Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

[spidge]

Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 20 2005, 08:56 AM-->

Doesn't your number 277 and my number 300 (a rounded approximation) seem an awful lot alike? I think we’re in agreement here right?

Quoted post

[/b]

There seem to be anomalies in small numbers:

The book - Bodenplatte - The Luftwaffe's Last Hope: by John Manrho and Ron Pütz has a similar figure.

But for the Luftwaffe it was a pyrrhic victory; 271 fighters were lost and many more damaged. Worse still, of the 213 pilots lost, more than 20 were valuable formation leaders. Using hundreds of eye-witness accounts and rare photographs,this is a definitive study.

[redcoat]

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 18 2005, 06:33 PM
We don’t agree it was by their own flak. The main sources I read about are field level AAA, P-47s from the Ninth and some help from British P-51s. There is no mention of friendly fire.

There were incidences of 'Friendly Fire' on both sides, a RAF Typoon was shot down by US P-51's during the day, but it is a fact that the Luftwaffe did suffer a number of losses due to their own flak. However probably not as many as is often claimed.

In respect of the air battles that took place this day, I gained the following figures from Norman Franks 'Battle Of The Airfields, Operation Bodenplatte, 1 January 1945'
Allied Fighter Claims;
RAF 64
USAAF 32

The figures break down to aircraft type as follows
RAF
Spitfire IV, 44
Spitfire XIV, 2
Tempest V, 10
Typoon IB, 6
Mustang II, 2

USAAF
P-51, 23*
P-47, 9**
P-61, 2

* all to 487FS
** 2 to 391FS, and 7 to 390FS
These figures are the claims accepted by the Allied High Command, but due to the highly confused nature of the battle cannot be taken as totally correct.

Allied aircraft losses in air combat, as type, are as follows

RAF
Spitfire, 6
Typoon, 1 plus 1 to 'friendly fire'
Tempest , 1 to German AA.

USAAF
P-51, 4
P-47, 1.

The total number of Allied pilots killed in this attack was 8 ( including those killed on the ground) all of whom were RAF.
The number of Allied ground personnel killed in the attacks on the airfields was approx 16.

The number of Luftwaffe pilots killed was 151, with another 63 taken POW

[jimbotosome]

The distribution of those are suspect. For instance the Ninth Air Force book I have says that the 390th had one pilot with 3, and five pilots with "kills" (it does not enumerate them). That's 8 at least. Then the 366th at Asch got 8 itself before the Mustangs arrived it spiraled to 28 aircraft (which would mean that the mustangs got 20 by themselves at that airfield). The field level AAA at Metz (365th) shot down 8 of them. It talks about the raid on the Metz (65 planes) attacked for 45 minute despite British Mustangs all over the formation. The book says that "they could probably tell they were British P-51s because of the loose formations". A squadron of the 388th P-47s on an armed recon mission jettisoned their bombs and turned back when they heard over the radio that they field was being attacked. It don't list their kills but goes on to describe the ground crews avoiding the bombing. Some of the P-47s at Metz got off the ground and were able to engage (though it doesn't give the specifics). The 357th also intercepted the Metz. It is doubtful that any of the 65 ME 109s-14 from JG 53 ever returned. So yet again do books that have "official records" seem to have significant variances.

[redcoat]

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 21 2005, 12:03 AM
The distribution of those are suspect. For instance the Ninth Air Force book I have says that the 390th had one pilot with 3, and five pilots with "kills" (it does not enumerate them). That's 8 at least. Then the 366th at Asch got 8 itself before the Mustangs arrived it spiraled to 28 aircraft (which would mean that the mustangs got 20 by themselves at that airfield).

The figure I gave were the officially accepted claims, a number of claims made by the pilots at the time, were later rejected due to lack of evidence. In the battle the 390FS claimed 12, but only 7 were accepted*

It talks about the raid on the Metz (65 planes) attacked for 45 minute despite British Mustangs all over the formation. The book says that "they could probably tell they were British P-51s because of the loose formations".

According to the book, there were no RAF fighters of any type over Metz.
The only Allied fighter airborne during the attack was the P-47 of the 388th's spare pilot on the early mission, First Lieutenant Lavern Alcorn, who returned early due to no aircraft dropping out of the mission. He arrived at the same time as the Luftwaffe, and only just escaped from being shot down by his own AA.....he scored no victories in the attack.

A squadron of the 388th P-47s on an armed recon mission jettisoned their bombs and turned back when they heard over the radio that they field was being attacked. It don't list their kills but goes on to describe the ground crews avoiding the bombing. Some of the P-47s at Metz got off the ground and were able to engage (though it doesn't give the specifics).

By the time the rest of the P-47s of 388FS returned, the Luftwaffe had gone..

It is doubtful that any of the 65 ME 109s-14 from JG 53 ever returned. So yet again do books that have "official records" seem to have significant variances.

Quoted post

According to the book, 14 aircraft of JG 53 were shot down on this mission. A further 5 were 'written off' on return to base due to heavy damage, and another 4 were classed as 'damaged'

* this includes the 3 for Lieutenant Melvyn R. Paisley

ps the quoted '45 minutes' for the attack is the total time for the attacks of Operation Bodenplatte... the raid on Metz lasted far less than that.

[jimbotosome]

Originally posted by redcoat+Sep 21 2005, 07:04 AM-->

Would someone please explain to me the term “officially accepted claims”? Comparing notes, I have failed to see anything that ever seems to be corroborated so I really have no idea what an “official” anything is. I doubt there is an author or a reader of these books (both yours and mine) that doesn’t believe his to be “official”. But unless they come off of some website whose address ends in.GOV extension, I have come to believe it to be someone’s “official” opinion.

See, there are stark differences. The leader that turned the 388 back (according to my book) was Capt Jerry C Mast and the entire formation came back.

See, my book said that the attack on the Metz was continuous with subsequent strafing and took 45 minutes and the 388’s P-47s turned back when they were 20 miles away. Planes that could approach 500mph in straight and level flight would not have taken 45 minutes to go 20 miles. If I assume they throttled up to say 450 mph, and flew straight back, it would have only taken them 2.6 minutes to return to the field. Even if it had taken the radio man 42 minutes to get the call out, they would have definitely engaged or at have least run them down quickly. I think 20 miles separation would allowed you to run them down even if they had left when you turned around. They could have been seen easily from 15 miles out, especially if the Jugs had any altitude at all. If they were at 10000 feet, they could have probably have seen the attacking aircraft from where they were when they turned around.

<!--QuoteBegin-redcoat@Sep 21 2005, 07:04 AM
According to the book, 14 aircraft of JG 53 were shot down on this mission. A further 5 were 'written off' on return to base due to heavy damage, and another 4 were classed as 'damaged'
ps the quoted '45 minutes' for the attack is the total time for the attacks of Operation Bodenplatte... the raid on Metz lasted far less than that.

I think that’s called a “variance” correct? We are in agreement that our books contradict right? As far as 45 minutes total as your book says, I doubt you could shoot down nearly 300 planes in 45 minutes Also, that 45 minutes could not have been the total mission time of Bodenplatte. That’s not logical. That would have put them at most, on airfields 15 minutes from the US airfields since there were bombers that flew only 300 mph unloaded, they would have flown close to 200mph loaded with fuel and bombs and there were no airfields that close to the tactical airfields that held planes that were still in one piece. If you give them the benefit of the doubt, that would have meant that nearly 300 planes would have had to have shot down in less than 25 minutes following the Germans back to their airfields. I think what your book is referring to is that the strike itself took 45 minutes excluding the inroute and return time which would have agreed with my book’s claim of the battle at the Metz taking 45 minutes.

Personally redcoat, I have lost all faith in numbers. I have a hard time believing that all the “American authors” have distorted all the numbers and the “British authors” managed to find “official” numbers. If there were such things “indisputable” official numbers, there would be no variances because everyone would use those numbers. I think you are telling the truth in what you are reading. It’s just difficult to really know the facts about numbers. Maybe we shouldn’t get so hung up on them, especially if they are immaterial to the points. If they are simply a matter of nationalistic pride, shame on the authors. It’s ok with me if we assume your numbers are correct and mine are fictitious. It won’t hurt my feelings at all, friend.

Jim

[Oliphaunt]

Hi everyone, this is my inaugeral post

I'm more of a naval (particularly submarine) history fan so i'm not incredibly knowledgable on air matter so excuse my naivety
I've always had a soft spot for the P-47 (so ugly it's beautiful)
but as a dogfighter i just dont think you can beat the spit.. Reading the WW2 memoirs of "Johnnie" Johnson recently really impressed upon me the value placed by the pilots on the Spitfire's tight turning radius, surely that turning capability was just as important in keeping pilots alive as the rugged armor of the T-bolt?

[spidge]

Welcome to the forum Oliphaunt.

Look forward to your posts on "Submarines" and "The Silent Service"

[Oliphaunt]

Originally posted by spidge@Sep 22 2005, 10:42 PM
Welcome to the forum Oliphaunt.

Look forward to your posts on "Submarines" and "The Silent Service"

Quoted post

Thank you very much Spidge it's nice to be here. I have alot of thread's to read through to get caught up i think.

[GUMALANGI]

Found this somewhere on the web, at least we know one of Fw 190D was downed by a spits....

On the evening of the last day of 1944, the Luftwaffe had ambitious plans. The next day, New Years' Day 1945, the Luftwaffe was about to start one of the last major air battles. The Ardennes offensive got stuck, and the German supreme command decided that the time was right to destroy, or at least severely damage the Allied Air Force units.

This action would claim its part in history under the somewhat peculiar name of "Unternehmen Bodenplatte" (Operation Baseplate).
At the German airfields, the groundcrew worked all night to prepare the Messerschmitts and Focke-Wulfs for combat.

The route went over Rotterdam and the Schelde river. In the surroundings of Waasmunster, the German formation flew on very low height. The German pilots were ignorant that they flew right into the Polish 131 Wing.
The latter was stationed at Sint Denijs Westrem, but took off that New Years' morning at 08.15 with their Spitfires for a routine mission. The weather was beautiful with a maximum visibility.
As they were flying westbound from Antwerp, the pilots were warned about the German attack. At almost the same time the Polish pilots made visual contact with the German Messerschmitts and Focke-Wulfs. The Spitfires dived towards the enemy at 09.25 hrs, and Pilot Officer Dromlewicz got on the tail of Feldwebel Paul Drutschmann's "Weisse 3", a FW 190 D-9 of the 9. Staffel of the Jagdgeschwader 54 "Grünherz". After several hits, Paul Drutschmann's engine gave up. Eyewitness Private Jozef De Munck, at the time 19 years old, was on leave and at home at that very moment. He recalls:

As I heard the engines and the clatter of machineguns, I ran outside to see what happened. The Spitfire threw off his fueltank, and attacked the German fighter. The latter came from over the airfield, and over the castle of Blauwendaal, but couldn't avoid the Spitfire's machineguns.
When the aircraft was hit, the pilot pulled up his FW and, when he reached the highest point, he opened the cockpit and baled out. Only seconds later the parachute opened, and the FW crashed in a marshy land, locally known as the "Sint-Anna-broek". The pilot himself plunged into the muddy water of the Durme river. He was very lucky the water level was very low; he could have drowned. He waded trough the mud, pointing his pistol at the people that were approaching him.
The local police arrived, but the pilot refused to surrender. I wore my uniform, and the pilot looked at me. I approached carefully. Then, he lowered his pistol, and said : "I will follow you, but not those people", whilst pointing at the police officers. I saluted him, and he saluted back. Then he handed me over his pistol.
We took him to the bridge on Fons D'Hoe's bicycle. From there we took him to the town hall. The pilot was soaked, but refused to accept dry underwear. I offered him a sigaret, but he wouldn't take it because it was English. I asked him where he was from, but he kept silent for a while and then replied: "I could have dealt with two of them, but three was too much..." He referred to the combat which still kept his mind busy.

Paul Drutschmann died in 2000.

[redcoat]

=jimbotosome,Sep 22 2005, 03:26 AM]
Would someone please explain to me the term "officially accepted claims"? Comparing notes, I have failed to see anything that ever seems to be corroborated so I really have no idea what an "official" anything is. I doubt there is an author or a reader of these books (both yours and mine) that doesn't believe his to be "official". But unless they come off of some website whose address ends in.GOV extension, I have come to believe it to be someone's "official" opinion.

By 'official' I simply mean the claims that were accepted by the pilots own airforce as correct, after checking all the available evidence, and were then officially awarded a kill for it.
Have you seen the scene in the film 'The Battle of Britain' where a young pilot claims a He 111 shot down, and he's told by his intelligence officer that he's the seventh pilot to claim that particular aircraft ?

=redcoat,Sep 21 2005, 07:04 AM]The only Allied fighter airborne during the attack was the P-47 of the 388th's spare pilot on the early mission, First Lieutenant Lavern Alcorn, who returned early due to no aircraft dropping out of the mission. He arrived at the same time as the Luftwaffe, and only just escaped from being shot down by his own AA.....he scored no victories in the attack.

See, there are stark differences. The leader that turned the 388 back (according to my book) was Capt Jerry C Mast and the entire formation came back.[/quote]

If you read my quote carefully you we see I'm referring to the 'spare' pilot in the formation, not the leader. At this time of the war both the RAF and USAAF had so many pilots and aircraft that it was the practice that one or two pilots would act as spare pilots in case any aircraft dropped out of the mission. These pilots would normally return to base once the formation was underway.

=redcoat,Sep 21 2005, 07:04 AM]By the time the rest of the P-47s of 388FS returned, the Luftwaffe had gone.

See, my book said that the attack on the Metz was continuous with subsequent strafing and took 45 minutes and the 388's P-47s turned back when they were 20 miles away. Planes that could approach 500mph in straight and level flight would not have taken 45 minutes to go 20 miles. If I assume they throttled up to say 450 mph, and flew straight back, it would have only taken them 2.6 minutes to return to the field. Even if it had taken the radio man 42 minutes to get the call out, they would have definitely engaged or at have least run them down quickly. I think 20 miles separation would allowed you to run them down even if they had left when you turned around. They could have been seen easily from 15 miles out, especially if the Jugs had any altitude at all. If they were at 10000 feet, they could have probably have seen the attacking aircraft from where they were when they turned around. [/quote]

You make a couple of assumptions with this post.
First of all, in your original post you stated that the information you had stated that the 388FS turned back when they got the message that their base was under attack, on this both our accounts agree. However, you then went on to write that your information doesn't state what happened when they returned, but you assumed that they engaged in combat with the attacking Luftwaffe aircraft, choosing to disbelieve my account even though you have no actual evidence otherwise.
You also seem to be assuming that the aircraft of the 388th FS were the P-47M model with a top speed of 470 mph at 30,000ft. However the only M models of the P-47 to see service in Europe during WW2 were with the 56th Fighter Group of the 8th Air Force, and only from February 45.
The models with the 388th can only have been P-47D with a top speed of 433 mph* at 30,000ft

I think that's called a "variance" correct? We are in agreement that our books contradict right? As far as 45 minutes total as your book says, I doubt you could shoot down nearly 300 planes in 45 minutes Also, that 45 minutes could not have been the total mission time of Bodenplatte. That's not logical. That would have put them at most, on airfields 15 minutes from the US airfields since there were bombers that flew only 300 mph unloaded, they would have flown close to 200mph loaded with fuel and bombs and there were no airfields that close to the tactical airfields that held planes that were still in one piece. If you give them the benefit of the doubt, that would have meant that nearly 300 planes would have had to have shot down in less than 25 minutes following the Germans back to their airfields. I think what your book is referring to is that the strike itself took 45 minutes excluding the inroute and return time which would have agreed with my book's claim of the battle at the Metz taking 45 minutes.

The 45 minutes is the time taken from the start of the first airfield attack to the end of the last airfield attack, not all the attacks started and finished at the same time. Some of the better lead formations only made a few straffing passes
Also except for a small number of Luftwaffe night fighter aircraft used as navigational guides the only aircraft used by the Luftwaffe in this attack were single engined fighters, armed only with cannon and MGs

Personally redcoat, I have lost all faith in numbers. I have a hard time believing that all the "American authors" have distorted all the numbers and the "British authors" managed to find "official" numbers. If there were such things "indisputable" official numbers, there would be no variances because everyone would use those numbers. I think you are telling the truth in what you are reading. It's just difficult to really know the facts about numbers.

The only numbers that give you a fairly accurate account of losses and victories are the loss reports of the various airforces... Claims made by pilots, even those accepted by their airforce cannot be trusted