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

[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.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hm, my number is from Prien JG1/11. It could be other mission or combined mission with 15th Air Force. Or my memory is not good
I can not verify your info about range of P47 but it was primary escort fighter until march/april and in this time the 8th Air force attack e.g. Eisenach, Marburg, Magdeburg,Schweinfurt, Stuttgart, Regensburg, all points deep in Germany. Who provide the escorts?

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by kalender1973

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.

From the actual Luftwaffe's standpoint they were never massacred on the east, rather forced to remove unit by the unit due to increasing losses on the west. Nothing on the east can be compared to such a hectic period like Battle of Normandy (which was typical ground support battle).
BTW Some researchers claim Kursk was nothing particular from the German point of view, losses being about average.

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".

Kutscha partially answered this. I may add that the number of Mustangs taking the pun could have been as low as ~40 aircraft, as the escort was provided on legs. The point is that those ~40 Mustangs were with the bombers all the time. Additionally, Mustangs on sweeps kept care that no Luftwaffe aircraft will take off safely. Yes, Mustang was a wunderwaffe.

What Mark Gallay concern, I would say his opinion reflect the soviet fighter mentality but it is other story

I would rather say, a general Soviet mentality, that disallows any serious discussion. I note Soviet and not Russian.

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

Well, but it is not enough to consider his writing wrong.

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

Is that all? I would say it is not enough to discuss aircraft performance.

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

If you have bothered to read my other posts, you would easily find that I am very critical on German loss data. Nonetheless it is not the point. Victories were achieved on such obsolete aircraft like Fiat CR.42, Gladiator or I-15, but nobody will consider this a proof of their technical superiority. Yaks were never state of the art, and more, had several limitations, to mention poor armament, short range or not very good altitude performance as most important ones. Some people claim that Yak-3 was a most promising and nice Soviet fighter, but nobody takes in mind it had performance comparable with Spitfire V trop. It was enough to get a Me 109G in infavourable position, but it would be interesting to compare this 1944 aircraft with such ones like Meteor, Mustang, Spitfire XIV or Tempest.

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

It depends what you consider a copy. You can make direct one like Tu-4 but you can also copy aerodynamical or technological features, not to mention equipment or engines. Soviets copied for example BMWs, Jumos, RR Derwents and Nenes which allowed them to get into the jet age. There was a plan to copy a Me 262, but it was abandoned in favour of a very similar Su-9 fighter. I have had in my own hands several pieces of equipment that were direct copies of western one, eg. flight parameter recorder, which used (IIIRC) 1'3/4 inch film (not metric anyway).

[Evgeny Velichko]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

It was enough to get a Me 109G in infavourable position, but it would be interesting to compare this 1944 aircraft with such ones like Meteor, Mustang, Spitfire XIV or Tempest.

As far as I know, Yak-3 will easily outclimb, outrun, outmaneuver each of them (exept JET - Meteor) on altitudes below at least 3-4k. The things will shange ABOVE.

Also, I think it is not good to compare low-level tacktical FRONT fighter as Yak-3 and Interceptor like Spits and Tempests or High-altitude longrange escort fighter like Mustang. Each of them were good in "theyr" role.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Yaks were never state of the art, and more, had several limitations, to mention poor armament, short range or not very good altitude performance as most important ones.

Poor armament? It had CENTRAL mounted 20mm cannon (wich is more accurant - and in that case deadly - compare with 2 wingmountaid Hispanos with Spit for example) and 1 or 2 12mm UB (with was the best highcaliber mashinegun of WW II). The lack of ammunition usually was reparated with very close range of fire - usually much less than 100 metres. At this range even short burst of 1x20+1x12 will destroy Bf109 or Fw190.

Short range - but was it so need to have LONG range on Ostfront? Main mistake of early WW II Soviet aircrafts was claim for "longrange" from VVS high command to aircraft developers, wich resulted to over heavying of MiG-3 and LaGG-3, making them "sitting ducks".

Altitude performance - as You know, VVS fighters were specialised on LOW altitudes, and from 42-43 most of VVS fighters were better (in some case - MUCH better) to accomplish MISSION TARGETS on lowaltitudes that Bf109's or Fw190's.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

From the actual Luftwaffe's standpoint they were never massacred on the east, rather forced to remove unit by the unit due to increasing losses on the west. Nothing on the east can be compared to such a hectic period like Battle of Normandy (which was typical ground support battle).

It is not a point of our discussion, but e.g. the LW losses between 22.061941 and 04.07.1941 was over 800 planes: so many losses in such short time happened never before and never after.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

BTW Some researchers claim Kursk was nothing particular from the German point of view, losses being about average.

It is easy to discuss with you. Some researchers... Name? And these some resarchers must take at least german officially loss stastistic and count it, if they can.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Yes, Mustang was a wunderwaffe.

It is your personally opinion, without any hard facts

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I would rather say, a general Soviet mentality, that disallows any serious discussion. I note Soviet and not Russian.

What is wrong with soviet mentality, explain please. Serious discussion need serious arguments. Unfortenatelly I can not acceppt argument "soviet propaganda" as serious.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Is that all? I would say it is not enough to discuss aircraft performance.

The speed and climbing rate are two key performance indicator for the figher, especially for the soviet-german front. If the german improved these both, they have automatically advantage, what cause higher soviet and lower german losses.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

If you have bothered to read my other posts, you would easily find that I am very critical on German loss data. Nonetheless it is not the point. Victories were achieved on such obsolete aircraft like Fiat CR.42, Gladiator or I-15, but nobody will consider this a proof of their technical superiority. Yaks were never state of the art, and more, had several limitations, to mention poor armament, short range or not very good altitude performance as most important ones. Some people claim that Yak-3 was a most promising and nice Soviet fighter, but nobody takes in mind it had performance comparable with Spitfire V trop. It was enough to get a Me 109G in infavourable position, but it would be interesting to compare this 1944 aircraft with such ones like Meteor, Mustang, Spitfire XIV or Tempest.

Well and Aerocobra was a fantastic planes without these shortcomings?LOL!
It is true, soviet planes was not technically perfect. But the soviet industry was able to provide the planes which were at least equal to the germans. And this is with unbelievable limited ressources and under unbelievable severe condition. And with these planes the VVS was able to protect the ground forces and protect own attack planes. And why we must compare our planes with Mustang or Tempest that appears 2-3 years later under quite peaceful condition?

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

It depends what you consider a copy. You can make direct one like Tu-4 but you can also copy aerodynamical or technological features, not to mention equipment or engines. Soviets copied for example BMWs, Jumos, RR Derwents and Nenes which allowed them to get into the jet age. There was a plan to copy a Me 262, but it was abandoned in favour of a very similar Su-9 fighter. I have had in my own hands several pieces of equipment that were direct copies of western one, eg. flight parameter recorder, which used (IIIRC) 1'3/4 inch film (not metric anyway).

You wrote in your previous post "Soviets copied western aircraft". It look for me, that beside case of Tu-4, you can not prove your word. QED

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Evgeny Velichko

As far as I know, Yak-3 will easily outclimb, outrun, outmaneuver each of them (exept JET - Meteor) on altitudes below at least 3-4k. The things will shange ABOVE.

I am afraid it would not be that easy, especially with Tempest.

Also, I think it is not good to compare low-level tacktical FRONT fighter as Yak-3 and Interceptor like Spits and Tempests or High-altitude longrange escort fighter like Mustang. Each of them were good in "theyr" role.

I would say Tempest played exactly the same role as Yak-3, but there is no point in inventing a category to prove quality of Yak. It could have been a perfect toy as well.

Poor armament? It had CENTRAL mounted 20mm cannon (wich is more accurant - and in that case deadly - compare with 2 wingmountaid Hispanos with Spit for example) and 1 or 2 12mm UB (with was the best highcaliber mashinegun of WW II). The lack of ammunition usually was reparated with very close range of fire - usually much less than 100 metres. At this range even short burst of 1x20+1x12 will destroy Bf109 or Fw190.

We compare Yak with Tempest or Mustang, do not we? I agree that Mustang was a little bit weak on armament, but still 4 or 6x .50 was a good fire power. Add to this a gyro gunsight which was quickly becoming a standard in 1944. No, Yak stood no chance.

Short range - but was it so need to have LONG range on Ostfront? Main mistake of early WW II Soviet aircrafts was claim for "longrange" from VVS high command to aircraft developers, wich resulted to over heavying of MiG-3 and LaGG-3, making them "sitting ducks".

I do not think any of mentioned fighters was overloaded, still having superior range. And range is very important - Luftwaffe was wiped out just because of it. I do not mention famous story of Me 109 over London.

Altitude performance - as You know, VVS fighters were specialised on LOW altitudes, and from 42-43 most of VVS fighters were better (in some case - MUCH better) to accomplish MISSION TARGETS on lowaltitudes that Bf109's or Fw190's.

No, they were 'specialised' because Soviet industry was unable to provide high altitude engines. That is why Spitfires served long years after the war in Soviet Air Defence.

Originally Posted by kalender1973

It is not a point of our discussion, but e.g. the LW losses between 22.061941 and 04.07.1941 was over 800 planes: so many losses in such short time happened never before and never after.

Compare it to number of sorties flown and number of enemies. Much more numerous Soviet aviation was within few months put on the knees, and Stalin begged for any aircraft from the west.

It is easy to discuss with you. Some researchers... Name? And these some resarchers must take at least german officially loss stastistic and count it, if they can.

For example from the team, Paweł Burchardt worked with. I believe Niklaas Zetterling had similar conclusions.

It is your personally opinion, without any hard facts

Definetelly Mustangs over Berlin were soft facts. As soft as Goering's pants.

What is wrong with soviet mentality, explain please. Serious discussion need serious arguments. Unfortenatelly I can not acceppt argument "soviet propaganda" as serious.

For example they will invent new categories of weapons just to prove they were successful while they were not. Something like Tsarpushka complex, but more sophisticated.

The speed and climbing rate are two key performance indicator for the figher, especially for the soviet-german front. If the german improved these both, they have automatically advantage, what cause higher soviet and lower german losses.

How do they change?

Well and Aerocobra was a fantastic planes without these shortcomings?LOL!
It is true, soviet planes was not technically perfect. But the soviet industry was able to provide the planes which were at least equal to the germans. And this is with unbelievable limited ressources and under unbelievable severe condition. And with these planes the VVS was able to protect the ground forces and protect own attack planes. And why we must compare our planes with Mustang or Tempest that appears 2-3 years later under quite peaceful condition?

I do not care about conditions. It is not my problem. We compare aircraft and we compare Yak-3 with Tempest because both entered service in 1944, and would face each other in case of conflict.

You wrote in your previous post "Soviets copied western aircraft". It look for me, that beside case of Tu-4, you can not prove your word. QED

OK, Aist (Storch), PS-84 (DC-3), GST (PBY), etc. It does not matter, some of them were under licence. It does matter the technology went to the Soviet Union and not the other way.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

For example from the team, Paweł Burchardt worked with. I believe Niklaas Zetterling had similar conclusions.

But the number of Pawel Burchard says somethig else.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Definetelly Mustangs over Berlin were soft facts. As soft as Goering's pants.

I undestand. Goering saw Mustangs and Hitler commit therefore suicide.

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

For example they will invent new categories of weapons just to prove they were successful while they were not. Something like Tsarpushka complex, but more sophisticated.

Next time the russian will request poles assist

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

I do not care about conditions. It is not my problem. We compare aircraft and we compare Yak-3 with Tempest because both entered service in 1944, and would face each other in case of conflict.

Clear its not your problem. Your only problem is hatred against all sowiet and I would say russian. Therefore you lost a last bit of objectivity

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by kalender1973

Hm, my number is from Prien JG1/11. It could be other mission or combined mission with 15th Air Force. Or my memory is not good
I can not verify your info about range of P47 but it was primary escort fighter until march/april and in this time the 8th Air force attack e.g. Eisenach, Marburg, Magdeburg,Schweinfurt, Stuttgart, Regensburg, all points deep in Germany. Who provide the escorts?

The P-47 was used for the short/medium range escort.

At the end of July 1943, the P-47s got the leaky 200gal drop tanks. This allowed the P-47 to reach the German/Dutch border. In mid Jan 1944 the much better 150gal d/t was introduced. This allowed the P-47 to reach the Dummer Lake area.

On May 8 1944 the 56th FG claimed 6 enemy a/c while the 352cd FG claimed 27 enemy a/c out of the total of 44 enemy a/c claimed that day. The ascendancy of the P-51 is clearly shown.

Source of my data for May 12 1944
http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by Kutscha

The P-47 was used for the short/medium range escort.

On May 8 1944 the 56th FG claimed 6 enemy a/c while the 352cd FG claimed 27 enemy a/c out of the total of 44 enemy a/c claimed that day. The ascendancy of the P-51 is clearly shown.

Source of my data for May 12 1944
http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/

But without this short/medium escort the success of operation was not possible. Only with few P-51 the 8th air force only repeat the desaster of october 43 again and again.

Generally I am confidence, that LW in the west was not destroyed during strategic bomber operation in jan-may 1944. It suffers high losses but was still able to fight back. And only landing in the Normandy( and opening of 4rd major air front) bring LW to death. And in tactical air war was the role of P-51 no more significant as Spitfire or P-47

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by kalender1973

Generally I am confidence, that LW in the west was not destroyed during strategic bomber operation in jan-may 1944. It suffers high losses but was still able to fight back. And only landing in the Normandy (and opening of 4rd major air front) bring LW to death. And in tactical air war was the role of P-51 no more significant as Spitfire or P-47

You certainly have a point if we consider the night battle. Not a little part of the strategic (bomber) offensive. The major factor in the shift of balance was the loss of France and its forward airspace.

Not sure if you have a point regarding the P-51 though. Although I tend to agree that its impact is sometimes overstated, it was nonetheless the increase in numbers of (strategic / long range) escort fighters that shifted the balance in the West during the day. This also allowed for a massive increase in tactical fighters, or fighter-bombers. Perhaps the increase in tactical air power was more significant in defeating the Germans in the West than the Strategic element etc.

The air war is unfortunately more complex in terms of events than for instance the U-boat offensive in the Atlantic, where May 1943 can be clearly pointed as a turning point. But even this event is the culmination of many factors, including numbers, type of, weapons and tactics used by the allied escorts.

In the air war we don't have this clear cut situation. Day vs Night, East vs West. Tactical vs Strategic etc.

Of course there is an abundance of figures, but even hard data is prone to interpretation that suits the argument.

A good example is how the early fighting in the West in 1940 is not taken into the Battle of Britain equation. Whereas the first of the few did include the French (or like some may argue Poles), we barely regard them as such.

Instead of growing for a strategic offensive against Britain, the Jagdwaffe barely managed to regain the number it started the war with (an error to repeated in 1941 against the Soviet Union). There wasn't any significant growth until it was already too late to turn the combined Allied tidal wave, culminating in the huge discrepancy in numbers by 1944.

The most significant early turning point was of course the day the Third Reich invaded the Soviet Union, spreading its Jagdwaffe to the point where it operated beyond its capacity to maintain an offensive on any front: the western front, the Atlantic, North Africa, the Mediterranean and Eastern Front. The Western Allies would of course profit most from this early phase since they could concentrate significant forces on the periphery whereas the Reich could not. Even the main western front was a peripheral air front in the eyes of the Luftwaffe (until mid 1943).

The role of the Soviet Union, or Russia, in absorbing the main fighting strength in the critical 1941-42 years, in the air, but most importantly on land and the industrial output that had to go with it, can't be overstated enough.

Without Barbarossa however the chances of Britain standing alone to widthstand a continued and concentrated German effort were IMHO bleak, let alone the chance of any offensive posture on the periphery.

In short the Third Reich, like the Luftwaffe, chewed off more than it could ever hope to swallow.

All IMHO, of course.