P51 Mustang removed Luftwaffe
Gabriel said "I don't understand so schematic reports containing only numbers, easy to copy but hard to understand. Why a so low interest for P40, P38 and many others?"
Because it is the most rated US fighter during WWII ... I didn't mean that it was the only one or the best ... but the most controversial ... as you could see on both of you ... I would like also to have some statistics and characteristics too about the other US fighters (Gabreil was right - P51 was not the only one) in order to make a general opinion about the role of Mustangs (even my granfather in Romanian , actually Transylvania saw Mustangs in action those "silver , red noses planes" flying at over 100 feet over the ground ) ...
Because it is the most rated US fighter during WWII ... I didn't mean that it was the only one or the best ... but the most controversial ... as you could see on both of you ... I would like also to have some statistics and characteristics too about the other US fighters (Gabreil was right - P51 was not the only one) in order to make a general opinion about the role of Mustangs (even my granfather in Romanian , actually Transylvania saw Mustangs in action those "silver , red noses planes" flying at over 100 feet over the ground ) ...
-
- Member
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
- Location: ITALY
Movies
In my opinion the people love P-51 only because it is still flying.There are a lot of them still operative in Italy too and in the while there is no P-47 still flying. It is a fair thing to watch an old plane still diving and in my opinion none was more terrific than the powerful Thunderbolt. Effects of propaganda...But P-51 was decisive for daily bombings not over Europe but over Japan: the last version P-51N was able to escort B-29 over Japanese towns. A very long range escort fighter.
P-51's.....
Simply the answer is no. The P-51 was an aid to the already heavy hitting the Luftwaffe was receiving from P-38 and P-47 squadrons from Italy and England during latter months of 1943 through 1944. The US air force needed a longer range and more high altitude a/c so the P-51 filled everything the US air force needed and simply overwhelmed Luftwaffe forces that were already dwindling.....
E
E
-
- Member
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
- Location: ITALY
Obvious
Sir Erich,
in my opinion the true matter was not in the question "..did P51 overhelm the whole Luftwaffe?" as apparently stated but the real question was "..P51 was so strong to let to the Allieds to win the air-war?". The 1st question was easy to debate and you are 100% right as default, but the 2nd hidden question was very hard. As Sir Takao said a modern air-war is a logistic-technologic conflict more than military... or the military positive or negative result is simply a sum of many other efforts in technology, logistics and military. P51 was easy to produce ( I am curious about the hours of production needed for assemblying a Mustang compared with a Bf 109, f.e.) easy to drive, easy to replace. And it was really an excellent mass-product, but it is hard to say that only a model of plane won the war!But there was not an air-weapon so effective and so massively produced after WW2 or having wider numbers than P-51. Quantity+quality=victory.
in my opinion the true matter was not in the question "..did P51 overhelm the whole Luftwaffe?" as apparently stated but the real question was "..P51 was so strong to let to the Allieds to win the air-war?". The 1st question was easy to debate and you are 100% right as default, but the 2nd hidden question was very hard. As Sir Takao said a modern air-war is a logistic-technologic conflict more than military... or the military positive or negative result is simply a sum of many other efforts in technology, logistics and military. P51 was easy to produce ( I am curious about the hours of production needed for assemblying a Mustang compared with a Bf 109, f.e.) easy to drive, easy to replace. And it was really an excellent mass-product, but it is hard to say that only a model of plane won the war!But there was not an air-weapon so effective and so massively produced after WW2 or having wider numbers than P-51. Quantity+quality=victory.
Gabriel :
Check this site if it is still the same URL and go to the P-51 section as well as the forums.......it has full documentation
hope this works..... ?
http://www.mustangs-mustangs.com
let me know if not.....
E
Check this site if it is still the same URL and go to the P-51 section as well as the forums.......it has full documentation
hope this works..... ?
http://www.mustangs-mustangs.com
let me know if not.....
E
Dang it ! Forget the above post........go here instead...... !
http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/p51.shtml
E
http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/p51.shtml
E
-
- Member
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
- Location: ITALY
Very impressive..
Very impressive...857 planes built the 1st month by NAA only! There was no match with Messerschmitt! I even thought the technology that USA spent in improving mass production had to be at least as effective as the technology Germany spent in improving performances of new planes. Not as spectacuar but effective! Try to consider the impact and fast evolution of TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) soldering pursued by Miller Co. or rhe impact of flat riveting on imbuted holes: while the axis was still using nuts & bolts in USA there were in common use aluminum structures completely soldered saving time and lighting as much as possible the whole fuselage and wings. The electrical wirings were plastic insulated and some wirings were done of silver instead of copper to save conducibility if oxided (Silver oxide is the only metal oxide to be a good conductor:not cheap but effective!) A standard of massive quality never seen before not only in Europe, but in all the world.
Re: Very impressive..
gabriel pagliarani wrote:Very impressive...857 planes built the 1st month by NAA only! There was no match with Messerschmitt! I even thought the technology that USA spent in improving mass production had to be at least as effective as the technology Germany spent in improving performances of new planes. Not as spectacuar but effective! Try to consider the impact and fast evolution of TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) soldering pursued by Miller Co. or rhe impact of flat riveting on imbuted holes: while the axis was still using nuts & bolts in USA there were in common use aluminum structures completely soldered saving time and lighting as much as possible the whole fuselage and wings. The electrical wirings were plastic insulated and some wirings were done of silver instead of copper to save conducibility if oxided (Silver oxide is the only metal oxide to be a good conductor:not cheap but effective!) A standard of massive quality never seen before not only in Europe, but in all the world.
And of course these were great panes, not just mediocre but excellent and in my opinion in the top 3 for best fighter of the world. high production numbers and being a great plane to start with are the ingredients for victory, as already stated.
Plus a very comprehnsive training program. The US fighter pilots had many hours on their rigs and didn't have to go into combat day after day non-stop to take on masses of bombers and fighters from the "other side" as the Luftwaffe did. By 1944, the Luftwaffe "kids" were lucky if they even had 15 hours on the their Bf 109's and Fw 190's besides trying to make it back from a sortie or even 5 missions without being blasted from the skies over the Reich.
E
E
-
- Member
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
- Location: ITALY
combat readiness
Dad was declared "combat ready" after 15 hours on Fiat G55.Only.
That is interesting Gabriel, your father with so few hours on the a/c. My cousin I am not sure how many though he did attend flying shcool in 43-44. Flew 2 missions, first on 21 November 1944, and the second on 26 November 1944 being shot down and killed by P-51's of the 339th fighter group south of Misburg. He was flying an Fw 190A-9 of 5./JG 301.
E
E
Re: P51 Mustang removed Luftwaffe
What I find interesting is that the P-40 had just under a 1:1 kill ratio in North Africa against the BF109 and a few Italian fighters. That is better than the kill ratio for the Spitfire against the 109 in the Battle of Britain. I think all the P-40 needed was a 2 stage supercharger sadly. It's operational history was not bad and I am to understand it was a more maneuverable plane than the P-51 was with a much better roll rate. And it could take a beating. I am also to understand that the P-47 had a better kill:loss ratio than either plane in Europe.
Re: P51 Mustang removed Luftwaffe
I would wonder what the German Aces considered to be the most capable American plane with which they had to contend. Based on statistics, I could believe it was probably the razor back P-47. I am to understand it didn't have the stability issues that the later "D" bubble top variants had, but I haven't read enough of their opinion.
Re: P51 Mustang removed Luftwaffe
The comparison of kill ratios is not necessarily a true reflection of the relative qualities of fighter aircraft. As Stalin said " quantity has a quality of its own". WW2 air to air combat was as much about numbers and pilot capabilities as the quality of the hardware. The P40 was in service at a time when the allies outnumbered the Germans and Italians. During the battle of Britain spitfires and hurricanes were often outnumbered and needed to think about shooting down bombers. Ditto the Luftwaffe over Germany.Dante1968 wrote:What I find interesting is that the P-40 had just under a 1:1 kill ratio in North Africa against the BF109 and a few Italian fighters. That is better than the kill ratio for the Spitfire against the 109 in the Battle of Britain. I think all the P-40 needed was a 2 stage supercharger sadly. It's operational history was not bad and I am to understand it was a more maneuverable plane than the P-51 was with a much better roll rate. And it could take a beating. I am also to understand that the P-47 had a better kill:loss ratio than either plane in Europe.