Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 20 2005, 08:56 AM-->(jimbotosome @ Sep 20 2005, 08:56 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 19 2005, 04:51 PM
<!--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 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?
[post=39232]Quoted post[/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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.
[post=39278]Quoted post[/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.

 

Originally posted by redcoat+Sep 21 2005, 07:04 AM-->(redcoat @ Sep 21 2005, 07:04 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>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*[/b]
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.

Originally posted by 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.

Originally posted by 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.

<!--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

 

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?

 

Welcome to the forum Oliphaunt.

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

 

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"
[post=39342]Quoted post[/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.

 

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.

 

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 ?

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.

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

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

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

 

Originally posted by redcoat+Sep 24 2005, 04:01 PM-->(redcoat @ Sep 24 2005, 04:01 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>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 ?[/b]
Well, all books claim they have the official AAF numbers. But there is no site to verify this. There is a site called USAAF.NET that claims to have official numbers of the USAAF but it is in fact a private link as evidenced by the fact ALL US government links end in with an extension .GOV (government). There is no way to determine what official numbers are. You choose which ones you like usually based on the sites you visit or the books you read. That’s about as official as it gets.

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 24 2005, 04:01 PM
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.
My book does not say a spare pilot returned. It says the squadron jettisoned its ordinance and immediately turned around and returned. It also says they were only 20 miles away. If the day was clear, you could have seen the planes once they turned around. No Luftwaffe plane is going to escape a squadron of angry Jugs hell bent on shooting then down since they were attacking their bases.


Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 24 2005, 04:01 PM
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.
What are you saying? They simply waved at them, saluted them, what? Of course they engaged them. Full of fuel they would have pursued them all the way back to their bases shooting them down one by one if the Germans fled. I don’t think that either of our books would have posted the turn around if they simply landed.


Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 24 2005, 04:01 PM
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
The P-47N (467 mph) was almost as fast as the P-47M but was a far better dogfighter because it was lighter and could retain more of its energy in a dive. There were over 1800 of these produced. I have to believe most of them were in the Ninth. The M models were rated at 470 but documented at 488 mph during the testing with an additional 15-20 mph available with by over-boosting the engine. That “Evolution of the Jug site” claimed the M model was the fastest production plane deployed by any Air Force in WWII. It was primarily used by the British as an interceptor for the V1s to replace the latest Tempests and Spitfires since V1s could travel 400mph and had to be intercepted before they reached the populated area. The J-model was the speed demon that could go 507mph with an astonishing climb rate of over 4900fpm. That’s a vertical rate of 82 mph! A modern Boeing 777 has a climb rate of 3000fpm. Top get a perspective on that, go out to an airport and watch them take off. It looks like they are standing on their tail. Now imagine a large 7.5 ton WWII fighter climbing at 66% faster than that. When these planes intercepted German fighters and fighter bombers, then they would most certainly shoot them down.

I don’t know if the only M models used in air-to-air combat went exclusively to Zemke’s group or not, not sure how you would know that. But regardless of whether we are talking 450 mph or 433 mph which would go from 2.6 minutes to 2.8 minutes. They still would have overtaken the invaders. If they were at any altitude or simply did a fast climb, they could have run them down by the time they could have gotten in the third pass.

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 24 2005, 04:01 PM
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
My book said they made pass after pass trying to destroy everything at the base and it took 45 minutes. They destroyed 32 planes, but few servicemen. They lost 8 from the field AAA. You don’t loose 8 airplanes to field AAA on one pass, especially since the first pass was not recognized until they started shooting.

<!--QuoteBegin-redcoat@Sep 24 2005, 04:01 PM
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
I don’t suspect that this was a problem for Ninth Air Force since they had stringent kill confirmation rules. It took a gun camera capturing a chute or crash into terrain. My book says because of this, the kills of the Ninth were probably much higher.


But, if the Jug kills at Bodenplatte were not as high as my book claims, it would have been because they simply were not in the air, rather caught on the ground. A plane than can out-dive, out-climb, and out-run in straight and level flight, any other fighter of any Air Force in WWII, and was notorious for being able to take a pounding and had the firepower of 8 - .50 caliber machine guns (no, there was no plane that could carry more firepower, it would have taken 8 - 20mm) with virtually every category covered (with the exception of the Mustang’s longer range and the Spitfire's turning radius), a bomber that could carry 2500 pounds of bombs as well, I don’t see how a case can be made for any other fighter to be the “best”, not just the best fighter/bomber. This is why almost anywhere you the documenting of Jugs being shot down, it is prefaced with “most by Flak” or "Flak was the real enemy of the P-47". Get any book by Jug pilots, and you will invariably find that the initial phase with the early Jugs with the 3-blade prop, they talk about their buddies getting shot down by German fighters and it is about even at that phase. But once the 4 blade prop is added and the new tactics are employed, you will notice that virtually the only time a German fighter registers a kill of a Jug is when they are jumped from above and didn’t see them coming. Jugs just did not get into dogfights where they could be shot down. The Jug lost most of its advantages if it tried to turn with the top fighters. But with the climb and dive tactics, most planes could not catch it or escape it. Every plane can be killed if they don't see the enemy plane.

The Smithsonian web site: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/repubP47.htm states the following about the Jug:
Of the 15,683 P-47s built, about two-thirds reached overseas commands. A total of 5,222 were lost-1,723 in accidents not related to combat. The Jug flew more than half a million missions and dropped more than 132 thousand tons of bombs. Thunderbolts were lost at the exceptionally low rate of 0.7 per cent per mission and Jug pilots achieved an aerial kill ratio of 4.6:1. In the European Theater, P-47 pilots destroyed more than 7,000 enemy aircraft, more than half of them in air-to-air combat. They destroyed the remainder on very dangerous ground attack missions.
In fact, the Thunderbolt was probably the best ground-attack aircraft fielded by the United States. From D-Day, the invasion of Europe launched June 8, 1944, until VE day on May 7, 1945, pilots flying the Thunderbolt destroyed the following enemy equipment:
86,000 railway cars
9,000 locomotives
6,000 armored fighting vehicles
68,000 trucks

If the Smithsonian numbers are somewhat factual, then that would say that 1500 were destroyed in air-to-air combat, the rest on the ground or to Flak. The numbers I read that were lost were 887. Maybe that was ETO only. It’s in one of my books and it will surface again. Does the Smithsonian claim official Air Force numbers? Probably.

 

Hi Jimbo,

Their website doesn't say the 8th of June does it?

 

Originally posted by spidge@Sep 25 2005, 03:34 AM
Their website doesn't say the 8th of June does it?

Yes it does. I guess some people like to start their invasion a couple of days later than others.

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 25 2005, 04:28 PM-->(jimbotosome @ Sep 25 2005, 04:28 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-spidge@Sep 25 2005, 03:34 AM
Their website doesn't say the 8th of June does it?

Yes it does. I guess some people like to start their invasion a couple of days later than others.
[post=39422]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]That is kind of worrying that people can be so ignorant of the date of D-Day.

 

Originally posted by Gnomey+Sep 25 2005, 05:48 PM-->(Gnomey @ Sep 25 2005, 05:48 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 25 2005, 04:28 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-spidge@Sep 25 2005, 03:34 AM
Their website doesn't say the 8th of June does it?

Yes it does. I guess some people like to start their invasion a couple of days later than others.
[post=39422]Quoted post[/post]
That is kind of worrying that people can be so ignorant of the date of D-Day.
[post=39424]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
I remember sitting in a seminar at Uni, while someone who boasted they had a A level History, tell the course that he did not know about Germany invading Russia!

 

Your book doesn't seem to have an awful lot to say about anything. It doesn't say anything about a spare pilot, and it doesn't say anything about whether the P-47's attacked the Luftwaffe formation or not.
So in truth all you have is your own assumption on what happened. But you have no evidence to back it up.

What I'm saying is quite simple.
When the 388th FS returned the Luftwaffe had gone.

Another assumption, and again its wrong.
The first production P-47N's only came off the line in December 44, and these were sent to the Pacific. A small number were sent to Europe in March 45, but saw little if any combat.

The P-47M saw no service with the RAF in WW2.

P-47's only saw service with the RAF in the Far Eastern theater (India and Burma)

I don't suspect that this was a problem for Ninth Air Force since they had stringent kill confirmation rules. It took a gun camera capturing a chute or crash into terrain. My book says because of this, the kills of the Ninth were probably much higher. [/quote]

Total utter rubbish, all the major airforces had stringent kill confirmation rules, and despite this all overclaimed

 

Originally posted by morse1001+Sep 25 2005, 03:57 PM-->(morse1001 @ Sep 25 2005, 03:57 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by Gnomey@Sep 25 2005, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 25 2005, 04:28 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-spidge@Sep 25 2005, 03:34 AM
Their website doesn't say the 8th of June does it?

Yes it does. I guess some people like to start their invasion a couple of days later than others.
[post=39422]Quoted post[/post]
That is kind of worrying that people can be so ignorant of the date of D-Day.
[post=39424]Quoted post[/post]

I remember sitting in a seminar at Uni, while someone who boasted they had a A level History, tell the course that he did not know about Germany invading Russia!
[post=39426]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
Look, here in New York, kids tell their teachers that Georgia is the fifth borough (Manhattan, The Bronx, Staten Island, Queens, Brooklyn). They don't know which countries the US fought in World War II. People go to Pearl Harbor and ask the National Park Service guys if the Arizona was one of the Japanese ships the US sunk. Or if it can be towed around to Waikiki Beach, so it would be easier to visit. My nephew believed that Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon was a fake until a US Attorney told him point-blank that his wife's boss and some of his friends were killed on the plane. Newspapers run horoscopes every day, despite their lack of validity.

People are ignorant, unless they make a choice not to be. Unfortunately, most people know more about Britney Spears' love life and Paris Hilton's movie career than about Hermann Goering and Josef Goebbels.

 

Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Sep 25 2005, 10:17 PM

People are ignorant, unless they make a choice not to be. Unfortunately, most people know more about Britney Spears' love life and Paris Hilton's movie career than about Hermann Goering and Josef Goebbels.

I am sure it was just a typo people. Everybody remain calm. I not sure that folks participating in a web forum where much typing is done, should ding anyone too hard for typos. I am certain the fine people at the Smithsonian know that D-Day was on June 6, not June 8.

 

Originally posted by redcoat+Sep 25 2005, 04:15 PM-->(redcoat @ Sep 25 2005, 04:15 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Your book doesn't seem to have an awful lot to say about anything. It doesn't say anything about a spare pilot, and it doesn't say anything about whether the P-47's attacked the Luftwaffe formation or not.
So in truth all you have is your own assumption on what happened. But you have no evidence to back it up. [/b]
Your book doesn’t say they did NOT engage them. Your book doesn’t seem to have an awful lot to say about anything. So in truth, all you have is your own assumption on what happened. But you have no evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 25 2005, 04:15 PM
What I'm saying is quite simple.
When the 388th FS returned the Luftwaffe had gone.
My book says the attack on the Metz lasted for 45 minutes. Your book doesn’t say whether they kept attacking that field or went airfield hopping using up some remaining time. Your book doesn’t seem to have an awful lot to say about anything. So in truth, all you have is your own assumption on what happened. But you have no evidence to back it up. (Is there a pattern forming here?)

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 25 2005, 04:15 PM
Another assumption, and again its wrong.
The first production P-47N's only came off the line in December 44, and these were sent to the Pacific. A small number were sent to Europe in March 45, but saw little if any combat.
You are also assuming that the first ones were not delivered to the Ninth (its amazing the number of assumptions you make in your accusations of me making assumptions). But whether or not they flew 467 mph or 433 mph is of no consequence, they could have easily have caught the Germans. I am surprised that you don’t assume since both of our books said they turned around and returned that they didn’t engage them. Why would it even mention an immediate turn around since they didn’t enumerate any of the other planes en route to intercept them? I don’t think both books would have published the same drivel of trivia.

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 25 2005, 04:15 PM
P-47's only saw service with the RAF in the Far Eastern theater (India and Burma)
The RAF 4th FG began using P-47s in early 1943. In addition the M model was used “primarily” to chase down V1 rockets because “the Tempests and Spitfires” were usually not fast enough to catch the 400 mph flying bombs from behind before they got to the populated areas. If the British didn’t use them more, then it was to their hurt. It is possible that they preferred slower planes because they didn’t have enough skilled pilots to handle the Jug. It was not for a plane for beginners.

<!--QuoteBegin-redcoat@Sep 25 2005, 04:15 PM
Total utter rubbish, all the major airforces had stringent kill confirmation rules, and despite this all overclaimed Not what the book says. Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is an assumption you are making.

Assumptions you say? People in glass houses…

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome+Sep 26 2005, 02:14 PM-->(jimbotosome @ Sep 26 2005, 02:14 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Kiwiwriter@Sep 25 2005, 10:17 PM


I am sure it was just a typo people. Everybody remain calm. I not sure that folks participating in a web forum where much typing is done, should ding anyone too hard for typos. I am certain the fine people at the Smithsonian know that D-Day was on June 6, not June 8.
[post=39437]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
Hi Jimbo,

The reason I asked the question initially was I thought you may have typed the extract instead of copying & pasting and like all of us do - made a typo.

Still, they should be made aware that there is a typo of this most important day in world history.

People would expect that the Smithsonian content would be accurate.

Do you agree?