|
Well, the thread developed nicely but went into few directions - I think a tree was a better sollution.
German training collapse - this was caused by several errors that were committed before the war and continued after the beginning. In effect Luftwaffe had no constant influx of pilots which led to the catastrophe. Another thing to blame is German training system which was simply bad and did not produce competent fighter pilots.
Big Week - indeed those were T-bolts which formed the bulk of USAAF fighter forces but those were still Mustangs overflying Berlin. Extraordinary range of the type caused no German aircraft was safe and able to attack from height advantage position. It also allowed to attack every strategic target in Germany - Schweinfurt disaster was simply not to repeat again, as Mustangs were able to extend fighter escort for whole duration of attack.
Of course we may say Big Week could not change events of the war but it must be remembered the air war was not a decisive factor here. German economy was simply unable to cope with demands and German planists did much too many errors to win the war. It was the Big Week where annihilation of Luftwaffe started, however. Look at a significant increase of claims since March 1944! And I would hardly call the pilots downed at the time - rookies!
1943 air superiority - it must be not forgotten that Germany already lost the air war in MTO. Plethora of types at the time but no T-bolts. Certainly appearance of USAAF on ETO changed ballance of forces but still it was not decisive factor in Germany's collapse. Luftwaffe was still able to control the situation and US pilots had no fun with Germans.
T-bolts with RAF - it was planned to have P-47 the main RAF escort fighter in ETO. Mustangs were considered some kind of stop gap deployed overseas. Burma was a secondary front for RAF, most modern and potent fighters going on ETO. So the rhetoric question - how it happenned Mustang was retained in Britain and T-bolt send far and away to replace Hurricanes?
Attacking ground targets - it was considered already during the war that tactical attack were much more demanding and dangerous for pilots rather than air combat (well, this could have been found during WWI). Mustang was not perfect at this due to exposed radiator which also caused forced landings extremally dangerous. Also clean aerodynamic lines caused Mustang to accelerate pretty fast, this being not an advantage during dive bombing!
T-bolt was much better suited for the task having a radial engine, by nature being much more damage resistant.
A problem itself is effectiveness of aircraft against ground targets, some researchers like Zetterling claim it was close to nil in Normandy.
RAF vs USAAF - for some reason a role of RAF remains forgotten and in shadow of spectacular USAAF actions. Nonetheless it seems those were RAF actions that were decisive during Normandy Campaign.
Eastern Front as a meat grinder - simply not true as prooven by statistics, I think on Don Caldwell site. Reason of German collapse on the East was not air war.
P-47 vs P-51 in dog fight - that happens that one of fighter pilots I have met had a dog fight with a T-bolt. He was flying a Mustang III at the time. When I asked him if it was a combat with live ammo, who would win it - he replied: me, with ease. I have to add that the pilot had to serve some punishment at 84 GSU for this action. Of course we cannot draw any conclusions from such a single incident but I would take some stories saying the opposite with some grain of salt.
56FG - not an ordinary unit, with considerable experience and some extraordinary airmen. Also it must be forgotten that somewhere in 1944 the unit was double sized. I am not sure if it was done with any other Fighter Group but definetelly must be taken into account when doing some stats.
|