P-51B

[drgondog]

Re: P-47 ace kills vs P-51 ace kills.
I recall reading this in a Walt Boyne article. Walt is a friend, but I won't bother him with "some guy on a meaningless BBS wants your sources, because he doesn't believe your analysis" request. Walt stated it as fact and I have no reason to believe he's wrong. Based upon Walt's thoroughness, I imagine that his data was vetted carefully.

I respect Boyne.  I have a complete list of LW aces which include KIA and WIA but not bail outs.  How Boyne could assess the facts that even touch on the subject via US sources is a mystery to me and I have researched this subject for 40 years.  I suspect you would have to have a library of Prien's squadron histories, combat film and all encounter reports to make a start... someday over a cool one you might ask the question?

As to Rall. My understanding is that Rall was leading his Staffel, which consisted of 7 Bf 109s that day, but please correct me if my memory is faulty. Rall was not alone, despite much revisionist propaganda stating that he was. Zemke lost two pilots, both low time rookies.

According to Zemke, Rall and six others were circling ~ 5000 feet above him and the 'single' made diving passes. The first notion he had is when eithe Lt. Col. Piper or Lt. McConnell called a 'break'.  McConnell was shot down immedieately, Zemke called a Lufberry and the 'single (Rall) came in with a high deflection shot and knocked out Piper, then zoomed back up - if you don't have the book, look for Zemke's Wolfpack on page 156

Rall stated in a 1999 interview, that he learned much later than only two of his pilots returned to their airfield on May 12. I have that interview in a magazine somewhere in my archives. Joe Powers, with Joe Vitale flying his wing, has been often credited with shooting down Rall. However, my own examination today of the combat reports of both pilots does support Rankin being the pilot who got Rall on May 12, along with four additional 109s he claimed. Likewise, the reports confirm that 109s were everywhere and Rall was not alone in the sky.

Zemke states that when he again bounced preceeding Rankin's bounce that there were four 109s chasing him.


As to close escort... Close escort does not mean flying the bomber's wing. It meant staying close to the bomber stream. Typically, the P-47s held station between 3,000 and 5,000 feet above the bombers. Bob Johnson told me that they rarely cruised below 30,000 feet. Up there, the P-47s held the tactical and performance advantage. Moreover, the typical 190s and 109s of the time had a FTH of 22,000 feet or less. If they climbed beyond that, they were on the back side of their power curves. That is not a good place to be. Once the Jugs start coming down, it was usually buttholes and elbows trying to evade the bounce.

WW - this is well known. Ditto 3-5K.  Also notable is that the 109s countered the Jug high preference position by forming up at 33-35K altitudes.  On May 12, when Zemke states he started patrolling over Koblenz the 63rd was climbing through 22,000 feet... implying not much higher before he was bounced.  I am sure you have read through many group histories and individual summary reports as well as flash reports.  There was no set altitude - mostly depended on what they were escorting and whether it was a Ramrod or Sweep or Area Patrol - and what they were anticipating.  For a Sweep, they thinking was often be ~20-22K looking for LW forming up abut 50-100 miles out front - similar to 56th on May 12

I'm going to assume that you don't fly Aces High. If you did, you would realize that the 109G-6 has no business tangling with P-47s at high altitude. If you believe that the 109 can out-turn a Jug at Bomber altitudes, you would be wrong to assume that it can be an advantage. Why? Because they lack the power to sustain a turn, and even more importantly, the loss of airspeed associated with attempting to tightly maneuver at high alt leads to stalls and nasty spins.

Also well known - speed is life, but the ability to pull an insantaneous sharp turn for deflection and continue on is a nice ability.  Re-read Zemke to see what dire straights he was in when Rall used this same tactic.  Yes I do believe a 109 can out turn a Jug at 22-25000 feet and lose less energy than the Jug in the same manuever and I can work out the math. Absent the math I have also accumulated some 40-50 years talking with fighter pilots on both sides because a.) it was available to me, and b.) because it was a passion when I was growing up. 

Remember, it's indicated airspeed that counts, not true airspeed. At 27k, the 109G-6's cruise speed is not very far from it's stall speed. Load it with 3g or more and you'll find the slats popping out and the aircraft threatening to depart. Thus to maneuver effectively, the 109 pilot must trade altitude for airspeed. Meanwhile, the P-47 has plenty of speed and reserve power. He doesn't have to turn, but merely yo-yos and blam! One dead 109. I've demonstrated this with arguably the best 109 pilot in the game. He was unable to do anything but try to drag the fight down to low level as my P-47D-25 was running circles around his G-6. Around 15,000 feet, the 109G-6 began to gain a slight edge, but not enough to win. Finally down at lower altitude, the 109 was the superior turning fighter to the point where he could gain and hold an advantage, but it wasn't easy. One mistake and the P-47's battery will shred the 109. Fighting at high altitude is largely a foreign experience for most AHII players. It's a completely different world up there, and most certainly not the domain of the 109, including the K-4. Up at 30k and beyond, the Jugs rule the roost. However, the Spitfire Mk. IX and Mk. XIV are very able, as is the P-51B (better than the D up high) and the mighty F4U-4. P-38s are formidable, but they have serious issues with compressibility, so getting their nose below the horizon for more that a few seconds can lead to buffeting and control lock-up. The L model's dive recovery flaps do allow for decent elevator authority up to Mach 0.70, and it's still controllable up nearly Mach 0.73. However, the G and J models will be having trouble. So, to reiterate, high altitude performance is all about available power. Low to medium altitude turning ability is of little consequence up high. This is why so many very capable low to medium altitude fighters are absolutely awful at high altitude, and the 109s are not vastly better than those.

Agree on most points -

In the game, the P-47M and N models are all but untouchable at 30k. Up there, they reach 476 mph. Indeed, they can sustain 460 mph at 40k until they run out of gas. The balance of the P-47s are not quite as fast, but more than fast enough for the 109s to deal with effectively.

WW - I am not going to debate with you on the basis of the simulator... but simply the 109G6 stall speed is not close to top speed and (certainly nowhere close with the AS at 27K) 

So, if you are writing a book on WWII fighter combat, you can learn much by gaining some simulator experience. Aces high is the best WWII fighter simulator that exists. Especially in terms of flight physics and performance fidelity. Sure, it uses a game as the basis of the experience, but the game is less important than the experience. Give it a try, it will provide insight that all of the combat reports on earth can't begin to equal.

I am not writing a book on fighter combat - it is the History of the 355th from WWII through Vietnam and Afghanistan.  I wrote and published Angels, Bulldogs and Dragons 27 years ago and have compiled a great deal of information since then including all the Macrs and encounter reports - biggest issue for me is that they are still on microfilm.  I am contemplating converting them to DVD when I win the lottery

As to anybody who has never flown combat it would be silly to expound on the subject - with or without simulator experience. You and I may debate the aero stuff as you choose but I have no outright argument with your comments above other than waxing poetic to weight your POV.. i do the same

[MiloMorai]

I will add that drgondog is the son of WW2 ETO ace.

[Widewing]

I am not writing a book on fighter combat - it is the History of the 355th from WWII through Vietnam and Afghanistan.  I wrote and published Angels, Bulldogs and Dragons 27 years ago and have compiled a great deal of information since then including all the Macrs and encounter reports - biggest issue for me is that they are still on microfilm.  I am contemplating converting them to DVD when I win the lottery

As to anybody who has never flown combat it would be silly to expound on the subject - with or without simulator experience. You and I may debate the aero stuff as you choose but I have no outright argument with your comments above other than waxing poetic to weight your POV.. i do the same

I know this book! I've read it, perhaps 15 years ago. I stumbled upon it in our public library and was quite surprised that they had it. It must have been purchased via a special request at some point. (our library is terrific at filling special requests). They recently purchased Jim Hornfisher's Neptune's Inferno when I simply asked if they had it.

Anyway, I recall it to be an excellent work.

I'll PM you with some info on joining our Military and Aviation writers groups. Just about everyone you may know, or read is involved.

Oh, and yes, I certainly do some waxing..... I've been flying Aces High for about 10 years... A long time, I suppose.

My background is Naval Aviation (bouncing fixed wing off of CVs, hauling people and cargo). I have written for several magazines, museums, websites and did some ghost writing for other authors who simply had too much on their plate. In addition, I worked with Bodie for several years, after Jeff Ethell's death. Warren was not the diplomatic type, and his many falling-outs with other writers and publishers is almost legendary. Some of our disagreements were epic...  
These disagreements were invariably about projects, not content. Warren tended to bounce from project to project. This would get me nuts, as I would do much of the background work, only to have Warren tell me he wants to take on a different project. Finally, while I still retained some sanity, I said enough was enough. I guess the killer was our aborted book, "A Mighty Fortress". Warren had purchased the rights to Pete Bowers, "Fortress in the Sky". Warren wanted to do a full re-write, with many more photos. I was tasked with doing the re-write, Warren would handle the photos and captions. I was just beginning my third draft, had done some of the layout and designed the dust jacket, when Warren announced that he thought there was a glut of B-17 books on the market and decided to put the project on the back burner. I was more than a little upset... I had more than six months invested in writing and much travel doing research. That, and his blow-up with Flight Journal (which scuttled three magazine articles) put an end to our association.

Well, it certainly is a pleasure having you posting to this board. I'm sure we will agree much more than disagree..  

Now, as to the performance of the 109G-6 at 30,000 feet. It was far less than that of the P-47.

The 109G-6, configured for bomber interception, can attain 348 mph TAS (213 mph IAS), at 2,600 RPM and 0.96 ATA. It's a little faster with Emergency power, but barely pulls 1.1 ATA. Compare that to the P-47D-11, which attains 426 mph TAS (261 mph IAS) at 2,700 with 52" MAP. That's a 78 mph difference. At 32,000 feet, the disparity is even worse. The bigger problem for the 109 is, it can't pull more than 2g for no more than 45 degrees of turn before it begins a stall buffet. On the other hand, the P-47 can pull more than 4g before it begins to object. Huge difference. It simply means that if the 109 doesn't get the nose down fast, the P-47 will easily turn inside of it. At 30k, the P-47 climbs faster, accelerates quicker, turns much better and is much faster than the 109G-6. As I said, a 109G-6 has no business picking a fight with a P-47 at 30k. With equal pilots, the 109G-6 is toast waiting for the grape jelly.

[Guppy35]

I will add that drgondog is the son of WW2 ETO ace.

We knew this Milo

[MiloMorai]

We knew this Milo

Just making sure.

[Guppy35]

Just making sure.

I was going to ask him if his Dad had any recommendations for getting two pilots in a 51 cockpit

[BnZs]

I've got to say, sim flying will give you a perspective on aerial warfare you simply can't get anywhere else. No, it will not put you in the kill or be killed emotional state, but it will inform you of the some of the technical realities of flying in combat.

[drgondog]

I know this book! I've read it, perhaps 15 years ago. I stumbled upon it in our public library and was quite surprised that they had it. It must have been purchased via a special request at some point. (our library is terrific at filling special requests). They recently purchased Jim Hornfisher's Neptune's Inferno when I simply asked if they had it.

Anyway, I recall it to be an excellent work.

Corey - thanks.  If you liked it the new one will make my first effort look pitiful in comparison.  20 years of addition research into MACRs Encounter Reports, LW claims and losses have helped me make the 're-do' a far more effective book for my market - which are the 355th all generation vets and historians like yourself.  Its the kind of book I would first pull out to research first 355th and second 'touches' on other groups and big battles on particular days.

I'll PM you with some info on joining our Military and Aviation writers groups. Just about everyone you may know, or read is involved.

Oh, and yes, I certainly do some waxing..... I've been flying Aces High for about 10 years... A long time, I suppose.

My background is Naval Aviation (bouncing fixed wing off of CVs, hauling people and cargo). I have written for several magazines, museums, websites and did some ghost writing for other authors who simply had too much on their plate. In addition, I worked with Bodie for several years, after Jeff Ethell's death. Warren was not the diplomatic type, and his many falling-outs with other writers and publishers is almost legendary. Some of our disagreements were epic...  

I have heard about Bodie. As an aside Jeff's dad Irv was a squadron CO when my father had the 35th FBW in Japan and Jeff and I kind of grew up together.  My ABD was written to conform with Ethell/Fry Escort to Berlin so that Jeff and I could work on a series of three within an overarching 8th AF Fighter Command - Early, Crescendo and the End taking the 8th from the days of Monk Hunter to Kepner and the Big changes December-Jan 1944.  I am sure you know that Irv was at the airshow when Jeff busted his bellybutton on a hard break final in the 38.. and he could see the stall unfold in front of his eyes, knowing nothing good was in stroe for his son.

 .

Well, it certainly is a pleasure having you posting to this board. I'm sure we will agree much more than disagree..  

Now, as to the performance of the 109G-6 at 30,000 feet. It was far less than that of the P-47.

The 109G-6, configured for bomber interception, can attain 348 mph TAS (213 mph IAS), at 2,600 RPM and 0.96 ATA. It's a little faster with Emergency power, but barely pulls 1.1 ATA. Compare that to the P-47D-11, which attains 426 mph TAS (261 mph IAS) at 2,700 with 52" MAP. That's a 78 mph difference. At 32,000 feet, the disparity is even worse. The bigger problem for the 109 is, it can't pull more than 2g for no more than 45 degrees of turn before it begins a stall buffet. On the other hand, the P-47 can pull more than 4g before it begins to object. Huge difference. It simply means that if the 109 doesn't get the nose down fast, the P-47 will easily turn inside of it. At 30k, the P-47 climbs faster, accelerates quicker, turns much better and is much faster than the 109G-6. As I said, a 109G-6 has no business picking a fight with a P-47 at 30k. With equal pilots, the 109G-6 is toast waiting for the grape jelly.

Corey and BnZ - recall that the period we were primarily discussing before May 12/Rall was 1943 - was 1943 when the P47C was SOP and the D-2 was primary mount during the fall. Some -11s got to the 56th with WI/Paddle blades and upgraded power in Jan 1944 and it was a difference maker.  I am not debating speed, nor debating 30K performance advantage. My comments regarding 109s changing tactics was to note that during the period of 'close escort' the SOP was closer to 2K altitude and constant tether to the bomb groups. That put high cover Jugs in 24-27K depending on the mission and bomber type. Zemke broke the mold and cheated but the other groups with possible exception of Blakeslee/Duncan, stayed pretty much with the program - and 109s entered most times with significant altitude advantage for all the reasons you mentioned re: 47 perfromance at 30K..

So, much of the initial envelope was between 20 and 28K and the Jugs were mostly pulled back from chasing to the deck.  IMO the debate between the two is much better focused from 26,000 to the deck vs >28,000

[BnZs]

The Jug is the hotter ship pretty much to the deck, decidedly so above 15K. It can plunge away in a dive-the 109s and 190s cannot dive away from it. It is more rugged, and has more punch than the 109. The 190A has about equal firepower, but .50s are arguably easier to use fighter-vs-fighter. From its attributes and what it actually accomplished one the proper tactics were devised, the Jug seems like a winner.

However, both the Americans and the Luftwaffe apparently felt the 51 could engage the 109 and 190 on more equal terms than the 47, and it developed a more fearsome reputation accordingly.

Walter Wolfrum, a Luftwaffe ace with 137 victories, remembered of his encounters with American fighters that "the P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it, initially. The P-51 was something else.
http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/germany/germany.htm

[drgondog]

The Jug is the hotter ship pretty much to the deck, decidedly so above 15K. It can plunge away in a dive-the 109s and 190s cannot dive away from it. It is more rugged, and has more punch than the 109. The 190A has about equal firepower, but .50s are arguably easier to use fighter-vs-fighter. From its attributes and what it actually accomplished one the proper tactics were devised, the Jug seems like a winner.

The first fully operational Jug that was obtained by the Luftwaffe was a brand new -2RA. The same day another -2RA was captured (Nov 7, 1943) near Caen after running out of fuel.  It was wrung out at all altitudes to calibrate max speed, high and low altitudes, manueverablity at all altititudes and used to familiarize LW leaders in tactical approach/strength weakness.  Their summary at that time for that dash number was 'excellent speed, great diver, large cockpit, slow acceleration, slow climb, good roll"  (Luftwaffe Test Pilot - Hans Werner Leche

Second observation - while the Jug and the P-38 were the best armed US fighters in ETO, even 8 x .50 doesn't compare to a four .20mm equipped Fw 190 in throw weight and destructive power.  Having said that it all depends on who is on who's tail and we know 4x .50 worked well on the P-51B


However, both the Americans and the Luftwaffe apparently felt the 51 could engage the 109 and 190 on more equal terms than the 47, and it developed a more fearsome reputation accordingly.

Anecdotally I have had detailed conversations with perhaps 20 LW aces regarding ranking opponents in air to air combat. For those that fought all of ours and the RAF, the Spit was generally ranked 1 and the Mustang was 2 and the Tempest was 3 and the Jug 4 - caveats being that the Spit was never seen over German soil in 43-late 1944 and therfore irrelevant to the big battles.  When the German leaders flew the 4th FG Mustang (P-51B-15?) captured on D-Day and sent to Rechlin, where Rall rested while recuperating, the account later by Gunther Rall was that the Mustang was the best Allied Fighter during WWII - and certainly with the caveats that there were multiple envelopes that a Fw 190 or Me 109 would out perform it.  It wasn't so much that the 51 was a superior knife fighter - it was about being equal in summary but equal over Berlin where latest Spits would be tougher to fight one on one given a neutral stactical advantage.

Walter Wolfrum, a Luftwaffe ace with 137 victories, remembered of his encounters with American fighters that "the P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and outclimb it, initially. The P-51 was something else.
http://www.mustang.gaetanmarie.com/articles/germany/germany.htm

There is virtually no Luftwaffe pilot who fought both that say consistently that "I feared the P-47 more than the Mustang" - and the reason is simply there was no place in Germany that was safe from being molested by the 51.

[drgondog]

Gentlemen - thanks one and all for the thoughtful debate points. You can probably tell I hate this subject..