Discussion of best exploitable A/C strengths

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


This is more a general question but has anyone read any german pilot ace accounts that included any type of tactics they would employ against allied fighters?
 
Hey Guys, sorry for falling off this thread, my first born daughter came a little earlier than anticipated on Aug 16th at 6 pounds 3 ounces .
Congrats!!

This is more a general question but has anyone read any german pilot ace accounts that included any type of tactics they would employ against allied fighters?
There are quite a few books of the Luftwaffe Experten, that cover the details of their experiences and tactics: Erich Hartmann, Gerhard Barkhorn, Hermann Graf, Adolf Galland, Gunther Rall, Heinz Bär, Otto Kittel, Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, Wilhelm Batz and so on...
 

Congrats!!


Sorry I should have been more specific. For anyone who has read multiple books is there any sort of pattern or specifics to the tactics used?
 

Congrats for the newborn

The P-38 have had it's own set of problems. All versions were slow rollers when on lower speed, and only the -L possessed a good rate of roll when on high speed. The low rate of roll was recognized as a serious issue as early as North African campaign, both by friend and foe.
It's performance was not significantly better than what LW have had, bar against the overly heavy Fw-190 sub-types or gunboat Bf-109s. Under 20000 ft, the LW have had the edge in performance. The P-47 was loathed by LW as early as 1943, provided the combat will take place above 20000 ft; the P-51 have had clear performance edge against both 190 and 109.
The not-so-thin wings of the P-38, combined with venturi effect created by central pod and nacelles, meant that compressibility was an early and a major issue, so P-38 pilot was not in a good position to catch the LW fighter that dives down to safety from really high altitudes, say above 20-25 thousand ft. The introduction of dive flaps somewhat cured that, but it was too late to matter.
The badly executed cabin heater meant that P-38 pilots were half frozen after a some time at high altitudes, again this was rectified with P-38L. So was the lack of the second generator, the engine-out situation with a wrong engine meant that battery will be soon depleted too.
The insufficiently dimensioned intercoolers were limiting the engine power prior the P-38J was introduced.
New, more efficient intercoolers were in the middle of engine problems: wrong cruise engine setting in the ETO (high rpm, low boost, instead vice versa), combined with low temperatures at high alt and European winter, combined with not the best layout of intake pipe of the contemporary V-1710 (cure introduced from Autumn of 1943 in newly produced engines USA, from early 1944 overseas) meant that engine was receiving not a sprayed fuel in the air of 'good' temperature, but droplets of fuel within a cold air = blown engines in mid air.
(nothing to do with 'British fuel'; it was easier to blame the British than 'our boys')
The complicated procedures in a complicated cockpit just made the things worse for the USAF pilots.
 
The P-38 fuel freezing problem was mostly design and operating parameters. But British fuel was heavy on benzol that alone froze at 40° F. Good fuel for the Merlin. Not so much for the early P-38 Alison.
 
The P-38s didn't have a problem with "British" fuel until 1943. In 1941 the British and Americans had agreed on a common fuel specification for 100/130 fuel. This specification was changed several times as the war went on. But the specification was the same for both countries.

in 1940 and 1941 there was a major difference between American and British 100 octane fuel. Not in 1943. Since the vast majority of 100/130 fuel came from the US (or west indies/Caribbean) it is a bit hard to come up with "British" fuel. There were a few refineries in England. However not ALL American fuel was identical, far from it. Different refineries used different blends of compounds, sometimes in different batches so even refinery "A" wasn't making the same fuel in March that it was in Jan depending on the availability of of certain compounds. Throw in refineries "B" through "Z" and it is surprising there weren't more problems.
Allison was aware of a potential problem with the relaxed 100/130 standard in early 1943 (it was still 100/130 but the volatility, especially at cooler temperatures couldchange from batch to batch) and started work on the new intake manifold.
The "British" fuel myth comes in as the different climate conditions and flight profiles used in Western Europe, as compared to North Africa, Italy, the Pacific and CBI theaters made the problem worse. Since it wasn't happening elsewhere (at least enough to really notice) it must be that lousy "British" fuel, right?
And it didn't happen with ALL fuel batches.

100/150 was "British" fuel. the US used it but the US never really put out a 'standard' for it.
 
Surprise.

So you would argue that their experience allowed them to position themselves more effectively to surprise the allied fighters?

I was just curious if they had developed anything like our Thach Weave or some other type of tactic that was particularly effective against our fighters.
 
...is there any sort of pattern or specifics to the tactics used?
Yes, the Luftwaffe employed a good number of tactics and as the fortunes of war turned against them, they adapted their tactics to reflect their loss of aerial advantage.

Here is a real good excerpt from a book, "Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" by Mike Spick that covers a great deal of their tactics and why they chose to employ them:
 
Last edited:
To continue the tactics employed by the Luftwaffe:
 
another tactic i remember hartmann saying is when he was in a tight turning battle he would wait until he thought the EA on his tail had pulled enough lead on him and was ready to shoot. he said at that point to get a goos gun solution the nose of the pursuing ac blocked that pilot from seeing him as he was pulling so much lead. hartmann would kick hard rudder and roll away from the attacker...who now was chasing a ghost.
 
The master of deflection shooting was Hans-Joachim Marseille, who also mastered the inside turn by slowing his aircraft considerably, almost to the point of stalling, in order to get inside of a turning adversary.
 
The master of deflection shooting was Hans-Joachim Marseille, who also mastered the inside turn by slowing his aircraft considerably, almost to the point of stalling, in order to get inside of a turning adversary.

Thank you very much for posting all of that. Very interesting to read. One question though is a Vector Roll the same as a Rollaway?
 
The master of deflection shooting was Hans-Joachim Marseille, who also mastered the inside turn by slowing his aircraft considerably, almost to the point of stalling, in order to get inside of a turning adversary.

Haven't a lot of his kill claims been challenged, indicating that while he could maneuver well and survive, he wasn't able to connect well in those turning fights?
 
I know this sounds random but why is the p51 b-15 with malcom hood considered to be better than the d? I saw those comments in another thread but didn't want to bump it if I could get an answer here. Drgondog I think it was your comments that I was reading in the p51 vs f6f thread.
 
Haven't a lot of his kill claims been challenged, indicating that while he could maneuver well and survive, he wasn't able to connect well in those turning fights?
Some of his claims have been challenged (as is the case with just about any other Ace with high counts) but no one questions his ability to make the Bf109 perform like a Ballet artist.
 

The P-51B was lighter and slightly cleaner than the P-51D so performed slightly better and was slightly faster (it was equivalent to the Fw190D-9 at low altitude and superior at high altitude). Due to this many pilots preferred the B even with two less guns. The Malcolm hood improved the one major issue with the B and that was pilot visibility with little impact to aerodynamics (I would guess).
 
I have read that some pilots thought visibility with the Malcolm hood was better than the D in all directions particulary looking down and to the rear. Possibly because the Malcolm hood looks like it has a lower edge than the D hood.
 
But British fuel was heavy on benzol that alone froze at 40° F. Good fuel for the Merlin. Not so much for the early P-38 Alison.

I believe by 1943 nearly all the aviation fuel used in the UK was imported from the US or US controlled sites in the Caribbean.

In the summer of 1943 the US changed the formulation of 100/130 fuel in order to increase production. They increased the lead content from 4.8 cc per imperial gallon to 5.5 cc. When the first batches of that fuel arrived in the UK it was tested and found to cause problems in Allison engines:

Allison engines cannot use it and tests so far conducted indicate that the engine itself cannot digest 5.5 cc fuel. Considerable further test data is therefore required both on engine and plugs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread