Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 6 2005, 04:06 PM
If you don't like historians, try out this web-site which puts the total amount of armour destroyed by the RAF's 2nd TAF and the 9th US Airforce at 391 in total, for the 3 months of the Normandy battle

I prefer to wait for my loaned out Patton book to return. I trust his numbers more than anyone else's. There are numbers out there all over the scale, redcoat. You have to admit, it is arbitrary to pick all low numbers and say they are right, especially since they don't agree either. Many times, misquotes are compounded because they are simply regurgitated from other sources in error.

But, if there were not as many true tank kills by the Jug as many references claim, it would have to be because there were a limited number of tanks in the western front, not because they found a way to escape strikes by the Jabos called in.

If you read that article, you have to be impressed by the fact that they could call for an air strike and have it within three minutes. The fact that the Germans had no air cover in the invasion, their armor was destroyed the instant it was forced out into the open, and the big three German fighters all had to avoid it like the plague, its extremely low shoot down rate, especially from fighters, makes the Jug a valid contender for the best fighter from 1943 on. Despite the tangents we got off on, that was the question originally posed on this thread, correct?

Perhaps your loyalties to your nation's glorious fighter won't allow you to agree with that, you at least have to say that the Jug is the most underrated fighter of the WWII, and this underrating was probably confined to Allied history buffs rather than German soldiers and pilots. Since you can't find knocks on it other than it can’t turn as well as a Spit or P-51, you have to say that its lack of fame has to come from the fact that it was not as pretty as the Stang or the Spit. Do we at least agree on that?

 

I prefer to wait for my loaned out Patton book to return. I trust his numbers more than anyone else's.


according to to his book the final total as of 8 may was


med tanks 1529
Tiger/panther 858

p 314 war as I knew it

However, the arguement here seems to be about how effective it was as a ground attack fighter. But the Spit was used for many roles which would show how versitile it was.

its extremely low shoot down rate, especially from fighters, makes the Jug a valid contender for the best fighter from 1943 on.

Since the Luftwaffe was fighting a war on many fronts and therfore short of aircraft, it was not a level playing field. As a consequence the number of times that the Jug was engaged by german aircraft was limited. Also, in ground atttack you normally met with light stuff not the 88s or above.

 

Originally posted by morse1001+Sep 6 2005, 11:20 PM-->(morse1001 @ Sep 6 2005, 11:20 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>according to to his book the final total as of 8 may was


med tanks 1529
Tiger/panther 858

p 314 war as I knew it
[/b]
Thanks Morse. I had a feeling there were more than 1300 German tanks. That number sounded way too low for me. Patton was just one Army. If you multiply that by the number of Allied armies , then it would probably be upwards of 15,000. That's more like the number I would have expected and more like the numbers people have claimed on some of the "dubious" sites. I don't believe that counts the ones that were abandoned that ran out of fuel in the drive to Antwerp in the "bulge".

<!--QuoteBegin-morse1001@Sep 6 2005, 11:20 PM
Since the Luftwaffe was fighting a war on many fronts and therfore short of aircraft, it was not a level playing field. As a consequence the number of times that the Jug was engaged by german aircraft was limited. Also, in ground atttack you normally met with light stuff not the 88s or above. The Jug was the primary plane that fought the Luftwaffe in Germany. It was not something that occasionally fought them.
I have read a couple of books on the Eastern front and they seemed to indicate that airpower was not that prevalent on the eastern front. In the winter months, the planes couldn't be used because the engines would freeze.

During 1943 and the first quarter of 1944, the Germans had superior numbers and far more experienced pilots. Jug pilots flew tours of 200 hours and were allowed to return stateside after the tour which kept the Jugs full of rookies. It was the Jugs tactics and speed that made it so untouchable. It was its robustness that kept them returning when they got jumped or had to stay in close with the bombers. If you look at the accounts even in 1945, they would still attack with numbers of 70 to 200 aircraft in swarms each day. I have read quite a few Jug books. The Luftwaffe numbers didn't start dropping off until mid 1944. They were desperately needed in Overlord but the Jugs had pretty much cleaned out the ETO by late May. Robert Johnson's book Thunderbolt! is pretty good if you are curious about what the Jugs faced and what they were capable of. It kept a lot of rookies alive just because it could take such a tremdous beating. They were very difficult to bring down. Johnson said that German pilots never realized they couldn't escape the Jug by diving away. He said, when they did, they would be easily overtaken and shot down. I don't know if you have seen one in person but they are absolutley huge fighters. Look at the pilots standing next to them in some of the photos on the web. Its amazing a plane that big was that fast. (P-47J model was clocked at 504 mph though 490 was its published speed).

As far as the strafing of the air field, you are right that the 20mms were the deady AAA. The 88s couldn't get them below a certain altitude. But the Jug would dive on the 88s in the field and on strafing missions which were protected by the 20mms. Frank Gabreski (the US's top ace) flew so low diving on a field that he had a prop strike and had to ditch it. A prop strike would mean that you are typically flying 5-10 feet off the ground, going over 400 mph, and you find something sticking up. Man, things much have been a blur that low. Its amazing they could see the target to hit it. But now you know why they were so difficult to hit on the field level. Most kills I read about were when the Jugs dove down again on the same field (that was a no-no). You had to have seen them coming or the whole formation would have been gone before you could swing your 20mm around to get a bead on them. Morse, it must have been a rush to fly that fast (in any plane). I can't even visualize it.

 

quote]Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 7 2005, 07:48 AM-->(jimbotosome @ Sep 7 2005, 07:48 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-morse1001@Sep 6 2005, 11:20 PM
according to to his book the final total as of 8 may was 


med tanks 1529
Tiger/panther 858

p 314 war as I knew it

Thanks Morse. I had a feeling there were more than 1300 German tanks. That number sounded way too low for me. Patton was just one Army. If you multiply that by the number of Allied armies , then it would probably be upwards of 15,000. That's more like the number I would have expected and more like the numbers people have claimed on some of the "dubious" sites. I don't believe that counts the ones that were abandoned that ran out of fuel in the drive to Antwerp in the "bulge".[/b]So just over 2, 400 tanks claimed by the 3rd Army from the break-out in France to the final defeat of Germany (not just the Battle for France, which the number 1300 was for). I presume Patton also counted the tanks ko'd by the 9th AF supporting his advance, so for a laugh, if we give Bradley and Monty the same number of tanks, and then give them an extra 1500 for the Battle of Normandy before Patton arrived.. that makes a grand total of 8,700 tanks lost in NW Europe in 44-5 and according to your figures the P-47's of the 9th AF destroyed 8,000 tanks... leaving around 700.
So the Allied ground forces, the RAF 2nd TAF and the rest of the 9th USAAF only destroyed approximately 700 tanks in 44-5

I know that these figures are nonsense, but do the maths

ps See if this link works
http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/battles.htm
It gives the number of tanks involved in all the major battles fought by the Panzer forces

 

for what its worth i have voted for the spitfire, unfortunately i cannot offer a very technical or strong comparison to other planes in the list, but i do believe that these planes ultimately prevented the invasion of England.

 

Originally posted by redcoat+Sep 7 2005, 07:57 AM-->(redcoat @ Sep 7 2005, 07:57 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>So just over 2, 400 tanks claimed by the 3rd Army from the break-out in France to the final defeat of Germany (not just the Battle for France, which the number 1300 was for).
[/b]
There were not many German tanks left in 1945. The Ardennes took its toll.

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 7 2005, 07:57 AM
I presume Patton also counted the tanks ko'd by the 9th AF supporting his advance, so for a laugh, if we give Bradley and Monty the same number of tanks, and then give them an extra 1500 for the Battle of Normandy before Patton arrived

Patton was over Third Army. He was not Monty's equal because of the GI "slapping" incident in Sicily. Bradley was Monty's equal. Patton was not the only US general he was only over Third army. Patton was just famous for the ground he covered in the shortest amount of time. It almost seems you believe only Patton's forces took out virtually all the armor. There were 12 US Armies in WWII.

US Armies in ETO
1st, 3rd, 7th, 9th, 15th, 1st Airborne Armies
US Armies in MTO
5th Army
US Armies in PTO
6th, 8th, and 10th Armies
US Armies in training missions (in the US)
2nd and 4th Armies.

Monty's boys were known to defeat a German tank or two as well. Maybe someone knows the number of armies Monty had. I don't. I would guess that the kills of armor would be higher for Monty’s group than Patton’s since he was facing most of the armor in the outset. But, it may be that Patton ran down more armor than Monty because of the rapidity of his advance. But, I bet they were both significant.

<!--QuoteBegin-redcoat@Sep 7 2005, 07:57 AM
.. that makes a grand total of 8,700 tanks lost in NW Europe in 44-5 and according to your figures the P-47's of the 9th AF destroyed 8,000 tanks... leaving around 700.
So the Allied ground forces, the RAF 2nd TAF and the rest of the 9th USAAF only destroyed approximately 700 tanks in 44-5 I think from the day we started discussing the capability of fighters you have been skeptical of the Jug's role in armor destruction. I read a reference that 80% of all armor was taken out by the combination of fighter/bombers (primarily Jugs) and artillery. I believe that is what had brought us to this branch of this discussion of the number of tanks. If that ratio is true (80%) and if the Jug got the lion's share as the commentaries I have read or documentaries I have seen said they did, (arty flushed the tanks out, Jabos killed them on the run) then these numbers are not impractical at all. The kill numbers for the Jug range from 6-11 thousand. While that is a wide variance, it is still reasonable. Hard to believe, I grant you that. But then again, I was not exaggerating the Jugs capability. As I stated before it is grossly underrated as a fighter as well as underrated as a bomber. The Spit and the Mustang get all the press. You use the well groomed pretty boys as pursers on the deck, while the homely ogres are put down in the engine room. (Pardon my metaphor anyone that has ever worked on in the engine room on a ship)

 

Originally posted by nickc@Sep 7 2005, 09:17 AM
for what its worth i have voted for the spitfire, unfortunately i cannot offer a very technical or strong comparison to other planes in the list, but i do believe that these planes ultimately prevented the invasion of England.


Amen brother. This was the point I made to redcoat. The best fighter at what point? Up to 1943, there was no dispute which was best on the Allies side. The Spitfire Mk V pilots were a little apprehensive about the FW190. This probably changed by the time the Mk XIV came around.

The Jug wasn't introduced to the theatre until 1943. In addition, they didn't switch to the 4 blade "paddle" prop that gave them the speed and climb advantages until mid-1943. Early on the Jug was used like a Spitfire which was disappointing. You simply can't dogfight a fighter that large. That plays to the strengths of the more nimble fighters. My claim for the Jug was that when deployed in its tactics, it was somewhat untouchable by other fighters. Especially in fighter sweeps where it didn't have to stay down and babysit the bombers making it more vulnerable to being jumped by German aircraft. The Spitfire and the Jug were exceptional high altitude fighters. This means they could climb up to 46,000 feet and choose what to shoot at. The FW190s couldn't climb up to their levels because the engines were normally aspirated rather than supercharged.

 

while the homely ogres are put down in the engine room. (Pardon my metaphor anyone that has ever worked on in the engine room on a ship)

Having worked on ships, i would agree with the metaphor!

 

Monty's 21st Army Group consisted of 2 armies, 1st Canadian & 2nd British.

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 7 2005, 02:20 PM
I think from the day we started discussing the capability of fighters you have been skeptical of the Jug's role in armor destruction.
No , its some of the claims made for ground attack aircraft against armour in WW2 I'm highly skeptical of, I have no beef against the P-47 as such, in fact I have already stated that I consider the P-47 the best fighter-bomber of WW2.
I read a reference that 80% of all armor was taken out by the combination of fighter/bombers (primarily Jugs) and artillery. I believe that is what had brought us to this branch of this discussion of the number of tanks. If that ratio is true (80%) and if the Jug got the lion's share as the commentaries I have read or documentaries I have seen said they did, (arty flushed the tanks out, Jabos killed them on the run) then these numbers are not impractical at all. The kill numbers for the Jug range from 6-11 thousand. While that is a wide variance, it is still reasonable.
I can find no evidence for the claim of 80% for aircraft and artillery. The only official study of German Panzer losses by type of weapon was a British one in the battle of Normandy during the period of June 6 - August 7.
Out of a sample of 110 Panzers the cause of destruction was:

53 were destroyed by anti-tank guns ( tank and anti-tank guns)
8 were destroyed by hollowcharge missiles
9 were destoyed by artillery fire
1 was destroyed by mine(s)
7 were destroyed by Air-to-Ground rockets
3 were destroyed by Air-to-Ground cannon fire
7 were blown up by own crew
4 were abandoned by its crew
18 unknown reasons


As I stated before it is grossly underrated as a fighter as well as underrated as a bomber.

You will have no argument with me over this, its just that in a fighter v fighter role, I consider the Spitfire a better aircraft

 

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 7 2005, 04:17 PM
Out of a sample of 110 Panzers the cause of destruction was:

53 were destroyed by anti-tank guns ( tank and anti-tank guns)
8 were destroyed by hollowcharge missiles
9 were destoyed by artillery fire
1 was destroyed by mine(s)
7 were destroyed by Air-to-Ground rockets
3 were destroyed by Air-to-Ground cannon fire
7 were blown up by own crew
4 were abandoned by its crew
18 unknown reasons


I have to believe that this is anecdotal. To my astonishment I find that virtually all significant and detailed ground assaults against tanks that I have read about, involved heavy destruction by both artillery and fighter/bombers. All I hear about Allied tanks and antitank guns is how they can’t penetrate the German armor all the way up to Ardennes where they finally started getting armor that had sufficient guns to penetrate German armor. That’s pretty late in the war to have an even fight with German armor, and should raise the question of how you got all the way across France constantly on the offensive against superior armor? Even one of the posters on this board who was there, was talking about the fighter/bombers that helped root out the armor at Caen. He said it wasn’t “heavy bombing” that destroyed the armor at Caen but rather “fighter/bombers”. Its remarkable how many references there are that I didn’t notice in times past. It’s not that the mentions were not there, but just that the gravity of their impact was not communicated Did you see the Saving Private Ryan movie? Notice why the last attacking tank exploded at the end? It was a fighter/bomber diving on it. In the movie, it was taking the bridge that they had to hold or destroy. But the fact it exploded and burned meant it was no longer a threat to the retreating soldiers. I know that movie was fictional but it was technically accurate and an illustration of the dominance of tiny airplanes over massive tanks. Technique is everything. As Patton said, “the objective is not to die for your country but make the other poor sap die for his”.

Every since I was a kid and reading about this war, it was always Tiger tanks this and ME-109s that, as though the Allies had inferior equipment. But as I delve deeper, I realize that the mighty Tiger tanks were merely extremely flammable iron boxes from the vantage point of pilots that flew fighter bombers or to artillery gunners. Often you see references that the Americans were only known for their precise artillery and air prowess as though this made them a second class opponent. But, what else is there? Isn’t air prowess that allowed Germany to drive England and France out of continental Europe? Isn’t it lack of air power that cost them all their industries and eventually all their armies? In the presence of bombers and artillery, isn’t being in what many think was the ultimate weapon the “massive tank” an incredible liability? Would you rather be in the tank or manning the M7 or flying the fighter bomber in such a duel? Ultimately you have to have “boots on the ground” to win a war but you can’t have boots on the ground until you own the air.

Even Otto Carius (Tigers in the Mud) in his disgust for US fighting tactics was indignant because he had to stay hidden all day and move only at night because of the constant prowling fighter/bombers and how some of his fellow tankers abandoned their tanks in the Ruhr pocket because they afraid to shoot at the Americans for fear they would give away their position and the Americans call in the fighters or send an artillery barrage. He was angry that the Sherman’s wouldn’t charge him like the Russians did on the eastern front. Did fighting smarter make the American a “worse” soldier? I never heard about this persistent fate when tank aficionados spoke so romantically of how easily the Tiger could defeat a Sherman. At least a Sherman had the capability to run with a fair chance of getting away. The big slow Tigers were dog meat to attacking aircraft. Whether or not you would live to see another day in the tank depends on whether you are spotted by patrolling aircraft straining to see some part of your tank on the ground. That’s no way to fight. I keep reading incidents where fleeing German columns are caught on the roads by the Jabos and the description reminds me of the carnage on the Basra highway of death in Phase 1 of the Gulf War. Fighter/bomber attacks became so primary that they added pilots to the Sherman’s to call in and coordinate the fighter/bomber air strikes late in the war. Patton comments with amazement how the fighters could spot and hit even small targets like moving camouflaged trucks. Bradley talked about when they hit a strong pocket of resistence; they simply moved artillery into position and problem solved. That’s hardly considering those weapons secondary in the dealing with tanks. Seems to me there are some serious gaps in the knowledge of tactics that were actually used, at least with the US armies. It may be the romance people have for tanks but when you read the details, you see a reoccurring theme. What in WWII was a better advantage than air power and artillery? Where they not #1 and #2 in importance? What weapon or weapons would you rather have for tactical success?

Read this letter captured a week after D-Day about a German on the American front and what they faced. It’s very astonishing. It makes you feel sorry for the average Joe that German soldier who was just serving his country and what he had to go through. This guy didn’t make it.

http://www.texasescapes.com/WorldWarII/Hig...diersLetter.htm

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 7 2005, 10:47 PM-->(jimbotosome @ Sep 7 2005, 10:47 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-redcoat@Sep 7 2005, 04:17 PM
Out of a sample of 110 Panzers the cause of destruction was:

53 were destroyed by anti-tank guns ( tank and anti-tank guns)
8 were destroyed by hollowcharge missiles
9 were destoyed by artillery fire
1 was destroyed by mine(s)
7 were destroyed by Air-to-Ground rockets
3 were destroyed by Air-to-Ground cannon fire
7 were blown up by own crew
4 were abandoned by its crew
18 unknown reasons


I have to believe that this is anecdotal. [/b]Its not anecdotal, the British made great use of something called 'operational research' in which they made great study of battlefields in order to help design future weapon systems.
I had thought that the study I had posted was the only one, but after some digging I found this excerpt from 'Flying Guns - World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45' by Anthony G. Williams and Emmanuel Gustin

The evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223 Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). During the Mortain battle of 7-10 August, the RAF and USAAF launched sustained attacks on a German armoured column over a period of six hours, claiming 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged in nearly 500 sorties. It was subsequently discovered that there had only been a total of 177 tanks or tank destroyers deployed by the Germans and just 46 of those were lost, of which only nine could be attributed to air attack (seven to RPs and two to bombs). During the German retreat from the Falaise pocket later in August, the RAF and USAAF claimed 391 armoured vehicles destroyed. Shortly afterwards, the battlefield was examined and only 133 armoured vehicles of all types were found, of which just 33 had been the victim of any sort of air attack. In the retreat to the Seine, large numbers of armoured vehicles were left behind and Typhoon pilots alone claimed 222 destroyed, but only thirteen out of 388 AFVs examined were found to have been knocked out by RP attack. In the Ardennes salient, just seven out of 101 knocked-out AFVs were definitely or possibly attributed to air attack, compared with claims for 90. It should be noted that in the prevailing circumstances of a continuing retreat, there was no question of the German Army having recovered any damaged tanks in these later actions, in fact the battlefields were often littered with undamaged tanks abandoned by their crews.

One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign.
The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and 20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance. The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."
All I hear about Allied tanks and antitank guns is how they can't penetrate the German armor all the way up to Ardennes where they finally started getting armor that had sufficient guns to penetrate German armor. That's pretty late in the war to have an even fight with German armor, and should raise the question of how you got all the way across France constantly on the offensive against superior armor?
The majority of Panzers facing the Allied forces on the western front, weren't the superior Tiger and Panther, but the Panzer Mk IV, which the Allied tanks could take on,

 

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 8 2005, 04:49 PM
One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign.


Sorry buddy. That's not the consensus. For instance, one report of attacks on July 29, 44, Ninth Air Force 37 tanks destroyed. 42 damaged and over 200 trucks destroyed. In one 30 day period, Ninth alone had destroyed over 9000 pieces of German equipment. Do the math on that. If there is a 10 : 1 ratio of equipment to tanks, that would be more than 900 right there.

Here is a link where the USAAF documents a commentary on the fighter/bomber as the “The Tanks Formidable Enemy”. http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/dday/ddpg8.htm It has some good descriptions of both the Jug and the Typhoon being deadly against tanks. It’s a good read.

The consensus of ground accounts (like the one in the German letter) is overwhelming and the interview of the German leaders is that the Jabos were the most feared weapon in WWII as far as the German armies interviewed were concerned. That's the quotes from that "Achtung Jabo" pamphlet and from the accounts I have seen where captured Germans described the experiences they have with the "Jabos".

Here are some comments of German officers their headquarters:

Col Helmdach
“G-3 reports enemy had penetrated into Laval. Out troops showed signs of rout after strong fighter/bomber attacks”


Von Kluge's (the Field Marshal that lost at Caen)
"considerable tank losses and terrific fighter/bomber attacks"

"...we were unsuccessful mainly because of the sizable fighter/bomber activity"

“Every movement of the enemy is prepared and protected by its air force. Losses in men and equipment are extraordinary”

Col Reinhard XLVII Panzer
"The activities of fighter/bombers are said to be unbearable, Liebstandarte reports that fighter bomber attacks of such caliber have never before been experienced. Liebstandarte has been stopped. Five of their tanks are out of action.”

“…the actual attack has not made any progress since 1300 because of the large number of enemy fighter/bombers and the absence of our own”

Unnamed commander during drive to the Avranches
“Enemy air superiority is terrific and smothers almost everyone of our movements”

Field Marshal Willhelm Keitel
Sent out a warning about the effectiveness of the “Anglo-Saxon Air Force”.

In Bastone, a war correspondent was taking Christmas wishes to put into the Philadelphia paper back home. On GI he asked said “Give us good weather so the fighter/bombers could come over and help us out”.

Otto Carius talked about the fact they had to move at night and hide in the day because of “enemy fighters”.

Sorry redcoat. There are too many accounts including the stories of the Ninth Air Force. I am sure the British 2nd Air Force had similar success against armor. Its funny and a bit disheartening that the numbers are all over the place.

 

P47 operations

here is something for all you P47 fans!

 

Originally posted by morse1001@Sep 8 2005, 09:02 PM
here is something for all you P47 fans!

Wow! I'll say it backwards, Wow.

How did you find that thing?

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 9 2005, 03:13 AM-->(jimbotosome @ Sep 9 2005, 03:13 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-morse1001@Sep 8 2005, 09:02 PM
here is something for all you P47 fans!

Wow! I'll say it backwards, Wow.

How did you find that thing?
[post=38786]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
I found the site a couple of months ago and every now and again they have special showings.

it is worth bookmarking the site

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 8 2005, 11:41 PM-->(jimbotosome @ Sep 8 2005, 11:41 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-redcoat@Sep 8 2005, 04:49 PM
One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign.


Sorry buddy. That's not the consensus. For instance, one report of attacks on July 29, 44, Ninth Air Force 37 tanks destroyed. 42 damaged and over 200 trucks destroyed. In one 30 day period, Ninth alone had destroyed over 9000 pieces of German equipment. Do the math on that. If there is a 10 : 1 ratio of equipment to tanks, that would be more than 900 right there.
[/b]
On one of the sites you can't access they give the official claims made by the RAF's 2nd TAF and the US 9th AF.

Here it is,

Fighter-bomber sortie claims in Normandy

. 2 TAF/ 9 AF /Total

Sorties flown 9,896/ 2,891 / 12,787

Claims for motor transport destroyed 3,340 / 2,520/ 5,860

Claims for armor destroyed 257 / 134 / 391

Total claims 3,597 / 2,654 / 6,251

Claims per sortie 0.36/ 0.92 / 0.49

So in Normandy the Allied airforces claimed 391 tanks in total... thats not confirmed, just claimed.



Sorry redcoat. There are too many accounts including the stories of the Ninth Air Force. I am sure the British 2nd Air Force had similar success against armor. Its funny and a bit disheartening that the numbers are all over the place.
[post=38780]Quoted post[/post]
Indeed there are many accounts for the fear that the Jabos caused within the German army, and there are many accounts of their successes in defeating german forces, however there is little evidence that they were responsible for destroying the majority of the German armour in the west

 

Originally posted by morse1001@Sep 9 2005, 05:57 AM
I found the site a couple of months ago and every now and again they have special showings.

it is worth bookmarking the site


I purchased some DVDs. I couldn't resist. I was ok until I saw they had the original pilot's manuals for the planes on the DVDs and I thought I could continue my irrational fantasy that I will someday be offered a chance to "take one up" at one of the airshows. Yes, I am well aware that's not gonna happen, but if it does...I'll be ready

 

First, Hi to all on the boards!
Now, on topic- I voted for the Me-109. Though it wasn't as fast and agile as late Allied planes (though still pretty good armed) this wasn't due to lack of designer ideas, but because the plane had to match both US/RAF planes, flying at very high alltitudes and soviet ones (the air battles on the Eastern front were fough at very low alltitudes). Furtheremore, the '109 was a ten year old design at the end of the war, yet it still "held his ground", though not as succesfully as in the beggining.

As for best allied fighter (I really hope I won't get bashed for this)- I'd say it's the La-7. It's probably one of the most unappreciated planes of it's age, at least by western historians, mainly due to lack of information about it, as the whole Eastern front in general. The Lavochkin La-7, as the older La5FN, was superbly armed, very fast and manouverable.The plane was also very robust, cappable of absorbing incredible amounts of damage. All soviet pilots regarded is as the best fighter plane, far better than the "Yak"-series, as well as the Spitfire.