That is incorrect. The number of missions wasn’t high for Germany proper, but attacks were conducted from both North Africa and later Italy against Eastern European targets such as Ploesti. Targets in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Germany were also attacked…
Besides the Luftwaffe had a separate fighters groups for AA-defence, that did not include the other missions.
I think you may be unaware that the Allies shifted emphasis of bombing operations to directly support the D-Day in early 1944, so the dispersed fighters of the Luftwaffe were indeed attacking bombers over France, and again, were part of a comprehensive German early warning and interdiction system that virtually stretched to Britain itself. I’m not even sure what else they would have been attacking as the Allies had complete air superiority. The famous “two FW-190s” over Juno Beach comes to mind. Although, the Luftwaffe did attempt night strikes against the fleets, which were ineffective, using He-111s I think…
Although they use the flexible tactic of operational subordination, that let to use the other fighters in AA-defence.
The tables above just demonstrates the the Aviation that has been primary used for the AA-defence and for tactical missions in the fronts.
Those are certainly the other groups.
Yet, there as no tactical aviation to speak of, certainly not in the West after late 1943. Remember Chevan, the German soldier had a saying in Normandy: “If (the plane overhead) is camouflage, then it is British. If it is reflective or metallic, then it’s American. If the plane is invisible, then it’s the Luftwaffe!”
In fact, the only major air operations the Luftwaffe attempted, other than using Stukas in a few strikes against Bridges, was the operations during the “Battle of the Bulge,” in which the Luftwaffe inflicted losses a little better than what they received --only the AAF and the RAF could easily make good their losses. The Germans could not…
The P-51 even far could not reach the last hgh altitude modification of FW-190( Ta-152H1) indeed Nick:)
Niether in speed not in altitude.
Ask the Panzerknacker, he wrote a tonns of material about it in other threads:)
Germans , having the lack of everything, could prodused just about 60 of those unique piston fighters. However even the middle-altitude FW-190D9 was the superior of Mustang, especially in maneuverability.
Okay, you’ve got me Chevan. Sixty-seven FW190s made were superior than the P-51D. And I am well aware of the web-wide discussion of German “what-ifs” and “wonder-weapons” that were produced in small numbers, only at blueprint stage, or were in programs that were so divergent and redundant that they stretched the German research and development into a hugely inefficient waste of resources. However, the rest of the 20,000 plus certainly were NOT more maneuverable at combat altitudes as the P-51 had the advantage. And their performance was hindered by poor quality synthetic gasoline (synthetic is great as lubricating oils, not so good in aviation fuels) and pilots that were routinely killed simply because the Luftwaffe lacked a proper training program to produce adequate pilots after the elites were overwhelmed…
Secondly, the ceiling is largely a moot point, since it was the FW190s that had to meet the P-51s to get through to the bombers, not the other way around, so in a sense, it was the USAAF that dictated the terms of battle. Not too mention that the typical German tactics were to avoid fighter dogfights all together since their primary focus was knocking down bombers…
You might ask why if the FW-190 was such a great aircraft, did most of the German aces prefer Me109s?
The the British Spitfire XII was better fighter then the P-51 in sense of reliability and maneuverability.
The Spitfire is a beautiful, agile aircraft that I shall never speak ill of. But I can’t see how it was “more reliable” since I thought the engines were similar or identical. I could be wrong about that. But remember, the Mark VII version came out as a counter to the FW190 after the RAF noticed them in 1942. In a sense, until the P-51H model that never saw combat in the ETO, the Mustang wasn’t really specifically modified nor earmarked to engage a specific aircraft. It didn’t have to be. And I’m not even sure the later Spitfires could escort bombers to Berlin and back – the IVs certainly couldn’t…
The single advantage of P-51 was the great fuel stock.But accurate due to it - the Mustang often blowed up right in the sky , beeing hited by the short burst of gun Fw or Me.
Don’t believe me, watch the guncameras films.
Except apparently it didn’t happen all that often, it was the Luftwaffe that began to suffer irreplaceable losses that the Luftwaffe pilot training could not make good. Not the Americans.
Even the P-47 was much safe and reliable firgher.
You don’t play in WW2 simulators, i do play it…
The P-47 was a heavy barrel with a huge engine. It was great for tactical air support, but only barely competent against Luftwaffe fighters (until perhaps the last versions) and then only because it was rugged. Although, I believe the later versions were comparable, but were already superseded by, newer fighters such as the Mustang and FW-190. But it was still heavy and need a very powerful engine to compensate, making if a poor long range fighter and not all that agile…
And basing your history on video game developers? :lol:
I was meaning not the initial pure technical lack ( any engine has it) ,but the behaviour it during the battles.
So the engine of P-51 could be stoped or fired up im much nore cases by the single burst.
Except it really didn’t happen all that often, and you could say that about any fighter, including the FW-190. One burst of HE incendiary will pretty much take care of any fighter whether it is air cooled or liquid cooled!
And the ability of Allies pilots to destroy the Germans on the ground HAS NO Relation to the strategic bombings at all.
Au contraire! It was part of the battle of attrition that strategic bombing represented!
This was direct resault of total numerical superiority of allies in the sky.
With the Strategical bombers, or without it - the Alllies could reach the air superiority finally to the end of war.Without strategic bombings.
Maybe, but then, the Luftwaffe would have had plenty of fuel, wouldn’t they? I would also argue that the emphasis of strategic bombing was largely mislayed from the beginning. But there is little doubt that strategic bombing did in fact sap much of Germany’s resources --both aerial and otherwise-- that could have been put to good (or bad) use elsewhere…
