Daywalker and many others of you asked me what book I use as referance. At that time I was doing home improvment’s and my books were packed away. I now have new shelves and my book are all in there new homes. I have reviewed the 30+ book I have on the luftwaffe and picked out the top ten I use the most and trust as accurate. I will post these very soon. In the mean time I was asked to review a new book as it was getting trashed by the hard core luftwaffe nuts. I did so and they must have liked it becasue they asked me to do 2 more. I thought some of you might find this interesting. I posted them in order I reviewed them.
Book review P-51 Mustang VS FW190
Author Martin Bowman reviewed by Stan M
In Luftwaffe circles, this book has taken a lot of heat. The author makes the argument that the only fighter the Luftwaffe had enough numbers to take the skies from the Mustang was the Fw190A-8. Thus he compares the A-8 to a P-51 D/K, I don’t think you need to write a whole book on this, in a time where aircraft tech and performance were improving at a staggering rate it’s not hard to believe that the far newer design of the P-51 had many advantages over an aircraft who had been in service since before the US was even in the war. With this being said, the Fw190A does have advantages over the P-51D/K, but not many, the A-8 has a superior rate of roll, better firepower, and ability to absorb more punishment than the P-51. Also, at altitudes of 22,00 feet and less the overall speed and performance of the A-8 is comparable to that of the later D/K Mustang. It’s really only at altitudes above 22K that the P-51 really gets any good advantage over the A-8. I think this says a lot about Kurt Tank and the A-8 that it could stay in the fight even in this late stage of the war.
I find two major problems with this this book, the first is although the author has vast knowledge of Allied aircraft, he does not seem to have the same level of knowledge on the Luftwaffe aircraft. Second, the Luftwaffe was not utilizing the Fw190A-8’s as air superiority fighters at this point in the war. This task was left up to aircraft like the Fw190D series, BF 109G14/AS, K-4’s, G-10’s, and even some ME 262’s and TA 152’s. All of these fighters were more than capable of combating the P-51 on even or in most cases better terms. Most A-8s were used in the sturmgruppe role of bomber interceptor. Although I understand the interceptor VS escort, and the fact that these two aircraft fought many times over the Reich, I would have liked to have seen a comparison between the bomber escorts and the interceptor escorts as well. Two places in the book Bowman does mention the long nose Dora and the TA 152 as being better fighters and even states that the D-9 was a match for the P-51 but goes no further on the subject. Rather this is due to space constraints typical of the Osprey publications or like the History channels show Dogfights where comparing the P-51 to anything that might be better is a no no. The title should read as P-51D VS FW190A-8 as these are what is actually being compared. Bowman’s lack of 190 technical knowledge can be seen on page 70 where there is a gun camera picture of a shot up 190A-8 with one landing gear strut down. The caption along side says “The fighters right gear leg has dropped open, indicating that the Focke-Wulfs hydraulic system has been holed- this is a sure sign that the aircraft was doomed” . The problem is the Fw190A-8’s landing struts were operated by an electric motors NOT hydraulics. Most likely the motor or actuator lock was hit . I think the book paints an accurate picture of the fw190A-8 performance against the P-51D despite what other have said. You can tell that the author does have more nut and bolt knowledge of the P-51 then he does the fw190, but most of the info presented is correct. No book is 100% accurate.
Now that I have addressed what I feel are the only two errors with the book , I have say that I do agree with the authors comparison between the FW190A-8 and a P-51D/K Mustang. The book gives the reader extensive background into the pros and cons of each plane. I also like that the book not only comes to the table with the ton of statistics, but also touches on pilot training and the aces/experten who flew them. This along with info on aircraft development, strategic situation and tactics used by both sides helps to show a clear picture of these two fighters. I think that P-51 mustang VS FW 190 give the reader a very accurate view of these two aircraft in combat. Overall I would say Bowman did outstanding job on this book. I hope he will do a Dora 9 vs. P-51D. I like to see how he tackles this.
Finally unlike the USAAF where large quantities were important, the Luftwaffe strategy was more modern. they produced fewer tanks and fighters but these were cutting edge and the best that could be built. You don’t see today’s US Air Force producing tens of thousands of B-2’s or F-22’s. Rather the cutting edge technology and quality of the machine in question make the difference over numbers. Aircraft production in the Reich peeked in 1944. They had hundreds of 262 sitting waiting to be converted into bombers. The Reich did not lack aircraft late in the war. They could have used more experienced pilots but fuel was the big thing that was missing. Most Luftwaffe aircraft and pilots sat on the ground due to lack of fuel. Aircraft like the Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9/11/12/13, and TA152’s were far superior to any Allied fighter flying in 1945. The problem was they lacked the fuel to support any good defensive action. Another point to make is It doesn’t matter how good a fighter you have if you are out numbered almost 20 to one or have no fuel to fly. By the end of 1944 P-51’s were rolling off the assembly line faster then Twinkies at a rate of one every 10 minutes. There was no chance the Luftwaffe could win against those numbers. The P-51 Mustang’s greatest advantage was its superior numbers not superior performance.
Spitfire VS Bf109
Battle of Britain by tony Holmes
Book review by Stan M
This is a great book for anyone who loves WWII air combat or the battle of Britain. Written in the same format as the other Osprey VS books, this book not only has a great staticial break down of both fighters but also all the other things that play into making a comparison like this. Spitfire vs. Bf109 gives the reader a comprehensive look at not only the planes and their development but also the pilots, pilot training, the tactics and strategy used. One thing Often overlooked by many is the Luftwaffe was the first modern airforce in terms of both aircraft, and tactics they used. Developed by reich Experten these new tactics were one of the big reasons why Reich pilots had such high number of airieal victories. This book touches on this point briefly. Fighter commands operation and thinking are also described enough to give the reader a good idea of what was happening on the RAF side.
What is basically being pitted against one another is a spitfire MK.IA vs. a Bf109E-3. Other types are discussed but for the most part these are the combatants. As many of you already know these two fighters at this junction of the war are almost equal adversaries. Other good points of this are the excellent period photos and very well researched info . This book reads very well and give a clean, precise and most importantly accurate look into these two wariors. Tony Holmes has done a bag up job on this publication and I do hope he authors more like it.
Most of the referanece books on my shelf are hard cover and run between 50 and 120 dollars.I must say don’t let the small size or price tag fool you the statistics and analysis info alone in SpitfireVS BF109 makes it a must own for Battle of Britain fans. I also recommend Reading THE FEW By Alex Kershaw. This book chronicles the lives of the first eagle squadron pilots during the battle of Britain and compliments spitfire vs. bf 109 nicely.
P-47 Thunderbolt VS BF109G/K
By Martin Bowman
Reviewed by Stan M
This book follows that same format as the other Osprey VS books, so there are no surprises there. P-47 Thunderbolt VS BF109G/K is authored by Martin Boman, the same writer of P-51 Mustang VS FW 190. Like his previous book, this book has a lot of excellent info on the general history, strategic situation, and fighter development of both sides. The info about the various T-bolts and their performance is top notch; it has a ton of figures for allied fighter victories and easily picks out the weakness of the Luftwaffe. Figures on the Luftwaffe’s side are sparse at best. The fighters being compared are the P-47D-25 VS Bf109G-6 early version. Like his previous book I find two major problems with this book: One he lacks the same level of knowledge on the 109 and Luftwaffe as he does the USAAF and the P-47. Two because of this, the book is riddled the contradictory info and errors mostly about the performance and technical data concerning the 109. This same problem can be found in P-51 Vs FW190. If you are very knowledgeable about Reich fighters these are simple to pick out, if not then it would be easy for the novice reader to take everything as fact. Because there is a good amount of well researched historically accurate data to lead one with a fair knowledge of WWII aviation history to take it all at face value.
I will not go into all the problems I found, but here are a few of the biggies. On page 28 it seems to indicate that the G-6 could have been powered by the DB605D engine. No G-6 was ever produced with this power plant. Page 56 “Messerschmitt handling was also outmoded by 1944” Other places in the book praise the performance of the 109 (page 59)? On page 58 bombers usually operate at altitudes in excess of 24K, two pages over the Luftwaffe is intercepting them at 20 to 25K. Bombers usually operated between 19K and 25K tops. I have seen many after action reports on both sides of bomber formations being intercepted at 18K. Page 69 refers to a “special supercharged” 109, I think they meant those 109’s powered with the AS or ASM power plants. Finally stated on page 21 the G-10 top speed of 437 MPH at 24,921 is the rough figure for the 605D on 87 octane. Depending on the octane and engine combination used, the G-10’s top speed could have been 452 mph at 29,952 with the DCM and 100 octane. The K-4’s top speed with the same combo was 455 MPH at 31,000 feet.
I found this book confusing and hard to read due to all the conflicting info. No clear answers are ever given. Info changes from page to page to the point that the reader can’t even get a good idea of the 109 performance, or how it would fair against the Thunderbolt. Also despite having the K in the title the 109K is never matched up to a late P-47D-RE or even a D-35-RA. The K is really only mentioned in the one paragraph. This books giving excellent background info on the fighters and ETO operations on both sides it’s is a little cryptic in comparing the P-47D-25 and Bf109G-6 early version. P-47 Thunderbolt VS Bf109G/K has a few more errors and misinformation than P-51 Mustang VS FW190.
Here are the number stats and info left out. The bomber attrition rate average was just over 40%, and on some sorties it was as high as 87% (black Thursday). This meant the Luftwaffe was downing just under half of all daylight bombers. This didn’t slow up until the P-51 started flying escort cutting the bomber losses by half. The Luftwaffe stopped shooting down allied aircraft it just means they shot down fewer bombers. P-51 CLAIMED 4,950 air victories but suffered 2,520 combat losses. This means that the Luftwaffe was still inflecting a 20% attrition rate to the bombers while still downing 1.2 P-51 for every 2 losses to there own. Remember they did this while being out numbered by as many as 20 to 1. As time wore on bomber losses would fall due to the Luftwaffe’s lack of fuel and air fields. In the end the Luftwaffe lost the war but won the war of attrition. Destroying some 70,000 allied aircraft to the loss of 62,500 of their own.
A note on BFf109 weight gain:
For some reason the myth has risen that 109 kept getting heaver and heavier, thus the K-4 is so overweight it no longer performs as well as other 109’s. This it completely false, the 109 series did steadily increase in weight from the early B to the G-6. The G-6 was the heaviest of all 109’s and had the most aerodynamic compromise. Because of this, the G-6 performance is well under that of both earlier and latter machines. This is also why every book and TV show quotes the G-6 performance specs. The G-14 weight for the most part was the same as the G-6-no gains no loss. Many G-10’s were nothing more than G-14’s with some K parts and possibly the K’s power plant. Some G-10’s on the other hand were stripped models, this meant no equipment for Rustatze options or added plumbing for a drop tank, making some G-10’s slightly lighter but not heavier.
The K-4 is basically a new 109 all together. Using lighter materials and never designed to carry any Rustatze options except for some utilizing a center drop tank. The only thing adding any extra weight to the K-4 was a larger MW50 tank (coud be found in some G-10 and G-14/AS as well). This meant the K-4 was slightly lighter than the G-6/14 but not as light as the earlier models. Couple this with a 2000+ HP engine and other refinemets it easy to see the K-4 is a perdator and quite possibly the best close quarters fighter in the ETO. Late mark spits and Ta’s can duke it out with the K-4 for top honors in this class.
The K-4 was able to easily out climb and turn inside any P-51. In level flight it was 20 MPH faster, wielding a 30 MM cannon gave the K-4 a one shot one kill possibility against the P-51. The only advantages a P-51D block 20 thru 30 had over the K-4, was range and dive performance. This meant in a one on one dogfight the K-4 had control of the fight. In closing I will bust this myth. The G-6 did receive larger tires (660x160) and it was due to weight and add on options. Then the G-10/14 and K-4 received wider tires (660x190). If they didn’t get heavier why the larger tires? Two reasons: One Messerschmitt thought the wider tires would aid the 109’s in take offs and landings on the improvised air fields they were forced to use late in the war. Second, Messerschmitt needed a tire capable of handling more weight and faster landing speeds anyway. You guessed it, the same tire found on the 109 can also be found on the front landing gear of the Messerschmitt jet fighter, the ME 262. Facts are much more interesting then the myths many books would have you believe.