Impressions of Axis pilots regarding Allied planes.
- Thread starter DAVIDICUS
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The british advantage was that they were kinda isolated from the main front... They could have better training, and also surviving became more and more experienced, and could pass on their experience... While for the german pilots, the situation was exactly oposite. Many of their plnes were lost over the Channel Sea, many experienced pilots lost, replaced with young, unexperienced ones... This became their greatest disadvantage...
Iskandar Taib
Airman
- 17
- Mar 24, 2005
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Not always true. Those who flew Brewster Buffalos and P-39s in the Pacific weren't shy about saying what they thought of those planes, and their capabilities against their adversaries.
hellmaker said:
This might've been true for the BoB, but in 1941 and later the Brits were the ones who had to fly over there and swim for it if they got shot down.
The rotation of experienced pilots into instructor posts was, I think, more a matter of policy than anything else. At least, in the early parts of the war before things got really desperate.
Iskandar Taib said:
That does not mean they dont take pride in there aircraft. That just says that they know the limitations of there aircraft. I know my aircraft can not fly the highest, fastest or carry the most loads but I still have pride in it and when I am in it I think it is the best thing in the sky.
Iskandar Taib
Airman
- 17
- Mar 24, 2005
Maybe SOME would, but if one had to fight a war in something one knew was absolutely obsolete and one didn't have much of a chance of surviving, let alone getting to one's target, some might feel differently than you do. As I said, there are some who were pretty vocal about what they thought about those planes they were forced to fight in.
Iskandar Taib said:
Okay but honestly when you fight a war or are defending your country you do it in whatever means are available to you.
AL Schlageter
Banned
- 220
- Oct 9, 2007
Sounds similar to what what one sees about RAF pilots during BoB. What was meant was 20 hours in the type of plane they would fly in combat.
That sounds kinda silly and I love the P-47.
Any aircraft diving is a threat... speed/momentum is life!
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Well they hit like a ton of bricks!
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
And many MANY german pilots and experten thanked God that the Allies didnt use explosive rounds with their .50cals...
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
This is one of the difficulties when assertaining aircraft performance by fighter pilot comments. Fighter pilots, by design, typically have a rather large ego. This is needed to ensure aggressiveness in combat. They must have conficence in their own ability. Therefore, they will often claim their aircraft was superor while, in their minds, they were thinking of its performance in their hands. This is true with British, German, Americans, et. al. In reality, every WWII aircraft had strengths and weaknesses. The expert fighter pilot understood this and was able to apply his aircraft strengths against the enemy aircraft's weaknesses, thus victory. A German pilot in a Bf-109G or an Fw-190A-6 would have a signifcant disadvantage to a P-51D in airspeed but had altitudes and capabilities he could use to his advantage if he could get the P-51D to fight his fight. This is where the pilot expertise wins the fight. When faced with equal competence in the fight, both aircraft would jockey for advantage until one erred, then the other pounced. However, some aircraft had more tools than the other and therefore did not need as capable a pilot. Few fighter pilots would admit to inferiority of his aircraft or feared an opposing aircraft, but if he said that the other aircraft was capable or that he was impressed, then it can be pretty well assumed that that aircraft was indeed a capable fighter aircraft. And I am sure you can find this on all sides of the conflict.
drgondog
Major
Dan - I'm still trying to find records of the experiment - so this is anecdotal.
The 355th received some and both my father and Henry Brown talked about the problems experieced with the rounds.. most serious of which was detonation out in front of barrel.. this would have been post August 1944. Henry lost a score when all the stuff started blowing up on him and he thought a 190 was on his tail!
When we got back from Japan in early 1951, he (dad) had the Test Programs at Eglin AFB when the .60 Cal based on the .50 case (easy barrel conversion for M2) was tested - but not accepted - because it wasn't as effective as the 20mm and the USAF was pretty committed to 20mm in 1952. It WAS deemed more reliable than the M2 20mm in service at the time.
Having said that the .60 Cal by all accounts solved the issues experienced by the explosive .50. Probably a good reason the Germans settled on 15mm?
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I agree, and great info as well...
Hi Guys,
I would say the answer as to which aircraft has the advantage is "it depends".
All aircraft performance is a mean average over a percentage range. These percentage variations are wide enough that they overlap and the optimistic aircraft of a given design will outperform the pessimistic aircraft of the other design.
Looking at a hand picked test chart is not going to tell you how the type performed.
Frankly, the margin of advantage has to be rather wide in order for it to be really noticeable in the air.
Just reading a manufacturer's list "speed" does not tell you much either. The application of compressibility corrections was not standard in the 1940's and is still not standard today. Some manufacturers apply them at mach .70 while others as early as mach .3.
Lets say our aircraft have a 17 mph difference in top speed. At a 5nm separation, we are talking a 17 minute tail chase to close the distance. Most WEP systems do not last that long so our pilots have to drop back to maximum continuous.
Here the shape of our L/D curve becomes important. Some airplanes cruised much faster than others due to the location of the Dmin point.
If we take our FW190A6 vs P51 example, generally speaking the Focke Wulf has a slightly faster maximum continuous cruise velocity than the P51D. The P51 will no longer close the distance, the distance will increase, or the closure rate will drop to the point the aircraft will run out of fuel before it can close.
So it is easy to see why all sides felt their aircraft were competitive. Wrongly focusing on one characteristic without examining the aircraft as a complete system will lead to some erroneous conclusions.
All the best,
Crumpp
Very good post there Crump and I have to agree with you.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Me too....
