Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Simba on November 01, 2009, 02:32:53 PM
-
Taken from the 109E thread: "you often have to take anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt."
You do indeed. When I was an Air Training Corps cadet back in the 1960s, I attended an air show and got into conversation with an old RAF pilot who'd flown Gladiators during the war. 'Last of the old twin-gun biplane fighters, young feller, and a lovely aeroplane to fly', said he. 'Really?', I replied, 'I thought the Gladiator had four guns?' 'Two guns, lad, I remember them well, their breeches were in the cockpit.' 'What about the one under each lower wing?' 'No, there were only two guns on the Gladiator', he insisted.
The Shuttleworth Trust's Gladiator taxied past and we both looked at it closely.
'Well, I'll be damned, you're right, youngster. And I've just realised why I always remembered them as having only two guns. Being a pilot and not an armourer, I never had to look at the bloody things!'
He was a great gentleman and one of the 'Few', so 'no names or pack-drill'. I learnt a lot from him that day - including the fact that the horse's mouth isn't always right.
:cool:
-
One thing that story also makes me think of is how much more we hobbyists obsess over the stats of each type of fighter and its sub-variants. I have never read of a WWII fighter pilot who had the detailed performance and armament data that we memorize. Most don't even seem to have been that interested in that kind of detail. After all, what does it matter what kind of 20mm guns the A6M has if you know how to deal with it in combat. Those guns will never get a shot at you, and if they do, knowing what kind they are doesn't change what they do.
-
yeah and its not like they could choose most of the equipment...
-
One thing that story also makes me think of is how much more we hobbyists obsess over the stats of each type of fighter and its sub-variants. I have never read of a WWII fighter pilot who had the detailed performance and armament data that we memorize. Most don't even seem to have been that interested in that kind of detail. After all, what does it matter what kind of 20mm guns the A6M has if you know how to deal with it in combat. Those guns will never get a shot at you, and if they do, knowing what kind they are doesn't change what they do.
Not so.. In fact all sides were quite obsessed. It was just disseminated a bit more differently. USAAC put out orientation videos and such, walking pilots through their aircraft capabilities, and those of their enemies.
Lufwaffe captured bombers, put out charts of the precise angles all of the gun positions could be pointed, and flew around various units to show their LW pilots first-hand the enemy planes.
It has always been about knowing your craft, knowing your enemy's craft, and how to win with what you have.
Even the Flying Tigers, early on in the war, knew the only way to defeat the enemy was to know what they could do, and couldn't do, and fight them on the AVG's terms, not vice versa.
I think they were just as obsessed (IMO more so), but simply didn't have all the wide access to info we have today. They showed their obsession in different ways. It kept them alive.
-
Straight out of the P-51 Flight Operating Instructions book:
The P-51D you are going to fly is a truly great airplane. Quoting an outstanding authority who recently made a comparative analysis of all the worlds aircraft: "In the single-seat fighter class the Mustang reigns supreme." He was talking about the B-series Mustang. The P-51D retains all...
:bolt: :airplane:
-
Not so.. In fact all sides were quite obsessed. It was just disseminated a bit more differently. USAAC put out orientation videos and such, walking pilots through their aircraft capabilities, and those of their enemies.
Lufwaffe captured bombers, put out charts of the precise angles all of the gun positions could be pointed, and flew around various units to show their LW pilots first-hand the enemy planes.
It has always been about knowing your craft, knowing your enemy's craft, and how to win with what you have.
Even the Flying Tigers, early on in the war, knew the only way to defeat the enemy was to know what they could do, and couldn't do, and fight them on the AVG's terms, not vice versa.
I think they were just as obsessed (IMO more so), but simply didn't have all the wide access to info we have today. They showed their obsession in different ways. It kept them alive.
If I could post the old roll eyes I would. You are being absurd and clueless.
-
Not so.. In fact all sides were quite obsessed. It was just disseminated a bit more differently. USAAC put out orientation videos and such, walking pilots through their aircraft capabilities, and those of their enemies.
Lufwaffe captured bombers, put out charts of the precise angles all of the gun positions could be pointed, and flew around various units to show their LW pilots first-hand the enemy planes.
It has always been about knowing your craft, knowing your enemy's craft, and how to win with what you have.
Even the Flying Tigers, early on in the war, knew the only way to defeat the enemy was to know what they could do, and couldn't do, and fight them on the AVG's terms, not vice versa.
I think they were just as obsessed (IMO more so), but simply didn't have all the wide access to info we have today. They showed their obsession in different ways. It kept them alive.
RAF pilots during the BoB had a total of 8 hours of training before going up. Russian pilots had less during most of the war. Germans had excellent training during the beginning of the war but towards the end it dropped off.
-
"RAF pilots during the BoB had a total of 8 hours of training before going up"
On type, just possibly - but considering the fact that the average RAF trainee flew about eight hours' dual before going solo, his TOTAL hours of training before joining his first operational squadron were rather more.
Please engage brain before typing.
:cool:
-
If I could post the old roll eyes I would. You are being absurd and clueless.
Not so. I've even given a couple of examples. If pilots didn't care about the stats of the other side's planes, the AVG wouldn't have come up with head-on tactics (50cal guns ranging further than 30cal guns on the Japanese planes), wouldn't have developed hit-and-run tactics, wouldn't have worked out how to engage the enemy and with with staggering victories and few losses.
Nor would the Luftwaffe or Italian planes attacking B17s and B24s studied the best ways to attack these planes and get out.
Nor would the turn-radius-obsessed British have known that they could out-turn most enemy in a turn fight.
They all studied the enemy (as best they could with their limited info) and even put effort into capturing enemy aircraft (sending men into the desert in Tunisia to recover stukas, etc).
They spent a LOT of time and effort studying the enemy. That's a fact. Deny it and you just look silly. It just wasn't at a computer screen.
-
There are also many examples of pilots getting almost no training or information about their planes at the time of a switch. I've heard such stories in person. Things like (paraphrasing): "One day, P-51's were delivered and our P-38's were taken away. We were to fly the P-51's on a combat mission the next day. We told our commander, 'Hey, we don't have any flying time at all in these!' He said, 'Here's the pilot's manual. Read it tonight. You'll get some flying time in them tomorrow on our combat mission.'"
I heard one such story from a pilot transitioned into a P-47 from a P-38 in the Pacific and did end up getting into a fight that next day in his P-47 (as well as having a live duck in his cockpit at the time -- it's an interesting story), from a pilot transitioned into P-51's from P-38's in Europe, and from a pilot of P-51's who was put into a B-25 to go run errands (like picking up, as he says, "I'll call them 'show girls'" in Italy). That last one, folks asked him, "Wasn't it strange to hop into a B-25 to go fly it around when you were used to P-51's?" He said, "Well, I had a crew chief with me to help start it. After that, it's got a throttle, and elevators, etc., so it was no big deal. Do you have lots of training before you get into another model of car to drive it around? It's got a steering wheel and brakes and away you go. You don't think anything about it. It was like that." During WWII there was a much different scale to how people perceived risk.
-
Very true, RE: risk.
However, one of the most common stories you ever hear about pilots is the post-sortie discussion, with one pilot talking to the others (using his hands as planes) describing how he got a kill.
Learning what worked. Learning what you could do vs. the enemy to defeat them. It's all about knowing what you can do and the enemy can do.
Naturally with the largest number of pilots in the air of any nation in WW2, the US probably had the lowest median of skill (most USAAC/USAAF pilots never saw an enemy, ESPECIALLY later in the war). I still say despite some pilots being nonchalant about the issue, if they were in danger of running into the enemy, they found out what they could. Even if that was just talking with other pilots that already have, watching training films, etc.
-
One thing that story also makes me think of is how much more we hobbyists obsess over the stats of each type of fighter and its sub-variants. I have never read of a WWII fighter pilot who had the detailed performance and armament data that we memorize. Most don't even seem to have been that interested in that kind of detail. After all, what does it matter what kind of 20mm guns the A6M has if you know how to deal with it in combat. Those guns will never get a shot at you, and if they do, knowing what kind they are doesn't change what they do.
Jeez Krusty are suffering from oxygen starvation?
-
RAF pilots during the BoB had a total of 8 hours of training before going up. Russian pilots had less during most of the war. Germans had excellent training during the beginning of the war but towards the end it dropped off.
My great uncle was training in the RAF during the BoB. He made his first combat sortie in ...the fall of 1941, and actually managed to hold it alone against 2 109's for quite some time. Not bad for a first-timer.
I'd like to see some back up for the 8 hours.
-
Not so. I've even given a couple of examples. If pilots didn't care about the stats of the other side's planes, the AVG wouldn't have come up with head-on tactics (50cal guns ranging further than 30cal guns on the Japanese planes), wouldn't have developed hit-and-run tactics, wouldn't have worked out how to engage the enemy and with with staggering victories and few losses.
Nor would the Luftwaffe or Italian planes attacking B17s and B24s studied the best ways to attack these planes and get out.
Nor would the turn-radius-obsessed British have known that they could out-turn most enemy in a turn fight.
They all studied the enemy (as best they could with their limited info) and even put effort into capturing enemy aircraft (sending men into the desert in Tunisia to recover stukas, etc).
They spent a LOT of time and effort studying the enemy. That's a fact. Deny it and you just look silly. It just wasn't at a computer screen.
Yet there are examples of lots of misinformation or zero information about enemy aircraft types. For example RAF pilots believed 109s had weak wings that would snap. Many new LW aircraft were not known until pilots reported contacts with new aircraft, and even then it would be many months before this was verified.
Sorry krusty, but Janes World Book of Aircraft just didn't cover everything back then :D
-
Yet there are examples of lots of misinformation or zero information about enemy aircraft types. For example RAF pilots believed 109s had weak wings that would snap. Many new LW aircraft were not known until pilots reported contacts with new aircraft, and even then it would be many months before this was verified.
Sorry krusty, but Janes World Book of Aircraft just didn't cover everything back then :D
Who gives a damn?!?
I'm sorry, I HAVE to jump in here. I am sick and tired of everyone immediately throwing out what Krusty is saying simply because of the name attached. Every single on of you in this thread is foolish and ignorant. What Krusty is saying is that pilots were in fact concerned with information regarding the enemy planes. He made no comment as to how accurate that information was, only that pilot's cared about it. You think that isn't true? So every combat pilot just went barelling through the fight without ever thinking once what might be a good idea? So, every combat pilot just pressed the throttles in and squeezed the trigger and didn't pay attention to what happened? No. They looked at their results and created new tactics for next time. They garnered what information they could on their enemy, (Accurate or not) and used it to devise tactics. They all made an effort to know their enemy so they could best figure out how to deal with him. Yeah, a pilot would transition to a new plane and have to fly it with no training. Did that mean he never bothered to learn what the benchmark speeds were? What the range of flap deployment was? What the range of the damned plane itself was? What kind of engine it had, horsepower, RPM ranges? No. They all learned those things as quickly as they could. Just because they weren't delivered to their aircraft with this information does not mean they did not attempt to receive it.
-
"Yet there are examples of lots of misinformation or zero information about enemy aircraft types. For example RAF pilots believed 109s had weak wings that would snap"
Here is a test pilots report.
"The Bf-109 built speed rapidly in a dive, however the necessity to attend to propeller speed proved a distraction as I closed quickly upon the target. Pulling out of the dive, I discovered that the Bf-109’s elevators became distressingly heavy at high speed. I had read wartime accounts of Spitfire pilots taking Bf-109s into steep high-speed dives, knowing that the Bf-109 would be unable to pull out. This was a convincing demonstration, requiring a two-handed pull to achieve a 3.5 ‘g’ recovery at 450 km/hour."
(From the 109E article on this very board)
The anecdotes and pilots accounts from the RAF's side are:
- "The 109 will pull away from a Spitfire in a dive, but a P-51 will follow it". This is rather true.
- "The 109 will have a harder time recovering from a very high speed dive than a Spitfire". This is also true.
I have seen one account of 2 109's being chased, where one smashed into the sea and the other one pulled the wings off. But true to anecdotes, take it with a grain of salt, I read this almost 30 years ago. Guppy would be able to look it up, I belive he has the book. (Clouds of Fear by Roger "Sammy" Hall)
One anecdote also claims that the 109 (in that case the G, not the E) would recover from just about any dive, given that the pilot used the trim and did not overestimate his altitude. This is probably quite correct as well.
Anecdotes are anecdotes, but sometimes they build up the only data possible. The more, the better ;)
-
Here's a viewpoint from a Finnish fighter pilot Captain Hans Wind
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html)
I heard one such story from a pilot transitioned into a P-47 from a P-38 in the Pacific and did end up getting into a fight that next day in his P-47 (as well as having a live duck in his cockpit at the time -- it's an interesting story),
:lol
Is there any more information available of this incident? The duck sounds pretty hilarious :)
I've read several biographies of German fighter pilots who had dogs as pets and sometimes had them in cockpit with them. Also if I remember correctly, Gunther Rall had once a wild badger somewhere inside his cockpit instrument panel. One instrument was missing and at some point during a dogfight the badger peeked through the hole of the missing instrument. After seeing Rall it got scared and vanished and was not seen again.
-
Rall told me about his cockpit "friend" when I met him shortly before his death in September.
It was a mouse he said. Quite startled him by poking it's head out of a gauge-hole in the panel and staring at him. The altitude was quite much, more than 20K!!!
Anyway, there was a paratrooper who had a pet-hen, and took several jumps with her. He would let her go as he approached the ground, so she had some fluttering. It ended sadly, for her last jump was over Arnhem, and in the engagement the hen met her maker....somehow.
-
Reckon that hen fell into the hands of the Polish Parachute Brigade and they ate her.
;)
-
"Yet there are examples of lots of misinformation or zero information about enemy aircraft types. For example RAF pilots believed 109s had weak wings that would snap"
Here is a test pilots report.
"The Bf-109 built speed rapidly in a dive, however the necessity to attend to propeller speed proved a distraction as I closed quickly upon the target. Pulling out of the dive, I discovered that the Bf-109’s elevators became distressingly heavy at high speed. I had read wartime accounts of Spitfire pilots taking Bf-109s into steep high-speed dives, knowing that the Bf-109 would be unable to pull out. This was a convincing demonstration, requiring a two-handed pull to achieve a 3.5 ‘g’ recovery at 450 km/hour."
(From the 109E article on this very board)
The anecdotes and pilots accounts from the RAF's side are:
- "The 109 will pull away from a Spitfire in a dive, but a P-51 will follow it". This is rather true.
- "The 109 will have a harder time recovering from a very high speed dive than a Spitfire". This is also true.
I have seen one account of 2 109's being chased, where one smashed into the sea and the other one pulled the wings off. But true to anecdotes, take it with a grain of salt, I read this almost 30 years ago. Guppy would be able to look it up, I belive he has the book. (Clouds of Fear by Roger "Sammy" Hall)
One anecdote also claims that the 109 (in that case the G, not the E) would recover from just about any dive, given that the pilot used the trim and did not overestimate his altitude. This is probably quite correct as well.
Anecdotes are anecdotes, but sometimes they build up the only data possible. The more, the better ;)
That is the kind of data pilots wanted and looked for. Not the specific types of guns, where they are mounted, how much ammo it carried, the exact top speed (which varied too much within a type anyways), what exact engine it had and so forth.
-
That is the kind of data pilots wanted and looked for. Not the specific types of guns, where they are mounted, how much ammo it carried, the exact top speed (which varied too much within a type anyways), what exact engine it had and so forth.
i suspect that first hand accounts are very accurate about the aircraft the pilot making the account was flying and are very good sources if limited to that.
however since they had less information about their opponents actual situation i think pilot accounts about more than "what happened" are far more suspect.
i.e. a pilot can report that plane a flew into the ground during an encounter, he however may not be able to offer much accurate information as as to why that plane flew into the ground or whether that result could be "expected" in any other situation.
so i would not dismiss anecdotal evidence just because it is anecdotal evidence, however i would limit it's scope of accuracy because it is anecdotal evidence.
+S+
t
-
Karnak, I very much agree with you.
Since there were captured aircraft from all sides from early war onwards, there was really some exchange of information.
Mölders flew a captured Spitfire and a Hurricane in 1940. Quill flew a captured 109 in 1940/41. Both had been flying their own types, and even Quill, a seasoned test-pilot did combat sorties in the BoB, so he actuyally jostled with the 109 before trying it for himself.
Their anecdotes actually go in line.
I would always take it for granted that there was an effort of learning from the enemy's aircraft just as well as their tactics. Might not always have gone through all the ranks, and may have been coloured or distorted through bossing, politics, arrogance, inorance and such, but there was always an effort of trying to understand the enemy and what the enmy had and could.