Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: tikky on May 16, 2006, 10:45:39 PM
-
Bf 110 performed very poorly in Battle of Britain, it was slow, unmanuverable, and helpless against Hurricanes and Spitfires
110 was no slouch, it was faster than hurricane and spits at low alts. 110 was good enough in manuvarability because of wing slats.
Prior the infamous "Goering's orders", the 110s were free to roam around and get at higher altitudes. When LW bomber losses started to go high goering ordered fighters (including 110s) stay close to bombers and never leave them. This means 110s are forced to cruise along with the bombers and leaves them unprepared against the higher spits and hurricanes. I think what made 110 a faliure in BoB is they were not allowed to roam around and this killed the 110s in BoB.
-
I've seen a couple charts that indicate the Bf-110C4 actually had a smaller turn radius than the Bf-109E4. The E4 had a higher turn rate though.
-
I can see the whole BoB bing re argued for the 10,000th time, and if it is, I wont be in it :)
...Despite that, and trying to stay clear of rabid-fan based ravings from both camps, there is a measure of truth to the claim that the Bf 110s reputation was unduly tarnished in the BoB, imho.
A few things 1st though, for starters, the BoB Bf 110 was almost entirely the Bf 110C-3, not the Bf 110C-4/b which we have in AH, and has the more powerfull DB601N engines. So, its a slower, and less capabale version than you see in AH. Just to make that clear.
It was certainly not in the same manueverbility class as a single engined fighter, ala Spitfire and Hurricane, or Dewotine, or P-40B, or Yak-1, wing slats or no. It did have good firepower (2 x 20mm MGFF and 4 x 7.9s)and range, but its climb, speed and agility was not stellar when compared to other types.
As far as "Goerings Order", I think too much is made of that since the first 2 of the 3 stages of the BoB (Kanalkampf and Adlertag) were not tainted by that. The close escort directive was issued in the final phase of the battle, the air assault on London, and was derived from the over generous estimates that the LW gave to their bomber crews on the state of the RAFs fighter defenses, resulting in the bomber crews complaining about the level of interceptions they received (in relation to what they were led to expect), prompting Goering to eventually, and unfairly, chide the Jagdwaffe about not doing a better job, and then interfering himself.
There were only two countries in 1940 that had what we could consider an "integrated air defense system", with radar to back it up, and those two countries were Germany and Britain. The Polish and French campaigns saw the LW operate against countries with no such system, and in the case of Poland, an obsolete air force. Vs Britain, they had the problem of a country that could play defense much better, with radar, a decent aircraft industry to back it up losses, and more modern types of fighters to deploy.
Fighter sweeps were ignored where at all possible by the RAF, and this was made possible by the use of radar. They did not have to resort to standing patrols to protect air space, this is the key. Without radar, fighter sweeps would be much harder to ignore (you end up in a fight by the time you know its there), and their time in the air is drastically cut down. This is one reason the 110s did better over France and Poland than Britain.
...so, back to the Bf 110. It had the same problem other LW combat types had over Britain, it flew blind, with no friendly radar to guide it, while the RAF could see the bigger picture, and focus on intercepting bomber raids it felt was worth the trouble, and trying to avoid the rest. It had greater range, but it was still operating over hostile territory, and it still had to protect the bombers they were tasked to escort.
The real litmus test for the Bf 110 though, imho, is the fact that veteran LW fighter leaders, like Osterkamp and Molders, did not request that it take over escort and sweep duties from the 109, if in fact it was as good a fighter, then its longer range made it an obvious choice to take the brunt of fighter ops over Britain, since the biggest problem for the 109 was lack of range, but that was never seriously considered, because its limitations as a fighter had been experienced by September 1940. Even if you want to lay the blame on Goering, the fact remains the LW considered the 110 as the 2nd best fighter they had, not the equal to the 109, and I guess they would be the ones to know.
In summary, its shortcomings can be traced to the difficulty of the campaign, as well as its performance drawbacks. In other words, it gets a mixed review. Was it a POS? no, was it as good as a 109 or a Spit/Hurricane as a straight fighter? clearly not. The truth lies in the middle, as most truths do. I will say it is a measure of the 110 that it served untill wars end in various capacities, and served on all fronts, so it obviously had its uses.
I posted a lot longer than I intended, oh well. ;)
-
A good thing is germany sended its elite pilots in this thing over england.
:aok
-
I have ofter wondered about the defensive armament on Bf110 and Ju87. A single mg is not much of a threat to an attacking fighter unless the planes are stacked tightly and with concentrated fire. Some (<-note!) of the bad experiences of LW probably was due to too scattered defensive fire and too much confidence in defensive armament.
A defensive gun, IMO, needs to be at least .50 to be of use against an attacking fighter. The later 110 model had MG81Z, IIRC, which combined two high ROF (2x1100) mgs but the hitting power was probably not too good even then. Of course the tailgunner was handy for dive bombers and JABOs because he observed the rear quarter and warned the pilot of any threats.
Reading Rudel's book I noticed that he practically never relied on his tail gunner to fend of the enemy if he had the possibility to maneuver. That may be the reason why enemy fighters never shot him down.
That leads me to think that many german a/c with TG could have saved some valuable dead weight by simply deleting the rear seat and defensive armament altogether and providing better rear view for the pilot. :p
-C+
"A good thing is germany sended its elite pilots in this thing over england."
What a bright comment again, Bug. Almost unintelligible and nothing to do with the topic. :aok
-
Wasn't the 110 "twin engined fighter" eventually given a fighter escort it performed so poorly?
As for higher alts, what alts do you think the BoB took place in?
-
The LW sent 110's as escorts over the North sea didn't they?
-
ja, it would take at least two dozen 37mm shells to down rudel, he was teh pwnage
roflmaoomfglol
-
Originally posted by Squire
The real litmus test for the Bf 110 though, imho, is the fact that veteran LW fighter leaders, like Osterkamp and Molders, did not request that it take over escort and sweep duties from the 109, if in fact it was as good a fighter, then its longer range made it an obvious choice to take the brunt of fighter ops over Britain, since the biggest problem for the 109 was lack of range, but that was never seriously considered, because its limitations as a fighter had been experienced by September 1940. Even if you want to lay the blame on Goering, the fact remains the LW considered the 110 as the 2nd best fighter they had, not the equal to the 109, and I guess they would be the ones to know.
This is a great point.
- oldman
-
Yes charge but the thruth is the speziale piloten where only allowed by the LW in their overated plane.
And that's not meant about their acm skills but more flight hours and better navigational skills.
So u intelli mensa im not talkin about the 109 or 111 yep about the 110
Ur so intelligent u had to push ur C+ there
im impressed
-
Originally posted by Charge
That leads me to think that many german a/c with TG could have saved some valuable dead weight by simply deleting the rear seat and defensive armament altogether and providing better rear view for the pilot.
OTOH, I have read that the majority of planes shot down in WW2 never saw the plane which attacked them - they were bounced from behind. This particularly applied to fighters. So you could argue that in the really big fighters - like the P-47 - they might have done better with a rear 'spotter' behind the pilot, possibly armed with a flexibly-mounted .50. The added weight would be a very small fraction of the weight of a P-47, and the pilot would be able to focus on his job instead of forever looking behind him.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
"The added weight would be a very small fraction of the weight of a P-47, and the pilot would be able to focus on his job instead of forever looking behind him."
Well, yeah, but the rear guy also needs a seat and usually some armour, ammo, added oxygen capacity etc. So the weight would build up of many things than just pilot with his gun and ammo. it could also mean that the a/c structure could become weaker because of addititonal opening towards rear of the a/c, and the more light the gun mouont the more the fire would scatter.
What I was thinkin was the Mosquito concept against the ME410 concept, although their use was much different. I wonder how much faster or maneuverable the ME410 would have been without weight of the rear firing guns and "Otto" with his equipment.
"Yes charge but the thruth is the speziale piloten where only allowed by the LW in their overated plane."
I thought "the best of LW" flew bombers? AFAIK the division at the beginning of the training was "fighters or bombers", not "single engine or multi engine" ?
"ja, it would take at least two dozen 37mm shells to down rudel, he was teh pwnage roflmaoomfglol"
One.
-C+
-
Well there was this reason for the teamwork wasn't it!
-
Oh, again about the 110.
Is there any reason why a 110C rolls better than a 109E????
-
Much more efficient to have a wing man and some squadron discipline. I don't think there were any 2 seat fighters during the war that could hold there own against the better 1 seat opposition fielded by the opponent. It certainly never worked for the Royal Navy even when their A/C got big engines.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Tony Williams
OTOH, I have read that the majority of planes shot down in WW2 never saw the plane which attacked them - they were bounced from behind. This particularly applied to fighters. So you could argue that in the really big fighters - like the P-47 - they might have done better with a rear 'spotter' behind the pilot, possibly armed with a flexibly-mounted .50. The added weight would be a very small fraction of the weight of a P-47, and the pilot would be able to focus on his job instead of forever looking behind him.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
Much more efficient to have a wing man and some squadron discipline.
Oh? What about the 109 that came up behind an entire flight of hurricanes, shot down 2-3, moving from one to the other to the other, before the remaining 1-2 dove away (not without taking a few rounds themselves)?
Wingmen didn't help much, most of the time, if the enemy was behind you.
-
Were those 2 vic's?
Same happened to a flight of 109's in the BoB BTW.
The finger four formation was basically cleverly designed to deal with that, with the 2-ship unit being the smallest.
-
That's called bad situational awareness. If pilots aren't going to do their job it's a pointless exercise.
And remember, the English didn't get their squadron tactics worked out until the middle of BoB. They were still doing silly things like flights of 3.
Ask yourself what that 109 could have done against a squadron of Fairy Battles. Actually you don't have to ask, they were decimated over France...
-Blogs
Originally posted by Krusty
Oh? What about the 109 that came up behind an entire flight of hurricanes, shot down 2-3, moving from one to the other to the other, before the remaining 1-2 dove away (not without taking a few rounds themselves)?
Wingmen didn't help much, most of the time, if the enemy was behind you.
-
110s had a few tricks they could pull, and all things being equal, they could hold their own. They could revers surprisingly quickly in a stall-turn, and were pretty effective if they worked together and covered each other- and took advantage of their attributes without giving in to their faults.
In some of the LW histories that cover the whole airforce (not just the Jagdwaffe), you see many cases of pilots of twin engine aircraft becoming overconfident and attacking superior forces, flying like they were in a single-engined fighter.
I think I remember reading in one of Mike Spicks books about a Staffel of 110s trying to dogfight a Group of Hawk 75s early in 1940 and getting thoroughly trounced, but that may just be a legend. But there was a definite tendancy among the pilots of all airforces early in the war (europeans in 1939-41, Americans in 1941-42) to engage in WWI style dogfights when their aircraft was in no way capable of that kind of maneuverability.
-
Hi Tikky,
>110 was no slouch, it was faster than hurricane and spits at low alts. 110 was good enough in manuvarability because of wing slats.
Hm, I don't think that's accurate.
It certainly was slower than the Spitfire, and maybe about as fast as the Hurricane (for which I haven't seen accurate figures yet).
I don't think there is anything to indicate that it was more manoeuvrable than any of the single-engined fighters.
A while back, I prepared an analysis of the Me 110C performance:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me110Cspeed2.gif
The background: During the Battle of Britain, there were only DB601A-1 engined Me 110 aircraft around. They had been scheduled for conversion to the new DB601N, but due to the surprisingly good performance of the Spitfire, the Luftwaffe decided to give the DB601N to the Me 109 instead, converting one Gruppe of JG26 to the DB601N. This is reported in Petrick/Mankau's Zerstörer book.
The DB601A-1 came in two flavours, with the early-type supercharger and the late-type supercharger with increased full throttle height. By the time of the Battle of Britain, the late-type supercharger seems to have been prevalent, though the early-type supercharger had still been in use during the Battle of France. The exact proportions aren't known. (Another flavour of the DB601A was the Aa with increased low-altitude power, but it seems they were not used in the Me 110.)
According to Mankau/Petrick, only a handful of Bf 110C-4/B were built under that designation before the series was redesignated C-7. The C-4/B with DB601N apparently played no role in the Battle of Britain.
The grey line in my graph is indicative of the emergency power speed of the Me 110C with DB601A-1 with late-type supercharger. Note the two series of data points from a British report on the type. I guess it's this report that has given rise to the myth that the Bf 110C was a dedicated high-altitude aircraft as it reports a top speed of almost 550 km/h @ 7 km. However, this is certainly an error as it is far above (in the literal sense :-) of the known capacities of the engine. It is still above the capacities of the more powerful DB601N, though not by as much - but the British did not test a DB601N-engined aircraft.
What's more, they made two different test flights, and they recorded figures that were much less impressive on their second flight - figures that do indeed match my calculation that is based on the German Kennblatt for the type rather well. It's quite obvious that the British simply made a mistake somewhere during their tests, coming out with an exaggerated top speed. The funny thing is that they noticed that their results were rather unusual and added some hand-waving arguments to the report to justify their results anyway :-)
Realistically, the Bf 110C as used in the Battle of Britain should be expected to top out at about 530 km/h @ 5 km, which is quite a bit slower than both the Me 109E and the Spitfire. If someone has good Hurricane data, that would make for an interesting comparison, though I think history has proven that the Bf 110 was not up to the Hurricane during the Battle of Britain.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Tony,
>OTOH, I have read that the majority of planes shot down in WW2 never saw the plane which attacked them - they were bounced from behind.
I have read that, too, but when inquiring for the source of the data I never got a satisfactory answer :-)
In fact, in the past I have used the example of the Me 110 to demonstrate that the "never saw the attacker" claim is questionable.
>The added weight would be a very small fraction of the weight of a P-47, and the pilot would be able to focus on his job instead of forever looking behind him.
There were still arguments whether the back seater was worth his weight in the F-4 community, so I don't think the idea would have stood any chance in WW2.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Bug,
>A good thing is germany sended its elite pilots in this thing over england.
:aok
LOL! Always look at the bright side of life! ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The 110's were apparently somewhat prone for getting into flatspins/uncontrollable stalls. That might explain some things, - if pilots were afraid to push them to the limits for instance.
I have some text on this from Werner Mölder's brother.
(Actually I think he's still alive. He flew 109's 110's and then 109 in the BoB got shot down and captured)
Anyway can dig up a quote from him and the source if I'm lucky in my heap of stuff ;)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
There were still arguments whether the back seater was worth his weight in the F-4 community, so I don't think the idea would have stood any chance in WW2.
It worked well in WW1, though - the Bristol Fighter was highly regarded.
The Fulmar is not a good example - it was basically an adapted light bomber design, underpowered and with a far worse performance than single-seat fighters. In contrast the P-47 was a huge and very powerful plane, with lots of room in it (the joke at the time being that its pilots took evasive action by getting up and running round the cockpit).
Note that the loss rate of the early Il-2, while still high, improved markedly once the rear gunner was added, despite the bad effect this had on handling.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
But the IL-2 is an attack plane, not a fighter.
The better example is to look at Britain's late war 2 seat navy fighters. Even with nearly 2,000HP engines they were out classed.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Tony Williams
It worked well in WW1, though - the Bristol Fighter was highly regarded.
The Fulmar is not a good example - it was basically an adapted light bomber design, underpowered and with a far worse performance than single-seat fighters. In contrast the P-47 was a huge and very powerful plane, with lots of room in it (the joke at the time being that its pilots took evasive action by getting up and running round the cockpit).
Note that the loss rate of the early Il-2, while still high, improved markedly once the rear gunner was added, despite the bad effect this had on handling.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by joeblogs
The better example is to look at Britain's late war 2 seat navy fighters. Even with nearly 2,000HP engines they were out classed.
Actually, the Firefly wasn't that outclassed in terms of manoeuvrability - it seriously embarrassed USN fighters in mock dogfights when one visited the USA. However, its speed was too low for a fighter (although it made an effective strike plane).
That still isn't the point, anyway. A P-47 with a rear spotter/gunner, sitting with the back of his seat directly up agaist the pilot's, could have fitted into the same fuselage with only minor modification. The increase in weight would have been a very small proportion of the P-47's normal combat weight. So the performance and handling would have been only fractionally worse than the single-seat P-47. A reasonable trade for a second pair of eyes to watch your back, methinks.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
I am not sure the change would be innocuus.
True, you might be talking about a small percentage increase in total weight of the plane, but climb rate and maximum speed are functions of excess power, which all suffer from extra weight. These things follow a power rule so the performance decline would be noticeable. This would be a special concern for the climb rate, which was a weak spot for the P47 in ETO. The other weak spot was sustained turn rates, which depend on wing loading. There would also be an effect on range, which was critical for these planes in ETO.
Now add a gunner with his suit and parachute (roughly 200 lbs). Then add at least twin 30's or a single 50 plus ammunition. That is something like 300 lbs minimum. Does the gunner need armor? Well that's 50-100 lbs. So we are adding 500-1,000 lbs to the plane's grossweight, somewhere between 5-10 percent of the all up weight of the plane (I am making these numbers up in my head just to illustrate). I suspect even a 2 percent change in the weight of a plane would have noticeable effects.
So I think the effect on performance would be noticeable. It is true the plane would benefit from better situational awareness and it would be harder to shoot down. But it would also be less effective in attacking the other side's fighters, which was the primary mission of the plane.
Now if the idea is to convert the P47 into a dedicated ground attack plane, these tradeoffs seem more reasonable. Then again, the P47 dives away so fast it's not clear it needs a rear gunner for such attacks.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Tony Williams
...
That still isn't the point, anyway. A P-47 with a rear spotter/gunner, sitting with the back of his seat directly up agaist the pilot's, could have fitted into the same fuselage with only minor modification. The increase in weight would have been a very small proportion of the P-47's normal combat weight. So the performance and handling would have been only fractionally worse than the single-seat P-47. A reasonable trade for a second pair of eyes to watch your back, methinks.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
A p47 wih a rear gunner might have been interesting. But what concept. Can't see many positive sides apart from the "eyes".
The thing was tried out with the Bolton Paul Defiant remember. While the turret was quite effective for rear attacks, the created drag and increased weight was too much, so the aircraft had no chance against the the LW aircraft, be it 109's. 110's or even the bombers who were even faster.
So, the similar airframe and same engine of a Hurricane had a much better record.
Plonk a good solid rear defensive armament on an aircraft like the P47, and what do you get? A fighter that is the most clumsy single engined fighter in 1943+, and one of the slower ones as well.
The only interesting aspect I'd spot is solely ground attack, where the aircraft is low and slow and heavily loaded anyway. The power of a P47 with 2x .50's in the back would have made it a tough one, - faster and nastier than the Il-2.......
What-if's are always fun ;)
-
One idea might be rear firing barbettes, but without a second pilot they would have to be fixed.
-Blogs
Originally posted by Angus
A p47 wih a rear gunner might have been interesting. But what concept. Can't see many positive sides apart from the "eyes"....
What-if's are always fun ;)
-
I don't know much about the turrets but it seems that the best results were reached with powered turrets; namely the Defiant and the Avenger had quite succesful installations. But powered turrets were quite heavy and 4x7,7mm or 1x12,7mm sound quite weak against late war planes.
BTW Tony, did any powered turret with gyroscopic gunsight reach service during WWII?
gripen
-
Originally posted by Angus
A p47 wih a rear gunner might have been interesting. But what concept. Can't see many positive sides apart from the "eyes".
Well, that's the whole point of it!
The thing was tried out with the Bolton Paul Defiant remember. While the turret was quite effective for rear attacks, the created drag and increased weight was too much, so the aircraft had no chance against the the LW aircraft, be it 109's. 110's or even the bombers who were even faster.
The Defiant was an entirely different concept. It was a plane designed around the turret for the specific purpose of attacking (unescorted) bomber streams. The idea was that the Defiants would attack in close formation, with the pilots keeping the formation tight (for maximum concentration of fire) while the gunners got on with the job. Might have worked, too, if the Germans hadn't seized those French air bases which enabled them to send fighter escorts to cover their bombers.
Turrets were certainly much more effective than flexibly-mounted guns, but the weight penalty was too high for the purpose I have in mind. In fact, a gun isn't strictly necessary - the main point of the rear-seat man would be to keep watch and keep the pilot informed of exactly what was happening behind him. A gun would be an optional extra - maybe to frighten the enemy pilots a bit, or to make the rear-seat guy feel better! I don't see that the weight penalty would be as great as suggested - it would be more a matter of redistributing armour than adding lots more.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by gripen
BTW Tony, did any powered turret with gyroscopic gunsight reach service during WWII?
The British gyro gunsights (GGS) for both fighters (Mk IID) and bomber turrets (Mk IIC) were perfected in 1943 and went into production early in 1944. The US adopted the Mk IID as the Mk 18 (USN) and the K-14 (USAAF), but didn't use the turret version AFAIK. They had the Sperry computer gunsight instead, which used a different principle (no gyro).
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
"Oh? What about the 109 that came up behind an entire flight of hurricanes, shot down 2-3, moving from one to the other to the other, before the remaining 1-2 dove away (not without taking a few rounds themselves)?"
That was a result of poor formation techniques which some RAF squadrons quickly abandoned -and surprisingly some didn't for quite a while.
German pilots referred one of these less effective formations as "Idiotenreihe" which basically means "idiotline". Probably an unfortunate result of flight leader of a big formation flying too fast and the rest trying to keep up, add to that that the Brits used a rear guy whose job was to announce enemy attacks agaist the formation. That is if the poor bugger was not shot down first.
-C+
-
Yes, the "tail end Charlie" couldn't warn anyone if he got shot, now could he?
The Finger-Four was vastly better one-for-one, and when everybody turned into that tactic, successful jumps became much less common.
They still occured, but as pilots grew more and more experienced the Finger-Four proved very effective. Still used I belive.
I have quite much material about "bouncing", and here are some examples, by memory.
France 1941. Douglas Bader either gets shot down or collides whiles hacking down a formation of 109's who were cruising and not aware of his presence.
France, September 1941. FO T.E.Jonsson of SQN 111 RAF loses his own squadron, spots it again and forms up nicely. Ooops. They had black crosses, so he dives away. Two of them spotted him and went for the chase, he did not spot those, being alone. They caught him over the middle of the Channel (109F's vs a Spit V). After a long time of dogfighting his buddies came back and bounced the 109's. Would be ineresting to look up, I think it was the 13th of September.
Tunisia 1943. A flight of US P38's gets jumped by 109's. The 109's got jumped by a high cap of Spitfires. Some 109's got shot down, some ran the P38's carried on and never noticed anything.
(BTW, different radio Frequencies, so as in more cases, no contact between RAF and USSAF)
-
Hi Tony,
>It worked well in WW1, though - the Bristol Fighter was highly regarded.
The Bristol Fighter was somewhat of a freak due to its use of the powerful Rolls Royce Falcon engine which had around 50% more power than the German single-seaters, ending up with a similar power-to-weight ratio in spite of its heavy weight.
It doesn't make much sense to compare the WW1 situation to the WW2 situation anyway because in WW2, the fighters were equipped with radios and co-operative tactics had evolved that made it possible for fighters to cover each other in a way that had not been possible in WW1 (where the two-seaters never managed to replace the single-seaters either).
Each WW2 fighter already had a second set of eyes covering his back - his wingman's. A wingman was a much more powerful rear defense than a ride-along gunner could ever be.
Your suggestion would be fascinating simulator fodder, but I don't think Aces High is going to feature a rear-gunner on the P-47 anytime soon :-) However, if it would be possible to set up a scenario with rules that would make the players fly in a realistic manner (clinging to their virtual lives as if their real lives depended on it), it should be possible to evaluate the performance of the hypothetical "gunned" P-47 in a meaningful and most interesting way :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Tony,
>It worked well in WW1, though - the Bristol Fighter was highly regarded.
The Bristol Fighter was somewhat of a freak due to its use of the powerful Rolls Royce Falcon engine which had around 50% more power than the German single-seaters, ending up with a similar power-to-weight ratio in spite of its heavy weight.
Well, the later versions of the P-47 had 50% more power than any German single-engined fighter :cool:
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.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
The rear seat gunner on the 110 could have only been of doubtful utility in a hard-turning, high-g dogfight. In a 5-g turn, a 50 pound machine-gun suddenly weighs 250 pounds, and a 175 pound pilot suddenly finds himself flopping around fighting a massive increase of his own weight to 875 pounds.
Using only low-g maneuvers to allow the gunner to retain his mobility was a tactic fraught with peril for the 110.
-
Hi,
according to my understanding of the 110, its main drawback was its poor roll ratio and size regarding the visibility and as target.
The not that good climb isnt a handycap once you be high and fast(look to the Hurri, Spit, P40, FW190 and later P47).
The 110 did keep much inertia and iam pretty sure that a Spit1a or Hurri had problems to keep up while a shallow dive and a following upzoom( did read that even the Do17 and Ju88 was able to get away in a shallow dive).
Same like the Typhoon, Tempest and Mosquito, the 110 simply had a to poor rollratio to be a real fighter.
Sure, all this planes had a great firepower and a good speed, and of course it was possible to get kills while suprising attacks, but while a intercept, where planes roll around and turn same or more tight, pilots in this planes simply had problems to follow. Even without evading manouvers, by the target, the need a of a smal correction already got to be a real problem.
If the attacker have poor roll ratio, the target(most more slow and therefor often in its good manouver speed) only need a to bank a little bit, followed by a smooth turn to evade. On the other hand, if the poor rolling plane is under attack, it only can turn, but that waste energy like mad and the 110 was a nice big target.
Thats why the FW190, same like the P38, P51, P47 and P40 was pretty good, despite their obvious disadvantages. Who cant roll fast enough(specialy at higher speed) to adjust the attacking course, need to get down to the same speed like the enemy to get a clean shot(or the pilot need to be very good in estimating the right course), but thats suecide in a plane with a bad powerload. While sustained turns and climbs it simply lose to much, then it only can run, but it need time to get back into a advanced position, what isnt good for the own Bombers.
The 110 was a good escort plane, but to turnfight single engine fighters was suecide. The P38, P47 and also P51 pilots had same problems, but they switched to B&Z, then they was good fighters, specialy in the pacific, where they performed vs the (most)slow Japanese planes like a Me262 over europe.
Why they never did remove the tail gunner from the 110 i realy dont understand. They could have saved maybe 500kg(maybe more).
Greetings, Knegel
-
A hotted up lighter 110, interesting. Would have been quite fast, like in the times of the BoB.
But about the rollrate. Always thought the Tempest was good, and the mossie ok.
Our 110 rolles quite nicely I think, probably too well. It also turns quite well.
I don't see a logical reason for a big ship like the 110 rolling better than the 109E for instance, - same manufacturer and all, so maybe HTC has that wrong, or there just isn't much data around.
-
How would the 110 stack up against a Whirlwind?
The UBI Il-2 forum has info on the Whirlwind, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9561084534
-
Originally posted by Angus
A hotted up lighter 110, interesting. Would have been quite fast, like in the times of the BoB.
But about the rollrate. Always thought the Tempest was good, and the mossie ok.
Our 110 rolles quite nicely I think, probably too well. It also turns quite well.
I don't see a logical reason for a big ship like the 110 rolling better than the 109E for instance, - same manufacturer and all, so maybe HTC has that wrong, or there just isn't much data around.
Hi,
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).
According to what i did read they was on the Hurri level regarding the roll, in AH thats somewhat different, but even here a tempest have some problems to get a FW190, F4U or La7 down, when the enemy pilot know to use the rollratio.
500kg less weight dont make a fast plane, but it give a better acceleration with all its advantages.
I also cant believe that the 110 did roll so well. Long wings(high aspect ratio) dont help to roll fast, same like heavy engines should be bad for the initial roll.
The Wirlwind probably would have been a nice interceptor.
ONLY 23m², a wing aspectratio of 8,1(similar like the P38) , ONLY 4700kg T/O weight BUT around 1700HP and this in 1940/41.
I think it never got grip cause the brits disliked heavy wingloades and dont saw the advantage of the advanced speed, on the other hand i guess also this plane had a poor rollratio(what isnt that important for a extreme fast interceptor) .
I guess this plane in in 1940 in high numbers would have blown the Luftwaffe Bombers out of the sky before they would have been able to reach London. What a bad luck that the engines was crap.
How it would have performend vs the 110 depends much to the current 110 fuelload. The 900kg fuel of the 110 give a wide range of possibilitys.
I doubt the Wirlwind was a good dogfighter, at least the pilots didnt liked it(maybe cause they was used to turnfighters like Hurri, Spit, Gladi???), but so the 110 was.
I wonder how tough the wing was, it was very smal close to the fuselage, not a good sign for stiffness, but i dont found any real good sources regarding this plane.
Greetings, Knegel
-
The Whirlwind AFAIK was turned down because of engine problems/reliability. The performance etc was OK and it packed a punch.
On top of that, unlike in the case of the Manchester/Lancaster, it couldn't be adapted to the Merlin.
But the Tempest boggles me here. Always thought they solved the roll rate problems of the Tiffie when the Tempest was out. One frigging ship, the Tempest. Been looking for data on it like graphs and such, but haven't been lucky yet.
-
Luftflotte 5
-
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.
>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 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.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Angus
The Whirlwind AFAIK was turned down because of engine problems/reliability.
The first Whirlwind came off the production line in May 1940, the last in Jan 1942.
The engines could not be that problematic/unreliable as Whirlwinds flew mission to the Cherbourg Peninsula and even providing escort to missions to Cologne and Antwerp. They could even carried a 500lb bomb under each wing. Sqds 263 and 137 replaced their Whirlwinds with Typhoons, and their problimatic Sabres, in Nov/Dec 1943.
In one mission to the Cherbourg 4 Whirlwinds were intercepted by 20 Bf109s. They claimed 2 109s for 2 Whirlwinds damaged and a 3rd forced landed.
-
There were still more daylight Zerstörer aces than fighter aces from most other countries.
(http://www.luftwaffe.cz/images/brandis.jpg)
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/zerstorer.html
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
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
-
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)
-
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??
-
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.
-
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.
(http://aerofiles.com/sev-2pabx.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
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 (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
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)
-
And then...the mirror ;)
-
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 :noid :noid :mad: :mad:
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
"On the other hand the 110 never would have been such a successfull nightfighter, if it dont would have had its structural reserves."
Well, for what I have read the 110 served well at eastern front, whereas as a night fighter it was simply becoming too heavy and slow.
-C+
-
Originally posted by 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
Dont the bombers after the war got computed gun sights?? This of course make a big different.
Angus, less weight dont bring much more speed!! With removing of the gunner the drag would remain almost the same, but its climb would have improved and its turn performence, or all over the wing could have been smaler(like the P38). Imho the whole concept of the 110 as fighter was wrong. One pilot and a smaler wing would have given the plane the needed faster speed, then it would have been more fighter, like the P38, and the Wirlwind was.
Charge, as fighter the 110 only was realy successfull as nighfighter. Yes, it bacame slow, but in most cases this isnt that important at night. It was able to carry the needed radar, the navigator, a bunch of fat guns, strong engines and it still was manouverable and faster than the Bombers. It for sure wasnt the best german nightfighter, but it was successfull.
The 110 was a good fighter-bomber(Zerstörer) in the east, not a fighter.
Over Britain it simply had the handycap of the Radar, this brought the german planes in most cases into a tactical disadvantage, a less good manouverable but normal fast plane like the 110 suffer much by this fact.
Knegel
-
Would the Fw187 have been a better fighter for the long range escort role?
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Dont the bombers after the war got computed gun sights?? This of course make a big different.
There were gyroscopic sights and computing sights in use allready during war as Tony noted above.
gripen
-
Hi,
didnt read that there was computed gunsights for tailgunners or turrents in WWII(what is more complicated than for a static gun), with them(if they work good) tailgunners get much more sencefull, of course.
After i did read this i have no doubt that the FW187 was much btter as a fighter!
http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/fw187.htm
Greetings, Knegel
-
Knegel:
"Angus, less weight dont bring much more speed!! "
I know that. But a little more. More speed at cruise, more acceleration, more climb, better turn. Overall, more everything.
But with no rear gunner I bet you could have improved the canopy a bit
-
"After i did read this i have no doubt that the FW187 was much btter as a fighter!"
It doesn't look very much different from ME410 -except that it lacks the rear gunner. :D
-C+
-
If the flight models in AH are to be so accurate the BF-110 must have been no slouch. A couple times i've been flying, saw a 110, didn't think much of it and had the guy blow me to bits, meanwhile i'm thinking how'd that thing do that. It was climbing, accelerating, turning, doing everything nessessary,and then you have that cannon fire, whenever i see a 110 now i steer clear of it's nose. Still not sure how to approach them, their pretty easy to shoot down, but they can still surprise you.:)
-
Originally posted by Knegel
After i did read this i have no doubt that the FW187 was much btter as a fighter!
http://www.geocities.com/lastdingo/aviation/fw187.htm
Well, I did have Germany making the Fw 187 instead of the Bf 110 in my alt WW2 novel The Foresight War (http://www.authorsonline.co.uk/New/Synopsis.asp?eBookID=385) ;)
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by LEDPIG
If the flight models in AH are to be so accurate the BF-110 must have been no slouch. A couple times i've been flying, saw a 110, didn't think much of it and had the guy blow me to bits, meanwhile i'm thinking how'd that thing do that. It was climbing, accelerating, turning, doing everything nessessary,and then you have that cannon fire, whenever i see a 110 now i steer clear of it's nose. Still not sure how to approach them, their pretty easy to shoot down, but they can still surprise you.:)
it wasn't so much the plane hoss, :D
-
Originally posted by Charge
"After i did read this i have no doubt that the FW187 was much btter as a fighter!"
It doesn't look very much different from ME410 -except that it lacks the rear gunner. :D
-C+
There is a big different!!
The Focke Wulf was available in 1940, and the performence on the page is made with 2 x 675hp! This plane with 1675hp engines probably would outperform the 410 by easy.
Tony, your link lead me to nowhere, do i need to register somewhere to get where you wanted us to get??
Greetings,
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Tony, your link lead me to nowhere, do i need to register somewhere to get where you wanted us to get??
Sorry about that - the publishers are in the middle of transferring their website to a new system, and the link has temporarily gone down.
You can still access it on amazon.com or amazon.co.uk - links are on my website.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)