Author Topic: High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe  (Read 5056 times)

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #75 on: April 22, 2007, 10:34:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Well, it looks like the maximum spread was around 2200 feet, not hardly the 1000 meters you claimed.


For that Group - but 2200ft is greater then just a 1000ft. I gave a range of altitudes

Quote
1000 meters (actually 1000 to 3000)


The part is parenthesis was meant as feet - 1000m = 3281ft

WW claimed:

Quote
. Typically, a box was staggered no more than 1,000 feet from high to low.


Which is not correct

Quote
Looks like the lowest flight was at 23000 or above.


23000ft was the lowest section of that group. I said the US bombers flew in large streams sometimes 100s of miles and staggered their direction and altitude over the target:





Quote
Um, even B-17Gs flew as low as 17,000 feet. In the book about the 303rd, Osprey's "303rd Bombardment Group" crew records said that several times the low squadrons would be between 17,000 and 18,000 feet. It was primarily due to weather, but nonetheless it happened.


I have that book as well and you are correct. However, my point wasn't that no bomber flew higher then XXX feet. What I said was the LW wasn't dogfighting at 30k + feet.

Jordi - during the planning of the Ruhr Campaign - posted logs showing the average height of raids into the Ruhr around 17-19k ft. Some as low as 9000ft by the USAAF. Based on this they enforced an ALT CAP of around 25k ft for the bombers and 27k for the fighters (IIRC) in this scenario.

In Big Week the altitude CAP was higher 27k ft for bombers and 30k for the fighters. Even then we didn't have 'high altitude dogfighting'. You get a high altitude fight if all the combatants involved stay at high altitude. Folks come in high but fights fell low fast right in the altitude ranges that better suited the LW.

If all bomber formations in the CT run at 30k ft then that's not representative of history. I imagine you will see something along the lines of staggered formations - some more heavily escorted then others offering a wider range of targets.

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #76 on: April 23, 2007, 12:46:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
Which is incorrect.


It's not incorrect. I just examined every bomber box formation used by the 8th AF. From highest to lowest, the vertical range goes from 700 feet to 1,390 feet.

Since you have Freeman's book, have a look at pages 40 through 44. There are illustrations showing standard box formations used throughout the war. Please point out one that shows 1,000 meters spanning high to low. Read pages 37 through 44 for details.

What is incorrect is 1,000 meters (which is clearly incorrect as the USAAF didn't use the metric system).

As to the argument that the 8th flew much lower is a strawman, it's using the exception to the rule to indicate that the standard altitude was not at or near 25,000 feet. One can always find special missions that flew lower, but these were the exception, not the rule.

For the record, I never said bombers would be flying at 30k. I stated that the some escorts will be found at 30k and that the Luftwaffe will have to climb that high to attack effectively. See pages 68 and 69 for details on fighter formations while escorting bombers.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #77 on: April 23, 2007, 01:13:05 AM »




Considering the fact that the B-17 is 74-75 feet long it seems like the vertical separation of these formations are far greater than 1000 feet.

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #78 on: April 23, 2007, 05:10:40 AM »
P47N in European theater? Was it widely used and how many where there?

-C+

PS. "...er...are you thinking of testing the A8...?" :lol
I don't think anyone is interested in A8. There were people that were interested but they have "gone" away.
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Hazzer

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 290
      • Fleetwood town F.C. Cod Army
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #79 on: April 23, 2007, 08:24:37 AM »
I read somewhere that the p38 perfomed badly at High Altitude due to problems with the Radiators and spark plugs,these problems weren't solved until the J model,by which time the P51 was King...:(
"I murmured that I had no Shoes,till I met a man that had no Feet."

Offline Fulmar

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3936
      • Aces High Movie Database
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #80 on: April 23, 2007, 08:44:02 AM »
I read somewhere that the internet is the best place to argue.  Things can heat up between history buffs!  No pun intended.
In game callsign: not currently flying
Flying off and on since Warbirds
Aces High Movies available at www.derstuhl.net/ahmd2 - no longer aceshighmovies.com - not updated either

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #81 on: April 23, 2007, 10:17:50 AM »
Quote
It's not incorrect. I just examined every bomber box formation used by the 8th AF. From highest to lowest, the vertical range goes from 700 feet to 1,390 feet.


You just re-posted Toads post that shows as much as 2200ft separation. As I said go the Library or buy book detailing the accounts of pilots who actually attacked USAAF bombers and tell them they are 'wrong'.

Quote
For the record, I never said bombers would be flying at 30k. I stated that the some escorts will be found at 30k and that the Luftwaffe will have to climb that high to attack effectively. See pages 68 and 69 for details on fighter formations while escorting bombers.


The Luftwaffe didn't need to climb that high. They picked sections of the bomber stream that were less protected by escorts. See my quote above.

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #82 on: April 23, 2007, 10:38:16 AM »
Cowboys and Indians by Jeff Ethell posted by Neil Page

Neil Page did the English Translation for JG 300. A Chronicle of a Jagdgeschwader in the Battle for Germany. Volume 1: June 1943 to September 1944 by Jean-Yves Lorant and Richard Guyat

I am sure WW know who Jeff Ethell is.

The article is a decent read. Some things to look for:

'As far as the eye could see stretched wing after wing of...'

'Buried deep in the stream'

Dahl's radio request:

'Have the enemy in sight in northerly direction over Trier - 6500m (21325ft) - the Pulks are without escort cover. Shall I attack?'

'Nosing up after running through the low box..'

Anyway, for those who don't want to pick up a book the Ethell article is representative of almost all Sturm pilot accounts.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2007, 10:40:52 AM by Bruno »

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #83 on: April 23, 2007, 11:35:23 AM »
Different formations used at various times










Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #84 on: April 23, 2007, 12:08:23 PM »
Thanks but I have those and posted them before for the Big Week scenario to encourage better formation flying by allied bombers.

Diagrams are hardly definitive of application. Maintaining spacing within a formation was difficult and there would be variation across a stream. Some were better at in then others. You can see this logs WW cross posted from Toad.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #85 on: April 23, 2007, 12:22:00 PM »
What makes you think I posted them for you ONLY Bruno? :rolleyes:

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #86 on: April 23, 2007, 12:26:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MiloMorai
What makes you think I posted them for you ONLY Bruno? :rolleyes:


What makes you think my reply on an open forum was just for you..?

I was making it aware that these diagrams aren't new to me for those who may read this thread.


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6134
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #87 on: April 23, 2007, 12:49:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Hazzer
I read somewhere that the p38 perfomed badly at High Altitude due to problems with the Radiators and spark plugs,these problems weren't solved until the J model,by which time the P51 was King...:(



The only problem with the radiators was the pilots didn't operate the radiator doors correctly. Fail to operate the cowl flaps or radiator doors on any plane and you'll have engine problems.

Once Lockheed an Allison personnel were dispatched, and diagnoses the problems as primarily caused by pilots not reading the manual, or worse, ignoring it, often at the suggestion of command staff or line mechanics, many, or actually most, of the problems were quickly solved.

The problem wasn't really the spark plugs, but rather the lead in the British fuel. Actually, the lead was not mixed well and came out of suspension. When Doolittle got Shell to get some decent fuel to the 8th, the detonation, burnt valves, and fouled plugs were for the most part a thing of the past.

As an aside, the P-51 suffered severe teething issues, with cracked heads dumping coolant, causing the engines to seize, among other problems, and including the same problem with fouled plugs due to the lead, only to a somewhat greater degree. And a P-51 with a dead engine doesn't fly at all.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #88 on: April 23, 2007, 01:34:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
What makes you think my reply on an open forum was just for you..?

I was making it aware that these diagrams aren't new to me for those who may read this thread.


Quote
Thanks but I have those and posted them before
:)

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
High Altitude woes for the Luftwaffe
« Reply #89 on: April 23, 2007, 05:46:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
Thanks for proving my point...

They sure staggered more the 1000ft high to low -

Didja bother to read it?


Yeah, I did read it, but apparently you didn't.

Note Group A, Group B, and Group C....

The altitude difference is between GROUPS, not SQUADRONS of a Group.

The box formation was for each Group. The spacing is for the individual squadrons of that Group.

Groups were assigned differing altitudes, but the bombers of each box were spaced as I described and as Milo has shown (same graphics are in Freeman's book).

I see that you are working overtime to wiggle out of this, but there's no wiggle room here.

My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.