I like to compare WW II fighters and see which had the better kill ratios, etc.

Sometimes, data is hard to gather. Theoretically, Hellcats supporting the invasion of southern France could have engaged Focke-Wulf's premier fighter, but I have found no record of that.

Does anyone here know of such an encounter and how it went?

I did find an account by a Hellcat pilot who strafed some German troops and facilities,and he said that until he started shooting, he had little ground fire. Thought that his plane, unusual in Europe, was being mistaken for an FW-190.

I'm guessing that an average FW would be a bit faster and climb and dive better, but might lose to the F-6F on turns. I'm also guessing that the German plane would roll better. A Royal Navy test pilot who flew captured FW-190's had high praise for them, and he fought one from a Spitfire MK IX. Said that the German pilot had him "in the vertical" but the Spit was better "in the hoirizontal". Both pilots tried to exploit their advantages, but were of such close skill that they eventually broke off combat. This officer also had high praise for the roll rate of the FW, much better than that of the Spits.

Roll could be very useful. Ace P-47 pilot Robert S. Johnson wrote that he used complex rolls in the Thunderbolt to overcome its relatively poor turn radius. Johnson (28 aerial kills) once engaged a British friend in mock combat. The other guy was flying a MK IX Spitfire. Johnson had had the new "fat blade" prop fitted to his P-47D, and with that, he could outclimb the nimble Spit, and his 3-D rolls let him get the drop on the RAF pilot. Both men were impressed.

Of course, with the average Thunderbolt pilot, the agile Spitfire would soon have won. But that wide propellor made a lot of difference, said Johnson. The Spit had better immediate acceleration, but the P-47 eventually outclimbed it, once it got into high gear, so to speak.

T-Star

I don't think there were any FW's in the Pacific. Or many if any F-6's in Europe, were there?

I would feel better with a P-51D or later against the FW-190. I wonder how the P-38 would do? I have a feeling it would come down to pilot skill. I like the late Fw-190's (TA model with the Jumo engine) I don't imagine they were as agile as the earlier radial engine models. It's funny I don't usually think of a Hellcat in the European Theater, but as you say they were there.

Dwight

__________________
Veritas et Humanitas

I'm no expert, but I suspect the FW-190 would have the F6F outclassed. The F6F was a carrier based plane, and had to be built heavier to withstand the landings. The FW-190 didn't have that handicap. The FW-190-D was one of the best fighters of the war, while I don't see much similar praise for the F6F. The F4U Corsair seems to get that distinction.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

When I worked at lockheed there was a old engineer who flew both the p-38 and p-51 in the war. He told me the first time he flew the p-51 he almost broke a arm in the first turn as it was more respondsive than the p-38.

Please read the post. Hellcats WERE involved in the invasion of southern France in Aug. or Sept. of 1944. I even cited the experience of a Navy pilot flying one!

As for the Mustang, it was at least equal to the FW-190, and had much longer range.

I'm reading Martin Caidin's book on the P-38, and the concensus seems to ahve been that well trained P-38 pilots at low to medium altitude could take either of the primary German fighters, given good pilot skills. One German pilot cited said that P-38's in North Africa could outmanuever his ME-109G-6. But he seems to have managed rather well, shooting down over 80 Allied planes. (But some were bombers.)

The Lightning was also supreme in the Pacific, killing more Jap pilots than any other Allied fighter. With the later combat and dive flaps, the P-38 turned very well, and avoided its previous deadly tendency to lock controls in a high speed dive, which killed many pilots. Both of America's leading aces flew only P-38's, in the Pacific. One had 40 kills when he was withdrawn from combat and given the Medal of Honor. The other had 38 kills when he "spun in" after turning too tightly with his auxilliary fuel tanks still on the plane.

BUT...the P-38 usually relied on high speed dives and higher level speed to beat the Jap pilots. NOT until late P-38J's applied the aforementioned flaps could it turn with a Zero. Until then, the Hellcat and Spitfire were better infighters.

One German pilot wrote that he and his flight tried to catch some P-38's over the North African desert. The American pilots easily outran them. The Luftwaffe man was so eager to catch them that he blew his engine, a rod actually projecting through the cowling!

Over northern Europe, the P-38 wasn't so hot, and Gen. Doolittle eventually ordered them removed from the 8th Air Force in England. Poor cockpit heating left the pilots half frozen at the higher altitudes there, and the Lightning had massive amounts of engine trouble and wasn't as manueverable at 35,000 feet as it needed to be. It also was unable to dive at high speed until it got that flap to break compression on the wing edges. Considering that Luftwaffe pilots frequently used dives to avoid Allied fighters, that was a major handicap. Some Germans thought that P-38 pilots were cowards until a captured one told them about the compressibility issue.

As for diving skills, the Germans used that technique a lot, as they were able to avoid Hurricanes and early Spitfires that way. The P-47 and the Tempest could outdive them, though, as could late P-38's, fitted to overcome the compression problem.

Many P-38 pilots in Europe were ill-trained on the plane, and its engine problems under winter conditions and high altitude in Europe gave the plane a bad rep. Lockheed test pilot Tony LeVier (sp?) was sent out to teach our combat P-38 pilots how to fly the plane to its capabilities, and this helped a lot. But most P-38 pilots in northern Europe were delighted to trade their planes for P-51's as the Mustang bcame available. The P-51 was designed to a British order, and was the first US fighter to be smaller and lighter, like its opposition and RAF fighters. Its handling was superb, by all accounts, with a turn almost as tight as a Spitfire's, and a better rate of roll and FAR greater range.

T-Star

I'm pretty sure that Capt. Eric Brown, RN, said that the Hellcat was the war's supreme naval fighter. He didn't like Corsairs as well, and some Jap pilot said that he was afraid of the Hellcat, as it turned better than a Corsair, and was much more dangerous in a dogfight.

The Hellcat seems to have been better than any Jap fighter until it met the George 12 and the Ki-100 late in the war. But the Japs made so few of those that they couldn't turn the tide. And B-29 raids caused inferior materials to be used in many late Jap planes. Some weren't up to their design potential.

One ace Hellcat pilot said that he loved his plane so much that if it could cook, he'd marry it!

Royal Navy Hellcat pilots also seemed to love the plane. The Corsair was regarded as much more dangerous to fly and for a time, until it got improved landing gear, was forbidden for ship operation, being usually given to the Marines for shore duty. The Royal New Zealand Air Force bought some, too.

I think the Hellcat had more ace pilots than any other US fighter. The P-38 had more kills, but fewer individual aces. (Although it had the top two.)

The Seafire was too fragile for best carrier operation, and its narrow landing gear was a problem. It also had short range for a carrier plane. Brown said that it was deadly if the enemy was close enough, but that it had too high an accident rate at sea to be a good naval fighter. It was just an emergency lashup of the Spitfire due to war needs. After the war, the Royal Navy got the Sea Fury, a very effective plane. One downed a MiG-15 over Korea!

Merril-

Thanks! Very revealing!

T-Star

In reading first hand reports the big advantage the Corsair and the P38 had in the Pacific was that they were obviously NOT Japanese. In some areas so many other US fighters were shot down by nervous Navy AA gunners that only P38's were used.

But it wasn't only nervous AA gunners. My dad said that one trick the Japanese pilots would occasionally pull was to try and quietly slip a single plane into the back of a returning US formation. By blending in with a US flight they had a good chance of not being spotted until they made an attack, either when a plane was landing or simply strafing the field. With the US planes low on fuel and ammo it was unlikely they would be successfully pursued and the AA gunners would have been caught sleeping at the switch, so if the Japanese plane survived the initial attack they had a good chance of slipping away.

This was countered by a code word given when a US pilot suspected they had picked up a straggler. The US pilots wound then quickly veer off to the right or left and the AA gunners new the single plane still flying straight probably deserved their attention.

And the Ki-100 was a desperation move itself caused by the inability of the Japanese to build enough serviceable inline engines for the the Ki-61. They ended up with hundreds if not thousands of Tony airframes sitting around without engines. Somebody got the idea of putting a radial engine into a Ki-61 airframe. Nobody thought that it would work. Not only did it work, it worked brilliantly. It was the best Japanese Army Air Force fighter other than the Frank. Fortunately, they came too late, and I think they lost a lot of productive capacity in an earthquake and several B-29 raids.

The Japanese just didn't have the technical prowess to duplicate the Daimler-Benz engines in production quantities.

I read somewhere that the F6F was designed after engineers had a chance to evaluate a downed Zero found in Alaska.

The Wikipedia article (FWIW) on Operation Dragoon lists the various aircraft carriers in support and the aircraft they flew.
I always thought the real advantage of US WWII fighters was in their armament-50 caliber MG vs the rifle caliber MGs supplemented by a cannon of the Axis fighters.

Some Axis fighters had 12.7mm (sometimes printed as 13 mm) machine guns, e.g., the famed Zero. The Oscar (Ki-43) also had these heavier MG's in later versions. I think some Italian fighters also had the heavier MG's. And I think that some FW-190's had them. Most of these planes also had 20mm and 30mm cannon. The Oscar had just two MG's in the nose. But it was so aerobatic and so well flown that it was a deadly foe.

T-Star

This is partially true. Grumann already had data from the front lines about the performance of Jap planes and knew that the successor to the Wildcat had to be lighter for its size, more powerful, and more manueverable. It was largely completed before a captured Zero became available.

But the Zero that crashed in the Aleutians (sp?) was surely examined by Grumann engineers, and may have added a bit to the final design.

T-Star

True, but until B-29 raids grew heavy, they were fielding many Tonys. (Ki-61.) It was sort of a Jap version of the ME/Bf-109, and gave good service in New Guinea and other war zones.

I'm glad that you mentioned the Frank, Ki-84. It seems to have been a brilliant design, able to take on the Mustang and other top US fighters, although not nearly as fast.

The Spitfire MK XIV didn't reach the war zones before the Jap surrender, but it would have been a very formidable foe for anything the enemy could produce, as it was in Europe from early 1944. In fact, the MK VIII Spit cleaned Jap clocks from 1943-on, when it began reaching the war over Burma.
Capt. Eric Brown, RN, a distinguished test pilot, flew about all Allied and Axis planes, and said that if he had to be in a dogfight in any, he'd choose the MK XIV. But he named the Mustang IV (P-51D) as a close runner-up.

I think his opinion carries a lot of weight, as so few others had his extensive experience of all fighter types. He also saw combat over Europe. His book, "Duels in the Sky" is remarkable. It's out of print, I think, but if you can find a copy, give thanks. It's a remarkable volume

T-Star

Bestimmt, die FW-190, mein Herren.

The Ki-61 was never as effective as it could have been because availability was very low. Holding the required manufacturing tolerances in liquid cooled engines always eluded the Japanese. Combine that with chronically poor Japanese logistics and maintenance management, and you end up with a lot of Tonys sitting on the ground waiting to get bombed, or as in the Philippines, captured intact.

I talked to an ex airforce pilot in 1956. He flew P-38's on photo recon missions over Europe from Britian. He said he could outrun anything the Germans had but their jets.

Hellcats flying off British carriers shot down a few German planes off the coast of Norway late in the war, however, they also lost a few Hellcats to the older (and arguably less capable) Me109s. The late war FW190s were substantially different and more capable than early models, but Norway didn't get priority gear.

Navy planes operating over southern France shot down a few German planes, but I don't remember the type or numbers. A lot would have depended on the quality of the pilots. Rank and file Luftwaffe pilot skills were below those of the average US Navy aviator circa 1944, but those Luftwaffe pilots that were skilled aces were simply the best that there was at what they did.

A decent flight sim that accurately replicates both planes could probably answer some of the technical questions.

You are certainly correct about pilot skills. A Royal Navy Wildcat shot down a FW -190 off Norway very late in the war. But the German pilot may not have seen him in time.
The account didn't say. It was a Wildcat, not a Hellcat. Probably flew off of a small carrier.

Gator, where have you been? I've missed your posts.

T-Star

I would think that an early FW190 A "Butcher Bird" would have trouble with an F6F, but not a "Dora" or D Model. Especially at Altitude.

The cannons on the FW would also give it better range than the .50's in the Hellcat.

The deinitive answer to the question on firepower could have been easily be answered in the website,"The (Great) Fighter Gun Debate".

However for what ever reason, it has been removed or taken off.

One important thing it mentioned was the the 6 fifty caliber MG on any one US fighter had the capacity of dumping 17 pounds of bullets into the enemy aircraft Per Sec, If I remember correctly.

US fighters with 6 fifty caliber guns simply threw More Weight of bullets at the enemy aircraft than the enemy could return. Even with the use of 20/30 mm cannon the amount of lead impacting a Allied aircraft, it was still waaay more than enemy planes could trow bact to the Allied fighter.

....and eight fifties in the case of the T-bolt. Fifties would have done better at longer ranges and dealing with wind because of their heavier bullets, I would think.

This is a great thread. I'm a minor fan and know far less about WW-II aviation than many of you.

There is one interesting dogfight I read about some time ago. Reknowned soviet ace Ivan Kozhedub got bounced by two Mustang pilots over Czechoslovakia while flying an LA-7. They must have mistakem his plane for an FW-190 (big oops!! ). As I recall, he shot down both U.S. planes. In that case two great allied planes were pitted against each other. At the same time, although I'm sure the american pilots were good, I'm thinking the fight was pretty much a mismatch as Kozhedub was the top russian ace of the war.

'Couple of problems with this.... first, not all of the .50's are going to be hits..... and secondly Cannon Shells explode at or inside their target, .50's don't.

Looked for info on Kozhedub.....

Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aviation History: Interview with World War II Soviet Ace Ivan Kozhedub HistoryNet

Some .50 projectiles exploded and some burned. The US had some serious QC problems early in the war and Japan had some latter. Unless you hit a frame member all you were guaranteed of with the cannon shells was a hole a little larger than the projectile. Of course once you started poking holes in the skin of the aircraft wind speed could help things start to unravel.

There used to be a series of books by Ballantine or someone. They came out monthly or so and were the size of today's trade paperbacks and were well illustrated with line drawings, photos, etc. Anyway, my now deceased great uncle Ed (who was wounded at St. Lo and remained interested in the Army) had what must have been close to the whole set. He had shelves full of them and used to give them to me. I think they came out in the '60s. Anyway, one of them was about the Me/bf109s exclusively. It had details of even some obscure users and variants, including those used postwar by the Izzies (Czech made ones with Ju87 engines if I recall) and the E models sold to the Swiss (which shot down both American and German planes, including later model 109s), along with a great deal of information on the Spanish variants which were - at the time the book was written - still used as trainers and possibly ground attack planes.

Anyway, that book spent some time comparing the 109 to other planes, and the author seemed quite enamored of the F6 Hellcat as a dogfighter. This was the book that claimed that F6s in Royal Navy hands shot it out with 109s and 190s near Norway on several occaisions. The details of numbers are obscured in my memory since I read the book more than 20 years ago, but distinctly recall the mention of the F6s.

There was also the assertion, later backed up by some articles in specialist aviation mags, that only the later P51s (post D model) were really the ones with the bugs ironed out, hence the concentration on the F6 as the exemplar dogfighter designed and built during the war in time to see large scale service.

I was sick for a while some months ago, then had some marital problems and such. That fun was followed by a PCS move taking me from Quantico to Parris Island, though I do now have internet again as well as a laptop that doesn't randomly shut off...

Regarding guns, the most common German use of 30mm guns on the 190s were probably the add on pods that were used when attacking bombers, though certain 109s of course had a 30mm firing through the propellor shaft. There were two common 30mm models, the MK108 which had a shorter barrel and a faster rate of fire. This was used in the Me262. The trajectory wasn't the best since the velocity wasn't high, and the bugs were never worked out thus they'd sometimes jam. The longer tubed Mk103 had a higher velocity and while there was a plan to mount them in Go229s, they mostly saw use in pods. These were reliable, and had a longer range, but rate of fire was slower.

20mm cannons were more common on German fighters, starting with the E model 109s. The US seemingly felt this was the way to go, since later F4Us, the F8, Skyraiders, etc mounted 20mm cannons.

The Germans actually had Mg151s in 15mm and a variant in 20mm. Some were shipped to Japan via Uboat and armed an initial production run of their fighters.

Those are long out of print, although widely available in used bookstores. Some well known authors contributed volumes, including Ian Hogg, who wrote the volumes on Grenades and Mortars and Smallarms, I believe.

Today, the best [reasonably priced] WWII (and other) aviation books are the Squadron-Signal "In Action" and "Walkaround" series. In terms of format, they kind of look like the kind of literature they used to put out at the Chicago auto show. They're landscape format with lots of black and white pictures, excellent text, and line drawings, both of whole aircraft and of specific features, especially modifications. I have a ton of them, but there are some REALLY puzzling omissions, such as the FW-190D (they have the radial versions) and the Japanese Ki-43 Hayabusa and Ki-61 Hien.

Osprey also has a series of books that includes volumes on various aircraft, subs, tanks, etc. They can be a bit pricey, but can sometimes be found at discounted rates in the bargain bin or at bargain booksellers.

Great thread here. Lots of interesting WWII stuff, a favorite of mine.

From Ballantine's Illustrated History of World War II, weapons book No.4, "Me-109" by Martin Caidan.

I quote from page 146,

"Those of us who have followed the career of the Me-109 have always wondered just how this fighter would have held up in fighter-vs-fighter combats with the Grumman F6F Hellcat. The latter machine had a much faster rate of climb and was far more manoeuverable. Indeed, the F6F was the only fighter in the Allied camp that, according to the testimony of the Japanese pilots themselves, could turn inside the agile Zero. With its speed, climb, heavy firepower, and manoeuverability, the Hellcat might have proven a lethal opponent for the Me-109. Unfortunately for enthusiasts, the meeting of Hellcat and Me-109 was known to have taken place only once during World War II, and this was on 8th May 1944, when Hellcats of the carrier H.M.S. Emperor flying off Norway encountered a mixed bag of Me-109s and FW-190s. Two Me-109s and one FW-190 were shot down without loss to the attacking Grummans."

Martin Caidan, in his day was considered one of the most knowledgeable writers of World War II aviation lore.

__________________
Have guns...will shoot'em.

Actually, a P-38 could turn inside of a Zero using differential throttle, throttling back the engine on the inside of the turn. P-38s were highly effective against Japanese aircraft of all types. The Osprey book on P-38 aces in the PTO is one of their better volumes.

I also highly recommend the two large volumes on Japanese Navy and Army aces. I THINK it's been reissued as one volume. There's also a book on Ki-43 Hayabusa aces, that I've never seen in a store.

cmort666,

I think I have the two books on the Japanese aces. As to the P-38 I have read little about it although I think I have Martin Caidin's book about it. I think it was: "Fork-Tailed Lightning"?

__________________
Have guns...will shoot'em.

My understanding is that in 1941 the Japanese Naval pilots were the best in the world but because-like the Germans, to some extent-they disparaged training, by 1944 you had the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. Also read that much of the Zero's maneuverability and greater range was because it had no pilot armor. Likewise the high scoring German aces achieved their scores on the Eastern Front. I recall reading how one German ace said he dogfighted a Russian for 40 minutes, finally broke it off because his fuel was running low, and the Soviet Guards Aviation Regiments were not to be trifled with, otherwise the Germans said fighting the Soviets pilots often offered little challenge.
I read (forget where of course) that initially the RAF aligned a fighter's guns to cover as much of the sky as possible, they soon learned their lesson.
I also think USAAC and RAF maintenace and logistical support were vastly superior to anything the Axis fielded.

F6Fs with superior quality flown by American pilots with superior training against the Nazi fighters would be no different than the results the P-47s and P-51s had. We could equal the Axis with planes like the Wildcat and P-40, because of our tactics. When the Hellcats, Jugs and Mustangs started pouring off the assembly lines, the die was cast.

__________________
Wayne
Torn & Frayed

"Fork Tailed Devil" ("Gabelschwanz Teuffel").

Thanks cmort666, I was too lazy to get up and go look for it.

BLACKHAWKNJ, the Japanese Navy in 1941 probably had the most skilled physically and best trained piolts in the world. In Saburo Sakai's book "Zero" he states that the washout rate was high because they Navy wanted only the best.

This came to haunt them because at Midway they lost 4 carriers and all of the well trained 1941 pilots. Henceforth they were never able to replace the loss, even with an elevated, less demanding training program. I have read that by 1944 American pilots reported a definite perceptable drop in Japanese fighter pilot skill.

On the other hand the United States flooded their Navy, Marine, and Air Corps with thousands of pilots who went through a lesser demanding training program. The United States military figured to win via greater numbers and on the job training. That, plus superior tactics made the day.

__________________
Have guns...will shoot'em.

The United States did something the Japanese and Germans apparently didn’t: we rotated back our experienced combat pilots to train the upcoming group of new pilots. It worked very well.

__________________
Tom

What the Japanese did was essentially to beat a fine samurai sword onto a solid hunk of iron until they destroyed it. But that was just the way they did things. Their armor doctrine at the time of the Battle of Nomonhan dictated that all tank crews stay with their vehicles to the death, even when unable to maneuver or direct fire at the enemy. What that meant was that unlike virtually every other nation with an armored force, EVERY loss of a vehicle also guaranteed the loss of the crew. Even the Japanese could turn out a tank in a week or less. A trained tank CREW takes MONTHS to create.

What this meant was that since they lost most of their tanks at Nomonhan, they also lost their ONLY tank crews with ANY experience of modern tank warfare against a reasonably well equipped opponent, something which no doubt bit them when they came up against US Army, USMC, British and Indian tanks. Had their later Chi Ha medium tanks come up against US and British tanks on the Kanto plain during an invasion of mainland Japan, they undoubtedly would have been slaughtered by the experienced Allied crews in their Shermans, Pershings and Centurians.

My dad (still living and giving orders) flew a B-17 in the 8th, so I learned to read using his B-17 and primary training manuals.

I lived and breathed airplanes from as early as I can remember.

When I was about 12 or 13 I read Caiden's "Black Thursday", his account of the catastrophic raid on Schweinfurt.

To this day I'm deeply affected by the gun camera footage of German fighters just pouring cannonfire into a limping, smoking Fortress, guns hanging lifeless, boys inside dead, dying, or huddled praying.

God bless them all.

__________________
Professional Trainer

There is a piece of nose camera footage which has shown up in many movies and TV shows about the Pacific theater. It depicts traces being poured into a Japanese aircraft and about halfway through the sequence another aircraft cuts through the camera shot from left to right. In unedited clips one wing falls off the intruding aircraft as it exits to the right of the picture just about the time the Japanese plane burst into flame.

When this film clip would come on my Dad would become visibly upset. I never understood why until one time I saw this clip and it dawned on me that the intruding aircraft was a US aircraft. The pilot of the plane with the nose camera had accidentally shot down one of his own squadron members.

I confess I have seen that simultaneous run where an American gets gunned as a Zero is being gunned. As bad as that is, it pales IMO compared to the shot I have seen several times of a B-17 bombing raid where, looking through the camera through a starboard waist gun position on a B-17, looking down at 5:00 from the bomber at another bomber. The bombers in the stack open their bomb bay doors and then release their sticks of bombs. Out of the picture, above the bomber at 5:00 is someone else. When the low bomber releases his stick, the guy above him releases his. The bombs bounce on the wing of the a/c below. About the third bomb to bounce on the wing root detonates taking off the left wing of the B-17, which quickly rolls right out of the picture frame. I seriously doubt that those 10 guys got out.

I am old enough that I knew a bunch of the guys who flew in WWII. My problem was, I was young enough that I didn’t even know what questions to ask. The guy who I knew best was a P-51 guy. He flew in Europe and then came back as an instructor. He is now gone. The last time I spoke with him was at my wedding in 1971. I was in the middle of flight school. I spoke to him as much as I could, but I did have other responsibilities.

Another guy I knew was a teacher when I was in high school. He flew P-40s. He told me he got shot down three times as I recall, and crunched in three or four more times writing off the a/c.

If you want to learn about what a horror story WWII was for the fighter guys, see “A Fighter Pilot’s Story” by Quinton Anniston. He flew P-47s. He made a video which he sold to PBS about his story. It really was a horror story. The bottom line was, about half the guys he graduated from flight school with died in the war.

As a guy who flew F-4s in the post VN era, I don’t know where we got the guys who fought WWII.

__________________
Tom

As for the P-38, its worst problem was a very high rate of engine failure, especially in Europe, at high altitudes. And the earlier ones had no provision for heating the cockpit. Some pilots literally got frostbite.


Later P-38's with dive brakes and special combat flaps to allow tighter turns worked well, but I think the engine failure rate was never overcome.

By the way, I found my copy of, "Duels in the Sky." Capt. Brown said that the FW-190D could easily defeat a Hellcat. He didn't compare a Hellcat to a earlier 190. But we know that even well-flown Wildcats scored kills on FW-190's. The Royal Navy pilots were simply better, or luckier.

T-Star

I first saw that bomber footage partially simulated in the movie Memphis Belle. In a Wally World bargain bin I found a copy of the original documentary on the Memphis Belle which was filmed in '43 or '44 and that contains the actual footage you mention. In his autobiography Cpt. Morgan, the pilot of the plane, mentions that the voice over for the film was done after they crew returned to the States and was very hard on them emotionally. During the actual missions they were too busy to notice a lot that was happening around them. Watching film footage of their last missions and seeing friends planes go down was difficult.

Anyone know what became of Ted Lawson, who wrote, "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo"? He was pretty badly injured when his B-25 crashed in China, and I think he lost a leg.

I'm guessing that he received a medical discharge?

T-Star

On the other hand look at guys like Adolf Galland and especially Sakai Saburo. In the latter case, I'd bet that 90% of his classmates didn't survive the war... and that's on the low side.

My dad's cousin was lost as a crewman on the historic B-29 "Uncle Tom's Cabin" as it continued to fight valiantly after taking two Japanese rammings during a dayight raid over Japan.

And speaking of the Memphis Belle, one of my dad's close friends is still living here in town and piloted a B-17 out of the same home base with the Belle.

He's Jewish and flew with false I.D.

Brought one back shot to h e double ll with two engines out. He said they threw everything out of the plane that wasn't nailed down, used a frayed control cable to lash full rudder, got his altitude stabilized and instead of landing at an emergency field just over the cliffs, he flew it back to his home base.

I asked him about his altitude, and he said, "Oh, about 700 feet".

__________________
Professional Trainer

My mother knew a bunch of the guys that flew in the Battle of Britain after the battle when they were sent to Canada as flight instructors. One of the guys was an Australian who told her that toward the end of the battle he got sick and was down for a week. When he came back up, the battle was winding down. He looked around and discovered he was the last guy alive from his flight school class and the two classes ahead of him and the two classes behind him, they were all dead. I have no idea how big the classes were. Anniston’s class started at 250. About 125 graduated. About half bought it. My flight school classes were more on the order of 20 or so.

__________________
Tom

You might be interested in obtaining the book: Aircraft versus Aircraft, an illustrated story of fighter pilot combat from 1914 to the present day, by Norman Franks. It has great information, diagrams, charts, photos and air tactics of such duals as the Spitfire vs. Me109, Hellcat vs. Zero, P51 vs. Me262, etc. Excellent info on the top aces. I bought it at Barnes and Noble. It's also available from Amazon.

I found the top aces (total number of confirm kills by a pilot) chart of WWll very informative. For example:

America: 40
British: 40+
French: 23
Japanese 94
German: 352

American branch top ace breakdown:

USAAF: 40 Maj. Richard Bong
USN: 34 Capt. David McCampbell
USMC: 28 Col. Gregory Boyington

I read WWII books also and that Erich "Bubi" Hartmann was an Ace and a half , Scored 352 .I don't think there will be a score like that again.
The French bit in your post confuses me,I didn't think they faught at all


Terry

Hartmann spent something like 4 years on the Russian front. Toward the end of the war, the Russians put up an aluminum overcast for the daily 9:00 AM raid on the Germans. Hartmann and his buds got high, dived through the flight taking out one guy, then flying back to base with no effect on the war, but notching another kill and running up the score.

The Russians had a few guys who were very good, but most didn't seem to be all that good and were not that hard to shoot down.

__________________
Tom