Were the Tuskeegee Airmen Wrong?

Subject: Were the Tuskeegee Airmen Wrong?
From: Lyle
Date: 2/11/04 7:17 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:06:51 GMT, "Henry Bibb"
wrote:


"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Saw the Tuskeegee Airmen movie earlier this week where
intermission had discussions with a couple fellows who
were members of the real thing. Quite interesting.

However, they mentioned the oft repeated accolade that
they never lost a bomber to enemy fighters that they
escorted. One reason, according to one of the actual
"Airmen", was they *stuck with their charges* rather than
follow the German fighters to the ground as the 8th was
doing by 1944.

History seems to say this was precisely the *wrong* thing
to be doing! The bombers served as much as "incentive"
for the LW to come up to fight, as they were in destroying
German war fighting resources. The shift from "sticking
with the bombers" to "follow the enemy anywhere and
destroy him" seemed to do the trick for the 8th.

Was the 13th (??) AF in Italy, and the Tuskeegee Airmen
in particular, following the wrong tactic? Is the
reputation of this fine group of fighter pilots somewhat
over-embellished with hollow accolade over the issue of
"never losing a bomber"?


SMH


Seems like the answer to that might depend on whether you were
flying in the bomber, or armchair quarterbacking in the 21st century...

HB
i saw the same show, and they clareified that they never lost a
bomber to enemy fighters, but flak was another thing


Flak is always another thing



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

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Saw the Tuskeegee Airmen movie earlier this week where
intermission had discussions with a couple fellows who
were members of the real thing. Quite interesting.

However, they mentioned the oft repeated accolade that
they never lost a bomber to enemy fighters that they
escorted. One reason, according to one of the actual
"Airmen", was they *stuck with their charges* rather than
follow the German fighters to the ground as the 8th was
doing by 1944.

History seems to say this was precisely the *wrong* thing
to be doing!

History wasnt flying a bomber


The bombers served as much as "incentive"
for the LW to come up to fight, as they were in destroying
German war fighting resources. The shift from "sticking
with the bombers" to "follow the enemy anywhere and
destroy him" seemed to do the trick for the 8th.


I rather supect different orders applied depending on the
importance of the mission and the roleof the unit concerned.

Was the 13th (??) AF in Italy, and the Tuskeegee Airmen
in particular, following the wrong tactic? Is the
reputation of this fine group of fighter pilots somewhat
over-embellished with hollow accolade over the issue of
"never losing a bomber"?


The command at the time seems to have been happy
with them else they doubtless have issued other orders.

Keith

In article ,
says...
Stephen Harding wrote:
Saw the Tuskeegee Airmen movie earlier this week where
intermission had discussions with a couple fellows who
were members of the real thing. Quite interesting.

However, they mentioned the oft repeated accolade that
they never lost a bomber to enemy fighters that they
escorted. One reason, according to one of the actual
"Airmen", was they *stuck with their charges* rather than
follow the German fighters to the ground as the 8th was
doing by 1944.

Try this page for one;
http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasasp...tory/tusk.html

Interesting web site and explains why they did use them. But it does not
answer the question put forward by Stephen Harding. Were these tactics
correct?



This question had been answered not so long ago that I'd thought there'd at
least be an FAQ somewhere ?

Please.


Richard.





--
A department of the government runs itself. In that it is run for its
employees benefit first.


Observations of Bernard - No 43

Hardly. You would be blaming a unit for decisions made at a higher level.
The Tuskeegee Airmen were following orders. If it was the wrong tactic then
15th AF was to blame.

Jimmy Doolittle, who changed the tactics in the 8th, pointed out in his
autobiography that he was willing to accept more bomber losses in the short
term for greater gains and lower losses in the long term. (Patton had the
same philosophy on the ground.) He was proven correct but it was a hard sell
to the bomber crews.

The ultimate goal was to destroy the enemy. One way was to ensure the
bombers made it through, using fighters to protect them. Another way was to
turn those escorting fighters into offensive weapons. The learning curve was
pretty steep at the time. Using single-seat single-engine fighters as an
offensive weapon in a strategic arena was still new. What works in one
theater at one time may not work in another.

Curt

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Saw the Tuskeegee Airmen movie earlier this week where
intermission had discussions with a couple fellows who
were members of the real thing. Quite interesting.

However, they mentioned the oft repeated accolade that
they never lost a bomber to enemy fighters that they
escorted. One reason, according to one of the actual
"Airmen", was they *stuck with their charges* rather than
follow the German fighters to the ground as the 8th was
doing by 1944.

History seems to say this was precisely the *wrong* thing
to be doing! The bombers served as much as "incentive"
for the LW to come up to fight, as they were in destroying
German war fighting resources. The shift from "sticking
with the bombers" to "follow the enemy anywhere and
destroy him" seemed to do the trick for the 8th.

Was the 13th (??) AF in Italy, and the Tuskeegee Airmen
in particular, following the wrong tactic? Is the
reputation of this fine group of fighter pilots somewhat
over-embellished with hollow accolade over the issue of
"never losing a bomber"?


SMH

Henry Bibb wrote:

Was the 13th (??) AF in Italy, and the Tuskeegee Airmen
in particular, following the wrong tactic? Is the
reputation of this fine group of fighter pilots somewhat
over-embellished with hollow accolade over the issue of
"never losing a bomber"?

Seems like the answer to that might depend on whether you were
flying in the bomber, or armchair quarterbacking in the 21st century...

sigh
Here we go again.


SMH

Krztalizer wrote:

Was the 13th (??) AF in Italy, and the Tuskeegee Airmen
in particular, following the wrong tactic? Is the
reputation of this fine group of fighter pilots somewhat
over-embellished with hollow accolade over the issue of
"never losing a bomber"?

I know more revelevent people will chime in here, but that accolade is not at
all hollow. Their tactics meant that they followed the tactical definition of
Escort Fighter far more accurately than some of the other groups, who were
somewhat famous among bomber crews for failing to show up to cover their
assignments. Bomber guys talk with literal dread when they mention missions
where the escorts never arrived - the 303rd (?) BG was shredded after one such
event and it happened to other heavy bomber groups as well. How could
'provided excellent coverage and defense against all enemy comers' be
considered a hollow accolade?

If you've come to the show to win the war, it's a "hollow accolade"
in pointing to being adept at using the wrong tactics.

It's one thing if you don't know better, like trying to dogfight
Zeros in early 1942, but by 1944, weren't "the right" tactics in
bomber "escort" known?

Have I jumped the gun on what was known in the context of the times?


SMH

ArtKramr wrote:

reputation of this fine group of fighter pilots somewhat
over-embellished with hollow accolade over the issue of
"never losing a bomber"?

Doesn't sound hollow to me. I guess you had to have been there.((:-))

If I had been there, I'd probably have been baking your bread!


SMH

George Z. Bush wrote:

Was the 13th (??) AF in Italy, and the Tuskeegee Airmen
in particular, following the wrong tactic? Is the
reputation of this fine group of fighter pilots somewhat
over-embellished with hollow accolade over the issue of
"never losing a bomber"?

12th AF was in Italy.....13th AF in the Pacific, I believe.

Knew that didn't quite sound right.

Thanks George. BTW, was that "your" AF?


SMH

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

Was the 13th (??) AF in Italy, and the Tuskeegee Airmen
in particular, following the wrong tactic? Is the
reputation of this fine group of fighter pilots somewhat
over-embellished with hollow accolade over the issue of
"never losing a bomber"?

The command at the time seems to have been happy
with them else they doubtless have issued other orders.

No doubt true.

I will presume that other fighter groups in the 12th were
doing precisely the same thing (sticking with the bombers).

In this case, and assuming going after the fighters to destroy
them rather than sticking, *was the correct thing to do*, then
someone higher up was responsible for escort implementation
"error", at a time the 8th AF "knew better" (say early 1944).

Guess this all boils down to "what did leadership know and
when did they know it?".

Some things never change.


SMH

Pete wrote:

What was the mission they were given? Bomber escort, ground attack, or air
superiority?

Leaving the bombers exposed leaves them vulnerable to other enemy fighters.

They flew their missions they were tasked with, did the job (exceptionally
well) and most came home.

Actually, I'd say they did more than their mission. They moved
American race relations ahead, towards the eventual goal of a
color blind nation.

But that wasn't the question. The question is was their mission
the wrong one, or improperly implemented by command?

Was B Davis the one who would dictate that fighters under his
command would implement bomber escort by sticking with the bombers
or was it an AF wide implementation order, done at a higher level
than Group or Wing?


SMH