"History" and the History Channel

[Leo Etgen]

Hello guys

As stated before, I am glad that The History Channel is broadcasting Dogfights, I think that it is an interesting program and as it is one of the most popular programs of that channel it hopefully will inspire others to become interested in this aspect of military history. However, I stand by my original comments. Just one example of where I believe the producers erred: I remember very well that in the Flying Tigers episode it was stated that the AVG shot down 24 Japanese aircraft without loss on 25 December 1941 over Rangoon. I am no AVG scholar but just by visiting www.warbirdforum.com/rangoon4.htm on Dan Ford's web site I can see that the true Japanese losses were far less - four Sally twin-engined bombers and four Nate fighters (and any claims must include those of 67 Sqn, RAF which suffered five pilot casualties that day by the way). Stating that 24 Japanese aircraft were shot down is an egregious error by any standard. It should have been stated that the AVG (and RAF) claimed 24 victories that day. My second observation is merely personal and not a criticism. As someone whose primary interest is the Luftwaffe, I wish that once in a while there would be an episode that highlights the achievements of the great German aces as they too have a story to tell. It is my personal belief that most Americans would be dumbstruck if they knew of the career of Oberstleutnant Heinz Bär for example. At the same time, though, I realize that this is an American show, for an American audience, and not many Americans would be interested in the exploits of the other side. Nevertheless, it would be enlightening for them and the global audience that Dogfights reaches to have exposure to the Luftwaffe aces' achievements as well.

Horrido!

Leo

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Leo Etgen

Hello John

Ouch! That would be painful! Thanks for explaining the difference between the two versions. I must admit that my knowledge of Vietnam era aerial combat is rather scant. That is why I did actually find the Dogfights episodes on that subject rather interesting. For what I have read, the main reason for the difficulties that the USAF had over 'Nam were: lack of training for classic dog fighting, reliance on missiles instead of guns in the belief that the former made the latter superfluous (technically true but the missile technology of the time was not up to task in high G maneuvers) and poor, politically inspired tactics such as approaching targets through standard routes and not attacking North Vietnamese air control centers due to fear of escalating the conflict as Chinese and Russian technicians were there. I must admit that for what I have seen, most of the USAF losses were due to ground fire and SAMs and not so much to MiGs. A tough job and hats off to the guys who were doing as best they could in a difficult and unpopular war. Even though Dogfights does have its problems at least there is a television program out there about a subject that we all are interested in. That gives me an opportunity to demonstrate my superiority to my coworkers when I run my mouth critiquing the latest episode!

Horrido!

Leo

Leo - good synopsis. There is another factor on the ratios that is important.

A high percentage of the air to air losses were F105s vs MiGs at medium to low altitudes- where the only advantage the 105 had was raw speed - it could outrun anything on the deck. Interestingly enough the 355TFW (son of 355th FG) for a long time was the high scorer with 23 in 66 and 67 - all with guns. They got one more in 73 with A7D

Their air losses against the much more agile MiG skewed the ratios pretty badly.

Also somewhat interesting is that the 355th dropped 202,000 tons of bombs on NV - approximately 1/3 the tonnage dropped by 8th AF Bomber Command on Germany during WWII...

Regards,

Bill

[mayfair35]

Leo.

With your permission, I will quote your message to the Dog Fight producers. I am sure it was a careless mistake using "shot-down" vs "claimed". Although I wonder if they are familiar with the site you mentioned. Nevertheless, I note that our fighter group (325th) claims did not match claimed German losses in every instance and in some cases, pilots were given credit for a victory that perhaps led to their being designated as aces! Thank God for good wingmen and gun camera film.

Cordially, Art Fiedler

[Leo Etgen]

Hello guys

Bill: Thank you for your support! I do have an article in an aviation magazine that basically states what you wrote on your post concerning the "Thud's" extraordinarily high speed at low altitude. Another factor that I think helps explain the rather high losses of the F-105 to the MiGs is that in nearly every case where an aircraft was used primarily in a ground attack/close air support/tactical role (Kittyhawk fighters in North Africa, Il-2 and Fw 190 F-8 aircraft over the Eastern Front to even occasionally P-47 and P-51 fighters over Normandy) these were very vulnerable to "bouncing" enemy fighters. I get the impression that this was often the case in Vietnam. When the USAF pilots were forewarned that MiGs were about and thus were prepared to engage them the NVPAF pilots did not fare so well. One also has to take into account that for the MiGs it was a "target rich environment" where as not so for the USAF. This same factor helps explain the Luftwaffe aces' often high totals, especially on the Eastern Front, as compared to Allied aces (as well as the often far greater number of missions flown). I believe that you wrote that your father claimed his seven victories in his first 30 missions and afterwards never saw another enemy for the remainder of the 70 missions that he flew. Doubtless, if he had been flying in a similar environment he would have claimed a considerable amount more of victories. Of course, the flip side to operating in a "target rich environment" is that there are that many more "targets" hunting you too! Your information about the bomb tonnage dropped by the 355th TFW as compared to the "Mighty Eighth" is indeed amazing...
Art: Unfortunately I live outside the USA so it will be a while before I can see the Dogfights episode in which you appear. I am very anxious to see it as it is remarkable that I have the opportunity to correspond with a World War II veteran (and an ace at that!) and always read your posts eagerly. Your posts add a vividness to this part of history that is often lacking in published accounts. I am sure that it was an oversight on the part of the script writers rather a deliberate attempt to distort what really happened on the AVG episode. I realize that in aerial combat it is next to impossible to verify if or not an enemy aircraft really was shot down. Certainly the USAAF did its best to establish a rigorous procedure in order to do so, a process that was greatly enhanced by the introduction of gun cameras. I will also take this opportunity to thank you for your service and to acknowledge the sacrifice of your friends who did not return.

Horrido!

Leo

[NickM]

Leo:

The F-105s suffered surprisingly LOW losses to MiG17s & all 22 of THEIR kills were of MiG17s too; the fact that the 'Thud' had an internal cannon & had the speed advantage explained their surprising success;

HOWEVER...per Marshall Michel's book 'Clashes'(I STRONGLY Recommend THIS BOOK, by the way!)the F-105s most of their air-to -air losses to Atoll Missile equipped MiG21s; The 'Thuds' may have been fast at low level but given their size & weight they had rather poor acceleration and they were BADLY outclassed by the MiG21s; the standard tactic of a MiG21 was to zip into at high speed, fire their Atolls & blow right past them...as a rule they were too fast for a Thud to catch & the F-105s were too slow to run away---don't forget that F-105s were probably flying at a fairly slow cruising speed AND laden with bombs & droptanks. AND afterburners don't help much: lighting up that blowtorch with a interceptor armed with HEAT SEEKING MISSILES behind you is a bad idea...

NM

[NickM]

Guys:

Yesterday I saw the ep based on WW1 pilots....In particular it was Ernst Udet vs Georges Guynemer (sp??) and Werner Voss vs James McCudden AND his whole squadron....it appears that in absence of a living ace to interview, the computer guys can only animate IF the surviving participants wrote extensively about the experience (Udet of his fight with Guynemer; McCudden & his squadron's dogfight with Voss)...so, it looks like we probably won't see anything from a Luftwaffe ace (OR Soviet-in-Korea OR the NVAF Aces) any time soon unless there are written recollections out there that will allow someone to reconstruct a particular fight....

NM

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by NickM

Leo:

The F-105s suffered surprisingly LOW losses to MiG17s & all 22 of THEIR kills were of MiG17s too; the fact that the 'Thud' had an internal cannon & had the speed advantage explained their surprising success;

You're quite right. I keep getting 23 in the count. Let's compare notes as I am updating Angels Bulldogs and Dragons to include much more 355TFW history including the two MOH's.



NM

Nick - contact me via PM and I'll send you my spreadsheet (never mind - I just found a 388TFW score buried in the 355th database section - your 22 is correct for 355/105's and correct total for 355TFW until the A-7D score for 1973 is added -

The 355th TFW ended up with 23 total, 22 to F-105s - all guns

[Leo Etgen]

Hello guys

I don't want to transmit you false information concerning a subject that I know little about but the magazine article I have states that the F-105 recorded 27.5 victories. Are the 22 victories those for the 355th TFW? Nick, your description of the MiG-21 tactics is identical to that described in one of the Dogfights episodes! It was about how Colonel Robin Olds led a formation of F-4 aircraft mimicking F-105 aircraft so as to entice the MiG-21 fighters into aerial combat with the Phantoms. Apparently the MiG-21 fighters preferred to engage the F-105 using the tactics that you describe and not so much the F-4. At any rate, the NVPAF rose to the bait and were decimated. A rather interesting and educational episode at least for me.

Horrido!

Leo

[mayfair35]

Leo thank you for your kind comments. I too am interested in the Luftwaffe but unfortunately I believe the scope of such a program is beyond that of Dog Fights. Perhaps someone in Germany would be willing to fund such an endeavor.
I thought you might be interested in the following:
Your comment about victories recalled a story from our Camarillo Air Show this year. In April 1945, Joe Peterburs, flying a Mustang, observed four or five Me-262s making a pass at the B-17s he was escorting. Diving down to gain enough airspeed to catch the 262s, he caught up with the leader, Walter Schuck, just as he downed his FOURTH B-17 on this pass. Opening fire, Joe got good hits on the port engine of the Me-262, which immediately dove down into some clouds. Joe could not catch him and thought nothing further about it. He did not know that a few moments later, Walter’s plane became uncontrollable, and Walter had to bail out. Thus, Joe had a victory that he knew nothing about.
Just as an aside, a couple minutes later, Joe and his wingman observed an airfield near Berlin loaded with aircraft and decided to strafe it. On the 2nd pass, Joe’s wingman was shot down; on the 3rd pass, Joe was shot down. He bailed out, was captured, became a POW, escaped, found a Russian tank unit, and fought with them for several days.
Aviation historians tried unsuccessfully for many years to identify the American Mustang pilot who shot down Schuck. Finally, someone realized there was an error identifying the towns, part of Peterburs’ story was revealed, and to make it short, it was deduced that it could only be Peterburs that shot down Schuck. The two are now the best of friends and in recounting their stories, it became clear that Peterburs was definitely the one who had shot down Schuck.
It was surprising that it took over 60 years to sort this one out so, Leo, I agree that it is hard to identify who shot whom down or even if someone was shot down in these various encounters. I admire your ability in English. I gave up on my German many years ago!
Cordially, Art Fiedler

[NickM]

Leo:

Well, the primary objective of the NVAF fighter force was to engage fighter-bombers & 'disrupt' their missions any way possible-whether shooting them down or forcing them to jettison their payloads before they get to the target, whatever worked...Later in the war: Late 67-68 & during 'Linebacker' the MiG21s used that same tactic to great effect against F4s either acting as 'fixed/close' escort, chaffers or bombers: F4s were HUGE & VERY smoky & could be visually ID-ed for miles, while a MiG21 was quite small & had a smokeless engine. Often, by the time they were seen by US pilots, the Migs had already launched their Atoll missiles & were accelerating for home at supersonic speed or repositioning for another engagement;

Another thing that I remember from the Robin Olds episode: the show mentioned how the Sparrow & Sidewinder (and to some extent the Atoll) had VERY poor reliability & poor performance----THAT little mia culpa was unusual to hear on a US TV show...