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

[tyrodtom]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[OldSkeptic]

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).

 

[GrauGeist]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[stona]

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]

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]

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.

 

[OldSkeptic]

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]

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

 

[OldSkeptic]

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

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.

 

[stona]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)