# "Most pilots shot down didn't see the enemy coming"



## Civettone (Jun 3, 2013)

Today I read "Beyond that most fighters shot down in the BoB (~80%) didn't see the enemy coming". I have seen similar claims several times before. What is the basis for these statements?

I have a feeling it is something which was once written somewhere and simply copied every since.
Kris


----------



## CobberKane (Jun 3, 2013)

I don't doubt this is completely true. Pretty much every account I have read from pilots who were shot down involve everything being fine until there was a loud bang and the cockpit filled with smoke. And pretty much every ace when questioned about tactics emphasises getting in close without being seen and opening up with all they had.


----------



## Kryten (Jun 3, 2013)

Tactics dictated that if you bounced an enemy and he broke into you, your next move was to blow through or climb away not hang around dogfighting, it would seem few actual dogfights where one pilot attempted to outfly the other actually occurred, I think it was Geoffery Wellum who said "the easiest time to shoot an enemy down was when he was trying to shoot someone down himself", I suppose the longer you spend chasing your opponent the longer someone has to get into position on you!
A big no no it would seem!


----------



## Glider (Jun 3, 2013)

Spotting another aircraft in the sky is actually pretty difficult, in or out of combat. Most pilots will admit to having at least one near miss.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2013)

_"Always try to secure an advantageous position before attacking. Climb before and during the approach in order to *surprise* the enemy from above, and dive on him swiftly from the rear when the moment to attack is at hand." _

Item 1, Dicta Boelcke


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 3, 2013)

I was told on a few occasions by a couple different pilots that they would engage in an actual dogfight because they were forced into it. The explanation was that in a turning fight, you're using all your resources and skill to get a firing solution (or refusing the enemy behind you), which will take your attention away from the other aircraft in the area. A good wingman will cover his leader's tail, but if the wingman is already involved or is slow in getting into covering position, then the pilot can be in trouble from a bounce. A turning fight can also draw you down to lower altitudes, bleeding off your airspeed and leave you vulnerable.
The attack from above (and preferably out of the sun) was the preferred method of attack. Dive down, hit hard and fast, maintain your speed and get back up to either recieve the enemy or repeat the attack.


----------



## DonL (Jun 3, 2013)

> The attack from above (and preferably out of the sun) was the preferred method of attack. Dive down, hit hard and fast, maintain your speed and get back up to either recieve the enemy or repeat the attack.





> "Always try to secure an advantageous position before attacking. Climb before and during the approach in order to surprise the enemy from above, and dive on him swiftly from the rear when the moment to attack is at hand."



This is exactly what Erich Hartmann said about his tactics, also that he was closing in at 100m or below to hit very hard with a short burst out of his weapons.

From Tollivers book, it was a original citation from Hartmann, that he think 80% of his enemys didn't know he was behind them, as they were shot down by him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 3, 2013)

Why is something like this so hard to believe?


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 3, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Today I read "Beyond that most fighters shot down in the BoB (~80%) didn't see the enemy coming". I have seen similar claims several times before. What is the basis for these statements?


That statement has a lot of truth to it. Ever been in the bumper cars at the carnivals? From every first-hand account I've heard, and, I've heard a few, it was a lot like that, except more spread out. That's why Butch O'Hare said, in reference to the Wildcat, paraphrasing him, "We need something that could get upstairs faster." You peel off, you make your run on your target, and you get the hell out of there, as, if you're in any kind of traffic, somebody is likely trying to do the same thing to you. Then, you do it again. That was the ideal, anyway. In reality, especially when the aircraft were rather equally-endowed, it stands to reason, that was a lot easier said than done.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 3, 2013)

I think there are two interpretations to what is meant by "shot down without seeing the opponent"
- you didn't see there was an enemy plane - this is what the Boelke dictum seems to talk about
- you didn't see the plane which shot you down, but you did realize you or you unit was under attack

If 80% of the kills happen without the victim seeing _any_ attacker ... why is it that the experienced pilots and best fliers survive while rookies die? Because experienced pilots are simply better at looking around? That seems an insufficient explanation. Thus, I don't think 80% of kills happened with the pilot sensing no danger. It would basically mean that it is a lottery. Plus, it is unlikely to happen for larger formations. And coming out of the sun was a well known tactic known by all (though still successful if perfectly executed by a single plane or small formation). 

If it's the second interpretation, I can agree with this. It would be a matter of situational awareness, which is what the best pilots possess. During a melee there is a lot of movement going on and it is extremely difficult to have an overview of the situation, to see who is who, to see keep an eye on your target, on your wingman, on your friendlies and on possible enemy attacks on you or your wingman. Having a reliable wingman eases the workload, but one can never be certain. It is at these moments that the best pilots survive and the rookies fall. 

Kris


----------



## nincomp (Jun 3, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why is something like this so hard to believe?



I believe that many people tend to think of fighter pilots as "the knights of the sky" jousting with the enemy. We have the romantic notion that the aerial encounters were fought man-to-man in swirling dogfights with the best pilot prevailing.
Despite the fact that a pilot's job was to down the enemy planes, I am sure that many people think that sneaking up and shooting an unsuspecting pilot somehow seems sneaky, cowardly, or "not playing fair."

I am certain that most fighter pilots would prefer to regale the audience with stories about dogfights in which they proved their mettle against a worthy adversary. Somehow, "I snuck up on the fellow and killed him before he had a chance to defend himself" doesn't sound very heroic.

As for " _If 80% of the kills happen without the victim seeing any attacker ... why is it that the experienced pilots and best fliers survive while rookies die?_" I suspect that it takes some time for a new pilot to get to the point where flying the plane and looking around for the enemy becomes second nature. In addition, the new pilots probably are concentrating on staying in formation with their leader. Remember, however, that a significant number of even the best pilots were eventually shot down and killed or taken prisoner.


----------



## stona (Jun 3, 2013)

"Most pilots shot down didn't see the enemy coming" 

I would say that there is a huge weight of anecdotal evidence to support this contention. It comes both from the victors and the victims.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Jun 3, 2013)

stona said:


> "Most pilots shot down didn't see the enemy coming"
> 
> I would say that there is a huge weight of anecdotal evidence to support this contention. It comes both from the victors and the victims.
> 
> ...



Stona with all respect, 
but why should someone like Erich Hartmann, as an active lieutenant colonel and commander of the JG Richthoven at the Bundeswehr (also at the cold war,) lying to trainee pilots of the USAAF at around 1960, as he did this statement at a lecture in USA?

Edit:
Sorry Stona for my post, I didn't translate your post proper at my brain and was to fast with the reply.
Sorry again.

Thanks tyrodtom for your advice

Reactions: Creative Creative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 3, 2013)

edit:error


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 3, 2013)

DonL said:


> Stona with all respect,
> but why should someone like Erich Hartmann, as an active lieutenant colonel and commander of the JG Richthoven at the Bundeswehr (also at the cold war,) lying to trainee pilots of the USAAF at around 1960, as he did this statement at a lecture in USA?



I don't see where you two are in disagreement. Or did you mean that statement for Civettone ?


That was just Erich Hartmanns opinion, he can't know for sure. But giving his experience, his opinion should carry a lot of weight.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 3, 2013)

There are plenty of stories I was told by pilots who were either family members or close friends of my family, where surprise was a deciding factor on the outcome, several instances where it was instant.

It would seem that there is a huge difference between the skies over the PTO/ETO, etc and the skies of Hollywood...


----------



## altsym (Jun 3, 2013)

Bubi said one many occasions, he avoided dogfights at ALL costs.


----------



## GregP (Jun 3, 2013)

Most of the pilots who have given talks at the Museum don't really dwell on kills, they dwell on stories about the aircraft and war in general. The few who DO talk about victories or about being shot down are almost unanimous that their victims didn't take evasive action until they were hit by a burst and already badly damaged, which made them realtively easier targets as their aircraft didn't have full performance available and, in many cases, were smoking or had lost power and the enemy was trying to bail out instead of fight. Same for themselves. 

One guy (Navy) said his flight was doing a CAP and they were sure they were high and alone until they got hit from above and behind without warning. They were in a flight of four and two went down, including him.

I'm sure there were many fights where the protagonists WERE aware and DID dogfight, but the "many" was relatively few compared witrh the total number of fights in the war. For instance, the US Navy Hellcats flew about 66,000 action sorties. If they engaged in even 1,000 individual dogfights, it is "few" compared with 66,000 planes flying action sorties and means only 1 in 66 had a dogfight when they encountered the enemy.

Please, I do not claim the 1,000 number is real; I made it up ... it is just an example number.


----------



## stona (Jun 3, 2013)

DonL said:


> Edit:
> Sorry Stona for my post, I didn't translate your post proper at my brain and was to fast with the reply.
> Sorry again.



No worries. Had you posted in German I would have been even more confused as my German is very "school boy" 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Civettone (Jun 3, 2013)

Doesn't this say something about what a fighter plane should be? 
If almost all kills are the result of a fast and deadly approach, wouldn't that favour a small, fast and hard hitting aircraft? Who cares if it turns like a schoolbus? BnZ all the way??


Kris


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 3, 2013)

If you're on the unlucky end of this equation, manuverabilty may be your only means of escape.
You're not always the attacker, sometimes you're the attackee.


----------



## vinnye (Jun 3, 2013)

I remember seeing an interview with a LW ace (big score of victories - not just 5), who said that he often attacked his opponent from below and behind not above. I think he used the blind spot of the aircraft and the fact that a lot of pilots would be looking above rather than below!


----------



## VBF-13 (Jun 3, 2013)

GregP said:


> Most of the pilots who have given talks at the Museum don't really dwell on kills, they dwell on stories about the aircraft and war in general. The few who DO talk about victories or about being shot down are almost unanimous that their victims didn't take evasive action until they were hit by a burst and already badly damaged, which made them realtively easier targets as their aircraft didn't have full performance available and, in many cases, were smoking or had lost power and the enemy was trying to bail out instead of fight. Same for themselves.
> 
> One guy (Navy) said his flight was doing a CAP and they were sure they were high and alone until they got hit from above and behind without warning. They were in a flight of four and two went down, including him.
> 
> ...


They had more respect than to call these "kills," Greg. In my experiences, too, they called these "victories." Neither did they talk about them very much; much less, when they did, boast about them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 3, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Doesn't this say something about what a fighter plane should be?
> If almost all kills are the result of a fast and deadly approach, wouldn't that favour a small, fast and hard hitting aircraft? Who cares if it turns like a schoolbus? BnZ all the way??
> 
> 
> Kris



The Germans did, it was called the 109, which fortunately for them was just manoeuvrable enough to be competitive when often forced into that situation. The US did too later, with things like the F-105, F-104 and so on, all rather less than successful....

The problem is if you have to manoeuvre because of the tactical environment. Say protecting bombers, then you just have a one trick pony.

Taking the BoB for example, the 109 pilots all preferred to be high and bounce Spits and Hurris attacking the bombers when it suited them. Nice low risk way of doing business.
Problem was they had to protect the bombers (otherwise what was the point of them) and that meant they had to engage the opposing fighters and the advantages of the 109 (vs the Hurricane) were basically nullified.

Other tactical environments come to mind where where dog fighting (of one kind or another) nearly always happens.A simple one is just cloud. Fat lot of use your great climbing, great diving, turns like a brick plane is if there is a whole lot of cloud between you and them. In that case you have to approach on a similar level.

Plus being more manoeuvrable than the other plane increases your defensive options and gives you a better chance of turning a defence back to an offence (eg avoiding a bounce and counter attacking).
And naturally you have more offensive options, being able to attack successfully from a wider range of heights,, angles, etc.

Which is why, nowadays, we all have super manoeuvrable fighters (F-16 vs F-104 for example), excepting the F-35 of course (which is about as agile as a brick). 

That 80% rule covers all areas, in that many were situations where you were engaged with the enemy, but didn't see the actual plane that hit you (because you were concentrating on getting another one and so on).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 3, 2013)

VBF-13 said:


> They had more respect than to call these "kills," Greg. In my experiences, too, they called these "victories." Neither did they talk about them very much; much less, when they did, boast about them.


This is very true. Trying to get any "stories" out of some of my relatives was virtually impossible and often times better left unsaid.

When one of the guys were talking about an engagement, they often said things like "_I scratched 'em_" but never referred to it as a "kill"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 3, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Which is why, nowadays, we all have super manoeuvrable fighters (F-16 vs F-104 for example), *excepting the F-35 of course (which is about as agile as a brick*).



You're basing that on what, and what model, A, B, C or all of the above?????


----------



## altsym (Jun 3, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> The Germans did, it was called the 109, which fortunately for them *was just manoeuvrable enough *to be competitive when often forced into that situation.


LOL! Where do you come up with this stuff?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 3, 2013)

my granfather told me a story of a new replacement that arrived at gallipoli just before the Batles at Lone Pine Ridge. The story goes something like this.....man arrives to find the Australians sitting on boxes in the trenches, playing cards. he says "Ive come to see the turks. I will just bob above the trench for a minute, they wont see me. !". answer "Dont do that, you get shot!"....didnt listen. Stuck hios head above the trench, came back down with a bullet between the eyes....dead in less than 30 seconds of arriving.

At about the same time a unit of Gurkhas arrived. At that time the British would not allow them to fight, preferring to employ them as porters . They begged the Australians to fight. The Australians agreed, but with only the kukris (that evil looking curved knife they carry). In one of the rare occasions that things actually worked in that campaign, my grandfather told me how the Australians had manged to pilfer additional rifle and had a couple of shotguns smuggled into the trenches (b*gger the Hague convention). The Gurkhas went in just ahead of the main attack, silent, unseen, deadly. It was a trench raid, done at night. Firing from the hip and using those blessed shotguns, the Australians (and the Gurkhas) fought one of the most successful raids of the campaign. My Grandfather was decorated in that battle, and carried his six gun (illegally) into battle with him. by this stage the Australians had no faith in the British leadership, and fought their battles as they saw fit...not officially, of course, but thats how it was back then. 

The lesson here is that experiewnce tells you when to go for it and when to keep your mouth shut and your head down. 
I expect the same applies in the air.....the experienced guys know to keep a constant lookout....the ones that dont, generally dont live to tell the story

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2013)

The Gurkhas have always fought for the British as combat soldiers. After their performance in 1857 Gurkha soldiers alone amongst all those from the sub-continent were given the title of riflemen and referred to as such rather than as sepoys. Their green uniform and edgings also reflects that of the Royal Rifle Corps (now subsumed by the Royal Green Jackets) with its origins with the skirmishers of the Napoleonic wars and is a further indication of the high esteem in which these men were held by their British contemporaries. 

They have served the British as combat soldiers since the Nepalese war of 1814, a war in which we singularly failed to annex Nepal to the British Empire.

I'm not saying that some Gurkhas were not employed in a logistical role at Gallipoli, British and Australian soldiers were too, but it is not true that the British preferred to employ them in that role.

Don't argue with me! The Gurkhas have a formidable champion in the far more agreeable form of Joanna Lumley. Her cornering and savaging of Phil Woolas, then Minister of State for Borders and Immigration, in a BBC studio was something to behold 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 4, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Taking the BoB for example, the 109 pilots all preferred to be high and bounce Spits and Hurris attacking the bombers when it suited them. Nice low risk way of doing business.
> Problem was they had to protect the bombers (otherwise what was the point of them) and that meant they had to engage the opposing fighters and the advantages of the 109 (vs the Hurricane) were basically nullified.



I am not sure if its entirely true - engaging does not necessarily means engaging in turning fight, which would indeed throw away all the advantages the "power fighter" has vs the "nimble fighter". Its equally possible to use the vertical for maneuvers or simply rely on speed for protection (an extreme example would be jet vs prop fighters). IMHO anything but a one vs one plane engagement favors the "power fighter", increasingly so as the number of engaged planes increases. If there are 10 vs 10 (20 vs 20, 50 vs 50) fighters in engagement, the more maneuverable fighter will find it next to impossible to stay out of _someone _ guns envelope, even if he can quite easily stay out of his own dogfight adversary's guns envelope. The power fighter on the other hand can more or less still rely on simply flying fast and staying out of effective guns range.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 4, 2013)

altsym said:


> LOL! Where do you come up with this stuff?



I think that is a fair description. Manoeuvrability was not a prime requirement for the design, it was very fast, climbed very well and dived very well. With good armament for anti-fighter stuff..
It was quite manoeuvrable at lower speeds, but seized up at higher ones.
The Luftwaffe learned and perfected their 'boom and zoom' style fighting in Spain against slower and far more manoeuvrable biplanes.

Interestingly the British requirements that led to the Spitfire and Hurricane also had little about manoeuvrability. Again speed, climb and firepower were the main issues. 
The Hurricane's manoeuvrability came from its heritage design (a mono wing Fury basically), the Spitfire's from its low wing loading and the very efficient aerodynamics of the tail, bit of a fortuitous accident really.
Especially since the RAF thought there wouldn't be any dogfighting at all as the speeds were considered to be too high.

So neither side saw that as an issue or a requirement, until war actually happened. As I said the Spitfire's manoeuvrability was really an accident, due to Mitchell and his team taking a different route to higher performance by using far more advanced aerodynamics than did Hawker or Messerschmitt.

So the 109 was good enough in most flight regimes to be (and stay) competitive. For example, against a Mustang, below 250-275mph it would hold its own (at least), above that the Mustang had the advantage in terms of turning (and definitely rolling). If they had just fixed up those rubbish elevators and ailerons it would have been even more dangerous that it was.

I don't think I'm being unkind in summarising it in that way. 
Like the Spitfire the design was a close run thing. If they had gone for an even higher wing loading (to, say, get more speed) it would have been a dog.
In the Spitfire's case, even just a slightly thinner and weaker wing would have meant far too low an aileron reversal speed and it too would have been a dog.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 4, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You're basing that on what, and what model, A, B, C or all of the above?????



All of them, wing and thrust loadings are about the same as the good old Thud. Not having vectored thrust or lifting body effect to counter that (as per the F-22, or SU-30 class, etc, etc), it will climb, accelerate and handle like a pig.

And they've just dropped the G limits again. Down to about 5-6G max now (with variations between the models), which in today's terms is hopeless.
I think that RAND article was the perfect description, "can't hide, can't fight, can't run'.
Currently not cleared for night flights, can't be flown where there are thunderstorms and there are severe dive limitations (roughly it is allowed to dive like a 737).

Modern day Defiant or Buffalo, though just a tad more expensive (about $170+ million a pop at the moment).


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> the Spitfire's from its low wing loading and the very efficient aerodynamics of the tail, bit of a fortuitous accident really..



I actually agree with most of your post but not the above.
Shenstone wanted a small fin, something he had learnt from Lippisch and during his time at Junkers. Mitchell, Simmonds and Mansbridge had come to similar conclusions through their experience with Supermarine racing designs. Tail design of the Spitfire is closely allied to the fuselage design and particularly length and not, as was traditional at the time, proportional to the size of the wing. It was designed to reflect the properties of slim fuselage boom and tuned wing wake spillage. Shenstone understood that controlling the spillage of air from the wing and fuselage was vital to the efficiency of the tail.
There were no accidents here.
The Spitfire's small tail caused consternation at the time and there was considerable debate between Supermarine and the Air Ministry, particularly R. Alston and H. Stone of the RAE who were concerned about spin recovery. Mitchell stood firm, the only compromise, accepted grudgingly by Shenstone, was to raise the tail plane slightly to avoid any blanking of the rudder. 7" was the compromise reached.
Shenstone argued that a larger fin would not only increase drag but create problems of aerodynamic side loading, something the designers of the P-51 would discover.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 4, 2013)

stona said:


> I actually agree with most of your post but not the above.
> Shenstone wanted a small fin, something he had learnt from Lippisch and during his time at Junkers. Mitchell, Simmonds and Mansbridge had come to similar conclusions through their experience with Supermarine racing designs. Tail design of the Spitfire is closely allied to the fuselage design and particularly length and not, as was traditional at the time, proportional to the size of the wing. It was designed to reflect the properties of slim fuselage boom and tuned wing wake spillage. Shenstone understood that controlling the spillage of air from the wing and fuselage was vital to the efficiency of the tail.
> There were no accidents here.
> The Spitfire's small tail caused consternation at the time and there was considerable debate between Supermarine and the Air Ministry, particularly R. Alston and H. Stone of the RAE who were concerned about spin recovery. Mitchell stood firm, the only compromise, accepted grudgingly by Shenstone, was to raise the tail plane slightly to avoid any blanking of the rudder. 7" was the compromise reached.
> ...



Yes I have the book too. 

Not sure why we disagree, the reason I said it was a fortuitous accident was the reason they did it was to reduce drag and make the Spitfire faster, not to make it more manoeuvrable.
But the same (absolutely brilliant) work meant that a Spit would have good elevator authority even at very high speeds.

That, plus all the other clever parts of the aerodynamic design, meant a Spit could, with the same engine power, match a lighter, with a far higher wing loading 109 in speed .. and have the advantage of the lower wing loading for agility.

Everyone says that the Mustang was a superior aerodynamic design, personally I disagree totally. For an example look at the Mustang's tail size (and all those problems it had with that) .... then it's mach limit, then it's stall issues then its .. you get the idea. Superb radiator design and superb frontal design (thanks to an 'unqualified air racer', NA's genius was to use him properly) and far (far) better quality control.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Yes I have the book too.



And very good it is too! I'd also recommend "Spitfire's Forgotten Designer, the career of Supermarine's Joe Smith" by Mike Roussel (ISBN 9780752487595) if you don't already have it. Not a great title as I don't think Joe Smith is forgotten by those that care, in fact I suspect his name would be more familiar to most than Beverley Shenstone's.

Maybe I misunderstood the sense of your post slightly, always a danger in cyberspace.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jun 4, 2013)

> The Gurkhas have always fought for the British as combat soldiers. After their performance in 1857 Gurkha soldiers alone amongst all those from the sub-continent were given the title of riflemen and referred to as such rather than as sepoys. Their green uniform and edgings also reflects that of the Royal Rifle Corps (now subsumed by the Royal Green Jackets) with its origins with the skirmishers of the Napoleonic wars and is a further indication of the high esteem in which these men were held by their British contemporaries.



Yep i know, but in france in 1914, they did not perform so well, which led to their redeployment for some of them. Im a BIG fan of the Gurkhas as well, but initially they were not issued weapons when they went ashore, according to my grandfather He may well have gotten it wrong, but he was there. You talk about showing some respect. i agree, but how about practising what you preach. Neither of us were there I might point out. 



> They have served the British as combat soldiers since the Nepalese war of 1814, a war in which we singularly failed to annex Nepal to the British Empire.



Yep, but this was the first time they had been deployed to Europe, and initially they were viewed with some misgivings. They fought very well as always, but not so well during that first winter in France, with such a technical war confronting them. There performance at Gallipoli completely restored that reputation 



> I'm not saying that some Gurkhas were not employed in a logistical role at Gallipoli, British and Australian soldiers were too, but it is not true that the British preferred to employ them in that role.



Thats the job they were given initially on arrival, apparently because of the preceding doubts. Compoletely unjustified. Maybe it was one way of getting them familiar with the terrain, but it was August before they were used in a significant comnbat role



> Don't argue with me!



Why? you werent there, and your perspective is essentially anglophile which is anathema in my country when it comes to Gallipoli. from our perspective you got it wrong then, and there is nothing i see here to change my view of that. 




> The Gurkhas have a formidable champion in the far more agreeable form of Joanna Lumley. Her cornering and savaging of Phil Woolas, then Minister of State for Borders and Immigration, in a BBC studio was something to behold




Wasnt aware of that, but good on her. She is a formidable woman, and the gurkhas should be given due respect.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 4, 2013)

Ummm, Parsifal, the comment "Don't argue with me", I believe was made with tongue in cheek. 

In the BoB Bf 109 pilots may have preferred to be high and bounce but the reality was they were mostly tied to the bombers which chapped their azz. In general, one staffel flying ahead as a sweep, one staffel with the bombers flanking sides and another up in the clouds waiting to bounce.


----------



## DonL (Jun 4, 2013)

> In the BoB Bf 109 pilots may have preferred to be high and bounce but the reality was they were mostly tied to the bombers which chapped their azz.



They were tied to the bombers through the order of the world most experienced air strategist Hermann Meier.


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2013)

Njaco said:


> Ummm, Parsifal, the comment "Don't argue with me", I believe was made with tongue in cheek.



It was, but I don't mind. I think that Parsifal and myself share a similar opinion of the men from Nepal in any case.

I wouldn't pick a fight with Ms Lumley, just ask any member of the government who was trying to deny ex-Gurkha soldiers the right to retire to and reside in the UK. She did a great job for them, her father having been an officer with 6th Gurkha Rifles she has a connection. It has to be said that her campaign had a lot of public support. Even the traditional right wing, anti- immigration lobby found it hard to argue against the Gurkhas...........and Ms Lumley, surely Britain's most glamorous granny 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Timppa (Jun 4, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Everyone says that the Mustang was a superior aerodynamic design, personally I disagree totally.



If the P-51 wasn't superior aerodynamically, I wonder what was.
Considerably heavier than Spifire, 20-30 mph faster at all heights with the same boost and rev settings with the same engine, pulls away rapidly in a slight dive (Spitfire IX requires from 4 to 6 lbs more boost to stay in formation), vastly more range. There was an adequate warning of the high speed stall in the form of elevator buffeting, followed by tail buffeting. 
This was an British assessment btw.
(Source: Alfred Price: Fighter Aircraft)


----------



## altsym (Jun 4, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> It was quite manoeuvrable at lower speeds, but seized up at higher ones.


You keep either saying that the 109 controls either 'freezes' or 'seizes' at high speeds. Whats the bases of that? I know it became somewhat stiffer at higher speeds, as some later models used flettner tabs to help. IF its the way you described, every 109 that went into a dive would have plowed straight into the ground.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> All of them, wing and thrust loadings are about the same as the good old Thud. Not having vectored thrust or lifting body effect to counter that (as per the F-22, or SU-30 class, etc, etc), it will climb, accelerate and handle like a pig.


Look at the current flight test numbers., for a GROUND attack/ strike aircraft it does EXACTLY what its supposed to do.


OldSkeptic said:


> And they've just dropped the G limits again. Down to about 5-6G max now (with variations between the models), which in today's terms is hopeless.


Hopeless for an air-to-air fighter that will dogfight, the F-35 IS NOT an air to air fighter. The idea in this day and age is NOT to dogfight - kill your enemy and be gone, look at some of the earlier posts in this thread...


OldSkeptic said:


> I think that RAND article was the perfect description, "can't hide, can't fight, can't run'.


The Rand article is headed by Pierre Spey, he was part of the old Fighter mafia that brought the F-15 into play, a jealous old man who doesn't like Lockheed or being retired.


OldSkeptic said:


> Currently not cleared for night flights, can't be flown where there are thunderstorms and there are severe dive limitations *(roughly it is allowed to dive like a 737).*Modern day Defiant or Buffalo, though just a tad more expensive (about $170+ million a pop at the moment).



It's still in the flight test stage and is the most extensively tested aircraft in the history of aviation, so what do you expect? Again you're making comparisons as if its an exclusive air-to-air fighter, it is not, was never sold to be...

I don't think a 737 dives like this, so I don't know where you have come up with this stuff;

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ne...e_f-35a-completes-high-angle-attack-test.html


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 4, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hopeless for an air-to-air fighter that will dogfight, the F-35 IS NOT an air to air fighter. The idea in this day and age is NOT to dogfight - kill your enemy and be gone, look at some of the earlier posts in this thread...



Still, no plan survives the first contact with the enemy and you cannot always fight on your own terms. Shermans were supposed to fight only soft targets while TDs took care of enemy armor, and of course everybody knew how silly it is to put a cannon on the F4 Phantom, bristling with state of the art short- and medium ranged AA missiles. Nobody would dogfight anymore anyway... great doctrines, weren't they? Of course writing off the F-35 for supposed lack of dog fighting capability would be an an exaggeration, but you gotta admit a 5 G g-limit does not sound too promising.

Thing is though is the price. It would not be that much of a problem if the F-35 was just another ground attack plane like the Su 25 of the A-10. But wasn't the F-35 supposed to be capable of doing it all, _hence the hefty price tag which is several times of the procurement costs of a F-15/16/18/Tornado/whatever_? And if its not capable of doing it all, at this price tag, why not just have a pair of F 15s on overwatch and pair of F-18s doing the strike itself, would it be not a better investment of taxpayer dollars?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Still, no plan survives the first contact with the enemy and you cannot always fight on your own terms. Shermans were supposed to fight only soft targets while TDs took care of enemy armor, and of course everybody knew how silly it is to put a cannon on the F4 Phantom, bristling with state of the art short- and medium ranged AA missiles. Nobody would dogfight anymore anyway... great doctrines, weren't they? Of course writing off the F-35 for supposed lack of dog fighting capability would be an an exaggeration, but you gotta admit *a 5 G g-limit does not sound too promising*.


I don't believe it does and remember this aircraft is still in test. That 5G limit may be expanded at a later date - I think comparing this to Shermans or F-4s lack of cannons is a bit far reaching however as we do know history has a way of repeating itself. The F-35 was designed and built to a combat model established by the Pentagon, LMCO is just giving them what they are asking for.


Tante Ju said:


> Thing is though is the price. It would not be that much of a problem if the F-35 was just another ground attack plane like the Su 25 of the A-10. But wasn't the F-35 supposed to be capable of doing it all, _hence the hefty price tag which is several times of the procurement costs of a F-15/16/18/Tornado/whatever_? And if its not capable of doing it all, at this price tag, why not just have a pair of F 15s on overwatch and pair of F-18s doing the strike itself, would it be not a better investment of taxpayer dollars?


That's the argument and I have to admit with some validity. I believe the US military feels this is an answer to an aging air combat fleet that has shown some vulnerability during exercises like "Cope Thunder." You can only stretch out F-15s and F-16s so far. This aircraft is "supposed" to fill the role for the next 50 years, if it does what it's supposed to, the investment to the tax payer (and the guy or gal flying in combat) will be better than sticking to a dated design.


----------



## vinnye (Jun 4, 2013)

I sure hope that no 737 ever does those manouevres while I am on board!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## altsym (Jun 4, 2013)

Actually, the one jet I prefer to fly in is the Boeing 737. Absolutely brilliant aircraft! On a side note, I heard/read that the 737 can perform a wide array of aerobatic maneuvers..


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 4, 2013)

The F-35 turns like a brick? Really? It's no Raptor but it does not "Handle like a brick". In fact, it's VTOL, so you can expect some pretty cool dogfights when it enters service, something along the lines of a MiG or SU-30 gets on his tail, then he comes to a dead stop, drops altitude to avoid the enemy's fire, then shoots a Sidewinder while stopped. I know that's probably not likely, but possible I'm sure.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 4, 2013)

Altysm, you should try some! lol. Imagine a barrel roll or a loop with full passenger load, the kids would love it! (Or cry, one or the other)


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 4, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> The F-35 turns like a brick? Really? It's no Raptor but it does not "Handle like a brick". In fact, it's VTOL, so you can expect some pretty cool dogfights when it enters service, something along the lines of a MiG or SU-30 gets on his tail, then he comes to a dead stop, drops altitude to avoid the enemy's fire, then shoots a Sidewinder while stopped. I know that's probably not likely, but possible I'm sure.


 You do realize a aircraft going 500 kts or so is going to take quite a while to decelerate to zero airspeed don't you ? 
And your ability to go up, down, and sideways at the low airspeeds of VTOL is fairly limited when compared to the guidance possibilities of a AAM.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 4, 2013)

Yes I do, and obviously it is outside of the current prototypes' abilities. But the prototype always sucks, especially when it's still 5-6 years away from being finished. The production F-35 could very well look nothing like the F-35 that is currently being tested. The F-35 isn't even halfway through development, so it's current abilities are likely to improve based on testing.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 4, 2013)

Anyway, this isn't a discussion about F-35s and 737s, so let's kinda steer back onto topic.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Yes I do, and obviously it is outside of the current prototypes' abilities. But the prototype always sucks, especially when it's still 5-6 years away from being finished. The production F-35 could very well look nothing like the F-35 that is currently being tested. The F-35 isn't even halfway through development, so it's current abilities are likely to improve based on testing.





Procrastintor said:


> Anyway, this isn't a discussion about F-35s and 737s, so let's kinda steer back onto topic.





Procrastintor said:


> The F-35 turns like a brick? Really? It's no Raptor but it does not "Handle like a brick". In fact, it's VTOL, so you can expect some pretty cool dogfights when it enters service, something along the lines of a MiG or SU-30 gets on his tail, then he comes to a dead stop, drops altitude to avoid the enemy's fire, then shoots a Sidewinder while stopped. I know that's probably not likely, but possible I'm sure.



Kid, I know you're young, but you've been running your mouth a little too much. Sit back and learn a little before spewing some pretty silly stuff, it's starting to get a bit old!


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 4, 2013)

OK, sorry.


----------



## nincomp (Jun 4, 2013)

Just one more 737 comment.....pleeeease!



altsym said:


> Actually, the one jet I prefer to fly in is the Boeing 737. Absolutely brilliant aircraft! On a side note, I heard/read that the 737 can perform a wide array of aerobatic maneuvers..



This is why the savvy traveler always carries a change of underwear in his carry-on luggage.

Ok, I am done now. Thank you for flying with Air Nincompoop.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 4, 2013)

Just interesting.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vHiYA6Dmws_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 4, 2013)

Ole' Tex Johnson


----------



## Njaco (Jun 4, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> The F-35 turns like a brick? Really? It's no Raptor but it does not "Handle like a brick". In fact, it's VTOL, so you can expect some pretty cool dogfights when it enters service, something along the lines of a MiG or SU-30 gets on his tail, then he comes to a dead stop, drops altitude to avoid the enemy's fire, then shoots a Sidewinder while stopped. I know that's probably not likely, but possible I'm sure.



I think that style of dogfighting went out of style about 1954. With current technology, you may not even get a chance to eyeball your opponent.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 4, 2013)

DonL said:


> They were tied to the bombers through the order of the world most experienced air strategist Hermann Meier.



That's a common myth. Stephen Bungey's book (most dangerous enemy) makes it clear that Goering left it up to the group commanders what tactics to follow.

To protect the bombers properly they had to do both, because the RAF would just ignore the fighters if they were too far away and go straight for the bombers.
Trouble was they didn't have enough fighters to do everything needed (high cover, close(ish) cover, cover when the bombers are returning, etc, etc).


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 4, 2013)

Timppa said:


> If the P-51 wasn't superior aerodynamically, I wonder what was.
> Considerably heavier than Spifire, 20-30 mph faster at all heights with the same boost and rev settings with the same engine, pulls away rapidly in a slight dive (Spitfire IX requires from 4 to 6 lbs more boost to stay in formation), vastly more range. There was an adequate warning of the high speed stall in the form of elevator buffeting, followed by tail buffeting.
> This was an British assessment btw.
> (Source: Alfred Price: Fighter Aircraft)



Its speed came from the radiator and very good detail of all the areas that could cause drag, backed with excellent (actually superb) quality control.

But it had some nasty aerodynamic problems. The poor flow design from the fuselage and wings meant it had to have a larger tail area. The larger vertical stabiliser was (until later improved) a liability.
It had some nasty stall characteristics (as did the 190), particularly at high speed (which until the vertical stabiliser was improved killed a lot of pilots).
Pilots were warned not to do flick rolls, as it would go straight into a spin (again risking that stabiliser).

It's greater weight and higher wing loading meant only a reasonable climb rate (the Spit and 109 were the climbing kings). Despite the over engineering of various components (hence the weight)it had a lower ultimate G limit (which got progressively lower as the weight went up with later models and greater loads carried).

So it was very, very good (one of the best obviously) but it wasn't perfect, but then again nothing was (or is).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 4, 2013)

Njaco said:


> I think that style of dogfighting went out of style about 1954. With current technology, you may not even get a chance to eyeball your opponent.



Heck of a lot of bombers, fighters and fighter/bombers in Vietnam would disagree with that statement.

Nope, the best that has been achieved is a greater WVR than gun only, against technically comparable foes.
The reasons are many, but can be summed up as radar BVR has too low a Pk (probability of kill), to increase that significantly you have to get into WVR anyway.
As radars and radar missiles have improved, so have counter measures and counter tactics.

Especially if you can't carry many of them. Not so bad if you are a F-15 or Su-30 and can carry heaps, so you might pop one or more off to force the enemy to manoeuvre into a poorer position (and maybe get lucky), then you can follow up on that to put yourself into a wining position.

But if you are a F-35 can only carry 2 (or maybe later 4) and still stay stealthy ... you are not going to risk them until you are right up close, pop them off and miss and you are so screwed. 
In which case you might as well use an IR missile, which is harder for the other side to detect and are themselves less jammable and more manoeuvrable (especially with a helmet cued, off bore sight capability, which interestingly the F-22 doesn't have).

So if you are up against other fighters it is all still pretty much close and personal. 
Issues about IFF are another factor, in contested air space the last thing you want to do is hit one of your own, so identification is critical. That means good old Mk 1 eyeball again.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 4, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> then he comes to a dead stop, drops altitude to avoid the enemy's fire, then shoots a Sidewinder while stopped. I know that's probably not likely, but possible I'm sure.



No one uses that in real life, the reason is that you lose far too much energy, miss and you are now a dead duck (or a nice pretty target for his comrades, even if you got lucky).
Harriers never used that in combat in the Falklands. Every hit was from the rear by normal manoeuvering. (Except a gun kill on a C-130).


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 4, 2013)

That's a Hollywood stunt...

If an adversary were close enough to fall for a stall-overshoot stunt, he'd have already shot you down. Stalling your aircraft intentionally in a fight will just about guarentee your being a statistic


----------



## altsym (Jun 4, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> That's a common myth. Stephen Bungey's book (most dangerous enemy) makes it clear that Goering left it up to the group commanders what tactics to follow.


Göring biggest mistakes was NOT listening to Gruppe Commanders. Example: Battle of Britian; The fighter pilots were angry when Göring made a third of their Messerschmitts into fighter-bombers; Göring retorted by saying this had to be done because of their failure to protect the bombers from the R.A.F. The result was that the fighter pilots dropped the bombs anywhere merely in order to be rid of them; they did not regard themselves as cargo carriers. Galland stated over and over the importance of the free hunt. Göring insisted that, in combat, Bf 109 fighters escort Bf 110s, which could not survive against single-engine fighters. Both Galland and Mölders shared their concerns that close escort of Bf 110s and bombers robbed fighter pilots of their freedom to roam and engage the enemy of their own terms. They also pointed to the fact that German bombers flew at medium altitudes and low speed, the best height area and speed for the manoeuvrability of the Spitfire. Galland resented his pilots having to carry out a task unsuited to their equipment but Göring would not move from his position.

So tell me again where Göring left tactics up to group commanders?


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 5, 2013)

About the F-35 stuff, this all comes form the US Govt's own report: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/pdf/dod/2012f35jsf.pdf



> The program announced an intention to change performance
> specifications for the F-35C, reducing turn performance
> from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained g’s and increasing the time
> for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least
> ...





> The program announced an intention to change
> performance specifications for the F-35A, reducing turn
> performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained g’s and extending
> the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by
> ...





> The program announced an intention to change performance
> specifications for the F-35B, reducing turn performance from
> 5.0 to 4.5 sustained g’s and extending the time for acceleration
> from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 16 seconds. These changes
> ...



Following applies to all models:


> Additionally, the current fuel tank venting design is
> inadequate to vent the tanks during a rapid descent. As a
> result of the related OBIGGS and tank venting deficiencies,
> flight operations are currently not permitted within 25 miles
> ...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2013)

I've seen the report - do you realize AGAIN some of the parameters were lowered by the same people who are buying the aircraft and that the aircraft is still in test phase? Oh, BTW, that report is 7 months old, a lot has happened since then (see my video)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2013)

See the date...

https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/12648/f-35fast_factsmay2013.pdf


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 5, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've seen the report - do you realize AGAIN some of the parameters were lowered by the same people who are buying the aircraft and that the aircraft is still in test phase? Oh, BTW, that report is 7 months old, a lot has happened since then (see my video)



Oh yes it was the DOD that changed the specs, in recognition that it had sod all chance of meeting the original ones.
They did the same with range a while back. It never was going to meet the original requirements .. so they cut them.
Funny way to do business.

Given that it is just beginning its testing, you would expect even more things to come to light over time. All of which will take time to fix ... or have the requirements relaxed even more.

Hey, now there is a perfect solution, relax the requirements to the point where it does not even have to take off and fly, then they can say the program performs perfectly to spec...LOL.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 5, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> The F-35 turns like a brick? Really? It's no Raptor but it does not "Handle like a brick". In fact, it's VTOL, so you can expect some pretty cool dogfights when it enters service, something along the lines of a MiG or SU-30 gets on his tail, then he comes to a dead stop, drops altitude to avoid the enemy's fire, then shoots a Sidewinder while stopped. I know that's probably not likely, but possible I'm sure.



Let me guess, he will just pull the brakes and hd will just fly right by him. And the pilots call sign is Maverick right?

[Music=Top Gun Soundtrack]Take a ride into the Danger zone...[/Music]

On to a serious not. Even a slower flying Helo can't do that. An aircraft is not going to stop on a dime. The forward momentum is too great. Real world flying is not like in the video games.


----------



## GregP (Jun 5, 2013)

Yeah, in video games all women are pretty, well endowed, and scantily clad.

Altogether very nice. Maybe Lara Croft?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 5, 2013)

> Yeah, in video games all women are pretty, well endowed, and scantily clad.
> 
> Altogether very nice. Maybe Lara Croft?



I have dreams like that, oh and of bacon as well.......b-a-c-o-n


----------



## GregP (Jun 5, 2013)

Many things, like your first time, your second time, etc. , B-B-Q, your first bullseye when shooting, and your first solo flight which topped them all.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 5, 2013)

The 3 F35 models are trying to be in no particular order, a race horse, a jump horse and a carthorse. If you mix all three together you get a Camel, which gives everyone the hump. 

As a UK taxpayer I am very annoyed that I, my children and possibly my grandchildren (if I have any) will be paying for this gold plated diamond encrusted pig for at least the next 50 years.


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

You can guarantee we'll buy it to guarantee the jobs at BAE Systems, from where my brother in law recently retired (early).

It's going to be a pricey beast..

"The estimated cost for a U.S. fleet of 2,443 F-35 aircraft has risen to $395.7 billion, up 70 percent from $233 billion in 2001, as measured in constant dollars, according to the U.S. Defense Department."

That's a lot of money and you can guarantee that the cost will escalate further, much higher.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 5, 2013)

I have seen figures for the F35 ABCamel costing a trillion dollars over its expected lifespan and thats not including the purchase price or any mid life upgrades. A trillion thats a million million, a 1 followed by 12 zeros. 

Thats a lot of pork whole groups of people will have very fat and happy retirements courtesy of the US taxpayer which is just fine by me. It does twist my melon that my tax pounds sterling will be buying a yacht in Florida for some no mark paper pusher.


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> That's a common myth. Stephen Bungey's book (most dangerous enemy) makes it clear that Goering left it up to the group commanders what tactics to follow.
> 
> To protect the bombers properly they had to do both, because the RAF would just ignore the fighters if they were too far away and go straight for the bombers.
> Trouble was they didn't have enough fighters to do everything needed (high cover, close(ish) cover, cover when the bombers are returning, etc, etc).



1. Several well researched books to BoB contradict your claim.
2. Also it is absolutely unlogic that all group commanders change their tactic at the same day from high cover to close cover and we know from countless german fighter pilot reports, how bad the close cover tactic was, to play the advantages of their fighter a/c's.

3. Do you have any profound knowledge or analyse, that will support your claim, that the fighter had to do both (high cover and close cover) at BoB?
Can you give me an example, where allied escort fighters (P51, P47, P38 ) flew close cover escort over germany to protect their bombers against LW fighters, which ignored also the fighters and went straight to the bombers?

Your claim about Hermann Meier's order (Göring) and your and Bungey's claim of close cover was needed at BoB has absolutely no substance.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 5, 2013)

Only a part of the fighters flew close escort. Of course these were the ones (esp. Galland) that were very loud about it, but other fighters still flew Freie Jagd and top cover.

BTW when these mass bomber formations with close-by fighter escorts tactics were introduced (early September), LW bomber losses went down, RAF fighter losses went up...


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Only a part of the fighters flew close escort. Of course these were the ones (esp. Galland) that were very loud about it, but other fighters still flew Freie Jagd and top cover.
> 
> *BTW when these mass bomber formations with close-by fighter escorts tactics were introduced (early September), LW bomber losses went down, RAF fighter losses went up...*



Any source for this claims my books show the contradict, LW fighter losses increased dramaticly, LW bomber losses remain constant and RAF fighter losses went down (especially the Hurricane).
So please show us your sources to your claims.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 5, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> That's a common myth. Stephen Bungey's book (most dangerous enemy) makes it clear that Goering left it up to the group commanders what tactics to follow.
> 
> To protect the bombers properly they had to do both, because the RAF would just ignore the fighters if they were too far away and go straight for the bombers.
> Trouble was they didn't have enough fighters to do everything needed (high cover, close(ish) cover, cover when the bombers are returning, etc, etc).



By late September/early October Goering had replaced the "old head" Group Commanders with fresh blood so if these orders were left to Group Commanders, I'm sure there would have been a drastic change in this policy....unless it was a general order given by .......?

Despite any book written 50, 60 or 70 years after the event, I will stick with factual evidence from that time ...such as the Bf 109 of Lt. Wubke of 9./JG 54 who had stenciled on the side of his fighter the words "Im Luftrage dee Reichsbahn", rough translation: "In the aerial service if the State Railways". A bitter comment on close bomber escort work which pilots used to call "driving trains".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Oh yes it was the DOD that changed the specs, in recognition that it had sod all chance of meeting the original ones.


Look at what was changed - for the mission and TEST profile, in the bigger picture those items have little effect on the final outcome.


OldSkeptic said:


> They did the same with range a while back. It never was going to meet the original requirements .. so they cut them.
> Funny way to do business.


Not at all - it's done all the time in the flight test world especially if those parameters were created during the flight test profile planning stages and were not part of the original contract...


OldSkeptic said:


> Given that it is just beginning its testing, you would expect even more things to come to light over time. All of which will take time to fix ... or have the requirements relaxed even more.


Again, what was changed is meaningless in the bigger picture. You flight test to identify and fix issues that the fleet may face in the future and that's exactly what's happening on the F-35


OldSkeptic said:


> Hey, now there is a perfect solution, relax the requirements to the point where it does not even have to take off and fly, then they can say the program performs perfectly to spec...LOL.


Right - in the mean time the aircraft continues to fly and set records as it becomes the most advanced combat aircraft ever built AND the most extensively tested aircraft in history.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 5, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Only a part of the fighters flew close escort. Of course these were the ones (esp. Galland) that were very loud about it, but other fighters still flew Freie Jagd and top cover.
> 
> BTW when these mass bomber formations with close-by fighter escorts tactics were introduced (early September), LW bomber losses went down, RAF fighter losses went up...


This was a lesson learned later by the Allies and thier early bombing missions, too...you just cannot send bombers in without an escort and expect any real asset survival.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 5, 2013)

DonL said:


> Any source for this claims my books show the contradict,



Check any book containing the number of sorties and losses suffered... loss/sortie went DOWN for the LW bombers, loss/sortie went UP for RAF fighters by September. Essentially the concentration of fighters and bombers instead of sending them in piecemeal worked well (rather predicable).

Galland and pilots may have not liked the new tactics (what about Mölders BTW? he was a much more established and systematic officier than the charismatic Galland), but apparently he was a big enough character not see any further than his own tactical needs and kept blaming Göring for it. 
Its a pity that only _his _version survives of the events, isn't it.



DonL said:


> LW fighter losses increased dramaticly, LW bomber losses remain constant and RAF fighter losses went down (especially the Hurricane).



So if RAF fighter losses went "down", why were Park and Dowding so worried by September? Why were aircraft reserves dwindling? (See official RAF history of BoB for figures)

Also show us your sources to your claims of that "dramatic" LW fighter loss increase, please...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2013)

GregP said:


> Yeah, in video games all women are pretty, well endowed, and scantily clad.
> 
> Altogether very nice. Maybe Lara Croft?



Lara C is no longer 'endowed' much less 'well endowed'..


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

I don't know whose right and have no intention of trawling through the figures. I would sound a note of caution. Raw figures for losses, unrelated to other data, can be VERY misleading.
There may be many factors at work.

Air Vice-Marshall Keith Park gave this assessment on 6th September 1940.

" Contrary to general belief and official reports, the enemy's bombing attacks by day did extensive damage to five of our forward aerodromes and also to six of our seven sector stations. There was a critical period when the damage to sector stations and our ground organisation was having a serious effect on the fighting efficiency of the squadrons, who could not be given the same good technical and administrative service as previously." 

He added.

"....the general dislocation of ground organisation was seriously felt for about a week in the handling of squadrons by day to meet the enemy's massed attacks, which were continued _without the former occasional break of a day_

My italics. That's called keeping the pressure on.

During the previous two weeks Fighter Command had lost 295 fighters destroyed and 171 seriously damaged. Productivity in the various factories was actually falling. August had seen the loss of just over 300 pilots. They were replaced by 260 new ones of whom many were under trained.

The Luftwaffe was doing much better than it realised.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Check any book containing the number of sorties and losses suffered... loss/sortie went DOWN for the LW bombers, loss/sortie went UP for RAF fighters by September. Essentially the concentration of fighters and bombers instead of sending them in piecemeal worked well (rather predicable).
> 
> Galland and pilots may have not liked the new tactics (what about Mölders BTW? he was a much more established and systematic officier than the charismatic Galland), but apparently he was a big enough character not see any further than his own tactical needs and kept blaming Göring for it.
> Its a pity that only _his _version survives of the events, isn't it.
> ...



Battle of Britain: Amazon.de: Christer Bergstrom: Englische Bücher


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> The 3 F35 models are trying to be in no particular order, a race horse, a jump horse and a carthorse. If you mix all three together you get a Camel, which gives everyone the hump.
> 
> As a UK taxpayer I am very annoyed that I, my children and possibly my grandchildren (if I have any) will be paying for this gold plated diamond encrusted pig for at least the next 50 years.





stona said:


> You can guarantee we'll buy it to guarantee the jobs at BAE Systems, from where my brother in law recently retired (early).
> 
> It's going to be a pricey beast..
> 
> ...





fastmongrel said:


> I have seen figures for the F35 ABCamel costing a trillion dollars over its expected lifespan and thats not including the purchase price or any mid life upgrades. A trillion thats a million million, a 1 followed by 12 zeros.
> 
> Thats a lot of pork whole groups of people will have very fat and happy retirements courtesy of the US taxpayer which is just fine by me. It does twist my melon that my tax pounds sterling will be buying a yacht in Florida for some no mark paper pusher.



Gentlemen, the only thing I can somewhat agree with here is the cost of this aircraft. It is very expensive, no doubt, but what's more cost effective, buying an aircraft half as capable for ¾ of the price of an F-35 in today's dollars and having it last only 20 years and then having to go back to the drawing board for a redesign and procurement all over again with funding that may not exist or going with the F-35 and having it last 50 years or more? There's the old saying "pay me now or pay me later." In my mind, our pilots should have the best equipment available and until the F-35 can be shown that it's an utter failure, the jury is still out. When one looks into the problems encountered so far on this program, there's little difference than what was encountered when such aircraft as the F-15, F-16 or even Tornado were being developed.
BTW - look over the parameters that were changed as posted by OldSkeptic - they are for the most part non-players. "Sustained turn performance lowered by .1G?!? Come on, you could probably fart .1G and not feel a thing! 43 second increase from going to mach .8 to 1.2?!? Show me tactically where that will make a difference???

The fuel tank venting problem has been addressed AFAIK. In the mean time the aircraft continues to be flight tested and production models are starting to be delivered. To be continued...


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 5, 2013)

Fair points Flyboy but still its the expense to performance ratio that bugs me. The STOL version has I believe an expected mission radius with a full air to ground warload and internal fuel of 120 miles. 120 miles  I dont know how much loiter time that includes and I only got the figure from a newspaper but 120 miles from an aircraft that expensive. Wouldnt it be cheaper to build a flying aircraft carrier for the USMC and just shove the bombs overboard. 

The RN is proposing to use them as multi role aircraft yet it cant even supercruise and too much afterburner time is going to mean a lot of pilots having to walk home across the N Atlantic. God only knows what they will do if the mission involves a lot of wavetop flying carrying an anti ship load up into the Northern Ocean, I hope the Norwegians have a lot of tankers handy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Fair points Flyboy but still its the expense to performance ratio that bugs me. The STOL version has I believe an expected mission radius with a full air to ground warload and internal fuel of 120 miles. 120 miles  I dont know how much loiter time that includes and I only got the figure from a newspaper but 120 miles from an aircraft that expensive. *Wouldnt it be cheaper to build a flying aircraft carrier for the USMC and just shove the bombs overboard*.


 

According to the LMCO site the F-35B has a combat radius of 450 nm, internal fuel. Now if the aircraft is placed in a hover for long durations I could see that range being severely reduced.



fastmongrel said:


> The RN is proposing to use them as multi role aircraft yet it cant even supercruise and too much afterburner time is going to mean a lot of pilots having to walk home across the N Atlantic. God only knows what they will do if the mission involves a lot of wavetop flying carrying an anti ship load up into the Northern Ocean, I hope the Norwegians have a lot of tankers handy.


I think there is a lot of dis-information being spread about this aircraft. For example, this article;

Reduced F-35 performance specifications may have significant operational impact

They make statements about pilot's concerns but never once say who the pilot is or let alone identifying if he's ever flown the aircraft! There's many other F-35 bashing articles that do the same. Alot of quoting but they never say from who and how they're connected to the program. So far I haven't heard anything negative from any of the pilots who have flown the aircraft.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 5, 2013)

I have seen so many range and radius figures I dont know which ones to believe but I see on wiki (I know I know LOL) it gives range for the 35B as 900 nmi yet a combat radius of 469 nmi. Somethings not right there unless the 35B doesnt need fuel to warm up, take off and climb or any reserve then one of those numbers is wrong. As the same wiki gives an internal fuel load for the 35B of 13,500 lbs and 19,750 lbs for the 35C then 900 nmi range sounds right for the 35B as against 1,400 nmi for the C assuming a roughly 2/3 load gives you roughly 2/3 range.

Still think it would be cheaper to build a flying aircraft carrier 

My preffered option for the RN buy the Rafale naval version or a catobar Grippen for the cheapest option


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> I have seen so many range and radius figures I dont know which ones to believe but I see on wiki (I know I know LOL) it gives range for the 35B as 900 nmi yet a combat radius of 469 nmi. Somethings not right there unless the 35B doesnt need fuel to warm up, take off and climb or any reserve then one of those numbers is wrong. As the same wiki gives an internal fuel load for the 35B of 13,500 lbs and 19,750 lbs for the 35C then 900 nmi range sounds right for the 35B as against 1,400 nmi for the C assuming a roughly 2/3 load gives you roughly 2/3 range.


I think many of the internet sources don't have accurate info and are getting are three aircraft co-mingled into one


fastmongrel said:


> Still think it would be cheaper to build a flying aircraft carrier












fastmongrel said:


> My preffered option for the RN buy the Rafale naval version or a catobar Grippen for the cheapest option


That might be true, hovever keep in mind with the UK as a major player in this program, how much offset dollars (and pounds) will flow if the US builds 2500 of these things, let alone other nations?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 5, 2013)

Ah Cloudbase now we are talking. Gerry Anderson see he had the right idea in 1968. Captain Black was my favourite Captain Scarlett and the Mysterons character a puppet with a 5 o,clock shadow.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 5, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Ah Cloudbase now we are talking. Gerry Anderson see he had the right idea in 1968. Captain Black was my favourite Captain Scarlett and the Mysterons character a puppet with a 5 o,clock shadow


I was partial to Fireball XL5 myself, although I did watch Captain Scarlett daily.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 5, 2013)

you sure that isnt Dr. McCoy from star trek??


----------



## Greyman (Jun 5, 2013)

There's so much money and politics surrounding the F35 right now that I find it impossible to rely on _anyone`s_ figures these days. I don`t think we (John Q. Public) are going to get any concrete data until its been in service for a few years and been in a real scrap or two.

The only people that truly know of the aircraft's (evolving) capabilities aren't going to tell the world at this point.

One thing I do know for certain, is that (as FLYBOYJ said) this seems to happen all the time. We saw it with the F22, F16, F4, F105, the list goes on and on ... take your pick.

The exacerbated problem with the F35 is that it`s what, the largest military procurement program in history? Way too many people have a dog in this fight for you to not be skeptical of everything you hear.


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I was partial to Fireball XL5 myself, although I did watch Captain Scarlett daily.



Steve Zodiac, Dr Venus and of course Zoonie!

Christ, I even remember Supercar.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 5, 2013)

That's mostly the problem with the F-35, it's gotten too big to fail.
So much money has been put into it, that if it does fail, we're in big, big, trouble.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 5, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> That's mostly the problem with the F-35, it's gotten too big to fail.
> So much money has been put into it, that if it does fail, we're in big, big, trouble.



I think you need a lot more bigs in 30 point bold to get even close to the hole the west will be in if the F35 turns out to be a Camel. 10 years down the line with an ageing if not geriatric F15, F18, F16, AV8 fleet what else to buy. Sukhoi/MiG shares anyone because with all the money flowing into Lockheeds black hole who else in the US will have the skillset or the facilities to get a multi role combat aircraft into service in less then 15 years. It has to work or we are in the smelly stuff up to the nostrils.


----------



## altsym (Jun 5, 2013)

I hope OLDSKEPTIC can answer the question to post #63.

Anyways F-35, nice jet.. REALLY nice jet. CANADA was considering purchasing a few to replace the CF-18 Hornet. Whoa! Bad move I think, the F-35
should be used in conjunction with the CF-18 Hornet. Frankly, I can't see the F-35 operating in Northern Canada. Single engine, short takeoff/landing
runways, in some cases unpaved.. not for the F-35 for sure. I think a bunch of F-18 Super Hornets and a few F-35's would be the ticket. Also:


----------



## GregP (Jun 6, 2013)

Steve Hinton got to fly bthe F-35 simulator and says that without training he was able to do VTOL operations with a short explanation. The Harrier was reasonably difficult to master, but Steve says the F-35 STOVL is easy in the extreme and that can make a big difference when landing short on fuel, like some Harriers did in the Falklands War on freighters and other non-carrier ships.

I heard one talk by the initial project test poilot who said it flies quite well (not the STOVL). That was at Parker Aerospace (make the actruators for most of the control surfaces plus the clutch for the lift fan).

I don't like the cost and feel they should have stayed with the F-22 or, ideally, the F-23, but FlyboyJ is right, the jury is still out. When it gets into service, I recon we'll see, won't we? All of us. Hope it isn't a dog like some think or we'll be sorry.

If it IS, we may not be able to afford the replacement.

Politicians! Why is they never ask the pilots which plane to pick?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 6, 2013)

Ive only ever flown the harrier in a flight Sim, and whilst i could just master the A-4, the Harrier was just such a handful that i crashed nearly every time. VTOL is hard, even helos are a b*gger to get the hang of. Even STOVL is a bit of a nightmare. Id love to hear from some real pilots on this that flown such specialised a/c


----------



## wuzak (Jun 6, 2013)

GregP said:


> I don't like the cost and feel they should have stayed with the F-22 or, ideally, the F-23, but FlyboyJ is right, the jury is still out.



Greg, the F-22 and F-23 would have cost more to procure, and probably more to run.

I also don't like the cost of the F-35.

I am also a bit wary of the claims of its superiority against current and potential adversaries.




GregP said:


> Steve Hinton got to fly bthe F-35 simulator and says that without training he was able to do VTOL operations with a short explanation. The Harrier was reasonably difficult to master, but Steve says the F-35 STOVL is easy in the extreme and that can make a big difference when landing short on fuel, like some Harriers did in the Falklands War on freighters and other non-carrier ships.



I guess that's the difference between 1960s/1970s avionics and 2000s avionics.


----------



## GregP (Jun 6, 2013)

I think the F-22 or F-23 would have been cheaper by long shot if they had purchased more instead of the F-35.

Price drops with some volume and we only bought a few F-22's. Bad choice.

To me, the old B-1 was and is a great ground attack plane ... fast, caries a LOT of weapons and is quite stealthy in its's own right. I cannot see the reason to have a single engine attack plane that costs what the F-35 costs. It doesn't make sense, but I hope it at least works in service since it appears we are going to do it regardless.

I've been involved in some F-35 parts and I seriously doubt a 50 year life. I'll be amazed if problems with the horizontal tail don't crop up. I know one of the issues with it, and nobody wanted to solve it unless the effort got funded by somebody else. To date, I don't believe it has been solved. Money sink is right.

But I hope it is a money sink that works when we start flying it operationally for real.

One other thing, there ARE some real innovations on the F-35. If one control surface gets disabled, it is entirely possible the pilot won't know it except for a warning light. The software can take the rest of the controls and compensate for battle damaged controls. I bet at least SOME people will get to find out about it sometime and will praise the extra expense that brought them home. Of course, battle damage to the engine might preclude that since there is only one. Hope the hit is a grazing one ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 6, 2013)

Lets try and get this back on topic. If that's possible...


----------



## wuzak (Jun 6, 2013)

Well, I suppose, in theory, planes shot down by the F-35 won't have seen it coming.

Actually, I think if the enemy sees it coming the F-35 might be in a spot of bother.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2013)

Gents, keep in mind the F-22/23 and F-35 are two different animals. The F-22/23 were designed as air superiority fighters with a strike capability added as an afterthought. The F-35 was designed as a strike aircraft from the very beginning with "some" air-to-air capability.

From Wiki...

_"The JSF program was the result of the merger of the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) and Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) projects.[2][3] The merged project continued under the JAST name until the engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) phase, during which the project became the Joint Strike Fighter.[4]

The CALF was an ARPA program to develop a STOVL strike fighter (SSF) for the United States Marine Corps and replacement for the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The United States Air Force passed over the F-16 Agile Falcon in the late 1980s, essentially an enlarged F-16, and continued to mull other designs. In 1992 the Marine Corps and Air Force agreed to jointly develop the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter, also known as Advanced Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL), after Paul Bevilaqua persuaded[5] the Air Force that his team's concept[6] had potential as an F-22 complement, stripped of the lift system. Thus in a sense the F35B begat the F35A, not the other way around.

The Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program was created in 1993, implementing one of the recommendations of a United States Department of Defense (DoD) "Bottom-Up Review to include the United States Navy in the Common Strike Fighter program."[7] The review also led the Pentagon to continue the F-22 Raptor and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet programs, cancel the Multi-Role Fighter (MRF) and the A/F-X programs, and curtail F-16 and F/A-18C/D procurement. The JAST program office was established on 27 January 1994 to develop aircraft, weapons, and sensor technology with the aim of replacing several disparate US and UK aircraft with a single family of aircraft; the majority of those produced would replace F-16s. Merrill McPeak has complained that Les Aspin's decision to force all three services to use a single airframe greatly increased the costs and difficulty of the project.[8]

In November 1995, the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding to become a formal partner, and agreed to pay $200 million, or 10% of the concept demonstration phase.[4]

In 1997, Canada's Department of National Defense signed on to the Concept Demonstration phase with an investment of US$10 million. This investment allowed Canada to participate in the extensive and rigorous competitive process where Boeing and Lockheed Martin developed and competed their prototype aircraft.[9]"_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Lets try and get this back on topic. If that's possible...


Yea, this thread has been extremely hijacked! 

If anyone has ever flown in a GA aircraft, you will find that it could be extremely difficult to see other aircraft in the distance, especially if there's any kind of haze or thin stratus. I don't find it unreasonable to say 80% of pilots shot down never saw their demise coming. Now having had an opportunity to fly mock dogfights, I would have to say if I was to fly in WW2 combat, I would avoid a dogfight at all costs, boom and zoom and the minute I lost advantage I'd "bug off." It sounds cowardly but its actually the way to fight and survive. As Von Richthofen said; 

_*"Find the enemy and shoot him down, everything else
is nonsense."*_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 6, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yea, this thread has been extremely hijacked!
> 
> If anyone has ever flown in a GA aircraft, you will find that it could be extremely difficult to see other aircraft in the distance, especially if there's any kind of haze or thin stratus. I don't find it unreasonable to say 80% of pilots shot down never saw their demise coming. Now having had an opportunity to fly mock dogfights, I would have to say if I was to fly in WW2 combat, I would avoid a dogfight at all costs, boom and zoom and the minute I lost advantage I'd "bug off." It sounds cowardly but its actually the way to fight and survive. As Von Richthofen said;
> 
> ...



Especially if the aircraft is painted any shade of grey. 

We actually started painting ours from green to grey in Iraq because it made them so much harder to see.


----------



## GregP (Jun 6, 2013)

I'd say that in WWII, there was very little possibility of anything like rear warning radar, so manual scanning of the sky behind you and especially behind and below and upsun was obviously not done as well as it should have been considering the loss rate to first-pass attacks by surprise.

One point I've wondered about but never really investigated is as follows. After D-Day, when the Allies were on the continent, did we move radar sites forward some dsicrete distance behind the front lines or did they stay on the coast of Britain as they were in 1940? If we advanced them, I'm wondering if there were any initial attempts to warn various fighter and bomber groups of impending attacks by enemy fighters from the radar operators.


----------



## Airframes (Jun 6, 2013)

Yes, mobile radar stations were deployed on the Continent after D-Day.
Even when pre-warned, and moving into position to evade, or counter a known attack, it was still possible to get bounced and shot down, without seeing the approach of the enemy.
On 18th August, 1940, Gerhard Schopfel of JG 26 did just that - shooting down four Hurricanes in three minutes!
The Hurricanes were from 601 Sqn, had been warned of the approach of the varied formation, with enemy fighters up-sun, and were commencing a turn to face the threat, when Schopfel dived down out of the sun, and dropped them all. One survivor, who baled out and survived, _knew_ the Bf109s were there, but couldn't see them, even though he searched in the sun during the turn.


----------



## GregP (Jun 6, 2013)

Beware of the Hun in the Sun indeed.

I believe polarized sunglasses became avialable in 1936, at least in the U.S.A., and I wonder if they were issued to WWII pilots. It will make an interesting search ...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 6, 2013)

The Luftwaffe gunsights had a retractable sun-lens...

If I remember right, some U.S. pilots had "Raybans" issued to them. My Mom has an original pair stashed away somewhere with other family memorabelia...there is also a pair of tropical USAAF goggles with green tinted lenses in that stuff, also.


----------



## stona (Jun 6, 2013)

I have always understood that anti glare sun glasses using polarised lenses were available to aviators, at least in the US, from 1936.

The Ray-Ban brand appeared slightly later but I think before the war.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Especially if the aircraft is painted any shade of grey.
> 
> We actually started painting ours from green to grey in Iraq because it made them so much harder to see.


I could never understand why gliders are normally white. A stupid colour for aircraft that fly close to each other often close to clouds


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 6, 2013)

Glider said:


> I could never understand why gliders are normally white. A stupid colour for aircraft that fly close to each other often close to clouds


 White reflects a lot of the heat from sunlight away. With a lot of gliders made from composites now, you certainly don't want them to get too hot on the airport apron.
That's why a lot of aircraft are white, with stripes.

When I was at NKP Thailand, there were black CIA ( or whoever) A-28s ( T-28s), i've seen a groundcrew member demonstrate how he could slow fry a egg, on the wing on a hot sunny day. Heard of others doing the same on the olive drab flat surfaces of APCs, Jeeps, Hueys. There's nothing like getting in a dark colored aircraft that's been sitting on the ramp in the sun all day. You feel like you're breathing in a furnace.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 6, 2013)

stona said:


> I have always understood that anti glare sun glasses using polarised lenses were available to aviators, at least in the US, from 1936.
> 
> The Ray-Ban brand appeared slightly later but I think before the war.
> 
> ...


A little history on the Bausch Lomb "Raybans" from ray-ban sunglasses



> Ray-Ban was founded in 1937 by Bausch Lomb (B&L) as a brand under which to design and manufacture sunglasses which incorporated advanced B&L lens technologies. The initial buyer was the U.S. Army Air Corps, but it was Lieutenant John MacCready who had the idea that would change the face of sunglasses. In 1920, MacCready returned from a balloon flying expedition complaining that the sunlight had done permanent damage to his eyes. He contacted Bausch Lomb to ask them to use their optical expertise and technology to design sunglasses that would provide complete UV protection while also being stylish and comfortable to wear. On May 7, 1937, B&L took out the patent on the prototype which included "Anti-Glare" lenses and construction of a lightweight frame that weighed only 150 grams. The prototype sunglasses were made of a gold plated metal with 2 green lenses made of mineral glass to filter out both infrared and ultraviolet rays. Pilots in the Army Air Corps immediately adopted them as did pilots in the other branches of the armed forces. The "aviator" style became synonymous with Ray-Ban, never more so than when General Douglas MacArthur landed on the beach in the Philippines during World War II and was photographed wearing Ray-Ban aviator sunglasses. Ray-Ban aviator sunglasses featured dark, moderately reflective lens in a shape that covered 2 to 3 times the area of the eye, and they were popular with both traditional wire ear stems and ear pads as well as curved wire ear stems that looped around the ears and secured the fit. Over future years, this style of curved wire ear stems on Ray-Ban sunglasses were also referred to as Shooter and Outdoorsman sunglasses.



The pair Mom has is still in it's issue case and has a USAAC ID and inventory number along with the manufacturer name, it's from about 1939.


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> White reflects a lot of the heat from sunlight away. With a lot of gliders made from composites now, you certainly don't want them to get too hot on the airport apron.
> That's why a lot of aircraft are white, with stripes.
> 
> When I was at NKP Thailand, there were black CIA ( or whoever) A-28s ( T-28s), i've seen a groundcrew member demonstrate how he could slow fry a egg, on the wing on a hot sunny day. Heard of others doing the same on the olive drab flat surfaces of APCs, Jeeps, Hueys. There's nothing like getting in a dark colored aircraft that's been sitting on the ramp in the sun all day. You feel like you're breathing in a furnace.



You are correct but it is allowed to change the underneath of a glider, the lower half of the Fuselage and paint designs on the fin. Personaly I suggested that we did this to our DG 200 using green as the basis but the other members wanted it to stay white, so white it stayed. I should add that it was an expensive change so I didn't blame them.

Our older Club K13's were blue and red and a private Skylark was a Yellow so we did try where we could


----------



## wuzak (Jun 6, 2013)

GregP said:


> I'd say that in WWII, there was very little possibility of anything like rear warning radar



Rear warning radars were fitted to British and German nightfighters, and also to RAF night bombers (at least to the heavies). 

Not to s/e fighters, though.

Monica tail warning radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 6, 2013)

You could paint the undersides like the Ta 152s, or Doras that were detailed to protect Me262s in the RTB and landing phase.
But i'm sure that'd be a little too wild for most of the gliders owners. And reds are the most expensive colors.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 6, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Rear warning radars were fitted to British and German nightfighters, and also to RAF night bombers (at least to the heavies).
> 
> Not to s/e fighters, though.
> 
> Monica tail warning radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Didn't at some point Bomber Command pilots become suspicious the the tail warning radars were being detected by the Luftwaffe, and actually aided the night figters finding them. Were they right or wrong ?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 6, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> Didn't at some point Bomber Command pilots become suspicious the the tail warning radars were being detected by the Luftwaffe, and actually aided the night figters finding them. Were they right or wrong ?



They were right. The system was Naxos radar detector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

RAF nightfighters also had a system for detecting enemy radar.

Serrate radar detector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## parsifal (Jun 6, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> Didn't at some point Bomber Command pilots become suspicious the the tail warning radars were being detected by the Luftwaffe, and actually aided the night figters finding them. Were they right or wrong ?



They certainly did....it was called Monica and the german "flensburg" passive detection system was used to track down British Bombers using it.

Monica was a range-only tail warning radar for bombers, introduced by the RAF in the spring of 1942. Officially known as ARI 5664, it operated at the boundary between VHF and UHF frequencies of around 300 MHz. It was developed at the Bomber Support Development Unit in Worcestershire.

Unfortunately for the RAF, the Germans quickly developed a passive radar receiver, Flensburg (FuG 227), which was used by Luftwaffe nightfighters from spring 1944 onward to home in on bombers using Monica. On the 13 July 1944, a Junkers Ju 88G-1 nightfighter equipped with Flensburg accidentally landed at an RAF airbase. After examining the Flensburg equipment, the RAF ordered Monica withdrawn from all Bomber Command aircraft.

Monica was also used by the U.S. Army Air Corps as the AN/APS-13, where - known as Archie - it was also used as the radar altimeter for the Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

British nearest equivalent equvalent (operationally at least) to Flensburg was Serrate. Serrate was quite effective, but in 1944 British ECM measures (principally "window) had become very effective. this effectiveness had an unfortunate side effect....downgraded german radars also meant downgraded Serrate interceptions, and from January through to September, Mossie intercepts dropped right away because of that effect.


----------



## Juha (Jun 7, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Rear warning radars were fitted to British and German nightfighters, and also to RAF night bombers (at least to the heavies).
> 
> Not to s/e fighters, though.
> 
> Monica tail warning radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



IIRC P-51Ds, at least those operating against Japan in 45, had a tail warning radar.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Jun 7, 2013)

All P-51D-25 and above series had tail warning radar.. first showed up in ETO in Jan 45. Having said that I am not aware of any instance in which it was cited as saving a Mustang.


----------



## Glider (Jun 7, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> You could paint the undersides like the Ta 152s, or Doras that were detailed to protect Me262s in the RTB and landing phase.
> But i'm sure that'd be a little too wild for most of the gliders owners. And reds are the most expensive colors.



I wouldn't bet on that, but the vast majority do stick to white.


----------



## Mike Williams (Jun 7, 2013)

drgondog said:


> All P-51D-25 and above series had tail warning radar.. first showed up in ETO in Jan 45. Having said that I am not aware of any instance in which it was cited as saving a Mustang.



Hi Bill: Here's an instance where the tail warning system on a Mustang "gave good service"


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 7, 2013)

drgondog said:


> All P-51D-25 and above series had tail warning radar.. first showed up in ETO in Jan 45. Having said that I am not aware of any instance in which it was cited as saving a Mustang.



Could that radar possibly interfere with FuG 16 radio?


----------



## beitou (Jun 7, 2013)

Just to be clear, are you talking about an active radar with aerials on the tail of a P51 that radiated energy to the rear and could gave range and bearing information or a passive system that detected night fighters radar enery ?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 7, 2013)

I believe it was an active radar but it only beeped if someone was moving into the rear hemisphere and not give precise information. For this reason and many false alarms I understand they mostly just switched it off.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 7, 2013)

The P-47N was also featuring the tail warning radar.


----------



## MrMojok (Jun 26, 2018)

First, I am sorry for bumping a five-year old thread. If this is not allowed please delete my post. But when I typed my search into Google, this was the first hit.

I have been scouring all my paper books and e-books and everything I have accumulated about WWII aerial combat, to try to figure out where I read this. I swear I remember reading about a postwar study that was done where they interviewed as many surviving allied and axis pilots as they could about air combat. And one of the things that came out of this was the quote that this thread is about. Something along the lines of "It was determined that approximately 80% of the time when a pilot was shot down, he either never saw his attacker, or did not see him until the attacker had reached a position of decisive advantage"

Does anyone know about the study I'm talking about? I do not think this was a part of the postwar "Fighter Conference", I seem to remember it being a totally different study.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 27, 2018)

I wonder if it was just a wild ass guess, because let's face it, a fair number of those shot down pilots died before they had a chance to tell anyone what happened.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 27, 2018)

In the BoB everyone was looking to "bounce" the opposition. Usually coming out of the sun with height advantage. In this situation it was possible to make kills without losses or minimal losses. Once a mass fight or fur ball developed you cannot concentrate on looking around and shooting someone down. In such fights losses were pretty much equal on both sides but very low compared to the numbers involved. This before the massed raids on London.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 27, 2018)

stona said:


> Shenstone wanted a small fin, something he had learnt from Lippisch and during his time at Junkers.


Low drag...


> It was designed to reflect the properties of slim fuselage boom and tuned wing wake spillage.


So the tail fin was fine tuned to the thin fuselage?



OldSkeptic said:


> But the same (absolutely brilliant) work meant that a Spit would have good elevator authority even at very high speeds.


The thin fuselage, the wing and tail position on it?


----------



## Greyman (Jun 28, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> I wonder if it was just a wild ass guess, because let's face it, a fair number of those shot down pilots died before they had a chance to tell anyone what happened.



I imagine you could come to a reasonable estimate by surveying the victors. My guess is the behavior of a pilot who knows you're lining up a shot is often distinct from one who is unaware.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> I wonder if it was just a wild ass guess, because let's face it, a fair number of those shot down pilots died before they had a chance to tell anyone what happened.


With reference to the BoB very few planes flew alone, an individual pilot may have been shot down and unable to tell the tale but a squadron as a whole always knew it had been "bounced"


----------



## stona (Jun 28, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> Low drag...
> So the tail fin was fine tuned to the thin fuselage?



It was tuned to the entire airframe.

The wake spillage was managed by the huge wing-fuselage fillet of the Spitfire and the shape of the fuselage boom.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Jun 28, 2018)

I was secretary of the American Fighter Aces Assn for 14 years (PhD in Egotism) and early on I doubted the conventional wisdom of most (even 90%) of shootdowns by surprise. I think it began with Ray Toliver's 1970 bio of Hartmann, who guesstimated that figure. MAYBE it was semi-accurate for the E Front but in decades of interviewing aces and listening to hospitality suite/ready room sessions, it was notable how few of them mentioned surprising enemies or being surprised

So...in 1985 I wrote and circulated a questionnaire addressing training, combat environment, surprise, etc. Got over 200 replies from WW I to Vietnam. I don't know of a comparable study though the AF did some surveys about fighter-pilot selection & effectiveness. What I found: remarkable similarity from war to war, theater to theater. About 20% of shootdowns by surprise, including my interpretation of v. Richthofen's combat reports, and he was an ultimate stalker. Found that the same figure usually applied to incidents when Our Guys were hit air-air.

If you think about it, the numbers make sense. Maybe you tip-toe up behind a hostile formation and assassinate tail-end charlie, but at that moment everyone else is alerted. 

As for tail-warning radars: when researching the 15AF book I found emphasis on the gear for recon aircraft, especially when 262s became common.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2018)

Planes climbing through cloud are very vulnerable. Not only are they at a height disadvantage they can be seen long before they can see an adversary.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 28, 2018)

OldSkeptic said:


> The Germans did, it was called the 109, which fortunately for them was just manoeuvrable enough to be competitive when often forced into that situation.


I'm not sure I would say that, it seemed more maneuverable than the P-51 at lower speeds, similar to the P-40 at some speeds.


> The US did too later, with things like the F-105, F-104 and so on, all rather less than successful....


The F-105 had to do more with the fact that the US didn't have an attack category, or more accurately some kind of small light-bomber category that was suitably to meet the tactical needs. As a result fighters filled the roles up and, to make it worse, the nuclear delivery role mattered more than agility.

As for the F-104, that is a more valid complaint: If I recall it was an example of...

The United States and most European air arms valued speed, maybe speed and climb rate first, then roll rate and agility second: It had to do with the ability to have the initiative, the ability to disengage at will first, and then be able to mix it up second. This is not so say maneuverability isn't important, but a person tasked with relentless prioritization might end up arriving at this if forced to choose.
The F-104 was initially designed to fly faster, climb faster and higher than any enemy fighter, but maneuverability was likely assumed to be an important variable -- it's sad that sometimes you have to explicitly say things that should be implicit, but it was more complicated than that.
The USAF was initially pretty accommodating of this because there was a war on, and the pilots on the front lines clearly knew best
The USAF wanted the aircraft also to be able to sustain Mach 2 performance either out of the speed requirement and/or the desire to use it as some form of day-interceptor, which ensured speed would remain an issue
The Mach 2 requirements seemed to ensure that it would be prioritized above other things such as maneuverability, which would have resulted in things like enlarged wings.
It could fly very high... the problem is that it couldn't fly as high as desired while retaining any real maneuverability subsonic.




> Interestingly the British requirements that led to the Spitfire and Hurricane also had little about manoeuvrability.


The Hurricane was originally intended to be a fighter and later converted into an interceptor design with 8 x 0.303's. I'm not sure if the Spitfire was totally designed for interception off the bat, but the eight 303's came later, and that in turn actually played a role in leading to the elliptical wing (a decent airfoil that could stuff all eight guns in), also the company had an interest in the idea before. As for little being said about agility, I'm not sure if I would say that even about the spitfire: There was a stipulation for 6g with an overload of 9g (1.5).


> So the 109 was good enough in most flight regimes to be (and stay) competitive. For example, against a Mustang, below 250-275mph it would hold its own (at least), above that the Mustang had the advantage in terms of turning (and definitely rolling). If they had just fixed up those rubbish elevators and ailerons it would have been even more dangerous that it was.


I'm confused here... are we talking about the P-51 or Me-109?


> But the same (absolutely brilliant) work meant that a Spit would have good elevator authority even at very high speeds.


So the configuration of the thin fuselage, the tail based on the size of the wings, and the wings based on the massive fillets, played a role in the Spitfire's high dive-mach?


> Everyone says that the Mustang was a superior aerodynamic design, personally I disagree totally . . . . then it's mach limit, then it's stall issues then


When you're talking about stall characteristics you mean issues with the tendency to spin? As for the mach limit, from what I remember Mach 0.75 was considered decent for the time, and it could be pushed up to 0.80-0.84 without coming unglued. Compared to the Spitfire, sure it was inferior, but almost everybody was.


> Superb radiator design and superb frontal design (thanks to an 'unqualified air racer', NA's genius was to use him properly) and far (far) better quality control.


Unqualified air-racer?



FLYBOYJ said:


> The Rand article is headed by Pierre Spey, he was part of the old Fighter mafia that brought the F-15 into play, a jealous old man who doesn't like Lockheed or being retired.


What's with him and his desire to distort or fudge information?


> That 5G limit may be expanded at a later date - I think comparing this to Shermans or F-4s lack of cannons is a bit far reaching however as we do know history has a way of repeating itself.


While I'm not an aerospace engineer, I do remember it being said by people who served in the US Navy, and some people who did seem to have some engineering expertise, that it was best to build strength into a design off the bat, rather than attempt to add it in later.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 10, 2018)

parsifal said:


> by this stage the Australians had no faith in the British leadership, and fought their battles as they saw fit...not officially, of course, but thats how it was back then.
> 
> The lesson here is that experiewnce tells you when to go for it and when to keep your mouth shut and your head down.
> I expect the same applies in the air.....the experienced guys know to keep a constant lookout....the ones that dont, generally dont live to tell the story



The above kind of describes how Australian pilots responded to the Desert War. They tried the British methods, found them woefully (and tragically) wanting, and started coming up with a series of their own largely successful innovations.

S


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 10, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> What's with him and his desire to distort or fudge information?


It's hard to explain his motives, ignorance, jealousy, or the fact that he's not in the spotlight anymore


----------



## Schweik (Jul 10, 2018)

Not a fan of the F-35 myself (don't like uber-expensive planes and Lockheed doesn't have a great record on this) but I've been told that there are some capabilities, think drones & drone swarms and so on, which aren't so obvious at first blush.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 10, 2018)

Barrett said:


> I was secretary of the American Fighter Aces Assn for 14 years (PhD in Egotism) and early on I doubted the conventional wisdom of most (even 90%) of shootdowns by surprise. I think it began with Ray Toliver's 1970 bio of Hartmann, who guesstimated that figure. MAYBE it was semi-accurate for the E Front but in decades of interviewing aces and listening to hospitality suite/ready room sessions, it was notable how few of them mentioned surprising enemies or being surprised
> 
> So...in 1985 I wrote and circulated a questionnaire addressing training, combat environment, surprise, etc. Got over 200 replies from WW I to Vietnam. I don't know of a comparable study though the AF did some surveys about fighter-pilot selection & effectiveness. What I found: remarkable similarity from war to war, theater to theater. About 20% of shootdowns by surprise, including my interpretation of v. Richthofen's combat reports, and he was an ultimate stalker. Found that the same figure usually applied to incidents when Our Guys were hit air-air.
> 
> ...



This is fascinating, sounds very plausible, and (not that this matters much to anybody except me) matches what I've read in a lot of books and written accounts of air to air combat (mostly WW2 stuff). And (I'm a little embarrassed to admit) flight sim game "experience" for example playing Il2. A few thoughts:


Some shoot-downs, maybe it's that 20%, took place in a bounce where it was a true surprise. Allied pilots in the ETO and the Med in particular were very worried about being bounced or blindsided, particularly by planes with a very high combat speed like the Fw 190. One Russian pilots put it this way _"if we saw them, we could evade, if we didn't see them, we died. That simple." _Australian Ace Bobby Gibbes refused to fly with USAAF pilots until the latter agreed to fly the Commonwealth type of formation, which had in large part to do with which pilots were keeping an eye out in which direction. Early to mid-war WW2 planes with 'razorback' canopies had a serious blind spot behind them and it took a while for Allied pilots to adopt the Finger 4 / Wingman strategy used by the LW since the Spanish Civil War. Also took a while to get good use out of their radios.

I think some others which would fall into Hartmans 'didn't even see me' type shoot downs are indeed within a combat where the combatants are aware there is a threat, i.e. _after_ a bounce, but don't see the plane that gets them. For example when one pilot is chasing an intended target and not watching his six. Certainly there are a lot of descriptions of shoot downs in these circumstances, and also by pilots describing themselves being shot down that way. And yep, it's also when you are most likely to get wacked in Il2.
Hartmann and the German pilots in general followed a strategy of _avoiding _the dogfight and sticking with the bounce. That is one reason why he might have actually bounced most of his victims. That is what Luftwaffe fighter pilots were basically supposed to do according to doctrine - it plays to the strengths of the German fighters and away from their weaknesses. But not every pilot fought that way. I think it's correct that more modern fighters tend toward maneuverability since the 70's though perhaps we are seeing another divergence there.

I also think another way that airplanes got shot down before even recognizing the immediate threat was just being 'blindsided' in the middle of a combat area, concentrating on one threat and missing another for example but also just trying to extend or climb and not noticing an enemy that sees them. This is indeed what a fast climbing, fast accelerating aircraft like a Bf 109 was particularly good at. Engage, check for vulnerability (if the target is capable of evading), move on to another target and so on.
But from accounts of combat, daily squadron reports, pilot diaries, it does sound like a lot of victories, many loses and many combats involved fairly extended periods of combat where they at least knew the enemy was around even if they couldn't see them all the time. Accounts of air battles lasting 10, 20, even 45 minutes or an hour are not at all rare in the Med or the CBI. Now I know it's possible the pilots could be making it up, but some of these accounts are corroborated by reports on both sides and other records 
So the bottom line is, I think the lower ratio of "blideside bounces" does seem more probable to me.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 10, 2018)

Schweik said:


> Some shoot-downs, maybe it's that 20%, took place in a bounce where it was a true surprise. Allied pilots in the ETO and the Med in particular were very worried about being bounced or blindsided, particularly by planes with a very high combat speed like the Fw 190. One Russian pilots put it this way _"if we saw them, we could evade, if we didn't see them, we died. That simple."_


Adds up


> I think some others which would fall into Hartmans 'didn't even see me' type shoot downs are indeed within a combat where the combatants are aware there is a threat, i.e. _after_ a bounce, but don't see the plane that gets them.


You mean they were already under attack and as everything's in disarray they get blipped out by somebody?


> Hartmann and the German pilots in general followed a strategy of _avoiding _the dogfight and sticking with the bounce.


Ambush, get the drop, and get out...


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 11, 2018)

Schweik said:


> This is fascinating, sounds very plausible, and (not that this matters much to anybody except me) matches what I've read in a lot of books and written accounts of air to air combat (mostly WW2 stuff). And (I'm a little embarrassed to admit) flight sim game "experience" for example playing Il2. A few thoughts:
> 
> 
> Some shoot-downs, maybe it's that 20%, took place in a bounce where it was a true surprise. Allied pilots in the ETO and the Med in particular were very worried about being bounced or blindsided, particularly by planes with a very high combat speed like the Fw 190. One Russian pilots put it this way _"if we saw them, we could evade, if we didn't see them, we died. That simple." _Australian Ace Bobby Gibbes refused to fly with USAAF pilots until the latter agreed to fly the Commonwealth type of formation, which had in large part to do with which pilots were keeping an eye out in which direction. Early to mid-war WW2 planes with 'razorback' canopies had a serious blind spot behind them and it took a while for Allied pilots to adopt the Finger 4 / Wingman strategy used by the LW since the Spanish Civil War. Also took a while to get good use out of their radios.
> ...


The key is with the Russian pilot who said "If we see them we can evade, of we don't see them we died". It is a big sky and seems plausible to me that if you saw your opponent you could evade before he could line you up. If you didn't see him, you died. Irregardless of the situation I think those two statements carry the most weight and indicate to me that the victim didn't see his attacker or was surprised 60-80% of the time.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 11, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> The key is with the Russian pilot who said "If we see them we can evade, of we don't see them we died". It is a big sky and seems plausible to me that if you saw your opponent you could evade before he could line you up. If you didn't see him, you died. Irregardless of the situation I think those two statements carry the most weight and indicate to me that the victim didn't see his attacker or was surprised 60-80% of the time.



I think that tells you the bounce was a real thing, and quite deadly. I don't think it gives you anything to do with percentages.

You also have to consider the context. That was Nikolai Golodnikov, talking about flying Yak 7s, P-39s and P-40s in combat in 1943. If you get bounced by a Fw 190 ... you are toast. If you see them coming, you can out turn and evade them.

If you are in an F4F and see a Zero coming, evasion might be a bit harder.

S

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 11, 2018)

F4F had one choice against a Zero, dive away.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 11, 2018)

The 80% of those on the loosing end thing never saw it coming( which I have read also many times) fits with a theory I have that as long as your aircraft have at least the minimum requirements of speed, ceiling, and to a lesser degree climb(minimum requirements of these atributes meaning at least close to parity with the opponents) that outside of luck and disparities in pilot skill about 80% of the outcome will be dictated by tactics and not maneuverability, roll rates, or so many of the things often thought of as important atributes in fighter plane. Hence the success of for example the p40 in china or the f4f on Guadal Canal even though on paper it would seem as if the Japanese should have cleened there clock.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2018)

Folks, I think there's too much emphasis on horizontal yanking and banking - do we forget that the Zero looses it's magic at about 270 mph (IIRC)?


----------



## GregP (Jul 11, 2018)

I've always thought they could have corrected that zero fault with some engineering ... but were more or less forced to continue production by an ever-worsening war situation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 11, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> The 80% of those on the loosing end thing never saw it coming( which I have read also many times) fits with a theory I have that as long as your aircraft have at least the minimum requirements of speed, ceiling, and to a lesser degree climb(minimum requirements of these atributes meaning at least close to parity with the opponents) that outside of luck and disparities in pilot skill about 80% of the outcome will be dictated by tactics and not maneuverability, roll rates, or so many of the things often thought of as important atributes in fighter plane. Hence the success of for example the p40 in china or the f4f on Guadal Canal even though on paper it would seem as if the Japanese should have cleened there clock.



This is all legit if it was just plane vs plane randomly. But.

I think the roll rate and turn rate, dive and climb and stuff comes in when squadron leaders and individual pilots develop tactics which exploit those little advantages and help you win the fight. Chennault figured out a good tactic against the Japanese fighters - and it worked because of the strengths of the fighters he had. It wouldn't have worked with Hurricanes, for example.

Similarly, tactics were developed by the Germans, by the Japanese, and by their opponents among the Allies, to best exploit the little edges they had in performance or maneuverability. Adhering to the tactics - like the Thach weave, are what made Wildcats viable, figuring out that optimal tactic and sticking to it with _discipline_. Not so much just random luck.

And no, I don't think the 80% thing is anywhere near universal.

I also don't think the flaws of the Zero was so easy to exploit either. Most pilots couldn't in the first couple of years of the war.

S


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 12, 2018)

Schweik said:


> This is all legit if it was just plane vs plane randomly. But.
> 
> I think the roll rate and turn rate, dive and climb and stuff comes in when squadron leaders and individual pilots develop tactics which exploit those little advantages and help you win the fight. Chennault figured out a good tactic against the Japanese fighters - and it worked because of the strengths of the fighters he had. It wouldn't have worked with Hurricanes, for example.
> 
> ...


Agree. I kinda thought about that later that my equation so to speak was just a baseline of outcome predication. That any extra explotable advantage beyond that is of course only going to give you an edge but i think it does point something that I think doesn't get enough attention when it comes to airial combat and that is how important tactics are. I think many of us are prone to cosider equipment first, pilot proficiency second in importance, and tactics last of the three. I know that was my defalt way pf looking at it since I was a kid but the more I learn the more I think that order should be reversed. You need all 3 but i think tactics don't always get the attention they deserve.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I also don't think the flaws of the Zero was so easy to exploit either. Most pilots couldn't in the first couple of years of the war.


By mid 42' the Zero mystique was being cracked. By 43' the writing was on the wall. If you look at areas where the IJN were given the mission to maintain aerial superiority, the Zero failed miserably, also attributed to declining pillot skill. The flaws of the Zero really didn't have to be exploited, in many cases the IJN defeated themselves. If you look at how their pilots were trained prior to the war, factor in actricition (losses at Midway were devastating), as well as improving US fighters there was no way the IJN would ever be able to maintain an effective aerial superiority anywhere in the Pacific, especially when numerical advantages were lost.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 12, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And what couple of years are you talking about? By mid 42' the Zero mystique was being cracked. By 43' the writing was on the wall. If you look at areas where the IJN were given the mission to maintain aerial superiority, the Zero failed miserably, also attributed to declining pillot skill. The flaws of the Zero really didn't have to be exploited, in many cases the IJN defeated themselves. If you look at how their pilots were trained prior to the war, factor in actricition (losses at Midway were devastating), as well as improving US fighters there was no way the IJN would ever be able to maintain an effective aerial superiority anywhere in the Pacific, especially when numerical advantages were lost.


When you said the ijn defeated themselves and referenced pilot training that really sparked my curiosity. Could you elaborate.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 12, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> When you said the ijn defeated themselves and referenced pilot training that really sparked my curiosity. Could you elaborate.


Training and tactics. IJN pilots were probably the best in the world at the start of WW2. IIRC their training program was more than 2x longer than what US pilots were put though. The Japanese entered the war thinking that this small number of "super pilots" would would bring them a quick victory. Instead they lost many of them during Midway and would never recover.

I'll talk tactics later


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 12, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Training and tactics. IJN pilots were probably the best in the world at the start of WW2. IIRC their training program was more than 2x longer than what US pilots were put though. The Japanese entered the war thinking that this small number of "super pilots" would would bring them a quick victory. Instead they lost many of them during Midway and would never recover.
> 
> I'll talk tactics later


Oh so putting to much time onto to few pilots of i understand that corectly.And that makes perfect sense and explains alot about the progression of things especially after Midway. I look forward to more info on the tactics.


----------



## GregP (Jul 12, 2018)

Also not sure I buy the 20% bounces. Any rules of thumb that were true over Europe are out the window in the Med or Pacific as there were NO large air fights anywhere NEAR the size of a single European air fight. Virtually ALL encounters, except for major Naval battlers, were 4 vs. 4, 4 vs. 8, or similar low numbers, and the sky was MUCH larger (only ocean to see) than over Europe.

That from numerous Pacific and Med vets over many years. Seeing 4 enemy fighters in a huge sky where they can come from anywhere is MUCH more difficult than when approaching, say, Schweinfurt where the enemy attackers could be expected to come mostly from above and from somewhere in front of you since they had you on radar or under ground observation. 

Not so over water with no observers, few aircraft, and tropical clouds to hide around. Opportunities for bouncing were much higher over oceans, even with many fewer encounters overall per sortie.


----------



## MrMojok (Jul 12, 2018)

The 80% number came from my post upthread. I think it's clear that I was mis-remembering something, and was mistaken. I am assuming Barrett who responded up there is Barrett Tillman. I think his response to my post was good enough.

I am sorry for having bumped this ancient thread, it was a mistake, and it should probably be locked rather than degenerating into shitfight #900 on these forums about who is and who is not a pilot/WWII flightsims.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2018)

MrMojok said:


> The 80% number came from my post upthread. I think it's clear that I was mis-remembering something, and was mistaken. I am assuming Barrett who responded up there is Barrett Tillman. I think his response to my post was good enough.
> 
> I am sorry for having bumped this ancient thread, it was a mistake, and it should probably be locked rather than degenerating into shitfight #900 on these forums about who is and who is not a pilot/WWII flightsims.



This is not about who or who is not a pilot. It’s about the ridiculous claim made over and over by computer gamers that their game is a comparable substitute.

I do agree, that should be in a different thread though. I think I will move everything over to a separate one.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 12, 2018)

MrMojok said:


> The 80% number came from my post upthread. I think it's clear that I was mis-remembering something, and was mistaken. I am assuming Barrett who responded up there is Barrett Tillman. I think his response to my post was good enough.
> 
> I am sorry for having bumped this ancient thread, it was a mistake, and it should probably be locked rather than degenerating into shitfight #900 on these forums about who is and who is not a pilot/WWII flightsims.



You don't have anything to apologize for. It's an interesting topic and worthy of discussion. I suspect the realistic answer is indeed that this worked out differently in different Theaters (and on different sides of the fence). 

The other side debates do grow out of threads sometimes and partly in this case that is my fault for introducing the Sim thing. That will go to another Thread and there is no reason we can't have a polite discussion over the original OP here.

S


----------



## GregP (Jul 12, 2018)

Disagreement is the essence of discussion. Sometimes threads get locked, but I have not seen any disagreements in here degenerate into personal attacks. So, from my viewpoint, this has been a good discussion of dissenting viewpoints that stayed civil. It's basically what forums were invented for, and the attacks of a typical 10-year old have been conspicuous by their absence, even if we DID wander off-topic a bit.

The moderators didn't even have to warn anybody, and I'm sure they enjoyed not having to step in except to discuss their experiences with the subject.

Cheers.

Quote from a British pilot over his own airfield during the Battle of Britain, "C'mon up chaps, I've got about 20 of the buggers cornered up here!"

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 12, 2018)

GregP said:


> the attacks of a typical 10-year old have been conspicuous by their absence, even if we DID wander off-topic a bit.


Sorry, Greg, I think I made a liar out of you just seconds before you posted!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 12, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I am not an Opthamologist, but I think the experience is pretty similar and I don't buy your argument which is only a subset of the debate over the merits of Sims, and which I think you are overstating. Yes you do need 20-20 (or better) vision to be a military pilot but that certainly isn't rare among young people - I had 20-15 vision when I was in the service and I was just a lowly medic. Learning to spot things at very long distances is also not entirely rare. If you have ever been hunting for certain types of game, or just practiced marksmanship, or if you have experience sailing or many other outdoor activities, you have probably honed this skill somewhat.


As a shooter and a sailor and a pilot who's self-grounded due to deteriorating distance focus, take it from me, the 2D earth's surface and the 3D sky are not the same animal!! Not even close!
I can squeak by the visual acuity test in a flight physical, but I can't see planes in the air til they're uncomfortably close. Your average Aviation Medical Examiner has no way to test for distant target acquisition in a low contrast spherical visual field. A flat screen with a computer generated image is no representation of reality.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2018)

Please move all Sim talk to the Sim vs. Reality thread.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Jul 12, 2018)

GregP said:


> I'd say that in WWII, there was very little possibility of anything like rear warning radar, so manual scanning of the sky behind you and especially behind and below and upsun was obviously not done as well as it should have been considering the loss rate to first-pass attacks by surprise.
> 
> One point I've wondered about but never really investigated is as follows. After D-Day, when the Allies were on the continent, did we move radar sites forward some dsicrete distance behind the front lines or did they stay on the coast of Britain as they were in 1940? If we advanced them, I'm wondering if there were any initial attempts to warn various fighter and bomber groups of impending attacks by enemy fighters from the radar operators.



Tail warning radar was installed in recon birds, P-51Ds and probably other US fighters at least from late 44, maybe earlier. I didn't realize it until researching the 15th AF book, when I found references to TWR about the time the German jet menace matured.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 13, 2018)

blubasso said:


> i was shot down some times by someone i honestly didn't see while i had too many things to do at the same time


It's called task saturation, and it's a deadly disease. The vaccine for it is situational awareness capacity, and the faster you can grow it, the longer your life expectancy.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 14, 2018)

Schweik said:


> I also don't think the flaws of the Zero was so easy to exploit either. Most pilots couldn't in the first couple of years of the war.


I think they WERE easy to exploit....once our pilots had the straight scoop on what they were. It was the lack of thorough knowledge of the Zero, as well as inappropriate tactical doctrine that was taught, that cost us so many losses early war.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 14, 2018)

There were Zero wrecks at Pearl Harbor, I mean there were wrecks recovered of Zeros at Pearl. Couldn't we tell that there was no pilot armor or self sealing fuel tanks from them? 

Of course no way to tell they were only 330mph airplanes from the wrecks.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 14, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> There were Zero wrecks at Pearl Harbor, I mean there were wrecks recovered of Zeros at Pearl. Couldn't we tell that there was no pilot armor or self sealing fuel tanks from them?
> 
> Of course no way to tell they were only 330mph airplanes from the wrecks.


Yes, the no armor and unprotected tanks were pretty easy to figure out, but getting the word out and getting it believed were another story all together. And the wrecks couldn't tell you anything about its insane agility or its difficult high speed maneuvering, or its right turning deficiency at speed. And since most early encounters were cases where the Zero started out with an energy advantage, it took awhile to figure out what its actual level flight top speed was.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 14, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Yes, the no armor and unprotected tanks were pretty easy to figure out, but getting the word out and getting it believed were another story all together. And the wrecks couldn't tell you anything about its insane agility or its difficult high speed maneuvering, or its right turning deficiency at speed. And since most early encounters were cases where the Zero started out with an energy advantage, it took awhile to figure out what its actual level flight top speed was.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Correct, but we had first hand eyewitness reports for that.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Jul 14, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Correct, but we had first hand eyewitness reports for that.


Correct, but it takes awhile for that kind of info to be assessed, accepted, disseminated, and incorporated into the sylabus and the fighter pilot culture, then make it back to the theater of operations in the heads of replacement pilots. In the dark days after Pearl Harbor, with our thin, isolated, and scattered forces being pushed back on every front, that process wasn't as instantaneous as it is today. Remember, there were all kinds of contact reports being sent, some accurate, others wildly optimistic and/or pessimistic. Who's going to be believed when it comes to separating the wheat from the chaff?
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 14, 2018)

It is a war, not a personal grudge match. At the start I would say both German and Japanese pilots had an advantage over the pilots they faced. However over the course of the war the allies used the experience of their pilots to train the next generation. At the end of the war people like Galland were still flying planes while Goering who hadn't flown for years and couldn't get into a fighter decided what was what. On the allied side in Europe the Gloster Meteor was used to help US daylight escort fighters develop strategies and tactics to cope with the Me262. It may be that the best LW aces were the most lethal but they were facing a larger force where every pilot was well trained, there were no easy kills. By contrast, outside of the experten in 1944 many LW pilots could only just fly a plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Jul 19, 2018)

Gents: Yup, that's me Barrett Tillman. (There used to be another BT author but he was a poet who died young.) 

As noted, a big reason I compiled the AFAA survey was because in years & years of "debriefs" and "shooting wrist watches" it was noteworthy how seldom aces mentioned ambushing a bandit or getting surprised themselves. (Navy-Marine pilots seemed to have a better lookout doctrine than AAF though I forget the numbers.) Point being: the Conventional Wisdom advanced by Hartmann-Toliver did not match what I was hearing from aces representing every US service in 3 or 4 wars. I took that as a Clue and built the survey around it. IMO we in the history community--however defined--should not be reluctant to challenge the CW. Just because Thus & So may have applied in one situation (E Front/Luftwaffe) does not mean it should be accepted at face value elsewhere. Takes more work, of course, but IMO the time & effort invested in the survey were more than worthwhile, especially now that we have fewer than 50 aces extant.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## MrMojok (Jul 24, 2018)

Barrett said:


> Gents: Yup, that's me Barrett Tillman. (There used to be another BT author but he was a poet who died young.)
> 
> As noted, a big reason I compiled the AFAA survey was because in years & years of "debriefs" and "shooting wrist watches" it was noteworthy how seldom aces mentioned ambushing a bandit or getting surprised themselves. (Navy-Marine pilots seemed to have a better lookout doctrine than AAF though I forget the numbers.) Point being: the Conventional Wisdom advanced by Hartmann-Toliver did not match what I was hearing from aces representing every US service in 3 or 4 wars. I took that as a Clue and built the survey around it. IMO we in the history community--however defined--should not be reluctant to challenge the CW. Just because Thus & So may have applied in one situation (E Front/Luftwaffe) does not mean it should be accepted at face value elsewhere. Takes more work, of course, but IMO the time & effort invested in the survey were more than worthwhile, especially now that we have fewer than 50 aces extant.




Thanks, Mr. Tillman, for that explanation and for all your work.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 9, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yea, this thread has been extremely hijacked!
> 
> If anyone has ever flown in a GA aircraft, you will find that it could be extremely difficult to see other aircraft in the distance, especially if there's any kind of haze or thin stratus. I don't find it unreasonable to say 80% of pilots shot down never saw their demise coming. Now having had an opportunity to fly mock dogfights, I would have to say if I was to fly in WW2 combat, I would avoid a dogfight at all costs, boom and zoom and the minute I lost advantage I'd "bug off." It sounds cowardly but its actually the way to fight and survive. As Von Richthofen said;
> 
> ...


Resp:
I am a new member, so I know this is an old thread. However, if one looks, you can sea how Group Commanders (Zemke in ETO flying P-47s. Chennault"s Flying Tigers in China flying P-40s, etc), each tried to control their 'dogfights' with tactics that benefited their fighter's strengths. But just as important, they stressed 'breaking off' an engagement when tactics didn't benefit them. The old phrase from America's Colonial Days; "Swamp fox, swamp fox, hiding in the den; he ran away to fight again" has merit . . . Survival! However, flying escort required fighters to save the bomber/crews so they could bomb again. As USAAF Commander Arnold put it, the loss of a fighter is the loss of one man; the loss of a B-17 or B-24 was one bomber and 10 men! Sometimes, you just have to fight. Take a look at Maj James Howard actions in early 1944 while flying a P-51B escorting B-17s. Someone in the group call 'bogies' at whatever o'clock high . . . causing the other Mustangs to leave the bombers in chase of the Luftwaffe! Howard, for 20+ minutes attacked multiple enemy fighters . . . diving on approaching enemy . . . even after his P-51 was out of ammunition! He didn't do this because he enjoyed it. His fighters were there to protect the bombers. He was performing his mission (job). One thing you learn in the military, is mission . . mission, complete the mission. We are expendable.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> I am a new member, so I know this is an old thread. However, if one looks, you can sea how Group Commanders (Zemke in ETO flying P-47s. Chennault"s Flying Tigers in China flying P-40s, etc), each tried to control their 'dogfights' with tactics that benefited their fighter's strengths. But just as important, they stressed 'breaking off' an engagement when tactics didn't benefit them. The old phrase from America's Colonial Days; "Swamp fox, swamp fox, hiding in the den; he ran away to fight again" has merit . . . Survival! However, flying escort required fights to save the bomber/crews so they could bomb again. As USAAF Commander Arnold put it, the loss of a fighter is the loss of one man; the loss of a B-17 or B-24 was one bomber and 10 men! Sometimes, you just have to fight. Take a look at Maj James Howard actions in early 1944 while flying a P-51B escorting B-17s. Someone in the group call 'bogies' at whatever o'clock high . . . causing the other Mustangs to leave the bombers in chase of the Luftwaffe! Howard, for 20+ minutes attacked multiple enemy fighters . . . diving on approaching enemy . . . even after his P-51 was out of ammunition! He didn't do this because he enjoyed it. His fighters were there to protect the bombers. He was performing his mission (job). One thing you learn in the military, is mission . . mission, complete the mission. We are expendable.


Too much testosterone there - yea, you had heroes and those who have the need to go the extra mile, but those are far and few. Then you had the fight for survival (BoB). At the end of the day complete your mission (as you said) and live to fight another day.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 10, 2018)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Too much testosterone there - yea, you had heroes and those who have the need to go the extra mile, but those are far and few. Then you had the fight for survival (BoB). At the end of the day complete your mission (as you said) and live to fight another day.


During the BoB an experienced pilot (over 200 hrs on type) was worth infinitely more than the plane he flew. Pilots arriving with as little as 50 hrs had a first duty to stay alive and learn until such time as they could contribute, with each 10 hours their chances of survival increased as did their effectiveness. Park and Dowding specifically ordered pilots not to chase the enemy across the channel, their chances of survival being shot down over water were much lower and their chances of being shot down increased massively as they approached Calais.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 10, 2018)

yeah I agree in general - the list of pilots willing to die for the mission (if they had any choice in the morning) would generally be quite low. Not everybody is destined for a Medal of Honor or even a Disintingsuihed Flying Cross... most were just trying to do their job while avoiding earning a Purple Heart.

However I think Navalwarrior raises three good points.

1) Hit and run, boom and zoom etc. tactics were controversial in the early days of the War and took a while to adapt to. Both USAAF and RAF leadership initially threatened courts martial for pilots "fleeing combat" in that way. The Germans figured it out in the Spanish Civil War, the Chinese figured it out in Manchuria and Claire Chennault learned from them. But not everybody "got it" overnight.

2) What even be the point of developing tactics of any kind let alone the strict and often fairly complex systems which were developed, if 80% of the pilots got blindsided and didn't even see their opponents coming?

3) The nature of an escort pilots role, and precisely how that role was implemented, did affect combat and tactical considerations, not every aircraft was really suited for it, and Tactical Doctrine needed to be adjusted. I know in the DAF, the initial "close escort" rules did in fact cause many casualties. Requiring fighters to stay close to the bombers they were supposed to escort and not pursue attacking fighters often played right into the hands of the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica, as it allowed them to attack and disengage at their leisure so to speak. Later when they adopted more aggressive tactics escorts were much more successful. It's also the main reason they switched to using fighters as fighter-bombers, certain pilots (notably Clive Caldwell who was quite vocal about it) thought it was suicidal escorting Blenheims at ~ 100 kts. Probably didn't hurt that later on the bombers (B-25s and B-24s) were much faster and better defended too, but the fighter pilots took fewer loses and made more victory claims flying escort in 1943 than in 1942.

Conversely, the Luftwaffe hated flying escort for their bombers and routinely abandoned them in combat when they were jumped - often causing the bombers to release bombs prematurely, sometimes over their own troops, which also exacerbated already serious tensions with the ground forces. The Luftwaffe fighters took a lot of casualties in escort missions especially for slow-flying planes like Stukas. Being forced to 'stay with the fight' and remain in the vicinity of the bombers was less than ideal for Bf 109s which didn't have the maneuverability to dogfight with Allied fighters.

Eventually they made a compromise where some of the escorts would stay close, in part acting as bait, while others flying high cover were able to use their hit-and-run tactics. But it remained a problem both in the Med and in Russia.

S

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 10, 2018)

Schweik said:


> What even be the point of developing tactics of any kind let alone the strict and often fairly complex systems which were developed, if 80% of the pilots got blindsided and didn't even see their opponents coming?


Those "strict and complex" systems, in their attempt to mass firepower and facilitate hand signal communication, were often the very reason they didn't see the enemy coming. The more attention that is absorbed in tight formation flying, the less there is available for maintaining a sharp lookout. More potent armament and more reliable radios reduced the need for tight formations long before doctrine recognized that fact.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Aug 10, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Those "strict and complex" systems, in their attempt to mass firepower and facilitate hand signal communication, were often the very reason they didn't see the enemy coming. The more attention that is absorbed in tight formation flying, the less there is available for maintaining a sharp lookout. More potent armament and more reliable radios reduced the need for tight formations long before doctrine recognized that fact.
> Cheers,
> Wes



yes, I'm actually referring more to the post-(functional) radio environment, when they are forcing them to fly with wingmen, in groups of four / two pairs, but they still had all these strict rules to follow and patterns that they used. The Finns apparently invented it in the 30's. The Germans figured it out in the Spanish Civil War and were doing this from the Battle of Britain era, though perfected arguably in 1941. I think this was one of the things that helped US Navy pilots hold their own against Zeros and Ki 43s with Wildcats in early 1942. It started to be adapted by the DAF in mid 1942 and by the Russians in the fall of 1942.

In the Med DAF probably adhered to these "formation rules" a bit more strictly than the Germans but they all had them. And it seemed to contribute to survival, (even as the earlier, clumsier / more rigid formations used by the DAF tended to get them killed).

As one specific example, en-route to a target area in August of 1942, DAF squadrons would assign lookout directions to different pilots. This guy looks East, that guy looks West, this guy checks the Sun. They all check Six periodically. They maintain formation of at least 10-12 aircraft. When attacked the whole formation turns into the attack (a new and key innovation). The squadron commander will tell them to break right or left - on one occasion the squadron leader apparently told them the wrong direction, they all turned and 4 got shot down. Once engaged flights of four either break right or break left or right.

For example, a whole squadron of Spitfires might turn into an attack by four Bf 109s, then another flight of four Bf 109s attacks from above and to their six - the Squadron Leader would order a flight or two flights to break off and attack the new threat head-on, while the rest of the squadron concentrated fire on the first group, then broke right or left after the merge.

Prior to that stage of the fight, for an individual pilot or pair to leave the formation they had to get explicit permission from the squadron leader. This was mentioned several times in various anecdotes. The only one who could violate this was the squadron leader himself.

After they split into flights it tended to break up into pairs though sometimes they might form a defensive circle if badly outnumbered, or try to form up later into flights or a whole squadron again for the trip home. It just depended how crazy the fight got. Wingmen remained under strict orders to stick with their element leader regardless, as that was key to survival.

S


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 10, 2018)

Schweik said:


> yes, I'm actually referring more to the post-(functional) radio environment, when they are forcing them to fly with wingmen, in groups of four / two pairs, but they still had all these strict rules to follow and patterns that they used. The Finns apparently invented it in the 30's. The Germans figured it out in the Spanish Civil War and were doing this from the Battle of Britain era, though perfected arguably in 1941. I think this was one of the things that helped US Navy pilots hold their own against Zeros and Ki 43s with Wildcats in early 1942. It started to be adapted by the DAF in mid 1942 and by the Russians in the fall of 1942.
> 
> In the Med DAF probably adhered to these "formation rules" a bit more strictly than the Germans but they all had them. And it seemed to contribute to survival, (even as the earlier, clumsier / more rigid formations used by the DAF tended to get them killed).
> 
> ...


Resp:
A Marine Aviator, who flew CAP over the fleet (1943-Jan 44 in FM-2s & again Feb 1945 in F4U-1Ds until war's end) said that they flew 4 Elements (for a total of 16 fighters) for each patrol period. If a kamikaze was sighted, an element would intercept, leaving the other 3 elements to continue their patrol . . .as kamikazes often tried differerent avenues of attack. It was important to maintain an air barrier which enabled them room to engage well before reaching the ships. If I remember correctly, they flew top cover at 16,000 ft, or below depending on visibility.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 10, 2018)

An air force is a fighting unit. The USA especially had the resources to transfer its best pilots into instructor roles. This improved the effectiveness of all pilots in the force. While the very best LW pilots were possibly better than the pilots they were up against there were no easy kills, by contrast the new pilots in the LW were no were near the level of new pilots in the USAAF. In the Pacific things were even worse, Japans best pilots were in service, losing a carrier not only lost a ship and a lot of planes but also the elite of their pilots which couldn't be replaced.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 10, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Yes, the no armor and unprotected tanks were pretty easy to figure out, but getting the word out and getting it believed were another story all together. And the wrecks couldn't tell you anything about its insane agility or its difficult high speed maneuvering, or its right turning deficiency at speed. And since most early encounters were cases where the Zero started out with an energy advantage, it took awhile to figure out what its actual level flight top speed was.
> Cheers,
> Wes


Resp:
Most historians are not aware that Chennault traveled to Hawaii in April (? was several months before PH) 1941 where he briefed USAAC (and possibly Navy) pilots on the merits/deficiencies of the A6M Zero. Chennault previously sent a detailed report on the Japanese Zero to either Gen Marshall or Gen Arnold in 1940. Where did that info go? Likely in a desk drawer, as it surely wasn't shared with pilots, etc.. The report indicated the Zero had great range (1000 miles? ?), which sounded unbelievable at the time. So as you stated, it often took time for the nay Sayers to accept the analysis of Japan's abilities. The fact that the report came from Chennault, who was forced out of the USAAC . . . May have played a part. However, his analysis was spot on.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 10, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Most historians are not aware that Chennault traveled to Hawaii in April (? was several months before PH) 1941 where he briefed USAAC (and possibly Navy) pilots on the merits/deficiencies of the A6M Zero. Chennault previously sent a detailed report on the Japanese Zero to either Gen Marshall or Gen Arnold in 1940. .


Well thankfully we have one historian (I presume) who is aware of these things. If you bump into him or her can you get a specific quote or reference, or should I just look about myself as per our last discussion?


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 19, 2018)

the 20% or 80% would depend on which side you were on. for LW and RAF pilots you were in for the duration of the war...however long it took. so, if you wanted to survive you fought with that in mind...only choose battles you were certain you could win ( unless it was forced on you ). mixing it up in dogfights lowered your chances of living to fight another day whereas bouncing and boogying was the better part of discretion. so hartmann was probably spot on with his claim where conversely a us airman had more dogfights than pure bounces. us airmen were in for only a specified number of missions...basically about a year in the combat zone and were encouraged ( after Doolittle) to go after EAs. us fighters were escorting and the LW was more intent on taking down the bombers that getting into it with the escorts...BUT escorts still got bounced.
the 51 ( as noted in previous posts ) had a tail warning radar. I remember my dad talking about it. it was a buzzer that would go off if something got behind you. in a furball where planes may zip past your tail the buzzer would go off so it annoyed a lot of pilots to the point they never used it. AND also had to be turned off when you were in formation. so if the pilot was going to use it he had to flip it on when they broke formation to go after EA. also ( depending on the year ) gun heaters and arming switches were turned off as well and needed to be armed . too many twitchy fingers put rounds past or in the element leaders that SOP became keeping them off. when flying formation your attention is focused on the plane you are keying off of. you aren't looking around too much and enjoying the scenery too much especially if the formation is tighter due to a little scud. so it wasnt too hard to sneak up on a flight. my father was flying tail end Charlie on one mission and for some reason glanced to his right. flying directly beside him and in perfect formation was a 262. more than a little startled he yelled "you got a jet job on your ass" over the radio which made everyone peel off. the 262 noticed what was going on and peeled off and firewalled his throttle. my father went after him and had him at close range and in his sites. he pulled the trigger. nothing, he pulled again...nothing. in the heat of the moment he forgot to flip on his gun heaters and by the time everything was ready the 262 was long out of range. the funny thing is tail end Charlie was usually the one the enemy bounced and why the 262 pilot did what he did instead of taking my dad out is only known to him. he never took a shot even though he had a mustang dead to rights. it was like he was playing a deadly game of counting coup...but its fitting he got away.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 24, 2018)

bobbysocks said:


> the 20% or 80% would depend on which side you were on. for LW and RAF pilots you were in for the duration of the war...however long it took. so, if you wanted to survive you fought with that in mind...only choose battles you were certain you could win ( unless it was forced on you ). mixing it up in dogfights lowered your chances of living to fight another day whereas bouncing and boogying was the better part of discretion. so hartmann was probably spot on with his claim where conversely a us airman had more dogfights than pure bounces. us airmen were in for only a specified number of missions...basically about a year in the combat zone and were encouraged ( after Doolittle) to go after EAs. us fighters were escorting and the LW was more intent on taking down the bombers that getting into it with the escorts...BUT escorts still got bounced.
> the 51 ( as noted in previous posts ) had a tail warning radar. I remember my dad talking about it. it was a buzzer that would go off if something got behind you. in a furball where planes may zip past your tail the buzzer would go off so it annoyed a lot of pilots to the point they never used it. AND also had to be turned off when you were in formation. so if the pilot was going to use it he had to flip it on when they broke formation to go after EA. also ( depending on the year ) gun heaters and arming switches were turned off as well and needed to be armed . too many twitchy fingers put rounds past or in the element leaders that SOP became keeping them off. when flying formation your attention is focused on the plane you are keying off of. you aren't looking around too much and enjoying the scenery too much especially if the formation is tighter due to a little scud. so it wasnt too hard to sneak up on a flight. my father was flying tail end Charlie on one mission and for some reason glanced to his right. flying directly beside him and in perfect formation was a 262. more than a little startled he yelled "you got a jet job on your ass" over the radio which made everyone peel off. the 262 noticed what was going on and peeled off and firewalled his throttle. my father went after him and had him at close range and in his sites. he pulled the trigger. nothing, he pulled again...nothing. in the heat of the moment he forgot to flip on his gun heaters and by the time everything was ready the 262 was long out of range. the funny thing is tail end Charlie was usually the one the enemy bounced and why the 262 pilot did what he did instead of taking my dad out is only known to him. he never took a shot even though he had a mustang dead to rights. it was like he was playing a deadly game of counting coup...but its fitting he got away.


Resp:
Their missions were different; one the aggressor, the other the defender. So it makes sense that tactics could/were quite different. Again, it was important to adjust the tactics (as Gen Doolittle did by directing his fighters to attack aircraft on the enemies' airfields in the ETO) as the war progressed. Also, long range fighters were under threat of attack for a longer periods (ingress and egress, again in the ETO) due to the greater time of flight, and the the fact that their paths took them over the same enemy territory twice. In the beginning, Germany didn't need much air assets to protect Germany. However, it wasn't long before Germany was attacked regularly. In doing so, the Luftwaffe were forced to assign large assets (taking them away from other areas) to its Country's defense; strategic as well as tactical.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 24, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Their missions were different; one the aggressor, the other the defender. So it makes sense that tactics could/were quite different. Again, it was important to adjust the tactics (as Gen Doolittle did by directing his fighters to attack aircraft on the enemies' airfields in the ETO) as the war progressed. Also, long range fighters were under threat of attack for a longer periods (ingress and egress, again in the ETO) due to the greater time of flight, and the the fact that their paths took them over the same enemy territory twice. In the beginning, Germany didn't need much air assets to protect Germany. However, it wasn't long before Germany was attacked regularly. In doing so, the Luftwaffe were forced to assign large assets (taking them away from other areas) to its Country's defense; strategic as well as tactical.


Add:
One tactic that Doolittle employed was a large formation of fighters (in formation to mimic bombers' radar print) flying many miles ahead of his bombers to draw Luftwaffe attacks on them instead.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 24, 2018)

bobbysocks said:


> ...my father was flying tail end Charlie on one mission and for some reason glanced to his right. flying directly beside him and in perfect formation was a 262. more than a little startled he yelled "you got a jet job on your ass" over the radio which made everyone peel off. the 262 noticed what was going on and peeled off and firewalled his throttle. my father went after him and had him at close range and in his sites. he pulled the trigger. nothing, he pulled again...nothing. in the heat of the moment he forgot to flip on his gun heaters and by the time everything was ready the 262 was long out of range. the funny thing is tail end Charlie was usually the one the enemy bounced and why the 262 pilot did what he did instead of taking my dad out is only known to him. he never took a shot even though he had a mustang dead to rights. it was like he was playing a deadly game of counting coup...but its fitting he got away.


It's entirely possible that this was a Me262A-1a/U3 or Me262A-4/5, which for the most part, weren't armed, although some did retain a single Mk108. Great story, though...makes you wonder what the Luftwaffe pilot was doing, perhaps boldly curious or simply being a smartass.

One tactic that the Me262s used to sneak up on formations, was coming up from behind in the contrails. This not only made them hard to spot, but masked their own contrails as well.


----------



## Navalwarrior (Aug 25, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> It's entirely possible that this was a Me262A-1a/U3 or Me262A-4/5, which for the most part, weren't armed, although some did retain a single Mk108. Great story, though...makes you wonder what the Luftwaffe pilot was doing, perhaps boldly curious or simply being a smartass.
> 
> One tactic that the Me262s used to sneak up on formations, was coming up from behind in the contrails. This not only made them hard to spot, but masked their own contrails as well.


Resp:
Tail end attacks, particularly after the Luftwaffe primarily focused on 'head on' attacks since mid 1943, would have caught the bomber/escort fighters off guard. A captured American crewman inadvertently revealed under interrogation . . .that the B-17F was most vulnerable from head on attacks. All Luftwaffe bases were furnished this info within an hour of getting it. Hence, tactics from that point forward focused primarily from 'head on.' The development of the 'chin turret' B-17G, gave the Flying Fortress additional nose armament to counter/deal with the 1943 tactic. From the angle and speed of experienced LW pilots, frontal attacks still were very effective until close to the end of the war in the ETO.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 25, 2018)

Navalwarrior said:


> Resp:
> Tail end attacks, particularly after the Luftwaffe primarily focused on 'head on' attacks since mid 1943, would have caught the bomber/escort fighters off guard. A captured American crewman inadvertently revealed under interrogation . . .that the B-17F was most vulnerable from head on attacks. All Luftwaffe bases were furnished this info within an hour of getting it. Hence, tactics from that point forward focused primarily from 'head on.' The development of the 'chin turret' B-17G, gave the Flying Fortress additional nose armament to counter/deal with the 1943 tactic. From the angle and speed of experienced LW pilots, frontal attacks still were very effective until close to the end of the war in the ETO.


The Me262, which went operational in 1944, rarely conducted head-on attacks because the rate of closure was too great. Approaching from the rear or an oblique angle allowed more time for accurate aiming while their speed made for difficult defensive fire as the turrets couldn't keep up with their pass and the flexible mount gunners had trouble leading.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 19, 2018)

GregP said:


> View attachment 501543


That was genius... it turns out that's a real beer company. First brewed in 1990 to celebrate the Battle of Britain that occurred 50 years earlier. That might be one of the wittiest ads ever


----------



## P-39 Expert (Dec 19, 2018)

You mean that fat guy who wore makeup, painted his toenails, was high on dope and head of the Luftwaffe?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

