259 - 283 - only losses in France included)
Total losses by 2nd TAF, 9th AF and 8th AF in France 6 June 1944 - 30 June 1944: 983.
Since losses sustained by ADGB, RAF Bomber Command (which alone lost over 300 bombers in June 1944, many of them over France), and other commands must be added to the figures above, the total number of Allied aircraft lost over France during the period 6 June 1944 - 30 June 1944 definitely exceeds one thousand, I would say approximately 1,200 Allied aircraft were lost over France during this period.
During the same period, the Luftwaffe lost 646 fighters, fighter-bombers and medium bombers in France. (Clark, "Angels Eight", p. 170)
Thus, while almost two Allied aircraft were lost for every German aircraft loss, these losses should be compared with each side's numerical strength. During this period, the Allied air forces performed 99,000 sorties over France (Clark, p. 98 ), while the Luftwaffe only flew 13,315 sorties over France (Prien, "JG 1/11", p. 1051). Thus, the Allied loss rate was only around 1 % while the German loss rate was almost 5 %.
Out of a total of 13,000 Allied aircraft on 6 June 1944, less than 10 % were lost over France between 6 and 30 June 1944. Out of 1,300 Luftwaffe aircraft in France (the peak number, reached on 10 June), around 50 % were lost between 6 and 30 June 1944.
As you can see Allied losses exceeded the LW. However, LW losses per sortie and overall % of losses were higher. While the Allies could sustain and replace their losses in material and men the LW couldn't. With the loss of well trained pilots and with limited industrial capacity (to include fuel production for training new pilots) 'air superiority' was just a matter of time.
[Allied]... air superiority was based on both a qualitative superiority and a numerical superiority
Qualitative superiority meaning the allies had time to train better pilots as replacements and material superiority, not only in terms of raw materials (alloys, fuel etc...), but in industrial output. Not only could they sustain and replace losses they could do it while further building up their forces.
Numerical Superiority speaks for itself. See the article I linked above.
When Germany failed to defeat the Soviets by late '42 early '43 it was all downhill from there. However, there are many issues that contributed to defeat. As I said above the LW didn't loose anything on its own. Wars are won and lost on the ground and WW2 was no different.
-
How many of those Allied a/c losses are due to German AA Wotan?
-
How many of those Allied a/c losses are due to German AA
Most I presume... You would need to cross check claims and losses. However, for the point I making it doesn't really matter does it?
A loss, is a loss. You still need to build a new airplane and train someone to fly it...
-
Originally posted by Meyer
Well, I just did a fast calculation with the Lw OOB of may 31 of 1944, and even taken Scandinavia and the Balcans as the "east", the west units had more planes (something like 2700 west vs 2200 east)
The difference is even bigger if we only calculate the combat types.
I don't doubt your numbers Meyer, but there is a flaw in your calculations. You're including the LW assets deployed on the southern front (Africa/Italy) in the western front numbers. The Northern front (Norway/Finland) assets also do not belong in his comparison. The only assets that belong in the west front category are those in France and the lowlands plus Reichverteidigung-West. The assets deployed on the eastern front would include those belonging to the three army groups in Russia plus Reichverteidigung-Ost and those of any Axis-ally fighting under Luftwaffe command. I believe the numbers will favor the eastern front.
Originally posted by Angus
Can't blame that one on the Wehrmacht can you :D
Sure he can. The Luftwaffe was part of the Wehrmacht.
Originally posted by Angus
And for theaters, well, Where did the LW win? Blimey, I sort of get the feeling that they lost most ..... or all.
The Eastern front.
The desert war
The western front with the bombing campaign
Originally posted by Angus
So, again which theatre or campaign was won by the LW?
The Luftwaffe won the airwar over France and held air superiority (i.e. they won) from 1940 to early 1944. Four years where the Luftwaffe won and the allies were the underdog in almost every battle.
The Luftwaffe won the airwar over North Africa against the RAF, and held air superiority until the arrival of American forces in late 1942. Two years where the Luftwaffe won and the allies were the underdog in almost every battle.
The Luftwaffe won the airwar on the eastern front, and held air superiority until mid/late 1944, and air parity almost to the end of the war. Three years where the Luftwaffe won and the allies were the underdog in almost every battle.
The war was lost on the ground, in the east.
-
It seems to be somewhat forgotten that for the RAF to get at the heart of Germany they had to cross some hundreds of miles of hostile airspace, while for the LW to get at the heart of Britain including the capital the distance was mere 100 - 150 miles. Maybe somewhat of selective forgetfulness, but it would also be nice for some people to have a look at a map. Fact remains about the BoB though, that the first and perhaps only LW objective of total Victory (plan was either to bend Britain to surrender or prepare for a victory-bringing assault) failed.
Now as for the airwar over France in 1941 1942 and 1943 mostly this was IMO a rather daft plan from the RAF site, - trying to get the LW to come up and play, and the LW, brilliantly controlled, would come and play on their own initiative.
Yet, regarding daylight ops, the LW was already the underdog as soon as 1941. I.E. they could not bomb the brits with any weights in daylight, while the brits were gaining guts and harassing the LW over their own turf.
As for the Med, the same things get emphasized even better.
Axis can go through Italy and hop straight over the med, Allies have to sail their aircraft, troops and gear some THOUSANDS of miles before being able to get into action.
Don't know so much of scores over there, except from Marseille and Munchenberger of course, but the bottom line remained, Axis lost the arm wrestle steadily, also in the air. Beginning with superiority the end was a total mess with squadrons drawn from the eastern front to patch-up a bit.
On to the eastern front then. Well, it was a big shooting gallery in the beginning, but the massive backbone of the USSR held, and in the end the Germans were on the run. The airwar was titanic, but the LW losses were yet amazingly low compared to their kills. Russians however kept using their airforce with increasing weight to batter the Wehrmacht, and the LW could not stop that - only cause attrition.
The bombing campaign then. Ok Brits could not bomb unescorted, neither could the Amis. So the Brits bombed the Germans all over the place at night, with appalling accuracy and minimal losses turning into cracking effectiveness with appalling losses. Bottom line: campaign was not stopped.
The US started their campaign effectively when they had long range escorts, they bombed the Germans all over the place in daylight - Bottom line, - the LW could not stop them.
The whole success was attrition, and while the LW excelled at that, it was simply not enough.
They won by points and lost the fight.
Happy Bruno?
-
The bombing campaign then. Ok Brits could not bomb unescorted, neither could the Amis. So the Brits bombed the Germans all over the place at night, with appalling accuracy and minimal losses turning into cracking effectiveness with appalling losses. Bottom line: campaign was not stopped.
The US started their campaign effectively when they had long range escorts, they bombed the Germans all over the place in daylight - Bottom line, - the LW could not stop them.
Why don't you research BC's losses and then come back and tell me how 'minimal' they were. The 'whole LW' was never engaged in stopping 'British night bombing'.
Next go research the losses the USAAF suffered during their daylight raids going all through well into '44. Again the 'whole LW' wasn't tasked with stopping the USAAF day light raids.
On to the eastern front then. Well, it was a big shooting gallery in the beginning, but the massive backbone of the USSR held, and in the end the Germans were on the run. The air war was titanic, but the LW losses were yet amazingly low compared to their kills. Russians however kept using their airforce with increasing weight to batter the Wehrmacht, and the LW could not stop that - only cause attrition.
First the term 'Wehrmacht' means the entire German armed forces including the LW.
The massive backbone of the Soviet Union didn't 'hold' it was destroyed. However, the ability of the Soviets to modilize and re-cover from such losses (both in personnel and equipment) allowed them to overcome.
The air war in the East was nothing compared to the ground war. While there are plenty of examples of epic air battles they still pale in comparison to the fight on the ground.
As for the Med, the same things get emphasized even better.
Axis can go through Italy and hop straight over the med, Allies have to sail their aircraft, troops and gear some THOUSANDS of miles before being able to get into action.
Don't know so much of scores over there, except from Marseille and Munchenberger of course, but the bottom line remained, Axis lost the arm wrestle steadily, also in the air. Beginning with superiority the end was a total mess with squadrons drawn from the eastern front to patch-up a bit.
Germany had no navy to contest the allied landings or shipments of supplies to NA and the Med. Germany didn't have the industrial capacity to match the build up of equipment, Germany didn't have the manpower to build up superior numbers. The Med, Italy and NA were well down on the list of priorities.
A couple of book suggestions:
If you can find and/or afford the book:
Fighters over the Desert:
The Air Battles in the Western Desert, June 1940 to December 1942
By Christopher Shores and Hans Ring
Also
Focke-Wulf 190 in North Africa
by Morten Jessen & Andrew Arthy (fyi Andrew's web page: Bookies FW 190 Page (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/index.html))
Now as for the air war over France in 1941 1942 and 1943 mostly this was IMO a rather daft plan from the RAF site, - trying to get the LW to come up and play, and the LW, brilliantly controlled, would come and play on their own initiative.
Yet, regarding daylight ops, the LW was already the underdog as soon as 1941. I.E. they could not bomb the Brits with any weights in daylight, while the Brits were gaining guts and harassing the LW over their own turf.
I already explained that to you:
While all this was going on the LW only kept 2 Geschwaders in the west to face the Western Allies going into mid '44, only 1 defending the Reich until late '43. The LW's only goal in the west was to hold the line until the situation in the East could be resolved.
It seems to be somewhat forgotten that for the RAF to get at the heart of Germany they had to cross some hundreds of miles of hostile airspace, while for the LW to get at the heart of Britain including the capital the distance was mere 100 - 150 miles. Maybe somewhat of selective forgetfulness, but it would also be nice for some people to have a look at a map. Fact remains about the BoB though, that the first and perhaps only LW objective of total Victory (plan was either to bend Britain to surrender or prepare for a victory-bringing assault) failed.
No one has forgotten that. I have already said that German industrial capacity, especially after the fall of France (Hitler ordered what little war production there was halted), was inadequate. The LW bomber force was designed for a completely different type of war. In fact the German 'War Economy' wasn't fully mobilized until '43.
Even if the LW had 'won BoB' there's was no way they could have pulled off a massive cross channel invasion. Everyone knew that. Try searching Ultra reports of German preparedness during that time frame. The Wehrmacht didn't come close to having the equipment it needed to pull off Sealowe.
But none of the above has F'all to do with your original claim:
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.
-
Hehe, expect a reply.
There are some golden points from you that I have to reply.
As for the book from Hans Ring and C.Shores, I'd love to get my hands on it. If you know where, or an ISBN, let me know.
Well, the fun is going on ;)
-
A wee of a read-up material for you Bruno, especially since you seem to think I haven't been reading up :
Dass waren die Deutchen Jagdflieger Asse (Toliver/Constable)
Mein Flugbuch (Gunher Rall)
Full Circle (Johnny Johnsson)
Duel for the sky (C.Shores)
-
And then Bruno, little bits by bits.
"Why don't you research BC's losses and then come back and tell me how 'minimal' they were. The 'whole LW' was never engaged in stopping 'British night bombing'.
Next go research the losses the USAAF suffered during their daylight raids going all through well into '44. Again the 'whole LW' wasn't tasked with stopping the USAAF day light raids"
Firstly, the night raids were small in the beginning, and so were the countermeasures. Most BC in the first rounds fell prey to anything else than the LW.
Then, again, of course the whole LW was never engaged in only stopping British night bombing. The RAF was as well never wholly engaged into bombing Germany at night.
The whole LW was as well not engaged in stopping the USSAF air raids in daytime. Neither was the USSAF solemly engaged in bombing Germany at daytime. Guess it suits to forget about the pacific theatre as well as other ops on their side?
On we go:
"First the term 'Wehrmacht' means the entire German armed forces including the LW.
The massive backbone of the Soviet Union didn't 'hold' it was destroyed. However, the ability of the Soviets to modilize and re-cover from such losses (both in personnel and equipment) allowed them to overcome."
Ok, play with words. I prefer to refer to the German air force as the LW and the German army as the Wehrmacht. Please give me other words if better suitable, but basically I think you know perfectly well what I am referring to.
As for the Russian backbone, I stay with my claim. The USSR was to big a bite for the Germans, and rather tougher to eat with war going on at several fronts. Well, maybe my claim is not that solid. What would have happened if Russia was alone. Hmmmm. Look again at maps and dates,- operation Torch goes off about the same time as the colossal fight for Stalingrad, - the landings at Sicily go off at the same time as the fight for Kursk. In both cases the LW (or the Wehrmacht as you choose) transfer aircraft FROM the eastern front. Well, perhaps the LW could have won the front if not being bothered too much at other fronts. Well, - that happens.
Then here:
"In fact the German 'War Economy' wasn't fully mobilized until '43"
Germany was gradually mobilizing for war from Hitler's takeover. Britain on the contrary was somewhat in a disarming mood.
And don't put a blind on the fact that when Germany was fully mobilized (although being bombed heavily), a stunning amount of workforce, counting millions, were prisoners and slaves. You know, the Todt organization worked brilliantly to compensate for the losses of German workforce and accomodation. Well,- since you brought it up ....
Then this little dingie:
"Germany had no navy to contest the allied landings or shipments of supplies to NA and the Med. Germany didn't have the industrial capacity to match the build up of equipment, Germany didn't have the manpower to build up superior numbers. The Med, Italy and NA were well down on the list of priorities."
Look at a map will you, as well as peeking into some facts.
Firstly, the Allies had to cruise from the UK through Gibraltar, throught the Medeterranian to Malta or N-Africa with all aircraft, manpower and vehicles. With a lot of Supplies they had to go past Africa southwards, up again and through the red sea and Suez. The Axis had to hop from S.Italy.
The Italian Navy was significant, - it alone was AFAIK a bigger part than the RN in the med. The Italian Merchant navy was quite effective, and delivered its designed goods quite effectively. Airbases in N-Africa could be reached from Sicily with single engined fighters (drop tanks)
Recommended reading material about the supply status and such is "Blood Tears and Folly" by Len Deighton, and belive me, it is not a Brit coloured book.
As for Manpower, - in the routing and rounding up of Tunisia, some 300.000 Axis were taken prisoner. No Manpower, eh? No Priorities? Well, the Priorities were being screwed on the eastern front anyway, if that would suit the reference. And for the airwar side, the LW kept loosing roughly the same numbers in aircraft at the N-African theatre as in the whole of the eastern front.
Göring gave Heinz Baer a tough time after this, - loosing the Med front.
About the losses, - I have no exact figures. But I did browse the LW loss records and was stunned how many aircraft they actually lost in the N-African theatre.
And then to my original claim, which I will stick with:
"But none of the above has F'all to do with your original claim:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
How comes that the LW presumably lost more aircraft fighting only the RAF in 1940 (May/June to Dec) than on the eastern front in 1944?
If the the LW had 2/3 of their power in the east in 1944, why did they yet loose more to the western allies in the exact same period. Where did the priorities go???
How was it possible to loose so much to an offender that had to cross a conquered country to be able to offer a serious threat?
So, I'll stick with it. The thesis is:
"The LW lost in the air"
:D
-
Had the Italians used their navy even semi-competently they could easily have kicked the RN out of the Med. Churchill was urged to withdraw from the Med. for that very reason, instead the British fought and demolished the Italian naval strength. Italy had several fine and modern battleships and the RN had global commitments, leaving the Med. mostly covered by lighter units and old refit WWI dreadnoughts.
-
Firstly, the night raids were small in the beginning, and so were the countermeasures. Most BC in the first rounds fell prey to anything else than the LW.
Then, again, of course the whole LW was never engaged in only stopping British night bombing. The RAF was as well never wholly engaged into bombing Germany at night.
The whole LW was as well not engaged in stopping the USSAF air raids in daytime. Neither was the USSAF solemly engaged in bombing Germany at daytime. Guess it suits to forget about the pacific theatre as well as other ops on their side?
What are you talking about?
It is you who said things like:
So the Brits bombed the Germans all over the place at night, with appalling accuracy and minimal losses
The USAAF and British bomber campaigns took far more resources to carry out then it took for the LW to defend against them. All of BC was involved in night bombing. Multiple US Air forces were involved in daylight raids. Both BC and the USAAF suffered severe losses. It wasn't until late '44 the Western Allied air power was able to achieve any of the things it set out to do. By then the war had already been decided on the ground.
What does the Pacific have to do with this discussion? More strawman?
Ok, play with words. I prefer to refer to the German air force as the LW and the German army as the Wehrmacht. Please give me other words if better suitable, but basically I think you know perfectly well what I am referring to.
Wehrmacht=entire German Armed Forces.
LW=Air force
Heer=Army
Kriegsmarine=Navy
There's no play on words...
As for the Russian backbone, I stay with my claim. The USSR was to big a bite for the Germans, and rather tougher to eat with war going on at several fronts. Well, maybe my claim is not that solid. What would have happened if Russia was alone. Hmmmm. Look again at maps and dates,- operation Torch goes off about the same time as the colossal fight for Stalingrad, - the landings at Sicily go off at the same time as the fight for Kursk. In both cases the LW (or the Wehrmacht as you choose) transfer aircraft FROM the eastern front. Well, perhaps the LW could have won the front if not being bothered too much at other fronts. Well, - that happens.
The Soviets were in terrible shape at the end of '41. The core 'backbone' of Soviet armed forces was broken. However, for the German's to have 'won' and to have capitalized on this 'break' they needed to get to the Volga before winter and consolidate a defensive line. The Wehrmacht took larger losses in men and equipment then expected and their advances stalled. This gave the Soviets time to bring troops from the east. This was only possible because Soviets spies in Japan passed information back to Moscow stating that there was absolutely no threat from an invasion by Japan.
Torch didn't have any effect on Stalingrad. Stalingrad was lost due to miscalculations by Hitler. He split his forces, sent them in different directions, failed to secure the Soviet bridgeheads and failed to adequately secure 6th Armies flanks. But as Operation Uranus was underway another major Soviet offensive, Operation Mars, jumped off simultaneously in the central sector.
Sicily had no impact of the course of events at Kursk. Kursk was lost long before it began. Hitler's delays and Soviet spies gave the Soviets the intelligence and time to prepare for the German attack.
Neither the Wehrmacht defeats at Stalingrad or Kursk were the sole responsibility of the LW.
Germany was gradually mobilizing for war from Hitler's takeover. Britain on the contrary was somewhat in a disarming mood.
And don't put a blind on the fact that when Germany was fully mobilized (although being bombed heavily), a stunning amount of workforce, counting millions, were prisoners and slaves. You know, the Todt organization worked brilliantly to compensate for the losses of German workforce and accomodation. Well,- since you brought it up ....
There's a ten volume series (expected to be 10 volumes 1-7 are out 8 expected next year sometime) entitled:
Germany and the Second World War: The Global War
It was published under the supervision of the MGFA (Office of Military Historical Research of the Bundeswehr). Vols. 1-6 are published, in German and English; Vol 7, 9/1 and 9/2 in German. These books can be expensive (up to $300 USD per volume depending on publisher). After you have researched the German war economy then come back tell me how wrong I am.
Look at a map will you, as well as peeking into some facts.
Firstly, the Allies had to cruise from the UK through Gibraltar, throught the Medeterranian to Malta or N-Africa with all aircraft, manpower and vehicles. With a lot of Supplies they had to go past Africa southwards, up again and through the red sea and Suez. The Axis had to hop from S.Italy.
The Italian Navy was significant, - it alone was AFAIK a bigger part than the RN in the med. The Italian Merchant navy was quite effective, and delivered its designed goods quite effectively. Airbases in N-Africa could be reached from Sicily with single engined fighters (drop tanks)
Recommended reading material about the supply status and such is "Blood Tears and Folly" by Len Deighton, and belive me, it is not a Brit coloured book.
As for Manpower, - in the routing and rounding up of Tunisia, some 300.000 Axis were taken prisoner. No Manpower, eh? No Priorities? Well, the Priorities were being screwed on the eastern front anyway, if that would suit the reference. And for the airwar side, the LW kept loosing roughly the same numbers in aircraft at the N-African theatre as in the whole of the eastern front.
Göring gave Heinz Baer a tough time after this, - loosing the Med front.
About the losses, - I have no exact figures. But I did browse the LW loss records and was stunned how many aircraft they actually lost in the N-African theatre.
It doesn't matter how long supply lines are as long as they are secure and you have sufficient transport ability. The Germans and Italians were unable to secure their supply lines, they didn't have enough aircraft and naval strength to do it. NA wasn't a priority and what little supplies were ear marked for NA, very little got through.
The Italian Navy was a hollow force, See Karnak's reply.
The whole German strategy in NA and the Med following Torch was to conduct a fighting retreat. They followed this policy right up the Italian peninsula. Allied investment in NA, Med and Italy far out weighed what the Germans had invested. Not only that those German forces in Italy were able to put up a fight until the war ended.
The majority of Rommel's forces in NA were made of of ill-trained, ill-equipped and ill-motivated Italians. Even so with the limited amount men and resources Rommel made a fight out of it. The reason those '300,000' axis soldiers were left in Tunisia is because neither the Germans nor Italians had the resources (ships and transports) to get them out.
How comes that the LW presumably lost more aircraft fighting only the RAF in 1940 (May/June to Dec) than on the eastern front in 1944?
If the the LW had 2/3 of their power in the east in 1944, why did they yet loose more to the western allies in the exact same period. Where did the priorities go???
Because they didn't....
Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre September 1943 - October 1944 (http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm)
East Front:
Jan - Mai '44 - total LW losses = 3214
Jun - Oct '44 - total LW losses = 3650
Now where did the RAF claim 6800 LW aircraft shot down in '40?
The LW had 2/3 of all aircraft in the east in '44 yes, but the majority of these aircraft were not single engined day fighters. A good number of these weren't even combat aircraft.
Only a max of 25% of day fighters were in the east in '44.
I already told you that the airwar in the east and west were completely different go back and re-read it. While you are at it take the time to read the articles I linked :
The situation was different on the "Western Front," where the modern equipped and trained RAF was an equal opponent already from the start of the war. The Luftwaffe's pilot losses against the Western Allies in 1941-1943 did not allow such a tremendously experienced core of fighter aces to develop as was the case in the East...
... For several reasons, the German fighter pilots in general held a slight upper hand in air combat with the Western Allies air forces until 1943. This however changed with the appearance of large formations of US heavy bombers and long-range US escort fighters. From the Fall of 1943, the "hunters" of the German fighter force had turned into "hunted." While the German fighters had to be concentrated against US bombers, the escorting Thunderbolts, Mustangs, and Lightnings, operating in increasingly superior numbers, could bounce German fighters and shoot them down in scores. Added to this was the severe losses as a result of the heavy bombers' defensive fire. Increasing losses in the air battles over Germany resulted in reduced pilot training courses, which in turn further increased German fighter losses. This mainly affected the units with the highest losses - namely the fighter units in the "West".
Another important difference between the "West" and the Eastern Front was that until June 1944, the USAAF and RAF fighter pilots had no frontline on the ground to cover (this regarding Western Europe), and thus could concentrate on hunting German planes in the air. This advantage was never enjoyed by the Soviet fighter pilots.
This is one those never ending discussions where by you jump from issue to issue. Unless you are willing to address the points in the original discussion (and stay on topic) I see no reason to continue.
-
Originally posted by Angus
It seems to be somewhat forgotten that for the RAF to get at the heart of Germany they had to cross some hundreds of miles of hostile airspace, while for the LW to get at the heart of Britain including the capital the distance was mere 100 - 150 miles. Maybe somewhat of selective forgetfulness, but it would also be nice for some people to have a look at a map. Fact remains about the BoB though, that the first and perhaps only LW objective of total Victory (plan was either to bend Britain to surrender or prepare for a victory-bringing assault) failed.
Selective memory is not an ailment limited to LW enthusiasts. You seem to forget that the LW could fly wherever they wanted over Britain and the RAF could not stop them - "only cause attrition" as you put it. And in the end the RAF bombing campaign failed as well. Like with the British the German will to fight was never broken by terror bombing.
Originally posted by Angus
Now as for the airwar over France in 1941 1942 and 1943 mostly this was IMO a rather daft plan from the RAF site, - trying to get the LW to come up and play, and the LW, brilliantly controlled, would come and play on their own initiative.
Yet, regarding daylight ops, the LW was already the underdog as soon as 1941. I.E. they could not bomb the brits with any weights in daylight, while the brits were gaining guts and harassing the LW over their own turf.
Now that is not merely a case of selective memory. That is downright dishonesty. In that period the RAF could only mount low level hit and run raids with Mosquitoes, and fighter sweeps over the French coast. And the LW met and won the vast majority of these engagements with the Kanaljäger reigning supreme until 1944. The LW however continued daylight and night bombing of London even into 1944. Nuisance raids to be sure, but still one third of London was in ruins when the war ended.
Originally posted by Angus
As for the Med, the same things get emphasized even better.
Axis can go through Italy and hop straight over the med, Allies have to sail their aircraft, troops and gear some THOUSANDS of miles before being able to get into action.
Don't know so much of scores over there, except from Marseille and Munchenberger of course, but the bottom line remained, Axis lost the arm wrestle steadily, also in the air. Beginning with superiority the end was a total mess with squadrons drawn from the eastern front to patch-up a bit.
Again you seem to want to provoke more than find the truth. The British did not need to travel thousands of miles to get to North Africa, they were already there. The Axis invaded remember? Sure you do, but the truth isn't much of a concern for you Angus, only "winning" the argument. The British drew their resources from the entire Commonwealth, and didn't have to cross perilous waters to get to Egypt. Still the "wrestling match" as you put it wasn't steadily lost by the Axis. It was a one sided conflict with the Axis advancing and the British retreating all the way to El Alamein. The first battle the British won, and in popular belief the decisive battle. However the reality was that the Axis did not lose Africa because of El Alamein, but because of the Americans opening a new front in the west. The Axis could not hope to win on two fronts, so they went on the defensive.
Bruno has you covered on the rest.
-
OOpsie lot's of work ahead.
Ok, begin:
"Selective memory is not an ailment limited to LW enthusiasts. You seem to forget that the LW could fly wherever they wanted over Britain and the RAF could not stop them - "only cause attrition" as you put it. And in the end the RAF bombing campaign failed as well. Like with the British the German will to fight was never broken by terror bombing."
They could fly wherever they wanted, - at night. Daylight ops after 1940 were hit&run.
The bombing campaigns failed, - but not by far. London was close to a civilian revolt in the autumn of 1940, and members of the German high command have said that if the Hamburg raid would have been repeated (on another City) within a short period (say a month), Germany would have had no option than to resign. That was in 1943.
Then here:
"Now that is not merely a case of selective memory. That is downright dishonesty. In that period the RAF could only mount low level hit and run raids with Mosquitoes, and fighter sweeps over the French coast. And the LW met and won the vast majority of these engagements with the Kanaljäger reigning supreme until 1944. The LW however continued daylight and night bombing of London even into 1944. Nuisance raids to be sure, but still one third of London was in ruins when the war ended."
First they had Rhubarbs, then Circuses, both rather dicey and rather uneffective. As you point out above.
But the RAF usually had to cross the channel to get some game. Or can you point out to me some source of LW holding the front at the English side of the channel in that time???????
Then on to the yellow sands:
"Again you seem to want to provoke more than find the truth. The British did not need to travel thousands of miles to get to North Africa, they were already there. The Axis invaded remember? Sure you do, but the truth isn't much of a concern for you Angus, only "winning" the argument. The British drew their resources from the entire Commonwealth, and didn't have to cross perilous waters to get to Egypt. Still the "wrestling match" as you put it wasn't steadily lost by the Axis. It was a one sided conflict with the Axis advancing and the British retreating all the way to El Alamein. The first battle the British won, and in popular belief the decisive battle. However the reality was that the Axis did not lose Africa because of El Alamein, but because of the Americans opening a new front in the west. The Axis could not hope to win on two fronts, so they went on the defensive."
I do not follow your logic here.
Of course the British were in N-Africa. So were the Eyeties.
But their gear and their fuel was all transported from Britain or the east, and they DID indeed have to do a long crossing to get their stuff to the right place. Aircraft, tanks, ammo, oil, troops, - everything basically.
Why else bother with a thing like Malta?
The Brits did retreat to El Alamein, they did reverse the situation, and Axis were in retreat before the Americans joined the fray.
And what front do you refer as a "New" one in the west? Torch?
-
On it goes.
Losses and claims east and west lookie here:
http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
Those are the numbers I had.
So:
1944 - All Combat Types
Total West
Eastern Front
West/East
Sorties
182,004
342,483
0.53
Losses
9768
2406
4.06
Losses/Sortie
0.0537
0.00703
7.66
Summary for the period:
"4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front. "
-
Originally posted by Angus
They could fly wherever they wanted, - at night. Daylight ops after 1940 were hit&run.
They could fly wherever they wanted, period. They would of course be challenged, but the RAF never succeeded in turning back an escorted LW bomber raid. That the LW (like the USAAF in 1943) chose to preserve its strength instead is beyond my point. They could if they wanted to.
However the British could not hope to mount a daylight bomber raid into France, except for fast hit and run Mosquitoes. The RAF simply wasn't equipped for it.
Originally posted by Angus
First they had Rhubarbs, then Circuses, both rather dicey and rather uneffective. As you point out above.
But the RAF usually had to cross the channel to get some game. Or can you point out to me some source of LW holding the front at the English side of the channel in that time???????
The Kanaljäger kept the frontline firmly in the channel (that's why they were called Kanaljäger). They would also fly aggressive fighter sweeps over the channel and English coast, probing the RAF response.
Originally posted by Angus
I do not follow your logic here.
Of course the British were in N-Africa. So were the Eyeties.
But their gear and their fuel was all transported from Britain or the east, and they DID indeed have to do a long crossing to get their stuff to the right place. Aircraft, tanks, ammo, oil, troops, - everything basically.
Why else bother with a thing like Malta?
The Brits did retreat to El Alamein, they did reverse the situation, and Axis were in retreat before the Americans joined the fray.
And what front do you refer as a "New" one in the west? Torch?
The British didn't have to transport their supplies through perilous waters with enemy torpedo planes and subs like the Germans did. The supplies for the British in Africa were not transported through the Med, but through the Commonwealth trade routs in Africa and the Middle East. Malta was the only exception, and the main reason why the Axis lost so much of their supplies on route to Africa. (I have a Deutsche Wochenschau from '42 I think, that among other things shows a RAF attack on a AK convoy. Very impressive footage).
The Battle for El Alamein ended on November 4 1942 with the German withdrawal from battle. The Americans landed in Morocco and Algeria four days later on November 8 1942. From that point on the Germans were on the defensive.
-
"The British didn't have to transport their supplies through perilous waters with enemy torpedo planes and subs like the Germans did. "
Absolute rubbish! While the Axis held Tunisia goods for Egypt had to be shipped Around Africa ot through the Gauntlet between Tunisia and Sicily.
Getting goods to Malta alone was already quite hazardous.
As for your LW Domination over S.England or as you put it
"They could fly wherever they wanted, period"
At night. The daylight ops in any numbers were called off in the autumn of 1940. After that it was hit&run almost exclusively. They didn't mount escorts to get very far either anyway and unescorted the bombers were already mauled as soon as 1940.
I have seen it claimed that there never was an occation where LW bombers jettisoned their loads and ran for home - surprizingly it didn't take much reading to find it.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Absolute rubbish! While the Axis held Tunisia goods for Egypt had to be shipped Around Africa ot through the Gauntlet between Tunisia and Sicily.
Getting goods to Malta alone was already quite hazardous.
They didn't run the Gauntlet to get to Africa. They did run the gauntlet to re-supply Malta, but Malta is not part of Africa and as such not part of this argument. The British re-supplied its forces in Africa to Egypt, mostly from is colonies in South-Africa and India though the Red Sea. As I said, they DIDN'T face the same dangers as the Axis convoys, and thanks to their stronghold on Malta the British were able to significantly interdict the Axis supply line to Africa.
If you want to see rubbish, just read your own posts.
Originally posted by Angus
At night. The daylight ops in any numbers were called off in the autumn of 1940. After that it was hit&run almost exclusively.
For the benefit of the uneducated I will repeat: They COULD mount daylight bombing over England, but they CHOSE not to. If you cannot grasp this simple concept then so be it. The British were never in a position to mount a significant daylight raid on France or Germany.
-
Oh dear
"They didn't run the Gauntlet to get to Africa. They did run the gauntlet to re-supply Malta, but Malta is not part of Africa and as such not part of this argument"
How do you get military ordnance to the eastern side of El Alamein? Alexandria? Cairo? Military ordnance does NOT originate in the colonies.
I'll dig up a quote for you tomorrow. I have quite some stuff on the supply war in the N African theater.
BTW, knew a Pilot who took part in operation Torch (Which was not an exclusive U.S. Venture) He sailed to Gibraltar - convoy was attacked by subs en route, - then flew over Malta to Bone.
I have quite much stuff on that really.
A point of interest is that during Torch the fight in Stalingrad is still going on. You have claimed that the Axis decided to let go of the N-African theater, - well still they routed hundreds and hundreds of aircraft from Stalingrad to Tunisia. I belive something similar happened later when Kursk and Sicily happened to be in the same timeframe.
They lost the brunt of their transport force (sorely needed at Stalingrad) while evacuating troops from Tunisia. To patch up at Stalingrad, bombers were pressed into service as transporters.
Then this:
"For the benefit of the uneducated I will repeat: They COULD mount daylight bombing over England, but they CHOSE not to. If you cannot grasp this simple concept then so be it. The British were never in a position to mount a significant daylight raid on France or Germany."
Repeat your BS as much as you want. The LW called off daylight raids over England in 1940 because of appalling losses. Want numbers? A year later the numbers were not any better in their favour at all and with Barbarossa they didn't have the force to do it in any significant way. You should perhaps educate yourself a wee better before yelling out so much crap.
Well, I guess we can always dig up some numbers.
As for daylight raids on France, what targets????? Well, German airfields in N.France were bombed in daylight to provoke a fight. Circus missions. So, it was needed from the RAF side to send attackers such as Stirlings and Blenheims in broad daylight as a bait. I have been bold enough to call it something as "silly". But it was done allright.
It still boils down to distances you know, and had Berlin been 100 miles from the Kentish coast, I bet it would have been in rubble already in 1941.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
That's the result of attrition and limited industrial capacity. Allied Air superiority didn't materialize overnight in any theater, it had to be won.
Heh. Viewed another way, the Germans did fine until their opponents were able to gear up their industries, train their pilots and equip their air forces with modern planes.
Numbers, bah. The writing was on the wall in the west by the end of Bigweek.
- oldman
-
Heh. Viewed another way, the Germans did fine until their opponents were able to gear up their industries, train their pilots and equip their air forces with modern planes.
True. Once the allies attained such a vast numerical supremacy it was over. Just the 8th USAAF fighters outnumbered the Luftwaffe substantially. Throw in the RAF, VVS, RCAF, and other allied AF's it becomes a wonder they lasted so long in the first place.
US Fighters in the European Theater:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1128908447_usaaffighters.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1128908496_usaaffighterpart2.jpg)
Total Luftwaffe aircraft strength:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121191008_luftwaffe_strength1.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121191076_luftwaffe_strength2.jpg)
Total Luftwaffe losses:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121191274_german-aircraft-losses-in-wwii-over-time.gif)
Pilot training comparision:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121191694_gaf-raf-aaf-fighter-training-hours.gif)
Sorties flown by the USAAF:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121191853_usaafsortiesflown.jpg)
Claims:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121191941_usaafclaims.jpg)
Losses:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121191988_usaaflosses.jpg)
When you consider the fact that the US alone, delivered more fighters to the RAF than the total strength of Luftwaffe fighters each year from 1941 until the end. In 1944 England recieved 5449 US fighters! The same with the VVS supply of US fighters. The Russians recieved more US fighters than the total Luftwaffe fighter strength each year from 1942 until the end.
The question is not how the Luftwaffe was defeated, it becomes, "What took the Allies so long to do it?"
All the best,
Crumpp
-
"What took the Allies so long to do it?"
Quite simply because there was no surrender untill after the Fuhrer bunker was over ran with Soviet troops. Thats why.
The ordinary German people payed the price for the leadership they got. One of the many tragedies of the war.
Even the Japanese, who were the ones with the Kamikazes, had the sense of mind to sue for peace in the summer of 1945.
-
Squire,
True but we are not discussing the ground war. There was no such thing as negotiated peace with Germany. The allies determined at the Yalta conference surrender would only be accepted unconditionally.
We are talking about the War in the Air.
How in the world did the Luftwaffe maintain air superiority over Europe until 1944?
The USAAF alone had more fighters in Europe than the entire Luftwaffe form Feb. 43 until the end!
Yet it took a year to wrestle air superiority?
We were giving the VVS and the RAF more fighters than the Luftwaffe almost from the begining.
Compare the Luftwaffe's level of training. By October 1942 every Western allied Air Force was better trained.
Those stats come from the USAAF btw.
If you study the PACWAR, we destroyed the IJNAF practically in a single engagement once we held numerical superiority.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/getinvolved/membership/pevents/vraciu.htm
Numerically, the Japanese had better odds than the Luftwaffe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea
The battle started shortly after 1000 on 19 Jun with the first wave of 60 Japanese planes attacking the American fleet. 42 of them were shotdown, scoring only one bomb hit on USS South Dakota. The second wave consisted of 128 planes, and 97 of them were lost without even making any significant damage to the American ships, although Warrant Officer Sakio Komatsu's name must be mentioned for his bravery: immediately after taking off from the Taiho, he saw a torpedo swimming straight for his home carrier. He dropped his plane and plunged into the ocean, intercepting the torpedo with his fighter. He sacrificed himself, and his carrier would be saved, for now. The third attack's 47 planes had a better casualty rate, losing only 7, but they did not make it through the American escort ships, let alone seeing the American carriers. By the time the fourth attack wave of 82 planes were sent, it was already almost 1400 in the afternoon, and 54 of them were shot down.
By the time Ozawa made his way to Okinawa, he counted only 35 carrier aircraft in his fleet.
http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=10
All the best,
Crumpp
-
"True but we are not discussing the ground war. There was no such thing as negotiated peace with Germany. The allies determined at the Yalta conference surrender would only be accepted unconditionally.
We are talking about the War in the Air."
We are all WW2 aviation buffs here, and so, not surprisingly, we discuss that topic over most others, naval and army histories. Thats fine, thats why I post here, and enjoy good debates.
That being said, nobody believes that air campaigns in WW2 were anything more than a supporting act to the armies involved, either by economic attrition (strategic bombing), or direct tactical support. Berlin cannot be captured with Spitfires, or P-51s, or Yaks.
*******************************************
In regards to all the other data you give, maybe you should be asking why the Japanese did so poorly. It wasnt called "The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" for nothing...
As far as the USAAF in Europe, well, its simply a matter of logistics. The USA was not even at war with Germany untill Dec 1941, and had no combat planes in England at all. Im sure you have enough books of your own that covers the buildup of the 8th AF units, and missions they flew over Germany from 1943-45. I wont bother posting what I know you have already. Suffice to say that they simply didnt snap their fingers and have 2000 crewed combat planes ready to go in Jan 42.
The 1st P-47s did not even begin flying into Germany with drop tanks untill July 1943. P-51s only just came into service in Dec 1943. It wasnt untill the spring of 44 that the 8th AF had the #s and a/c types needed to fly large scale escorted missions over Germany in daylight.
-
As I understand it the Marianas Turkey Shoot happened when we caught their forward training area and massacred their trainee pilots. You also have to look at the failure of Japanese training doctrines. The Japanese pilots were, on an individual basis, probably the best in the world when the war started. To get that they had an incredibly lengthy and rigorous training system that most prospective pilots washed out of. Once that core of elite pilots was lost the training system could not come close to producing trained pilots at the rate needed for the war and by the time they started to loosen training standards to something like the west it was far too late.
In addition to that the Japanese, like the Italians, emphasized individual pilot skill, not team tactics. The Luftwaffe, USAAF, USN, USMC, RAF and RN all emphasized team tactics rather than some solo Samurai glory bull****.
-
Originally posted by Angus
How do you get military ordnance to the eastern side of El Alamein? Alexandria? Cairo? Military ordnance does NOT originate in the colonies.
*lol* You actually think Military ordinance and equipment originated from the British isles? :lol Perhaps if the U-boat commanders knew that they wouldn't have prioritized the ships inbound to the UK laden with goods fuel and armaments. :lol
Let's see ... South Africa: South Africa's domestic arms industry originated in 1940 with the appointment of an Advisory Committee on Defense Force Requirements to study and to assess the country's military-industrial potential. Relying on its recommendations, the government, with British assistance, established six factories to produce or to assemble ammunition, bombs, howitzers, mortars, armored vehicles, and electronic equipment. A number of private companies also produced weapons during World War II.
And please don't tell me that you don't know India was (and still is) a MAJOR arms manufacturer? Don't you know where the "Dum-Dum bullet" comes from? It comes from the Dum-Dum Arsenal near Calcutta, India. They invented the infamous round in the 1800s. India was a HUGE supplier of arms and ammunition during WWII and along with South Africa and Australia supplied the British forces in the Far-East and Africa.
Wake up and smell what you're shoveling Angus. You're a farmer, you know what it is.
-
Ok DeWilde ammo came from India?
Spitfires came from South Africa? P40's? P38's? Hurricanes?
Aviation fuel? Spares? Bombs?
Tanks? Tracks? Jeeps? Trucks? Amphibs?
Enfields? BAR's? M1's? Tommy guns? Howitzers? 50cal Brownings?
You're holding a straw now. Maybe a Dum-Dum inside yer head?
Will be back with a quote.
-
edited - was a triple post
-
Edited, was the 2nd of the triple post
-
Edited 3/3.
The whole post is the next.
Have no idea why it kept uploading.
-
Back for the giggle round. This one also had me tickling:
"Perhaps if the U-boat commanders knew that they wouldn't have prioritized the ships inbound to the UK laden with goods fuel and armaments."
Now you mentioned shovelling, you just made a hole for yourself.
The US-UK convoys were a priority, later on the sub war moved to the US waters, then as well onto the Murmansk routes, and, - the Med.
Goods were freighted US-UK US-USSR, UK-USSR, UK-MED and US med, - for Egypt convoys were routed past the south cape.
The med was a tough place for both Allied and Axis convoys and many a ship went down, - even big ones.
Lookie here - HMS Barham, - torpedoed by sub:
(http://www3.worldisround.com/photos/1/109/166.jpg)
And here HMS Ark Royal, Torpedoed by sub:
(http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/photos/br/hms_ark_royal.jpg)
And this is already in 1941. To say that Allied ships didn't have to sail through perilous waters in the med gives a good statement on your "education"
To get as far as Libya say alone Egypt, the gap between Tunisia and Sicily needed to be crossed, - a preferred way was to skip it and take the long road. Clear as daylight and a well established fact. Not quite without danger though. The U-Boats were quite active outside Portugal as well. At a stroke of faith a subpack was hunting a convoy (where they sank 13 from 37 ships) outside Madeira at the same time as the invasion force for Torch was en route to Gibraltar.
(From Martin Gilbert's second world war, p.373)
Same author P. 376:
"Hitler fearful of a drive to Tunis, hurried German troops to Bizerta on November 9. Three days later British troops landed at Bone. The Struggle for Tunisia had begun.
Retaining his grip on Tunisia would enable Hitler to deny the Allies the short sea route to Egypt and India and compel them to use the very much longer route round the cape."
Quite a lot of troops were actually airlifted from Sicily on that day at the order of Kesslering. Obviously Hitler did not want to give up the N-African theater yet, he moved 500 aircraft there (4/5 from the USSR) as well as several hundreds of transport aircraft, - as mentioned before pressing bombers into transport role at Stalingrad,- Görings words on that were "There died the core of the German Bomber fleet"
So enough of that for now. Happy ;)
-
Argghh, the Barham image didn't come. Well,- you get the point.
-
As I understand it the Marianas Turkey Shoot happened when we caught their forward training area and massacred their trainee pilots.
Can you check on that. All the info I have seen is they were regular IJNAF fighter units.
The USA was not even at war with Germany untill Dec 1941, and had no combat planes in England at all. Im sure you have enough books of your own that covers the buildup of the 8th AF units, and missions they flew over Germany from 1943-45.
In Dec 1942 The USAAF had on hand in Europe 1058 1st Line Fighters:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1128908447_usaaffighters.jpg)
The US alone had delivered to England:
1673 fighters in 1941
2271 fighters in 1942
3944 US fighters delivered to England not including a single British built fighter.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1128944789_factorydeliverybycountry.jpg)
That is 5002 US built fighters total facing across the channel:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121191076_luftwaffe_strength2.jpg)
Some 1400 total Luftwaffe fighter strength. Of course we have not even added in the VVS. That's another 1700 US Fighters alone!!
In December 1942 the Allies had overwhelming numerical superiority just in US Fighters alone.
As for pilot training:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121191694_gaf-raf-aaf-fighter-training-hours.gif)
The Luftwaffe was the poorest trained Air Force in the European Theater from Oct 1942 until the end.
So why did it take so long to win air superiority?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hey Crumpp!
Look how much of the US planes were bombers. Coastal command got many and we had loads of them here in Iceland. (Although they probably mostly came straight from the U.S.)
Lockheeds, Douglases, Catalinas, P40's, P38's, Northrops and such.
Many many engines on the go!
Anyway, very nice. LW holding the Brits at bay on their coastline in 1943 my arse :D
-
Your arguements are based on leaps of logic like the fact that "delivered planes" means combat units deployed, or "poorer trained pilots" means average combat experience. As if suddenly, in Jan 43 the LW is comprised of a bunch of novices...
Nobody is arguing that the allies possessed more a/c, or that on average, as the war progressed past 1942 that they had a better average of replacement pilot. They did, on both counts.
Your question, quite simply is over broad "why did it take the allies so long to gain air superiority", well, in what operation?, and how exactly do you define "air superiority"?
If you want to look at daytime operations over Germany? only the 8th USAAF had the operational mandate for that prior to the invasion of France. RAF Bomber Command bombed by night. RAF Fighter Command was limited by #1 the fact that Bomber Command was attacking at night (and therefore could not support most of their ops), and #2 the fact that their fighters lacked the range to get to Germany in any case. They were never tasked with missions past France, except for the Night Fighter Force.
The 8th USAAF had for June 1944: 961 fighters and 1947 bombers (crewed and available for ops). Its a large force, but a LW fighting over home ground with a large a/c industry behind it can still hold out in a daily attritional battle.
Did they get worn out? sure they did, gradually, but you seem to think that the USAAF was supposed to destroy them utterly, by comparing the Japanese Navys suicidal *attack* with 400 odd a/c (many of them bombers) vs the USNs 900 strong Fast CV Groups (479 of them Hellcats, with radar to help them). On top of that, they sent them in seperate raids, as opposed to all at once. Their pilots were much poorer, and the USN was probably at its height in pilot quality in the Fall of 44. Its no wonder it was an unmitigated massacre, just as Leyte Gulf was in October 1944, which ended Japans Navy as a fighting force.
Btw, Germany produced 25,000 fighters (off all types, mostly 190s and 109s) in 1944. Hardly small potatoes. Why didnt they invade Britain?
Regards.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ok DeWilde ammo came from India?
Spitfires came from South Africa? P40's? P38's? Hurricanes?
Aviation fuel? Spares? Bombs?
Tanks? Tracks? Jeeps? Trucks? Amphibs?
Enfields? BAR's? M1's? Tommy guns? Howitzers? 50cal Brownings?
You're holding a straw now. Maybe a Dum-Dum inside yer head?
Will be back with a quote.
The Belgium DeWilde ammo never was produced in Britain, but if you're referring to the .303 B. Mk VI round (completely redesigned by Major Dixon btw.), then YES it was produced in Britain, India, South Africa, America and about 20 other nations during WWII.
As for the rest of your "list" of items; do you seriously believe they shipped all this to the British Isles first and then re-shipped these items to INDIA or AUSTRALIA? Are you completely dimwitted? Spitfires and Hurricanes were the oddbirds of the African campaign. The P-40 was the primary British fighter for which Jochen and his friends were feasting upon. Do you seriously believe the American produced P-40s were first shipped to the British Isles for then to be re-shipped half way across the world to the colonies? Are you that stupid? They were shipped directly from America to Australia via the Pacific and to South Africa via the South Atlantic. Do you realize that most of the fighter squadrons in Egypt were Commonwealth units and not from the UK? South Africa alone had 28 P-40 squadrons there. The Aussies and New Zealanders had many many more.
Originally posted by Angus
Back for the giggle round. This one also had me tickling:
"Perhaps if the U-boat commanders knew that they wouldn't have prioritized the ships inbound to the UK laden with goods fuel and armaments."
Now you mentioned shovelling, you just made a hole for yourself.
The US-UK convoys were a priority, later on the sub war moved to the US waters, then as well onto the Murmansk routes, and, - the Med.
Goods were freighted US-UK US-USSR, UK-USSR, UK-MED and US med, - for Egypt convoys were routed past the south cape.
The med was a tough place for both Allied and Axis convoys and many a ship went down, - even big ones.
Lookie here - HMS Barham, - torpedoed by sub:
(http://www3.worldisround.com/photos/1/109/166.jpg)
And here HMS Ark Royal, Torpedoed by sub:
(http://www.uboat.net/allies/warships/photos/br/hms_ark_royal.jpg)
And this is already in 1941. To say that Allied ships didn't have to sail through perilous waters in the med gives a good statement on your "education"
To get as far as Libya say alone Egypt, the gap between Tunisia and Sicily needed to be crossed, - a preferred way was to skip it and take the long road. Clear as daylight and a well established fact. Not quite without danger though. The U-Boats were quite active outside Portugal as well. At a stroke of faith a subpack was hunting a convoy (where they sank 13 from 37 ships) outside Madeira at the same time as the invasion force for Torch was en route to Gibraltar.
(From Martin Gilbert's second world war, p.373)
Same author P. 376:
"Hitler fearful of a drive to Tunis, hurried German troops to Bizerta on November 9. Three days later British troops landed at Bone. The Struggle for Tunisia had begun.
Retaining his grip on Tunisia would enable Hitler to deny the Allies the short sea route to Egypt and India and compel them to use the very much longer route round the cape."
Quite a lot of troops were actually airlifted from Sicily on that day at the order of Kesslering. Obviously Hitler did not want to give up the N-African theater yet, he moved 500 aircraft there (4/5 from the USSR) as well as several hundreds of transport aircraft, - as mentioned before pressing bombers into transport role at Stalingrad,- Görings words on that were "There died the core of the German Bomber fleet"
So enough of that for now. Happy ;)
We've been over this already: Those ships were sunk while escorting supply convoys to MALTA, not EGYPT. Malta is not part of AFRICA and thus not part of THIS ARGUMENT. The is no argument over the Malta convoys.
Originally posted by Angus
To say that Allied ships didn't have to sail through perilous waters in the med gives a good statement on your "education"
At least I can READ; I've never said the "Allied ships didn't have to sail through perilous waters in the med" you idiot. I said that the allies didn't have to sail through perilous waters to get to EGYPT.
Here you even say so yourself:
Originally posted by Angus
Egypt convoys were routed past the south cape.
See, even YOU agree that supplies bound for Egypt DIDN'T "run the gauntlet" through the Med. Are you even incapable of agreeing with yourself? :lol
Be kind to your farm animals Angus. You're more like them than you think. :lol
-
Otto keep it up.
How many bbs acounts are now persona non grata ?
I'm betting that pyro is getting is starting to get fed up with you.
I'm just wondering if he can block you permenently. If he can i bet it's otw soon.
I'm thinking if you would just tone down the attack mentality you have things would smooth out. You seem to have a great amount of info on the subjects you post about, but the attitude sucks.
Just my 2 cents.
Bronk
-
Btw, Germany produced 25,000 fighters (off all types, mostly 190s and 109s) in 1944. Hardly small potatoes. Why didnt they invade Britain?
Got any documentation on that or a reference? The total production for FW190A fighter variants was just over 13,000 for the entire war.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1128964131_fw-190production2.jpg)
Seems a rather fantastic claim. You do know you are claiming a 1000% attrition rate in 1944. Sturmstaffel 1 did not even approach that kind of attrition!
The documents detail the number of US fighters delivered. Of course a portion will not see combat due to accidents, maintenance, etc..
However these factors also effected the Luftwaffe and this is a good base to compare relative force size. A good argument could be made that some of these effected the Luftwaffe even more as they did not have as high a training standards.
Nobody is arguing that the allies possessed more a/c, or that on average, as the war progressed past 1942 that they had a better average of replacement pilot. They did, on both counts.
No the argument and facts support the allies having an overwhelming numerical superiority.
They did not just posses a few more or some more, they overwhelmed the Luftwaffe.
These planes were manned with superior trained pilots.
Your arguements are based on leaps of logic like the fact that "delivered planes" means combat units deployed, or "poorer trained pilots" means average combat experience.
No my arguments are based on documented facts posted above.
Do you think they delivered those US fighters just to see if they could get them to England?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Otto keep it up.
How many bbs acounts are now persona non grata ?
I'm betting that pyro is getting is starting to get fed up with you.
I'm just wondering if he can block you permenently. If he can i bet it's otw soon.
I'm thinking if you would just tone down the attack mentality you have things would smooth out. You seem to have a great amount of info on the subjects you post about, but the attitude sucks.
Just my 2 cents.
Bronk
I think the nazi avatar thing got me banned, not my demeanor. As for the "attack mentality": I never start purse-fights like this one, but I do finish them, and Angus' condescending comments are all it takes.
-
FYI poster ArtieBob posted the following on Butch's AAW2 forums (total 190 production figures).
Total Fw 190 production (This data is from FW factory production book and C-Amt Monatsmeldung so should be pretty solid. )
To 30.11.43
A-1 (102)
A-2/3 (952)
A-4 (905)
A-5 (675)
A-6 (783)
A-7 (27)
B-1 (5)
F-1 (18)
F-2 (270)
F-3 (366)
G-1 (50)
G-2 (625)
G-3 (329) Total 5107
December-missing A-6 (SWAG approx. 200)
72 A-7
5 F-3
58 G-3 Total 5442
January-117 A-6
199 A-7
1 F-3
66 G-3 Total 5825
February-45 A-6
137 A-7
55 F-3
53 G-3 Total 6115
March- 17 A-6
182 A-7
83 A-8
5 F-3
98 F-8
44 G-3 Total 6544
April-1 A-6
8 A-7
347 A-8
2-A-9
265 F-8
83 G-8/R 5 Total 7250
May-492 A-8
15 A-9
177 F-8 Total 7934
June-430 A-8
103 A-8/R2
21 A-9
390 F-8 Total 8878
July –502 A-8
180 A-8/R2
70 A-9
515 F-8 Total 10145
August- 648 A-8
202 A-8/R2
30 A-9
511 F-8 (1391) Total 11536
September-465 A-8
159 A-8/R2
14 A-8/R11
122 A-9
55 A-9/R11
40 D-9
536 F-8 Total 12927
October-293 A-8
123 A-8/R2
79 A-8/R11
14 A-9
80 A-9 R11
89 D-9
412 F-8 Total 14017
November-482 A-8
88 A-8/R2
33 A-8/R11
99 A-9
58 A-9/R11
237 D-9
294 F-8 (1291) Total 15308
December-missing 6 (SWAG approx. 1250) Total 16558
January-328 A-8
51 A-8/R2
73 A-9
73 A-9/R11
228 D-9
76 D-9/ R11
220 F-8
147 F-9 (1196) Total 17754
February to Capitulation-missing (SWAG approx. 1550)
Total approx. 19300
As can be seen, there are some gaps and I made some guesses based on additional data (Karlsruhe). IMHO the final total is probably within a few hundred of the actual number (does not include Ta 152s). Note that these are all Neubau aircraft, the figures for Umbau were kept separately. The Umbau numbers do not add to the total of aircraft built, but are important as they increase the number of aircraft available to the Truppe during a given period. For example, in August 44 there were 159 Fw 190s repaired and all but one were available for Truppe use. This was about an additional 15% above the Neubau total for the month. Unfortunately, the Umbau/Instandsetzung records available to me have many gaps in them. One of the best authors on Luftwaffe subjects is working on a book that deals with this subject. I am anxiously awaiting this book and it should answer many questions concerning production totals and types.
Best regards,
Artie Bob
Poster Zamex compiled the data into excel:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/334_1128965097_fw190production.gif)
-
Good Stuff Bruno.
The table I posted only shows the fighter variants and does not include the bomber or close support aircraft.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Agh Crumpp, did you not think that 25,000 number might be a typo? Probably not.
Total the 190 and 109 production and what number do you get. Close 52,000.:eek:
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
We are talking about the War in the Air.
How in the world did the Luftwaffe maintain air superiority over Europe until 1944?
The USAAF alone had more fighters in Europe than the entire Luftwaffe form Feb. 43 until the end!
Yet it took a year to wrestle air superiority?
All the best,
Crumpp
Not seeing the forest for the trees Crumpp. Squire's already said it but just to reiterate. It ultimately came down to the USAAF having fighters with the range to cover all of Germany. The bomber guys in the USAAF were very determined to proove that they could fly unescorted daylight bombing raids to Germany successfully. Sadly, at the cost of many lives, it didn't work. The fighters they had with the range to escort the buffs all the way from the get go, were sent to North Africa for Torch, These being the P38s that had the ability to carry the drop tanks. The Jugs that got to England weren't even initially equipped to carry drop tanks.
The Luftwaffe in the west was in a position to choose when to engage and when to stay on the ground. A lot of targets in France were hit often trying to get the LW up. They often times just didn't fly. Using the logbook of that Spit pilot that I have. In 289 offensive operations, he saw the LW 4 times and never got close enough to engage. These were fighter sweeps, escorting medium bombers, rhubarbs etc. And this was between December 9, 1941 and August 16, 1944.
Wasn't it Goering who said he knew the jig was up when he saw Allied fighters over Berlin with the bombers? That's March of 44. And that's the few 38 groups and the arrival of the Mustangs. Soon the Jugs had been modified enough that they could range over Germany as well.
Bottom line is that numbers were not the issue so much as having the range to be able to engage the LW fighters over Germany anytime, anywhere. This was happening prior to D-Day. Once the Allied Air Forces were on the continent, it could only get worse as the short range fighters could get in the game easier as well.
So the Luftwaffe's "control" had much more to do with range issues for the Allies and the Allies not being on the continent. That control being the ability to engage or not as they chose.
Germany never really solved the range problems while the Allies did.
-
Not seeing the forest for the trees Crumpp.
No Guppy,
I certainly am seeing the forest and the trees. Study the IJNAF. When forced into a pitched battle with overwhelming numbers and superior aircraft, they were destroyed. They simply were not a factor after the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.
While the Luftwaffe offered battle almost every day, that never happenend to them. As the numerical disparity rose ever against them they took increasing casualties. but they were never destroyed in a decisive battle by the allies.
Fighting only a portion of the force as well. The VVS was occupying the rest.
Even from January 1944 it took the allies almost a year to destroy the Luftwaffe. A full year of hard fighting with the allies having enormous numerical superiority.
During Operation Argument, the allies won air superiority because allied raids had grow so large that they could no longer effectively engage them.
"Ich bin ein Floh" is the expression they used.
So they started attempting to mass their forces and attack were they could. Navigation though, especially in the european weather is difficult at best and almost impossible with poor training. Rarely could they mass more than 200 fighters in the same area to go against the sometimes thousands of escort fighters. Now these are not 200 planes flying in formation, that is 200 planes coming from different bases all over Europe which you hope will end up in the same vicinity at roughly the same time. Very rarely did it happen.
Bodenplatte, more than any other operation destroyed the Luftwaffe as they took very poorly trained pilots to begin with and asked them to do a mission for which they had no training at all. Operational accidents and friendly fire pushed their casualties over the edge.
Numbers was the issue and even when the allies got the range it was a hard fight. Not one decisive engagement but a war of attrition with the allies having decisive numerical advantage.
It was not "even numbers in the air" by any stretch of the imagination. Only to the man in the USAAF fighter cockpit in the heat of battle did it seem that way.
Germany never really solved the range problems while the Allies did.
Sure if your refering to the BoB or Russia in the early war. The Luftwaffe was never a strategic air force. However during the same period the allies were working on a solution for the long range problem, the Luftwaffe was too. It soon became a waste of resources though as they increasing had to turn to defense.
That overspecialization of doctrine cost them heavily.
More than anything, strategic blundering on the part of the Nazi regime both caused the war and Germany eventual defeat. Goering was a complete idiot and IMHO, if the German Armed forces were not hypersensative because of the events of 1918, they would have sacked him.
In 289 offensive operations, he saw the LW 4 times and never got close enough to engage. These were fighter sweeps, escorting medium bombers, rhubarbs etc. And this was between December 9, 1941 and August 16, 1944.
You should probably cross reference the log with the German OOB. You will see exactly what I am talking about.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Study the IJNAF. When forced into a pitched battle with overwhelming numbers and superior aircraft, they were destroyed. They simply were not a factor after the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.
Heh. Japanese naval air forces were really destroyed during the Solomons operations in 42-43, while the Army got ground down in New Guinea. Because Japan had such a lousy pilot training program (in the sense that it didn't train many pilots before the war, and trained lousy pilots once the war got started), the poor slobs who flew the mostly-inferior aircraft in the Marianas operations didn't stand a chance.
Even from January 1944 it took the allies almost a year to destroy the Luftwaffe. A full year of hard fighting with the allies having enormous numerical superiority.
Measured from the time that we got serious escort operations going - late summer of 1943 - it was more like six months. While the Luftwaffe was able to put up opposition until the end of the war, it could no longer oppose every major daylight raid after Bigweek, in February, and certainly not after the Berlin missions in March. We went when and where we wanted after those two campaigns. The large kill rates we had after that were scored against an increasingly young and inexperienced German pilot pool, as you have pointed out - which was, in effect, the same as the Marianas thing.
During the six months it took to gut the Luftwaffe, I'm not persuaded that we had overwhelming numbers. The zone defense we had to play because of the P-47's range restrictions meant that at any one location the Luftwaffe controllers had the ability to obtain their own overwhelming local superiority, as happened quite often.
Just my thoughts.
- oldman
-
Measured from the time that we got serious escort operations going - late summer of 1943 - it was more like six months.
Need to check that history and the documents posted above, Oldman. The Luftwaffe halted the USAAF efforts at daylight bombing during 1943. Their defense was successful. However it is almost impossible to win a war by being defensive.
These two ineffective raids brought outrage by the American public and lead to the Army Air Crop reviewing the idea of daylight precision bombing. Daylight bombing was halted until February of 1944.
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/ww2Timeline/memphis3.html
When Big Week came about, the Luftwaffe tried the same tactics. They used individual JG's conducting intercepts, the idea being that many smaller units attacking at once would have a better chance of getting through.
During Big Week, February 20-26, 1944, the Allies flew heavily escorted missions against airframe manufacturing and assembly plants and other targets in numerous German cities, including Leipzig, Brunswick, Gotha, Regensburg, Schweinfurt, Augsburg, Stuttgart, and Steyr. In six days, the Eighth Air Force bombers flew more than 3,000 sorties and the Fifteenth Air Force more than 500. Together they dropped roughly 10,000 tons of bombs and seriously disrupted German fighter production, denying the enemy hundreds of aircraft at a time when they were badly needed. The United States lost 226 heavy bombers and 28 fighters.
The weeklong offensive also seriously eroded the morale and capability of the Luftwaffe. U.S. aircrews claimed more than 600 German fighters destroyed and achieved almost immediate air superiority. The Luftwaffe never recovered from the downing of so many skilled fighter pilots. It had to abandon full-scale opposition to the daylight bombing missions in favor of rationing resistance as circumstances and capabilities dictated. In effect, the Germans conceded air superiority to the Allies.
http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/atlanticwall/awpg4.htm
From the 22 Feb. USAAF Operations report:
Mission 230: "Big Week" continues with 799 aircraft dispatched against German aviation and Luftwaffe airfields; 41 bombers and 11 fighters are lost.
1. 289 B-17s are dispatched against aviation industry targets at
Aschersleben (34 bomb), Bernburg (47 bomb) and Halberstadt (18 bomb) in
conjunction with a Fifteenth Air Force raid on Regensburg, Germany; 32 hit
Bunde, 19 hit Wernegerode, 15 hit Magdeburg, 9 hit Marburg and 7 hit other
targets of opportunity; they claim 32-18-17 Luftwaffe aircraft; 38 B-17s are
lost, 4 damaged beyond repair and 141 damaged; casualties are 35 KIA, 30 WIA and 367 MIA.
2. 333 B-17s are dispatched to Schweinfurt but severe weather prevents aircraft from forming properly and they are forced to abandon the mission prior to crossing the enemy coast; 2 B-17s are damaged.
3. 177 B-24s are dispatched but they are recalled when 100 miles (160 km) inland; since they were over Germany, they sought targets of opportunity but strong winds drove the bombers over The Netherlands and their bombs hit Enschede, Arnhem, Nijmegen and Deventer; they claim 2-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft; 3 B-24s are lost and 3 damaged; casualties are 30 MIA.
Escorting these bombers is:
These missions are escorted by 67 P-38s, 535 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s, and 57 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s; the P-38s claim 1-0-0 Luftwaffe aircraft, 1 P-38 is damaged beyond repair and 6 are damaged; the P-47s claim 39-6-15 Luftwaffe aircraft, 8 P-47s are lost and 12 damaged, 8 pilots are MIA; the P-51s claim 19-1-10 Luftwaffe aircraft, 3 P-51s are lost and 3 damaged, 3 pilot are MIA.
The Luftwaffe flew 339 sorties against these missions. They lost a total of 48 twin engine fighters and 16 single engine fighters.
If you compare victories, the Luftwaffe consistantly gave as good they got. However when you compare loss rates and factor in the size of the forces, The Luftwaffe sustained an average of 15.7 % loss rate while the USAAF sustained about a 5 % loss rate.
Pure attrition warfare and weight of numbers won the air war for the Allies.
I think you should check out your history of the PACWAR as well.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Focke-Wulf 190s Over Dieppe
(http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppe.htm)
Introduction
On Wednesday, 19 August 1942, the Allies launched a major cross-channel attack, with landings taking place at the French port of Dieppe. The Luftwaffe played a major role in countering this raid, and the air battle over Dieppe proved to be one of the Focke-Wulf 190's finest hours. The two German fighter units involved, J.G. 2 and J.G. 26, both called upon three FW 190 fighter Gruppen, along with FW 190-equipped Jabostaffeln. Other Luftwaffe units involved in the day's fighting included II./K.G. 40 with Do 217 E-2s, K.G. 2 with Do 217 E-4s, and 1.(F)/123 with a variety of single and twin-engined reconnaissance types (including a single FW 190 A-3). The Allies considered air cover essential to the success of their landings, and they could rely on around-the-clock assistance from RAF Spitfires, Hurricanes, Typhoons and Mustangs. 48 squadrons of Spitfires took part, including 42 equipped with Spitfire Vs, two with Spitfire VIs, and four with Spitfire IXs.[1] Support for the mostly Canadian landing force was also provided by R.A.F. bomber units, along with the Spitfires of the American 31st FG and the B-17s of the 97th BG. However, Allied numerical superiority did not prove enough to secure the skies over Dieppe on 19 August 1942.
German Victory List - 19 August 1942 (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppevictories.htm)
Allied Victory List - 19 August 1942 (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppealliedvictories.htm)
In the air battles in support of Dieppe, the allied air forces not only had initiative and numbers, 'range' had nothing to do with the results. The allied air forces got the snot beat out of them.
This may be a narrow example but it does prove a point, the LW was a force to be reckoned with. It remained so even into the start of '44. Attrition is what won air superiority for the Allies. Range had nothing to do with it.
LW fighters in Defense of the Reich were tasked with one objective, to shoot down enemy bombers. Initiative and freedom of operation remained with the Allies. They chose the targets, they chose the tactics. The LW for the most part was a reactionary force in the west and remained so until the end of the war.
-
Bruno,
With all those RAF squadrons you are saying that not one RAF pilot made a kill claim for 19 August, 1942? I guess it is possible, but it seems unlikely given the number of claims the smaller American contingent claimed.
And yes, the Luftwaffe did very well at Dieppe.
-
so basically the message is 'man to man' the Luftwaffe fighter pilots were better correct?
OK going back to my favorite RAF squadrons 41 & 91. October 20, 1943 they claimed 9 109s and 190s for no loss and had another kill credited to them as one pilot didn't claim a 109 he flew into the ground.
Some of the folks here with better LW resources tell me those numbers were accurate and not big overclaims.
What can we discern from that? OK they were flying Spit XIIs which were an even or better match to the 190s and 109s unlike the Spit Vs of Fighter Command that were clearly outclassed by the 190s, but does it mean that from Dieppe to October 20, 1943 the quality of LW pilots dropped?
The message I seem to be getting is that in an even fight the LW was just that much better and I guess I'm not willing to accept that. Too many quality pilots on both sides.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
This may be a narrow example but it does prove a point, the LW was a force to be reckoned with. It remained so even into the start of '44. Attrition is what won air superiority for the Allies. Range had nothing to do with it.
I would take issue with this statement. So had the Allies had the range on thier fighters to go with the numbers, you are saying there would have been nothing different, even though it would have allowed Allied fighter pilots to seek the LW out wherever they could find them as they did once Doolittle and company cut them loose to kill the LW "in the air and on the ground"?
The LW had the option not to engage those short range incursions into France. The whole point of beehive and circus operations was to try and get the LW into the air to fight at war of attrition. I have no problems with the decision of LW planners not to engage everytime. What would be the point. They couldn't win a war of attrition.
That is the point in the end, but it doesn't take away from the quality of pilots or aircraft on either side.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Need to check that history and the documents posted above, Oldman. The Luftwaffe halted the USAAF efforts at daylight bombing during 1943. Their defense was successful. However it is almost impossible to win a war by being defensive.
The LW did? The USAAF still flew daylight missions, just not beyond the range of the escort fighters.
WEDNESDAY, 3 NOVEMBER 1943
VIII Bomber Command Mission 119: dispatched to the Wilhemshaven
FRIDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 1943
VIII Bomber Command Mission 121.
Two targets in Germany are hit
SUNDAY, 7 NOVEMBER 1943
VIII Bomber Command Mission 124.
Three targets in Germany are hit
THURSDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 1943
VIII Bomber Command Mission 127:
Two areas in Germany are targetted.
SATURDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 1943
VIII Bomber Command Mission 130: hit the port area
at Bremen and targets of opportunity in the Kiel-Flensburg area
FRIDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 1943
VIII Bomber Command Mission 134: aircraft are dispatched to Gelsenkirchen
FRIDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 1943
VIII Bomber Command Mission 138: Bremen and paris are targetted
MONDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 1943
VIII Bomber Command Mission 140:Bremen, Germany and targets of opportunity in the area
TUESDAY, 30 NOVEMBER 1943
VIII Bomber Command Mission 143: dispatched to the industrial area Solingen, Germany
That is just Nov 1943 and just attacks on Germany. Other Europian countries were also paid a visit. 9th AF missions were not halted either.
These were all flown after Black Thursday, 14 October 1943.
-
Oh dear a slow-cooking Flamefeast!!
Please be civil.
"LW fighters in Defense of the Reich were tasked with one objective, to shoot down enemy bombers. Initiative and freedom of operation remained with the Allies. They chose the targets, they chose the tactics. The LW for the most part was a reactionary force in the west and remained so until the end of the war"
So they shot down bombers but failed the higher objective. To stop the bomb dropping.
As for initiative and freedom that is a nice topic. The Allies make their choice, then cruise over what some persons here call insignificant amounts of airspace, in order to bomb something. The LW has been looking at the plotcharts for an amount of time that would have made the BoB plotters go green with envy, so I presume they had no tactics none the less?
As for the theory of the LW being a mere reactionary force, where goes the Kanal-superiority force in that airspace at the time?
Where is there anything than close support and reactions?
Can't find any in the first glance but that's maybe just me..... :D
-
so basically the message is 'man to man' the Luftwaffe fighter pilots were better correct?
Not at all.
They were equal.
As it has been shown they gave as good as they got. They just did not have the weight of numbers to absorb the losses.
The claim of a large and professional Luftwaffe is a myth.
Milo, your correct I should have said unescorted bombing raids.
However no matter what raid you examine, the loss ratios remain the same. On average the Luftwaffe destroys as many aircraft as they lose with some variations day to day.
The allies simply had more to lose and could afford an attrition war so their losses did not affect them on the scale the Luftwaffes did.
The fact the Nazi High Command failed to take steps to increase the size of the force until it was too late is one of the monumental blessings of history.
The LW has been looking at the plotcharts for an amount of time that would have made the BoB plotters go green with envy, so I presume they had no tactics none the less?
Angus, my friend, I don't know the point of your last post. You’re kind of babbling.
You should ask Rall about the difficulties of navigation and interception the LW experienced. Even under ideal conditions getting units scattered all over Europe to the same spot and the same time in the sky was a monumental problem. Add in the fact you are doing this with poorly trained pilots in some of the worst flying weather around and it becomes even more difficult.
We are not talking about the war from the ground controllers point of view you know.
The section tactics were almost identical by this time. Universally the Luftwaffe tactics were adopted the allies.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
so basically the message is 'man to man' the Luftwaffe fighter pilots were better correct?
No one said that. However, I would suggest you go back to the statement by Angus that began this whole discussion:
I will quote it once again since most of you don't seem to take the time to actually read what has been written:
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.
LW experten were 'successful' where ever they went. As I pointed out above 30 LW experten in the West 30 'out scored' the top Ami pilot, this only considering their scores against Ami aircraft. Not to mention the experten with 100 + kills or the total number of experten that scored more then 15 kills just against the western allies.
Relative skill was fluid. It began with the LW pilots holding a clear edge and ended with the Allies having the clear advantage.
I will re-quote this as well form the article I linked:
The situation was different on the "Western Front," where the modern equipped and trained RAF was an equal opponent already from the start of the war. The Luftwaffe's pilot losses against the Western Allies in 1941-1943 did not allow such a tremendously experienced core of fighter aces to develop as was the case in the East...
... For several reasons, the German fighter pilots in general held a slight upper hand in air combat with the Western Allies air forces until 1943. This however changed with the appearance of large formations of US heavy bombers and long-range US escort fighters. From the Fall of 1943, the "hunters" of the German fighter force had turned into "hunted." While the German fighters had to be concentrated against US bombers, the escorting Thunderbolts, Mustangs, and Lightnings, operating in increasingly superior numbers, could bounce German fighters and shoot them down in scores. Added to this was the severe losses as a result of the heavy bombers' defensive fire. Increasing losses in the air battles over Germany resulted in reduced pilot training courses, which in turn further increased German fighter losses. This mainly affected the units with the highest losses - namely the fighter units in the "West".
Another important difference between the "West" and the Eastern Front was that until June 1944, the USAAF and RAF fighter pilots had no frontline on the ground to cover (this regarding Western Europe), and thus could concentrate on hunting German planes in the air. This advantage was never enjoyed by the Soviet fighter pilots.
The Allies enjoyed total operational freedom and held the initiative in the west from 'late 40 on ward. There were only 2 Geschwader in NWE (JG 2 and JG 26, some gruppen / staffeln rotated to other fronts and others rotated in but basically there were 2 Geschwaders in NWE) until '44. There's was only 1 Geschwader tasked with Reich defense until mid '43.
However, range may have allowed the allies the ability to hit the LW while they were forming up, or on their airfields it was Allied numerical superiority that made this tactic possible in the first place. Numerical Superiority is what led to 'attrition'. Couple that with Germany's lack of resources (fuel and war materials) and LW losses would have grown (and did) progressively worse. They rushed untrained pilots to fill their ranks and these pilots were 'man for man' worse pilots due to their lack of training. So much so (again I will quote from the article I linked):
... This air superiority was based on both a qualitative superiority and a numerical superiority.
The qualitative superiority manifested itself both regarding the technical field and pilot training. The Allied fighters generally were superior to the German Bf 109 G and Fw 190 A in service in 1944. Moreover, at this stage, the quality of the Luftwaffe pilot standard was being worn down to a mere shadow of what it had once been, and this was the result of a terrible attrition in a long fight against numerically superior US formations over Germany.
Don't under estimate the effect that allied numerical superiority had on breaking the LW in the west.
OK going back to my favorite RAF squadrons 41 & 91. October 20, 1943 they claimed 9 109s and 190s for no loss and had another kill credited to them as one pilot didn't claim a 109 he flew into the ground.
Some of the folks here with better LW resources tell me those numbers were accurate and not big over claims.
What can we discern from that? OK they were flying Spit XIIs which were an even or better match to the 190s and 109s unlike the Spit Vs of Fighter Command that were clearly outclassed by the 190s, but does it mean that from Dieppe to October 20, 1943 the quality of LW pilots dropped?
The message I seem to be getting is that in an even fight the LW was just that much better and I guess I'm not willing to accept that. Too many quality pilots on both sides.
I don't know what you are trying to say here, or even if its directed at me, but I will no longer entertain 'strawmen'. I am most likely missing your point or how it relates to the current line of discussion, if so please explain it to me.
The LW had the option not to engage those short range incursions into France. The whole point of beehive and circus operations was to try and get the LW into the air to fight at war of attrition. I have no problems with the decision of LW planners not to engage every time. What would be the point. They couldn't win a war of attrition.
The LW strategy in the west was simply to hold the line until the war could be concluded in the east. With just 2 Geschwaders in NWE that's exactly what they did. Had it not been for the LW at Dieppe the allies could had opened up a bridgehead (pure speculation of course but its not to far fetched). The LW stuck with this strategy well into late '43. Clearly they fought when they had to.
The LW couldn't win a war of attrition and they didn't. When the allies made their landings at D-Day both JG 2 and JG 26 had been worn down. Even so (see this article):
The effect of Allied numerical superiority in the air over Normandy in 1944 (http://www.bergstrombooks.elknet.pl/normandy.htm)
Even as outnumbered as the LW was at Dieppe they were more so leading immediately up to D-day. Yet once again the LW experten were again able to out score the allies:
Figures for the air war over Normandy in June 1944
Here are the aircraft loss figures for the air war over France during the period 6 June 1944 - 30 June 1944:
2nd TAF: 322 aircraft (Clark, "Angels Eight", p. 170)
9th AF: 302 aircraft (Rust, "The 9th Air Force in World War II", p. 90)
8th AF: 359 aircraft (137 bombers, 222 fighters) (Freeman, "The Mighty Eighth War Diary", pp. 259 - 283 - only losses in France included)
Total losses by 2nd TAF, 9th AF and 8th AF in France 6 June 1944 - 30 June 1944: 983.
Since losses sustained by ADGB, RAF Bomber Command (which alone lost over 300 bombers in June 1944, many of them over France), and other commands must be added to the figures above, the total number of Allied aircraft lost over France during the period 6 June 1944 - 30 June 1944 definitely exceeds one thousand, I would say approximately 1,200 Allied aircraft were lost over France during this period.
During the same period, the Luftwaffe lost 646 fighters, fighter-bombers and medium bombers in France. (Clark, "Angels Eight", p. 170)
Thus, while almost two Allied aircraft were lost for every German aircraft loss, these losses should be compared with each side's numerical strength. During this period, the Allied air forces performed 99,000 sorties over France (Clark, p. 98 ), while the Luftwaffe only flew 13,315 sorties over France (Prien, "JG 1/11", p. 1051). Thus, the Allied loss rate was only around 1 % while the German loss rate was almost 5 %.
Out of a total of 13,000 Allied aircraft on 6 June 1944, less than 10 % were lost over France between 6 and 30 June 1944. Out of 1,300 Luftwaffe aircraft in France (the peak number, reached on 10 June), around 50 % were lost between 6 and 30 June 1944.
The LW was in no way shape of form capable of stopping or directly opposing the D-Day landings. That is what 'attrition' does. However, despite overwhelming allied numerical superiority the LW remained a viable force until late '44.
Karnak,
Bruno,
With all those RAF squadrons you are saying that not one RAF pilot made a kill claim for 19 August, 1942? I guess it is possible, but it seems unlikely given the number of claims the smaller American contingent claimed.
Their were plenty of allied kill claims. However when fighting over enemy territory what might have been a 'kill' some where else (just like the RAF in BoB damaged planes and pilots could make emergency landings etc..)
German Loss List - 19 August 1942 (http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppelosses.htm)
-
So they shot down bombers but failed the higher objective. To stop the bomb dropping.
The western Allies could put more bombers in the air then LW had day fighters, The western allies could replace their losses faster then the LW could shoot them down. This is what they call 'attrition' moron. Which is kind of the point I have made. Thanks for the help I guess...
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Need to check that history and the documents posted above, Oldman. The Luftwaffe halted the USAAF efforts at daylight bombing during 1943. Their defense was successful. However it is almost impossible to win a war by being defensive.
MiloMorai, above, correctly points out that USAAF operations didn't stop after Black Thursday, they just flew them within range of escort - which, of course, is really what they did for the rest of the war. The P-47s were killing the cream of the Luftwaffe veterans all during this time.
If you compare victories, the Luftwaffe consistantly gave as good they got.
Not the point. Defense should always give at least as good as it gets.
Pure attrition warfare and weight of numbers won the air war for the Allies.
One of your sources observes that "[t]he weeklong offensive [Bigweek] also seriously eroded the morale and capability of the Luftwaffe. U.S. aircrews claimed more than 600 German fighters destroyed and achieved almost immediate air superiority. The Luftwaffe never recovered from the downing of so many skilled fighter pilots. It had to abandon full-scale opposition to the daylight bombing missions in favor of rationing resistance as circumstances and capabilities dictated. In effect, the Germans conceded air superiority to the Allies." That was six months after the August 17, 1943 Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission. We weren't close to achieving the huge fighter[/b] numbers advantage we held a few months later. I'm comfortable with my conclusions (which aren't mine really! they were developed by brighter people than me).
I think you should check out your history of the PACWAR as well.
Well...er....where did I go wrong?
- oldman
-
As for the producion figures for the Fw190, thats a classic example. As if the # of produced only FW 190s is the only relevent point. There were other combat types flown by the LW in WW2 yes?
As for the production references:
"The Luftwaffe 1933-45" W. Murray
"German industries vaunted production of 36,000 a/c in 1944..."
Thise site has a nice breakdown, 16,381 Bf109s and Fw190s alone in 1944, if you add up the fighters its @ 25,000, total military a/c is above 31,000. It probably misses some light liason a/c ect :
http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/gma.htm
In any case, I am not about to re-debate the entire air war in the west, suffice to say, you can manipulate production and delivery stats to anything that suits your needs, and make claims based upon them. What matters are actual combat units deployed and sustained on certain campaigns.
-
MiloMorai, above, correctly points out that USAAF operations didn't stop after Black Thursday, they just flew them within range of escort - which, of course, is really what they did for the rest of the war. The P-47s were killing the cream of the Luftwaffe veterans all during this time.
No Milo corrected the fact that unescorted daylight bombing was turned back.
Your assertion that:
Measured from the time that we got serious escort operations going - late summer of 1943 - it was more like six months.
Is just not true. The USAAF had conducted escorted raids along the coast almost from the beginning. The first raid they conducted was during Dieppe.
FRIDAY, 21 AUGUST 1942
AMERICAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS
ALASKA (11th AF): 1 B-24 trying to fly reconnaissance over Kiska Island
aborts due to weather.
CARIBBEAN (6th AF): HQ XXXVI Fighter Command is activated at Waller Field,
Trinidad.
ETO (8th AF): At General Henry H "HAP" Arnold's request, Lieutenant General
Dwight D Eisenhower gives Major General Carl Spaatz additional duties as Air
Officer for the ETO and head of the air section of its staff, thus assuring
active participation by the 8th Air Force in theater planning.
Mission 4: 12 B-17s are dispatched to the bomb the shipyards at Rotterdam,
The Netherlands but the mission is aborted due to an attack by 25 Bf 109s
and Fw 190s; the bombers claim 2-5-6 Luftwaffe aircraft; 1 bomber is damaged;
1 airman is KIA and 5 WIA. Lack of proper coordination with the Spitfire
escorts is a major factor in the failure of the mission.
By Jan 43:
VIII Bomber Command Mission 29: The primary targets are the steel and
locomotive works and marshaling yard at Lille, France. The 1st Bombardment
Wing dispatches 72 B-17s; 64 drop 125 tons of bombs on the targets between
1427 and 1430 hours local. Locomotive construction and repair work is
seriously imparied.
We claim 3 enemy aircraft destroyed, 4 probably destroyed and 5 damaged;
three B-17s are lost, 15 are damaged; human casualties are 2 KIA, 9 WIA
and 30 MIA.
Sixteen B-24s of the 4th Bombardment Wing fly a diversionary raid.
Escort for the raid plus two raids by RAF Bostons against St Omer, France
is provided by 69 Spitfire Mk Vs of the 4th Fighter Group. They claim 3
destroyed, 4 probably destroyed and 5 damaged; one Spitfire is lost. One
Spitfire is forced down at Tangmere due to engine failure and sustained
major damage.
Two other Spitfire Mk Vs also flew an uneventful fighter patrol.
HQ 56th Fighter Group and its subordinate 61st and 62d Fighter Squadrons
are established at Kings Cliffe, Northamptonshire, England upon arrival from
the US; the 63d Fighter Squadron is established at Wittering,
Northamptonshire. The group will be equipped with P-47C-2 and P-47C-5
aircraft in Feb.
The ground echelon of the 1st Antisubmarine Squadron (Heavy) joins the
air echelon at St Eval, Cornwall, England. The air echelon with B-24s has
been operating from St Eval since 10 Nov 42.
Only the European Theater had unescorted raids and those were only to targets the allied fighters could not reach. That practice was stopped by the Luftwaffe. However they continued to give as good as it got almost until the end. They just did not have numbers to compete. Only after Bodenplatte do we see a large shift in the allies favor.
Big Week did win air superiority from the Luftwaffe because they did not have the forces on hand to oppose 1000 bomber raids.
Not because the allies destroyed so many Luftwaffe planes/pilots however. The Luftwaffe simply never was big enough to oppose them at any time in it's history!
Maintaining a one for one loss rate they never would be able to build a force big enough.
Well...er....where did I go wrong?
Here:
The large kill rates we had after that were scored against an increasingly young and inexperienced German pilot pool, as you have pointed out - which was, in effect, the same as the Marianas thing.
It is in no way the same as the Mariana’s. The IJNAF was destroyed in one engagement. The first major air engagement in the pacwar where the allies gained numerical superiority and they had performance superiority. Before that all the engagements had been on near equal terms. Look how lucky we got at Midway. The Battle of the Solomon’s was one of the most balanced in history!
That never happened to the Luftwaffe.
Good books to read on the subject are:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/boyne.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081332985X/103-5865364-1525459?v=glance
Came across this:
15 Feb 42
EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (ETO): In the UK, Lieutenant Colonel Townsend Griffiss, aide to Major General James E Chaney, is killed when the aircraft in which he is a passenper is mistakenly shot down by Royal Air Force (RAF) Polish fliers. He is the first US airman to die in the line of duty in Europe since the US entered World War II. The 8th Air Force base at Bushy Park is later named Camp Griffiss in his honor.
Our first casualty of the war, inflicted by the RAF.....Thanks guys.
Squire,
The site you quote clearly say exact same number of FW190A fighters produced in total I posted. Your numbers include ground attack and bomber variants that were not used in the Defense of the Reich. You include all aircraft and try to pass it off as fighter production. Hardly truthful.
The numbers to count are the dayfighters, LOL.
You can throw in some of the twin engine types as well for a short period of time. However the Luftwaffe quickly stopped that practice as the twins could not hope to compete with allied single engine fighters.
http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/gma.htm
In any case, I am not about to re-debate the entire air war in the west, suffice to say, you can manipulate production and delivery stats to anything that suits your needs, and make claims based upon them. What matters are actual combat units deployed and sustained on certain campaigns.
I bet your not willing to debate if your want to pass the above off as honest statistics.
Especially since that is the production for the whole Luftwaffe when I posted the USAAF figures for the European theater. The theater under discussion.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Good morning good folks.
Well, now at last this is becoming informative.
A little input:
"The western Allies could put more bombers in the air then LW had day fighters, The western allies could replace their losses faster then the LW could shoot them down. This is what they call 'attrition' moron"
From Bruno, the politeness as ever.
Well, thank you for pointing this out Bruno, I am however not quite at peace with this definition.
A war of attrition is about wearing out the opponent. Not so sure about the replacement part mentioned, - for I know that sometimes the LW was shooting down more bombers than could be replaced.
That was successful attrition. If the Allies are replacing even faster, it is not attrition. Anyway the point floated by you. The LW itself got worn out as well.
And Crumpp my dear friend. You are right where you pointed out that my sentence or point was not clear enough. I'll have another go then. This is the sentence I was replying to:
"LW fighters in Defense of the Reich were tasked with one objective, to shoot down enemy bombers. Initiative and freedom of operation remained with the Allies. They chose the targets, they chose the tactics. The LW for the most part was a reactionary force in the west and remained so until the end of the war"
What I wanted to point out is that the initiative and on a large scale the freedom of the reaction was of course with the LW, and compared to i.e. the BoB, they had very good time for their responce. Many times as much.
Look at the BoB to get my point. There was very little time for the RAF fighters to get in the air before the LW was above them, - the distance and speed being hard to deal with. Many a fight was uphill, - the RAF responce was not complete before the fight was on. It turned out to be cruicial time when the LW reached inland, the little distance between the coast and London providing the RAF with the vital time it took to get the fighters up and in Position. Nicely demonstrated in September 1940, when attrition started getting redefined as a victory.
Now look at the Allied bomber campaign. To get at a place in Germany there is a decent cruise over enemy territory. The Allies have to overfly the lowlands before making it over the German Border. A place like Berlin means some couple (or 3?) HOURS on the cruise. EACH WAY. But that is pretty far. A place like the Saar is still like an hour or more over hostile ground (again each way), - 3 times the distance the LW had to cross over enemy territory to get at London.
For some comparison, the task to get at many of the nearer parts of industrial Germany in daylight roughly equals a task for the LW to cruise over the whole core of the UK to get at Newcastle.
So, conclusion:
The LW was blessed with incredible time for reaction to deal with the bombers. A very frequently overlooked fact, and explains their pilot successes quite a bit.
-
The site you quote clearly say exact same number of FW190A fighters produced in total I posted. Your numbers include ground attack and bomber variants that were not used in the Defense of the Reich. You include all aircraft and try to pass it off as fighter production. Hardly truthful.
What, the Fw190F and Gs were not used in defending the Reich? Yet the Reich defenders here want to include Allied FBs in their totals.:rolleyes:
They also include Allied losses due to AA and implying these losses were due to LW a/c.
-
What, the Fw190F and Gs were not used in defending the Reich? Yet the Reich defenders here want to include Allied FBs in their totals.
As the allies are on the offensive, the Germans would still have to intecept any incoming Fighter Bombers with the same defenses.
I would say the P39/P40 could go from the USAAF:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1128908447_usaaffighters.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1128908496_usaaffighterpart2.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1128944789_factorydeliverybycountry.jpg)
What, the Fw190F and Gs were not used in defending the Reich?
Most of them were on the Eastern Front or MTO for most of the war, Milo. While they would have been used if available and not assigned another more suitable mission, to claim them as consistantly part of the interception pool would be hardly representative. It would be like counting Ju88 nightfighters, which were also used on rare occasions during the daylight interceptions.
Neither aircraft though is typical of an average interception. Both are specialized for other jobs and were expected to perform them. Pulling them off for interception means those other jobs do not get done.
Are you really trying to prove that the allies had numerical parity with the Luftwaffe in 1944?
However you split the hair, the facts remain the allies had overwhelming numerical superiority and could launch single missions with more aircraft than the entire Luftwaffe fighter force on all fronts.
That is already in the combat reports.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
EEEEk. Otto again? With a new name? Banned, or just an identity problem?
Anyway, Pulling up Dieppe, I can say straight out of my head that it was a bad day for the RAF. LW mounted 190's very successfully, as well as pulling 88's out of their sleeves for anti-shipping. RAF had a bad day.
I have the RAF combat reports for the day as well as some more data from autobiographies from that day.
Seems like the LW did have some aircraft in their sleeve at the time. Wonder why they didn't go and dominate S-England with them :D
-
Just looked at the Dieppe file.
Very interesting, especially the later part about the Germans beating the USSR in 1942.
But aha....
"Propagandized for sure, but still an interesting perspective."
Yes, the Nazi Germany perspective without sense of reality in the mid time of WW2. Gives me an insight of how the brain of some on this forum really works. (or rather doesn't) :D
-
They also include Allied losses due to AA and implying these losses were due to LW a/c.
The Losses are plainly broken down by the USAAF documents I posted Milo.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I am not on meds but don't let that discourage you keep plonking yours into the slot.
Now as for the War in the east, you'd say it was settled after the tide changed, at STALINGRAD. Kursk is later and further.
While Stalingrad happens about the same time as operation Torch and Kursk is coing with the invasion of Sicily, I wonder about the dates and coincidenses,- could be more of a synchronism there than you'd think. Am looking into it actually.
As for your film reels, I will look at practically anything.
The film of Dieppe was a pleasure to look at,- this is data one does not get ones hands on so easily.
You say you have several more, - well I'm all eyes and ears.
I may have something to send back,- got to go through my HD's to find some. What I do remember is that I have some big file of LW guncams, as well as some soundfiles, and tons of photographs.
If you want to mail some stuff do it, or drop your email on the thread, - I'll then run a probe with an attachment, - say a nice pic of a warbird for instance.
As for the reliability of the German newsreels, well, this boggles me:
"Just like allied newsreels from the war. Of course late in the war the Germans had to lie just as much as the Allies did in the beginning"
The Allies censored their newspapers and used propoganda as well as covering up some things that would be uncomfortable for common knowledge in the middle of an important event.
But nobody topped Nazy Germany in the business, with Göbbles as a minister on top of things. That machine of propoganda and lies was already running for years before the start of WW2)
A little, and not so well known example of Nazi propoganda is the provocating Polish people who forced Germany to make war.
The first victims of WW2 were exactly victims of Nazi propoganda. Those were German convicts, anonimous yet, dressed up as polish soldiers, shot outside and roundabout a German radio station near the polish border, only to be identified (by the Germans) as intruding Polish soldiers whose attack on the site had been thwarted, - therefore war against Poland was finally justified.
Nazy Germany propoganda held the world championship for propoganda from 1933 or so until 1945.
PUNKTUM
-
Originally posted by OttoJ
Ah, calling me an idiot will surely prove your point. :lol
Wrong. The Me262 was EASILY the best production design of WW2.
Wrong. An Interceptor needs climb rate, speed and firepower. The P-51 had speed, but was lacking in the other two categories. Even if the RAF had Mustang IIIs and IVs they preferred Spitfires and Tempests for V-1 intercepting since the P-51's firepower wasn't even adequate to shoot down doodlebugs.
Wrong. The 190 was a superior design, but not "far far superior". In fact for high altitude interception the 109 was still superior to the 190. That's why the Luftwaffe tasked the 109s to engage allied fighters while the 190s went after the bombers.
Wrong. 950 G-3 models alone were made, so a LOT more than 800 Gs were made. As for payload the 190 could carry an 1800kg bomb on a centerline rack. That bomb alone exceeds the P-51's payload, and in addition the 190F could carry rockets or bombs on wing racks. All 190F, G and some A models had the plumbing for carrying wing drop tanks. However, most pilots had them removed to save weight; there simply wasn't a need for the additional range.
Wrong. The G series was a parallel long range fighter-bomber development. The G-1 was based on the A-4, the G-2 on the A-5 etc. The A-8 did not have poor performance. Ask Crumpp about the performance of an A-8 fighter, you and most of the rest of the community seems to think the heavy A-8 bomber destroyer was the only version of the A-8.
All WWII fighters were under continuous development and modification throughout the war. That includes the P-51, P-47, P-38 and other allied aircraft as well. The D-9 was just the natural next step in the 190's development. Development on the D series started in the spring of 1942, with prototype development based on modifications of FW-190A-0 fighters, the first of six flying in March 1942. These machines were given a rear fuselage extension to compensate for the lengthened nose, which had been stretched to fit the Jumo 213 engine, and were armed with twin MG-17 machine guns in the cowling and an MG-151/20 cannon in each wing root. Some problems were encountered, but the type seemed promising enough for the RLM to authorize the construction of "FW-190D-0" preproduction prototypes in late 1943. These machines were similar to the development prototypes, but were based on FW-190A-7 airframes.
Tank continued to tweak the inline-powered designs, resulting in the "Ta-152" series, with work along this line begun in late 1942. So no, the D-9 and Ta-152 were NOT some "forced" development in 1944 to alleviate the "poor performance of the A-8".
Wrong. The P-38, P-47 and P-51 saw extensive modifications thought WWII. Take the P-38 for example: P-38D, RP-38D, P-38E, RP-38E, P-38F, P-38G, P-38H, P-38J, P-38L, and with a myriad of specialized versions including reconnaissance, bomber and night fighter versions.
You really should stop watching Discovery and do a bit more research next time.
Oh and btw. take you own advise:
Obviously you live in an alternate universe where facts are simply whatever you conjur up. You cant argue "facts" with someone who cant deal with reality.
The simple truth is that the P-51D is widely regarded thruout the world as the premier fighter of WW2....thats from all sides. Just like the famous qoute when one of the expertain was asked by Goring what it would take to win the Battle of Britain.....the answer....a squadren of spitfires.
As for 109, it had no firepower without gondola's so it was preferred as the escort for the 190's....which had no ability to fight other fighters once they were uparmoured for the bomber killing role.
Your facts on the G's are simply not right. Again your simply creating an alternate reality. I specifically gave you the various configurations. None of which allow for an 1800kg bomb.
Also the G3 you mention is the 1st that allowed both DT's and bomb racks.
"During the summer of 1943 production of modified Fw 190G-3 planes started. In this series the wing from the Fw 190 A-6 plane was applied as standard and underwing shackles for fuel tanks were replaced by similar ETC 501 V.Fw Trg (Verkleideter Focke-Wulf Trager) bomb racks. This solution gives this version the ability to carry both fuel tanks and 250 kg bombs, this considerably increased offensive plane capabilities. In addition to this change, the Fw 190G-3 plane was equipped with the autopilot device PKS 11 (also the more modern version: PKS 12) to reduce pilot work load during long range flights (maximum flight time for Fw 190G was about 2.5 hours). Beginning in October 1943 Fw 190G-3 and later version planes were powered by the BMW 801 D-2 engine adapted for C3 (96 octane) fuel and fitted with an additional injector in the left supercharger inlet. That made it possible to briefly (10-15 min.) increase engine power during flights at low altitudes (under 1000 m)."
Not however these are basically 500lber's.
"In an emergency, single Fw 190G planes were adapted for the transportation of high weight bombs under the fuselage (1000, 1600 and 1800 kg). In this modification, the shock absorber leg was strengthened and wheels with strengthened tires were used. Also used were special bomb racks (Schlos 1000 or 2000) in place of the ETC 501 bomb rack. The Fw 190G planes with these higher bomb loads needed as long as 1200-1300 m of runway for takeoff."
Single planes emergency etc...but then again READING isnt your strong suite....is it?
"About 800 Fw 190G planes of all versions were produced. It was also the last version of the Fw 190 powered by a radial engine. We must also admit that finding the true number of planes produced is impossible for the following reasons: first - full documentation is not in existence from all Focke-Wulf airframe factories and companies manufacturing the plane under licence, second - we don't know how many airframes (particularly F series) were assembled in special small workshops (e.g. Menibum), whose main aim was building of torpedo and other variants for special purposes. The other complicating factor, sometimes making detailed compilation impossible is that some planes were assembled in field workshops where airframes and engines from planes withdrawn from service units were recycled. In this process, fully operational planes were made from parts of heavily damaged fighters withdrawn from service. For example, from a plane with a heavily damaged airframe, wings were taken and mounted to another plane with damaged wings. Often such 'composited' planes had tail and engine taken from other Fw 190A, F or G. These composite planes, sometimes a completely new 'version', received new individual serial numbers and were sent to a field unit after a test flight ."
Again 800 is the roughly accepted production for all "G" series.....
Shhhhhh....
The mirror is calling........IDIOT
-
Also the G3 you mention is the 1st that allowed both DT's and bomb racks.
The FW190G is the only variant to carry two Zusatzkraftstoffbehältern.
The type was considered a bomber, not a fighter bomber and had a different motor set up/performance from the FW190A series.
The simple truth is that the P-51D is widely regarded thruout the world as the premier fighter of WW2....thats from all sides. Just like the famous qoute when one of the expertain was asked by Goring what it would take to win the Battle of Britain.....the answer....a squadren of spitfires.
I think your reading a bit much into these comments.
After the trials ended and the results were analyzed, the following letter was written by Air Chief Marshal Sir William Sholto Douglas to the Under Secretary of State for Air, Lord Sherwood.
2. I seem to detect a spirit of complacency in the Ministry of Aircraft Production. This is borne out by the speeches of the Minister of Production and the Minister of Aircraft Production in the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 July. They appear to find it difficult to believe that we have really lost our lead in fighter performance. There is however no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the fw J 90 is the best all-round fighter in the world today [author's italics). It is no answer to say that the position will be reversed when the Spitfire IX comes into general use. In the first place I have only fourteen Spitfire IXs, whereas the enemy has between two and three hundred Fw 190s. In several respects the Fw 190 is superior to the Spitfire IX, e.g. in climb and acceleration at certain critical altitudes and in negative G carburation. The most alarming aspect of the position however is that, whereas the Spitfire with Merlin engine is almost at the end of its possible development, the Fw 190 is only in the early stages of its development. Reports are already to hand of more horsepower being put into the engine of the Fw 190, and there is no doubt that with its greater engine capacity, it can in time easily outstrip the Merlin Spitfire in performance. This in fact is likely to have happened by next spring.
http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/letter_from_the_chief.htm
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The most alarming aspect of the position however is that, whereas the Spitfire with Merlin engine is almost at the end of its possible development, the Fw 190 is only in the early stages of its development. Reports are already to hand of more horsepower being put into the engine of the Fw 190, and there is no doubt that with its greater engine capacity, it can in time easily outstrip the Merlin Spitfire in performance. This in fact is likely to have happened by next spring.
The above said in 1942. The 190 never did.
-
The above said in 1942. The 190 never did.
Your flamebaiting Milo.
Either that or you just ignorant of the FW190 design.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your flamebaiting Milo.
Either that or you just ignorant of the FW190 design.
All the best,
Crumpp
I don't remember the 1943 fw190 was "outstripping" the 1943 spit.
:)
Or my translation was a failure :D
-
I don't remember the 1943 fw190 was "outstripping" the 1943 spit.
Niether was the 1943 Spit outstripping the FW190, Straffo.
The FW190 retained it's traditional advantages over the Spit througout the war.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Considering the Griffon had already been fitted to prototype Spit Mk IV in early 1942 and then to the production Mk XII in Oct 1942, I would think the guy who made the comment about the Merlin was unaware of the Griffon.
Mk XII
The Mk. XII was the first Spitfire powered by a Griffon engine to go into service. The first production models started appearing in October 1942 and in total two RAF squadrons were equipped with the model. The Griffon engine gave the aircraft superb low and medium level performance. In fact at low altitude it was one of the fastest aircraft in the world; in one speed trial a prototype Mk. XII (DP845) raced ahead of a Hawker Typhoon and a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 to the amazement of the dignitaries present. However pilots found it difficult to exploit this advantage in combat as German pilots were reluctant to be drawn into dog fights with Spitfires of any type below 20,000 feet. The Mk. XIIs speed advantage was only really useful near the end of its front line service in Summer 1944, in which it shot down a respectable number of V-1 Flying Bombs. The Mk. XII variant was retired in September 1944.
I'd put a Spit XIV at 21lbs boost on a par/or better footing than any 190 or 109.
Then again its two different roles they were fulfilling toward the end of the war. The major use of Spits was at low alts, hence the LF series of models, whereas the LW had to get up to alt to intercept bombers.
What 109/190 can match the F.21 455-460mph straight/level at 20k?
Yes only 120 were delivered, but 3000 were originally ordered, and production halted after VE day.
Syria had F.22 up until 1952.
Maybe last Spits in operational service - F.24's of the Hong Kong Aux AF 1955?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Niether was the 1943 Spit outstripping the FW190, Straffo.
The FW190 retained it's traditional advantages over the Spit througout the war.
All the best,
Crumpp
According to who Crumpp? Or do you mean roll rate and such? Certainly the Spit LFIX drivers, Spit XII drivers, Spit VIII drivers etc didn't see themselves at a disadvantage when engaging 190s.
I think it's a fairer assesment to say they went back and forth in terms of performance as the respective design teams tried to keep the edge. With the XIV coming into service 6 months or more prior to the D9, I'd think in terms of performance the Spit sure had the edge clearly then.
But again, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by traditional advantages.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Considering the Griffon had already been fitted to prototype Spit Mk IV in early 1942 and then to the production Mk XII in Oct 1942, I would think the guy who made the comment about the Merlin was unaware of the Griffon.
Mk XII
The Mk. XII was the first Spitfire powered by a Griffon engine to go into service. The first production models started appearing in October 1942 and in total two RAF squadrons were equipped with the model. The Griffon engine gave the aircraft superb low and medium level performance. In fact at low altitude it was one of the fastest aircraft in the world; in one speed trial a prototype Mk. XII (DP845) raced ahead of a Hawker Typhoon and a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 to the amazement of the dignitaries present. However pilots found it difficult to exploit this advantage in combat as German pilots were reluctant to be drawn into dog fights with Spitfires of any type below 20,000 feet. The Mk. XIIs speed advantage was only really useful near the end of its front line service in Summer 1944, in which it shot down a respectable number of V-1 Flying Bombs. The Mk. XII variant was retired in September 1944.
I
Not really accurate considering the XII's success in the late Summer and Fall of 43. 91 Squadron in the XII was high scoring 11 Group Squadron in the Fall of 43.
It is definately true that the 109s and 190s weren't inclined to engage the Spits at their best altitude. The problem was it was also the altitude that the Medium bombers of the USAAF and 2 Group were flying so to engage the bombers, they had to drop down.
The entire airwar moved to lower levels as the war went on, outside of the 4 engine raids by the USAAF on Germany, but the Tactical airwar made it the realm of the LFIX. They just weren't going as high to find the fight.
-
He's way off base and telling people (people that pretty much know there stuff) they're full of it and that the US planes were the bestest in the world and the LW planes were junk in 1939, etc etc. So "Humble" saying to them to do some research is kind of laughable
I earn about $300/HR US to do "research"......I'm very very good at it. I've engaged in a couple of these diatrabes and have never simply stated a position. I've always used 3rd party sources that have at least some validity....I also will bring up anything I find that appears to support the "other" side. Go back to my P-39 thread...not one bit of evidence to support "the experts" and not a single point refuted regarding the single most important airbattle of the war (clearly dominated by the russians)...primarily due to the P-39. The bottom line is simple, so far I dont think any of you "109 experts" really no much beyond what you've trained yourself to think of as "the truth".
The 109 was a wonderful airplane in 1937....and a very good one in 1941/42. What seperated the germans from their adversaries early on was the combination of experience, tactics and a suitable plane. You can actually see the realities even here. The 109 (and 190D) excel at an "E fighting" style of ACM....great here. But in the real world the shortcomings were evident even in 1940. I dont have the time or interest to dig up the accounts but the germans lost badly on multiple occasions to french pilots in hawker 75 and other planes when they strayed from there "shoot & scoot" style of aircombat. This style certainly fit the blitzkrieg....but the germans suffered when they were forced to fight any type of sustained action at all times during the war.
Just about every military aviation think tank traces the loss of the airwar back to the over reliance on the 109 airframe as the "root of all evil". The fact that someone would even begin to compare the P51-D to the 109 (any flavor) indicates a total lack of understanding of what is fundementally important.
The same can be said regarding the organizational structure of a US Heavy armoured division vs anything else fielded at the time. Simply based on it's "design" it was fundementally superior to any other combat formation in the world by a large margin....even though the US fielded what in many ways was the most grossly inferior "MBT" in the world at the time.
The bottom line here is really quite simple. The US had a far far superior strategic doctrine to any other combatant in the world. This covered every facet of military thought....and although it cost us significantly in many ways....it also provided a pure dominance that has carried thru ever since.
As stated in a famous qoute what made the P51D special wasnt what it could do...but that it could do it over Berlin. The underlying fact was that it was the best design of the war....period (except again for the F7F) (1st true airsuperiority "Strike fighter" ever built).....
I have yet to see any internationally recognized authority state EVER that the 109 (any flavor) was in any way superior to the P51D. I have no problem recognizing that in the short range interceptor role the 109 was a formidable adversary....however it had no ability to either enter into sustained combat with a clear advantage or to protect its turf thru endurance. The P51 had greater combat time over Berlin then the 109 did:O
Believe whatever garbage you want.....however the realities have been clearly determined here.
-
If we're going the "history of aviation in WW2" route the real turning point was actually the Kuban bridgehead. You can actually pinpoint the time and place the germans lost both the airwar and the overall ability to successfully wage warfare. Whats interesting here is that you had the best the germans had to offer vs P-39's hurricanes and lagg-3's. All this esoteric mumbojumbo about relative advantages/disadvantages etc can be ignored. The germans had the numbers and the cream of their airforce in a must win situation vs what are widely considered to be inferior planes, pilots and tactics.....and got the snot whupped out of them....by a bunch of guys in P-39's who dominated the best the germans had to offer.
This is factual history not conjecture. So before you argue the merits of the 109 vs the spit, pony, p-38 etc.....recognize that it couldnt even go toe to toe with a p-39 when it counted.....
-
Subtle Humble lol.
Hell look at the upcoming scenrio,
Initally all Malta had was some Hurris and 3 Gladiators, they failed there also.
In fact much later after the Spit V had been delivered and Malta was secure one German officer commented something along the lines of "The Malta Spits are at it again, they are running circles around us."
I'm sure someone can come up with the exact details.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your flamebaiting Milo.
Either that or you just ignorant of the FW190 design.
All the best,
Crumpp
Read your whole quote Crumpp. The 190 never easily outstriped the Merlin Spitfire in performance.
The only time the Spit was at a disadvantage was with the Mk V. Once the Mk IX came along they were pretty much equal up to 20,000ft and from then up the Mk IX was better.
This is what the handbook says about the ETC501: If the a/c is to be flown without the bomb release system, the ETC501 carrier, with integral ETC501 fairing and Bulkhead 4 suspension fittings must be removed. In the same way, the electrical leads, the fuel line leads, the air pressure lines and the emergency release cable to the underfuselage trough are no longer necessary.
-
Crumpp: Look a little better into Spitfire's performance and compare the ultimate Merlin powered ones to a 190A series aircraft in service at the same time. Their performance curves should be criss-crossing, the Spitfire holding the cards at high altitude.
If you look at a bird like the Mk VIII you are looking at a fighter that has decent range and full tropicalization, tops up at 410-420 mph, manages 5000 fpm climb, and hits 20K in some odd 5 minutes. in 1943. Can the 190A5 match that? (Or whatever the most common 190 in 1943 is)
-
Gup:"But again, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by traditional advantages."
I guess that Crumpp meant zoom climb, roll rate and high speed maneuverability which are bound to the design differences between FW190 and Spitfire. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean stuff like high alt speed, medium and low speed level turn performance and E-retention...
Or what do you think?
;)
-C+
-
Hey Milo,
Which translation and which version of the Flugzeug-Handbuch are you looking at?
You do know that each one is different. Each version is slightly different. Each translation comes out somewhat different as well. However it certainly helps to have some pilots who flew it to cross check.
Is this going to be like the Zustatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf or fuel/timing?
E-retention...
Thank you, Charge. Good god, and the Spitfans think the 109 fans are bad.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
If you look at a bird like the Mk VIII you are looking at a fighter that has decent range and full tropicalization, tops up at 410-420 mph, manages 5000 fpm climb, and hits 20K in some odd 5 minutes. in 1943. Can the 190A5 match that? (Or whatever the most common 190 in 1943 is)
From what I have seen, the Mk VIII falls short of these speed and climb data you claim for it, esp. trop ones. It has the exactsame engine as the MkIX, and is heavier... why would it climb faster, or even as fast ? All data I have seen show almost the same speed as the IXs, ie. 400ish top speed. THe FW 190A-5 from what I have seen was somewhat faster at altitudee, quite faster at low alts, and of course climbed quite a bit worser (being a much heavier plane with smaller wings), ie. 3800-4000, whereas IXs climbed 4650, and the VIIIs were probably worser, being 300lbs heavier..
-
My mistake Kurfurst -
F.21 460mph @ 25,600ft not 20,000ft as I said.
More than 3,000 F.21s had been ordered when the end of the war brought drastic cuts and only 120 were built - enough to equip four squadrons. A few were fitted with contra-rotating propellers, which eliminated skidding and made the aircraft very stable as a gun platform.
-
o/t fyi post:
Here's a link to an interactive flash (Soviet Point of View) of the Great Patriot War:
GPW (http://english.pobediteli.ru/)
On the flash on the right there's is button to 'start animation'.
-
So nice that you can generalize Crumpp but I have to get specific.
-
So nice that you can generalize Crumpp but I have to get specific.
What are you talking about?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hey Kuffie!
"From what I have seen, the Mk VIII falls short of these speed and climb data you claim for it, esp. trop ones. It has the exactsame engine as the MkIX, and is heavier... why would it climb faster, or even as fast ? All data I have seen show almost the same speed as the IXs, ie. 400ish top speed. THe FW 190A-5 from what I have seen was somewhat faster at altitudee, quite faster at low alts, and of course climbed quite a bit worser (being a much heavier plane with smaller wings), ie. 3800-4000, whereas IXs climbed 4650, and the VIIIs were probably worser, being 300lbs heavier.."
I have just the data from testing as well as some info from the far east.
(5000 fpm and 420 mph)
It got "cleaned up" some bit as well as many "other improvements" (J.Quill),- what exactly he refers to I am not sure about. Internal bullet proof glass on the windscreen and a retractable tailwheel come to my mind there. (I know about the tailwheel but need data on the other)
As for the Engine, it would be the Merlin 66 or 70, - our AH Merlin being the early 61.
The 190 should be faster at lower alt, and slower at high alt, - the Merlin 66 and 70 peaking out rather high. The 190 will be better downhill, - but alas, - downhill is an attempt to disengage. Running.
Uphill will count as somewhat more important IMHO.
So. - I'm off to bed.
Cheers.
-
The 190 will be better downhill, - but alas, - downhill is an attempt to disengage. Running.
Your weight reduces drag in a dive:
In the case of the dive condition, the weight component along the flight path helps the thrust by reducing the drag component for constant velocity.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/performance/TH24.htm
Better dive accelleration is extremely useful in a real fight. Not only can you disengage at will but you can gain energy by short dives/zooms.
For the Spitfire this is compounded by it's greater form drag when compared to the FW190 so that even a very shallow dive would give advantage to the 190. By converting the gained speed to altitude (W/D), the FW190 is back on top.
That is exactly how FW190 pilots got in close and fought in the verticle against Spitfires.
They could zoom above and dive down. Using the high speed manuverability and roll rate, turn with a spit for few seconds if necessary. If they did not get solution, roll out before bleeding too much E, shallow dive of a few degrees so that weight gives thrust a little boost, and zoom back up top. Repeat as often as needed.
So while the Spitfire's talent lay in its turning ability, the FW190's was the verticle.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
"The 190 will be better downhill, - but alas, - downhill is an attempt to disengage. Running."
Heh. Was that your point? A Coward's plane?
:rofl
-C+
edit: "So while the Spitfire's talent lay in its turning ability, the FW190's was the verticle."
I think the fighting style Crumpp described has even anecdotal evidence. A british ace fought a bunch of FWs and got the attacking leader smoking after a brief snapshot. But AFAIK that was exactly how the fight went on. The FW didn't try to turn and the Spit didn't try to zoom climb. Don't remember who it was, though.
There is also anecdotal evidence of an FW gaining on a Spit in a high speed turn. Don't remember that dude either but he got away from FWs eventually.
I can dig them up if you insist.
;)
-
Ahh, always wanted to ask Crumpp about this.
From reading countless autobiographies, I have the feeling that the 190 turned quite well at high speed. I have seen some reports about 190's hanging with a Spit for more than a circle, but they would suffer if they kept it too long. So,in a really high G, high speed turn, the 190 would perhaps shine?
Anyway, about the vertical and the zoom, dogfights tended to slow down if both opponents stayed. Eventually the shear ROC will count more than zoom.
Then there are all these Spits. Not all the same. The XII drivers under Harris command would chase the 190's downhill and keep locked to them.
-
Ahh, Baron this time. A new nick? Getting banned?
-
Lol, well, I saved the Dieppe one.
-
Ahh, always wanted to ask Crumpp about this.
Yes. Doing some simple calculations will confirm this.
Anyway, about the vertical and the zoom, dogfights tended to slow down if both opponents stayed. Eventually the shear ROC will count more than zoom.
Yes they tended to slow down and get lower. At tree top level the FW190 gives it's best performance so while the Spit if losing advantage the lower the fight goes, the 190 gains.
Being faster in level speed on the deck allows the FW190 to keep its energy advantage. Remember it accelerates better too at altitudes the FW190 is faster.
So I think having the fight get low and slow works against the Spitfire.
I have quite a few anecdotes of FW190 Spitfire fights. Yes, in many of them the FW190's make several level turns with the Spitfire before either shooting it down or breaking out of circle to zoom. I did not even bring it up because people in this forum would break out into a cold sweat if they thought the historical truth was that these planes were very competitive. That pilot quality and weight of numbers was the deciding factor in the air war over Europe.
My whole purpose in quoting Sholto Douglas was too show that sometimes too much weight is put on these type of comments. Men at war who were forced to have a grudging respect for the enemy’s equipment made them.
After the trials ended and the results were analyzed, the following letter was written by Air Chief Marshal Sir William Sholto Douglas to the Under Secretary of State for Air, Lord Sherwood.
2. I seem to detect a spirit of complacency in the Ministry of Aircraft Production. This is borne out by the speeches of the Minister of Production and the Minister of Aircraft Production in the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 July. They appear to find it difficult to believe that we have really lost our lead in fighter performance. There is however no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the fw J 90 is the best all-round fighter in the world today [author's italics). It is no answer to say that the position will be reversed when the Spitfire IX comes into general use. In the first place I have only fourteen Spitfire IXs, whereas the enemy has between two and three hundred Fw 190s. In several respects the Fw 190 is superior to the Spitfire IX, e.g. in climb and acceleration at certain critical altitudes and in negative G carburation. The most alarming aspect of the position however is that, whereas the Spitfire with Merlin engine is almost at the end of its possible development, the Fw 190 is only in the early stages of its development. Reports are already to hand of more horsepower being put into the engine of the Fw 190, and there is no doubt that with its greater engine capacity, it can in time easily outstrip the Merlin Spitfire in performance. This in fact is likely to have happened by next spring.
http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/letter_from_the_chief.htm
After all it suits the agenda to quote Galland about the Spitfire, right?
People will point to Galland’s comments, forgetting that Mölders disagreed. The reality is there is so little to choose between the Spitfire and the 109 it is silly to argue.
Or they will take the comments about the P51 over Berlin and try to make it comment on performance of the P51! It was simply that fact that now enemy fighters can fly the distance. We are talking about an enemy that had not just a few of them, but overwhelming numbers of fighters.
No, the FW190 was a good fighter with design purpose strengths but so wasn't the Spitfire, 109, and P51. All of them were improved throughout the war.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Well, IMHO, the 190 was the star of 1941-42. But the Allies gained on it again.
Crumpp, do you have Quill's book? If you don't, I'll scan some part for you and send by email.
There is a very interesting chapter about the 190, - the shock it gave and some plans to find out more about it.
BTW Quill also flew Fabers 190, but in this book there is not much of his opinion about it. BTW he also flew a 109.
From Tony Jonsson's book there is also some good stuff, - 190 vs P51. In fact, many items about engagements with the 190. I'll peel out some for you if you like, but my book is in Germany and won't be back before some 2 weeks (a friend is reading it)
Anyway, bear in mind that those first Mk IX Spitfires were Merlin 61 Spits, optimized for high altitude. Now basically, the engineering task of calibrating an aircraft to be supergood at very high altitude is more complicated than having it working well at low altitude. But the fight had to be where it was!
The 190 Worked brilliantly at medium to low altitude, - so if you pick a fight with a Spit IX (m.61) the road goes down. This was countered with the CCC's, - optimized Spitties for low alt, and the boosted up and clipped LF's were quite up to the task at low alt, - say alone the XII's.
Enter the Mustang. Must have been a nightmare for the 190, and certainly is for me when I fly a 190 in AH. I get jumped by a P51 (or a P47) and I am dead.....
-
Must have been a nightmare for the 190, and certainly is for me when I fly a 190 in AH. I get jumped by a P51 (or a P47) and I am dead.....
Angus,
AH is very very far from reality.
I think your reading quite a few opinions and taking them to be absolute fact. Do the math.
The 190 equipped Jagdwaffe did not even notice the introduction of the Spitfire Mk IX or any Merlin spit for that matter. A Spitfire simply remained a Spitfire.
The "NEW" Spitifires that recieved notice were the Mk IVX's.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hihi, I tend to disagree, - when I go flying in a little aircraft, I am amazed of how similar it is!!!!
Now, generally the LW didn't notice much of a difference between the Spitfires, - the IX and V were almost identical to look at.
As for the P51 vs 190 there is more about than AH of course. The thing that was the nightmare for the 190 was that it could no longer escape downhill nor outturn, not go win by the vertical, just outroll. I have looked at some guncams where P51's were totally shredding 190's that tried to run. RL stuff, not AH.
-
"whereas the Spitfire with Merlin engine is almost at the end of its possible development, the Fw 190 is only in the early stages of its development."
Hmm, Sholto makes a strange assumption there. The Spit got many variations of Merlins after model V and Griffons further expanded its field usability. Is he referring that Merlin did not possess any other options for further development than optimizations for different altitudes?
After those variations the Griffon was quite quickly introduced.
:huh
-C+
Edit: "I have looked at some guncams where P51's were totally shredding 190's that tried to run. RL stuff, not AH."
And I have seen guncams of a 190 easily turning inside a P47 and even pulling lead. That doesn't tell much of the situation, anyway. And I dont make hollow assumptions of the relative turn performance of these a/c.
But if you want to make assumption based on those guncams, then please do. They do not increase your credibility, quite contrary, Angus.
;)
-
Ok, Ok so they were probably fake.
In low level flight P51 can't catch a 190A. And anecdoted be it LW or Allied claiming that must be false then.
-
Must be Baron, and that's why you get banned all the time and I not.
To give you a little more sight into my guncam quote, it is not out of thin air.
I was researching a clash between P51C's and 190's occuring in 1944.
Well actually Clashes.
The 51's chased the 190's uphill in one engagement and caught them.
The 51's caught the 190's downhill (can't remember if it was the same engagement), caught up with them and shot some down.
I looked it up in the PRO and as well I got to browse through god-knows-how-many guncam shots from reel at the film archive of the IWM.
So, I had been peeking into autobiography, then ops books, claims from another sorts and then finally guncam, as well as speaking to one of the pilots involved. So turned out that the anecdotes were in very good harmony with the claims, and the claims were in good harmony with the proof, and the pilot's performance claim was quite well viewable on film.
So, I have brought that, - I can give you the combat anecdote on the thread if you like as well as some names and such. N.P.
-
I have shown logics, you just don't get them.
I have showed and offered data and put in quotes, while you have just been belching from your own belly.
I have debated your input, and seen claims and items slowly disappearing from the discussion.
Banning has to do with personal attacks basically - which are usually appearing out of frustration, - which in your case I guess are probably due to the fact that you cannot support your big mouthed statements.
So, what is your next name going to be?
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, what is your next name going to be?
He should use the one he uses on other boards instead of hiding behind the ones he does here.
-
Lol he got edited again :lol
-
The thing that was the nightmare for the 190 was that it could no longer escape downhill nor outturn, not go win by the vertical, just outroll. I have looked at some guncams where P51's were totally shredding 190's that tried to run. RL stuff, not AH.
Really? You should tell that to Oscar, Heinz, or Kurt. The impression I get is the 20 Mustangs was a nightmare, not the one.
Pick up a copy of:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1855324474/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-5865364-1525459#reader-link
You just might be surprised at just what the P51 Aces have to say about fighting the FW190.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Is it a Good read?
It will be some 3 weeks until I have my book ready for quoting (it's on the travel), but if it helps, those were P51C's, they would engage in a scruffle deep inside enemy territory even 1 vs 4 or 5 (!!!!!), and usually be able to get away. Yes, - they could disengage!
Those were no newbies however, and probably had much more experience behind them than the normal LW pilot at the time. The core of the squad I was looking into already had 1 ToD behind them.
The pilot's comment from the P51 pilots I have picked up so far basically go like "unlike when dealing with the Spitfire, the 190's could not run away any more"."
So, once it was a dogfight, - a 190A series would not disengage and outrun a Mustang. Nor a Spit XII for that sake.
-
So, once it was a dogfight, - a 190A series would not disengage and outrun a Mustang. Nor a Spit XII for that sake.
Depends on what time period and which FW190.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hehe
"Depends on what time period and which FW190."
A series. Also depends a little on alt and as well what kind of boosted P51 for instance.....I know.
But the speed difference is marginal down medium to low, either way.
-
A series
I meant depends on which Anton, Angus.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hey again.
Would you happen to have some numbers on production on Antons as well as performance charts between the various ones.
If I remember it right your Sweetheart is the 190A9 running on some strong juices ;)
-
Yes I pretty much have all that, Angus. I also have many of the design changes to the motor documented. There is also physical evidence to back up the documents.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Good to know!
Out of your head, what would you consider to be the most common 190 of WW2? I mean, either through production or useage. (Usually has a relation). 190A5? or 190A8?
I know you have a several subvariants as with all aircraft, - so as an answer for the 109 would be 109G somethig and for the Spitfire would be the V or IX something (probably the dull middle sort of the V).
So what would it be and out of curiousity, - how would you lineup the 190's in AH?
-
FW190A8 was the most common FW190A and one of the better performing fighter variants.
There is a thread on the line up already done.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Link??
Anyway, any of you flying over the weekend? How about giving some hell with a Spitty and a 190 winging ;)
???
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Subtle Humble lol.
Hell look at the upcoming scenrio,
Initally all Malta had was some Hurris and 3 Gladiators, they failed there also.
In fact much later after the Spit V had been delivered and Malta was secure one German officer commented something along the lines of "The Malta Spits are at it again, they are running circles around us."
I'm sure someone can come up with the exact details.
I'm amazed at how these threads turn into meaningless dribble. Thats not ment in anyway as a "slam" to the parties on either side who often provide a tremendous volume of fasinating (but not really relevent) information.
War is simply the application of force to achieve a specific goal. The "perceived slant" toward "american or allied" weapons of war is nothing other than the by product of the fact overall the americans waged war better then anyone else in history (both in WW2 and today). The facts are that americam/allied weapons of war were for the most part better across the board where it counted. From the 1st day of the war till the end...
Logistics, training and tactics all come into play....but in the end all countries are blessed with inordinate numbers of young men (and women) who will walk (and die) in harms way to protect that which they hold dear. Some of the same brave Poles who failed (but not without victories) during the blitzkrieg found fame and achieved a steller record with the polish RAF squads. French aviators who failed in 1940 fought on with distinction with the russians.
There is no question that german aviators persevered against amazing odds and almost hopeless circumstances thruout much of the war. And that the scores of the expertain are a lasting testimony to the skill, courage and tenacity of the luftwaffe.
However if you look at history you'll find the germans were never the true victors in sustained air combat on any front at any time in the war. You can find no historical example of an "aviation victory" anywhere in luftwaffe history.
German loses in poland were actually quite high under the circumstances. In France the germans were fought to about a standstill in the air. They failed miserably at Dunkirk and in the BoB. Although they inflicted higher casualties during the 1941/42 "circus & rubarb" wars they did so with the benifit of both a superior plane (190A3 vs SpitV) and the tactical advanage of picking times and places of combat. On the other hand they had no ability to project any offensive capability which was the true design intent of the Luftwaffe as an entity....so from 1941 they were effectively nuetered in the west.
They failed miserably at Malta and failed misserably in the east as well when it counted. So by 1943....long before the sheer numbers caught up...the luftwaffe ahd taken its place as the least effective and most ineficient airforce in the world. The one that acheived absolutely not a single victory of its own anywhere at anytime during the critical phase of the war when germany had a chance to win. That failure led to the inevitable "meat grinder" late in the war.
So those of you who are "debating" the german side of this equation have a simple choice to make. You can blame the total failure of the luftwaffe on either the weapons of war....or the brave men who tried and often died in an attempt to protect the fatherland.
As a final thought on this topic I'll pose a question of "alternate reality". Had the May 1944 scenario been reversed with Germanys situation in the east stabalized and England under Strategic bombardment....what would you see happening....
Heres my take...
Allied tactical air would make the use of the channel bases impossible....german bomber forces would be unable to mass close to england so german bomber command would be forced to launch from germany or northren france holland etc. (will assume german dev of a 4 engine bomber)......
So hunter/killer squds of P 4x20mm P 51(B,D) would sweep the marshalling points while mosquitos would try and hit bombers as they prepped for missions. As the bomber formations turned for england P-47's would escort squads of 2x37 (or 4 x 20mm) P-38's to the bomber stream while a second flight of ponies would engage the german escort fighters. As the germans hit the coastal area RAF spit IX's & XIV's would come down from there 37,000 combat patterns to slash thru any remaining escorts. Meanwhile RAF mosquito's would take on the heavies while Typhoons, A26's and US jugs would have been interdicting luftwaffe channel fields preventing the 109s from successfully launching the attack cap.
Inspite of tremendous pressure literally from takeoff 80% of the attacking force has slogged its way to the channel itself and is forming up for the run to IP. The original and mid german escort has suffered heavily but the bombers are still a functional unit....but low on fuel and ammo with many suffering significant damage the remaining 70% of the escorts decend into the maelstrom to find there designated landing fields under attack and there comrades now torn between the need to stay alive themselfs, protect the bombers now above them or watch as there fatiqued brethren are forced to land/ditch under fire.
Between all these impediments only 50% of the 109s tasked as the IP cap manage to make it out and climb up to the bomber stream. As the bombers fly over the coast the british send in the final reserve as RAF F7F's slam into the bomber stream. Armed with 4 x 20mm, 4 x 50cal they inflict staggering losses as they mix it up over the english coast...even as they themselfs take a pounding from the 20mm cannon of the german bombers....with german bombs out the F7F's now turn (as per instructions) on the german 109 escort. With a top speed of 435 mph at alt and superior pure turning ability the brits can keep the germans fighting....some 109s got down...and so do some of the F7F's but the short legs of the 109s force the germans hand as many have to either run or ditch......
meanwhile the remaining bombers turn for home......with the channel fields under siege and the 109s based there engages the bombers are hoping to get in range of the return escort of 190s and 262's enroute to escort them home.
A cloud of planes to the north over the channel spells salvation...untill they are identified as RNAS F6F's....as the 2 x 20mm 4 x 50cal hellcats tear into the already staggered bomber stream the formation disinigrates as planes head to the deck to make the best of it.....
The german "return cap" leader sadly circles his troops and sends the 262's back 1st as he see's the ever present ponies of the US aircorp pickle their DT's as they role in......
-
I'm amazed at how these threads turn into meaningless dribble.
see above
-
LOL.....
you'll sit and argue trivial issues but not even contermplate the operatonal realities of fighting a war. The german 109 was incapable of sustained offensive operations in 1939....let alone in 1944. You'll argue the merits of the bird under circumstances that actually favor it entirely....yet give no operational credit to the design or capabilities of the men and machines on the other side.
Had the luftwaffe ever attempted any type of stategic offensive vs the west from mid 1942 on they would have suffered overwhelming losses. The reason they didnt try was simply because they recognized this simple truth.
I'm still waiting for your explanation on how and why the luftwaffe had the tar beat out of it at Kuban by a bunch of 2nd rate pilots in 3rd rate worn out lend lease planes? Your attempting to argue the superiority of the 109 vs the spit or mustang when history clearly shows that its not even a match for a P-39. And we're talking about a time when the germans had both operational advantages and numbers and where the total focus of the german luftwaffe and army was. So the germanys went from being fought to a standstill at BoB to being mauled at Kuban to being so much cannon fodder over germany.....
The one constant.....the vaunted 109......easily the worst combat aircraft fielded by any major combatant in WW2 as its primary front line fighter. The 109 was actually rated as significantly inferior to the C205 by the luftwaffe itself....funny you guys never bring that fact up.......
-
I'm not a 109 fan.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Really? You should tell that to Oscar, Heinz, or Kurt. The impression I get is the 20 Mustangs was a nightmare, not the one.
All the best,
Crumpp
Hmmm. Curious. Too bad you can't read Tobak's book. There was a saying among Hungarian pilots at that time, exaclty what you pointed out :
"There is no such thing as a lonely Mustang."
PS : Doh, I just notice I missed somebody getting banned. :/ Anyay, gotta go now to feed on some turkish food ! :D
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
PS : Doh, I just notice I missed somebody getting banned. :/ Anyay, gotta go now to feed on some turkish food ! :D
Yup, finally looks like they got rid of Otto for good.
I noticed that Qs-man had to do some editing over at Butch's board to get rid of the rants in the 109F thread.
Part of Kurfürst's post in the tread before it was deleted:
Knowing the above, I wonder the reason behind posting dive limitations about the 109G - that may sound very bad to someone unfamiliar with airplane manuals, but in fact quite common, standard warnings found typically in fighter manuals - and then the dive tests that eventually resulted a written-off plane, which was btw different aerodynamically, having the best high altitude merlin 70 engine, and no armament or cannon protusions at all?
Please get your facts straight Kurfurst.
EN409 had a Merlin 61, not a Merlin 70, installed and went to a OTU on Feb 2 1945 before failing to return on Apr 7 1945. Hardly written off. PL827 had a Merlin 70 installed and did not arrive at Farnborough until May 6 1944, a week after the .89 dive of EN409. PL827 replaced EN409 which was having a new engine being fitted.
The speed was measured with a comb with 19 pitots.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I'm not a 109 fan.
All the best,
Crumpp
Good, we have something in common.
I've always been amazed that the germans would seemingly ignore the quantum leap the 190 provided and continue to waste both design time and manufacturing on an obsolete airframe like the 109. The 190 at least solved a significant number of the ergonomic and engineering issues that doomed the 109 from the start.
All the best to you as well
-
"I've always been amazed that the germans would seemingly ignore the quantum leap the 190 provided and continue to waste both design time and manufacturing on an obsolete airframe like the 109."
Stirring the pot, huh? Maybe it just was not as bad as you suggest. After all, it remained lighter than the 190 and thus had different qualities in aircombat. For some reason flying the 190 in AH I feel safe if there are a few friendly 109s about. I think that 109s and 190s make a very good team tactically. ;)
-C+
-
Fw190As and Fw190Cs, with the DB engine, would have been a good combination.
-
Ehm, Humble:
"The 190 at least solved a significant number of the ergonomic and engineering issues that doomed the 109 from the start"
What are you referring to? The pilot ergonomy in the cockpit I presume. Ok, the 190 probably had the best cockpit ergonomy of any WW2 fighter but that doesn't mean the 109 was that bad. And when facing the maintenance and manufacture aspect, the 109 was actually very good!
-
hey guess who's back.
LMAO Otto ya dont get the hint.
Bronk
-
BLOSTRUPMOEN.
Nice nick.
After the next ban, how about "kackentrifftdemföhn" or "Einfranzoserwohntinmeinemkopf"
Hehe :D
-
angus check you pm
Bronk
-
Uh Bronk?
"angus check you pm
Bronk"
What do you mean?
Anyway, another nick:
"Scnellgebratenerungluckssache"
:D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Uh Bronk?
"angus check you pm
Bronk"
What do you mean?
Anyway, another nick:
"Scnellgebratenerungluckssache"
:D
lol sorry private message
-
Where do I have a private message?
Anyway, how about "lederhosendurfennichtinswasch machinerein"