Best Dogfighter Poll Revisited...

Adolf Galland · 01-24-2005, 09:11 PM

umm... about the bomber loss, many of the bombers are not loss ONLY 2 fighters, since they fly in formations they are vulnarable to FLAK consontrasion like wut u sad in berlin(which has the most flak in the whole third reich), and stuff, and the pilots are green pilots so they keep shoting the bombers utill they were shot down

Erich · 01-24-2005, 09:24 PM

again I am trying to point out that the Luftwaffe was not under the covers during the summer to winter of 44/45. I have other tallies if interested. Remember gents I have interviewed both sides the last 20 years and the listings of US bombers "killed" I have the documentation and mission reports to back all of this up as I was planning to put all of this online. My listings indicate no interference from Flak as those were under a different loss category with the US bg's.

the major difference and I do know this, is that the P-51 escorts were overwhelming. Just as friend and ace Oskar Bösch has said " We had ver sensiteve listening devices in Germany on the western border in the summer-fall of 44 and we could determine by "hearing" just how many US bombers were in the air as well as the lighter friends. It was then radioed/called into our Gruppen HQ. Every mission in the fall of 44 was doomed as a suicide but we did what we were ordered to do."

plan_D · 01-24-2005, 10:34 PM

See, so the Mustangs were not a definate saviour. German aircraft always got through. You think too clean cut, RG. If it was so simple for the Mustang to dive, bounce, climb and re-adjust it'd be invincible.
Say we have Spitfire Mk. XIV and Spitfire Mk. VI (High Alt) flying high cover. The Mustangs aren't going to be able to stop the attack. Why? Because both groups of Spitfire aren't going to follow.

01-24-2005, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

See, so the Mustangs were not a definate saviour. German aircraft always got through. You think too clean cut, RG. If it was so simple for the Mustang to dive, bounce, climb and re-adjust it'd be invincible.
Say we have Spitfire Mk. XIV and Spitfire Mk. VI (High Alt) flying high cover. The Mustangs aren't going to be able to stop the attack. Why? Because both groups of Spitfire aren't going to follow.

I never said they would be 100% effective. Any time the two combatants are roughly competitive, some are going to get through. Escort is by definition more difficult than interception, so you need more escorts than the number of interceptors to be stopped. The point is that the P-51 was the better escort/patrol plane than the Spitfire.

As for your follow argument - you are assuming there are more Spitfires than P-51's? If so then of course some are likely to get through!

For the Spitfire vs. the P-51, you failed to suggest their counter tactic. It is rather simple. The Spitfire XIV was able to fight more effectively at 35,000 feet than the P-51. By climbing to such altitude they could harry the P-51's and drive them off, and then dive into the bombers. Timing would be critical and difficult to manage given the very short endurance, but it could be done - sometimes it would work out, sometimes it wouldn't. The issue then becomes the fact that the Spitfire lacks the firepower to take down B-17s reliably in a single pass - but that's another issue.

So what it comes down to is the Spitfires need to get above the P-51's, the P-51's need to prevent them from doing so. Either result could be achieved depending on circumstance, but all things considered the P-51 is probably more likely to succeed if available in sufficient numbers (ie: something more than 1:1 which would be expected as P-51's were easier to build than Spitfires).

===================

Erich-

Sure the Luftwaffe' was able to mount a few sorties where they had some measure of success. But compared to the overall numbers of bombers flying on those days, they were tiny. Looking at single bomber formations that the luftwaffe' upon which concetrated its attacks and trying to use that as a reference is totally playing with numbers, you have to look at the total number of heavies in the air that day. And what you've failed to list is the losses suffered by the Luftwaffe' to achieve those relatively few kills.

=S=

Lunatic

evangilder · 01-25-2005, 12:48 AM

You of ALL people should not be accusing others playing with numbers.

plan_D · 01-25-2005, 01:27 AM

If I just started going on and on about a clean cut situation of the Spitfire being at 35,000 feet then I'd be...well...you! Love nor war is as clean cut as you think.

01-25-2005, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

You of ALL people should not be accusing others playing with numbers.

Oh? Please be specific. Sometimes my numbers may be wrong, but I don't "play with them" to give a false impression of what I know to be the truth.

01-25-2005, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

If I just started going on and on about a clean cut situation of the Spitfire being at 35,000 feet then I'd be...well...you! Love nor war is as clean cut as you think.

Of course it's not. But in the context of this discussion we are looking at a basically unrealistic type of situation right?

plan_D · 01-25-2005, 06:36 AM

You might be, but I'm not. If it was an unrealistic situation they'd know one another was there and they'd both be going to exact same speed at the exact same altitude.

evangilder · 01-25-2005, 06:37 AM

So now you are claiming that Erich is giving a false impression? You better go back and READ his post, thoroughly. He does the research and has been talking to the guys that fought the battles. You have a tendency to rely on charts and graphs to come to a determination that one airplane is better than another by specifications. Things on paper are not always the whole truth, you as an engineer should know that.

Adolf Galland · 01-25-2005, 08:20 AM

plan_D · 01-25-2005, 10:34 AM

That's the most informative post EVER, I think it even beats some of the good ole brads worthless piles of ****, waste my time, I'm going to sue you for my time back posts.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-25-2005, 01:02 PM

wow even this post is better than his

Erich · 01-25-2005, 01:42 PM

good morning or afternoon/evening where-ever thout dwell.

I'll make this very breif as I am very busy today and the morrow but would like to reply to RG's somewhat evasive posting.

# 1 I never play the numbers game so understand that

# 2 what I reported were truly casualty figures and confimred by the bomb groups and the historian/pilots of each one of those particualr bomb groups.

# 3 if RG or anyone else would like a German Luftwaff casualty figures I can help out as I have them too. True they are dreadful

# 4 it is obvious that RG does not understand my point or what I was trying to get at. Let's see real basic now. The Luftwaffe was not dead in the summer-fall or winter of 44-45 as you seem to figure. I have the accts to back this all up. Again I repeat, only when the Luftwaffe broke up the interior Reich defence (Reichsverteidigung) and sent 3/4r's or more of the defence units to the Ost front that the Luftwaffe although made up of still some excellent fighter Geschwaders, were they literally destroyed from the German airspace.

# 5 As I have also said I understand fully the 8th AF especially and they sending hundreds of bombers over in 1943 early 1944 and on certain battles the bomber groups in numbers lost many heavies, but what I am trying again to point out is that in the summer/fall-winter of 44 and 45 individual bomber groups lost more bombers at a given time than they did on missions flown earlier in the war. In no way does this discredit the function of the Luftwaffe although their own sources were limited in comparision to their overall activity with twin engine destroyers during later 1943 through spring of 1944.

Klar ?

v/r E ♪ on the morrow gents maybe...........

01-25-2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evangilder

So now you are claiming that Erich is giving a false impression? You better go back and READ his post, thoroughly. He does the research and has been talking to the guys that fought the battles. You have a tendency to rely on charts and graphs to come to a determination that one airplane is better than another by specifications. Things on paper are not always the whole truth, you as an engineer should know that.

What Erich is trying to do is point to a few incidentents where the Luftwaffe' massed its force and attacked a specific BG with some success and implying that this was representative of their effectiveness without also pointing out the losses suffered in the attack or the overall picture.

So what that JG-whatever massed 150 planes and attacked the 300 BG-whatever and managed to kill 30 bombers. He is trying to imply that such a thing means the Luftwaffe' was effective. The fact that the JG lost 30 planes that day is left out. The fact that there were 5 BG's flying 1500 bombers that day is also left out. And when the whole picture is considered, the Luftwaffe' was ineffective.

Yes I know figures and graphs are often decieving. In fact, German planes look much better on paper vs. US planes than they really were.

=S=

Lunatic