Some thoughts on "combat effectiveness/performance" factors that are often hidden. (3 Viewers)

[Mfezi]

And this funny quote I can't resist:

Reports and memoranda no. 2361 September 1940: "Our aircrafts turned inside the Me-109 without difficulty when flown by determined pilots who were not afraid to pull their aircraft round hard in tight turns. In a surprising large number of cases, however, the Me-109 succeeded in keeping on the tail of the Spitfire or Hurricane during these turning tests, merely because our pilots would not tighten up the turn sufficiently from fear of stalling and spinning."

You do realize that this comment explicitly points out that the results were determined by the pilots' ability to utilize the potential of their aircraft, not what the actual capabilities of those aircraft were? He actually states that the Spitfire could out-turn the 109 without difficulty if flown properly. How on Earth do you think this statement helps your argument?

By the way, did he really write "aircrafts" as the plural of "aircraft", or are you paraphrasing?

 

[SaparotRob]

All I have to say is that if you're resorting to insult in order to support your point, your point probably is not worth supporting.

I haven't been able to support a point in years. I'm old.

 

[BiffF15]

WrathofAtlantis,

You should listen to these guys, they aren't BS'ing you.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Mfezi]

The pdf below mentions the differences in notation/remark for some of the different agencies involved in the testing and publication of different materiel in the UK during and after WWII to at least 1951. It also gives reference to the equivalent terminology for the US. I suggest you read the entire "Notes On Definitions Of And Nomenclature For Airspeeds".

Thank you, Thomas. That report of yours is a great find. I'm glad to see it confirms my interpretation of the speed values given in the other report that I commented on previously. What is really great about this document is that it clearly describes some of the British WW2 and immediate post-war definitions that have changed slightly over the years. My aerospace engineering education was in the USA, but I have worked in several parts of the world and most places seem to consistently use IAS -> CAS -> EAS -> TAS in that conversion order (or the reverse when you do calibration work).

Thanks again for finding and posting it!

 

[Greg Boeser]

From Aces against Germany, Eric Hammel, 1995
Jerry Collingsworth, 307th FS, 31st FG.

The Focke-Wulf proceeded to the deck from 500 or 600 feet, and I went after him... I had a little altitude on the German and I was gaining on him. The German got nervous and racked that Focke-Wulf into a tight left turn. Friend, I thought, you ain't about to out-turn this Spitfire. I knew he couldn't. I cut inside of him and fired... I don't know if I hit him or not, but he snapped over on his back... And then I saw him hit the ground and explode.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Oh. Wait. Circles.
Aces against Germany,
THE LUFBERY,
2nd Lt. Frank Klibbe, 61st FS, 56th FG
22 Feb 1944

We were at approximately 8000' and climbing into a tight Lufbery.

Klibbe was flying a P-47D-15 RE, his opponent, a Fw 190A, probably a -5 or -6.

The Lufbery circle, in its simplest form, is nothing more than two or more aircraft in trail, flying at or near a vertical bank in a series of tight circular turns. When employing the Lufbery circle - usually as a defensive* measure against an attacking aircraft - it is essential that the defending pilot maintain a constant tight circular path to prevent an opponent from gaining sufficient lead to bring his guns to bear. The success or failure of this maneuver is primarily dependent on two factors: the maneuverability of the fighter aircraft itself and the precise skill and technique employed by a pilot to produce the maximum response of the aircraft.

* emphasis mine

The P-47D and Fw 190A are fairly evenly matched performance-wise at 9000 ft / 3000 m. Specifically: hp/wt, and wing loading.
Klibbe describes how he turned circles for over six minutes before he realized that he had converted what had started as a tail chase to secure a position 180 degrees around the circle. After another six minutes with neither gaining an edge they broke off and headed for home.

A few things struck me in Klibbe's narrative. Early in the fight, he describes how the German tried to shorten his turn radius with a climbing/diving turn. This is a key to explain how Klibbe was eventually able to convert to a neutral position. The loss of energy in the climb probably slowed the Fw just enough that Klibbe was able to make incremental gains over the next several minutes. Klibbe also describes how he saw other USAAF fighters passing by, but they did not see his plight. Had someone spotted him, the fight would have ended very quickly. He also describes riding the edge of a stall, which means he was pushing his mount to its limits. A less confident or skilled pilot might not pull so hard, or might overdo it, lose control and be easy meat for his pursuer.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Another factor that often gets lost when people become overly focussed on the technical capabilities of one aircraft vs another is the tactical situation. An escorting fighter has fewer options than a fighter on a "frei Jagd". One critique of the German "Experten" in North Africa was they shot down a lot of planes, but relatively few bombers.

 

[Holtzauge]

Yes, and yet another factor is tactics: Being an engineer, I tend to focus on the aircraft's performance because that's what I'm interested in.

And performance is of course important: After all, if two pilots of equal skill meet, which pilot would not want to fly in the better aircraft, however skilled he may be?

But in many cases tactics and pilot skill will of course win the day over performance:

Modern flight simulators have gotten so good that you can actually learn quite a bit from them. While not perfect, their so-called flight models are still often good enough.

One of them is the WW1 flight simulator Flying Circus, which is a part of the IL-2 Sturmovik series.

And so-called multiplayers who fly on-line against each other, gradually learn what works and what doesn't. After all, as opposed to real life, you have an infinite number of "lives" to learn from your mistakes.

In addition, with hundreds, if not thousands of on-line "flight hours" they are masters at deflection shooting, and land hits from angles and distances that would have baffled real WW1 pilots.

And often they post their exploits on YouTube, and just to take an example, I've seen videos where a couple of Albatros D.Vs take on a single Sopwith Camel. And by starting off with an altitude advantage, and by taking coordinated turns in attacking, force the poor blighter in the Camel to squirm, and in the end nail him irrespective of how well he flies. And it works every time.

Now this they then do with an aircraft that on paper has nothing over the Camel: It's got a lower top speed, worse climb, can't turn as well and can't dive as fast either.

So as long a you outnumber your enemy at the time and place you attack, use proper tactics, and only attack from an advantage, you can win even if your plane on paper is crap.

However, that will not stop me from comparing performance: Because after all, history is full of examples where there were only two pilots who were locked in combat with each other. And in those cases, an Albatros D.V is meat on the table for a Sopwith Camel.

 

[Greg Boeser]

One thing a flight simulator can't do is give the virtual warrior the effects of g on his body or the controls.

 

[bada]

One thing a flight simulator can't do is give the virtual warrior the effects of g on his body or the controls.

That's the reason you see "unnatural" combats in sims, that has been lightly toned down with the implementation of kind of " pilot fatigue" in il-2, but still, most players execute +3g maneuvres in continu. Some old ww2 russian pilot saw the air-quakes in the early 2000's on il-2FB and he said something like that:" i see you're turning with more than 3G for a long time now, in real life you would be exhausted after 3min of such maneuvres and just able to keep the plane straight"

 

[wrathofatlantis]

Oh, you are one of those. I have read dozens of pilot's memoirs, letters, and after combat accounts of air combats from the MTO and Spitfire pilots (as well as Hurricane and Kittyhawk pilots) always noted that they could easily out-turn any Bf 109 let alone the Fw 190. I can quote some if you like



Clostermann is the outlier on that one, as I noted already .

So that everyone can appreciate the magnitude of calling Clostermann an "outlier", in saying the FW-190A turned better at low speeds, and only at low speeds (where it mattered), here are a few of his fellow "outliers", starting with 3 quotes about turning as a whole, just to establish am overall context about the importance of low-speed turning, particularly late in the War (note that the Merlin P-51 is basically a 1944 and later type):

Item minus 2: (Just to establish priorities as seen by an ace P-51 pilot): P-51 ace pilot Joe H. Joiner (5 kills):

"Who can out-turn the other will win the air battle."

That's right Joe. Tell 'em…

Item minus 1: (A brief Me-109 vs Spitfire interlude): This is from a chapter in Ishoven's Messerschmitt Bf 109 at War. The chapter titled "Fighting the Spitfire" is authored by Erwin Leykauf: "For us the more experienced pilots, real maneuvering only started when the slots were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you a Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and could always outturn them."

696 feet, really? This by the way, is very close to what the A6M2 Zero was said to do.

Item 0: Clayton Gross, P-51 ace: "I had a ten-minutes turning battle with a Me-109. Hard to say if I was a little better than him, or the machine was a little better, but I slowly gained over about 70 to a hundred circles." (If ten-twelve minutes probably more like 25-30 circles)

Just se we are clear about what WWII combat actually typically looked like in 1944 (compared to video games): Circles...

Maybe typical was not thirty circles, but you can imagine how common was 2-5.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Item 1 (FW-190-related, finally): James Goodson 15 kill P-51 ace;
"If you tried to turn at low level with the FW-190A, you were dead."

Item 2: Osprey "Long Reach" P. 125 (Lt. Col. E. W. Stewart, 355th FG): "The P-51 will out-turn the Me-109-- Greater difficulty is encountered in out-turning the Fw-190."

Item 3 -James E. Reed 33 rd FG (P-40F, Casablanca): "Regarding performance against the Me-109 and FW-190. The 190 was tough to out-turn. I could out-turn the 109, but it was hard to do. I, at times, had to drop a few degrees of flaps and slow down to out-turn it. On one mission dropping the flaps was not enough so I had to drop my landing gear to slow down enough to out-turn the Me-109 and get away from his fire. I think dropping the flaps and landing gear probably saved my life. I never had a one-on-one with the FW-190 so am not sure what I could do with it. I understand that it was harder to get away from than the Me-109."

While not a personal account, this is even better: According to him, general knowledge was that the FW-190A turned better than the Me-109G…

Clostermann an outlier? An outlier to what exactly?

Item 4: -Audio from the past [E16], Pierre Clostermann (18 kills, 10 FW-190 kills, RAF mission record holder at 432): "So there are legends on the Spitfire... Aaaah the legends… Legends are hard to kill. One of those legends is that the Spitfire turned better than the Messerschmitt 109, or the FW-190. Well that is a good joke... In fact all those who found themselves with a 109 or a FW turning inside them, at low speeds, well those in general did not come back to complain about the legend... Why? Above 280 to 300 knots, the Spitfire turned better than the Me-109. But, first and foremost, in a turning battle, the speed goes down and down and down and down, and at one point there comes a time, when the speed has gone down below 200 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire."


Don't you find that for a tactic that is supposedly useless and outdated, these 1943-44 pilots talk a lot about turning?


Item 5: A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet" describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943 (One year of front line observations):

"-They [Me-109 and FW-190] interact in the following manner:

Me-109G will usually perform dive and climb attacks using superior airspeed after their dive. FW-190 will commit to the fight.

-A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin.

-Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed.

-In fighting the FW-190, our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver."

--------------------------------------------------------------

That's ONE YEAR of observations, and is like five items in one, from thousands of sources over one year. Outlier? Out-lier?

Item 6: "Le Fana de l'Aviation" #496, p. 40 (Spitfires in VVS use): "In the initial days the Spitfire failed in horizontal fighting, but was particularly adapted to vertical fighting."

Item 7: Osprey "Duels" #39 (La-7 vs FW-190), p. 69: "FW-190 pilots never fight on the vertical plane."

Item 8: P. 63, Vladimir Orekhov: "An experienced FW-190 pilot practically never fights on the vertical plane."

So much for Eric Brown... Hey, now there's an outlier....

Item 9: A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet", (an extra item): "The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight."

Item 10: -RCAF John Weir interview for Veterans Affairs: "The Hurricane was more maneuverable than the Spit. But the Focke-Wulf could turn the same as we could, and they kept on catching up, you know."

Item 11: -Johnny Johnson (top Spitfire ace, 36 kills) "My duel with the Focke-Wulf"; (low altitude, nearly on the deck)"With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire [V] in the tightest of vertical turns [period slang for vertical bank]. I could not see him, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns(!) he would have me in his sights. I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but he hung behind me like a leech. It could only be a question of time."

Item 12: --Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2): "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away. Not so these 190 pilots: We lost 8 (Spitfire Vs) to their one that day."

Yep, Clostermann is an outlier… "Legends are hard to kill."

 

[SaparotRob]

So Focke-Wulf pilots had a plane better than the Bf-109 and Allied pilots had to adjust with what they had at the time?

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Another factor that often gets lost when people become overly focussed on the technical capabilities of one aircraft vs another is the tactical situation. An escorting fighter has fewer options than a fighter on a "frei Jagd". One critique of the German "Experten" in North Africa was they shot down a lot of planes, but relatively few bombers.

In interviews some of these 'Experten' explained that this was quite intentional, because engaging with escorts in sustained combat was 'without prospects' as one of them put it. Not to mention the risks of defensive gunners, particularly from the American medium and heavy bombers. It was much safer to pick off high cover and climb away, though this door eventually also closed due to changing tactics.

They felt similarly about escorting their own bombers.

As a result there was a lot of tension between Luftwaffe and Afrika Korps, which Rommel did not seem to be able to do anything about, and a lot within the Luftwaffe between the bomber and fighter units.

 

[Dimlee]

Item 5: A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet" describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943 (One year of front line observations):

I just read (again) this article, and I failed to understand what the author ot the post is trying to prove.
FW 190 could not compete with La-5 in a prolonged vertical fight? FW 190 pilots could go into a turn fight instead of trying to climb, once the speed dropped? FW 190 pilots prefer to go vertical at high speeds? Yes, yes and yes.
Does it prove a theory about the turn fight at low speed as the best choice for a FW 190 pilot on the Eastern Front or elsewhere? I didn't see the proof, sorry.

 

[Greg Boeser]

I just read (again) this article, and I failed to understand what the author ot the post is trying to prove.
FW 190 could not compete with La-5 in a prolonged vertical fight? FW 190 pilots could go into a turn fight instead of trying to climb, once the speed dropped? FW 190 pilots prefer to go vertical at high speeds? Yes, yes and yes.
Does it prove a theory about the turn fight at low speed as the best choice for a FW 190 pilot on the Eastern Front or elsewhere? I didn't see the proof, sorry.

The article highlights the Fw's limitations based on it's weight. Unable to sustain climbs, once its initial speed degrades, it can only engage in horizontal turning, except it can dive away to regain some speed. The comment the Atlanean highlights as proof of the Fw's superiority merely points out that the Fw is not prone to spin.
This is a comparison to the La-5.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Now look at #11, November 5, 1942,
comparing a captured Fw 190 to the Spitfire IX and the P-38F.
The tests concluded that the Fw and Spitfire were roughly comparable up to 20,000 ft, with the Fw superior in maneuverability except in turn radius.
Against the P-38, the Fw was considered superior below 20,000 ft, inferior above.
The P-38 was considered better at low speed turns.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Now look at #11, November 5, 1942,
comparing a captured Fw 190 to the Spitfire IX and the P-38F.
The tests concluded that the Fw and Spitfire were roughly comparable up to 20,000 ft, with the Fw superior in maneuverability except in turn radius.
Against the P-38, the Fw was considered superior below 20,000 ft, inferior above.
The P-38 was considered better at low speed turns.

Damn... in 1942? Interesting. I guess P-38F already has combat flaps...

 

[Greg Boeser]

Damn... in 1942? Interesting. I guess P-38F already has combat flaps...

My sources say combat flaps available after August 1942.

 

[ThomasP]

FWIW

In my notes I have:

Maneuver flaps entered production on the P-38F-15.

I do not know when this model began rolling of the production line.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

121 P-38F-15 accepted August to October 1942, British order absorbed in USAAF

The problem is P-38G began acceptances in June 1942, did the G have the flaps from the start?

42-12667/12686 F-5A-1, accepted June 1942
42-12687/12766 P-38G-1, accepted June to August 1942
42-12767/12786 F-5A-3, accepted August 1942
42-12787/12798 P-38G-3, accepted August 1942
42-12799/12866 P-38G-5, accepted August/September 1942
42-12867/12869 P-38J-1, accepted September 1942
42-12870/12966 P-38G-10, accepted September to November 1942
42-12967/12986 F-5A-10, accepted November 1942
42-12987/13066 P-38G-10 accepted November/December 1942
42-13067/13126 F-5A-10 accepted December 1942/January 1943

wrathofatlantis = Gaston = Gen. Tlavok and probably other names.

Posting for many years now their idea of WWII air combat, it is about low speed turning, cutting throttles etc. It is about the idea the fighters that history says fought in the horizontal fought in the vertical and vice versa. There are a long line of quotes used to prove this and impressive sounding aerodynamic reasons given, except the people that actually know aerodynamics keep pulling the claims apart. Such trifling problems are ignored and more quotes are posted, factual errors are also ignored and so on. Expect lots of this before starting again.