Dog fights on the History channel

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Good info Bill... Have to agree with u.... Alot, and I mean ALOT of successful pilots on the Ost Front, when being re-assigned to the West, got smoked within the first mission or 2....

The West was the grinder for the Luftwaffe Sausage that the 8th devoured...

The giant 'polish' was central and eastern Germany in 1944 but a whole lot of hot dogs were consumed by RAF and 9th, 12th on the edges, and 15th from Ploesti to Vienna and points north -

It is notable to me in a lot of the current unit bios, that the LW 'old hands' noted the RAF regained the aggressiveness it seemed to have lost on the Kanalfront through 42-mid 1943 - and increasingly took on JG26 and JG2 on sweeps along with 8th and then 9th AF T-Bolts through the war's end. It wasn't courage of skill but tactics and the 8th and 9th AF bombers were the 'bait' along with RAF day bombing with mediums.

A lot of bomber crews died and went POW to suck in the Luftwaffe.

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Supersonic was the episode , at the beginning .

That one's not on youtube I think, just a clip.

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by stasoid

Cool show!! Nicely done!
But, felt a little bit bored after several episodes. Looks like a one-sided story or too much of propaganda: Americans fighting alone and always win... Is that accurate? Is that how it was?
I heard that over 75% of its aircrafts Luftwaffe lost on Eastern Front. Just curious if we ever see that part.

Less than half the episodes have been specifically about WWII events, and of those that are there are a couple from axis POV, and some from other allied POV as well. (LW's most dangerous mission, Hunt the Bismark, etc.)

If the series continues the'll probably add some more from other POV. Though a bit commonly done, I'd still like to se one on the BoB, and it would be interesting to have an episode discussing the few US pilots managing to score kills at Pearl Harbor. (George Welch scoring the highest iirc)

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by stasoid

Cool show!! Nicely done!
But, felt a little bit bored after several episodes. Looks like a one-sided story or too much of propaganda: Americans fighting alone and always win... Is that accurate? Is that how it was?
I heard that over 75% of its aircrafts Luftwaffe lost on Eastern Front. Just curious if we ever see that part.

But its an US show it would be no different if we had our own Canadian version it would focus on Canadians.

[stasoid]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

But its an US show it would be no different if we had our own Canadian version it would focus on Canadians.

I understand it's a US show, but it's a documentary, not a Hollywood movie where Americans are fighting a bunch of idiots who cant fly and cant shoot.

As I said, I liked the show, but got a little bit bored as if I'm watching a hockey game Canada - Jamaica and Canada leads fifteen to nothing in the first period. I'm still enjoying the game but what's the point to watch if you already know the result.

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by stasoid

As I said, I liked the show, but got a little bit bored as if I'm watching a hockey game Canada - Jamaica and Canada leads fifteen to nothing in the first period. I'm still enjoying the game but what's the point to watch if you already know the result.

But won't that happen with any historical event that you know the outcome of?

But I'm not entirely sure what you mean otherwise, though the show is usually oriented from the US POV, it is a US show and thus tends to be oriented as such. (plus US pilots and other people for interview are much easier to acess in general in this case as well)

And it's hardly only enemy planes getting shot down either. (granted they do show a bit more of that though)


Or maybe you just haven't watched the right episodes.

[bf109 Emil]

It is a shame Japanese lack of war footage doesn't show more typical, turning dog-fights, common in earlier years, as opposed to majority of European theatre kills/victories resulting from being bounced, and run/climb as Pacific pilots did to avoid a turning fight with the nimble zero, then again why turn and risk being blindsided, when a dive zoom/climb does the same result, an allows a pilot to return to base or carrier, a favorite of Galland and jg26 pilots tactics...but whatever works..

bf109 Emil

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by bf109 Emil

It is a shame Japanese lack of war footage doesn't show more typical, turning dog-fights, common in earlier years, as opposed to majority of European theatre kills/victories resulting from being bounced, and run/climb as Pacific pilots did to avoid a turning fight with the nimble zero, then again why turn and risk being blindsided, when a dive zoom/climb does the same result, an allows a pilot to return to base or carrier, a favorite of Galland and jg26 pilots tactics...but whatever works..

bf109 Emil

Given a choice you use your advantages against your opponent's weak points.

Survivors learned not to fight Japanes ships in the low speed/horizontal after watching friends in fireballs.

German pilots were used to diving to escape a Spitfire.. They have no descendents after using same tactic against Mustangs and Thunderbolts.

Gene pools continued with fast learners.

US fighters that fought on the deck low speed horizontal fights often became dead or POW when matched against a good pilot in a 190 or 109... or tried to out roll and reverse in fights against a 190 at medium speeds

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by bf109 Emil

It is a shame Japanese lack of war footage doesn't show more typical, turning dog-fights, common in earlier years,

Link has portions of the Japanese wartime movie 'Kato Hayabusa Regiment' about the 64th Sentai. Later on in that clip there's footage of 'kills' v. P-40 and Buffalo, however staged ones using captured a/c with Japanese pilots: a Japanese 'Hollywood' view of what the combats were like, but that's kind of what "Dogfights" is, just a higher tech version.
YouTube - ??????2 ????????????

My problem with that show, which I confess I haven't watched much of, mainly heard about, is it doesn't AFAIK even *try* to present what happened in the given combats as seen from the other side, even when that info is easily available in some cases. I guess the ship 'dogfights' do include that but the aerial ones don't AFAIK. The pilot's view of what happened is legitimate as that, what he perceived, but that's often not what really happened, through no fault of his. But I don't get the idea of re-enacting it in hi-tech at this point in time, when the other side's account is reasonably knowable but the show's writers and producers just ignore it.

Example Swede Vejtasa's 3 victories over Zero's at Coral Sea. The match of that combat to Japanese records has been in print for 20+ years, by a first rate air combat historian John Lundstrom (in "The First Team"): it was Zuikaku's fighter squadron and they suffered no losses. Vejtasa is rightly honored for his effort and bravery in that combat, but just doesn't make sense IMHO to keep trumpetting the claim itself when apparently clear and detailed opposing records, in that case, don't support it, especially since some of his later victories in F4F *do* check out.

Joe

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by JoeB

Link has portions of the Japanese wartime movie 'Kato Hayabusa Regiment' about the 64th Sentai. Later on in that clip there's footage of 'kills' v. P-40 and Buffalo, however staged ones using captured a/c with Japanese pilots: a Japanese 'Hollywood' view of what the combats were like, but that's kind of what "Dogfights" is, just a higher tech version.
YouTube - ??????2 ????????????

My problem with that show, which I confess I haven't watched much of, mainly heard about, is it doesn't AFAIK even *try* to present what happened in the given combats as seen from the other side, even when that info is easily available in some cases. I guess the ship 'dogfights' do include that but the aerial ones don't AFAIK. The pilot's view of what happened is legitimate as that, what he perceived, but that's often not what really happened, through no fault of his. But I don't get the idea of re-enacting it in hi-tech at this point in time, when the other side's account is reasonably knowable but the show's writers and producers just ignore it.

Example Swede Vejtasa's 3 victories over Zero's at Coral Sea. The match of that combat to Japanese records has been in print for 20+ years, by a first rate air combat historian John Lundstrom (in "The First Team"): it was Zuikaku's fighter squadron and they suffered no losses. Vejtasa is rightly honored for his effort and bravery in that combat, but just doesn't make sense IMHO to keep trumpetting the claim itself when apparently clear and detailed opposing records, in that case, don't support it, especially since some of his later victories in F4F *do* check out.

Joe

Joe - while I am inclined to agree in 99% of your comments I wonder if in Swede's case we decide his gunner is totally unreliable as a witness because the Zuikaku's records referenced above... then I would ask how the engagement was isloated to Zuikaku (and totally am clueless relative to all the facts available) - so I presume when Lundstrom published his facts there was zero possibility of 'gaps' in the facts?

You apparently have read it and are convinced that Lundstrom's presentation is "unimpeachable". How does he account for survival of Zuikaku's logs and records ?

I'm inclined to ask if all the records are available and how they were preserved following its sinking before coming back to ask the question of both Vejtasa and his gunner. I respect your scholarship and I personally know how difficult it is to do 'matching' -

[pbfoot]

Even have a Hurri in that video , plus a roman candle in the first para jump

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Joe - while I am inclined to agree in 99% of your comments I wonder if in Swede's case we decide his gunner is totally unreliable as a witness because the Zuikaku's records referenced above... then I would ask how the engagement was isloated to Zuikaku (and totally am clueless relative to all the facts available)

You apparently have read it and are convinced that Lundstrom's presentation is "unimpeachable". How does he account for survival of Zuikaku's logs and records ?

First almost anything like that depends what burden of proof you set out. If you had to prove in court 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that a victory credit was not supported by an actual enemy loss, it would usually be difficult to do that. But OTOH if records are ostensibly detailed and complete, seem to describe the same combat, mention losses for other combats in fair detail but don't mention that one, the simplest most likely explanation is honest mistake by claimant(s).

In this case specifically Lundstrom is not infallible as of course nobody is. But based on his books, and what I've seen him a few times posting on other forums he's among the best air war historians IMO. That particular reference comes from "The First Team" pg 250: "The Japanese, however, lost no fighters in this combat". The apparent main source is Vol. 49 of the Japanese Official History ("Senshi Sosho"="war history series"), which has 109 pages on Coral Sea. He is able to identify the particular sub unit of the Zuikaku sdn, the 14th Shotai, which reported a combat with 'Curtiss bombers', encountered near the US carriers while escorting their torpedo planes on the May 8 strike (exactly the situation described from US side, the SBD's fulfilling the dubious role of anti-torpedo plane CAP, the torpedo planes swept right by and the SBD's found themselves fighting to survive v the Zero's). He ties in each other combat described in the Japanese source for both Zuikaku and Shokaku Zeroes which comprised the escort of that strike, with one described in US sources, and gives the name of each Japanese pilot involved in each phase. Only 1 Zero was lost on that May 8 strike escort. It was from that same 14th Shotai of 'Zui'; ditched on the way back pilot rescued, but Lundstrom ties it to a later combat with F4F's. Altogether at Coral Sea May 7/8th the Japanese fighter air combat losses were 3 Zero's and 2 Type 96's ('Claude'), with details given for each loss.

AFAIK it's typical for JNAF oriented volumes of Senshi Sosho for early war to be footnoted to specific action reports and other solid documentation, which did survive in many cases. That 100+ volume series was published from late '60's to early 80's in large part from a mass of records the US took at the end of the war, mainly didn't get around to translating, and returned to Japan in the mid 1950's. Shokaku and Zuikaku were not sunk until 1944.

This is not the case always, somewhat off topic I've been reviewing Senshi Sosho Vol 34 (pretty slowly ) to see if I can squeeze out a little more info on JAAF operations in the Philippines in 1941-42 besides what's referred to in English books which used that source. It's much less detailed, and the footnotes are mostly to recollections of participants. But those vague passages don't pretend to describe details they can't support with footnotes, and I don't think there are authors actually concluding the Japanese didn't lose planes in encounters that aren't even mentioned in the history, in those cases you just don't know. In a few other cases it's very detailed w/ footnotes to actual reports (number and type of bombs dropped in particular missions v Corregidor for example), and I wouldn't hesitate to say that's what happened in same detail, as far as the Japanese knew. I tend to trust that the detail in Lundstrom's conclusions was in line with the amount of detail in Vol 49 (and some other sources he mentions, like correspondance with the leading Japanese air historians etc, he's also writing a book now just about Coral Sea with deeper Japanese info, but I doubt his basic conclusions will change).

Joe

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by JoeB

First almost anything like that depends what burden of proof you set out. If you had to prove in court 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that a victory credit was not supported by an actual enemy loss, it would usually be difficult to do that. But OTOH if records are ostensibly detailed and complete, seem to describe the same combat, mention losses for other combats in fair detail but don't mention that one, the simplest most likely explanation is honest mistake by claimant(s).

In this case specifically Lundstrom is not infallible as of course nobody is. But based on his books, and what I've seen him a few times posting on other forums he's among the best air war historians IMO. That particular reference comes from "The First Team" pg 250: "The Japanese, however, lost no fighters in this combat". The apparent main source is Vol. 49 of the Japanese Official History ("Senshi Sosho"="war history series"), which has 109 pages on Coral Sea. He is able to identify the particular sub unit of the Zuikaku sdn, the 14th Shotai, which reported a combat with 'Curtiss bombers', encountered near the US carriers while escorting their torpedo planes on the May 8 strike (exactly the situation described from US side, the SBD's fulfilling the dubious role of anti-torpedo plane CAP, the torpedo planes swept right by and the SBD's found themselves fighting to survive v the Zero's). He ties in each other combat described in the Japanese source for both Zuikaku and Shokaku Zeroes which comprised the escort of that strike, with one described in US sources, and gives the name of each Japanese pilot involved in each phase. Only 1 Zero was lost on that May 8 strike escort. It was from that same 14th Shotai of 'Zui'; ditched on the way back pilot rescued, but Lundstrom ties it to a later combat with F4F's. Altogether at Coral Sea May 7/8th the Japanese fighter air combat losses were 3 Zero's and 2 Type 96's ('Claude'), with details given for each loss.

AFAIK it's typical for JNAF oriented volumes of Senshi Sosho for early war to be footnoted to specific action reports and other solid documentation, which did survive in many cases. That 100+ volume series was published from late '60's to early 80's in large part from a mass of records the US took at the end of the war, mainly didn't get around to translating, and returned to Japan in the mid 1950's. Shokaku and Zuikaku were not sunk until 1944.

This is not the case always, somewhat off topic I've been reviewing Senshi Sosho Vol 34 (pretty slowly ) to see if I can squeeze out a little more info on JAAF operations in the Philippines in 1941-42 besides what's referred to in English books which used that source. It's much less detailed, and the footnotes are mostly to recollections of participants. But those vague passages don't pretend to describe details they can't support with footnotes, and I don't think there are authors actually concluding the Japanese didn't lose planes in encounters that aren't even mentioned in the history, in those cases you just don't know. In a few other cases it's very detailed w/ footnotes to actual reports (number and type of bombs dropped in particular missions v Corregidor for example), and I wouldn't hesitate to say that's what happened in same detail, as far as the Japanese knew. I tend to trust that the detail in Lundstrom's conclusions was in line with the amount of detail in Vol 49 (and some other sources he mentions, like correspondance with the leading Japanese air historians etc, he's also writing a book now just about Coral Sea with deeper Japanese info, but I doubt his basic conclusions will change).

Joe

Joe - I appreciate the detailed feedback.. I have often wondered how much of the Japanese records survived. Candidly it has never occurred to me that the Japanese would falsify their records - I just wondered how records were retained when the ships sank and wonder how much we have of Hornet, Lex and York town for example now that I am thinking about it.

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Highly doubtful that even 25% of Luftwaffe losses were on Eastern front. From early the mid 1943 the Luftwaffe started shifting Fighter units from Ost and LuftFlotte 2 to re-organize into Channel Front and Germany.


[...]

The combined day fighter strength in May 1942 for all units opposed to VVS were LF1 (71), LF4 (132), LF5 (97) and Kdo Ost(179)
All this from Dr Price's Luftwaffe Data book.

So, conclusions? Nowhere near 25% of LW losses occurred on Ost front and that would be generous.

How so?
until early 1944 the amount of the LW units both on East and West was roughly even, and so was ist in early 1945 as well. So, practically, that means the "uneven" period lasted less than a year.
The only way to research the losses percentage of the LW on both fronts is a direct comparison of numbers of lost aicraft, but that seems roughly possible to do.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Ramirezzz

How so?
until early 1944 the amount of the LW units both on East and West was roughly even, and so was ist in early 1945 as well. So, practically, that means the "uneven" period lasted less than a year.

Not so according to Price, and I was focusing on day fighter units only and only those devoted to stopping 8th AF in west. Didn't bother to focus on the LW units protecting Ploesti or anything to the South. Nor did we spend much time on the Order of Battle from January 1945 to the end of the war. Those records range from non existant to not very good.


The only way to research the losses percentage of the LW on both fronts is a direct comparison of numbers of lost aicraft, but that seems roughly possible to do.

I don't disagree with you but you need to come up with some facts and references to refute the ones I posted?