Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

Hi all,

Been reading the debate about the best fighter of WW2 with interest! The term "fighter" seems to have broadened to include "fighter-bomber", and statistics have been invoked to support the claim that the P-47 was the best of the latter. However, let us first re-define what a fighter actually was/is: it is, quite simply, an aircraft designed soley for the purpose of destroying other enemy aircraft. That definition orginally meant that only an aircraft designed or, at least employed, to destroy other aircraft in aerial combat could be classified as a fighter, but the invention, or innovation, of the "fighter-bomber" (or what would nowadays be classified as a "tactical fighter") has clouded the issue.

Their is no doubt that the P-47 was effective both as a fighter and fighter-bomber. The P-47's performance actually improved with altitude, at least relative to its German adversaries. This was particularly true after they fitted it with the more efficient paddle bladed propellers. It is also true that, as a fighter-bomber, it was far less vulnerable - with its air-cooled radial engine - than the Mustang or Spitfire which, with their glycol cooled in-line engines, were particularly vulnerable even to small arms fire! However, statistics are meaningless. Anyone who has read analysis of Pierre Clostermann's "Big Show" will know will know that the figures presented in that book in terms of locomotives, ships, trucks, ammo dumps, et all, personally attacked or destroyed by him beggar belief!

Also, if I may, I would like to qualify a previous statement by someone that the German fighters' engines possessed no supercharging. Whilst it is largely true that they had no mechanical supercharging like British and American fighters, the stages of which were largley outside the control of the pilot, they did employ a very effective system of injecting a mixture of water and methanol into the induction sytem which provided a significant boost in performance when utilised and caused their fighters to emit a very noticeable soot coloured trail from the engine bay. I believe the Bf 109G, fitted with GM-1 injection, carried this design philosophy to its zenith.

Anyway, on the subject of fighter-bombers, I think the Typhoon far more effective than the P-47. At least, that's what those on the receiving end of its attacks - the Germans - thought! Although on paper the Typhoon's amament was slightly less than the P-47, during the Battle of Falaise in September 1944 it was the cab ranks of TYphoons the German army feared, and it was Typhoon pilots ewho feared being shot down and falling into German hands for fear they might be lynched in response to the devestating accuracy of their rocket attacks!

 

Originally posted by Me-109 Strela@Sep 10 2005, 10:53 AM
Furtheremore, the '109 was a ten year old design at the end of the war, yet it still "held
Great point! There is a lot to be said about the 109, especially the point you made. It was way ahead of its time. It probably drove the design of the Spitfire as Britain was forced to develop a weapon that could handle it.

James H. Doolittle had befriended Major Ernst Udet since they were both big airplane racers and innovators. Udet was very anti-Hitler and would mock him in his private residence with a comb held up to his mouth. Udet was certainly no Nazi. Doolittle was not in the army at the time but he was highly influential in US air policy since he was a major player in evolving modern day air technology and a famous air racer. Udet hosted Doolittle around German air fields showing him all the innovations in German aviation like the Bf-109. In 1938, Hitler forbade him to associate with Doolittle as he believed it might become a conflict of interest. Doolittle returned to the US and warned the top brass about how the US was in deep trouble in comparison to German aircraft technology and that he was certain that we would someday be at war with Germany again. Britain got that wakeup call a lot faster than the US, but then again, they were over in Europe’s back yard, so they had to consider what was going on around them all the time. If Doolittle had not warned the US, there is no telling how far they would have been behind in aircraft technology. When war broke out he was brought back into the army and was able to identify all the German air fields he had recorded. Hitler was right about the association of Udet and Doolittle, but a bit late at forbidding it. One wonders what the logic of showing off aircraft technology at air shows is. Why tell all other nations what you can do and drive their technology? I guess the answer to that would be to instill fear so they won’t try anything against you.

But back to your point, its and excellent one. The 109 was fairly effective for 10 years. That’s a point about design that no one else has fully considered. I voted for the Jug, but like you point out, you have to qualify that in a time frame. So here would be my vote based on time periods:

Bf-109 – 1935-mid 1939
Spitfire – mid 1939-mid 1943
Jug – mid 1943-mid 1945
P-80 – mid 1945 to VJ-Day

 

Originally posted by adamcotton+Sep 10 2005, 01:18 PM-->(adamcotton @ Sep 10 2005, 01:18 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Anyone who has read analysis of Pierre Clostermann's "Big Show" will know will know that the figures presented in that book in terms of locomotives, ships, trucks, ammo dumps, et all, personally attacked or destroyed by him beggar belief!
[/b]
I would like to read that. The destruction of logistics was far more important than the destruction of armor. Good point.


Originally posted by adamcotton@Sep 10 2005, 01:18 PM
I believe the Bf 109G, fitted with GM-1 injection, carried this design philosophy to its zenith.
The benefit of cooling injection systems is that the plane can be flown at max speed longer without overheating. This is also referred to as emergency power. It was the predecessor to the “after burner” on jets. You have a limit to the amount of coolant you can carry so it is discounts max speed somewhat.

Originally posted by adamcotton@Sep 10 2005, 01:18 PM
Anyway, on the subject of fighter-bombers, I think the Typhoon far more effective than the P-47. At least, that's what those on the receiving end of its attacks - the Germans - thought!

The Typhoon was a great fighter/bomber. I pointed this out earlier by pointing out its successor deserves consideration the Tempest which was originally called the Typhoon Mk II. The Typhoon had some weaknesses. The engines had a tendency to catch fire on startup, visibility was very poor, tail flutter problems on the elevators, slow rate of climb, poor low speed handling, carbon-monoxide leaks, and a tendency for the tail to fall off. Some of these they had worked out by the end of the war. It was the Tempest that was really on par with the Jug as a fighter-bomber. It was the reason they stopped development of the Typhoons. It was designed considering the problems the Typhoon had. I don’t know of any advantages the Typhoon/Tempest had over the Jugs. I believe the fear of “jabos” was irrespective of the aircraft type.


<!--QuoteBegin-adamcotton@Sep 10 2005, 01:18 PM
Although on paper the Typhoon's amament was slightly less than the P-47, during the Battle of Falaise in September 1944 it was the cab ranks of TYphoons the German army feared, and it was Typhoon pilots ewho feared being shot down and falling into German hands for fear they might be lynched in response to the devestating accuracy of their rocket attacks!
This depends on which front you were on. In the Falaise battle the Typhoons definitely “slaughtered” the Germans. In Cherbourg, Bastone, etc, they would fear the P-47s. So if you asked the soldiers that saw Typhoons attack with rockets, you would think it was the worst, whereas when you asked the soldiers attacked with rockets by the Jug, they would say it was the worst. Probably the Jug versus the Typhoon/Tempest in the fighter bomber role was a wash. Both could carry the same ordinance, rockets bombs and could strafe very well and I don’t know of any accuracy differences. Accuracy would depend on the skill of the pilot in both cases. I don’t think the Germans on the ground could give a flip about which of the three were diving on them, they were going to have a bad day either way.

Just as the British army faced more armor during the drive to Paris, likewise did the American army face more Luftwaffe attacks and interception. Fighters that might be sent to intercept the Typhoons, had to cross the Ninth Air Forces lines where the patrolling Jugs would destroy them. This compensated for Typhoons inability as a fighter. Were the Typhoons to face the gaggles of German fighters, they probably would not have faired so well, though hit and run attacks would have still been effective. But you could not patrol with the Typhoon for fear of interception. To me, this is what makes the Jug stand out. The ground forces simply couldn’t call in fighters to protect them with Jugs around. With the Typhoons, you would need fighter escorts. With Jugs you didn’t. The Jugs helped the Typhoons by allowing them to bomb with impunity, in that they kept the skies over the British front clear of Luftwaffe. This is why the Ninth Air Force had so many aces flying only Jugs.

But the point you bring up about the destruction of the logistics is spot on. We have been debating how many tanks the fighter/bombers destroyed when the more relevant point was how many tanks were abandoned or destroyed by any source because they ran out of fuel, ammo, parts, etc. That would certainly give them an “indirect kill”. Typhoons instrumental in the victory at Falaise (and others), absolutely. I would take a Tiffie over a Mossie any day.

 

As a complete novice on planes of WW2 (actually a complete novice on ANYTHING to with WW2) I have voted with my heart.......and my vote went to the Hurricane.
I know the Spitfire is the glamourous one of the two, but there is something about the Hurricane that I just love. I don't know if it is the shape or what, I just love it!!

Although I must admit that seeing around about 10 Spitfires flying at Duxford on Saturday did stir the soul a tad, although the 3 Hurricanes really did it for me

I also have quite a liking for the North American P-51 Mustang. Last year I got the autograph of an American WW2 Veteran (at the Duxford 'Flying Legends' Display) who flew the Mustangs, he signed my programme across a picture of the actual plane he used to fly.

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 10 2005, 06:44 PM
One wonders what the logic of showing off aircraft technology at air shows is. Why tell all other nations what you can do and drive their technology? I guess the answer to that would be to instill fear so they won’t try anything against you.



I read a story that was taken from the memoirs of an RAF pilot. Before the war, his airfield was inspected by a Luftwaffe general. I can't remember the exact details but events went roughly as follows. Prior to the visit, the aircrews were given a detailed briefing on what they could & couldn't show to the German. When he arrived, the senior RAF officer escorting him, who wasn't the man who'd given the pre visit briefing, got very annoyed at the evasive & non committal answers being given to the distinguished guest. He then proceeded to give the German a detailed tour of one of the RAF's newest aircraft

 

Fred winterbottom in his autobiography spoke of visiting Luftwaffe stations prewar and was given a guided tour of aircraft and installations. But this was part of the propaganda effort by the germans. he did mention that the aircraft had dunlop tyres!

 

Originally posted by Lee@Sep 12 2005, 11:09 AM
I also have quite a liking for the North American P-51 Mustang. Last year I got the autograph of an American WW2 Veteran (at the Duxford 'Flying Legends' Display) who flew the Mustangs, he signed my programme across a picture of the actual plane he used to fly.

Do you remember who he was?

 

Originally posted by Gibbo@Sep 12 2005, 12:22 PM
I read a story that was taken from the memoirs of an RAF pilot. Before the war, his airfield was inspected by a Luftwaffe general. I can't remember the exact details but events went roughly as follows. Prior to the visit, the aircrews were given a detailed briefing on what they could & couldn't show to the German. When he arrived, the senior RAF officer escorting him, who wasn't the man who'd given the pre visit briefing, got very annoyed at the evasive & non committal answers being given to the distinguished guest. He then proceeded to give the German a detailed tour of one of the RAF's newest aircraft
It makes you wonder. I saw a public report on one of the new F-22 Raptors from one of the fighter groups that are now operational. It referred to an USAF training exercise where they sent 8 F-15s to find it and shoot it down (simulated missiles of course). The F-22 quickly shot down all 8 of the F-15s without any one of the planes or any ground radar installations seeing it or detecting its presence. Why would the Air Force publish the results of an exercise like that? What is it they would stand to gain? Seems to me it would merely cause others to seek countermeasures. It’s not like terrorists could give a flip.

 

Hi all a new on this site so hi. Anyway i am a big fan of the spitfire.
so i would have to say that the spitfire is the best fighter of all.
i did watch a program not so long ago which said the P-51 Mustang was all round the best fighter.
which it may have been but i think it depends where the planes where used and what the fought against.
But for me the spitfire wins everytime.

 

Originally posted by ALLAN@Sep 13 2005, 09:46 AM
Hi all a new on this site so hi. Anyway i am a big fan of the spitfire.
so i would have to say that the spitfire is the best fighter of all.
i did watch a program not so long ago which said the P-51 Mustang was all round the best fighter.
which it may have been but i think it depends where the planes where used and what the fought against.
But for me the spitfire wins everytime.
[post=38984]Quoted post[/post]

Allan, welcome to the boards, and do tell us about yourself.

 

Welcome to the forum Allan.

Look forward to your posts.

 

thanks Kiwiwriter for the welcome
Well i am a father of 4 soon to be 5 i have 1 daughter and 3 son nearly 4.
i have 2 dogs a rotty and a lab i have been with the wife nearly 10 yrs.
But i have always been interested in both ww1 & ww2.
i am not ex military although the military theme does run in the family.
my father is ex-royal marine and like to let everyone know lol.
i was looking forward to a career in the royal navy but due to an injury to my knee. it sort of scupperd that for me.
anyway once again thanks for the welcome and i look forward to the topic on this site.

 

On Jan 1, 1945, Hitler sent 600 planes to bomb the forward air bases in support of the ground troops (9th Air Force). His force managed to destroy almost 200 planes on the ground. The Ninth had primarily only P-47Ds as were the best tank killers. The remaining 9th’s P-47Ds (those not destroyed on the ground) destroyed approximately 50% of these 600 planes in the air

Actually, operation Baseplate was consists of about 900 of single seat fighter (Me109, FW190, abt 67 Ta152) lead by a Ju88 as its guide. They managed to strafed abt 479 allied aircrafts (mostly) on the ground.

However luftwaffe suffer; 170 KIA or missing, 67 POW and 18 Wounded, and most of those luftwaffe casualties inflicted by the efficiency of their own flak. Which their command's fail to notify their flak unit on time. Infact 2 of Ta152 were downed by 16th flak division and the other 14 of Ta152 had to abort due to flak damage when they were on the way to their target. And all, not solely downed by P47.

Like redcoat stated earlier, untill the appearance of Spits XIV, nothing could outpaced Ta152. You always talked about FW190 did not have a turcharged, but they do have Turbo boost. Using MW50 (methanol/water) or GM-1 (nitrous oxide) injection, most have 0ne but some have 2 of them together. Extra push of 400hp is quite a push isnt it?

I always dislike choice of the best of this and that, as everything has their own advantage one to another, even the lumbering Stuka ever had its day , however my vote goes to Spitfire,.. the eternal fighters,.. my second contender would be Fw190

 

Hi GUMALANGI,

Originally posted by GUMALANGI+Sep 17 2005, 09:54 PM-->(GUMALANGI @ Sep 17 2005, 09:54 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Actually, operation Baseplate was consists of about 900 of single seat fighter (Me109, FW190, abt 67 Ta152) lead by a Ju88 as its guide. They managed to strafed abt 479 allied aircrafts (mostly) on the ground. [/b]
I believe someone has mislead you here. First of all it was not called operation Baseplate it was called operation “Bodenplatte”, though that is the English translation of the term. This operation attacked the forward air bases of the Ninth Air Force because of the intense damage they did to the tank offensive. Many were caught on the ground because of the low ceilings. The Germans were so desperate to attack that they flew with the low ceilings in the AM regardless. If there had been decent visibility, the Jugs would have been notified to intercept the attack and probably none of the German aircraft would have returned. I think the number Bradley gave was just under but a bit under 200 destroyed on the ground. There were few air casualties from the Luftwaffe fighters and very few US pilots lost.


Originally posted by GUMALANGI@Sep 17 2005, 09:54 PM
However luftwaffe suffer; 170 KIA or missing, 67 POW and 18 Wounded, and most of those luftwaffe casualties inflicted by the efficiency of their own flak. Which their command's fail to notify their flak unit on time. Infact 2 of Ta152 were downed by 16th flak division and the other 14 of Ta152 had to abort due to flak damage when they were on the way to their target. And all, not solely downed by P47.
I didn’t say the P-47s shot down all of them but rather most of them. The numbers General Bradley gave was 600 Luftwaffe aircraft and about 300 were shot down. It was like the Mariana Turkey shoot in the Pacific. It was called a suicide run by the book I have on the Ninth Air Force. The book I have on the Ninth Air Force (Tactical – 95% P-47s) said that with “so few” pilots killed that the group was back to full strength within a few days. The Germans could replace their planes too but they could not endure the loss of pilots. Shooting the Jugs on the ground was not a big deal, except to ones pride, but there was no where near 500 fighters destroyed on the ground. I know that the Germans lost more aircraft than they destroyed. Since they attacked the Ninth Air Force you should expect the responses to be Jugs. German pilots were afraid to attack the Jug. They were simply too hard to shoot down, too fast and too heavily armed. In 1945, the most they would do is charge them to get them to drop their bombs and then flee before they could get into range. According to my book on the Ninth Air Force, because of this charge and escape maneuver, an order was made not to engage them unless they were in close. They were threatened with court marshal if they chased the fighters. They had to have “proof” which the author said was basically bullet holes in their airplane. As far as flak, there was flak around the airfields, and I also read that they ran into some British flak that did a number on them as well. The base at the Metz, as JG 53 hit them, but the ground crew AAA shot down eight of them during the attack. There were no fighters in the air there.

Originally posted by GUMALANGI@Sep 17 2005, 09:54 PM
Like redcoat stated earlier, untill the appearance of Spits XIV, nothing could outpaced Ta152. You always talked about FW190 did not have a turcharged, but they do have Turbo boost. Using MW50 (methanol/water) or GM-1 (nitrous oxide) injection, most have 0ne but some have 2 of them together. Extra push of 400hp is quite a push isnt it?
You make my point exactly. No FW190-XX or Spitfire Mk-XX could even approach the speed of the Jugs, yet because of the zeal for these planes and the fact the T-Bolt was not a pretty plane most don’t know anything about them. Even the Mustang could not out perform a Jug at altitude. On August 4th, 1944, the P-47J model was clocked at 504 mph though the top speed was rated at 507mph. Here is a link that talks about it. http://mercury.hau.ac.kr/naltl/download/do...er_us/p047.html The J model used the Pratt & Whitney R-2800-57C engine. Toward the end of the war, Pratt & Whitney produced the R-4360 engine that produced 3600 hp. This engine was not put into the P-47s because the orders for the fighter ceased at the end of the war in Europe (though these engines made it into the Corsairs that fought in the Pacific). Extra push of 800hp of a 507mph fighter is quite a push isn’t it? BTW: The P-47 had water injection as well as a pilot adjustable supercharger.

<!--QuoteBegin-GUMALANGI@Sep 17 2005, 09:54 PM
I always dislike choice of the best of this and that, as everything has their own advantage one to another, even the lumbering Stuka ever had its day , however my vote goes to Spitfire,.. the eternal fighters,.. my second contender would be Fw190 I have contended in several places that you have to qualify the “best” fighter for when it was best. The main reason that the US Eighth Air Force switched to P-51s was because of their incredible range. Personally I like the Spitfire and the FW190 a lot, they were very attractive planes, but they were not Jugs. The aces of the Eighth Air Force (Zemke’s Wolf pack - 56th group) turned down the P-51 and stayed with P-47s because it was untouchable when fighting to its strengths and very difficult to shoot down. You see over and over on P-47 pilot testimonials, web sites, and books, that flak was the worst enemy of a Jug, not German planes. The reason they had so much problem with flak is because they dove in ground attacks, airfields and artillery. In my opinion, the closest thing to a Jug was a Tempest V, which was as good as far as a bomber but not as good at climbing needed for fighting air to air.


The book "P-47 Aces of the Ninth and Fifteenth Air Forces" says that the 354th Group (just one fighter/bomber group redcoat!) had the highest single group total for the Ninth and 637 "air kills" (though many of these came from P51's). This is ground support group not an escort or patrol group like the Eighth Air Force. The 354th was second only to the Eighth Air Forces' 56th group (Zemke's Wolf pack) which used exclusively P-47s. The highest scoring group in WWII in the ETO chose to use P-47s even when the Mustangs were offered. That says a lot to me about what the best pilots in the ETO thought the fighter of choice was. In addition, of the 13 months the ninth was operational, only 75 pilots were killed or taken prisoner over enemy territory and the book says “Most of these were due to anti-aircraft fire”. (read that again redcoat, I have book and page number now if you don't believe it). The Ninth Air Force alone had 2195 confirmed kills that the books said was probably higher because of the “stringent claims system”. You had to have camera footage of the plane hitting the ground. This is an incredible kill ratio for a fighter/bomber group and if you consider the fact that most were shot down with flak, this would say that they had about a 10:1 kill ratio of fighters in the air for a fighter/bomber ground support role. I'll repeat it again, there is a huge gap of knowledge concerning the prowess of the P-47 in WWII. This underestimation probably caused many FW190 pilots to lose their lives.


BTW: Anyone that likes WWII aircraft ought to pay Zeno a visit. http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com There are a lot of free videos. I got a couple of DVDs on the Jugs. Man, that was one sweet plane. The roll on the Jug was incredible and the spin recovery is within a half a turn. It doesn’t tend to spin in a stall, it simply falls forward because it has a positive CG. To spin it you have to almost tumble it. It reminds me of a Piper Cherokee Warrior, in that they are so forgiving and both drop like a rock. In the video they show it in bomber escorts chasing FW190s who are diving to get away but the narrator states how big of a mistake they are making as the video shows the Jugs running them down and destroying them, other scenes show it diving on armor and various targets on the ground, shooting up houses (some of which explode from storing ordinance). Zeno has other videos on fighters and bombers including the British models, Spits, Mossies, Wellingtons etc. I just wanted to see how a 7.5 ton aircraft handled. It was quite remarkable if I do say so. I would recommend it if you want to see a plane that seems to defy physics.(no I don’t get anything for plugging Zeno).

 

Hi Jim

Nobody tried to mislead anyone here.. but am not sure about you tho'

My numbers of 'Unternehmen Bodenplatte' are base on

'Hitler's Luftwaffe' by T. wood and B. Gunston;
.. as against 144 RAF and 134 USAAF aircraft drestroyed and 84 and 62 damaged respectively.

'Command' Military history, Strategy and analysis Issue 41 Jan 1997 article of 'Operation Baseplate (unternehmen Bodenplatte) By Timothy J. Kutta;
Losing those 500 planes temporarily reduced the TAF's ability to project battlefield strenght by 40 percent.

The Second World war' by John keegan;
The attack achieved almost complete surprise and resulted in the destruction of 278 aircraft ( 144 RAF and 134 USAAF ) with a further 162 planes damaged (84 RAF and 62 USAAF.)

All the numbers might not exact the same but all are close,. except those numbers from your book. The number might not too uniformized, but all agree on casualties of Luftwaffe; Most, Inflicted by their own flak.

Luftwaffe Pilots were not avoiding only P47,.. but all Allied fighters,.. as directive from Luftwaffe top command, on march 44, all allied fighters has to be avoided at all cost.

You talk too much about P47, but why is it only Zemke's fighter group that turned down the offer of newest P51D? how about the rest?. Infact, The luftwaffe's policy of running away from Allied fighters came, after the introduction of P51D. And it was assumed, P51, almost total superiority over Luftwaffe.

Maybe P47 fastest than any prop fighters that day, but if you talked about speed demon, lets talk about Me 262, with its dreaded 4 30mm or 2 30mm and 2 20mm, some even carry a 50mm BK. despite of its modesty, i still vote spits for the best fighter. Likewise Do browse around, you'll find huge amount of good comment about this beautiful fighter.

 

Originally posted by GUMALANGI+Sep 18 2005, 11:04 AM-->(GUMALANGI @ Sep 18 2005, 11:04 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Nobody tried to mislead anyone here.. but am not sure about you tho' [/b]
I didn’t say you tried to mislead anyone, I said you have been mislead. It seems it was by a book you read. The sources I got the numbers from were Bradley’s book and the “Aces of the Ninth Air Force” book that quotes and details the Ninth Air Forces official records.

Originally posted by GUMALANGI@Sep 18 2005, 11:04 AM
Losing those 500 planes temporarily reduced the TAF's ability to project battlefield strenght by 40 percent.
The Ninth Air Force book says (and I quote) It was quickly realized on both sides, that Bodenplatte was a “self-inflicted wound” for the Luftwaffe. With few pilots lost, the Allies could replace all aircraft destroyed in the attack within a few days, as indeed could the Germans. However, the Luftwaffe could not replace men with the necessary experience to lead the novices that now made up much of the fighter arm. Bodenplatte might have been a sucker punch that hurt the pride of the fighter/bomber groups, but it did far more damage to the Germans than it did to the Allies. It was a major disaster, yet one of many you must chalk up to Hitler’s ignorance and greed. But to the US it was mainly a hit to their pride for not having intercepted it. It did nothing to stop the tactical bombings that continued until they reached Berlin. In fact, it swept the German skies even more clear of fighters.


Originally posted by GUMALANGI@Sep 18 2005, 11:04 AM
The Second World war' by John keegan;
The attack achieved almost complete surprise and resulted in the destruction of 278 aircraft ( 144 RAF and 134 USAAF ) with a further 162 planes damaged (84 RAF and 62 USAAF.)

These numbers are a little bit suspect according to what I have read, but much more reasonable than 500 planes destroyed.

Originally posted by GUMALANGI@Sep 18 2005, 11:04 AM
All the numbers might not exact the same but all are close,. except those numbers from your book. The number might not too uniformized, but all agree on casualties of Luftwaffe; Most, Inflicted by their own flak.

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.


Originally posted by GUMALANGI@Sep 18 2005, 11:04 AM
Luftwaffe Pilots were not avoiding only P47,.. but all Allied fighters,.. as directive from Luftwaffe top command, on march 44, all allied fighters has to be avoided at all cost.
This is not correct. There were many attacks by German planes. You should read the books on the Eighth Air Force. They were constantly being jumped by fighters on sweeps and strafing missions. But what is logically contrary to this is that there are so many documented pleas by German officers to get protection from the “Jabos” at the risk of the front collapsing from prohibitive losses. So, just to feign an attack would make no sense. The plane could simply return to base and rearm with more bombs and return within an hour. If they could have shot them down, they would have.


Originally posted by GUMALANGI@Sep 18 2005, 11:04 AM
You talk too much about P47, but why is it only Zemke's fighter group that turned down the offer of newest P51D? how about the rest?. Infact, The luftwaffe's policy of running away from Allied fighters came, after the introduction of P51D. And it was assumed, P51, almost total superiority over Luftwaffe.
I love airplanes of any type. But I became extremely impressed with the P-47 a little after I saw one at a museum. It was over 13 feet tall and had a wingspan of over 41 feet. It weighted 7.5 tons. I knew it was a fighter but I couldn’t visualize how such a large and heavy plane could be effective. I started researching it and was dumbfounded by the performance numbers and lethality of it in both roles as a fighter and a bomber. I started buying books to read more on it. The more I read, the more I was shocked that it didn't have the widespread acclaim that such a storied fighter should have. I always thought the Mustang was the best fighter of WWII. It got all the press in the US. The Spitfire gets all the press in the UK. It’s because they were beautiful planes, sleek, fast, inline engines that look so good (form over function). And then there was the Jug. Big, fat, ugly (especially in the camo paint and razorback canopy versions) it gets no love (function over form).

I am also impressed by the P-47 because it was a bomber that could out fight any fighter. A fighter that could carry 2500lbs of bombs, hit its target, and destroy fighters that were sent to intercept it, and on the way home, destroy trains, ammo depots and troops, vehicles and artillery by strafing, all of this on one single SORTI. For that it gets my vote for favorite in several categories, not just “best fighter”. As to your question about Zemke, they liked the P-47 because it was so indestructible. They knew it would bring them home. They were also one of the first groups to figure out how to use the Jug’s advantages in combat (climb, dive on the slower German fighters, climb again, dive again). It had a ceiling of 46,000 feet. No German plane (except the ME-262) could come up that high. This is why so few pilots were ever shot down in a Jug, especially from by enemy fighters. As for the rest of the groups in the Eighth used P-51D because of their superior range. They could escort the bombers to Berlin, and then pick out targets of opportunity on the way back without the risk of running out of fuel (a big problem on a long trip). The P-51Ds could prowl for hours. But because the P-51Ds were run so lean, they had a tendency to foul their plugs.


<!--QuoteBegin-GUMALANGI@Sep 18 2005, 11:04 AM
Maybe P47 fastest than any prop fighters that day, but if you talked about speed demon, lets talk about Me 262, with its dreaded 4 30mm or 2 30mm and 2 20mm, some even carry a 50mm BK. despite of its modesty, i still vote spits for the best fighter. Likewise Do browse around, you'll find huge amount of good comment about this beautiful fighter. There are no records of a P-47 being shot down by a ME-262, but several records of a P-47 shooting down ME-262s in combat (not just hovering above the airfields waiting for them to land like the P-51s did). In this record of Jug kills of ME-262s, it includes the ETO’s highest ace “Adolph Galland” who was put out of the war after being run down trying to escape a Jug. The Jugs were such prolific divers that in a shallow dive they could run down even the ME-262s at full throttle. At the same altitude, it is more of a stalemate because neither could kill the other assuming they were in eye contact of each other. The P-47 could outmaneuver the ME-262 and the ME-262 could out run the Jug. The fastest jet fighter in WWII was not the ME-262 but rather the P-80 Shooting Star. It didn’t make the list. Its initial speed was 558mph. Later variations with the swept back tails exceeded 670 mph (at sea level of course). Only two of these jets were deployed in WWII and those in the MTO.

You don’t need to tell me about the Spitfire, I know it well. It was a fantastic airplane. From 1940-42 it had no equal. Manueverability and climb rates were incredible. Its range and its inability to take a beating were its biggest weaknesses. I put it on par with the P-51D, but not the P-51H model. The H model (487 mph) was almost as fast as P-47J (507mph) or P-47N model (490mph). The Mustang had the same weakness as the Spitfire in not being able to take a beating, but it had incredible range, the best of any fighter in the war.

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 18 2005, 02:33 PM-->(jimbotosome @ Sep 18 2005, 02:33 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

<!--QuoteBegin-GUMALANGI@Sep 18 2005, 11:04 AM
Losing those 500 planes temporarily reduced the TAF's ability to project battlefield strenght by 40 percent.
The Ninth Air Force book says (and I quote) It was quickly realized on both sides, that Bodenplatte was a “self-inflicted wound” for the Luftwaffe. With few pilots lost, the Allies could replace all aircraft destroyed in the attack within a few days, as indeed could the Germans. However, the Luftwaffe could not replace men with the necessary experience to lead the novices that now made up much of the fighter arm. Bodenplatte might have been a sucker punch that hurt the pride of the fighter/bomber groups, but it did far more damage to the Germans than it did to the Allies. It was a major disaster, yet one of many you must chalk up to Hitler’s ignorance and greed. But to the US it was mainly a hit to their pride for not having intercepted it. It did nothing to stop the tactical bombings that continued until they reached Berlin. In fact, it swept the German skies even more clear of fighters.
[/b]
Bodenplatte was a disaster for the Luftwaffe. My article in an upcoming issue of World War II History will describe it all. The short version...the Luftwaffe blasted a lot of British and Canadian planes, but took an incredible beating.

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 18 2005, 06:39 AM
I didn’t say the P-47s shot down all of them but rather most of them. The numbers General Bradley gave was 600 Luftwaffe aircraft and about 300 were shot down. It was like the Mariana Turkey shoot in the Pacific.
Those may have been the numbers claimed at the time, but post war research points to the number of luftwaffe losses to have been around 277 planes
I will do some more digging


ps The Squadron Leader of a Typoon unit watching the Luftwaffe attack his base was heard saying " If those were my men attacking a Luftwaffe base in this manner, I'd have them on a charge" :P

 

Originally posted by redcoat+Sep 19 2005, 04:51 PM-->(redcoat @ Sep 19 2005, 04:51 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jimbotosome@Sep 18 2005, 06:39 AM
I didn’t say the P-47s shot down all of them but rather most of them. The numbers General Bradley gave was 600 Luftwaffe aircraft and about 300 were shot down. It was like the Mariana Turkey shoot in the Pacific.
Those may have been the numbers claimed at the time, but post war research points to the number of luftwaffe losses to have been around 277 planes
I will do some more digging [/b] 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?

 

I can't remember, and I wrote an article on Bodenplatte. Garbage in, garbage out, I guess.