On warpath with AFA

[Ken Stallings]

Two years ago, while he was still alive, I communicated with the Air Force Association about investigating and working with the USAF to correct the record and restore Lt Col (ret) Lee Archer's fifth confirmed victory. For those who do not know, Archer was standing at three confirmed victories when he filed his claim for numbers four and five.

In the immediate aftermath, and without any additional evidence announced, the US Army Air Force brass decided to revoke one of Archer's previously confirmed kills. When this happened, Archer's confirmed kill tally was officially reduced to four.

His fellow pilots concluded that the virulent racism that existed at the time resulted in this questionable decision. While it was controversial that the Tuskegee Airmen existed in the USAAF at all, it seems it was simply intolerable that any of these black pilots would earn the coveted ace status.

Archer, ever the gentleman, didn't make much of it. But other members of the Tuskegee Airmen most certainly did. My initial efforts went nowhere. Now that Lt Col (ret) Archer has passed away, I am renewing my efforts and I want your assistance.

I want you to read the email I exchanged with AFA President and CEO, Michael Dunn, which I will post in the next posting in this thread. Then, I will make a few personal observations about the communication.

Cheers,

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

Michael,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I think you missed my point.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Lt Col (ret.) Archer was officially awarded credit for a total of five victories. However, in what can only be termed an “unusual” situation, the USAAF went back after he was awarded credit for his fifth kill and took away a previously recognized credit for a previous confirmed kill without any additional evidence being provided for the action. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Lee Archer was part of the Tuskegee Airmen, and it is widely considered by his fellow airmen that this unusual action was carried out because of the prevalent racism that existed at the time. The leadership simply did not want a black ace.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
No one is saying that Lt Col Archer did not shoot down more than five aircraft. He had many probables also. However, I don’t know of any pilot who many weeks after award of a confirmed kill had it taken away without any further evidence. I am sure you will agree that the Tuskegee Airmen faced many obstacles no other American airmen had to face. Racism was so evil at the time that these pilots were frequently denied permission even to enter into base officer clubs! Therefore, since they faced such unique obstacles I am frankly asking AFA for a unique action to correct the historical record.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
What do I want? I want AFA to light a fire under the USAF and get the official investigation performed to determine what the Tuskegee Airmen already know – that this revoked confirmed kill was entirely racially motivated and let’s ensure the official record is corrected. I don’t want to frankly see another AFA Almanac published without Lt Col Archer’s name listed with five confirmed kills.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Honesty demands it. Now that Lt Col Archer has passed away, there are no excuses left and I won’t accept any excuses any longer.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Sincerely,<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Ken Stallings<o:p></o:p>
Major, USAF (ret.)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
From: President of AFA [mailto:president@AFA.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:56 AM
To: ken@kenstallings.com
Subject: RE: Lee Archer<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Kenneth, thanks for the note. I have to tell you that AFA seldom intervenes into matters like this. We don’t have the data … nor the staff … and … at some point we have to believe the AF takes all factors into account.

I know several Aces personally … and they all tell me they had almost twice as many kills as they were given credit for …

So, this is not surprising to me.

Not sure how you wanted AFA to recognize Col Archer. We have a myriad of awards … and lots at the local level.

You imply the colonel was an African American … and if that is so, we honored the Tuskegee Airmen last year with a lifetime achievement award – the first one of these that we have ever given to a group …

MD

Michael M. Dunn
President/CEO
Air Force Association


<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
From: Ken Stallings [mailto:ken@kenstallings.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:42 AM
To: President of AFA
Subject: Lee Archer

Michael,

Yesterday, Lt Col (ret.) Lee Archer passed away. AFA is remiss in not paying tribute to this man. Two years ago, while he was still alive, I communicated with AFA to re-award the credit for his fifth aerial victory in the ETO, which was initially awarded as his third victory, and then denied afterward when he would have been awarded his fifth victory to make him an ace. It is widely considered, both at the time and today, that this retroactive removal of credit was racially motivated to prevent Lt Col Archer being recognized as an ace.

A determination was made that there was “insufficient evidence” to award the credit again. This decision presumes there was a level playing field at the time – something that most certainly was not the case. The investigation should have centered upon why the credit was officially awarded, then when he filed additional claims, taken away. The timing with respect to his ace status was questionable at best and only a man refusing to acknowledge the racial climate of the era would act as though race played no factor.

Now that Lt Col Archer has passed away, we have missed our opportunity to correct the injustice while he was alive. But, we can send a vital message by correcting it today.

Sincerely,

Kenneth W. Stallings II, Major, USAF (ret.)

[Ken Stallings]

I am frankly rather hot under the collar about Dunn's email reply to me for two reasons. First, did you notice that he revealed he didn't already know who Lee Archer was? He had to pose as a question whether Lee Archer was a Tuskegee Airman! I mean, would I have needed to tell him who Curtis LeMay was or Henry Arnold, or Carl Spatz!

He actually did not know that Lee Archer was a black pilot who helped change decades of racism in America with his achievements in World War II. And this man is the top leader of the Air Force Association!

Second, he makes the obviously true statement that most aces had many more probable victories than confirmed victories. No joke! But he apparently presumes that Archer lost credit initially, not after the original confirmation. So, for the second time he reveals a shocking ignorance of the historical record.

I really did not believe I needed to provide basic historical background on Lee Archer. Especially considering I wrote this email the evening of Lee Archer's passing I actually gave AFA leadership credit for hearing the news and doing a little homework on such an iconic figure in US military airpower. However, clearly I was wrong.

So, here's what I am asking for ...

I am asking that every member of SOH communicate with AFA, especially if you are retired USAF. I think an organized campaign might finally get AFA and the USAF off their cans and finally do the right thing.

Thanks for your attention, cheers.

Ken

[tigisfat]

I think your initial response was a little hot, to be honest. I'm very good at reading emotion through written words, and my best guess would be to say that his head was still spinning from your letter when he wrote you a response. He gave you a very honest reply, and I think your obvious passion for the issue may have led you to overlook crucial parts of his response. The AFA is clearly not the right tree to be barking up. He's not sure what you want him to do because the AFA doesn't really correct records. Sure they can lobby, but there are there are hundreds of VERY famous USAF heroes, and tens of thousands more that have not recieved the credit they are due. Every one of those heroes that helped build our USAF legacy probably have posthumous constituents writing angry letters like they are the first person to ever take up the cause.

I commend your pursuit, but I would start writing other agencies with more clout and capability here. The AFA isn't wrong for not dropping everything to help you; please don't assume it's because they are racist or don't care about heroes....they have a lot going on at any moment.

[PRB]

Have to agree with Tig on this one, absent any other data. Did a Google search on this, and in the brief period of time I spent on it, it seems that 1) his official record is 4.5, in that he shared a kill with another pilot, 2) Archer himself always claimed he had four kills. I’d be interested in actual references that make the case that 1) he got five kills, and 2) that number five was “taken away” from him, and 3) what, exactly, the “unusual” circumstances were. Got any links? Your case, from what you have provided here, is strong on emotion, and less so on documentation. Not saying you don’t have it, just that you haven’t provided it here. You might say “do your own research”, which is fair enough, but if you’re going to make the case, make it with documentation…

[Toastmaker]

I had a thought that perhaps the AFA may not be the best source for corrective action as they appear to be somewhat "officially" weak in terms of bringing pressure to bear on AF hierarchy. Have you considered making this effort with the commander of the Military Personnel Center (AF) at Randolph AFB ?

[Ken Stallings]

AFA is the lobbying organization and they have the connections to lobby for this correction.

Roscoe Brown is on record that he should have retained that fifth kill. I have read several interviews with him and other pilots. Here is just one reference and quote from him:

http://www.loudouni.com/news/2010-02-11/after-roof-collapses-hangar-dulles-condemned

Here are other articles on it I dug up in short order:

http://www.blackenterprise.com/blog/2010/01/31/lee-buddy-archer-jr-dies-at-90/

However, this is a link to the most definitive historical examination. It is a study done for an ACSC class by Major James R. Cluff. I would urge people to read the full study and not stop at the introduction. The issue is controversial entirely because of the denial of the credit after the fact. Unlike many pilots, Lt Col Archer simply did not care about the ace status. If he had, perhaps the record would have been corrected during the war. His views of the issue are rather strident and illustrate the selfless nature of the man.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ynMQ_gUt_8sJ:https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_6ba9e344-143f-4ec6-97d3-90e7282ae407/display.aspx%3Frs%3Denginespage+Lee+Archer+denied+ ace+status&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

My main point is that just because Lt Col Archer did not care should not mean we should not care.

Let me add that the AFA doesn't even plan to perform a tribute to the man because as Michael Dunn says, "he was not a member of AFA!" Far as I can tell, neither was Richard Bong or Billy Mitchell but that did not stop AFA from honoring them. I realize my reply to Michael Dunn was a bit strident. But I get tired of the bureaucratic inertia that builds up over years.

Ken

[Ken Stallings]

Here is the critical extract from that AF paper:

<NOBR>Lt Col Archer recalls his second victory occurring a week after his first. This is the one</NOBR>
<NOBR>that “they have trouble with.”79 He and Pruitt were flying together and Pruitt had a gun</NOBR>
<NOBR>malfunction. “I noticed he had the guy dead in his sights, then I took the shot. In the squadron it</NOBR>
<NOBR>is there; suddenly it was a half [credit].” When asked if he wanted to contest the issue, he replied</NOBR>
<NOBR>no. “That and two dollars will get you in the subway, and I got two bucks and I can get in the</NOBR>
<NOBR>subway without being an ace. The President has recognized it and said I was. The President of</NOBR>
<NOBR>France said their records indicate it and a German guy said they have all the records and their</NOBR>
<NOBR>records indicate it. It hasn’t made a hell of a difference to me.”80 The victory recounted above</NOBR>
<NOBR>sounds very similar to the events of October 12th when Lt Col Archer shot down three aircraft.</NOBR>
<NOBR>Yet given that Lt Col Archer often flew with Pruitt, and fighter guns in World War II often</NOBR>
<NOBR>jammed, it is very plausible that he got multiple kills when Pruitt was unable to fire his weapons.</NOBR>
<SUP></SUP>

[PRB]

Thanks, Ken. Interesting.

Bad thing about air battles is that it's hard to preserve a concrete record of what happened. In sea battles you have ship's logs, position reports, etc. Even with land battles, there is often archeological evidence left behind for many years. With air battles, the smoke clears, the broken planes fall to earth, and nothing remains except the memories of the (sometimes) very few people actually involved.

The same paper continues:

“Would Lt Col Davis, a known stickler for the rules and a fierce protector of the Tuskegee Airmen, have allowed one of his men to be denied ace status through the doctoring of records, specifically records that he himself would have approved for submittal to higher headquarters? It is impossible to believe that Lt Col Davis would have knowingly allowed false information to be passed on to higher headquarters. The author believes that the most plausible story is that Lt Col Archer is in fact an ace. Whether that victory occurred on July 20, 1944 is immaterial. Given the tremendous number of sorties flown by Lt Col Archer, the odds are that a kill was not credited to him for any number of reasons: gun camera film being unavailable, another pilot did not see his victory, or perhaps he allowed credit for a kill to be given to another pilot. Whether or not Lt Col Archer is an official ace does not diminish in any way the tremendous bravery,dedication and leadership he demonstrated while fighting for his country.”

The secocd (bold added) part is important, for it applies equally to countless other pilots in WW-II. How many times have we read that Dick Bong “probably” got as much as 80 kills...? This pursuit could go on forever, and the official record of all fighter pilots must then be reviewed. And with them the USAF policy for awarding confirmation of kills in the Second World War. A daunting undertaking at best...

[Panther_99FS]

It's my personal OPINION that the cards were stacked totally against any Tuskegee airman achieving "ace" status in the 1940s...

This OPINION of mine is based on the fact that they were barely able to even exist.....As the "program" almost never saw the light of the day...

[GT182]

It's my personal OPINION that the cards were stacked totally against any Tuskegee airman achieving "ace" status in the 1940s...

This OPINION of mine is based on the fact that they were barely able to even exist.....As the "program" almost never saw the light of the day...

Panther, you hit the proverbial nail on the head. The Tuskgee Airmen always gotten the short end of the stick. And that's always pissed me off to no end.

Ken, you and I and Panther know you mean well. But your banging your head against a stone wall, it's all going to deaf ears. They don't care and/or they haven't a clue what these brave men went thru.

[Ken Stallings]

GT182,

I are likely right. But, I care and so I continue on with this effort.

PRB, the essential point is that many times credit was never awarded as confirmed but rather as a probable kill. That happened a lot.

What happened very rarely is for credit to be awarded as a confirmed kill and then taken away weeks later. In the case of the rescended credit being taken away, it happened to Lt Col Archer precisely at the moment he was given confirmed kill credit for his fifth kill.

To me, the timing, considering no other evidence was released, reveals this was a dirty deal now buried in bureacuracy and paperwork. Archer also had many probable victories and no one is saying they should be administratively converted to a confirmed kill. However, when a kill is confirmed, it should stay confirmed unless something else comes to light. In Archer's case nothing else was determined after the fact, except that if the USAAF brass didn't do something they would have a black fighter ace on their hands and they didn't want one!

So, in my firm view, the brass resorted to an often used reason to deny credit on the spot -- multiple pilots made attack runs. Except those decisions are normally made immediately, not weeks after a confirmed kill is awarded. And, in this case, the other pilot who made an attack run had his guns jam and was unable to inflict damage on the German fighter.

That's hard for us to comprehend because our society has so fundamentally changed. But in 1944, virulent racism was systemic and widespread. Racial hatred was very much at work with everything these airmen did, and to deny them ace status was one way they could be denied.

Ken

[cheezyflier]

reality being what it is, i can only wonder why any agency involved would allow the situation to continue. it's not as if you have access to information they don't. why would they not want to correct it without any prompting from the average joe?
(or ken, as the case may be)

[Ken Stallings]

My gut feel is that first, they don't care because it doesn't affect their daily jobs. Second, it reveals the depth of the racism that existed at the time. Third, it potentially sets in motion further investigation into who made the decisions to revoke the previous confirmed credit and that might stain the legacy of some general officers of the period.

Fourth, Lee Archer didn't give a damn! In fact, I think he was so angry inside from the process that he didn't care about it. I understand that one a bit because I've routinely turned down awards myself because I got so tired of the politics of the situation.

Five, because Archer didn't want the matter pursued, his fellow pilots did not pursue it.

Put those five factors together and no one motivated had the combination of desire, will, and influence to change the injustice.

So, that's why it comes down to a grassroots level. And that's precisely why again I'm asking SOH member to get involved and start writing Congressmen, Senators, and even the President. If you have military contacts in the Pentagon within the USAF, exercise them.

Ken

[n4gix]

Ken, for what it's worth, I note that yesterday CNN reported on Lt. Col. Archer's death, and during the video report he was referred to as an "Ace..."

Also, I've found this in a report by the New York Daily News, which appears to have some of their facts a bit off:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/01/29/2010-01-29_retired_air_force_lt_colonel_lee_a_archer_lone_ ace_tuskegee_airman_dies_at_90.html?r=news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nydnrss%2Fnews+%28News%29



"It is generally conceded that Lee Archer was the first and only black ace pilot," credited with shooting down five enemy planes, Dr. Roscoe Brown Jr. (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Roscoe+Brown), a fellow Tuskegee Airman and friend, said in a telephone interview Thursday.

Archer was acknowledged to have shot down four planes, and he and another pilot both claimed victory for shooting down a fifth plane. An investigation revealed Archer had inflicted the damage that destroyed the plane, said Brown, and the Air Force eventually proclaimed him an ace pilot.


After having reviewed many, many articles concerning this genuine hero's passing, it seems to be that perhaps a better approach would be to contact the various media who've reported this bit of "spin..."

http://cnn.mlogic.mobi/cnn/lt_ne/lt_ne/detail/451642/full;jsessionid=1A6277DB4033C45FCE5E4027A235DDF4.l ive4i

On October 12, 1944, while piloting a P-51 Mustang, Archer downed three Luftwaffe fighters in the sky over Nazi-occupied Hungary. He also was credited with shooting down a fighter over Germany earlier in the year.

U.S. military officials could not confirm a fifth downing by Archer in summer 1944. If they had been able to do so, he would have become the only Tuskegee airman to be officially designated as an ace.


Note that absolutely NO MENTION was made by any report about him having had one credited kill disallowed! Apparently the real truth is still being suppressed...

...to which I'm not at all surprised.

[tigisfat]

The Tuskgee Airmen always gotten the short end of the stick.


I don't know if that's true. In many recent decades, the Tuskeegee Airmen have been the subject of embarassing exaggerations and inflations of the truth because people love them so much. Noone knows who started it, but the whole "never lost a bomber" thing is a complete lie: The surviving Tuskeegee Airman want to be remembered for the great things they DID do, and surely don't want to be celebrated on top of the graves of bomber crews no ace ever born could've saved at the time.

[Ken Stallings]

I don't know if that's true. In many recent decades, the Tuskeegee Airmen have been the subject of embarassing exaggerations and inflations of the truth because people love them so much. Noone knows who started it, but the whole "never lost a bomber" thing is a complete lie: The surviving Tuskeegee Airman want to be remembered for the great things they DID do, and surely don't want to be celebrated on top of the graves of bomber crews no ace ever born could've saved at the time.

They never lost a bomber to enemy fighters when they provided the bombers' escort. And that is not an exaggeration. It is also not an accident or fortunate piece of luck. It was a direct result of the pressures for perfection they operated under. If just one escort mission went bad they would have been dismantled, and they knew it!

Accordingly, unlike other fighter units, they never left the bombers. They never persued enemy fighter aircraft. Davis' orders were clear, they were to break up enemy fighter formations so that the bombers could put space between them. Because they never followed enemy fighters, their kill tallies were relatively low.

In terms of your claim they didn't draw the short end, I must say I think you should read more about them. They did draw the short end. They had high placed enemies at every turn who wanted them to fail and were more than willing to use dirty tricks to put them into a no-win situation.

The only controversy was caused by people who didn't know what they were talking about, or whom inserted assumptions on top of the accurate facts. Bombers were always lost by flak, but that is not a fair measurement of the success of escorting fighters. Also, bombers not being escorted were shot down, but again that's not a fair measure. If you only used your guns to break up enemy formations and relied on lucky kills, then it's not that difficult to keep the bombers safe from enemy fighters.

A legitimate argument can certainly be made that by allowing the enemy to escape you aren't doing all you can to defeat the enemy. However, Davis didn't issue those orders to let Germans escape. He issued them because he knew he had to insist upon ramrod strict discipline because they were goldfish in a very small bowl. To those who would doubt what they dealt with, I would simply reply that no one in these forums has a clue of an idea the pressures they operated in. Fighting the aerial war in the ETO was bad enough to crush people. The Tuskegee Airmen flew four and five times the number of sorties compared to white pilots and crews, so do the math!

Add in the systemic racism and hatred they faced, and it's a wonder they could succeed at any level, much less accomplish some very remarkable achievements.

Ken

[tigisfat]

No,

Really. The Tuskeegee Airmen had an incredible and mostly unmatched record, but they themselves say that the 'legend' about never having lost a bomber is a lie.

[redriver6]

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,120399,00.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS

[centuryseries]

http://www.beale.af.mil/shared/widgets/popup.asp?url=http://www.beale.af.mil/shared/xml/rssVideo.asp?mrsstype=2&id=1&cid=3&cnt=15&pos=0

He's listed in this video of his funeral at Arlington as an Ace. Although the commentator doesn't say how many confirmed kills he had.

[Panther_99FS]

Record or not..
The bottom line is that they couldn't afford to have an "off-day"....They had to be better to be considered equal....

Mistake was not an option...

It's my OPINION that Archer didn't care about the "5" was because given the circumstances in the 1940s, he knows he was damn lucky to be even afforded the opportunity to fly....

[Smashing Time]

Some more historical perspectives

http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_tusk.html

[Ken Stallings]

That's exactly right, Ed. And to be fully accurate one would have to insert himself in the mindset that was prevalent in that time. I am sure there was also a mindset within these black airmen who were accustomed to being unfairly denied, and that combined with the knowledge than any time a black person at the time complained, their complaints were deliberately mislabeled with the "uppity N-word" condemnation! These men knew their success as a group was more vital than individual recognition.

It is impossible for those of us alive today to fully understand the climate these men operated under. And indeed, a large part of their success is that we no longer can understand it because things have so fundamentally changed since then. The only people in the ETO who treated the Tuskegee Airmen with equal opportunity were the men of the German Luftwaffe! The Tuskegee Airmen were given a fully equal chance at KIA status!

As often happens, a side issue has emerged in this forum, with those wanting it aired relying upon a source that seems legitimate. That's fine. One must always "go with the flow" as they say. However, as I wrote before, bombers were lost. But they were lost by flak and by enemy fighters when they were not being escorted by the pilots of the 332nd FG (Tuskegee Airmen).

There are two points to be made. First, there is zero logic to justify terming the claim as a lie. That is a terrible thing to say because it presumes it was uttered to deceive, and that is rank nonsense! Nor was it an exaggeration given the recognition was officially bestowed upon Davis' 332 FG by his immediate commanding officer, Colonel Buck Taylor. Second, the principled efforts of Bill Holton and the AF Historical Research Agency has one obstacle that they do acknowledge. The combat reports have to be carefully analyzed for when the bombers were shot down and where the fighters of the 332nd FG were when these bombers were shot down.

At the time of these events, Colonel Taylor believed the airmen never lost a bomber to enemy fighters while the bombers were under their escort. I do not believe a group commander would have documented such a fact unless it was accurate. The point is that frequently bomber formation would be assigned to different escort units during one sortie while in different phases of their flight. This is why it is imperative that the raw combat reports of losses be correlated to the timeframe. This is also why a letter commending Davis' unit can also reference losses. Those losses may well have happened after the Tuskegee Airmen were relieved of their assignment for that formation.

Many times the bombers would enjoy escort for only a portion of their route, proceed without escort, and then rendezvous with another escort for part of the return routing. The article was written in December 2006 and even those supporting the concerns say more research was needed. So, let's look at what happened as a result of that additional investigation.

For about a year, the combat action reports were scoured, culminating with information that up to 25 bombers were shot down by the Luftwaffe on days where the Tuskegee Airmen were assigned escort duty for said bomber formations. The key is same day. For reasons entirely a result of not mattering in the big picture, the reports did not specify if the 332nd FG were providing escort at the time of the shoot downs.

This is a point that is important to the claim. Davis' boss believed they were not lost while under the 332nd FG's escort. Other historians have researched the same data and reached the same conclusions, including those of the National Defense University, saying they reviewed the over 200 combat reports filed by the 332nd FG and not one documented a lost bomber. Benjamin Davis was ruthlessly honest and I have to believe if they knew of a loss, they would have documented it. Certainly no one went into combat operations expecting such a result.

Even if one wishes to take the most negative view, and say that all 25 bombers were shot down while being escorted, and never after the escort was relieved, it still amounts to a fraction of the total bomber losses to enemy fighters. I can understand historians wanting to be conservative in their statements, and an organization wanting to avoid use of a claim that is under reasonable methods of question. However, that does not mean we term the claims as exaggerations or lies.

Nor do we use this issue as a factual example to dispute the 332nd FG airmen were not operating under intense racism and hatred and had people in very high places who wanted them to fail and became invested in their failure. More to the point of this thread, it doesn't change one iota the fact that a claim was confirmed and then weeks later revoked with the timing taking place precisely when the previous claim would have bestowed ace status on Lt Col Archer.

Now, I hope this clarifies the matter.

Ken

[redriver6]

Lee Archer an ace or not...bombers lost or not...thats not what matters.

this is what matters...from a B-24 pilot...


"The P-38s always stayed too far out. Some of the Mustang group stayed in too close ... Other groups, we got the feeling that they just wanted to go and shoot down 109s ... The Red Tails were always out there where we wanted them to be ... We had no idea they were Black; it was the Army's best kept secret."

[PRB]

Did the pilots of the 332nd FG actually fly five times as many sorties as all the other fighter groups? During the same period of time?

[Ken Stallings]

Yes, they did.

On average, a fighter pilot's single ETO tour comprised about 20 to 25 combat sorties. However, on average the pilots of the 332 FG averaged over 100 sorties.

It was a testimonial to the investment the nation made. We had so many pilots available that we could rotate them out regularly so no one suffered from cumulative effects of combat fatigue. The Germans and Japanese lost a lot of very good fighter and bomber pilots (and crews) because they were so worn out they lost focus and were killed when at their sharpest would not have been.

Ken

[Panther_99FS]

PRB,
Here's a quote from an article about Benjam O' Davis Jr.

"Sometimes his men flew six combat missions per day, more than white pilots."

[tigisfat]

What I've heard from bomber crew interviews was that the Tuskeegee boys followed doctrine and stayed with the bombers. Other fighter jocks would run off chasing glory at the first sight of German aircraft. That is supposed to be what led to their remarkable record.

[PRB]

What I've heard from bomber crew interviews was that the Tuskeegee boys followed doctrine and stayed with the bombers. Other fighter jocks would run off chasing glory at the first sight of German aircraft. That is supposed to be what led to their remarkable record.

I don’t know if I would put it quite that way.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
It’s been a few years since I’ve read on the subject of “fighter escort doctrine in the ETO in WW-II”, but I seem to remember there was some difference of opinion as to what tactic was more effective. The “common sense” approach, and that used when the campaign started, was to stick close to the bombers. At some point, somebody(s) decided that a more effective tactic would be to “turn the fighters loose” to actively pursue enemy VF. I’m not up to speed on what the current thinking is among historians today as to which “faction” was correct, but the last time I read on this, the consensus seemed to be that tying the escort fighters to the bombers was “inefficient”. Thinking about it now, I suppose it was “inefficient” in terms of racking up kills to paint on the side of your P-51, and I can see how such tactics could be viewed by bombers crews as “deserting the bombers to go 109 hunting." So what was "doctrine", and did it "evolve" from 1942 to 1945?

[Panther_99FS]

" So what was "doctrine", and did it "evolve" from 1942 to 1945?

I know what some modern doctrine is since I've had to become intimately familiar with some of the AFDDs...(Air Force Doctrine Documents) :d

On a more serious level, if there's a 1940s equivalent of an AFDD, I don't know what it's called....:ques:

[Ken Stallings]

I don’t know if I would put it quite that way.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
It’s been a few years since I’ve read on the subject of “fighter escort doctrine in the ETO in WW-II”, but I seem to remember there was some difference of opinion as to what tactic was more effective. The “common sense” approach, and that used when the campaign started, was to stick close to the bombers. At some point, somebody(s) decided that a more effective tactic would be to “turn the fighters loose” to actively pursue enemy VF. I’m not up to speed on what the current thinking is among historians today as to which “faction” was correct, but the last time I read on this, the consensus seemed to be that tying the escort fighters to the bombers was “inefficient”. Thinking about it now, I suppose it was “inefficient” in terms of racking up kills to paint on the side of your P-51, and I can see how such tactics could be viewed by bombers crews as “deserting the bombers to go 109 hunting." So what was "doctrine", and did it "evolve" from 1942 to 1945?

Paul,

You are correct in what you say. Doctrine for the allies in the ETO did undergo a fundamental shift, which the 332nd FG deliberately chose to ignore. They did not do this to undermine the underlying strategy. They did it because Benjamin O. Davis quite rightly deduced that in the case of the 332nd FG any bomber losses would be used as an excuse to declare "the experiment" a failure, fold the unit, enlist the airmen, and set back the advancement of civil rights in America a full generation.

The doctrine was changed shortly after Jimmy Doolittle arrived on scene and rightly deduced that the bombers could serve two strategic roles. First, they could continue to bomb German production and transportation facilities. But second, they could be used as bait to draw the Luftwaffe fighter arm from every other theater in the war, and the allies could adopt tactics for their fighter units to destroy those fighters. Combined with what damage the bombers' gunners could inflict directly, such a policy would bleed the Luftwaffe fighter arm white.

It worked! Spectacularly!

The tactic of loose escort was therefore adopted. Fighters would be assigned dual purpose roles. They would escort bombers to the target while laden with bombs and flying slow. Then after bombs release they would detach and go down low and engage targets of opportunity. These often included Luftwaffe airbases. It was also during this time that the ETO changed policy on confirmed kills and decided that an aircraft destroyed on the ground would count as an aerial victory. It was a brilliant decision that encouraged pilots to engage in the very dangerous attacks of said airbases.

This tactic also encouraged deliberate air taskings to allied fighter units to loiter near Luftwaffe bases timed to coincide with an expected scramble to form up and attack a known bomber raid. Then these allied fighters would butcher the fighters while taking off. Other taskings put allied fighters overhead the bases timed to coincide with Luftwaffe fighers that returned from attacking the bombers.

We had plenty of fighters and pilots to devote to these parallel missions.

The effect was dramatic. Luftwaffe fighter loses exploded. As a result the Luftwaffe had to drain fighters from the Eastern Front, which is the primary reason why the Germans lost air superiority over this front, and why the IL-2 Sturmovik became the lengendary ground attack aircraft it became.

This is why in my initial post on this issue I put a caveat in my writings that admitted perhaps the Tuskegee Airmen's tactic wasn't the best decision all other factors being equal. Unfortunately for them, they weren't operating in an equal environment. Therefore, Davis' order made solid sense. Regardless, the bomber crews most certainly benefitted from it directly.

Ken