Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944

Subject: Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944
From: ost (Chris Mark)
Date: 7/20/2004 8:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

As far as I am aware the use of P-38s on heavy bomber escort
missions in 1945 was very limited, what sort of information do
you have on the mission.

They were certainly being used. An example: The 1st fighter group conducted
12
heavy bomber escort missions in April, 1945. That's down from 18 heavy
bomber
escort missions in April, 1944. But in that month the group conducted only
one
other operation--a strafing mission. However, in April, 1945, the 1st,
besides
the 12 bomber escort missions, conducted 29 photo escort missions, 14
dive-bombing missions, 10 armed reconnaissance missions, and two fighters
sweeps. Busy schedule.


Chris Mark


Was that in the MTO? I never saw any P-38's in the ETO 1944-45. Juist recon
P-38's.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"WalterM140" wrote:

...

Translation Walter is as bad at character assassination as history.


You lied. You got caught. Again.

Mr. Sinclair came to a valid conclusion about you.

You wrote:

Meantime Eaker convinced Robert Lovett, the Assistant Secretary of
War for Air to push for a long range fighter.


Eaker never said anything during the summer of 1943 to Asst. SecWar Lovett
such
as you said he did.

Were you there, as for him not saying it there are a good numbers references
that say that conversation did take place.

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Night bombers interception....
From: "Nele VII" AP
Date: 7/19/2004 9:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



ArtKramr wrote in message
...
ubject: Night bombers interception....
From: "Keith Willshaw"

hat single aircraft ended up over targets was a result of
the extremely poor reliability of the aircraft, it was not
uncommon for half the dispatched aircraft to have to
return to base. Indeed the USAAC described the B-17C
as being unsuitable for combat use.


Why do you think we gave them to the Brits? Same reason we gave P-39's
to
the
Russians.

Pokrishkin was grateful for P-39 achieving "only" 59 victories! So much
for
an "Iron Dog" in the hands of an ace )))))



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


How a plane performs in the hands of an ace is meningless. There were too
few
of them to matter. Its flat spin problems killed too many average pilots
to be
acceptable to us. We had better planes so why suffer a dog? THe Russians
were
not so fortunate


The USAAF operated over 2000 P-39's at peak in early 1944.
Most of these were in the PTO and MTO as the type suffered
heavy losses against the Luftwaffe over France and was replaced by the
Spitfire V in the 31st Fighter Group based in southern England.

They were heavily used in the Med however and post war analysis
showed that they had the lowest loss rate per sortie of any USAAF
fighter used in the European theatre.

The P-39 worked fine for us when it was used as intended, at low/medium
altitudes, which is how the soviets used it. It certainly outperformed the P-40
in that part of the envelope. The US's biggest problem with the a/c was its
lack of range, something that couldn't be improved owing to the lack of space
forward and aft-mounted engine; there was just no room to put fuel where it
wouldn't screw the Cg. Where that wasn't an issue, and the a/c was used well
forward (as the Russians did), it was fine. And the Soviets had their share of
excellent a/c.

IIRR it was only used by one or two groups in the Med, but still managed to fly
30,547 combat sorties (mostly strafing missions) while only losing 107 a/c in
combat, a loss rate of just 0.4%. US P-40s flew about twice as many combat
sorties in the MTO, 67,059, but lost 553 in combat, or 0.8%. They claimed a lot
more A-A kills, though, 481 vs. 14, which represents their different tasking,
and also dropped a lot more bombs than the P-39 (same Cg/range problem). The
P-63 eliminated the P-39's handling quirks and improved its performance, but
range was still limited and by the time it entered service the USAAF was using
the P-47 as its prime fighter-bomber. But the Russians certainly liked both the
P-39 and P-63, because its range wasn't an issue for them. It's interesting to
speculate how the P-63 would have done in the 9th AF after the invasion, as a
fighter-bomber in lieu of the P-47 or especially the P-51. The Soviets did like
the 37mm cannon, and the engine was certanly better protected against flak
during strafing attacks than was a P-51's.

Guy

Subject: Night bombers interception....
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 7/20/2004 2:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Night bombers interception....
From: "Nele VII" AP
Date: 7/19/2004 9:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:



ArtKramr wrote in message
...
ubject: Night bombers interception....
From: "Keith Willshaw"

hat single aircraft ended up over targets was a result of
the extremely poor reliability of the aircraft, it was not
uncommon for half the dispatched aircraft to have to
return to base. Indeed the USAAC described the B-17C
as being unsuitable for combat use.


Why do you think we gave them to the Brits? Same reason we gave
P-39's
to
the
Russians.

Pokrishkin was grateful for P-39 achieving "only" 59 victories! So much
for
an "Iron Dog" in the hands of an ace )))))



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


How a plane performs in the hands of an ace is meningless. There were
too
few
of them to matter. Its flat spin problems killed too many average pilots
to be
acceptable to us. We had better planes so why suffer a dog? THe Russians
were
not so fortunate


The USAAF operated over 2000 P-39's at peak in early 1944.
Most of these were in the PTO and MTO as the type suffered
heavy losses against the Luftwaffe over France and was replaced by the
Spitfire V in the 31st Fighter Group based in southern England.

They were heavily used in the Med however and post war analysis
showed that they had the lowest loss rate per sortie of any USAAF
fighter used in the European theatre.

The P-39 worked fine for us when it was used as intended, at low/medium
altitudes, which is how the soviets used it. It certainly outperformed the
P-40
in that part of the envelope. The US's biggest problem with the a/c was its
lack of range, something that couldn't be improved owing to the lack of space
forward and aft-mounted engine; there was just no room to put fuel where it
wouldn't screw the Cg. Where that wasn't an issue, and the a/c was used well
forward (as the Russians did), it was fine. And the Soviets had their share
of
excellent a/c.

IIRR it was only used by one or two groups in the Med, but still managed to
fly
30,547 combat sorties (mostly strafing missions) while only losing 107 a/c in
combat, a loss rate of just 0.4%. US P-40s flew about twice as many combat
sorties in the MTO, 67,059, but lost 553 in combat, or 0.8%. They claimed a
lot
more A-A kills, though, 481 vs. 14, which represents their different tasking,
and also dropped a lot more bombs than the P-39 (same Cg/range problem). The
P-63 eliminated the P-39's handling quirks and improved its performance, but
range was still limited and by the time it entered service the USAAF was
using
the P-47 as its prime fighter-bomber. But the Russians certainly liked both
the
P-39 and P-63, because its range wasn't an issue for them. It's interesting
to
speculate how the P-63 would have done in the 9th AF after the invasion, as a
fighter-bomber in lieu of the P-47 or especially the P-51. The Soviets did
like
the 37mm cannon, and the engine was certanly better protected against flak
during strafing attacks than was a P-51's.

Guy


Every WW II pilot I knew who flew the P-39 was glad ot be rid if it.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr wrote:

Every WW II pilot I knew who flew the P-39 was glad ot be rid if it.

I know of several, starting with Yeager and Anderson, who liked its handling and
would happily have gone to war in it. It had its handling quirks, but so did
every other a/c. The P-40 was renowned for its tendency to groundlooping, and
also (IIRR) for its nasty stall/spin. The P-38 had serious compressibility
problems, and like all twins could bite you if you lost an engine on takeoff. The
Merlin P-51 had to be very careful not to get into combat with the aft tank more
than about 1/3 - 1/2 full, and there were yaw issues at high speed. About the
only USAAF fighter I can think of that wasn't commonly associated with any bad
handling quirks was the P-47 (quite typical of Republic fighters, judging by the
jets that followed).

Guy

Was that in the MTO?

Yep.


Chris Mark

Subject: Night bombers interception....
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 7/20/2004 3:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

ArtKramr wrote:

Every WW II pilot I knew who flew the P-39 was glad ot be rid if it.

I know of several, starting with Yeager and Anderson, who liked its handling
and
would happily have gone to war in it. It had its handling quirks, but so did
every other a/c. The P-40 was renowned for its tendency to groundlooping,
and
also (IIRR) for its nasty stall/spin. The P-38 had serious compressibility
problems, and like all twins could bite you if you lost an engine on takeoff.
The
Merlin P-51 had to be very careful not to get into combat with the aft tank
more
than about 1/3 - 1/2 full, and there were yaw issues at high speed. About
the
only USAAF fighter I can think of that wasn't commonly associated with any
bad
handling quirks was the P-47 (quite typical of Republic fighters, judging by
the
jets that followed).

Guy

I think all questions are answere by looking at the total recordsof the P-51,
P47 and P-39.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944
From: ost (Chris Mark)
Date: 7/20/2004 4:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Was that in the MTO?

Yep.


Chris Mark


Figures.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

WalterM140 wrote in message ...

Firstly some deleted text I wrote, on what Eaker said to Lovett,
the source for my comments,

Williamson Murray in his book Luftwaffe, quoting Boylan, in The
development of the long range fighter escort, pages 90 to 91
and 121.

This has to be deleted. It cannot exist if Walter is to try and smear.

(snip)

I find no evidence that Eaker thought it imperitive to provide escort or
that he communicated such with Lovett.

So why were P-47s fitted with drop tanks and used as escorts during
Eaker's period of command?

You seem to have just made it up.

Translation Walter is as bad at character assassination as history.

You lied. You got caught. Again.

Walter's definition of telling lies is basically pointing out unpleasant
facts that ruin his preferred fiction.

You wrote:

Meantime Eaker convinced Robert Lovett, the Assistant Secretary of
War for Air to push for a long range fighter.

Eaker never said anything during the summer of 1943 to Asst.
SecWar Lovett such as you said he did.

I presume Walter has the transcripts of all the Eaker Lovett conversations,
to make this claim but I doubt it. Alternatively he has read the Boylan book
I referenced, but I doubt that as well.

It appears Eaker is set up as the 2 dimensional bad guy, so the fact
the 8th did improve escort range and numbers during his command is
to be ignored, the fact people have noted Eaker did understand the
idea of long range escorts has to be dropped.

Bye, Sinclair.

Hey great, Walter is going to move onto something else.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

I find no evidence that Eaker thought it imperitive to provide escort or
that he communicated such with Lovett.

So why were P-47s fitted with drop tanks and used as escorts during
Eaker's period of command?

You seem to have just made it up.

Translation Walter is as bad at character assassination as history.

You lied. You got caught. Again.

Walter's definition of telling lies is basically pointing out unpleasant
facts that ruin his preferred fiction.

Sinclair wrote:

Meantime Eaker convinced Robert Lovett, the Assistant Secretary of
War for Air to push for a long range fighter.

Eaker never said anything during the summer of 1943 to Asst.
SecWar Lovett such as you said he did.

I presume Walter has the transcripts of all the Eaker Lovett conversations,

You made the statement. You can't back it up. You lied. You got caught.

Eaker did not discuss the development of a long range fighter with Lovett when
Lovett came to England in the Summer of 1943. Eaker did not urge the rapid
development of such an aircraft at that time.

You lied. You got caught.

Walt