Thunderbolts and Mustangs versus the Jagdwaffe (split topic)

[Franek Grabowski]

Ruy
This was discussed ad nauseam, hence my short reply. Yes, I stand by my words and I do not buy argument about books, sorry. For me, a daily report of 2 TAF operations provided more important details than any of the books I have seen. Please note, that most of the books reffer to kills, markings or other actually not important issues.
The basic of aerial warfare is to hit enemy and not to suffer losses. This is realised by simple way of attacking enemy on the ground or during take off or landing, where he cannot defend himself. Of course, this is the best to achieve, when own aircraft are based behind enemy's operational range and own aircraft are able to hit him at home, and the best way to achieve this is to have superior range. Another important advance is ability to engage the enemy as long as he cannot return to own base, thus either forcing him to disengage and to be in infavourable position or to cause him to land or crash in field due to lack of fuel. This is obvious but it is rarely mentioned in books, usually discussing 'medieval style' dog fights.
Thus said and realising the standard Normandy route of Mustangs and Thunderbolts covered either airfields in Paris or Le Mans area, it is clear the enormous range combined with numerical inferiority of Luftwaffe was a decisive factor in the German failure of achievieng any objectives.
Finally regarding knowledge, I assume I have better one than you on this particular issue for a very practical reason. I have researched operations over Normandy and in particular of 133 Wing based on primary documents, pilots' interviews, etc. My personal friends flew there, so it is no wonder my knowledge is a little bit deeper than yours. This is not meant as an offence, just only clearing the situation. I have a draft of an article covering the campaign, but I find it a very hard task, because of just too many factors involved, also including radar control of the battlefield.