Tuskegee Record Article in the New York Times
 

There was a recent article in the NYT on the Tuskegee Airmen record which finally admited that the 332nd FG HAD lost bombers it was escorting, thus anulling the oft repeated claim that the Tuskegee Airmen never lost an escorted bomber to enemy aircraft.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/wa.../12airmen.html

The 332nd FG was the BEST escort group for Heavy Bombers in the 15th AF but undoubtedly lost a few HBs to enemy aircraft.

"One mission report states that, on July 26, 1944: “One B-24 seen spiraling out of formation in T/A after attack by E/A. No chutes seen to open.”
“T/A” stands for target area, “E/A” for enemy aircraft.
A second report, dated Aug. 31, 1944, praised the group commander, Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr., saying he “so skillfully disposed his squadrons that in spite of the large number of enemy fighters, the bomber formation suffered only a few losses.”
A third report said that on Sept. 12, 1944, “10 Me-109s attacked the rear of the bomber formation from below and left one B-17 burning, with 6 chutes seen to open.”

Any thoughts on this somewhat controversial topic?

Re: Tuskegee Record Article in the New York Times
 

Not sure why this is a controversial topic, is it because we are talking about black airman. ?:confused:

Their wartime record speaks volumes about their flying ability regardless of colour.

It’s sad but so typical that PC is used when commenting on this subject.

Honest plan talking, that’s all that’s required here.

Re: Tuskegee Record Article in the New York Times
 

kaki3152,

We have discussed it earlier, that this statement is not true (and I mentioned another example, 27 July, 1944 as well, when they lost not just escorted bombers, but the Hungarian fighters managed to shot down one of the Tuskegees as well, without a single loss of their own)

Well, I guess, it was really flattering for the veterans, but not true at all (and I guess, they know it well). It is not a kind of "downgrade" of their generally fine performance, just the pure reality.

Re: Tuskegee Record Article in the New York Times
 

Csaba,

With reference to the 7-27-1944 air battle, the Tuskegee Airmen shot down was Lt. Emory Robbins,302 FS whowas KIA. The causes of his demise are also listed as due to ground fire, not an E/A attack.

Carlos

Re: Tuskegee Record Article in the New York Times
 

Carlos,

I guess, your sources are not correct, and Robbins was shot down in dogfight, not by AA fire.
BTW it happened once (12 Oct), when the Hungarian fighters claimed a plane from that Group and it was confirmed erroneously (on that day their lost plane was shot down in fact by a Hungarian AA battery)

Csaba

Re: Tuskegee Record Article in the New York Times
 

As a 12th AAF unit, how often did the 322nd FG escort heavy bombers (which would have surely belonged to the 15th AAF....) anyway???
To me, a claim such as "the 322nd FG never lost any of their aircraft whilst strafing airfields/destroying bridges/tankbusting or whatever...." would be far more impressive as those sorts of missions would have more likely been the 322nd's "bread and butter"or am I mistaken somehow?

Nick

Re: Tuskegee Record Article in the New York Times
 

Nick,

the 332nd FG was subordinated to the 12th AAF just for a short time (2 months period), but when they started their real tough combat sorties with P-47's from May, 1944, they were directed to the 15th AAF (till the end of the war).

And, of course, they lost planes during strafing missions. I don't know, what was your source, but it is erroneous.

Csaba

Re: Tuskegee Record Article in the New York Times
 

Nick and Csaba:

The controversy is NOT about whether they lost any of their aircraft (they did), but their claim having never lost a bomber they were escorting. They did, indeed, escort various 15th AAF missions.

Re: Tuskegee Record Article in the New York Times
 

That's understood, John. I just meant to say (back when I thought that the 322nd was a 12th AAF formation) that the claim that they never lost a bomber they were escorting did not appear to be so very valid. Now that Csaba has corrected that little error in my knowledge (and thanks by the way, Csaba) I realise that the 322nd's record is truly impressive.
Thanks again to both of you for your corrections.

Nick