Me 109, Spitfire, Zero or Mustang

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Bill I agree with your comments, seems we always do agree with each after a few moments of clarity.

Yes without any concerns about budgets I would also pick the P-38L, although I would have pilots trained on them more hours then they had been early on. P-38 can be tricky to fly for a newbie, but in the hands of a well trained pilot it was a great plane.

PS my point that I guess I did not make very clear was while talking about BoB was it was much harder to take down and much more dangerous to take down US heavy bombers (in BoG) then it was for the UK to take down LW med bombers in BoB. A box of US heavies could train thousands of .5 cal on you as you attacked their box. Scary as hell. I personally would much much preferred to take on the escorts then attack a US heavy bomber box. LW med bombers were much less dangerous to attack during BoB then US heavies during BoG.

You made the point so clearly Hunter that I was compelled to NOT change one word - lol.

Hell, going after a box of B-26 Marauders was a dangereous undertaking and certainly represented more defensive firepower tha Do 17s or He 111's in BoB.

On the other hand attacking a B-17 with an FW 190A8 was a more certain score than attacking a 111 with a Hurricane.

I've often wondered what the outcome would have been if the shipment of dive brake kits destined for the P-38J's had not been sunk. The lack of ability of the P-38 to dive w/o almost immediately going into compressibility prevented a lot of scoring by the 38 versus Fw 190 and Me 109.

I've done a lot of data gathering on the different group award/loss statistics, by a/c type and the 479th FG really stands out. The P-38J equipped 20th/55th and 364th had far better air to air success with the 51 after they converted, but the late arriving P-38L equipped 479th had a better air to air ratio than the 35t7th FG and the 56th FG - each only flying one type (51 and 47 respectively), and then attained a better ratio with 51's.

But time was in 479th favor as the real heart of LuftFlotte Reich had been carved out by May-Sep timeframe and really down hill in fall of 44, so hard to draw serious conclusions about P-38L.

A lightly loaded P-38L was a handful for any piston engine fighter at any altitude.

Regards,

Bill

[renrich]

Soren, et.al. Here is my argument on this issue: I believe the BF model you are talking about is the Bf 109K-14. My source says that it was introduced operationally the last two weeks of the war so it really had no influence on the war. My source also says that it could attain air speeds of over 450 mph at 35000 ft with MW50. It was armed with 2-MG 131s and 1-MK103 or MK108 cannon. Range would be about 356 miles at 20000 ft. Initial rate of climb about 4820 fpm. If you will notice my original post mentioned contemporary AC. To me that means that a model introduced at about the same time in the war as another model. Therefore the Bf above would probably be compared with the P51H or the F4U4 or the F6F5. Funny thing about paper performance. The manufacturer calculated performance of the P51H was 471 mph at 22700 feet with an intial rate of climb of 5120 fpm and of course the typical range of a P51. Pretty good, better than the Bf. But, in a test the P51H touched 451 mph at 21200 ft with an initial rate of climb of 4680 fpm. Not quite as hot, huh? Do we really know what the real world performance was of the Bf109K? Now the P51B had performance numbers somewhat similar to that of the H model as far as Vmax. The P51D not quite as hot as the B or C but probably made up for it with heavier and more reliable armament and better pilot visibility. The B on average probably had 15 mph on the D at best altitude, but that is probably not tactically significant in the real world. TACTICALLY SIGNIFICANT! To me those are key words. All this paper stuff on performance doesn't prove much. If the Bf above had better V max at 35000 feet than a P51H or D, how tactically significant is that? How much ACM took place at 35000 feet? My guess is practically none. My guess is that the Bf109K was a desperate attempt to get a fighter that could get well above the B17s and 24s and then swoop down on them in a firing pass but it wasn't meant to be an air superiority fighter. If one AC makes a run on another from above and they get in a fur ball they are going to get lower and lower if the fur ball is continued. Which brings us to another point. If the Bf has a range on internal fuel of 365 miles, how much combat time does it have left after it gets to 35000 ft? That is what I meant by referring to only fighting above it's own base. The facts are, the P51 more than held it's own with all the recips the LW threw at them and did it over and over again hundreds of miles away from it's own bases. As far as the Hellcat is concerned, I think we would be talking about the F6F5 which was an honest 400 mph plus airplane. The Hellcat did have some kills in the ETO, 6 or 8 sticks in my mind. I don't know if any Hellcats became kills for the LW. I know that Eric Brown is highly biased(for European fighters) but here is what he says about ACM between an F4F3 and the Bf109G-6. "The Hellcat had a distinct edge over the Me109G-6 but would not be able to overcome it without a lot of pilot sweat." The Hellcat was a very successful warplane. The Corsair was an even better performer.

[Hunter368]

The thing about attacking a bomber box with thousands of .5 cals pointing and firing at you is that it really removes much of the benefits of being a skilled pilot.

My point being if you are Ace quality pilot fighting in a dog fight vs other fighters......even if out numbered. Your skill as a pilot shows and will keep you alive most times.

But if you are a Ace attacking a heavy bomber box, much of those benefits that you gain as being a Vet and Ace pilot will not help you much when attacking a wall of heavies with their thousands of .5 cals firing at you.

Attacking a heavy bomber box and surviving has as much to do with luck then being a good pilot. Attacking fighters, even being out numbered, and surviving has more to do with pilot skill and less about luck.

Allot of great/Ace LW pilots lost their lives attacking that wall of .5 cals.

[renrich]

Hunter, I believe you are on the mark with your observations. Have a book called "Horrido" about the LW aces and the LW held the pilots who shot down 4 engined bombers in high esteem. Actually when attacking a box of bombers, one had to be lucky, not much skill in it, not to be hit. It must have been terrifying.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

The thing about attacking a bomber box with thousands of .5 cals pointing and firing at you is that it really removes much of the benefits of being a skilled pilot.

No question about it

My point being if you are Ace quality pilot fighting in a dog fight vs other fighters......even if out numbered. Your skill as a pilot shows and will keep you alive most times.

Very true

But if you are a Ace attacking a heavy bomber box, much of those benefits that you gain as being a Vet and Ace pilot will not help you much when attacking a wall of heavies with their thousands of .5 cals firing at you.

Attacking a heavy bomber box and surviving has as much to do with luck then being a good pilot. Attacking fighters, even being out numbered, and surviving has more to do with pilot skill and less about luck.

Allot of great/Ace LW pilots lost their lives attacking that wall of .5 cals.

Yes, many did.

A lot of Mustang aces lost their lives, or freedom, strafing, few in air to air combat. They didn't have to attack B-17s and the LW Experten didn't have to shoot up German airfields! Same issue of luck and many fewer probabilities of bailing out when mortally damaged.

The 355th FG for example lost 2x to strafing over air to air.

It had it's top ace Henry Brown lost to flak, my father was shot down (and rescued by another ace), the first 355 ace was KIA strafing an airfield, and an ace (Lenfest) was lost trying to rescue Brown when he got stuck in the mud.

The last 355FG ace shot down was Cullerton who was hit by flak over Ansbach A/F, then survived being shot in the stomach with his ownn .45 after surrendering to an SS Officer. A nearby priest saw it and managed to get Bill to the hospital in time to save him.

attached is a testimonial to the dangers of strafing German airfields. Charlie Sweat was KIA in first 355th airfield attack, and last mission in P-47 on March 8, 1944.

[Hunter368]

Agreed, I could not think of anything involving air combat being terrifying then flying into a hail of fire from all directions which you could do only so much to avoid then firing at this damn bomber and watch it just absorb everything you fire at it. Terrifying and frustrating to see many of your fellow comrades who you have fought with for years being "wasted" (in a sense) vs these slow moving tanks firing hundreds thousands of .5 cal bullets at you. Most of your experience and abilities as a pilot being useless to help you. Just the finicky "Lady luck" deciding whether you live or die. The escorts guarding the bombers were just the extra nail in the coffin so to speak.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Yes, many did.

A lot of Mustang aces lost their lives, or freedom, strafing, few in air to air combat. They didn't have to attack B-17s and the LW Experten didn't have to shoot up German airfields! Same issue of luck and many fewer probabilities of bailing out when mortally damaged.

The 355th FG for example lost 2x to strafing over air to air.

It had it's top ace Henry Brown lost to flak, my father was shot down (and rescued by another ace), the first 355 ace was KIA strafing an airfield, and an ace (Lenfest) was lost trying to rescue Brown when he got stuck in the mud.

The last 355FG ace shot down was Cullerton who was hit by flak over Ansbach A/F, then survived being shot in the stomach with his ownn .45 after surrendering to an SS Officer. A nearby priest saw it and managed to get Bill to the hospital in time to save him.

attached is a testimonial to the dangers of strafing German airfields. Charlie Sweat was KIA in first 355th airfield attack, and last mission in P-47 on March 8, 1944.

Totally agree strafing / ground attack was another brutal job where much of your skill as a pilot was useless, you had to depend a great deal on luck to survive.

From what many many LW pilots have said there was no harder flak/AA fire more dangerous then in Russia. Russia massed AA fire in their armies from what I have read. Again many many LW pilots were shot down or killed attacking ground targets over Russian targets.

I will say this again, I would be begging to fight enemy fighters before attacking bombers or ground targets (over any target).

[Soren]

The 8th AF Mustangs took out a lot more Me 109s and Fw 190s than were taken out. Why?

Do I really have to request you to use that clever mind of yours Bill?

The crucial factors to consider here:

Fuel
By 1944 the LW was in serious lack of fuel, many a/c barely taking off with half a tankfull. This meant less time to hang around and made quick and devastating strikes to the bomber streams absolutely essential.

Pilots
By mid 1944 to 1945 the German pilots weren't generally the skilled aviators of the past, training time had decreased dramatically. Thus there were a good load rookies with no business behind the controls of a fighter out there fighting the Allies. A skilled pilot is way more useful than 10 rookies.
The USAAF & RAF on the other hand didn’t lack well trained pilots. USAAF & RAF pilots were good pilots, they knew how to fly and most of them knew exactly how to exploit the weaknesses & strengths of their a/c.

Priorities
Most Bf-109’s & Fw-190’s over the European skies were heavily armed interceptors whose only mission and absolute top priority was shooting down the bombers, the escorting fighters were of no importance what’so’ever and just had to be avoided. Therefore most 109’s and 190’s carried extra heavy armament in the various Rüstsätze’s available. A Fw-190 or Bf-109 caught whilst attacking the bombers didn’t stand much chance, and this is undoubtedly what happened to the far majority.

Now as to your so called slaughtering of the LW fighters, again you’re just spewing out words without thinking. This so called slaughtering you’re talking about never took place Bill, the LW fighters did in fact during most of the interceptions manage to shoot down a similar amount of USAAF bombers as they themselves lost in fighter a/c, and yet they still managed to shoot down many escorts despite that. Now taking into account that a B-17 & B-24 contains a crew of 9 to 10, costs allot more to manufacture than several single seat fighters and has the ability cripple your industry, well, then shooting one bomber down was worth a whole lot more than shooting down 10 or more escort fighters. It is no mystery that the LW concentrated on the bombers . The escorts posed exactly ZERO threat to the German war effort, and thus their destruction was of no importance and thus they just had to be bypassed as effectively as possible to get to the bombers. So in short Bill I’d have to say the only slaughtering taking place was that of the USAAF bombers. And this was accomplished by the German fighters while having to watch out for revengeful escorts and even shooting many down. This is nothing other than remarkable considering the situation the LW was in.

Now Bill, are you as a self proclaimed serious researcher going to try and tell me that these factors are irrelevant and can be overlooked ? If so your bias again seems to shine through.
Also as to the P-51 taking out a lot more 109’s & 190’s than it lost in return, well I’d never venture into such a conclusion with such little evidence. LW fighters actually downed in the air by the P-51 wasn’t anywhere close to the claimed figure.

Just check out how many a/c the LW lost alone due to non-combat related accidents.

Next is your weird theory that because the Bf-109 reached 33,000 examples it is the very reason for why the top aces flew this plane. Well sorry but again you’re just spewing out claims. Even with the WW2 aces of the P-51, P-47 and Spitfire put together does the number of aces approach that born by the Bf-109, and this is despite that put together these aircraft were built in far larger numbers. Also explains why most top aces wanted to stay with the Bf-109 even in late 44 to 45, wouldn’t make so much sense if it wasn’t an excellent fighter.

Graphs don't win fights - tactics and skill win fights.

Mostly, yes exactly.

Now as to the F6F Hellcat, well you’ve got to be kidding me! The F6F was a slow & heavy a/c compared to the small and nimble Bf-109. Performance & agility wise the Bf-109 is a far superior fighter to the F6F Hellcat.

This having been said the pilot alone, like pointed out above, can make up for the largest of performance & agility disadvantages of an a/c. More than a few pilots demonstrated this during WW2, dive bombers being turned into Zeke killers etc etc..

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Totally agree strafing / ground attack was another brutal job where much of your skill as a pilot was useless, you had to depend a great deal on luck to survive.

From what many many LW pilots have said there was no harder flak/AA fire more dangerous then in Russia. Russia massed AA fire in their armies from what I have read. Again many many LW pilots were shot down or killed attacking ground targets over Russian targets.

I will say this again, I would be begging to fight enemy fighters before attacking bombers or ground targets (over any target).

I wonder if comparing German airfield flak to Russian flak is like comparing rear ends on burros - intellectually stimulating but emotionally the same?

I would estimate that 20% of the strafing losses I have examined are from hitting the ground or trees trying to stay low until the very last second - then misjudging.

I know my father cranked in a little 'nose up' trim just before entering the attack - so that if he got hit or distracted he was more likely to pull up slightly rather than make a big skid mark on the grass.

I have no idea which is worse but both the Germans and Russians did a better job of AA than the Allies

[Soren]

I have no idea which is worse but both the Germans and Russians did a better job of AA than the Allies

The Allies used highly effective proximity fuzes in their larger AA pieces (75mm & up) so I'm gonna have to call BS on that one.

[drgondog]

[quote=Soren;313277]Do I really have to request you to use that clever mind of yours Bill?

The crucial factors to consider here:

Fuel
By 1944 the LW was in serious lack of fuel, many a/c barely taking off with half a tankfull. This meant less time to hang around and made quick and devastating strikes to the bomber streams absolutely essential.

Sources for 1/2 loads of fuel? You have claimed this before but never give us the source? And, for the moment, would a half load of fuel make a 109 more or less manueverable?

Pilots
By mid 1944 to 1945 the German pilots weren't generally the skilled aviators of the past, training time had decreased dramatically. Thus there were a good load rookies with no business behind the controls of a fighter out there fighting the Allies. A skilled pilot is way more useful than 10 rookies.
The USAAF & RAF on the other hand didn’t lack well trained pilots. USAAF & RAF pilots were good pilots, they knew how to fly and most of them knew exactly how to exploit the weaknesses & strengths of their a/c.

So the pilots like Rall coming in from Ost and the units from JG 53, 27, etc from late 1943 to mid 1944 that transferred into LuftFlotte Reich were low time pilots?

In May 1943, according to Price LuftFlotte Mitte had
I. &II./JG1; I./JG3; I and II./JG11, I./JG27 and III./JG54

In May 1944 after re-organizing and transferring from all fronts into LuftFlotte Reich, it was then constituted with;
I,II and III/JG1 (one Gruppe increase)
I,II,III and IV./JG3 (3 Gruppe increase)
I & II./JG5 (2 Gruppe increase)
I,II, III. plus 10. Staffel/JG 11 (one Gruppe plus one Staffel increase)
I,II,III,IV./JG3 (3 Gruppe increase)
II./JG53 (one Gruppe increase)
III./JG54 (no change)
I,II,III./JG300 (3 Gruppe increase)
I./JG301 (one Gruppe increase)
I./JG400 (one Gruppe Me 163)
Einsatzstaffels 104, 105 and 108 training units that flew combat missions (one Gruppe)

Essentially 17 Gruppe increase, NOT including the Zerstorer Gruppes - just he single engine fighters.

Are you suggesting that the newly transferred Gruppen into Germany shed all of their experience and re-staffed with recent trainees?

Sources please?


Priorities
Most Bf-109’s & Fw-190’s over the European skies were heavily armed interceptors whose only mission and absolute top priority was shooting down the bombers, the escorting fighters were of no importance what’so’ever and just had to be avoided. Therefore most 109’s and 190’s carried extra heavy armament in the various Rüstsätze’s available. A Fw-190 or Bf-109 caught whilst attacking the bombers didn’t stand much chance, and this is undoubtedly what happened to the far majority.

Some were, some weren't. I p[ointed you several times to different sources of TO&E for all of the above Gruppes to demonstrate that you did not really have a grasp of your facts. You have yet to counter any of the sources I provided you... or any source for that matter other than your unimpeachable opinion?

Now as to your so called slaughtering of the LW fighters, again you’re just spewing out words without thinking.

Actually no. I thought, I referred to sources and concluded that 8:1 air to air ratios suggest 'slaughter'. If you have a higher threshold in mine, toss it out.

This so called slaughtering you’re talking about never took place Bill, the LW fighters did in fact during most of the interceptions manage to shoot down a similar amount of USAAF bombers as they themselves lost in fighter a/c, and yet they still managed to shoot down many escorts despite that.

I am just about finished with 'my frivolous' research but here are the preliminary results.

8th AF FC awards(all fighter types) - 5174 german a/c all types in air combat for 644 losses air to air. Of these the Mustangs were awarded 3621.5 vs 344 losses air to air.

Of the above total 2514 Me 109s were shot down, 1947 Fw 190s were shot down and 112 Me 262's were shot down.

The P-38s lost 101, the P-47 lost 213 and the P-51 lost 340. I'm nearly at the point where I can break out losses and awards type by type (P-38 vs Me 109)

The escorts posed exactly ZERO threat to the German war effort, and thus their destruction was of no importance and thus they just had to be bypassed as effectively as possible to get to the bombers.

Galland had a different opinion, particularly for the long ranging high performance Mustang which interdicted rail traffic, shot up airfields, barge and road traffic and crushed the LW high and low. You think gaining air superiority and taking losses from 10% to 2 % is 'irrelevant'? You are perhaps unique in your opinion

Now Bill, are you as a self proclaimed serious researcher going to try and tell me that these factors are irrelevant and can be overlooked ? If so your bias again seems to shine through.

I'm not going to overstate my research credentials but I will be lloking to your own to demonstrate more factual basis for your comments. Start with a factual debate on references and sources to validate your 'sterling' opinions?

Also as to the P-51 taking out a lot more 109’s & 190’s than it lost in return, well I’d never venture into such a conclusion with such little evidence. LW fighters actually downed in the air by the P-51 wasn’t anywhere close to the claimed figure.

Maybe. The records of the Luftwaffe were pretty trashed as well as AWOL near the end of the war. Where German loss records do exist the pretty well dovetail to 8th FC awards - but ALL are overstated in my opinion and the many missions I have researched personally and compared with Tony Woods LW awards lists are frequently 100% overstated. Are you stating that Tony is off/on/close/unfounded? Are you stating that USAF 85 is grossly overstated - and if so what is your souce(s)?

Do you personally have better references that we can look to?

Just check out how many a/c the LW lost alone due to non-combat related accidents.[b]

Ditto to USAAF attrition to mechanical and fuel issues carrying the fight to every corner of the Reich? How many more LW losses would have occurred if Me 109s were forced to fly 600 mile radius missions on a daily basis.. can you spell 'hog' with that much fuel?

Next is your weird theory that because the Bf-109 reached 33,000 examples it is the very reason for why the top aces flew this plane. Well sorry but again you’re just spewing out claims. Even with the WW2 aces of the P-51, P-47 and Spitfire put together does the number of aces approach that born by the Bf-109, and this is despite that put together these aircraft were built in far larger numbers. Also explains why most top aces wanted to stay with the Bf-109 even in late 44 to 45, wouldn’t make so much sense if it wasn’t an excellent fighter.

Ah, but it seems that only 52 LW experten actually shot down (were awarded) 5 or more Mustangs or Thunderbolts (in any combination and the max was 13(?) of any one type - (Bar and Steiman were the only two with double digit awards on both 51 and 47's). Nine LW aces shot down five or more of both types - all theatres, not just ETO

whereas just the 8th AF aces numberd 118 aces shooting down 5 or more German fighters of any specific type and the high 'type and number' was the me 109, with 24 of the 8th AF aces shooting down at least 5 each Me 109 or Fw 190. This does NOT include any of the 50+ aces that flew in the Pioneer Mustang Group (354th) which did the heavy lifting in December through May.

Robert Johnson was high on fw 190 with 15.5 (P-47), Preddy was high on 109 with 21

/QUOTE]

Soren you delight in snide remarks and comments that are frequently made without also referencing your souces.. can you change your approach and have a debate without the catty remarks?

And, if you don't like my research do your own?

[drgondog]

[quote=Soren;313277]Do I really have to request you to use that clever mind of yours Bill?

The crucial factors to consider here:

Fuel
By 1944 the LW was in serious lack of fuel, many a/c barely taking off with half a tankfull. This meant less time to hang around and made quick and devastating strikes to the bomber streams absolutely essential.

Sources for 1/2 loads of fuel? You have claimed this before but never give us the source? And, for the moment, would a half load of fuel make a 109 more or less manueverable?

Pilots
By mid 1944 to 1945 the German pilots weren't generally the skilled aviators of the past, training time had decreased dramatically. Thus there were a good load rookies with no business behind the controls of a fighter out there fighting the Allies. A skilled pilot is way more useful than 10 rookies.
The USAAF & RAF on the other hand didn’t lack well trained pilots. USAAF & RAF pilots were good pilots, they knew how to fly and most of them knew exactly how to exploit the weaknesses & strengths of their a/c.

So the pilots like Rall coming in from Ost and the units from JG 53, 27, etc from late 1943 to mid 1944 that transferred into LuftFlotte Reich were low time pilots?

In May 1943, according to Price LuftFlotte Mitte had
I. &II./JG1; I./JG3; I and II./JG11, I./JG27 and III./JG54

In May 1944 after re-organizing and transferring from all fronts into LuftFlotte Reich, it was then constituted with;
I,II and III/JG1 (one Gruppe increase)
I,II,III and IV./JG3 (3 Gruppe increase)
I & II./JG5 (2 Gruppe increase)
I,II, III. plus 10. Staffel/JG 11 (one Gruppe plus one Staffel increase)
I,II,III,IV./JG3 (3 Gruppe increase)
II./JG53 (one Gruppe increase)
III./JG54 (no change)
I,II,III./JG300 (3 Gruppe increase)
I./JG301 (one Gruppe increase)
I./JG400 (one Gruppe Me 163)
Einsatzstaffels 104, 105 and 108 training units that flew combat missions (one Gruppe)

Essentially 17 Gruppe increase, NOT including the Zerstorer Gruppes - just he single engine fighters.

Are you suggesting that the newly transferred Gruppen into Germany shed all of their experience and re-staffed with recent trainees?

Sources please?


Priorities
Most Bf-109’s & Fw-190’s over the European skies were heavily armed interceptors whose only mission and absolute top priority was shooting down the bombers, the escorting fighters were of no importance what’so’ever and just had to be avoided. Therefore most 109’s and 190’s carried extra heavy armament in the various Rüstsätze’s available. A Fw-190 or Bf-109 caught whilst attacking the bombers didn’t stand much chance, and this is undoubtedly what happened to the far majority.

Some were, some weren't. I p[ointed you several times to different sources of TO&E for all of the above Gruppes to demonstrate that you did not really have a grasp of your facts. You have yet to counter any of the sources I provided you... or any source for that matter other than your unimpeachable opinion?

Now as to your so called slaughtering of the LW fighters, again you’re just spewing out words without thinking.

Actually no. I thought, I referred to sources and concluded that 8:1 air to air ratios suggest 'slaughter'. If you have a higher threshold in mine, toss it out.

This so called slaughtering you’re talking about never took place Bill, the LW fighters did in fact during most of the interceptions manage to shoot down a similar amount of USAAF bombers as they themselves lost in fighter a/c, and yet they still managed to shoot down many escorts despite that.

I am just about finished with 'my frivolous' research but here are the preliminary results.

8th AF FC awards(all fighter types) - 5174 german a/c all types in air combat for 644 losses air to air. Of these the Mustangs were awarded 3621.5 vs 344 losses air to air.

Of the above total 2514 Me 109s were shot down, 1947 Fw 190s were shot down and 112 Me 262's were shot down.

The P-38s lost 101, the P-47 lost 213 and the P-51 lost 340. I'm nearly at the point where I can break out losses and awards type by type (P-38 vs Me 109)

The escorts posed exactly ZERO threat to the German war effort, and thus their destruction was of no importance and thus they just had to be bypassed as effectively as possible to get to the bombers.

Galland had a different opinion, particularly for the long ranging high performance Mustang which interdicted rail traffic, shot up airfields, barge and road traffic and crushed the LW high and low. You think gaining air superiority and taking losses from 10% to 2 % is 'irrelevant'? You are perhaps unique in your opinion

Now Bill, are you as a self proclaimed serious researcher going to try and tell me that these factors are irrelevant and can be overlooked ? If so your bias again seems to shine through.

I'm not going to overstate my research credentials but I will be lloking to your own to demonstrate more factual basis for your comments. Start with a factual debate on references and sources to validate your 'sterling' opinions?

Also as to the P-51 taking out a lot more 109’s & 190’s than it lost in return, well I’d never venture into such a conclusion with such little evidence. LW fighters actually downed in the air by the P-51 wasn’t anywhere close to the claimed figure.

Maybe. The records of the Luftwaffe were pretty trashed as well as AWOL near the end of the war. Where German loss records do exist the pretty well dovetail to 8th FC awards - but ALL are overstated in my opinion and the many missions I have researched personally and compared with Tony Woods LW awards lists are frequently 100% overstated. Are you stating that Tony is off/on/close/unfounded? Are you stating that USAF 85 is grossly overstated - and if so what is your souce(s)?

Do you personally have better references that we can look to?

Just check out how many a/c the LW lost alone due to non-combat related accidents.[b]

Ditto to USAAF attrition to mechanical and fuel issues carrying the fight to every corner of the Reich? How many more LW losses would have occurred if Me 109s were forced to fly 600 mile radius missions on a daily basis.. can you spell 'hog' with that much fuel?

Next is your weird theory that because the Bf-109 reached 33,000 examples it is the very reason for why the top aces flew this plane. Well sorry but again you’re just spewing out claims. Even with the WW2 aces of the P-51, P-47 and Spitfire put together does the number of aces approach that born by the Bf-109, and this is despite that put together these aircraft were built in far larger numbers. Also explains why most top aces wanted to stay with the Bf-109 even in late 44 to 45, wouldn’t make so much sense if it wasn’t an excellent fighter.

Ah, but it seems that only 52 LW experten actually shot down (were awarded) 5 or more Mustangs or Thunderbolts (in any combination and the max was 13(?) of any one type - (Bar and Steiman were the only two with double digit awards on both 51 and 47's). Nine LW aces shot down five or more of both types - all theatres, not just ETO

whereas just the 8th AF aces numberd 118 aces shooting down 5 or more German fighters of any specific type and the high 'type and number' was the me 109, with 24 of the 8th AF aces shooting down at least 5 each Me 109 or Fw 190. This does NOT include any of the 50+ aces that flew in the Pioneer Mustang Group (354th) which did the heavy lifting in December through May.

Robert Johnson was high on fw 190 with 15.5 (P-47), Preddy was high on 109 with 21

Soren you delight in remarks and comments that are frequently made without also referencing your souces.. can you change your approach and have a debate without the catty remarks?

And, if you don't like my research do your own?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Soren

The Allies used highly effective proximity fuzes in their larger AA pieces (75mm & up) so I'm gonna have to call BS on that one.

Call away. Are you suggesting that 90mm flak was used by Allies to defend against low level attacks by fighters? That WAS what Hunter and I were talking about.

Which one of us 'missed the point"??

If I missed it, could you tell me where this defensive arrangement was the scourge of Ju 87 and me 262 and Fw 190G (and whatever else) attacks on Allied airfields - maybe I missed out on that.

[Soren]

Nice attempts at dodging the real issues at hand Bill.

Sources for 1/2 loads of fuel? You have claimed this before but never give us the source?

Try actually talking to the guys who flew the birds Bill. The lack of fuel was so great that by late 1944 that many a/c couldn't take off when needed, and just had to sit and wait to be shot up by Allied grond attacks.

And, for the moment, would a half load of fuel make a 109 more or less manueverable?

LoL, maneuverability has nothing to do with it ! The LW fighters were bounced attacking the bombers and were heavily armed (Thus slower), they were easy targets in this situation.

If maneuverability was the deciding factor then the P-51's & P-47's over Europe would've been eradicated.

So the pilots like Rall coming in from Ost and the units from JG 53, 27, etc from late 1943 to mid 1944 that transferred into LuftFlotte Reich were low time pilots?

LoL you bring forth these to prove your point ??!! (And thats despite their being many aces flying on the western front) Yes Bill the LW consisted of MANY rookies by mid 1944 to 1945 trying to defend the Reich. Your little list doesn't in any way disprove this fact. There were also experienced pilots in the LW no doubt, but they had to lead the rookies, so they themselves became targets.

Also you so happily skidded around the fact that the LW were the ones doing the actual slaughtering, rightly concentrating on the bombers as their main targets. Its none other than amazing that the LW fighters managed to additionally shoot down as many escorts as they did whilst they themselves were easy targets when they pounded the bombers, and esp. amazing when you additionally consider the fuel situation and decreasing pilot training.

As to Galland disagreeing with me, no I don't think so Bill, cause Galland was of the exact same opinion that the bombers were the ones who needed to be brought down, not the escorts, the escorts needed just to be bypassed. Or are you under the illusion that Galland shared yout vision and didn't see the sense in one strike taking up to ten Allied personnel out the fight, a far more expensive piece of machinery and meanwhile securing the home industry was more important than fooling around with the escorts ??

Now as to there being only 52 LW pilots shooting down 5 or more P-51's & P-47's, Ha !, where did you get that figure ? Kacha's LuftWaffe Page ?? Just so you know that list isn't even near complete yet! And additionally MANY LW pilots were never awarded their kills as they were shot down.

And about the ~2500 Bf-109's and ~1900 Fw-190 claimed shot down, well that's just hilarious, esp. when you look at the actual LW lossess of both types due to air & ground attacks.

And about the Me-262's, well again by far he majority were shot down while landing or taking off, atleast 80%.

And as to most of the USAAF fighter losses being to German FlaK, again thats just pure hogwash Bill. The USAAF did the same trick in Korea, claiming that most their fighters were lost due to groundfire in an attempt to glorify their own efforts.