LUFTWAFEE 1946 (Would Have Happened if ...)

The Me-109 in all it's various versions shot down more EA than the ten best allied types combined!
I simply state the fact that it shot down more EA than any six allied AC types!

I agree that actual numbers would be useful, but even if one of these claims is accurate, all it signifies is that the Me109 was the predominant German fighter, one of only two that the Luftwaffe used in significant numbers, while Allied claims are divided among a dozen or so major types.

The 109 was also unusual in serving for the entire war; the only other such fighters were the Spitfire and Hurricane, the latter being phased out of air-to-air action in the second half. Being the only German single-seat fighter for almost two years also helped run up the 109's score.

 

Where did you get this number? From everything I have read, the USAAF lost many more planes than 6,800 to enemy action.
Then, there is the totals of Aces numbering over 45,000 in just those Experten who claimed 40 or more EA. How about we just count those pilots with 150 or more kills? The Nazis had over 2,880 Aces. If each of them only had 5 kills each, that would be over 14,400 EA destroyed. It is simply not possible for all those AC to have failed to RTB WO help.

 

That was just the USAAF, then there was the RAF's losses, the Soviet's, the French, the Poles, and other smaller nations........destroying 6,800 USAAF aircraft is impressive, no matter who you ask.

 

You have been given that information previously...USAAF Statistical Digest.

Further, we are talking about losses ONLY to enemy aircraft...If Flak guns downed aircraft, the ME-109 did not.
(pg. 255)Aircraft losses on combat missions in the ETO attributed to enemy aircraft.....4,274
(pg. 256)Aircraft losses on combat missions in the MTO attributed to enemy aircraft....2,526(Of course, Italian, and the minor Axis powers scored their share.)
Total....6,800 aircraft losses to enemy aircraft in the MTO & ETO

Just any FYI...Flak downed more US aircraft than the purported German Aces
Losses to Flak
ETO...5,380
MTO...2,441
Total...7,821

Given the habitual German overclaiming(versus actual Western Allied losses) of 3-1...Your 45,000 becomes 15,000. Which is much less impressive.

 

Indeed and note that I did not use the Statistical Digest's stated claims of 10,722 German aircraft shot down by fighters to declare that the P-51 was the best fighter in USAAF inventory. Claims and losses are two very different things.

 

You are very perceptive, but missed the point. It is taken as fact that the Germans did shoot down tens of thousands of EA. They only had two significant types of Single Engine Fighter aircraft. Their own records show that the vast super majority of their targets were downed by the Me-109 family of aircraft. Most of their greatest "Experten" flew the 109 exclusively and if you were to count the numbers of victories of just the top list of pilots who downed 100 or more EA you quickly reach numbers of Allied targets that greatly exceed the numbers of German planes downed by all Allied types.
Then you compare that to the only two other types of Single Engined Fighters that served through out the entire war, both of which turned out to be very poor fighter planes from a design stand point. Low wing loading and wing mounted guns for example. When what was needed was a zoom and boom assassin that the great pilots used to hunt down their targets with almost certain immunity. While those that choose to dog fight were eventually shot down by an unseen enemy out of the melee.

 

Yes you are absolutely right, but even so, 15,000 is still a number that greatly exceeds any number from any Allied aircraft type. Who shot down the vast numbers of Russian planes lost? What about the tens of thousands of planes downed by the ~2,500 Aces who shot down 40 or less aircraft each?
Then there is the simple fact that it is very hard to tell how many planes were shot down while leaving the furball away from friendly eyes and possibly attributed to Flack? No one can know those exact figures!
The only possible explanation is to take the Victory counts at face value for all sides because over claiming was so much more extant than any Nation wants to admit. And the Germans were less likely to do so than most other AFs.
I suggest that you read Mike Spick's book on Aces and the second book, also by Spick "The Ace Factor" as he gives a very good reason why and how most of your objections can be rationalized.
In any case, no other aircraft can be imagined to have shot down so many planes as the 109! It is impossible to make a good explanation of why any other aircraft should be rated higher than the Me-109 family of planes. Secondly, the Germans were very meticulous about how they modified their aircraft as the war progressed. The 109 started out with two low MV 20 mm cannons, one in each wing, but after the BoB they dropped that and willingly switched to a single better 20 mm gun in the nose. The design of the Fw-190 benefited from such knowledge and had 2/3rds of its guns on or very near to the plane's CL. The TA-152H eliminated the two wing mounted MG-FFs and had only the three guns on or near the aircraft's CL. The Ta-152C could mount two additional Mk-151/20s in the cowl over the engine making five cannon total, all on or near the CL. This is only one of many persuasive arguments in favor of CL mounted guns. The P-38 was famous for it's firepower and justly so. The P-47 had twice as many .50s and had a good, but not great rep for fire power. Another nail in the coffin of wing mounted guns. Watch enough gun camera film and you too will come to the same conclusion.

 

The P-38 was much more forgiving to new pilots than most single engined Aircraft, both the Spitfire and Me-109 killed many more pilots than died in -38s.

[QUOTE="An aerodynamic edge? What is an aerodynamic edge? That the plane is hard to stall...That the plane is easy to recover from a stall? That the plane is forgiving to fly?.[/QUOTE] No, that it has aerodynamic traits that other aircraft do not have, such as the Leading edge slats on the 109 and 262, or the "Combat Maneuver" flap's setting on the P-38, or the large portion of the wing blown by prop wash on the P-38, or the high aspect ratio wings of the P-38 and Ta-152H that give it better sustained maneuver ability, and lastly CL mounted guns.

[QUOTE="Good CL mounted guns? Hardly a requirement for a "great" fighter. Many "great" fighters didn't have them, and many mediocre fighters did..[/QUOTE]
I guess we differ as to what a great fighter was. I discount the Spitfire due to loosing more than they won, the Hurricane because of it's lack of speed in spite of being a much better gun platform than the Spit. Most Naval aircraft except the F6F which I discount as beating up on lessor planes in spite of it's defects. Leaving just the P-38, P-47 and P-51 on the allied side with only the P-38 counting as great! The other two only meeting two or three of the five criteria.

[QUOTE="Well, that's a no-brainer...All aircraft strived to go faster..[/QUOTE]
Yes, but few do. And this is "Usable Speed" which is defined as speed at altitude at Maximum Continuous, or sustained throttle, not TO Power, or War Emergency Power. There are really only five planes WO jet engines from WW-II that meet this criteria! The P-38, P-47, P-51, Fw-190D/Ta-152 and the Me-109! The first two because of their turbocharged engines gave them significant edges at altitude not matched by the other three on the list. The P-51 because of it's combined aerodynamic features, Laminar flow wing and radiator ducting. and the last two because they had bigger engines in the smallest possible plane.

[QUOTE="???
Cable, hydraulic, electric, electric-boosted...They all have their pluses and minuses.
And how well are the harmonized? The A6M had excellent controls at low and mid speeds, but they quickly stiffened up as airspeed increased, while other aircraft performed better at high speeds..[/QUOTE] Made my point here as well. But some other points, The Spit also froze up at higher speed while none of the planes on the best five list above did.


[QUOTE="The A6M Zero was small & hard-to-see...It also tended to fall to pieces and/or explode under .50 caliber fire..[/QUOTE] Hard to see? With that great big wing and tail required for the low speed dogfighting they wanted? Right.

[QUOTE="As such, most aircraft tried to have altitude advantage and be in a hard-to-spot position(up sun)..[/QUOTE] Altitude advantage is a quality not related to the type of plane, but on the pilot's skill to achieve, or gain it.

[QUOTE="Now...Given Shooter2018's 5 criteria...The "best" fighter will be

with a .50 cal or two slung underneath

It has an aerodynamic edge - Nothing will outturn it.
It has "good" CL guns
It has well harmonized controls.
It is small and hard-to-see.

4 stars out of 5.[/QUOTE]
Nice Joke! However, only meets one of the five criteria. CL mounted guns. It has a huge wing and tail, almost as big as a P-47, making it easy to spot. While it may turn well at low speed, it's "Degrees per Second" while sustaining altitude is not that great and it's "Instantaneous Rate of Roll" to initiate the turn is crap. And if it had a "couple of fifties slung underneath" the aerodynamic performance would suffer greatly. Ever flown a two seater version? I have and except for getting you gently to altitude ~500' AGL, it's a clunker. While I freely admit that two fifties on the CL is better than good, the aerodynamic limits of the plane would preclude being able to soot at anything above your flight level. It can not be looped or climb at a rate over a few hundred FPS. Given the stick force required to hold a large bank angle, I do not think it has well harmonized controls. But that's just my humble opinion!
But, all in all, a great come back/joke! I do tend to let my Nerdness out of the box more than I should and this was great fun!!!

 

All above is true, but that 45,000 number does not count the tens of thousands of Allied planes shot down by the many times more numerous lesser Aces who shot down between five and forty planes each!

 

I never stated that the plane did not matter. I stated that, "In my opinion, it was 80% plane and 20% pilot."
One thing to remember 1% or all pilots shot down about 40% of all targets, then the next 4% shot down about 25% of all targets and the next 5% got about 15% and the last 40% of the top 50% shot down all of the remaining targets downed. The bottom 50% never shot down a single target between them! So a top pilot makes any plane look good, but a top plane makes even average pilots look good, thus the 80-20 rule.

 

While a great aircraft will make average or below average pilots look good, good rarely is good enough when you're going against superior pilots, even if they are in inferior aircraft.

 

The aerodynamic edge was a low polar moment of inertia and incredibly high rate of roll, both instantaneous and sustained. I did not remember that it vibrated terribly! I have read that before, but forgot it until just now.
As to the pilot's failure to perform an Immelmann and falling into a inverted flat spin, there are several ways to fix that, like the Germans did with the Fw-190. Very easy fix indeed. Increase the span of the empennage like they did with the P-51H and or add a plug to the aft fuselage like the Germans did with the Fw-190D! Any, or all things that could easily be done in further flight testing and conversion to an Aluminum airframe like I mentioned in my original posit.
While it is true that the first prototype did not mount guns, it had three lead bars bolted to the inside of the front wheel well. Two large and one small against the back bulkhead. The first plane carried the weight of the guns and ammo, but the second did in fact have two of the three guns mounted and test fired.
At 335 MPH it was faster than the Zero, Hurricane and probably 80% of the rest of all fighter planes built by all nations and all with out a supercharger giving just 525-550 HP. While the installation of either of the two types of blower under consideration would have made the plane very much faster. How fast was the Spitfire Mk-III at sea level? Slower than that, IIRC! On the other hand, if the unblown plane goes 335 MPH at sea level, then a conventional two speed single stage unit would raise the "at altitude speed" tremendously! 400 MPH calculated and certainly faster than the vast majority of Single Engined Fighter planes up to 1943+-? But what happens if they install the turbocharger? How fast do you think it would go with ~900 HP flat rated to 33,000'? Right!
So three easy fixes and a blower and it's off to the races with the smallest plane ever considered for combat. Sorry; the third easy fix is to loose the 20 mm cannon and install two paddle bladed counter rotating props on the crank CL. This gets you better vision over the nose and eliminates the "P" effect that makes all single engines planes WO them bad gun platforms. If I was going whole hog with OTS stuff, I'd also install double slotted Fowler flaps, drooping ailerons, leading edge slat and wet wings to give the plane the kind of range it needs late war.
PS. If it really does vibrate badly, then install "soft mounts" between the engine and fire wall. Four easy fixes and you have a world beater.

 

What if the plane was good enough to prevent closure on interception? It does not matter one bit if the plane you are flying is that much faster than your erstwhile killer. You see, the plane can make a huge difference, easily more than the best pilot!

 

Actually, it is reversed 20% plane & 80% pilot...At best, it is 50-50.

If a pilot cannot hit a target with 2 guns, he is not going to hit with 4, 6, or 8....Centerline guns or otherwise.

Hardly remarkable...Most times the Section Leader was the shooter & the wingman's job was to protect the Section Leader...Right there, you have just halved the number of pilots doing the shooting - From 100% to 50%. Or from 100% to 33% in the case of the British and Japanese who used 3-plane sections for sometime during the war, before they switched to 4-plane formations later in the war.

Then you have to figure in how many combat sorties actually made contact with enemy aircraft...German top ace Erich Hartmann flew 1,404 combat missions, but only encountered enemy aircraft in 825 of them.

F6F Hellcat pilot, Dick E. Mann, who flew off the USS Saratoga, and USS Monterey, never once encountered a Japanese aircraft in the air on his many combat missions flown. He bombed and strafed Japanese aircraft on the ground, but never saw one in the air.

Ummmm...Your not that good at math are you?

The top 5% of the pilots accounted for 65% of the kills...
The top 10% of the pilots accounted for 80% of the kills...
Thus...the bottom 90% accounted for only 20% of the total kills...

The only conclusion available is that a "Great" aircraft makes an average pilot look, just that, average.

 

That is purely circumstantial. Polish PZL P.11's shot down BF-109's.........even though there was an 80 mph difference between the two. In Vietnam, subsonic Mig-17's shot down American F-4's, F-8's, and F-105's, all of which were capable of going above mach 1.5. P-51's shot down Me-262's, A-1 Skyraiders shot down Mig-17's.........I could go on for a while. Just because you have a speed advantage, does not mean you are able to always use it, it is purely circumstantial......

 

Again, the Allies focused on a good many single seat fighters during the war (P-38, P-39/63, P-40, P-47, P-51, F4U, F4F/FM, F6F, Hurricane, Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest, I-153, I-16, LAGG-1, LAGG-3, La-5, La-7, MiG-1, MiG-3, Yak-1, Yak-3, Yak-7, Yak-9)

Germany...Only Me-109 & Fw-190.

So...Of Course...Allied fighters will not be dominant...That's 24 different Allied single-seater fighter types as opposed to two.

And that is just the Allied single seat fighters that were in mass production.

Open mouth...Insert shoe store.

Is not the Me-109...The "best" aircraft according to you...Simply, as you say in a later post...

Yes, yes, it most certainly is beating up on lesser planes in spite of it's defects...

Hmmmm...You discount the F6F Hellcat for doing the same thing the Me-109 is doing...

Nazi Fanboi much?
Hypocrite much?

Yes, I think you do.

Good reason to discount pilot claims and instead look at what the other side lost...Don't cha think?

Take victory counts at face value...Ah, yes...Make all lies truths, because all fighter pilots are liars.

Ummm, the Germans were less likely to do so? Proof please...

Quite the opposite, they had more reason to do so....They were losing the war for more often than they were winning it, certainly you have heard of the term "propaganda" haven't you?

Which Mike Spick book on Aces are you talking about?
Luftwaffe Fighter Aces
Aces of the Reich
Allied Fighter Aces
Luftwaffe Bomber Aces

You see...He's written several.

Further, I take it that you have never heard that old adage...If you have to rationalize something - Your wrong.
You see...If something is right and correct - it does not need to be rationalized.

Really...The most produced. longest serving, single engine fighter that fought in the war, shot down most aircraft...Who would have guessed.

Errr....No.

The Germans switched from the two low MV 20mm in the wings, to one low MV 20mm in the nose,but carrying twice the ammunition(F-1). This was later changed to the higher MV MG 151/15 15mm(F-2). Finally, the armament was again changed to the higher MV MG 151/20 20mm(F-4).

Finally, there were those aces that liked the change amd there were those who did not...

Must be more of that patented "video game" history...

Not sure what you point is here?
The Germans had achieved "the best of the best", according to you...Except, the Germans thought it was not the "best" and moved away from CL mounted guns.
Is this your point?

Odd then that the Germans did not mount all the guns on the centerline and eliminate the wing root guns. Except, the Germans eliminated the two cowl guns and kept the wing root guns. Which is the opposite of what you have been claiming.

The P-38 was also famous for being a lawn dart...But, I do not hear you mentioning that.

Actually...That would be another nail in the coffin for machine guns.
Cannons make bigger booms...The US Navy caught on first, but the USAAF would take some years to come around.

 

Sigh. No, not "right" at all. I can only repeat, if only pigs had wings they'd be pigeons.

The XP-77 achieved a top speed of 330 MPH at 4,000 feet. Not 335 MPH and not at sea level. It achieved a top speed of 328 MPH at 12,600 feet. Initial climb rate was 3,600 feet per minute, and an altitude of 9000 feet could be attained in 3.7 minutes. It's service ceiling was 30,100 feet. To get there the weight cutting eliminated the 20mm, leaving your world beater with two .50 caliber as armament. It's near contemporary, the P-51B-1-NA, achieved a maximum speed was 395 mph at 5000 feet, 417 mph at 10,000 feet, 426 mph at 20,000 feet, 439 mph at 25,000 feet, 435 mph at 30,000 feet, it could attain 5,000 feet in 1.6 minutes, 10,000 feet in 3.1 minutes, 20,000 feet in 6.9 minutes. Service ceiling was 41,900 feet. I fail to see what makes the XP-77 a world beater?

The Ranger V-770-6 was capable of 520 HP at 3,150 RPM at takeoff. It achieved 250 HP at 2,150 RPM. The most highly developed postwar variant, the SGV-770-D4, which added propeller reduction gearing, supercharging, and other refinements, achieved 575 HP at 3,400 RPM at takeoff. Please explain how a 10.58% increase in power results in a 21.21% increase in speed? And what "turbocharger" would be that? Fairchild never developed a turbocharged V-770. Most telling was the note made after Fairchild tried to sell Materiel Command's Experimental Engineering Division on its proposed "improved" V-770, the XV-920 and XH-1850 in February 1943. "First, they had better make the most of the V-770 engine." Eventually, eight XH-1850-2, producing 1,500 hp at 3,500 rpm were built...but it weighed 1,735 pounds, more than twice the weight of the SGV-770-D4 and more than the 1,715 pounds of the Packard V-1650-17, which cranked out 1,720 HP at 3,000 RPM.

Also problematic was Fairchild's ability to turn out engines and their inability to turn out a functional supercharged version during the war. Production of the V-770 was just 45 in 1941, 625 in 1942, 757 in 1943, 1,224 in 1944, and 97 in 1945.

 

Something isn't getting through to you.

Total Soviet aircraft losses to combat were 46,100...in the air and on the ground. Of those, 43,100 were combat aircraft.
Total RAF losses on "operational sorties" - to all causes, including accidents, to all opponents, worldwide (but excluding the Malayan Campaign) - were 27,478.
Total USAAF losses in combat - worldwide, to all causes - were 22,948. Of those, 8,324 were to enemy aircraft.

Of those 96,000-odd aircraft lost in combat, it is likely that perhaps one-third were to enemy aircraft...versus all opponents. The notion that German fighters shot down 45,000 plus an uncounted "tens of thousands of Allied planes" is simply ludicrous.

 

The larger the disparity between planes, the less the pilot matters.

All true, but it is much harder to hit with wing mounted guns than CL mounted guns. Wing mounted guns are only centered under the Piper at a single range. At all other ranges they are off to one side or the other guaranteed to miss for all perfectly aimed shots. CL guns on the other hand at parallel to the Line of Sight at all ranges and have significant Point Blank Ranges! Wing mounted guns do not have a significant PBR!

All true, but irealivant since they all became shooters in confused melee dog fights which happened many more times than not..

All true! And, he was only able to convert about half of those missions to Victories. Since he shot down five to nine planes on several occasions, what does that make his true conversion rate?

Actually, quite good at it, math that is. Your mistake is that the bottom 50% never gets any kills! It's the middle upper 40% between the top 10% and the bottom 50% that gets about 20%, or less of kills!

 

You are partially mistaken in that there was no real difference in speed between all the later jets you mention, they were all decidedly Sub-Sonic in combat. However the point I made does not apply to stupid pilots in the bottom half of the bell curve. At least as shown by your examples!