- Thread starter
- #1,781
You got your head around all that turn rate vs. wing span stuff yet?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
You got your head around all that turn rate vs. wing span stuff yet?
- Thread starter
- #1,782
Several RAF pilots - for example Billy Drake- reported intentionally screwing up some tests so they wouldn't get assigned to bombers but to fighters instead. I don't know if this continued during the Battle of Britain or not, I'm just referring to what I have heard in interviews and read in memoirs. More than one mentioned it.
The Battle was withdrawn from the front line before the Battle of Britain started which is about as early in the war as the term "early in the war" can get.
You are displaying confirmation bias, you believe a fighter pilot to be superior to a bomber pilot, they are just different skills but equally demanding. When I get on a 747 I don't want the pilot saying "I know sod all about this lil sucker but I do aerobatics in a P-51 on weekends"
- Thread starter
- #1,785
You are assuming that I'm taking any position at all on bomber pilot vs. fighter pilot. I'm reporting the data, which is that some fighter pilots claimed they had to botch scores of some kind so they wouldn't get sent to fly bombers. I'd also say if true, it means that probably a lot of very good pilots died flying some of those early bombers in 1940-1942.
Further confirmation bias, you consider a good pilot to be one flying fighters and those not good to be flying something else.
- Thread starter
- #1,787
Lol... are you Trolling me? I would say you are displaying your own confirmation bias here as well as poor reading comprehension. RAF pilots said that the RAF administration was placing the pilots who did best in tests into bomber squadrons. Some of these same RAF pilots themselves preferred to fly fighters so they manipulated things so that they could.
I myself did not make a value judgement on bomber pilot vs. fighter pilot in any of that. I was reporting what the pilots themselves said.
If you think I did, you should try re-reading it and assess your own confirmation bias.
Well many pilots had an idea of what they would like to do, is that proof of that being what they were best suited to do? I have read an anecdote of a fighter pilot transferred out of the BoB as a fighter pilot and survived the war as a perfectly good bomber pilot. I can look it up if you like but I may have to read Bungays "The Most Dangerous Enemy" again.
- Thread starter
- #1,789
l looked up June 14 and 15, the two days mentioned in that Ju 88 article, in MAW II. They are covered in pages 220 through 230. These were both busy days with a lot of activity, but it looks like a P-40, specifically a Kittyhawk I of 250 Sqn, was indeed lost on the 15th and a Ju 88 did make one claim which might correspond to it.
The combat seems to be related to "Operation Vigorous", part of a complex series of convoys and interdiction operations ultimately meant to resupply Malta but partly failed. Actions on the 14th and 15th occurred as Royal Navy ships passed through an area South of Sicily called 'bomb alley' by aircrews and sailors.
June 14
Kittyhawks from 260 sqn and Hurricanes from 238 sqn intercepted a raid by Luftwaffe bombers escorted by Bf 109s from JG 53. They lost two Kittyhawk Is and two Hurricane IICs (these are not mentioned in Shores summary though Shores says here Plt Of Jenkins and Oran of 238 sqn bailed out), while Ace James Edwards of 260 sqn appears to have hit and wounded one of the JG 53 pilots, but the stukas they were escorting were forced to turn back and did not bomb the convoy.
Then Tomahawks from 5 sqn SAAF took over the escort just as the convoy was attacked again by Stukas escorted by Bf 109F-4s of I.JG 27 and III./JG 53. Both sides made claims with 1 Tomahawk shot down and 1 force landed (these aren't listed in the summary either), while three Bf 109s from Stab III./ 7./ and 8./ JG 53 were shot down as were at least one Stuka from III./StG 3. The stukas attacked and hit one freighter, setting it on fire.
Then the convoy moved out of range of the P-40s and Beaufighters (from 272 and 252 sqns) and a single Hudson (from 459 sqn) had to take over protective cover duties, still in range of Bf 109s of JG 27 and JG 53. Another German air raid came and the Bf 109s shot down at least three Beaufighters and the Hudson with all crews kia. One Bf 109 was FTR. Shores says one of the Beaufighters may have been hit by a Ju 88C, but it may have been flak.
There were several more fights as both sides looked for survivors and continued to duel around the convoy. As night set Beaufighters engaged Ju 88s. At the end of the day the following Allied losses were reported:
2 x Kittyhawk I
2 x Hurricanes (not listed in Shores summary)
2 x Tomahawk (not listed in Shores summary, one crashed and one force-landed)
5 x Beaufighter two say "Shot down by Ju 88C"
1 x Wellington MiA
1 x Hudson IV shot down
1 x Liberator II crash landed
Axis losses were:
3 x Bf 109 shot down (all three say "lost to P-40")
3 x Ju 87 shot down (one "Lost to P40" two by AAA)
3 x Ju 88 shot down or crash landed (one crash landed at base, one ditched at sea)
June 15
The next day the Beaufighters clashed with JG 53 for the most part as a squadron of Beauforts went out looking for an Italian surface fleet. One Beaufort hit the Italian Battleship "Trento" setting it on fire. Then SM 79s, Cant 1007 and Cant 506 made several raids on the convoy, some being intercepted by Kittyhawk Is of 250 sqn and some by Beaufighters. Shores mentions a dogfight between a Hudson and two Ju 88s at wavetop level, the Hudson pilot claiming they damaged one and set it on fire, but it isn't in Shores claims list.
RAF lost 14 aircraft:
7 x Beauforts,
1 x Wellington,
1 x Baltimore
4 x Beaufighters
- plus one Kittyawk I which the report says was downed by flak.
The Axis lost 13 aircraft:
1 x Bf 109F-4 Trop from JG 27
1 x Ju 87 ('to ships AA')
1 x Ju 88 'shot down in combat'
1 x SM 79
3 x Cant Z. 506
1 x RS 14
5 x Ro. 43 float planes.
The Kittyhawk I pilot of 250 sqn was listed as a Sgt Hannaford who survived the encounter.
Most of the Axis claims were by Bf 109Fs of JG 53, plus two from JG 27, and two from the Ju 88 equipped night fighter group NJG 2. One of those was for a Maryland (probably the Baltimore) and one was for "t/c a/c" whatever that means. Could have been the P-40.
Shores notes mentions that the Beaufort pilots were "green" and hadn't been trained how to do torpedo runs.
I couldn't find any mention in Shores voluminous text for this day about Hannaford getting shot down. It says 250 sqn got engaged with some SM 79s around 1950 hours, claiming two. Sgt, later Lt Hannaford went on later in the war to earn a DFC while flying for 450 sqn RAAF
Distinguished Flying Cross : Flight Lieutenant H R Hannaford, 450 Squadron, RAAF
The citation mentions being "shot down by anti-aircraft fire during a strafing run over Sidi Resegh in Libya" on 16 June but nothing on the 15th. Presumably that was the same incident though and he was just rescued the next morning.
The combat seems to be related to "Operation Vigorous", part of a complex series of convoys and interdiction operations ultimately meant to resupply Malta but partly failed. Actions on the 14th and 15th occurred as Royal Navy ships passed through an area South of Sicily called 'bomb alley' by aircrews and sailors.
June 14
Kittyhawks from 260 sqn and Hurricanes from 238 sqn intercepted a raid by Luftwaffe bombers escorted by Bf 109s from JG 53. They lost two Kittyhawk Is and two Hurricane IICs (these are not mentioned in Shores summary though Shores says here Plt Of Jenkins and Oran of 238 sqn bailed out), while Ace James Edwards of 260 sqn appears to have hit and wounded one of the JG 53 pilots, but the stukas they were escorting were forced to turn back and did not bomb the convoy.
Then Tomahawks from 5 sqn SAAF took over the escort just as the convoy was attacked again by Stukas escorted by Bf 109F-4s of I.JG 27 and III./JG 53. Both sides made claims with 1 Tomahawk shot down and 1 force landed (these aren't listed in the summary either), while three Bf 109s from Stab III./ 7./ and 8./ JG 53 were shot down as were at least one Stuka from III./StG 3. The stukas attacked and hit one freighter, setting it on fire.
Then the convoy moved out of range of the P-40s and Beaufighters (from 272 and 252 sqns) and a single Hudson (from 459 sqn) had to take over protective cover duties, still in range of Bf 109s of JG 27 and JG 53. Another German air raid came and the Bf 109s shot down at least three Beaufighters and the Hudson with all crews kia. One Bf 109 was FTR. Shores says one of the Beaufighters may have been hit by a Ju 88C, but it may have been flak.
There were several more fights as both sides looked for survivors and continued to duel around the convoy. As night set Beaufighters engaged Ju 88s. At the end of the day the following Allied losses were reported:
2 x Kittyhawk I
2 x Hurricanes (not listed in Shores summary)
2 x Tomahawk (not listed in Shores summary, one crashed and one force-landed)
5 x Beaufighter two say "Shot down by Ju 88C"
1 x Wellington MiA
1 x Hudson IV shot down
1 x Liberator II crash landed
Axis losses were:
3 x Bf 109 shot down (all three say "lost to P-40")
3 x Ju 87 shot down (one "Lost to P40" two by AAA)
3 x Ju 88 shot down or crash landed (one crash landed at base, one ditched at sea)
June 15
The next day the Beaufighters clashed with JG 53 for the most part as a squadron of Beauforts went out looking for an Italian surface fleet. One Beaufort hit the Italian Battleship "Trento" setting it on fire. Then SM 79s, Cant 1007 and Cant 506 made several raids on the convoy, some being intercepted by Kittyhawk Is of 250 sqn and some by Beaufighters. Shores mentions a dogfight between a Hudson and two Ju 88s at wavetop level, the Hudson pilot claiming they damaged one and set it on fire, but it isn't in Shores claims list.
RAF lost 14 aircraft:
7 x Beauforts,
1 x Wellington,
1 x Baltimore
4 x Beaufighters
- plus one Kittyawk I which the report says was downed by flak.
The Axis lost 13 aircraft:
1 x Bf 109F-4 Trop from JG 27
1 x Ju 87 ('to ships AA')
1 x Ju 88 'shot down in combat'
1 x SM 79
3 x Cant Z. 506
1 x RS 14
5 x Ro. 43 float planes.
The Kittyhawk I pilot of 250 sqn was listed as a Sgt Hannaford who survived the encounter.
Most of the Axis claims were by Bf 109Fs of JG 53, plus two from JG 27, and two from the Ju 88 equipped night fighter group NJG 2. One of those was for a Maryland (probably the Baltimore) and one was for "t/c a/c" whatever that means. Could have been the P-40.
Shores notes mentions that the Beaufort pilots were "green" and hadn't been trained how to do torpedo runs.
I couldn't find any mention in Shores voluminous text for this day about Hannaford getting shot down. It says 250 sqn got engaged with some SM 79s around 1950 hours, claiming two. Sgt, later Lt Hannaford went on later in the war to earn a DFC while flying for 450 sqn RAAF
Distinguished Flying Cross : Flight Lieutenant H R Hannaford, 450 Squadron, RAAF
The citation mentions being "shot down by anti-aircraft fire during a strafing run over Sidi Resegh in Libya" on 16 June but nothing on the 15th. Presumably that was the same incident though and he was just rescued the next morning.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,790
I have the utmost respect for just about any military pilot, especially in WW2.
Why the qualification "just about" what is your criteria for respect and what are your qualifications to set that that criteria?
- Thread starter
- #1,792
My qualifications are as greater deity of all pilots and all aircraft everywhere, from my perch on mount Cerberus high atop the underworld.
I rented a room from a guy who had a big farm house in Germany. Otto was in the equivalent of the RAF regiment, a LW soldier he served throughout the war and saw the 262 used in service do you respect him? Your respect seems to be very arbitrary.
- Thread starter
- #1,794
I grew up with this, but a recent trip to the AWM revealed it was an Oscar....
Australian War Memorial: CAC Wirraway – The Unlikely "Zero Killer"
I am asking you to clarify what you are saying, you seem to be deflecting.
- Thread starter
- #1,797
No, I have looked back through and actually you havnt.
Kevin J
Banned
Out of 5. Bomber command was reluctant to release any as invasion was imminent.
Do you guys realize how silly this all sounds to the rest of us?
Cheers,
Wes
- Status
