Cobras, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Eastern vs Western front, Franek vs ...

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Indeed, I recall another high ranked German ace who considered Cobra a good aircraft which changed situation on the Eastern Front, and he explained his points in some length.

Franek, could you provide a link?

And may you can explain, how the plane that was delivered in relative few number(in compare with other types) could changed the situation? P-39 did not play any role in most important battles over Stalingrad and Kursk.
Only over Kuban brige use VVS this type intensive but e.g. Grislawsky mean Cobra was no more dangerous as other soviet type

And on the 1.7.1943 the VVS has only 183 Cobras on the from 3690 figthers total

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Also Soviet themselves were quite enthusiastic about the aircraft following tests at NIIVVS, and interestingly, Soviet opinions about Spitfire Vs following use of the type on Kuban were enthusiastic as well.

Really? Some NIIVVS test pilots crash to death with P-39 due motor failure and tailspin. I would say enthusiasm was really limited.

Engineers standards, any technical solution, techology culture, that was really point of interest of soviet engineers and constructors.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by kalender1973

Franek, could you provide a link?

No, it is a paper copy of correspondence, and I am not sure where it is.

And may you can explain, how the plane that was delivered in relative few number(in compare with other types) could changed the situation? P-39 did not play any role in most important battles over Stalingrad and Kursk.

I understand those were land battles, were not they?

Only over Kuban brige use VVS this type intensive but e.g. Grislawsky mean Cobra was no more dangerous as other soviet type

And on the 1.7.1943 the VVS has only 183 Cobras on the from 3690 figthers total

In March 1944 USAAF had only few Fighter Groups equipped with Mustangs, most of the remaining flying Thunderbolts. Nonetheless those were those few dosens of Mustangs flying over Berlin changing the course of the airwar in the west.
This was a very similar case with Cobras and Spitifres, and Valerij Romanenko underlined this in his books about Cobra.

Really? Some NIIVVS test pilots crash to death with P-39 due motor failure and tailspin. I would say enthusiasm was really limited.

That is the sad fate of test pilots - they die sometimes. They have died on Spitfires, Mustangs, Focke Wulfs, Messerschmitts and other aircraft considered state of the engineering art. So what? The 1942 NIIVVS report considered Airacobra is at some aspects superior to Me 109F. This is the key info.

Engineers standards, any technical solution, techology culture, that was really point of interest of soviet engineers and constructors.

Soviet engineers and constructors did not fly them into combat, did they?

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I understand those were land battles, were not they?

I could not believe, that you don't know about air war during these periods. Therefore I would say, it was a joke from you.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

In March 1944 USAAF had only few Fighter Groups equipped with Mustangs, most of the remaining flying Thunderbolts. Nonetheless those were those few dosens of Mustangs flying over Berlin changing the course of the airwar in the west.

Franek, congatulation! You write the new page in air war history. I thought always that thousends P-51 and P-47 lead to US success. And it was only "few dosens". As you would say "propoganda". But in this case not soviet and even not US... Maybe you can provide the source of this claim? Btw, on 25.02.1944 already 135 P-51 use as escort for Regensburg attack. And many germans pilots clams that P-47 was more dangerous and harder to shot down as P-51.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

This was a very similar case with Cobras and Spitifres, and Valerij Romanenko underlined this in his books about Cobra.

I can not believe that Mr. Romanenko can provide any serious argumets that prove his claims.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

That is the sad fate of test pilots - they die sometimes. They have died on Spitfires, Mustangs, Focke Wulfs, Messerschmitts and other aircraft considered state of the engineering art. So what? The 1942 NIIVVS report considered Airacobra is at some aspects superior to Me 109F. This is the key info.

Exact Franek! In some aspect and Bf-109F KEY INFO!
And the same test pilot claims that Yak-1 and 7 with M-105PF engine was superior over Bf-109F. The answer come soon ant it's name was Bf-109G-2. And what is the value of the "some aspect"??

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Soviet engineers and constructors did not fly them into combat, did they?

Sorry, I don't get a question.

[Kutscha]

kalender, do you know how many a/c in an American fighter group?
There is 48 (3 sqd of 16 a/c).

135/48 = 2.8 groups. I would say that is a few groups.

As for the few dosens of Mustangs, don't take it so literally, besides the word is plural (the 's' on the end).

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

kalender, do you know how many a/c in an American fighter group?
There is 48 (3 sqd of 16 a/c).

135/48 = 2.8 groups. I would say that is a few groups.

As for the few dosens of Mustangs, don't take it so literally, besides the word is plural (the 's' on the end).

Kutscha, and you will say, this few dosen(s) wipped out the germans from the sky? How many german planes claims the 4, 354,356 FG on 6.03.1944? 30-35? My point is that the key for air superiority for the west ally was also the numerical superiority and not a single plane type. That was german idea with a few planes reach victory in air war: Me-262. The result is well known.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kalender1973

Kutscha, and you will say, this few dosen(s) wipped out the germans from the sky? How many german planes claims the 4, 354,356 FG on 6.03.1944? 30-35? My point is that the key for air superiority for the west ally was also the numerical superiority and not a single plane type. That was german idea with a few planes reach victory in air war: Me-262. The result is well known.

The 353rd was a P-47 Group until Dec 1944, the 354FG , 363FG and 4th FG and 357FG were only Mustang Groups.. this was first Mustang combat encounter for 4th FG who actually learned to fly the airplane only two days before.

The 354FG lost 1 air, 2 weather for 8 air awards
The 363FG lost 11 in weather over North Sea - worst day for 8th AF FC in war.
The 4FG lost 3 air (1 M/A/C with shot down Me 110, 2 shot down by Do 217 gunners), one mechanical for 15 air awards
357FG zero losses - for 18 air awards.

Actually, in my opinion Franek is right. The four Mustang and two operational P-38 Groups were all that was available to engage the LuftFlotte Reich on March 6 beyond Dummer Lake. By the end of April the 355th, 352nd would add their Mustangs and the 364th would add one more Lightning Group.

The P-47s did not perform Target Escort, only Penetration and Withdrawal. The Battle of Germany was in the very few hands of five Mustan Groups and three Lightning Groups. The Mustangs were THE major contributors to the defeat of the Luftwaffe over Germany and achieving air superiority.

In all, the 8th AF Merlin Mustang only flew half the sorties, destroyed approximately twice the German fighters in the air than the P-38 and P-47 Combined, destroyed three times as many German fighters on the ground as the P-47/P-38s combined, and lost the same amount of Mustangs in air battles as the P-47/P-38 Combined.http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...OPERATIONS.pdf



Yes, the Target Escort available during 1944 NEVER exceeded the number of single engine day fighters in LuftFlotte Reich until December when the 78th and 353rd converted to P-51s. The LW was also able to try to form masses of fighters and focus on imperfect fighter escort coverage, achiving great local numerical advantage over the Target Escorts.

Do the math. at the end of May 1944, approximately 6 Mustang and 3 Lightning Groups (~ 40-50 effectives per Group) were available to escort 3 Bomb Divisions of 500 bombers each over 40-50 miles to and from the Target... so approx 150 fighters to protect 40 miles of imperfect formations of 500 bombers per Division.

Regards,

Bill


The Luftwaffe claimed 5 Mustangs for 6 March - not 30-35.

[kalender1973]

Hi Bill,

thanks for the link. It is very intresting statistic. But with this statistic we risk the loss focus of the discussion: if the few Mustangs was key factor for the success of 8th air force.

First of all I suggest to narrow the time slice that we take in account. Our discussion focus on the first half 1944 until the landing in Normandy. As I already wrote, it was a turning point in air war. It were two different Luftwaffe, in spring and late autumn 1944. The german pilots reach there units only with 10-20 flying hours in their Bf109 or FW190. It is clear that the succeses of US fighter dramatically increased and in that time the P-51 was key US figther. And if you write about german losses on the ground, we must recall that most of them was suffered at two last week of the war, where the german put open there planes on their fields.

But if we look at the spring of 1944 the picture is something different. You write that P-47 reach only Dummer lake. But in my eyes it was enough. Due the decision of perephery defence the most german figther units were deployed even in the north and north-west Germany and Netherland: JG1, 11, I,II/JG3... And after the fight with the P-47, the germans with their short range planes must be refuelled and come rare to second concentrate attack. Therefore a few P-51 of direct escort was enough. But it is not fair to minimize role of other 8th air force fighters.

If you look at 6th march, than you must agree that it was not the best mission of USAAF. From 730 bomber was lost 69. And the main targed was not attacked. From 100 P-51 was lost 5 (5%) and from 615 P-47 was lost also 5 (0,8%). The P-51 claims only 43:36=1,2 more german planes as P-47. The numbers are not really fantastic.
And I would like to see the plane types of the P-51 claims, IIRC many of the were two engines from NJG's.

Best regards

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by kalender1973

I could not believe, that you don't know about air war during these periods. Therefore I would say, it was a joke from you.

The fact there are some aircraft flying around does not constitute an air battle. It is my understanding that it was Kuban that was the major breakthrough in the air war on the Eastern Front, as well a major change in the concept of use of Soviet fighter aviation. This was nicely described by Ivanov, who wrote about Pokryshkin's briefing introducing speed, manouver, attack rule.

Franek, congatulation! You write the new page in air war history. I thought always that thousends P-51 and P-47 lead to US success. And it was only "few dosens". As you would say "propoganda". But in this case not soviet and even not US... Maybe you can provide the source of this claim? Btw, on 25.02.1944 already 135 P-51 use as escort for Regensburg attack. And many germans pilots clams that P-47 was more dangerous and harder to shot down as P-51.

A few dosens indeed. Find me those thousands of P-51s if in the eve of Normandy's D-Day there were only 6 USAAF Groups, 1 RAF and 1 PAF Wing flying the type. Still, they gave the edge, giving Luftwaffe no airspace to fly safely.
BTW Mark Gallay once wrote about Thunderbolt - it is no fighter. How about this?

I can not believe that Mr. Romanenko can provide any serious argumets that prove his claims.

Kobry vstupayut v boj. Available on internet, I believe also in English. Romanenko clearly notes the impact of few Airacobras delivered to the Soviet Union in the early period.

Exact Franek! In some aspect and Bf-109F KEY INFO!
And the same test pilot claims that Yak-1 and 7 with M-105PF engine was superior over Bf-109F. The answer come soon ant it's name was Bf-109G-2. And what is the value of the "some aspect"??

Now, please tell me what was the difference between Me 109F and Me 109G. This is key issue to understand the problem of Airacobra. And Yak-1/7s were not considered any particularly dangerous opponents.

Sorry, I don't get a question.

What does have copying of technical features to performance of the aircraft? Although it is worth to note that Soviets copied western aircraft but it was not the other way.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

The fact there are some aircraft flying around does not constitute an air battle. It is my understanding that it was Kuban that was the major breakthrough in the air war on the Eastern Front, as well a major change in the concept of use of Soviet fighter aviation. This was nicely described by Ivanov, who wrote about Pokryshkin's briefing introducing speed, manouver, attack rule.

That show, you don't undestand the nature of tactical air war in the east where the air war was driven through ground battle.
It is long story, but from actual point of view, Kuban was nothing particular. It was some prove of concept for VVS high command but from the point of fighting and losses for both sides it can not be compared with Stalingrad or Kursk.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

A few dosens indeed. Find me those thousands of P-51s if in the eve of Normandy's D-Day there were only 6 USAAF Groups, 1 RAF and 1 PAF Wing flying the type. Still, they gave the edge, giving Luftwaffe no airspace to fly safely.
BTW Mark Gallay once wrote about Thunderbolt - it is no fighter. How about this?

Ok. IIRC on 12.05.44 8th air force was directed against german synthetic oil industry. It was some 1500 bombers and 1500 fighters(and additionally RAF figthers provide cover operation in France). And you would say, that the whole job was done by 300-400 P-51? Then we have new "wunderwaffe".
What Mark Gallay concern, I would say his opinion reflect the soviet fighter mentality but it is other story

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Kobry vstupayut v boj. Available on internet, I believe also in English. Romanenko clearly notes the impact of few Airacobras delivered to the Soviet Union in the early period.

I know the author from other forum, and after some discussion I preffer did not read his works.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Now, please tell me what was the difference between Me 109F and Me 109G. This is key issue to understand the problem of Airacobra.

The G-2 was faster and has better climbing rate.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

And Yak-1/7s were not considered any particularly dangerous opponents.

Maybe your source? I know, Franek, all soviet types was complete harmless and the all german losses was pilots suicide or technically failure.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

What does have copying of technical features to performance of the aircraft? Although it is worth to note that Soviets copied western aircraft but it was not the other way.

Really? Copy? What type, beside after war Tu-4(B-29)?

[Kutscha]

May 12 1944

STRATEGIC OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force): Mission 353: 886 bombers and 735
fighters are dispatched to hit oil production facilities in Germany and Czechoslovakia

Escort is provided by 153 P-38s, 201 P-47s and 381 P-51s

Where did your other 1500 a/c come from?

P-47s could barely make to the German border which leaves only the P-51s, and P-38s, for the deep escort duty.
Also when it says 735 escorts not all escorts were with the bombers. Only a 1/4 to 1/3 would be with the others flying to or from the rendevous point.