tanner@dssmv1.mpr.ca (Tim Tanner) (10/03/89)
From: amdcad!tanner@dssmv1.mpr.ca (Tim Tanner) In sci.military Fri, 15 Sep, 1989, article 2173 miket@brspyrl.brs.com (Mike Trout) writes: > 80% of all airplanes that are shot down by other airplanes never detect > their attackers. > This 80%-20% ratio has held fairly constant from World War I up to the > present. I am curious where this statistic came from. It seems likely that it is true (it is much easier to shoot down an unsuspecting victim). However I doubt that it is as true today as it was in WW1 and WW2. With all the fancy equipment on planes today, the least you can hope for is to detect your attacker. Is this a fighter-fighter statistic or does include fighter-bomber kills. A WW2 bomber was much less maneuverable, but could take more damage and is unlikely to be destroyed on the first shot from cannon or machine gun fire. Also it had lots of people to detect approaching fighters. On the other hand, not many bombers can sneak up on a fighter and shoot it down. > In air combat, speed is life, because stored energy gained by speed can be > transferred into what manuver you want. As I understand it, dogfights today are conducted at subsonic speeds. Being able to react quickly enough to shoot somebody down at high subsonic speeds is hard to imagine, but if they do that, why can't they dogfight at supersonic speeds. Can you fire a Sidewinder at Mach 2? > In all the above cases, the earlier planes could greatly > outmaneuver the newer models. The later planes tended to be big, heavy > "hot rods" with tremendous firepower, but poor maneuverability. [Two other > important nations don't really fit here, as neither ever emphasized > maneuverability, even in the early part of the war. The USA emphasized heavy >airplanes that could take lots of damage (which later was easily changed to an > emphasis upon high horsepower with corresponding high speed), while Germany > emphasized speed, firepower, and innovative tactics.] Similar trends can be > seen in WWI (Sopwith Pup replaced by Sopwith Snipe, Nieuport 17 replaced by > SPAD XIII, Albatros D.III replaced by Fokker D.VII). I disagree with your assessment of German planes. Germany started off the war with two very different fighters. The Me-109 and Me-110. The Me-109 was a highly maneuverable fighter, which could or could not outmaneuver the Hurricane or Spitfire depending on the altitude. The Me-109 was produced to almost the end of the war (if not to the end, I can't remember). The Me-109 is comparable to the Spitfire or Hurricane in design philosophy. The initial design of the Me-109 was with TWO machine guns in the wings. Once the German high command found out that the British planes were going have EIGHT machine guns, they changed their design specs and required eight machine guns too. The Me-110 was a two engined fighter (nicknamed Destroyer) which single engine fighters could shoot down due to its lack of speed/performance/ maneuverablity. The Germans later used it as a night fighter where it worked well against bombers. Another German fighter plane that was designed (?) and produced during the war was the Fw-190. It was suppose to be an excellant fighter, and I think it emphasised speed and firepower over maneuverability (but I'm not sure). Germany ended the war with the Me-262 jet fighter. This fighter is exactly the same type of fighter that the other countries ended the war with. It emphasised speed, poor maneuverablity, and heavy firepower. Saying that "Germany emphasized speed, firepower, and innovative tactics" is too simplistic and incorrect. In a nutshell Germany went through the same evolution as the other countries during the war. One final point on this, wasn't the Sopwith Pup replaced by the Sopwith Camel which was very tricky to fly, but highly maneuverable? > In closing, I'd like to repeat something I've said before in this forum: air > crew quality is about ten times more important than aircraft quality. We can > discuss airplane maneuverability, performance, and whatnot from now until the > cows come home, but it all has little impact in real situations. What we > really should be comparing is things like aircrew training, motivation, > organization, and ability; those are the criteria that REALLY matter. In WW2, German high command had (initially) a highly trained and well motivated air crews. However, these crews and their airplanes were used for missions that they were not designed for. For instance, during the Battle of Britain Me-109's could not stay over the UK long enough to defend the bombers since they didn't have long range tanks. Also the bombers were one or two engined bombers that were meant to support the army. They were not designed for actions such as the blitz. This is the key, the Luftwaffe was created and trained to support the army in the tactical arena, it was not suppose to be a strategic weapon. So perhaps aircrew training, motivation, organization, and ability are the most important criteria. BUT only if the plane and aircrew are utilized correctly by high command. For more information on the German air force (told from the German point of view.) during WWII, see _The Luftwaffe War Diarys_ by ???. Tim Tanner (tanner@mprgate.mpr.ca) All opinions are mine, and incorrect facts are due to my terrible memory.
JDO103@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (A Military Hist. Major) (10/05/89)
From: A Military Hist. Major <JDO103@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
I forgot who posted about the FW-190 being designed and produced during WWII,
but you are correct in saying that it was produced until the end of the war.
(Or as close to it as Germany could still produce.) When the '190 appeared
on the scene, it outperformed nearly (if not all) every aircraft the allies
had. It was later surpassed by our fighters, but it did have it's time of
superiority. It could out-turn, climb, shoot, and run a Spitfire of the
same time period. ( I say same time period because something like 24
different versions were created from pre- to post- WW2.)
I have read accounts by pilots who have flown the '190 and the '109 and
nearly all said the '190 was the superior aircraft by far.
To whoever wrote about the pilot training being as significant as the
aircraft being flown. You are correct in this insight. Take the Flying
Tigers for example. The flew against the Japanese "Zero" in old P-40
Warhawks and Tomahawks (I believe those are the types, I DO know they
were P-40's) and yet had an incredible kill ratio for the planes they flew.
The "Zero" was faster and more maneuverable, yet were knocked down more
often than the Tiger's. (The fact that the P-40's were tough as hell,
helped a bit, too.)
The same lessons were learned in Vietnam. It is aircrew+aircraft to
make a winning team. You MUST have both.
-Dave
[Sorry...No signature block!]military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (10/11/89)
From: cpsc.ucalgary.ca!grothman (Gary Grothman) In article <9876@cbnews.ATT.COM> amdcad!tanner@dssmv1.mpr.ca (Tim Tanner) writes: >... >The Me-110 was a two engined fighter (nicknamed Destroyer) which single >engine fighters could shoot down due to its lack of speed/performance/ >maneuverablity. ... Just a minor point. It seems to me that the Me-110 was at least as fast/faster as/then the British fighters; it was certainly much faster than the 109, not to mention its better range. Of course, than doesn't change the fact that it turned like a cow. Gary. Opinions mine are, but happy I would be if share them you would. [mod.note: Seems to me a lot of people have never seen a cow turn... 8-) - Bill ]
adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK (Adrian Hurt) (10/13/89)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK> In article <9876@cbnews.ATT.COM> amdcad!tanner@dssmv1.mpr.ca (Tim Tanner) writes: >Germany started off the war with two very different fighters. The Me-109 and >Me-110... The Me-109 is comparable to the Spitfire or Hurricane in >design philosophy. The initial design of the Me-109 was with TWO machine >guns in the wings. Once the German high command found out that the British >planes were going have EIGHT machine guns, they changed their design specs and >required eight machine guns too. Minor correction; the early Me-109's had two MG's in the wings, two in the nose above the engine, and sometimes a fifth inside the engine, firing through the propellor hub. The Me-109E replaced the wing guns and propellor guns with 20mm cannons. But the bulge in the wings to accomodate the cannon there impaired the handling of the aircraft, and no subsequent Me-109 had guns mounted in the wings again. (This doesn't include various bolt-on kits, such as gun pods and rocket launchers.) The Me-109F had one 20mm cannon, but that was the fast firing MG 151, whose rate of fire made it the equivalent of at least two of the older cannons. This was mounted in the propellor position. And some later variants had a 30mm cannon there instead. >... Another German fighter plane that was designed (?) and >produced during the war was the Fw-190. It was suppose to be an excellant >fighter, and I think it emphasised speed and firepower over maneuverability It had the lot. It was fast, manoeuvrable, and the earlier versions had two old-type MG FF 20mm cannons plus two of the fast-firing MG 151 cannons. The latter were mounted in the wing roots, and had to fire through the propellor arc, which slowed them down a bit. Later versions of the Fw 190A had four of those MG 151's, giving them firepower unmatched until the Ta-152 (four MG 151's plus a 30mm gun in the nose) and the Me-262 (four 30mm guns in the nose). >One final point on this, wasn't the Sopwith Pup replaced by the Sopwith >Camel which was very tricky to fly, but highly maneuverable? It was indeed. >In WW2, German high command had (initially) a highly trained and well motivated >air crews. However, these crews and their airplanes were used for missions >that they were not designed for. For instance, during the Battle of Britain >Me-109's could not stay over the UK long enough to defend the bombers since >they didn't have long range tanks. It also didn't help that Goering (Britain's greatest ally in the Battle of Britain) insisted that the fighters stick close with the bomber formations, instead of going and using their speed and agility. > Also the bombers were one or two engined >bombers that were meant to support the army. They were not designed for >actions such as the blitz. I'd think the Heinkel He-111 was designed for exactly that - it did it in the Spanish Civil War, for a start. The Ju-87 Stuka wasn't a strategic bomber, and wasn't used as such. It was intended to be used when enemy fighters had been wiped out; fortunately, the Germans didn't quite succeed in doing that to Britain. (They came close; then the RAF bombed Berlin; so Goering switched targets, and went for London, giving the RAF the break it needed. See above comment on Goering.) "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) (10/14/89)
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) In article <10185@cbnews.ATT.COM> adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK (Adrian Hurt) writes: > >>One final point on this, wasn't the Sopwith Pup replaced by the Sopwith >>Camel which was very tricky to fly, but highly maneuverable? > >It was indeed. > Not quite. If I recall, the Pup was never accepted by the RFC, which at the time was relying on Nieuport 17s, Fe-2Bs, and DH-2s. All of these aircraft were dog meat for the Albatros D-IIIs then in service with the Germans (early 1917). For inter-service rivalry reasons, the RFC refused to buy a Sopwith product. The RNAS did buy some Pups, and when things got really bad (they didn't call April 1917 "Bloody April" for nothing), the RNAS squadrons were called in to help stabilize the situation. I think the RFC also refused to buy the Sopwith Triplane, which was also picked up by the RNAS and flown with great success by the "Black Flight" of Raymond Collishaw (which went up against von Richtofen's Jasta several times). Anyway, the RFC finally wised up and bought the Camel, but not as a replacement for the Pup. It was the first two gun fighter purchased by the RFC (the SE 5 had two guns, but one was mounted on the top wing). The Camel, therefore, replaced a bunch of obsolete aircraft that had already been 6 months too long in service. And it was very tricky to fly, having a marked tendency to "precess" into the ground if you tried to turn against the torque of the rotary engine. I guess pilots figured they had a better chance of surviving the Camel then they did of surviving an attack by a Fokker D-7 while flying a DH-2! ---------------------------------------------- Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com
frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk (Frank Dunn) (10/16/89)
From: Frank Dunn <frank0@ibmpcug.co.uk> The Messerschmitt Bf 110 was in its 110C form capable of 350 mph at 23,000 ft with a range of 565 miles. However tho' the Hurris did have problems bouncing them from a disadvantaged position both the Hurri and Spit usually won in an intercept. The Me 109 was not an easy 'plane to control compared to the viceless Huuri or the Spit. It had a very confined cockpit, heavy ailerons at high speed and no rudder trimmer. Worst was its short range, some 88 gallons of fuel directly behind the pilot. Of interest to Battle of Britain buffs is "The Battle of Britain: the Jubilee History" / Richard Hough and Denis Richards. 1989. Hodder and Stoughton. ISBN 0-340-42903-8. 413pp with lots of photographs.
cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) (10/18/89)
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) I hope this doesn't get to be a habit. Once again, I erred in a posting. I'm sure all you Sopwith Pup fans caught it. Nobody cares, I'm sure, but I gotta be accurate. It's the sci.military code! In article <10240@cbnews.ATT.COM> cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) writes: > >>>One final point on this, wasn't the Sopwith Pup replaced by the Sopwith >>>Camel which was very tricky to fly, but highly maneuverable? >> >>It was indeed. >> >Not quite. If I recall, the Pup was never accepted by the RFC, which at ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, it was. The Pup served with 5 Squadrons (8 RNAS, 54, 3 RNAS, 66, and 46) and with the 1st RNAS Wing, as well as with Home Defense units later in its career. >the time was relying on Nieuport 17s, Fe-2Bs, and DH-2s. All of these >aircraft were dog meat for the Albatros D-IIIs then in service with the >Germans (early 1917). For inter-service rivalry reasons, the RFC refused >to buy a Sopwith product. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It wasn't so much interservice rivalry as the fact that the RFC wanted to stick with one supplier -- the Royal Aircraft Factory. The RAF produced such great designs as the BE2 (the original Fokker Fodder), the FE2 (a fine defensive fighter, whatever that is), the RE8 (new, improved Fokker fodder), the BE12 (a cruel hoax as a fighter), and finally, the SE5/5a (they finally got it right). Against all logic, the RFC continued to buy from the Factory, using French aircraft to take up the slack. As a procurement procedure it made great accounting sense. And the BE2 is widely regarded as the most stable and easiest RFC aircraft to fly -- exactly the wrong characteristics for a combat aircraft. But as a combat decision, it killed a lot of pilots. The Pup was a superior aircraft, capable of meeting the Albatross on equal terms (in October and November of 1916, No. 8 (Naval) squadron downed 20 German aircraft while bailing out the RFC over the Somme). The decision not to buy the Pup was political, and should serve as as example for our time as well. ---------------------------------------------- Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com
bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk (Bruce Munro) (10/24/89)
From: Bruce Munro <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> In article <10240@cbnews.ATT.COM> cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) writes about the Sopwith Camel: > >And it was very tricky to fly, having a marked tendency to "precess" >into the ground if you tried to turn against the torque of the rotary >engine. I guess pilots figured they had a better chance of surviving >the Camel then they did of surviving an attack by a Fokker D-7 while >flying a DH-2! Wasn't this one of the reasons for the manouevreability of the Camel? I seem to remember watching a program recently about Tommy Sopwith who'd just turned 100, or was it more? I may be wrong, but what was said was that due to the torque it had to be constantly fought against to keep it on the straight and narrow, but when nippy manouevring was required the plane would literally fling itself into very tight turns. -- Bruce Munro. <bruce@tcom.stc.co.uk> || ...!mc{sun,vax}!ukc!stc!bruce STC Telecommunications, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. Phone : +44 1 368 1234 x3799 Saw three hippies saving a whale. I give 'em head butts! - JO & WWB