Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Imagine that! Thanks for the info!Hello Flyboy!
I do not have any information on how a D 520 would compare to a Spit Mk I or II. All I have is Eric Brown's impressions of the D 520 vs a Seafire IIC. As you might expect, he felt that the Seafire was superior in all aspects except rate of climb.
The book I quoted from ("The Battle of France-Then and Now") is much newer (it came out in the last few years) but I think the bigger difference is that this book researched the fates of individual a/c in both sides' records. Whereas, I would assume the number in the book you quoted is what the French pilots claimed at the time, especially due to the category 'probable'. If the D520 pilots claimed 23 Bf109's destroyed plus 10 probable, but actually destroyed 14, that would be a quite plausible rate of over claim, probably more accurate claiming than the whole WWII average of all air arms.More sources for the 2 different D 520's are Profile Publication Number 135, The Dewoitine 520, page 13, and French Fighters of World War II in Action, Aircraft number 180, page 43.
By the way, the profile publication shows that D 520's during the Battle of France:
- Aircraft Destroyed Probable
- Bf-109E 23 10
The above data is somewhat different than Joe B's. I make no claim that this data is better or worse than his data. Please be aware however, that this data is from a 1966 publication, so if Joe's information is newer it may well be more accurate.
Just a gentle word of warning.
Captain Eric Melrose Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, MA, Hon FRAeS, RN used to be quoted as a word form God. Now some seem to assume everything he wrote was biased. He was as human as any of us and his opinions were based upon his experiences to date and, of course, coloured by them as ours would be. Do you know an American who thinks the P51 is rubbish, a Briton who thinks the Spitfire was a waste of time or a German who thinks an Me109 was an overengined lightweight?.
Nevertheless he was hugely experienced and respected as a man, as a pilot generally and as a test pilot in particular, by his peers who knew better than us. His notes should be taken as a genuine reflection of the aeroplanes he flew as he found them on the day. Equally we should be careful not to therefore assume that individual aeroplane X he flew was identical to all types of aeroplane X. Only that the individual aeroplane X he flew actually performed as he found on that day.
Hello Tomo Pauk!
D 520 no 3 was a standard early production aircraft that would have been found during the Battle of France. D 520 No 465 had a HS 12Y49 motor compared to no3's HS 12Y45, a revised front cowling (more streamlined), and "jet" exhaust stacks. My understanding is that No 465 is more representative of late production D520s, and would have appeared late in 1941.
May God fly your wing!
Eagledad
Just a gentle word of warning.
Captain Eric Melrose Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, MA, Hon FRAeS, RN used to be quoted as a word form God. Now some seem to assume everything he wrote was biased. He was as human as any of us and his opinions were based upon his experiences to date and, of course, coloured by them as ours would be. Do you know an American who thinks the P51 is rubbish, a Briton who thinks the Spitfire was a waste of time or a German who thinks an Me109 was an overengined lightweight?.
Nevertheless he was hugely experienced and respected as a man, as a pilot generally and as a test pilot in particular, by his peers who knew better than us. His notes should be taken as a genuine reflection of the aeroplanes he flew, as he found them, on the day. Equally we should be careful not to therefore assume that individual aeroplane X he flew was identical to all types of aeroplane X. Only that the individual aeroplane X he flew actually performed as he found on that day.
I understand what you are saying and as a general rule I would agree with you, but I have to wonder what Mr. Brown was smoking when he rated the Fairey Swordfish as a better torpedo bomber then the Grumman Avenger. Englishman or not, I doubt there is another person on the planet that would arrive at that conclusion.
I believe in terms of tonage sunk the Fairy Swordfish was the most succesfull torpedo bomber of the war, so there is an objective basis for this. The aircrafts abillity to fly low and to fly low and attack at night seemed to be its winning card. I've looked long and hard at why the Swordfish got through to the Bismark. The Bismarks heavy AAA was at the time the best in the world on a par with the USN Ford range keeper, a fully triaxially stabalised tachymetric synthetic system with remote power control while the medium 3.7cm AAA was also gyro-sta. The bismarks FLAK was based around triaxially stabilised directors and could throw up 60-80rpm while some of the Quad 2.0cm FLAK units were also stabalised. The reality seems to have been the aircrafts low flying abillity and the aircrafts abillity to exploit the bad weather eg hiding behined waves and clouds. Surviving German sailers complained of seeing the aircraft only intermittantly as they approched.
My conclusion is that no navy in the world had the abillity to deal with the Swordfish in those circumsatances at that time nor did many aircraft have abillity to exploit those weaknesses in most ships defenses. A few years latter and everyone has vastly improved their AAA.
Of course the Krisgsmarine never had a chance to finnish its aircraft carriers Graf Zeppelin or Seydlitz so Swordfish were seldim confronted with intercepting fighters.
I believe in terms of tonage sunk the Fairy Swordfish was the most succesfull torpedo bomber of the war, so there is an objective basis for this. The aircrafts abillity to fly low and to fly low and attack at night seemed to be its winning card. I've looked long and hard at why the Swordfish got through to the Bismark. The Bismarks heavy AAA was at the time the best in the world on a par with the USN Ford range keeper, a fully triaxially stabalised tachymetric synthetic system with remote power control while the medium 3.7cm AAA was also gyro-sta. The bismarks FLAK was based around triaxially stabilised directors and could throw up 60-80rpm while some of the Quad 2.0cm FLAK units were also stabalised. The reality seems to have been the aircrafts low flying abillity and the aircrafts abillity to exploit the bad weather eg hiding behined waves and clouds. Surviving German sailers complained of seeing the aircraft only intermittantly as they approched.
My conclusion is that no navy in the world had the abillity to deal with the Swordfish in those circumsatances at that time nor did many aircraft have abillity to exploit those weaknesses in most ships defenses. A few years latter and everyone has vastly improved their AAA.
Of course the Krisgsmarine never had a chance to finnish its aircraft carriers Graf Zeppelin or Seydlitz so Swordfish were seldim confronted with intercepting fighters.
You are making a torpedo runon a ship somewhere in the Pacific Theater, a Zero is moving in to intercept you and you have no fighter escort, or if you do they are busy, would you choose a Swordfish? or an Avenger? The correct answer for everyone on the planet besides Eric Brown is Avenger.
You are making a torpedo runon a ship somewhere in the Pacific Theater, a Zero is moving in to intercept you and you have no fighter escort, or if you do they are busy, would you choose a Swordfish? or an Avenger? The correct answer for everyone on the planet besides Eric Brown is Avenger.
While I might choose Avenger in that situation, would that make much difference. in 42 at Midway Avengers of VT ? operating from Midway suffered 83% losses and the only survivor limbed back badly damaged, ok all six Swordfishes which tried to attack KM heavy units during the Channel Dash were shot down but Fw 190A had more firepower than Zero. The fact was that both Avenger and Swordfish needed fighter escort to survive determined fighter opposition. On the other hand if the target ship had good AA and there was overcast, then Swordfish could use the clouds for sneak approach then made a deep dive to sea level near the dropping point and then drop its fairly reliable torpedo, Avenger on the other hand during the early part of the Pacific War had only one one option, steady rather slow and low approach because the unreliable Mark 21 torpedo had at that time very tight dropping paramets, so Avenger offered much easier firing solution to AA gunners and still it was more probable that Mark 21 malfunctioned than the British 18". In 44 situation was changed because mods allowed dropping of Mark 21 clearly higher and at clearly higher speed.
Juha