randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) (09/11/89)
From: Randy Appleton <randy@ms.uky.edu> Does anyone out there have an opinion on the following question? Why do our fighters have to be so manuverable? Given that a good air-air missile can knock out an enemy aircraft from 20 miles away, why do we spend all the time/energy/money on manuverability as opposed to other things, like IFF. I know very little about ECW, so maybe the answer is that. Or maybe it's something else. Inquiring Minds Want To Know.
supp@tank.uchicago.edu (Steve Upp) (09/12/89)
From: supp@tank.uchicago.edu (Steve Upp) In article <27188@amdcad.AMD.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes: >Why do our fighters have to be so manuverable? Given that a good >air-air missile can knock out an enemy aircraft from 20 miles away, >why do we spend all the time/energy/money on manuverability as opposed >to other things, like IFF. Vietnam proved one thing...Missles aren't enough. Radar homing missles, even with current technology, are not very accurate. I believe I heard that 1 in 10 radar homing missles fired in Vietnam hit their targets (the statistic may be far worse but not better). Also since most missles require the firing aircraft to maintain a radar lock on the target aircraft the firing aircraft has to stick around with his nose pointing at the enemy. That's bad news when there may be more bad guys buzzing around. There are missles that have their own radar transmitters (Maverick for one) but they are so expensive that in a real wartime situation we'd run out of missles long before then enemy ran out of airplanes because they're too expensive to have mass quantities produced. [Isn't Maverick a TV-guided air to ground missile? But Phoenix is a good (?) example of a missile with its own radar, and at $1M a shot its too expensive to get much practice with, and from what I hear its so complex that reliability is poor. I'm sure if I'm wrong on any of these points I'll hear about it. :-) --CDR] Radar can be fooled using the decoy mechanisms like releasing small strips of aluminum that would reflect the radar signal and decoy the approaching missle. ECM is also becoming more and more sophisticated these days. For several years Soviet pilots have been sent up against NATO forces with recorders in them so that after they have been intercepted the radar emissions from the NATO aircraft can be analyzed and a suitable counter measure found. The most accurate missles are the heat seeking variety. In Vietnam I believe it was (1 in 4) that hit their targets but this is really stretching my memory. Maybe someone else knows these stats better? These missles however, have an accurate range of 1 to 4 miles or so. At that point its likely that the enemy aircraft will see the shooting aircraft in which time evasive actions (therefore mobility) are required. All fighter aircraft in the US inventory have some sort of conventional machine gun or cannon in order to handle the close in air combat situations that did occur in Vietnam. Originally the F-4's didn't have cannons and the pilots had to try and stay out of the minimum range of the heat seeking missles in order to be effective. The result was a lot of US planes being shot down. The military learned its lesson and now ACM (Air Combat Manuevering) is an extremely important part of the design of any modern fighter (except the stealth). FLAME ON! I've heard lately though that the US is again pushing for the more sophisticated and expensive radar missles in their inventories. The poor little sidewinder that has proven so deadly (and is quite cheap) seems to be taking a backseat in development. Oh well, another Vietnam and the Pentagon Warriors will realize that high tech isn't always what its cracked up to be. FLAME OFF! [I left the last paragraph in since its not really a flame, and expresses well a question I share. Keep any responses polite and informative, please. --CDR]
dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) (09/12/89)
From: dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) In article <27188@amdcad.AMD.COM>, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes: > > Why do our fighters have to be so manuverable? Given that a good > air-air missile can knock out an enemy aircraft from 20 miles away, > why do we spend all the time/energy/money on manuverability as opposed > to other things, like IFF. I'll take a stab at this: Suppose your medium-range missile misses? You will shortly be at close range with your opponent. Suppose your opponent fires his (her?) medium range missle first? Suppose a SAM (surface-to-air missile) is fired at you? You will need to out-maneuver these missiles to stay alive. Suppose you're on an intercept mission, and your rules of engagement prevent you from firing a medium range missile before closing to visual range? You may find yourself in a dogfight at close range. Suppose you successfully launch all your missiles, and meet up with a hostile aircraft on your way back? Your question has been asked and answered several times in the past 20 years. Maneuverability is required in the current "age of missiles" just as much as it was during WWII. Aircraft that were built in the past to be unmaneuverable missile launching platforms are being retired (F-101 Voodoo, F-106 Delta Dart), while others never left the drawing board (the Missileer). -- Dave J. This space for rent usual disclaimer implied Call 555-3838
mchinni@PICA.ARMY.MIL (Michael J. Chinni) (09/12/89)
From: "Michael J. Chinni" <mchinni@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
> Why do our fighters have to be so manuverable?
The answer is a leason the U.S. learned in vietnam. Military brass decided
before Vietnam that since air-to-air missles were so good there was no need for
U.S. planes to have machine-guns/cannon armament, just missles.
Sometime after the U.S. had fully entered the war, someone checked the losses
of planes due to the enemy. It was found to be much higher than had been
predicted. The military needless to say wanted to know why.
The answer: SURPRISE, most losses were due to close-quarters plane-to-place
encounters (i.e. dog-fights). Given this planes were re-armed with
machine-guns/cannon.
Since, in dog-fights manuverability is very important (i.e. to attack and to
avoid attack) and the U.S. has learned from vietnam and from various other
countries wars that there will always be dog-fights, we make our planes has
manuverable has possible within the limits of structural integrity and pilot
physical limits.
Sources: various television documentaries dealing with flight, war, etc.
Michael J. Chinni
Chief Scientist, Simulation Techniques and Workplace Automation Team
US Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center
User to skeleton sitting at cobweb () Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey
and dust covered workstation () ARPA: mchinni@pica.army.mil
"System been down long?" () UUCP: ...!uunet!pica.army.mil!mchinni
INSERT STANDARD DISCLAIMER HEREjln@portia.Stanford.EDU (Jared Nedzel) (09/12/89)
From: jln@portia.Stanford.EDU (Jared Nedzel) In article <27188@amdcad.AMD.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes: >Why do our fighters have to be so manuverable? Given that a good >air-air missile can knock out an enemy aircraft from 20 miles away, >why do we spend all the time/energy/money on manuverability as opposed >to other things, like IFF. Because they can't :-). The long-range radar guided missiles have generally had a much poorer kill rate than close-range infrared missiles. While I don't have the numbers at hand, the kill rates in Viet Nam for the Sparrow (long-range, well, really medium-range, radar guided missile) were pitiful. The kill rates for the Sidewinder (short-range infra-red missile, 1-3 mile range?) were better. (Yes, newer missiles are, presumably, much more reliable.) There are other factors which effect the kill-rate. In Viet Nam, the US pilots were required to get visual identification of the target before firing, thus negating much of the usefulness of the Sparrow. It is likely in many future conflicts that similar restrictions would apply. But even if you have no such restriction, what happens after you fire all your radar-guided missiles? Hopefully, you've got most of the bad guys, but what if some get through? Well, with an "all-aspect" Sidewinder (AIM-9L and later, I believe (is there a later model?)), you may be able to get a head-on shot as well. But what if that misses too (or, what if you're terribly out-numbered)? Now you have to manuver to get another shot, either with a Sidewinder or a cannon. In addition, by this time you'll probably have to manuver to avoid your opponent's missiles. If you can't manuver with you're opponent, then you're SOL (Sh*t-outta-luck). >I know very little about ECW, so maybe the answer is that. Well, that's certainly one aspect. A radar-guided missile can be jammed. An infrared missile can be decoyed. But it's hard to jam or decoy a cannon round. -- Jared L. Nedzel e-mail: nedzel@cive.stanford.edu jln@portia.stanford.edu
craig@june.cs.washington.edu (Craig S. Anderson) (09/12/89)
> From: Randy Appleton <randy@ms.uky.edu> > Why do [ oh, you all know the question by now! --CDR] The first problem with relying exclusively on BVR (beyond visual range) air-to-air missiles is that the probability of getting a kill is not 100%. With a weapon like the Sparrow (AIM-7), the attacker must illuminate the target with radar from launch until impact. If the target has a radar warning receiver, he might get a warning that a missile is on its way and be able to either attempt to maneuver out of the way, or use some kind of electronic (or other) counter-measures. Thus BVR weapons are not fool-proof. If a pilot has a maneuverable aircraft, he can gain a positional advantage on an enemy aircraft in order to use shorter range weapons, like infra-red (IR) missiles or cannon (assuming the enemy is close enough). As a historical note, many air strategists in the fifties and early sixties thought that 'dogfighting' would be made obsolete by the guided missile. The US Navy and Air Force learned that this was incorrect during the war in Vietnam. While some of the problems that the Navy/Air Force encountered had to do with poor IFF and the unreliable (at that time) Sparrow, the reports I've seen about Isreali kill statistics indicate a good proportion of the air-to-air victories were by IR missile or guns. Craig Anderson craig@june.cs.washington.edu
SHUEE%IUCF.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu (09/13/89)
From: <SHUEE%IUCF.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu> I hope that I can answer some of your questions conserning aircraft and their weapons sysems. 1 IFF only helps keeps you from being shot down by your own not someone elses. 2 Wepons systems only work when they are turned on (DOES NOT WORK IN OFF MODE is a real write up.) pilots forget to turn on systems. 3 Aircraft Must "jink" or make "zig-zag" motions to prevent radar "Lock on" this is done at the same time as all the other jobs durring the mission. 4 The ELECTRONIC COMBAT (the new and improved term for ECM) spectrume ranges from the telephone to light. This is alot to jam (see recent article in AIR FORCE mag.) and take lots R&D time and dollars. It also leaves lots of holes. You will run out of chaff and flares so you have to rely on the plane's hand- ing to get you out or keep you out of "rough spots". 5 Once you have an airframe you can up grade the avonices (The Air Force use F-4's that are over twenty years old) so you have to make the airframe the best you can. Finaly it is the pilots that approve the planes and recomed them. They like handling and SPEEED! Why,because speed and handling is what wins dog fights! Remember that basics are speed first, handling second,other as required. Speed wins, when speed is equal handling wins, when both are equal the best black box wins! SHUEE@IUCF
aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (09/13/89)
From: aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) In article <27210@amdcad.AMD.COM> supp@tank.uchicago.edu (Steve Upp) writes: >In article <27188@amdcad.AMD.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes: >>Why do our fighters have to be so manuverable? Given that a good >>air-air missile can knock out an enemy aircraft from 20 miles away, >>... >Vietnam proved one thing...Missles aren't enough. Radar homing >missles, even with current technology, are not very accurate. I >believe I heard that 1 in 10 radar homing missles fired in Vietnam hit >their targets (the statistic may be far worse but not better). The problem here is that using any active homing missile will cause the bandit's Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) to go off and tell him a missile may be in the air. This makes it more likely that the pilot will see the missile. If he can see it, he can evade it if he has the energy. Now, if the pilot is busy (setting up to drop bombs for example) he may not hear his RWR. In this case, you can sneak up on him and score a kill. This may not sound likely to you, but ~80% of people shot down never knew they were under attack. >Also, since most missles require the firing aircraft to maintain a radar >lock on the target aircraft the firing aircraft has to stick around >with his nose pointing at the enemy. The nose doesn't need to be pointed right at the bandit. The radar can be slewed to the pilot can make a fairly high G turn and maintain lock. >There are missles that have their own radar transmitters (Maverick for >one) Maverick is an air to ground missile guided by video or FLIR. >but they are so expensive that in a real wartime situation we'd >run out of missles long before then enemy ran out of airplanes This is true. In a NATO vs WP fight we would run out of air to air missiles in a couple of weeks. > [Isn't Maverick a TV-guided air to ground missile? TV or FLIR. There is also a fire and forget version which uses a FLIR. >ECM is also becoming more and more sophisticated these days. For >several years Soviet pilots have been sent up against NATO forces with >recorders in them so that after they have been intercepted the radar >emissions from the NATO aircraft can be analyzed and a suitable >counter measure found. And we do the same to them. For every counter-measure there is a counter-counter-measure. Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen Sherzer | DETROIT: | | aws@iti.org | Where the weak are killed and eaten | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
gardiner@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (David Gardiner) (09/13/89)
From: gardiner@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (David Gardiner) Most of the issues relating to why dogfighting is still important have been covered. I will add one more: The Vincennes (sp?) incident showed the danger of beyond visual range weapons. BVR weapons are really useful in all-out war situations only, and the US is unlikely to be involved in any of those in the foreseeable future. Hence, visual identification of the target is essential. In this age of supersonic fighters, if you can visually identify the enemy aircraft, you are basically already in a dogfight. Assume that you spot the enemy at a range of 10 miles and have a 1800 kt closure rate. You have 20 seconds until you are canopy to canopy. All-aspect missiles are nice but your best shot is still from the rear quarter.
fjs@floyd.ATT.COM (Fred Shubert ) (09/13/89)
From: fjs@floyd.ATT.COM (Fred Shubert ) In article <27210@amdcad.AMD.COM>, supp@tank.uchicago.edu (Steve Upp) writes: > > [... I'm sure if I'm wrong on any of these points > I'll hear about it. :-) --CDR] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I wouldn't say 'wrong'. If you mean "reliability" due to enviornment, maintenance, ruggedness, etc., I'm uncertain, but it _must_ be reliable in that respect because it is for the US Government. (notice, no ":-)" because I am being mostly serious) If you mean "reliability" with respect to kills then between May 1972 and October 1980, 155+ production models were were launched with a 92% success rate. Kill figures on the "C" variant are not available. The AIM-54A [Phoenix] became operational in the early '70s and 2500+ copies were manufactured through 1980. The AIM-54B variant went into production in 1977, but this replaced the honeycomb wing structure (on the A) with sheet metal. The first firing trials of the C variant began in June 1980, this variant was to improve reliability (theres that word again) by being more resistant to ECM and making more use of advanced digital systems which enhanced accuracy and range. Kill probabilits was (supposedly) enhanced by use of a 'new' Motorola target detection device. Fred J. Shubert | "You haven't lived until you've seen a 'cat fly!!!" AT&T Bell Labs |----------------------------------------------------- Whippany, N.J. | DISCLAIMER: All views are that of my own. PERIOD. Ma-Bell 201-386-3094 | Who else could be so 'cat crazy!! | _ | | /^ ^\ | F-14D ____________|_( . )_|____________ SUPERTOMCATS --*/--|_| (___) |_|--\*-- RULE * O O * (I Love 'Em) Let's turn and burn!!
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (10/16/89)
From: brspyr1.brs.com!miket (Mike Trout) In sci.military Digest Tuesday, 03 October, 1989 Volume 3 : Issue 9 amdcad!tanner@dssmv1.mpr.ca (Tim Tanner) writes: > 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. I've seen estimates that the 80%-20% ratio still held up for Viet Nam, as well as for Mideast combat up until quite recently. I haven't seen any estimates for the Falklands, but most of the books on that conflict I've read include quite a few interviews with survivors of shot-down planes on both sides. Most of these incidents still sound like "I was just flying along and suddenly something blew my wing off. Whatever it was, it just came out of nowhere." This is admittedly anecdotal and includes a great deal of flak, but it shows how the more things change, the more they remain the same. Modern electronic warning devices are a long way from ideal. You have to turn them on. You have to operate them properly. They have to function properly. The enemy has numerous sneaky ways of interfering with your warning devices. You have to pay attention and be able to react. Even simple search radar is notoriously prone to error. Supposedly, to this day nobody in the USAF knows how Major Lodge (commander of the 555th TFS) was killed by a North Viet Namese MiG-17 ambush that "should have been" detected by the radars of the 555th Phantoms. It's well known that both US and Israeli pilots intentionally turn off many warning devices to reduce distraction during combat. Technology aside, the best weapon is still a good pair of eyes mounted in a human skull that contains a brain capable of doing what needs to be done. I'd rather have a great pilot in a plane with dead electronics than a bonehead in a super-high-tech XF-999 Starblaster. > 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. Good question. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the 80%-20% ratio includes ALL air-to-air kills, regardless of aircraft type. The ability of big WW2-type bombers to take lots of damage is a bit of an historical aberration, and tends to be exaggerated at any rate. Throughout most of history, big multi-crew planes have had no trouble at all being shot down in droves. > > 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. They can, but the tradeoffs tend to be too high. Supersonic speed is often thought of as a way of emptying your fuel tank instantly. With the exception of specialized planes such as Concorde and the SR-71, few planes will have any fuel left after more than a few minutes of supersonic flight. At supersonic speed, you'll have time for only one pass at the enemy; that pass may be devastating, but you'll suddenly find yourself in unfamiliar territory with your fuel at bingo. Better to keep your options open in case things go wrong. > Can you fire a Sidewinder at Mach 2? I don't know. Can anybody else answer this? I know that most air-to-ground weaponry cannot be used at supersonic speeds (it would probably miss the target anyway). > > 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. I stand by my original assessment. See below. > 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. Wrong. The Bf 109 was one of the LEAST maneuverable fighters in the world during its heyday. The Hurricane could outmaneuver it under ALL circumstances (although that does not change the fact that the Bf 109 was vastly superior to the Hurricane). The Spitfire could outmaneuver the Bf 109 everywhere except at extreme high speeds, where the planes were about equal. The Spitfire had a 0.5 g advantage over the Bf 109 just about across the board. A couple of qualifiers, however...the Bf 109's horsepower-to-weight ratio was so superior to the Spitfire's (4.66 lb/hp vs. 5.61 lb/hp) that the German pilot could often use his engine power to offset the Spitfire's turning ability. Also, the Bf 109 had automatic leading edge slats. This allowed a good German pilot to extract maximum turning ability from his Bf 109 without fear of stall. A poor Spitfire pilot might be afraid of the maximum turning ability of his plane, since a stall might occur without warning if he wasn't familiar with the plane. All other things being equal, however, the Spitfire's advantage in wing loading (24 lb/ft*2 vs. 31 lb/ft*2) was just too great for the Bf 109 to overcome. But as with the Hurricane, the Spitfire's superior maneuverability did not change things enough...the Bf 109 was the superior plane overall, especially at low and medium altitudes. > The Me-109 was produced to almost the end of the war (if not to the end, I > can't remember). Yes, advanced versions (such as the 109K) were still in production, although the Luftwaffe had been screaming for years to dump the plane in favor of more modern types such as the Fw 190 and (especially) the Me 262. > The Me-109 is comparable to the Spitfire or Hurricane in design philosophy. WRONG. From _Fighter_Combat_Comparison_ (Murray Rubenstein, Tacitus Publications, 1973): "If would be difficult to find two fighters that differed more in design philosophy than the Supermarine Spitfire and the Messerschmitt Bf 109. The English fighter was an elegant design that was a reflection of pre-war British military philosophy. It retained a large measure of the turning ability of the biplane that the British had come to expect in a fighter and it was armed for defense against bombers...The Bf 109 was one of the first fighter designs to accurately reflect the slashing hit-and-run fighter tactics that were to characterize much of the air fighting of the Second World War. It was not designed to turn inside an enemy fighter. Instead, it was conceived as a machine which would bore in on an enemy, fire a single lethal burst, then dive away." > The initial design of the Me-109 was with TWO machine guns in the wings. In the engine cowling, actually (Bf 109A). > 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. Actually, in those days (1936) the rumor surfaced that the British planes were switching from two to four machine guns. The two-gun Bf 109A was therefore canceled in favor of the Bf 109B, which had three machine guns, the additional one firing through the propeller hub. This additional gun was was quickly replaced by the 20mm MG FF/M cannon--a gun that turned out to be pretty useless anyway, due to constant jams and malfunctions. However, the Bf 109 had been designed from the beginning with firepower in mind, and the airframe easily accepted the considerable increase in firepower that was added to later models. Airframes designed without firepower in mind--such as the Spitfire--accepted additional guns only with a lot of kicking and screaming. > 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 Bf 110 "Zerstorer" was faster than any single engine fighter of the day. Overall performance and even maneuverability were surprisingly good, and the Bf 110 has a bad reputation that it does not deserve. Its only bad record came during the Battle of Britain, where operational orders prevented it from being used properly. At other times during the war, the Bf 110 performed well in a variety of roles. Of course, by the end of the war it was hopelessly obsolete--but that's no different than for any other mid-1930s fighter. > 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). True, and in that respect it was nothing more than an update of the Bf 109 philosophy, taking into account new technology and lessons learned in the early days of the war. Advanced versions of this plane, such as the Fw 190D and the Ta 152, may have been the best propeller fighters of the war. > 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. Again, I'll stand by my original statement, pointing to the design philosophy of the Bf 109. German war theoreticians changed the world in the 1930s, by coming up with new ways of war. Not only did they refine and put into practice the form of armored warfare we now call "blitzkrieg", they also perfected the hit-and-run type of air combat that enabled them to create the revolutionary Bf 109. Just like on land, all other nations had to catch up with what the Germans were doing in the air. > One final point on this, wasn't the Sopwith Pup replaced by the Sopwith > Camel which was very tricky to fly, but highly maneuverable? Calling the Camel "highly maneuverable" is both extremely correct and extremely incorrect. The reason for the Camel's bizarre performance was a combination of its light weight and a powerful rotary engine that created tremendous right torque. The Camel could turn to the right more quickly than any plane in existence, as the engine torque assisted the plane's turning. Turning to the left, against the engine torque, was an exercise similar to turning a supertanker. In fact, an experienced pilot who wanted a 90 degree turn to the left would more likely try a 270 degree turn to the right. This disparity, of course, made for lots of accidents, particularly with mediocre pilots. Also, there are times when you HAD to turn left, and in those cases a Camel was in serious trouble. Luckily, the Camel was also fast, had a good climb/dive rate, and was strongly built with good firepower. Although the Camel was quite successful overall after it had replaced the Pup, its general bizarreness forced the British to adopt a more conventional airplane. This was the Snipe, which was similar to the Camel, but faster, tougher, and heavier, but without the wild torque disparity. You couldn't turn a Snipe like you could a Pup or Camel, but you could use high-speed hit-and-run tactics far more effectively. There were other planes with a torque disparity, such as the Fokker Dr.I Triplane, but the Camel had by far the most extreme performance. Most torque-disparity planes, as well as most lightweight types like the Pup, were eventually replaced by bigger, faster, heavier planes with more firepower. > 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. I would argue that the Battle of Britain was an aberration; that for most of the rest of the war Luftwaffe crews were pretty much used according to original intent. And even during the Battle of Britain, many German tactical decisions were often as correct as could be expected. When the fighters were allowed to roam freely, they did much better than when they were ordered to stay close by the bombers (no surprise). And if you factor out the Bf 109's fuel problem, they still shot down Spitfires at 1.4 to 1 and Hurricanes at 2.4 to 1. > 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. This is the standard postwar party-line whining excuse from Luftwaffe apologists like Cajus Bekker: "If only we'd developed a heavy bomber force like the Americans and British, we could have won the Battle of Britain and destroyed Soviet industry beyond the Urals. But NOOO....." Balderdash. The Strategic Bombing Survey showed how the hordes of B-17s, B-24s, B-29s, Halifaxes and Lancasters had very little effect upon the overall results. Why would the Luftwaffe have had any different results with hordes of He 177s or some other four-engined plane? Note also how the development of a large four-engined fleet bled Britain white financially, and probably LENGTHENED the war rather than shortened it. If the Germans had developed a large strategic air force, they would not have had enough resources left over to keep a large army in the field. Note also how well the USSR did without a strategic bomber fleet. No, given the limitations of the German economy, plus the Wehrmacht necessity of maintaining large field armies, the design and utilization of the Luftwaffe was just about right. One could nit-pick about certain details here and there--and certainly Goring knew more about fornicating than he did about warfare--but overall I can't see any major flaws in Luftwaffe strategy. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "Who watches the watchmen?" --Epigraph of the Tower Commission Report, 1987
adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK (Adrian Hurt) (10/19/89)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK> In article <10261@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: >From: brspyr1.brs.com!miket (Mike Trout) >In sci.military Digest Tuesday, 03 October, 1989 Volume 3 : Issue 9 >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 was a highly maneuverable fighter, which could or could >> not outmaneuver the Hurricane or Spitfire depending on the altitude. > >Wrong. The Bf 109 was one of the LEAST maneuverable fighters in the world >during its heyday. The Hurricane could outmaneuver it under ALL circumstances >(although that does not change the fact that the Bf 109 was vastly superior to >the Hurricane). Don't be so sure. At the time the Hurricane came out, the version of the Bf 109 in service was the Bf 109D. The Hurricane could outmanoeuvre, outpower and outgun it. By the time of the Battle of Britain, the Hurricane had changed little if at all, while the Bf 109 was now in its E variant, with the more powerful Daimler-Benz DB 601A engine. The Bf 109E now had the significant power edge, and the Hurricane never regained it. Basically, by the start of WW2 the Hurricane was obsolete; but when it first appeared, it was supreme. >Bf 109 had automatic leading edge slats. This allowed a good German pilot to >extract maximum turning ability from his Bf 109 without fear of stall. A poor >Spitfire pilot might be afraid of the maximum turning ability of his plane, >since a stall might occur without warning if he wasn't familiar with the plane. Yes, well if it was a good German pilot vs. a poor British pilot, the result was one crashed Spitfire. On the other hand, if the skills were reversed, it was the Bf 109 that went down. In fact, at the time of the Battle of Britain, the two aircraft were quite evenly matched in most respects, although each had its advantages and weaknesses. > (The 109)... was not designed to turn inside an enemy fighter. >Instead, it was conceived as a machine which would bore in on an enemy, fire a >single lethal burst, then dive away." > >> The initial design of the Me-109 was with TWO machine guns in the wings. > >In the engine cowling, actually (Bf 109A). Some "lethal burst"! > ... However, the >Bf 109 had been designed from the beginning with firepower in mind, and the >airframe easily accepted the considerable increase in firepower that was added >to later models. It did not. The wings accepted the two extra machine guns easily enough, but when two more MG FF's were put in their place, bulges had to be added which messed up the aerodynamics. That was in the 109 E. No further 109 versions ever had guns in the wings again - the 109 F and all subsequent versions had the motor-mounted gun back, but this time it was the far better MG 151. There were also bolt-on kits fitted to the wings when the fighter was going after the big American bombers, and manoeuvrability could be thrown away. > Airframes designed without firepower in mind--such as the >Spitfire--accepted additional guns only with a lot of kicking and screaming. Or rather, with a new wing to accomodate the 20mm cannon. As of the Spitfire Mk VC, a new wing was fitted which could carry either two cannon, or one cannon and two machine guns. The British never did go much for putting guns into the fuselages of single-engined fighters. >> 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 Bf 110 "Zerstorer" was faster than any single engine fighter of the day. >Overall performance and even maneuverability were surprisingly good, and the >Bf 110 has a bad reputation that it does not deserve. Maximum speed of the Bf 110C-5 (the Battle of Britain version): 345 mph. Maximum speed of the Spitfire IA (ditto): 361 mph. Maximum speed of the Spitfire IIA (late 1940): 354 mph. Note the reduced speed on the version with the constant speed propellor, which gave the Spitfire IIA better climb rate and ceiling. The Bf 110's manoeuvrability might have been good for a twin engined aircraft, but it couldn't match a single engined fighter. It was supposed to be a "fighter destroyer"; it would use its heavy firepower to blast through enemy fighter formations, then go on to attack their airfields. In effect, it was a cross between a fighter and a bomber, and it failed on both counts. But Goering liked the aircraft so much that he insisted it stay in service, and it actually had to be escorted by Bf 109's! Eventually it was relegated to such duties as night fighting, where its large size enabled it to carry the early clumsy German airborne radar set, and where its firepower (subsequently upgraded) could be used against even bigger, slower, less manoeuvrable targets - British heavy bombers. It was also used for long range reconnaissance and ground attack. >> 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). > >True, and in that respect it was nothing more than an update of the Bf 109 >philosophy, taking into account new technology and lessons learned in the early >days of the war. Advanced versions of this plane, such as the Fw 190D and the >Ta 152, may have been the best propeller fighters of the war. In fact the Fw 190A was also manoeuvrable. The D version lost a bit of the agility because of higher wing loading. "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