Bf 110 "myths"

[uvwpvW]

There were still more daylight Zerstörer aces than fighter aces from most other countries.




http://www.luftwaffe.cz/zerstorer.html

[Scherf]

Originally posted by Knegel
the Tempest and Mossi roll was bad in comparison to F4U, P47, P38, FW190, P40, SpitIXc and even Bf109(at highspeed it was more even).

You have Mossie roll rate data?

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Tony,

Well, the later versions of the P-47 had 50% more power than any German single-engined fighter

That's not even true for shaft power, and the German fighters exploited exhaust thrust while the P-47 didn't so that in terms of actually available power they compared even better than the rated power data suggests.

Well OK, having done some digging However, the P-47D started with 2,300 hp and went on to 2,500+hp, and when it came out in 1943 the most common German fighter was the Bf 109G series with a basic 1,475 hp (some models had a short-term MW boost of up to 1,800 hp, although I gather this became less common from 1944).

The problem with relying on a wingman for protection is that it cut the offensive capability of the unit by 50%, since half of the planes wouldn't be concentrating on attacking, but on watching the back of the other half.

A rear gunner will never be able to replace a wingman, so that's not a valid point even if you'd accept the 50% offensive capability as fact (which I don't).

The problem with relying on a wingman is that he not only had to guard his leader's back, he had to guard his own as well, otherwise he might just as well not be there. So with such divided attention, I can't see wingmen contributing anything to the attack in aerial combat, unless their leaders became detached or were shot down.

The misleading aspect ehre is the old saying "Most fighter pilots who were shot down ..." There is no evidence that this is anything more than a stern reminder not to neglect to watch one's six. If you take it as a literal truth, then the idea of a rear gunner might begin to make some sense, but as the fate of the rear-gunner equipped Me 110 demonstrates, reality is more complex than that.[/B]

I agree that the percentage of fighter pilots who were taken by surprise is the key issue, but how do you know that the common statement (that most of them were) is misleading? Do you have any data on this?

The Bf 110 is not a good example, because it wasn't really competitive in combat with single-engined fighters. If your plane is outclassed, then your rear gunner's main duty is probably to warn you when to get ready to bale out . I recall that some Bf 110 units got so discouraged that when faced with RAF fighter attacks they formed defensive circles and relied on their rear gunners - not a good idea, since the attacking fighters had far more firepower and accuracy.

IIRC the early users of the Bristol Fighter in WW1 made the same mistake of relying on their rear gunners and suffered badly, until they realised that they needed to fly and fight the plane exactly as if it were a single-seater, with rear gunner being a useful pair of eyes and 'sting in the tail'.  After that, it became very successful.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Knegel]

Originally posted by Scherf
You have Mossie roll rate data?

Hi,

here you can D/L a Mossie test, including some roll datas.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/

Greetings, Knegel

[HoHun]

Hi Tony,

>Well OK, having done some digging However, the P-47D started with 2,300 hp and went on to 2,500+hp, and when it came out in 1943 the most common German fighter was the Bf 109G series with a basic 1,475 hp ...

A P-47D-25RE had 2535 HP for about 6600 kg take-off weight. That gave a power-to-mass ratio of 0.38 HP/kg. A Me 109G-6/R6 with underwing gondolae had 1475 HP for 3350 kg, or a power-to-mass ratio of 0.44 HP/kg.

And that's just the rated power at sea level - the DB605A additionally yielded exhaust thrust worth two or three hundred extra horse power at top speed.

>some models had a short-term MW boost of up to 1,800 hp, although I gather this became less common from 1944

Quite the opposite - higher outputs became more common as the war progressed. The second single-engine fighter of the Luftwaffe, the Fw 190A, had about 1800 HP in 1943 and increased that power, too. The Fw 190D actually exceeded the 2000 HP mark and (just as any non-turbocharged fighter) added considerable extra thrust to that.

>So with such divided attention, I can't see wingmen contributing anything to the attack in aerial combat, unless their leaders became detached or were shot down.

Hm, I suggest lecture of Shaw's "Fighter Combat", especially on "loose deuce" and "double attack" tactics :-)

>I agree that the percentage of fighter pilots who were taken by surprise is the key issue, but how do you know that the common statement (that most of them were) is misleading? Do you have any data on this?

As far as I know there is no data on this, and this is the reason I consider our statement that usually comes with a 80% to 90% percentage claim nonsensical. Even a brief look at the available combat reports should be enough to convince anyone that in a full-scale war, the lion's share of the fighting occurred between formations of fighters that were well aware of each other. In the few instances when a formation was taken by suprise by an enemy formation, that's usually noted in the squadron's annals as "black day", with losses exceeding the average percentage by far. However, these  black days were few and far between.

>I recall that some Bf 110 units got so discouraged that when faced with RAF fighter attacks they formed defensive circles and relied on their rear gunners - not a good idea, since the attacking fighters had far more firepower and accuracy.

Actually, the key in a defensive circle is that you use your forward firing guns to protect the guy in front of you. Defensive circles were also used by Allied fighter bombers in North Africe though they didn't have any rear firing guns at all.

>IIRC the early users of the Bristol Fighter in WW1 made the same mistake of relying on their rear gunners and suffered badly, until they realised that they needed to fly and fight the plane exactly as if it were a single-seater, with rear gunner being a useful pair of eyes and 'sting in the tail'.  After that, it became very successful.

Well, it might well have been even more successful had it been designed as a single-seater from the outset. For a 1200 kg fighter, the elimination of 150 kg of rear gunner and equipment makes a huge difference. Maybe we have just found the most overlooked missed opportunity in WW1 aviation ;-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Angus]

From HoHun:
"Well OK, having done some digging  However, the P-47D started with 2,300 hp and went on to 2,500+hp, and when it came out in 1943 the most common German fighter was the Bf 109G series with a basic 1,475 hp ...

A P-47D-25RE had 2535 HP for about 6600 kg take-off weight. That gave a power-to-mass ratio of 0.38 HP/kg. A Me 109G-6/R6 with underwing gondolae had 1475 HP for 3350 kg, or a power-to-mass ratio of 0.44 HP/kg."

That doesn't quite rule top load, nor is the top speed nessecarily different in the 109's/190's favour. Tony's point as I understand it, is that the Jug's massive power and structure would have made it an interesting platform for a rear gunner.
I don't think that the comparison with the Bristol Fighter is that valid though. WW2 and a P47 pulls G's like mad, has more than 3 times top speed in level flight, and importantly all fighters need just a short burst for a kill if they hit right.
Tony, you will also know this better than me, so let me know if I'm wrong,- The synchronyzed forward firing machine guns of a WWI fighters had lower ROF than the guns the gunner had, - same as the top gun of the Se5a right? On top of that, the normal armament would be 2 guns forwards, 1 rearward. So, if you want to match this in a WW2 fighter, you'd have to have some real firepower backwards, - something like 6x50 cal or so.
(You can calculate this better than me, but imagine the front firepower of a 190 x 50%).
I find the other way as HoHun described it more interesting, - what would a "light" Bristol have been like. And a Speedy 110? How would the Mossies performance have been with some guns facing backwards?
Then finally this from HoHun:
"Actually, the key in a defensive circle is that you use your forward firing guns to protect the guy in front of you. Defensive circles were also used by Allied fighter bombers in North Africe though they didn't have any rear firing guns at all."

I'll have a peek into this, but I definately never saw this case promoted that way. And Tony was definately referring to the BoB or??

[Scherf]

Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,

here you can D/L a Mossie test, including some roll datas.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/

Greetings, Knegel

Thanks, I have that.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Angus
Tony's point as I understand it, is that the Jug's massive power and structure would have made it an interesting platform for a rear gunner.

The 348th Fighter Group arrived in Australia on June 30th 1943 with their P-47D-2-RE Jugs. They eventually ferried the big Jugs up to Eagle Farm. Just as in Britain, the Thunderbolt made an immediate impression upon the ground personnel not familiar with the masive fighter. As the big Jugs taxied in to their revetments, they immediately drew a crowd of Australians. After the Thunderbolts had all shut down, pilots climbed down from the cockpit and stretched out after the long flight. One wiseguy Aussie ground crewman couldn't resist asking.... "So tell me Yank, where is the rest of the crew?"

By the way, before Seversky became Republic, they did produce two-seater fighters. Some were purchased by Sweden, but only two were actually delivered due to the U.S. embargo. Here's an example of  the Seversky 2PA series.



My regards,

Widewing

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Angus
I don't think that the comparison with the Bristol Fighter is that valid though. WW2 and a P47 pulls G's like mad, has more than 3 times top speed in level flight, and importantly all fighters need just a short burst for a kill if they hit right.
Tony, you will also know this better than me, so let me know if I'm wrong,- The synchronyzed forward firing machine guns of a WWI fighters had lower ROF than the guns the gunner had, - same as the top gun of the Se5a right? On top of that, the normal armament would be 2 guns forwards, 1 rearward. So, if you want to match this in a WW2 fighter, you'd have to have some real firepower backwards, - something like 6x50 cal or so.
(You can calculate this better than me, but imagine the front firepower of a 190 x 50%).

You are correct, although the advantage still lay with the attacker in WW1 because the engine provided substantial protection for the pilot.

However, my point all along has been that the main benefit of someone in the rear seat is to act as a pair of eyes, alerting the pilot to exactly what was going on behind. The gun would be an optional extra, and little more than a 'scare gun'.

Then finally this from HoHun:
"Actually, the key in a defensive circle is that you use your forward firing guns to protect the guy in front of you. Defensive circles were also used by Allied fighter bombers in North Africe though they didn't have any rear firing guns at all."

I'll have a peek into this, but I definately never saw this case promoted that way. And Tony was definately referring to the BoB or??

Yes indeed.

The problem with relying on front guns is that they can only fire straiight ahead, so can do nothing about attackers coming in from a higher altitude - to meet that threat with front guns they would have to steer the plane out and upwards, thereby breaking the circle.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[HoHun]

Hi Tony,

>The problem with relying on front guns is that they can only fire straiight ahead, so can do nothing about attackers coming in from a higher altitude - to meet that threat with front guns they would have to steer the plane out and upwards, thereby breaking the circle.

Defensive circles merely deploy a formation in a way that makes a successful defense possible. They are not a defense by themselves. Flying a predictable path means setting yourself up to get shot down, and the single flexible RCMG is not going to win the duel against a battery of eight of them, or possibly against cannon.

Committing a formation to a defensive circle means yielding the tactical initiative and thus the tactical advantage to the enemy, and if you get the chance to bring your forward firepower to bear by breaking the circle, you should better do it as you're not going to get better than even odds from a defensive circle anyhow.

An additional pair of eyes can be an asset - however, the wingman already provided that additional pair of eyes and much more. For good-weather air superiority fighters, a second crewmember has always been seen as not worth the extra weight, except during a short period when his eyes were needed in the cockpit to operate the complicated radar.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Angus]

And then...the mirror

[Debonair]

a rear gun that has a full hemisphere of coverage might be usefull, but i played RB3D.
i know how to beat a brisfit...was the 2PA involved in the peru-ecqador border skirmishes in 1941-42?
2PA in AH!!!!1l|uno!:noid

[Knegel]

Hi,

the tailgunner almost only have a similar chance to hit the attacker when he  get attacked strait from behind.
Its much more difficult to find the right lead when the own gun is moving sideward(attacker attack with an angle). Even if the attacker have the same armament, he is in a clear advantage, cause he always show his smalest silhouette, have a more big silhouette as target(while attacks with an angle) and his plane fly into shooting direction, what make the estimation of the needed aimpoint far more easy than from the gunnerposition.
So i would consider a tailgunner as advantage when the plane is tough enough to force the attacker to attack with a more flat attacking course, what give the gunner better odds, like it was with the IL-2, or when the planes did fly in big formations (B17 etc).
But in a plane like the 110  i cant understand this, it only cost weight, its not only the weight of the gunner + gun, its the seat, the plating for him and the whole structure could be more light. On the other hand the 110 never would have been such a successfull nightfighter, if it dont would have had its structural reserves.
 
Greetings, Knegel

[gripen]

Generally the turret with adequate firepower was pretty much unproven concept during WWII. Adequate firepower would have been something like 2x20mm cannon. BTW pretty much all subsonic heavy bombers built after war feature a powered tail turret with cannons and advanced fire control system.

gripen

[Angus]

Ponder on this.
A 110 without the gunner might have been as fast or even faster than a Spit during the BoB. It was already faster than the Hurricane.
Would have made one heck of a nuicanse raider with much more range than a 109.
But really, somehow the word is that it really couldn't afford to mix it with the British fighters. Look at the fate of the 110's that came from Luftflotte 5 for instance. Well, they flew into a hornet's nest.