Was the P-51 really that good?

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
User avatar
Englander
Member
Posts: 677
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 21:55
Location: Blighty

#16

Post by Englander » 20 Oct 2003, 14:30

Note I have used only British quotes about the Mustang, as the Mustang is as every bit as good as what the Americans say it
For a fair appraisal of the Mustang,We need to Know what the Germans thought about the Aircraft.From some accounts i`ve read,the luftwaffe pilots feared the Numbers the Americans could put in the air,and not the actual Aircraft.
In my humble opinion, the Ta 152 will take the Mustang to the cleaners.Also remember,as in the Battle of Britain the Bomber was more important to shoot down then the fighter.So in the defence of the Reich,the Luftwaffe had to upgrade squadrons of aircraft with extra heavy cannons.The downside to this ofcourse is,the German aircraft were slower,and difficult to handle.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#17

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 20 Oct 2003, 16:46

Also remember,as in the Battle of Britain the Bomber was more important to shoot down then the fighter.So in the defence of the Reich,the Luftwaffe had to upgrade squadrons of aircraft with extra heavy cannons.The downside to this ofcourse is,the German aircraft were slower,and difficult to handle.
Actually your statement here is counter to the real laws of air-war, and if you look at both the Battle of Britan and Germany, you see that in both case it was more far important to destroy enemy fighters first, as once you have air superiority you can bomb or shoot down bombers AT WILL. This was the main thesis in Adolf Gallands book "The First and the Last", and he bemoans the fact that the Luftwaffe never did this for the entire war.


User avatar
Englander
Member
Posts: 677
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 21:55
Location: Blighty

#18

Post by Englander » 20 Oct 2003, 17:55

Actually your statement here is counter to the real laws of air-war, and if you look at both the Battle of Britan and Germany, you see that in both case it was more far important to destroy enemy fighters first, as once you have air superiority you can bomb or shoot down bombers AT WILL. This was the main thesis in Adolf Gallands book "The First and the Last", and he bemoans the fact that the Luftwaffe never did this for the entire war.
That answer is to simplistic,If the German fighters started chasing allied fighters all over Germany,The bombers can, and will bomb at leisure.
After the BoB,the RAF "leaned over to France".The problem was the Germans did`nt play ball.They did not engaged the RAF.As one German put it"They can fly unmolested as much as they like".So the Raf responed by sending medium bombers escorted by Spitfires.Obversely the Germans did`nt let this go unanswered.The BoB,and the Bo the Reich,you have to have some sort of timetable.otherwise will still be fighting the war to day.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#19

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 21 Oct 2003, 03:00

Why does an answer have to be complicated?
The simplest explanation is usually correct. (occam's razor, Sutton's law)

Look I ain't no expert , but I take Galland's word for it. He definitely knew more about the issue than all of us modern day experts put-together.
I highly suggest his book if you have not read it.

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:36
Location: Finland

#20

Post by Tiwaz » 21 Oct 2003, 11:00

Does Galland have way to explain how to prevent bombers from obliterating strategically important targets while air force is busy trying to hunt all the fighters?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#21

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 21 Oct 2003, 14:49

Look, once you win air-superioty and eliminate enemy fighters, destroying attacking bombers becomes easy. Our bomber offensive was a total failure before fighter cover and could not have been substained with the atrocious losses we were taking (up to 70%!!!!).

True, bombers may bomb for a short period of time while you win air superiority, but strategic bobming while it may look destructive, it takes it a very much longer time to be effective or contribute to to a war-winning effort , if at all. Read Speer

Sorry if yall are brainwashed by those advocates of Strategic bombing,
(Harris, Goering, Arnold, Hitler, etc.) but if you look at the prohibitive horrible losses of bombers fleets and the meager returns of bombing without fighter cover or air-superiority , you see Galland is correct.

Read his book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 21 Oct 2003, 16:25, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:36
Location: Finland

#22

Post by Tiwaz » 21 Oct 2003, 16:16

You can't win air superiority by destroying fighters, unless you make sure to kill pilots as well.

Building fighter doesn't take that much resources so there will be plentiful supply of them. Of course you can run out of pilots but that takes much longer time and by that time if your opponent was smart they have caused horrible damage to infrastructure of the nation so that it might not even matter anymore. Your fighters won't do much good if they don't have fuel because railroads have been bombed etc...

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#23

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 21 Oct 2003, 16:38

Tiwaz wrote:You can't win air superiority by destroying fighters, unless you make sure to kill pilots as well.

...
8O :roll: :lol:

This seems a little too simple for me to understand. You win Tiwaz.
I have a house to paint, and a kid I got to take to day-care.

Regards :)
Chris

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 11:36
Location: Finland

#24

Post by Tiwaz » 21 Oct 2003, 17:10

Well, how well did Luftwaffe do killing male population of Britain in BoB?


Not really well, it simply takes too long to try to win the war that way, amount of dead pilots is simply too low to achieve such air superiority.

Unless you stop the bombers, your economy and logistics will suffer, which can lead to end of war much sooner.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

#25

Post by Tim Smith » 21 Oct 2003, 19:15

Getting off topic here, so I'll bring us back on.

The P-51B was the fighter that won the air war in the West during the critical period Jan 1944 to Jun 1944. After that the German fighter force had lost control of the air over Germany, was too weak to affect the outcome of the war, and always had more losses than victories, even though it fought right until the end. By the time the German jets and the superior Ta 152 arrived in strength in early 1945, the war was already lost.

The P-51 was superior overall to all versions of the Me109G. The P-51 was a lot (50 mph) faster than the 109G-6 and a little (10 mph) faster than the 109G-10. In turn rate, the P-51 was about equal to the 109G, but the P-51 could roll faster, which was an advantage in a dogfight. The 109G could normally climb a bit faster.

(The 109K-4 of late 1944 and 1945 was faster than the P-51, and was better overall than the P-51D.)

Compared to the Fw190A, the P-51 had a better turn rate, and was about 30 mph faster, but the 190A was more heavily armed and could roll a bit quicker. The P-51 had the advantage in rate of climb. The Fw190D turned and rolled slightly less well than the Fw190A, but reduced the P-51's speed advantage to just 10 mph, and could match the Mustang in a climb. Overall the P-51 was better in a dogfight than the Fw190A and about equal to the Fw190D.

(The Ta152C & Ta152H were better than the P-51 in all respects except turn rate, but only a few of them saw combat.)

The Me262 was 100mph faster than the P-51, but had terrible acceleration (leading to many being shot down on takeoff and landing). Plus the 262 turned and rolled like an Me110, thanks to the heavy engines hanging on its wings. The 262 was a twin engined heavy fighter, compared to single engined piston fighters. The 262 could not dogfight with the P-51, only hit and run attacks were feasible.

User avatar
PanzerKing
Member
Posts: 1244
Joined: 28 Feb 2003, 03:26
Location: Texas USA

#26

Post by PanzerKing » 22 Oct 2003, 02:36

Does anyone know the number of P-51's shot down by Luftwaffe fighters?

Thanks

User avatar
Punk_Waffen
Member
Posts: 181
Joined: 28 Sep 2002, 22:07
Location: Harmony
Contact:

...

#27

Post by Punk_Waffen » 22 Oct 2003, 16:04

Does anyone else see the likeness between the BF109 and the Mustang?


...PW
Attachments
BF109.jpg
BF109
BF109.jpg (25.64 KiB) Viewed 1258 times

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Re: ...

#28

Post by Caldric » 22 Oct 2003, 18:45

Punk_Waffen wrote:Does anyone else see the likeness between the BF109 and the Mustang?


...PW
No

<----

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#29

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 22 Oct 2003, 19:24

The Original P-51 B? had a similar blind cockpit like an Me-109, which makes it look slightly similar along with a spinner. But that cockpit was change to the much more effective Bubble canopy with the Real (merlin engined) P-51. Vision the most important thing , Ask any fighter pilot.

The b model P-51 was no better than a P-39!

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

#30

Post by Tim Smith » 23 Oct 2003, 17:18

What criteria are you basing this judgement on, Chris?

The P-51B was 50 mph faster than the P-39Q, the last and best version of the P-39! And it had a higher ceiling and longer range.

The only advantage the P-39Q had over the P-51B was heavier armament - the P-39Q had a 37mm cannon as well as four .50's.
ChristopherPerrien wrote:The B model P-51 was no better than a P-39!

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”