MARSEILLE his last kill

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

1. In all the excitement, did anyone ever actually come up with an answer to the original question in this thread?

Yes, likely 601 Sqn. It is about 10 minutes of work, starting the count down at the time you passed those nice gentlemen at the entry. Sadly, I am too far away from NA to help.

2. The discussions about skill and experience seemed to be passing over combat fatigue/stress. People can onlt take so much. For very good reasons, the RAF and USAAF flew operational tours; the Luftwaffe kept people in action until death, injury or promotion supervened. Read Robert Forsyth's "JV 44, The Galland Circus" and you come away with the feeling that some of the "greats" were burned out by 1945.

It seems a myth. You can find a lot of photos of eg. Graff during the holidays, Wick received order to not to fly combat missions just when he took off for his last mission, Galland survived the war, he was removed from the combat flying much earlier than the comparable Allied aces. Certianly the sustem was not Allied look alike but somehow Hartmann picked up Uschi, did not he?

Cheers

[Christer Bergström]

you come away with the feeling that some of the "greats" were burned out

There is a special German term for "burned out" pilots (or even whole air units) which I haven't been able to find a suitable translation to (maybe someone can help me?) - "abgeflogen".

Pilots who were found to be "abgeflogen" usually were sent either on furlough in Germany, or to an Ergänzungsgruppe (replacement unit) in the rear where they could recover. Some never were returned to first-line service after being posted to such a "rest". (Even Hartmann was sent on furlough in May 1943, after it was judged that he was "abgeflogen"; see the "Graf & Grislawski" book, p. 161.)

Walter Schuck (whose biography I am writing at the present) went on furlough four times during his period of service with JG 5 from April 1942 to February 1945.

Top aces whom the Nazi leadership was particularly eager to "save" for propaganda reasons were often forbidden to fly more combat missions after they had reached a certain "even" number of victories. Like Mölders following his 100th, Gollob after his 150th, Graf after his 200th, and Nowotny after his 250th.

So the German pilots were not plainly "flown to death".

However, the American "tour" system had no equivalence in the Luftwaffe. One important reason of course was that the USA had enormous masses of people, whereas the German access to soldiers was more limited.

Of course only the most thick-skinned German pilots were able to cope with up to 800 combat missions or even more. In those cases, I don't think there were any symptoms of being "abgeflogen". One of the pilots who flew together with Alfred Grislawski in the fall of 1944 (i.e. when Grislawski had logged about 800 combat missions in almost constant first-line action since 1941) describes his impression of Grislawski by that time:

"Grislawski was a great 'shooter' and fighter, who roamed through the four-engined bombers' formations from in the front and scored his victories faster than the eye could see."

[Boandlgramer]

maybe the word is " abgekämpft" ?

[Juha]

On the JV 44 pilots

Maybe some of the "greats" were not burnt out but simply didn't adapt to new tactics needed with Me 262.



When Finns got Bf 109Gs they found out that some of their "greats" could not adapt to their new mount after successful careers as Curtiss Hawk 75 or Brewster 239 pilots and on the other hand some with a few kills on those earlier manouvrable fighters began increase their kills rapidly after they got into Bf 109.



But of course some of the old hands were simply tired.



On Soviet fighters

Finns considered the late Soviet fighters dangerous enemies to Bf 109G. One must of course remember that on most of the Finnish AF Bf 109Gs the possibility of the use of the take-off and emergency power (1475hp) was disconnected.
And when one reads the combat reports it seemed that the pilots gave most positive discriptions on Yak-9s but when one looks on victory and loss tables in Keskinen's and Stenman's LeR 3 and compares those claims/losses were the Finnish researchers think that they have found match from Soviet combat reports one got an impression that in reality La-5 was the most dangerous opponent and Yak-9 was only as dangerous as P-39.

Little bit off topic, I'm afraid. On Marseille, IMHO is that he was one of those few great aces who found out a tactic that suited them and their a/c and in their combat enviroment. He seemed not to be so robush personality than some of the other "greats" but was exceptional anyway.

[Kaiyan]

Please forgive me for any amd all errors
this is my first post and I am some what overcome by the depth of knowledge of
the expertes.
but and please excuse the capitals WHAT WAS THE MANS NAME"?
Iit is quite important because as we know the last mission always affects the next. Is it becuse of this that one of the foremost aces of ww2 was brought down?

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Juha

On the JV 44 pilots

Maybe some of the "greats" were not burnt out but simply didn't adapt to new tactics needed with Me 262.

Even when the 262 seemed to offer an new and better way to add to their scores? You'd think that would appeal to the warrior-hunter ethos that had been fostered in the Luftwaffe's glory days.

It's just that I came away from Forsyth's book noticing that some of the "greats" didn't seem to have done that much combat flying with JV 44.

Galland pulled a couple of them out the Bad Wiessee rest home to take part. Given the desperate state of Germany and the Luftwaffe in early 1945 (and the often reported shortage of experienced formation leaders), it's hard to imagine them being on extended holiday by the lakes if they were fully fit. Hohagen certainly wasn't, according to Galland.

His postwar account of JV 44 was, in my view, an attempt to do his best for his old friends' reputations. IIRC the NCO pilots barely figured in "The First and the Last."

[Juha]

Hello Nick

I didn’t deny that some of the pilots suffered from combat fatigue but only suggested that some might have been problems to adapt to new and different tactics and the new way of piloting.



I don’t think that the analogy with some Finnish pilots who didn’t success to continue their up to then excellent track records when they changed from by then rather “tired” Brewster 239s to Bf 109Gs in 1943 and 1944 is too far fetched. To at least some of them seemed simply to be unable to adapt to the new tactics needed and to the different behaviour of Bf 109G. When their leaders noticed that some of them were moved away and some simply got fewer opportunities to fly. Of course You might be entirely correct on Galland’s motives. I have read the "The First and the Last" in late 60s and after that haven’t gave much thought on that. So I haven’t opinion on that.


Juha

[Franek Grabowski]

Juha and Nick
You both may be correct. It must be remebered that was quite a different bird, however.
Concerning Soviet aircraft, of course they could have been and were dangerous but still they were years behind western aircraft. Performances of 1944 Soviet fighters put them on the same general level like Spitfire V, Me 109F or P-39. They lacked altitude performance of Spitfire IX or Me 109G and were nowhere near new toys like Tempest, Spitfire XIV or P-51.

[david Cotton]

Hello all.
Im back... being doing a bit of commissioning work in Turkey.

Regarding the performance of Russian Planes. The fighter is ment to gain air superiroity over the battle field. If the Russian Fighters could achieve that at low level then they were adiquate for the job. The quantaty and quality seem to of been good enougth to allow their ground attack air craft to swarm over the battle field.

Regarding Combat Stress - I do not think Marselle suffered from Stress, I think maybe he was simply shocked by a few near misses.

With JV44 it must of been very hard not to feel burnt out. Your whole world would of being falling apart around you.

Regards
David

[Franek Grabowski]

Hello

Originally Posted by david Cotton

Regarding the performance of Russian Planes. The fighter is ment to gain air superiroity over the battle field. If the Russian Fighters could achieve that at low level then they were adiquate for the job. The quantaty and quality seem to of been good enougth to allow their ground attack air craft to swarm over the battle field.

It is not possible to gain superiority without altitude performance. It is a principle of aircombat that did not change since WWI. Germans lost the airwar on the west and this influenced situation on the east. Quality and performance of Soviet aircraft had nothing to it.
Myths concerning ground attack aircraft is another long story!
Regards