The F4U Corsair vs. German fighters
Ægir Sveinsson
Europe where it must have encounterd the German Bf 109's and
Focke-Wolf's.
Does anyone know how it performed against these formidable
adversaries?
Guy Alcala
Theoretically fine, because pilot quality is more important than a/c
performance if the latter's within 10% or so of each other. I don't
remember if FAA Corsairs actually encountered German fighters over
Norway - FAA Hellcats certainly did on one or two occasions, coming
out on the one I have data for with claims for 2 Me/1 FW, vs. no
losses. It was a luck of the draw kind of thing as to whether it was
Corsairs or Hellcats that encountered them. Then there's Eric
Brown's take on the Corsair II vs. Me-109G-6 and FW-190A-4 in his
book "Duels in the Sky", where he rates various a/c head to head
(having flown all of the above), assuming equal pilot quality.
Here's what he says:
:Corsair II vs. Me-109G6. [skipping some stats] "A battle between
the Corsair and the Me-109G-6 would be a contest between two fo the
world's greatest engines, each superlative but differing from the
other in ways that could determine the result of combat. The Double
Wasp gave the Corsair a slight speed advantage over the German
fighter at medium altitudes, while the in-line engine gave the
Me-109G-6 a performance advantage at low level, particularly in rate
of climb and acceleration in a dive. The Double Wasp was less
vulnerable to combat damage than the liquid-cooled DB605, and this
was accentuated by the greater firepower of the Corsair.
"The Corsair's best tactic would be to take on the Me-109G-6 in the
horizontal plane. The German would favor vertical maneuvers."
"Verdict: Since carrier air battles usually take place at low
altitudes, the Me-109G-6 should be favored in this encounter.
However, the Me-109G-6, not as good a dogfighter as its predecessor,
the Me-109F, would find itself unable to afford tactical errors
against the powerful American fighter."
Corsair II vs. FW-190A-4. "This would be a contest between a
heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with virtually all the
advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both aircraft a
lot, i have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The FW-190A-4
could not be bested by the Corsair.
"Verdict: The FW-190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter
of World War II. it is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair."
A few points. Brown is very clear in his various books that he was
never very comfortable with the Corsair, and he rightly was extremely
critical of its deck-landing suitability. For whatever reason, he
was as comfortable in Grumman fighters as he was uncomfortable in the
Corsair, and he was equally happy in the FW 190. It's also unclear
if the comments above refer to a Corsair fitted with water-injection
on the engine, and the prop from the Hellcat, as U.S. Corsairs
eventually were; I suspect not.
For a different and more favorable view of the Corsair (and Hellcat)
against the FW-190, go here for a USN comparison test:
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm
Guy
RALeonard
Regards
Rich
robert arndt
Tirpitz battleship. I don't think they engaged any German aircraft-
ever.
Previously, FAA Martlets (F4Fs) in North Africa, did, and managed to
shoot down a few...
Rob
RALeonard
Box Scores
F4F/FM vs Axis types
USN F4Fs:
22 Credits - 1 Loss
10 Curtis 75A
4 Dewoitine D.520
3 Martin 167
2 Potez 63
1 Douglas DB-7
1 Junkers Ju-88
1 Heinkel He-115
1 loss was to a Curtis 75A
RN FAA F4F/FMs
49 credits, 5 losses
12 Blohm and Voss BV-138
10 Focke-Wulf Fw-200
5 Savoia-Marchetti SM-79
4 Junkers Ju-88
4 Messerschmitt Me-109G
3 Morane 406C
2 Potez 63
1 Fiat G-50,
1 Cantieri Z- 506B
1 Reggianne R-2000
1 Bloch 174
1 Heinkel
1 Heinkel He-111
1 Heinkel He-115
1 Heinkel He-177
1 Junkers Ju-290, and Kawanishi H6K.
Losses were 1 each to an SM-79, an R-2000, a 406C, an Fw-200 and an
Me-109G.
F6F vs Axis types:
USN F6Fs
8 credits, no air combat losses
3 Heinkel He-111
3 Junkers Ju-52
1 Junkers Ju-88
1 Dornier Do-217
RN FAA F6Fs
5 Credits, 1 loss
2 Heinkel He-115
2 Messerschmitt Me-109G
1 Focke-Wulf Fw-190
The 1 loss was in the same action where the 109's and the 190 were
credited. One other F6F was lost to ground fire in the same action.
F4U vs Axis types:
USN F4U
Not use in European or African waters
RN FAA F4Us
Used in operations in the North Sea.
No credits, no losses in air combat
Regards,
Rich
Thom
Historians have argued for years that the 109 was a mess from the
beginning because it had low upgrade possibilities. It was small and
tight and unlike the 190 you couldn't ad much to it without parasitic
drag penalities. The 190 on the other had used both radial and in
line engines and additions fir nicely inside of it. It alsow as
easier to maintain especially the engine (Power-Egg) which meant you
could change out an engine in the field in less than 90 minutes.
I personally think that the 109 had the better gun arrangement with a
mixture of 20mm, 12mm and 7,92mm guns all at the same time. Once they
got the fuse problem on the 20mm Orklin solved a single 20mm hit would
bring you down except in a Hurrican were the thing frequently went
thru the fabric body killing a cow on the ground.
>
>Corsair II vs. FW-190A-4. "This would be a contest between a
>heavyweight and a lightweight fighter, with virtually all the
>advantages on the side of the latter. Having flown both aircraft a
>lot, i have no doubt as to which I would rather fly. The FW-190A-4
>could not be bested by the Corsair.
A couple of things. Since the combat area we're talking about is the
north, the carriers would have encountered elements of JG-5 which if
memory serves me was mostly FW-190's. JG-5 had one of the best
records in the Luftwaffe for both low losses and high kills and when
Galland put together JV-44 (Jets) he went right to JG-5 and got people
aces like Theo Wassenberger to fly the 262's. This goes back to pilot
skill issues.
Next, the Luftwaffe was better known for hit and run tactics in the
west rather than dog fighting in the 109. The 109, contrary to
propghanda, could stay up with a SPIT in a turn but you popped rivits
doing it and as Galland put it at the AF Museum in 1980 the only thing
worse than being dressed down by Hitler was being rubbished by his own
crew chief for popping rivits or cooking an engine! :-)
>
>"Verdict: The FW-190A-4 was arguably the best piston-engine fighter
>of World War II. it is a clear winner in combat with the Corsair."
I disagree, the FW190D-9/12 was but the D-9's never encountered US
Navy types.
>
>A few points. Brown is very clear in his various books that he was
>never very comfortable with the Corsair, and he rightly was extremely
>critical of its deck-landing suitability.
One of the reasons it went to the Marines for use on air fields.
>For whatever reason, he
>was as comfortable in Grumman fighters as he was uncomfortable in the
>Corsair, and he was equally happy in the FW 190. It's also unclear
>if the comments above refer to a Corsair fitted with water-injection
>on the engine, and the prop from the Hellcat, as U.S. Corsairs
>eventually were; I suspect not.
>
>For a different and more favorable view of the Corsair (and Hellcat)
>against the FW-190, go here for a USN comparison test:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm
>
>Guy
Cheers
THOM
>
Thom
wrote:
Nice to have this data but notice that the vast majority of the kills
were inferior types of fighters, bombers, sea planes and transports.
I counted a dozen losses vs 3 modern german fighters shot down??? I
was also interested in that HE-177 kill. The Germans claimed that in
the Beadecker Raids (the only action to speak of involving 177's over
Britain) that they didn't lose a single 177 to combat causes (they
made their bomb runs at 435mph). so I am assuming the 177 was from
KG-40 which was an anti-shipping unit which also operated the Junkers
Ju-290 in the bomber role. Does your source confirm this???
THOM
RALeonard
And the "inferior types" ? Well, jeez, I guess they took what they could
get. The majority of the Fleet Air Arm credits occurred in support of
convoy operations. Others were in support of landings in Madagascar and
North Africa. That being said though ,on 8 May 1944, F6Fs from 800
Squadron off HMS Emperor, while escorting a flight of Barracudas was
attacked by a mixed group of Me-109s and FW-190s. Two F6Fs were lost, one
to anti-aircraft fire; the Germans lost 2 Me-109's and one FW-190. The
FW-190 was claimed by Sub-Lieut. Ritchie. And, on 26 March 1945, FM-2s
from 882 Squadron off HMS Searcher, escorting a flight of TBMs along the
coast of Norway, was attacked by a flight of eight Me-109Gs. The Wildcat
pilots shot down four of the Me-109Gs at a cost of one Wildcat damaged. A
fifth 109 was claimed as damaged.
The USN credits were all in support of landings in North Africa and
Southern France. The Vichy French were willing to play and sent up what
they had available. It's not the USN's fault if the the Luftwaffe chose
not to send up any fighters to challenge their F6Fs over Southern France,
is it?
>
> I counted a dozen losses vs 3 modern german fighters shot down???
Count again ... 6 Me-109, 1 FW-190
> I was also interested in that HE-177 kill. The Germans claimed that in
> the Beadecker Raids (the only action to speak of involving 177's over
> Britain) that they didn't lose a single 177 to combat causes (they
> made their bomb runs at 435mph). so I am assuming the 177 was from
> KG-40 which was an anti-shipping unit which also operated the Junkers
> Ju-290 in the bomber role. Does your source confirm this???
>
> THOM
Whatever gave you the idea that any of these credits were over Britain? In
fact, only _one_ occurred over Britain, _the rest were all in the course
of carrier operations._ The only one over Britain itself was actually the
first aircraft shot down by an F4F, on 25 December 1940; flying out of
Hatson, Lieut. Carter and Sub-Lieut. Parke from 804 Squadron intercepted a
Ju-88 over Scapa Flow and shot it down near Loch Skail.
As far as the He-177s were concerned, on 12 February 1943, Convoy
OS-67/KMS-41, protected by 881 Squadron and 896 Squadron, HMS Pursuer, was
attacked by seven He-177s from II.KG-40 carrying the Henshel Hs-293 guided
missile. Defending F4Fs shot down an He-177, a snooping FW-200 and drove
off the remaining He-177s.
Regards,
Rich
Geoffrey Sinclair
>>
>>F4F/FM vs Axis types
>>
>>USN F4Fs:
>>22 Credits - 1 Loss
>>1 Douglas DB-7, 1 Junkers Ju-88, 1 Heinkel He-115
>>
>>1 loss was to a Curtis 75A
>>
>>RN FAA F4F/FMs
>>49 credits, 5 losses
>>Savoia-Marchetti SM-79, 4 Junkers Ju-88, 4 Me-109G
>>3 Morane 406C, 2 Potez 63, 1 Fiat G-50, 1 Cantieri Z- 506B
>>1 Reggianne R-2000, 1 Bloch 174, 1 Heinkel He-111
>>1 Heinkel He-115, 1 Heinkel He-177
>>1 Junkers Ju-290, and Kawanishi H6K.
>>
>>Losses were 1 each to an SM-79, an R-2000, a 406C, an
>>Fw-200 and an Me-109G.
>>
>>F6F vs Axis types:
>>
>>USN F6Fs
>>8 credits, no air combat losses
>>1 Dornier Do-217
>>
>>RN FAA F6Fs
>>5 Credits, 1 loss
>>1 Focke-Wulf Fw-190
>>The 1 loss was in the same action where the 109's and the 190 were
>>credited. One other F6F was lost to ground fire in the same action.
>>
>>F4U vs Axis types:
>>
>>
>>RN FAA F4Us
>>Used in operations in the North Sea.
>>No credits, no losses in air combat
>Nice to have this data but notice that the vast majority of the kills
>were inferior types of fighters, bombers, sea planes and transports.
So therefore we can near totally discount all Luftwaffe fighter
kills before around the end of 1942 in the west and say 1944
in the east? So those German aces who mainly fought in the
east can have their kill claims dropped to about 1/10th the
headline scores? The Me262 can be stated to have not shot
down anything, given the design's performance when everything
worked?
>I counted a dozen losses vs 3 modern german fighters shot down???
So the 6 Bf109G and 1 Fw190 are not modern fighters? Or
is it the usual cannot count syndrome?
>I was also interested in that HE-177 kill. The Germans claimed that in
>the Beadecker Raids (the only action to speak of involving 177's over
>Britain) that they didn't lose a single 177 to combat causes (they
>made their bomb runs at 435mph). so I am assuming the 177 was from
>KG-40 which was an anti-shipping unit which also operated the Junkers
>Ju-290 in the bomber role. Does your source confirm this???
The He177 first appeared over the UK in 1942. The first He177
destroyed over the UK was on 21 January 1944.
As for the He177, the tactic was to climb to over 20,000 feet
over France then spend the rest of the flight to and from
London in a shallow dive. As for the claim the RAF failed
to shoot one down, RAF mosquito night fighters made claims
for 8 He177s in the first 4 months of 1944, some of which at
least have been confirmed post war. Who are the Germans
making the claims there were no He177 combat losses, given
all the Luftwaffe would have had is a failed to return?
Also note many of the raids were on the ports being used for
Overlord, which flatters the bomber performance since they
effectively did not cross the British coast.
Anyway on the "inferior aircraft" rule nobody's night fighter
kills can be considered as counting, except for the RAF kills
on a few Fw190 fighter bombers and kills of other night
fighters.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Thom
Yes I counted his numbers too quickly but lets back up a bit. When I
say inferior types I'm refering to a fighter shooting down a sea plane
and the like. Its still a kill and still reduces an enemy's ability
to wage war. No offense was meant against anyone.
>
>>I was also interested in that HE-177 kill. The Germans claimed that in
>>the Beadecker Raids (the only action to speak of involving 177's over
>>Britain) that they didn't lose a single 177 to combat causes (they
>>made their bomb runs at 435mph). so I am assuming the 177 was from
>>KG-40 which was an anti-shipping unit which also operated the Junkers
>>Ju-290 in the bomber role. Does your source confirm this???
>
>
>The He177 first appeared over the UK in 1942. The first He177
>destroyed over the UK was on 21 January 1944.
Notice I said "to speak of". I'm refering to concentrated use of them
like the allied heavies were used. It still an impressive record not
loosing one for two years if your dates are correct (not doubting
them)
>
>As for the He177, the tactic was to climb to over 20,000 feet
>over France then spend the rest of the flight to and from
>London in a shallow dive. As for the claim the RAF failed
>to shoot one down, RAF mosquito night fighters made claims
>for 8 He177s in the first 4 months of 1944, some of which at
>least have been confirmed post war. Who are the Germans
>making the claims there were no He177 combat losses, given
>all the Luftwaffe would have had is a failed to return?
Again, get back to my statement about losses in the "Bedecker Raids".
Were these losses on these raids? My material showed that they made
their bomb runs at 435mph using the shallow dive technique as you
described. I'm given to believe that these were day raids. The
Germans said all their Bedecker losses were operational, mainly fires
in those bloody DB-610 coupled engines. I can't believe DB made that
thing! They could have finished developing the 604 and ended up with
an engine 1000 pounds lighter and more hourse power (2600).
The HE-177 has a much larger operational history than Allied
historians like to admit and they did iron out the engine fire
problems but too late. Fuel shortages grounded the 177, not the
enemy.
Also on your figures, were these strategic bombing mission losses
where you have a large number of them or KG-40 anti-shipping missions
with one or two being jumped by one or more fighters???
THOM
Geoffrey Sinclair
>On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 18:00:38 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
><gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Thom wrote in message <3d9e6a1b...@news.melbpc.org.au>...
>>>I counted a dozen losses vs 3 modern german fighters shot down???
>>
>>So the 6 Bf109G and 1 Fw190 are not modern fighters? Or
>>is it the usual cannot count syndrome?
>Yes I counted his numbers too quickly but lets back up a bit. When I
>say inferior types I'm refering to a fighter shooting down a sea plane
>and the like. Its still a kill and still reduces an enemy's ability
>to wage war. No offense was meant against anyone.
Calling things inferior is bound to cause offence, especially
when it is quite clear the conclusion is backed by faulty
counting. Besides inferior depends on the mission, not the
aircraft type.
>>>I was also interested in that HE-177 kill. The Germans claimed that in
>>>the Beadecker Raids (the only action to speak of involving 177's over
>>>Britain) that they didn't lose a single 177 to combat causes (they
>>>made their bomb runs at 435mph). so I am assuming the 177 was from
>>>KG-40 which was an anti-shipping unit which also operated the Junkers
>>>Ju-290 in the bomber role. Does your source confirm this???
>>
>>The He177 first appeared over the UK in 1942. The first He177
>>destroyed over the UK was on 21 January 1944.
>
>Notice I said "to speak of". I'm refering to concentrated use of them
>like the allied heavies were used. It still an impressive record not
>loosing one for two years if your dates are correct (not doubting
>them)
The Baedecker raids were in the summer of 1942, as far as I
am aware the first significant use of the He177 to bomb UK
cities was in the "baby blitz" in early 1944. Who are "the Germans"
making the claims? The notable thing about the German losses
in 1942 was the high percentage of instructor crews who were
used to make up the numbers.
This is becoming funnier still, how about giving the sortie counts
of He177 over England? The USAAF had the B-17 in operation
for years before the Luftwaffe shot one down, an impressive
record agreed? Indeed the Luftwaffe failed to shoot down a USAAF
B-17 for nearly 2 months after the type started flying missions against
German targets. Which really says nothing about how good the
B-17 was.
Let us start with the fact KG40 received the first He177s in
July 1942, just as the Baedecker raids ended, as they were the
summer night bombing campaign over England, they started in
April and concluded around July. They often targeted cities with
known weak defences.
Let us add the Luftwaffe bomber sortie totals over England in 1942,
(That is crossed the coast) from E R Hooton Eagle in Flames,
Jan 42, Feb 26, Mar 226, Apr 909, May 637, Jun 791, Jul 639,
Aug 254, Sep 240, Oct 207, Nov 99, Dec 208, total 4,278 sorties.
The bombers flew further missions over the sea near England,
Jan 341, Feb 383, Mar 343, Apr 275, May 295, Jun 402, Jul 150,
Aug 139, Sep 18, Oct 52, Nov 30, Dec 56, total 2,484 sorties.
I have a record of at least one He177 attacking Bristol on 28
August.
Total night bomber sorties by Luftflotte 3 over England come
to around 2,400 sorties with 244 aircraft lost. Many of the
day bomber sorties were "Piratenangriffe", single aircraft
harassment on bad weather days, the RAF used night fighters
to try and intercept.
Eagle in Flames talks about the Baedeker offensive being
curtailed in early May after heavy early losses, reducing the
campaign to retaliatory strikes, using assets like the He111
torpedo bombers of III/KG26.
All up Eagle in Flames reports Luftflotte 3's bomber units flew
7,039 sorties against England, dropping 6,584 tonnes of
bombs. I presume, part from the usual uncertainties in totals,
some of the 5,868 reconnaissance sorties were flown by the
bomber units.
In 1943 the Luftwaffe put 3,915 night and 67 day bomber sorties
over England, plus another 728 fighter bomber sorties, for
3,576 tons of bombs. Reconnaissance sorties dropped to 187,
for losses to the British defences of 191 bombers, 65 fighter
bombers and 33 reconnaissance aircraft.
The first 5 months of 1944 saw 4,426 bomber and 227 fighter
bomber sorties flown, some 243 bombers and 10 fighter
bombers lost to enemy action and another 348 bombers lost
to accidents (plus an unknown number of fighter bombers
to accidents).
The German force at the start of the "little blitz" was around
550 aircraft, 35 were He177s.
>>As for the He177, the tactic was to climb to over 20,000 feet
>>over France then spend the rest of the flight to and from
>>London in a shallow dive. As for the claim the RAF failed
>>to shoot one down, RAF mosquito night fighters made claims
>>for 8 He177s in the first 4 months of 1944, some of which at
>>least have been confirmed post war. Who are the Germans
>>making the claims there were no He177 combat losses, given
>>all the Luftwaffe would have had is a failed to return?
>
>Again, get back to my statement about losses in the "Bedecker Raids".
>Were these losses on these raids?
The Baedeker Raids were largely finished before the He177s
were committed to combat. Using the177 losses on these as
a measure of how good the aircraft was is nonsense. Rather
like noting how few Lancasters were shot down in daylight
raids in 1941 as "proof" of the design.
>My material showed that they made
>their bomb runs at 435mph using the shallow dive technique as you
>described. I'm given to believe that these were day raids.
Then go look up the relevant documentation and see how
incorrect the information is. The shallow dive technique was
the 1944 tactic. Given the distances from the coast for the
usual targets the He177 would have spent maybe twice the
time climbing to 20,000 feet as the time spent actually over
England. Not a really good recommendation for the design
given the smaller bomb load needed to be able to climb to
20,000 feet.
>The
>Germans said all their Bedecker losses were operational, mainly fires
>in those bloody DB-610 coupled engines. I can't believe DB made that
>thing! They could have finished developing the 604 and ended up with
>an engine 1000 pounds lighter and more hourse power (2600).
The theory was wonderful and indeed if Rechlin's report is to
believed it was workable as at least an interim 2,000 HP class
engine.
>The HE-177 has a much larger operational history than Allied
>historians like to admit and they did iron out the engine fire
>problems but too late. Fuel shortages grounded the 177, not the
>enemy.
I wondered when the "them" would appear, to try and justify "us"
being caught out. According to Alfred Price's Luftwaffe Data
Book on 27 July 1942 I/KG40 had 16 out of 30 He177s
operational, on 17 May 1943 there was 1 unserviceable He177
in Luftflotte 3, there were another 56 He177s present in
Lufttwaffenbefelshaber Mitte (Germany) of which 26 were
serviceable. On 31 May 1944 Luftflotte 3 held around 50 to 60
He177s in KG40, around 40 serviceable, with Luftflotte Reich
holding some 157 in KG1 and KG100, of which 42 were
serviceable.
So who are these faceless presumably majority allied historians
who do not like to admit the He177's operational history? Since
there were no fuel shortages in 1942/43 how come the type was
not used more often say against England? Rechlin produced a
report they later proved solved the engine fire problems but it
was not acted on for a long time.
Engine fires were the main reason for grounding the He177,
then came the pressure from the enemy, then the fuel shortage.
If the He177 was truly only used in small numbers against
England for a couple of months in 1942, then it is not
surprising the type has little space devoted to it in the
histories. Or even if the few months were in 1944.
>Also on your figures, were these strategic bombing mission losses
>where you have a large number of them or KG-40 anti-shipping missions
>with one or two being jumped by one or more fighters???
Why not release the sortie counts for He177 sorties over the UK?
KG40 flew bombing missions over England as well as anti
shipping strikes, the usual Luftwaffe command short termism.
The kill claims I reported come from Mosquito by Sharp and Bowyer,
Appendix 23 (I, II and III) Mosquito fighters operating in the defence
of Great Britain, 1942 to 5 June 1944, with the claims compared to
available German records. They are not all the RAF kill claims,
only the Mosquitoes. Smith and Kay in German Aircraft of the
Second World War claim the first He177 shot down over Britain
was on 21 January 1944, near Haslemere in Surrey.
Keith Willshaw
"Thom" <as...@freemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:3da21b10...@news.melbpc.org.au...
> On Sun, 6 Oct 2002 18:00:38 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
> <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>
> >The He177 first appeared over the UK in 1942. The first He177
> >destroyed over the UK was on 21 January 1944.
> Notice I said "to speak of". I'm refering to concentrated use of them
> like the allied heavies were used. It still an impressive record not
> loosing one for two years if your dates are correct (not doubting
> them)
Its only 2 years because they werent used much. After the
disastrous Badeker raids in 1942 when 25 squadrons of
RAF nightfighters inflicted devastating losses on the
attackers the Germans didnt attack again until the
"little Blitz" (Steinbock) in 1944
This produced even worse losses for the Germans than the
Baedeker raids and the much vaunted He-177's proved vulnerable
to the Mosquito nightfighters of the RAF.
The Germans started Steinbock with
220 Ju 88s
35 Ju 188s
121 Do 217Ks
46 He 177A-3
1 gruppe Me 410s
1 gruppe FW 190s
(about 100 escorts)
Of the original 427 bombers only 130 were left
at the end of the campaign
> >
> >As for the He177, the tactic was to climb to over 20,000 feet
> >over France then spend the rest of the flight to and from
> >London in a shallow dive. As for the claim the RAF failed
> >to shoot one down, RAF mosquito night fighters made claims
> >for 8 He177s in the first 4 months of 1944, some of which at
> >least have been confirmed post war. Who are the Germans
> >making the claims there were no He177 combat losses, given
> >all the Luftwaffe would have had is a failed to return?
> Again, get back to my statement about losses in the "Bedecker Raids".
> Were these losses on these raids? My material showed that they made
> their bomb runs at 435mph using the shallow dive technique as you
> described. I'm given to believe that these were day raids.
They werent. The last large scale daylight raids over Britain
happened in 1940
> The
> Germans said all their Bedecker losses were operational, mainly fires
> in those bloody DB-610 coupled engines. I can't believe DB made that
> thing! They could have finished developing the 604 and ended up with
> an engine 1000 pounds lighter and more hourse power (2600).
>
The Baedeker raids happened in April 1942. At this stage
only a handful of pre-production aircraft were available.
For the most part the aircraft involved in the Baedeker
raids were the usual mix of Ju-88's , Dorniers etc
> The HE-177 has a much larger operational history than Allied
> historians like to admit and they did iron out the engine fire
> problems but too late. Fuel shortages grounded the 177, not the
> enemy.
>
Most of its operational history was on the Eastern front.
They were seriously outclassed by day or night over Britain
> Also on your figures, were these strategic bombing mission losses
> where you have a large number of them or KG-40 anti-shipping missions
> with one or two being jumped by one or more fighters???
>
> THOM
Keith
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----