Some thoughts on "combat effectiveness/performance" factors that are often hidden.

[wrathofatlantis]

I have no desire to award a victory that was not earned, but I also do not believe a pilot who very reasonably shoots an enemy from the sky should not be awarded credit for same. I do not have great faith in loss lists.

You do not have have great faith in loss lists? But you do have faith in wingman corroborated pilot kill claims?

Do you actually believe the F4U Corsair had an 11:1 kill ratio? Or the Hellcat 19:1?

In the last chapter of Osprey's "F4U Corsair vs A6M Zero", by Michael John Claringboul, a tally was made using US and Japanese sources for the losses of all the combats where it could be determined that no type other than these two types were present: Strictly failed to return data.
The result for the entire April 1943-April 1944 period was a 1:1 ratio between these two types...

This is further highlighted by looking at the experience of one 11 kill Corsair ace, one of the high ranking Corsair aces. presumably a better pilot than average: Of his 11 kills, 8 were A6Ms. He was shot down 3 times to achieve this, and lost 5 airframes.

If we allow a statistically possible 1 shoot down to Japanese flak rather than fighters, it changes things a lot. There is no way to know, but at best we are looking at a 4:1 ratio with a better than average pilot, if we accept his kill claims.

I believe virtually none of these pilots, of all nationalities, have the actual number they claim, so I would doubt his 11 kill claim as well.

A Russian historian delved into the the Erich Hartman claims by looking at actual Soviet losses within range of his position, and came up with a probable 80, not 352...

Is this accurate? Maybe not, but I would bet that 80 is a little closer to the actual figure than 352...

Remember how Robert Johnson painted two Me-209 kills on his P-47? Yes, that probably went through a vetting process too. And at least one of his Encounter Reports swears by a "Dora Nine" kill in February 1944... But that's just Robert Johnson being Robert Johnson...

The St-Valentine day massacre? 59 Ju-52 claimed, 24 actual (but to be fair a lot of landed ones had damage), but the real clincher seems to be the fighters: The P-40s claimed as many as 12-14 Me-109s (can't remember the exact figure, but it really was in that absurd range). Actual loss, one, plus one Me-110...

Let's just say reported losses are a tad more solid than that.

 

[yulzari]

We must be careful in our language when comparing reported victories to documented enemy losses. Not to influence the results but to avoid implying that over reporting was malicious. In the middle of the melée of war only a fool would spend any significant time following a falling victim to see it crash. Not if they want to stay alive themselves. The support for a reported victory has to largely depend upon brief glimpses by the pilot, crew and other aeroplanes at the scene, themselves being busy staying alive and seeking their own victims. Over reporting is inevitable even from those of the strictest honesty. Of course humans have flaws and there will be those who stretch optimism into a claim and a few who deliberately and knowingly report false claims. But, unless there is reason to accuse someone of malicious claiming we should not to imply any mismatch to anything other than the fog of war.

We were not there. By the Grace of God we have not experienced the confusion and mind bending fear of the action ourselves. Personally I doubt that I would have the spare mental capacity to do more than concentrate on staying alive and occasionally notice a target coming into easy shot and hope that the radio did not transmit my pleas for my mother to save me.

 

[Shortround6]

I have told this story before from my time on a fire department.
Went in through the kitchen to get to the living room, front door was only a few feet from the picture window that had flames coming out of it. Crossed the smoke filled kitchen and turned into the living room and saw the fire (glow) though the smoke, opened nozzle and sprayed for 10-15 seconds. Glow got a lot smaller. Sprayed again and the glow got very small. Sprayed a 3ed time and now the glow was very small and pulsing. Sprayed again, very briefly. Smoke was clearing though the open window, visibility was getting better. The fire was out and I was trying to 'extinguish' the red flashing lights on a police car parked on the front lawn.
I was in little danger. I had an escape route. I had an air tank with plenty of air. I had a hose line that could flow over 100 gallons a minute. What I did not have was visibility.
I also had around 10 seconds or more for this to happen. Spray for 2-3 seconds, observe for 2-3 seconds and spray again.

Figuring out what happened in air combat in a much higher stress level and moving at 3-6 miles per minute is very hard.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The Fog of War is a real thing, especially at 300 mph. But it's not all bad news.

Real losses from both sides can also sometimes redeem stories. There are aces who now appear to have had more victories than they claimed, for example the Canadian Ace James 'Stocky' Edwards. There are units which show up as being more effective than we thought. Aircraft types too. I've been bringing this up for a while

Such data can also still be spun somewhat. I'm a little suspicious of Claringbould's conclusions regarding the F4U (and the P-38), looking at his own data. I think he was being a bit selective - for example, it's not always necessarily possible to tell which aircraft got a claim when multiple types were involved in a fight, as was often the case with Corsairs in the South Pacific, and cases where only zeros fought only Corsairs make for a much smaller dataset.

Multiple Allied units fighting together, which was actually the norm, were doing a bit better overall than 1:1 by late 1943, and the Corsairs and P-38s were clearly the main factor in some big fights with multiple units (and aircraft types) which took place in this period. Again, according to Claringbould's own data. And in some cases when Corsairs were on their own they were significantly outnumbered.

Once you have this data in your hands, there are a lot of ways to analyze it, and a lot of different conclusions you can draw. I suspect we'll see a lot more analysis done and more data emerging in the future.

All in all, this new type of research opens a lot of doors. It tells us the story hasn't already been told, and isn't over. There is still a lot to learn.

 

[gruad]

engine.

I DO know you have to do valve seats every so often in Merlins and they require you to tighten the head bolts every 25 hours or so by design. You don't have to do that in an Allison, and Allison maintenance in general seems to be less than Merlin maintenance.

Wow as a young man I did a 4 cylinder tighten after replacing the gasket and it was hard work torquing the bolts and you have to do them in sequence with increasing torque.

So what's it like doing two banks of 6? What do you have to strip down to get to the bolts?

 

[GregP]

It's dishonest to suggest that i was trying to make that claim. I was pointing out that you may not have read the books were are talking about, whether you have "a" book by this author or not.



With this kind of logic you could argue that the sky isn't blue.



This has already been explained to you at least a dozen times by now.

You mean, is IS?

 

[GregP]

The Fog of War is a real thing, especially at 300 mph. But it's not all bad news.

Real losses from both sides can also sometimes redeem stories. There are aces who now appear to have had more victories than they claimed, for example the Canadian Ace James 'Stocky' Edwards. There are units which show up as being more effective than we thought. Aircraft types too. I've been bringing this up for a while

Such data can also still be spun somewhat. I'm a little suspicious of Claringbould's conclusions regarding the F4U (and the P-38), looking at his own data. I think he was being a bit selective - for example, it's not always necessarily possible to tell which aircraft got a claim when multiple types were involved in a fight, as was often the case with Corsairs in the South Pacific, and cases where only zeros fought only Corsairs make for a much smaller dataset.

Multiple Allied units fighting together, which was actually the norm, were doing a bit better overall than 1:1 by late 1943, and the Corsairs and P-38s were clearly the main factor in some big fights with multiple units (and aircraft types) which took place in this period. Again, according to Claringbould's own data. And in some cases when Corsairs were on their own they were significantly outnumbered.

Once you have this data in your hands, there are a lot of ways to analyze it, and a lot of different conclusions you can draw. I suspect we'll see a lot more analysis done and more data emerging in the future.

All in all, this new type of research opens a lot of doors. It tells us the story hasn't already been told, and isn't over. There is still a lot to learn.

I don;t suspectw e'll see ANY more data in the future; just more ways to interpret the data we have.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Hitherto unknown 'official' data has been emerging in the last few years from Japan, Italy, other minor Axis countries etc. etc. all of which helps flesh out the story.

We also find new letters, memoirs etc. from Allied pilots, and some of these are being scanned and added to the public record. I've scanned a couple of those myself.

There is a ton of data yet to be released by the Russians. They had started to make some stuff public during the brief thaw in the Cold War but that's long over now.

Of course on the flipside, the last WW2 pilots have died, and a great deal of data which was once available is being lost, both in the real world and the digital world. It's unclear if interest in the younger generation is really there. It could be going away as fast as it's coming out.

 

[GregP]

Wow as a young man I did a 4 cylinder tighten after replacing the gasket and it was hard work torquing the bolts and you have to do them in sequence with increasing torque.

So what's it like doing two banks of 6? What do you have to strip down to get to the bolts?

Actually. I mis-spoke above, likely late-night mental mistake. The head bolts require re-torquing about every 25 hours. The valve seats are screwed in until they snap off at the correct height and valve lash adjustment is about every 100 hours. The valve seats themselves last maybe 240 hours in wartime use. Likely longer in civilian use today. I could ask if there is interest.

Allison head bolts are torqued once and never need to be retorqued unless the heads are removed for some reason. Still, torquing the head bolts on a Merlin isn't especially difficult, just different from Allison maintenence. In use today, Merlins are very reliable and generally easy to operate and maintain. Not trivial, just not difficult after you learn the ins and outs of Merlins and Whitworth tools. Nothing especially "temperamental" about them. As I said, good, relaible engines that don't generally surprise the owner very often.

As with ANY old engine, the surprise CAN be expensive if and when it comes around. Nothing particularly bad about that, just a fact of warbird life.

 

[GregP]

Hitherto unknown 'official' data has been emerging in the last few years from Japan, Italy, other minor Axis countries etc. etc. all of which helps flesh out the story.

We also find new letters, memoirs etc. from Allied pilots, and some of these are being scanned and added to the public record. I've scanned a couple of those myself.

There is a ton of data yet to be released by the Russians. They had started to make some stuff public during the brief thaw in the Cold War but that's long over now.

Of course on the flipside, the last WW2 pilots have died, and a great deal of data which was once available is being lost, both in the real world and the digital world. It's unclear if interest in the younger generation is really there. It could be going away as fast as it's coming out.

Our experience is the younger people would rather see a static jet than a flying WWII aircraft. They can't even recognize if the planes are US or foreign-made. Some can. Many can't and really don't have the interest. Even fewer have a mechanical interest.

The kids today think Honda came up with 4 valves per cylinder and overhead cams. They are blown away when we show them overhead cams on a US or British engine designed in 1936!

They have no idea that a turbocharger in WWII was called a turbosupercharger, at least in aviation in the U.S.A. . That's not a criticism, just what we see more often than not. Most do NOT seem to have any interest in piston engines.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I just make stuff up as I go.

That's why you are a primary source.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Our experience is the younger people would rather see a static jet than a flying WWII aircraft. They can't even recognize if the planes are US or foreign-made. Some can. Many can't and reallty don't have the interest. Even fewer have a mechanical interest.

The kids today think Honda came up with 4 valves per cylinder and overhead cams. They are blown away when we show them overhead cams on a US or British engine designed in 1936!

They have no idea that a turbocharger in WWII was called a turbosupercharger, at least in aviation in the U.S.A. . That's not a criticism, just what we see more often than not. Most do NOT seem to have any interest in piston engines.

That's really interesting. I think in my youth I had this kind of reaction to the WWI biplanes for a while as a teenager, which took me years to get over.

As a little kid I was all about Red Baron vs Sopwith Camel (largely because of Peanuts / Snoopy), but then as I got a little older the WW2 fighters seemed 'cool', the WWI biplanes seemed 'antique'. And kind of silly.

I think it was Wingnut Wings which changed this for me, when I started seeing photos of the incredible artistry of these aircraft. It suddenly clicked for me.

When i was growing up in the 70s, it was kind of peak muscle-car era. I've long contended that WW2 aircraft, especially fighters, are a lot like 1960s-70s muscle cars. I think there is a natural bleed-over between the two genres, so to speak.

These days, the kids are indoctrinated to tech. iPhones. Stealth. Heads Up Displays. Lazers and Sci Fi. They like everything new and fast and sophisticated. So that makes sense that they are going to prefer jets.

But part of tech is always hype. A lot of it is fake, a lot of it comes with built-in downsides and kind of hidden problems. There is also kind of an 'analog backlash' going on. Vinyl record sales are increasing every year. Including for some artists I really don't rate personally, but it's a thing.

Fashions and trends come and go, but I think the WW2 military aircraft are inherently magnificent things, and the pilots, the designers, the flight crews and ground crews, everyone involved with these things were fairly epic. Popular culture is fickle but things that have real merit can re-acquire attention which has flitted over to something else.

I think you should be very proud of participating in the reconstruction and restoration of these wonderful Warbirds, and being part of the Chino planes of fame museum project. I suspect it will once again have it's heyday. It's absolutely worth preserving as long and as much as possible. I've been long involved with some other projects related to other historical eras and seen strong revivals of interest there in my lifetime.

In part that is why I'm all for 'ripping off the bandaid' regarding issues like overclaiming and the merits of the new (to us) data that keeps emerging. It makes the whole thing come into sharper focus. We had the ra ra era of our patriotic stories, we had weird phases of people getting a little too enamoured of the superiority of the Luftwaffe. But we learn more and more, the reality is laid bare, and it's cool. There is no getting around it. Supercharged flying muscle cars in incredibly badass paint jobs shooting heavy machine guns and cannon at each other at 300 mph in gorgeously exotic locations all around the world. What's not to like.

 

[swampyankee]

Four-valve heads predate WW1. One of the problems many people -- especially common Internet sources -- have is that they think that car and motorcycle internal combustion engines are the only kind. Historically, internal combustion engines started as stationary engines, then moved to various moving systems: boats, horseless carriages, etc.

By 1945, just about every innovation and configuration of Otto engine had been used, prototyped, or produced.

Getting back to combat effectiveness, it's far more than the powerplant. The US P-39, P-40, Airacuda, and P-38 had remarkably similar powerplants. The Airacuda was worse than useless. Had it been in WW2 service, it would be mostly useful to keep people from arguing whether the Bolton-Paul Defiant or the Blackburn Roc were the worst Allied aircraft. The P-39 did quite well with the Soviet Air Forces, possibly because its short range and mediocre altitude performance were not handicaps when dealing with the Luftwaffe. The P-40 was also a competent performer, at low and medium altitudes.

Leaving aside training, which is absolutely critical to any aircraft's combat success:

• Handling, especially departure characteristics. Before the age of fly-by-wire and analogue or digital computerized flight controls, an aircraft with a predictable stall and good stall warning would be easier to fly near the margins. If your Qz193 is faster than a P-51, outclimbs a Me263, and carries a dozen Hispano Mk 5 but goes into an inverted flat spin if the turn is pulled just a tiny bit too tight, few of its pilot will get to that superhuman status that seems to be believed in by some people.
• Visibility. What you don't know can kill you.
• Range. Obviously, if the fight's way over there and the plane can't reach it, it's not effective.
• Serviceability. Planes on the ground can't fight anybody. This is an argument against twins. They're going to need more maintenance and more spares support. They're also twice as likely to have an engine failure. Both your single and your twin need to abort if they lose an engine shortly after takeoff, but you'll lose more twins.
• Stealth. This was one of problems the F4 Phantom had in Vietnam. The J79 engines were quite smoky, so no matter how well the plane's camouflage worked, there was this long trail of smoke pointing to the airplane. Improvements in combustor design eventually reduced this problem.
• Reliability. If the weapons don't work, there's not much point in being there. Similarly, if the radio doesn't work or the radar or the wings fall off or the fuselage breaks.
• Ergonomics. Part of this is related to visibility. If your pilots are freezing (P-38) or have trouble seeing out because they're not too tall (Corsair) or can't find the buttons for the radio or are in constant discomfort, the aircraft's combat effectiveness will fall. Given the general dog's breakfast of WW2 fighter cockpit design, one wonders how much better some aircraft would have performed if more thought had been given to things like control placement and pilot comfort.

The two non-aircraft issues are training and tactics. I don't know how much training a pilot needs to be combat effective. I'm sure it's less if they're just flying over their home territory than if they're escorting strikes over unfamiliar territory (put me and my car pretty much anywhere in Connecticut, and I can get home without GPS or maps. Put me and my car in the Berkshires, I'm doomed). At a minimum, I would think that a combat pilot should be able to manage reasonable emergency situations (engine loss, no-flaps landing, spin recovery, rejected takeoff, engine loss, especially on takeoff) and possibly basic aerobatics, like Immelmans and split-s's. Formation flying and basic combat maneuvering would be useful.

Tactics is another area. Air combat tactics is far beyond my knowledge; I'm an aerodynamicist.

 

[Shortround6]

Put me and my car in the Berkshires, I'm doomed)

head east until you hit the Connecticut river, turn right.
If you are really west, head west until you hit the Hudson turn left, go south for a while, turn left again and go until you are in Connecticut.

Or in most of western Massachusetts keep track of Route 7. Find route 7, head south until you hit Connecticut.

Just make sure you have lots of gas

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Four-valve heads predate WW1. One of the problems many people -- especially common Internet sources -- have is that they think that car and motorcycle internal combustion engines are the only kind. Historically, internal combustion engines started as stationary engines, then moved to various moving systems: boats, horseless carriages, etc.

By 1945, just about every innovation and configuration of Otto engine had been used, prototyped, or produced.

Getting back to combat effectiveness, it's far more than the powerplant. The US P-39, P-40, Airacuda, and P-38 had remarkably similar powerplants. The Airacuda was worse than useless. Had it been in WW2 service, it would be mostly useful to keep people from arguing whether the Bolton-Paul Defiant or the Blackburn Roc were the worst Allied aircraft. The P-39 did quite well with the Soviet Air Forces, possibly because its short range and mediocre altitude performance were not handicaps when dealing with the Luftwaffe. The P-40 was also a competent performer, at low and medium altitudes.

Leaving aside training, which is absolutely critical to any aircraft's combat success:

• Handling, especially departure characteristics. Before the age of fly-by-wire and analogue or digital computerized flight controls, an aircraft with a predictable stall and good stall warning would be easier to fly near the margins. If your Qz193 is faster than a P-51, outclimbs a Me263, and carries a dozen Hispano Mk 5 but goes into an inverted flat spin if the turn is pulled just a tiny bit too tight, few of its pilot will get to that superhuman status that seems to be believed in by some people.
• Visibility. What you don't know can kill you.
• Range. Obviously, if the fight's way over there and the plane can't reach it, it's not effective.
• Serviceability. Planes on the ground can't fight anybody. This is an argument against twins. They're going to need more maintenance and more spares support. They're also twice as likely to have an engine failure. Both your single and your twin need to abort if they lose an engine shortly after takeoff, but you'll lose more twins.
• Stealth. This was one of problems the F4 Phantom had in Vietnam. The J79 engines were quite smoky, so no matter how well the plane's camouflage worked, there was this long trail of smoke pointing to the airplane. Improvements in combustor design eventually reduced this problem.
• Reliability. If the weapons don't work, there's not much point in being there. Similarly, if the radio doesn't work or the radar or the wings fall off or the fuselage breaks.
• Ergonomics. Part of this is related to visibility. If your pilots are freezing (P-38) or have trouble seeing out because they're not too tall (Corsair) or can't find the buttons for the radio or are in constant discomfort, the aircraft's combat effectiveness will fall. Given the general dog's breakfast of WW2 fighter cockpit design, one wonders how much better some aircraft would have performed if more thought had been given to things like control placement and pilot comfort.

The two non-aircraft issues are training and tactics. I don't know how much training a pilot needs to be combat effective. I'm sure it's less if they're just flying over their home territory than if they're escorting strikes over unfamiliar territory (put me and my car pretty much anywhere in Connecticut, and I can get home without GPS or maps. Put me and my car in the Berkshires, I'm doomed). At a minimum, I would think that a combat pilot should be able to manage reasonable emergency situations (engine loss, no-flaps landing, spin recovery, rejected takeoff, engine loss, especially on takeoff) and possibly basic aerobatics, like Immelmans and split-s's. Formation flying and basic combat maneuvering would be useful.

Tactics is another area. Air combat tactics is far beyond my knowledge; I'm an aerodynamicist.

That's a good list.

I'd also add perhaps - functional level of basic parts. Like guns, engines radios. Special features like leading edge slats or combat flaps. Landing gear. Propellers. They might work well enough to take off, but how well do they work in combat? Guns were a big problem during most of WW2 and to some extent even in Korea and Vietnam. Radios were a big problem in WW2 usually for not being available (initially) and then often not working well or at all once up in the air for a variety of reasons. Handling a manually adjusted variable pitch propeller or a throttle with separate mixture, boost, and etc. could be quite a handful in combat.

I definitely agree about handling, visibility, range, and serviceability.

 

[SaparotRob]

head east until you hit the Connecticut river, turn right.
If you are really west, head west until you hit the Hudson turn left, go south for a while, turn left again and go until you are in Connecticut.

Or in most of western Massachusetts keep track of Route 7. Find route 7, head south until you hit Connecticut.

Just make sure you have lots of gas

Have you ever noticed that Wyckoff, New Jersey is never in the same place? I was a traveling salesman way back when.

 

[swampyankee]

Have you ever noticed that Wyckoff, New Jersey is never in the same place? I was a traveling salesman way back when.

As I've never had any need to go to Wycoff, NJ, no.

 

[andy1967]

That's a good list.

I'd also add perhaps - functional level of basic parts. Like guns, engines radios. Special features like leading edge slats or combat flaps. Landing gear. Propellers. They might work well enough to take off, but how well do they work in combat? Guns were a big problem during most of WW2 and to some extent even in Korea and Vietnam. Radios were a big problem in WW2 usually for not being available (initially) and then often not working well or at all once up in the air for a variety of reasons. Handling a manually adjusted variable pitch propeller or a throttle with separate mixture, boost, and etc. could be quite a handful in combat.

I definitely agree about handling, visibility, range, and serviceability.

Could the K14 Gyro gunsight be added to the list. Was it a game changer or too late in the war to make a difference?

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Could the K14 Gyro gunsight be added to the list. Was it a game changer or too late in the war to make a difference?

Yes I think it was, that is the type of extra kit which could (and did) make a big difference in outcomes.

 

[MikeMeech]

Could the K14 Gyro gunsight be added to the list. Was it a game changer or too late in the war to make a difference?

Hi
The K-14 was the USAAF version of the British Mk II GGS sight, the USN version was Mk 18, these being produced under licence in the USA. The first Mk II GGS production sight was on 30 November 1943 and quantity production commenced in February 1944. Source is 'British Aircraft Armament Volume 2' by R Wallace Clarke, which also has a couple of reports on the British sight by USAAF pilots:

Mike