What plane (if any) could have made a difference for Germany in the Battle of Britain

Shortround6 said:

Why it didn't I don't know but here is one description:

Boeing B-17C Fortress

Click to expand...

Less than impressive

Juha said:

Hello Nikademus
IMHO the greatest handicap for FC was the clearly more backward tactic. Even if Rall and even Maimberg, who arrived in JG 2 in Dec 39, had been trained only to tight vic tactics at Fighter Schools, and in Maimberg's case the use of that tactic continued a while in the sqn but then arrived an officer with experience from Spanish Civil War who said, forget all your tactical training, and then began Rotte and Schwarm flying.

Click to expand...

It certainly helped the Jagdwaffe elite inflate their scores.

Quote:" Overall national training was eventually cut in half to 22 weeks total by mid 1940"

Can you say what that means in flying time? Because at least in theory one could get more flying time per week in summer (longer days and usually better weather) than during winter.

Click to expand...

44 weeks was quoted as being start to finish in terms of the total package from neophyte wannabe Fighter Boy to being actively posted in a squadron so this would encompass not only "flying hours" but classroom instruction and lecture covering quote "every aspect of aviation". Of these 44 weeks, 6 of them nominally would be in an OTU whereby the pilot would get actual flight hours in the aircraft he was to actually fly in combat. So in the "general" the war's fortunes coupled with the BoF losses and the current attrition level saw overall training halved right from the get go with OTU training (assuming one got any at all) being reduced by 2/3rd's from six weeks to two weeks or less.

On the specific vis-a-vis flying hours, A sample taken in 1988 of the many survivors who reported on their OTU training [per authors Hough Richards], was that the average time in the OTU was Eleven days, which usually translated into six to nine flight hours (sometimes less) in the air. There was very little gunnery practice and what there was might consist of firing once into a cloud. Many had no air to air gunnery practice or experience with the reflector gunsight.

Some squadron CO's would try to take their newbies up into the air at least once or twice before sending them on "real" missions. I can only imagine the stress this must have been like for both veteran and newbie.

claidemore said:

Hi Colin1,

You are probably right, but how do we measure it? What would make the B17 tougher than an He111?

It is approximately 1/3 bigger than a Heinkel and 1/3 heavier. Would that make it 1/3 harder to damage or destroy?

It's a bigger target, hence higher hit probability, does that offset heavier construction in a larger aircraft?

While 8 x .303 is probably not as effective as mulitple .50 mgs or 20mm cannons, it is not "ineffective". Didn't some FW200s succumb to .303 fire from Hurricanes?

edit: After a bit of research the first FW200 to be shot down was by a catapault launched Hurricane 1A from the CAM ship Maplin.

Click to expand...

Every plane has it's weak points. German bombers with armor and self sealers proved pretty durable. One point of vulnerability however was from astern. The engines were unprotected from that quarter (unless modified) making that the most profitable line of approach. Even if a plane isn't shot down, only shot full of holes....thats still going to result in downtime and possible wounding and killing of crew. Even in the absense of that....there's the fatigue factor for said crew after undergoing such an experience. Whatever bomber is chosen.....minimizing attack on the bomber formations is vital.

claidemore said:

You are probably right, but how do we measure it? What would make the B17 tougher than an He111?

It is approximately 1/3 bigger than a Heinkel and 1/3 heavier. Would that make it 1/3 harder to damage or destroy?

It's a bigger target, hence higher hit probability, does that offset heavier construction in a larger aircraft?

While 8 x .303 is probably not as effective as mulitple .50 mgs or 20mm cannons, it is not "ineffective". Didn't some FW200s succumb to .303 fire from Hurricanes?

edit: After a bit of research the first FW200 to be shot down was by a catapault launched Hurricane 1A from the CAM ship Maplin.

Click to expand...

Hi Claide
sorry, I missed your post
agree with the posts in response to yours

I think in the case of the B-17, size does count for something vs a Heinkel. The Warren truss construction could absorb considerable battle damage and demonstrated a significant advantage over the Davis wing of the B-24 in terms of battle damage absorption; translating size as volume, you have to knock out an awful lot of the B-17's wing to get it to fall.

You also have double the powerplant redundancy over the Heinkel coupled with the fact that they're radials vs the Heinkel's inlines.

I would say that whilst 8 x .303s are not ineffective, if the RAF had found themselves facing B-17s, the demise of the said battery would have come about much, much sooner. I maintain my point that it would take an awful lot of .303 to make a B-17 hurt, I would argue likely more than one fighter. Of course, you could get lucky and kill the guys in the office but that applies to any bomber.

The Fw200 was not, if I recall, the most robust of 4-engined aircraft, having been a design for civilian application that was pressed into military service. I don't know too much about the type other than that; armour, fuel cells, defensive armament but the BMW801s would be up to it.

Another point is that the RAF had a good idea of the aircraft types in the Luftwaffe inventory. If the Luftwaffe had large numbers of B-17 equivalents, then there is a high probability that the RAF would have begun outfitting fighters with larger calibre guns. For example, they might have decided to go with the Vickers or Browning .5" MG, and/or begun 20mm cannon development sooner.

Hello Nikademus
Quote:" 44 weeks was quoted as being start to finish in terms of the total package from neophyte wannabe Fighter Boy to being actively posted in a squadron so this would encompass not only "flying hours" but classroom instruction and lecture covering quote "every aspect of aviation""

Yes, I'm well aware of that, as shown for ex in my message #91, IIRC at least in some schools half of the pupils flew in mornings and had lectures in afternoons, for the other half it was other way around. But still in summer one tended to have more days suitable to flying than in winter, and there is clear difference in daylight, so at least in theory one could get more flight hours per month in summer than in winter.

On Hough Richards, I assume You mean their The Battle of Britain book, would you be so kind and inform me the pages on training? I have a copy of their Jubilee History edition, paperback Coronet Edition 1990, they used the results of that survivor survey few times, tried to look info on training from the book but couldn't find much and went then to look Bowyer's and Franks' books. I have always found the survey results interesting.

Even if experience in the actual type they would use in active service is very important one could learn lot by flying in Harvard or in Master or in obsolete fighter like He 51 or Ar 68 as Rall and Meimberg did, if the training incl useful tactics and for ex attack excercises.

Juha

Juha said:

Hello Nikademus

On Hough Richards, I assume You mean their The Battle of Britain book, would you be so kind and inform me the pages on training? I have a copy of their Jubilee History edition, paperback Coronet Edition 1990, they used the results of that survivor survey few times, tried to look info on training from the book but couldn't find much and went then to look Bowyer's and Franks' books. I have always found the survey results interesting.

Click to expand...

The bulk of the commentary i posted thus far was drawn from Patrick Bishop's "Fighter Boys". I cross referenced it today with Hough/Patrick [Battle of Britian] looking for more detailed info on "flight hours". Pages 199 - 200 discusses the pilot shortage, OTU and said 1988 sampling of surviviors on actual experiences within the OTU's

Interestingly, the latter book makes mention that the OTU's were only running at 2/3rds capacity as if said shortage did not exist. It echoes Bishop's comments regarding the negative impact of the loss of experienced vets prior to the battle.

Even if experience in the actual type they would use in active service is very important one could learn lot by flying in Harvard or in Master or in obsolete fighter like He 51 or Ar 68 as Rall and Meimberg did, if the training incl useful tactics and for ex attack excercises.

Juha

Click to expand...

It depends. Eric Bergerud made mention of the big gulf between flying a trainer and a modern high performance aircraft. Ultimately there's no substitute for getting behind the sports car upgraded from the moped. That problem bit the Japanese hard latewar as attested by their operational loss rate. As long as the pilot isn't rushed through....shouldn't be a problem. Rush through or skip entirely....there's a problem.

Hello Nikademus
thanks for the page numbers, same in my copy.
And yes the 2/3 is Park's opinion also mentioned Orange's Park biography.

Yes, real thing is always a real thing, but for ex Master, 715hp Kestrel or 870 hp Mercury, was much nearer 1075 hp fighter than 130 hp elementary trainer. One could throw it around sky very much like a real fighter. So it could be used in fighter tactics training, not sure was it used. Finns used their 420hp Pyry advanced trainer also in that kind of work.

Juha

Checked from Wing Leader J.E.J's case and yes, the important thing in his case was that when it became clear that it wasn't possible to give to him and to the two other new pilots that had arrived same time extra training in 19 Sqn, they were not sent to combat missions without that extra training but were transferred to 616 Sqn. It was clearly a Class "C" Sqn, see my messages #87 and #106, and the trio and other new pilots who arrived later got extra training there. In fact only an ½ hour after the trio had met the S/L J.E.J was sitting in the cockpit of a Spit ready to took off for an hour flight with the S/L after which the S/L gave to J.E.J lot of advices on combat flying and then began the training in earnest which incl. air to air gunnery training.

Juha

Even if the luftwaffe had flown a 4 engined bomber...the RAF would still have used the 303 as the main gun.

Just the way it is.

Flying a trainer is better than flying nothing.

And also saying the Germans had great tactics...

What about the tactic of wing welding with the bombers...same speed same altitiude...that weren't a great tactic...