Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Slade on December 08, 2011, 05:24:28 AM
-
Modern 109 pilot talks about the 109's yaw. It shows just how well AH got this bird right. Many folks in the history shows dont factor this into their Spit vs. 109 comparisons I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b69pO7538sE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b69pO7538sE)
BTW, it took me a few attempts to get the right URL of THIS the vid. Sorry.
-
Except one thing, this Merlin powered 109 is comparable in weight and power to a g-14(which ours turns like a dumptruck), and the guys who fly this allll the time say it "turns on a dime" :noid
Also that it will take on 5-6 Ponii in a fight
-
Good points Steele.
Also that it will take on 5-6 Ponii in a fight
I think he was exagerating there to make a point. ;-)
-
I wouldn't trust comparisons of different engined models... The Bouchon, for example, or the Mule, were totally different simply because of the engine.
I have seen that clip and shared it with my squaddies previously. The only thing that makes me wonder is the mentioning of the rudder authority.... While the 109 does have a decent rudder in AH I always get the impression it should be even MORE effective. I think it should be a lot more powerful in whipping the tail around at slower speeds or in off angles. I'm not fully convinced HTC has it right in that regard. It almost seems like the backdraft of thrust from the prop isn't bouncing off the rudder at times, when it could almost turn the plane where it stood on the ground (from deflected prop blast alone).
-
Okay from the stand point of someone who is not a pilot or expert on types of planes my first question is who is this guy? What are his qualifications? And who is this guy Skip who he is talking about? And what are skips qualifications?
-
I'm neither a real pilot or engineer but it would seem to me that a longer, more slender body would lead to less rudder control, not more. Torque is one thing though he speaks of yaw to either direction. Torque rolls one way, with the propellor.
Even the statement about out turning a -51, hmmm. And no one plane can out turn/fight/BnZ, etc five or six planes. A zero can't, a Tempest can't, even the mighty 262 is going to get hammered eventually. The very best stick in our game is not going to beat 5 or 6 average joes in one furball.
I don't know though I am a bit sceptical of his words.
Boo
-
Boo,
real war is entirely different from this cartoon game. I mean, even a poor stick has hundreds of hours flying and fighting. In the war, the majority were extremely unexperienced (in our standards), so a german pilot who had like 20-50-100-150 kills, was like an unbeatable monster, due to his relatively amazing routine. So thats why i can imagine a real top pilot (Barkhorn, Nowi, Krupinski, Rall, Marseille, Galland or Moelders) succesfully engage more than three-four opponents at once.
-
He is fantasizing about what it would be like to fire guns and it is hardly empirical evidence of any significant error.
-
the "skip" he's refering to.
http://www.skipholm.com/biography.htm
:salute
-
I'm neither a real pilot or engineer but it would seem to me that a longer, more slender body would lead to less rudder control, not more. Torque is one thing though he speaks of yaw to either direction. Torque rolls one way, with the propellor.
Even the statement about out turning a -51, hmmm. And no one plane can out turn/fight/BnZ, etc five or six planes. A zero can't, a Tempest can't, even the mighty 262 is going to get hammered eventually. The very best stick in our game is not going to beat 5 or 6 average joes in one furball.
I don't know though I am a bit sceptical of his words.
Boo
ummmm......not true.......I have killed 5 planes all attacking me by myself. if my aim was Grizzlike it would be a daily thing :aok
-
The very best stick in our game is not going to beat 5 or 6 average joes in one furball.
I'm not sure if you are underrating 'the very best stick' or overrating "the average joe' ;)
-
I smell DA. We line up Snailman, Grizz, Bruv, Shawk, Krup, Debrody, Ink et al and get five of us 'Joes'...
I'm all over this gig! Bf-109K4 v 5 P-51Ds...who's in? I'm not sure this proves anything but it does sound fun.
Boo
-
German's are such good fighters they were able to loose 2 world war's in a row. I'm thinking they will claim that record for a good while.
-
Unless the 51s make some big time mistakes - and more then a few of them - no way.
-
I smell DA. We line up Snailman, Grizz, Bruv, Shawk, Krup, Debrody, Ink et al and get five of us 'Joes'...
I'm all over this gig! Bf-109K4 v 5 P-51Ds...who's in? I'm not sure this proves anything but it does sound fun.
Boo
If all five will try to turn with me, would be fun. I think i could get 2-3 before i would die. With 1k alt advantage in the start i could get all 5 (BnZ the first 3 then turn with the rest, 2v1 aint as bad.) The ones listed above are better than me tho.
But if the ponies play the tag team game (in 5v1? wow) there is no chance.
-
German's are such good fighters they were able to loose 2 world war's in a row. I'm thinking they will claim that record for a good while.
On the other hand it took the whole world four years to beat them in the first world war and five years in the second.
-
As for one-on-many-godliness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOQOzGeCO6c
-
Unless the 51s make some big time mistakes - and more then a few of them - no way.
The aforementioned 'average joe' makes big time mistakes - that's why he is only average ;)
-
Okay from the stand point of someone who is not a pilot or expert on types of planes my first question is who is this guy? What are his qualifications? And who is this guy Skip who he is talking about? And what are skips qualifications?
Oh the Skip guy you mean? dont bother. just a below average pilot :noid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
-
German's are such good fighters they were able to loose 2 world war's in a row. I'm thinking they will claim that record for a good while.
Check me if I'm wrong here... but aren't the highest scoring aces of all time Germans from World War 2?
-
Of the 250 top scoring aces of all time 242 are German.
http://www.military-art.com/mall/articles/top_250_aces.php
-
I'm neither a real pilot or engineer but it would seem to me that a longer, more slender body would lead to less rudder control, not more. Torque is one thing though he speaks of yaw to either direction. Torque rolls one way, with the propellor.
Even the statement about out turning a -51, hmmm. And no one plane can out turn/fight/BnZ, etc five or six planes. A zero can't, a Tempest can't, even the mighty 262 is going to get hammered eventually. The very best stick in our game is not going to beat 5 or 6 average joes in one furball.
I don't know though I am a bit sceptical of his words.
Boo
Well Boo, its not uncommon to defeat a mob if you have the right pilot in the right fighter.
A few years ago, when I was a trainer, Murdr, TC and I were holding a wingman tactics clinic in the TA. We had a pretty good crowd, a mix of noobs and vets looking to learn new skills. After the clinic ended, we decided to see what everyone had learned.
I took six guys and gave them the task to shoot me down (or at least hit me enough to equal that). Two were in P-51Ds and four (all from Saxmans's squad) were in F4Us. I was flying a 109G-2.
We flew out in opposite directions until beyond icon range and reversed to merge right on the deck. Within a few minutes, all six were in the tower. Everyone of them had been shot up, and I forced all of them to auger. Meanwhile, my 109 had not suffered a single ping. They grumbled and complained, so I took a P-38J for the next round. Net result was identical. Murdr watched both fights and commented that they quickly forgot everything they were taught immediately after the merge. Rather than cover one another, they flew in a closely grouped mob, making it easy to keep an eye on all of them. Once I had them slow, I took the fight vertical and was able to pick them off almost at my leisure.
In a fight like this, dealing with a group is not that difficult. Your only concern would be the arrival of higher aircraft while you are maneuvering with the mob. That happened in the second fight, because they would immediately re-up after crashing. Thus, I had to watch for them returning with altitude and E. That didn't help them much.. I would abandon the guy I was working on and climb out to meet the new threat, knowing that the low and slow guys would not be able to climb up and re-enter the fight for a few minutes. Long enough to deal with the returning guy(s). What makes this type of fight more problematic in the MA is that you will have many different types of fighters arriving at various altitudes and E states, making it much harder to track all and stay aware of their relative E states. You could be down in the weeds, flaps out and find one or more guys above you looking for the pick opportunity. The MA is a much more complex and uncontrolled environment.
I may or may not still have some films of these fights, but Murdr can testify to the accuracy of the above.
So, the answer is, within a controlled environment, one guy in a 109K-4 can certainly engage and defeat five or six guys in P-51s, depending upon the skill levels involved and tactics utilized. If they all commit to maneuvering with the 109, the task gets easier.
-
Check me if I'm wrong here... but aren't the highest scoring aces of all time Germans from World War 2?
A target rich environment coupled with "fly until you die" orders will do that. Note that "Target rich environment" is a euphemism for "Losing".
If you don't think that some British or American pilots wouldn't have put up similar numbers if the US or UK had been in the same situation you're being silly.
-
Some might have yes, but there is one factor that is diametrically different between the Luftwaffe and the Allied air forces: The Luftwaffe (and Nazi Germany in general) nurtured a culture of personal achievement and glory while the Allied air forces were far more regimental, where personal exploits were often frowned upon. Teamwork and unit cohesion were the key words.
As you say the Germans flew until they died, but it is telling how special individuals the "Experten" were that about half of them survived the war despite the incredible odds. Of the top ten Experten 7 survived.
-
Predator, thats true, but take a look on their kill logs.
They were in frontline service almost constantly, often for 3-4-5 years. True, they had some couple months breaks, but overally speaking, once they started, they fought til the end of the war, or til they got shot down.
Still, Germany had like 105 pilots with more than 100 air-to-air victories. Thats an amazing amount of experience, even when compared to the top allied fighters.
Sum, if you send 10 Dick Bongs against 10, or say 7 Gallands/Moelderses/Nowotnys/Marseilles/Ralls/Krupinskis/Barkhorns/etc etc, my bet is on the German dudes.
-
Of the 250 top scoring aces of all time 242 are German.
*sniffs bait*
*swims away*
- oldman
-
Predator, thats true, but take a look on their kill logs.
They were in frontline service almost constantly, often for 3-4-5 years. True, they had some couple months breaks, but overally speaking, once they started, they fought til the end of the war, or til they got shot down.
Still, Germany had like 105 pilots with more than 100 air-to-air victories. Thats an amazing amount of experience, even when compared to the top allied fighters.
Sum, if you send 10 Dick Bongs against 10, or say 7 Gallands/Moelderses/Nowotnys/Marseilles/Ralls/Krupinskis/Barkhorns/etc etc, my bet is on the German dudes.
Just Bong??? How about McCampbell, Vraciu, Johnson, Gentile, Beckham, Welch, Eagleson, Preddy, McGuire, and several others... I think your Luftwaffe guys (all great aces) would be very hard pressed.... McCampbell and Beckham were as good as anyone on the planet in 1944.
-
Just Bong??? How about McCampbell, Vraciu, Johnson, Gentile, Beckham, Welch, Eagleson, Preddy, McGuire, and several others... I think your Luftwaffe guys (all great aces) would be very hard pressed.... McCampbell and Beckham were as good as anyone on the planet in 1944.
'Sailor' Malan, and ace with less than thirty kills at the time, took on and made hundred kill aces Werner Molders run for France, wounded.
Johnnie Johnson, the top scoring Allied ace in Europe with 39.5 kills, was once asked by a reporter why he didn't shoot down as many as the top German aces. He told the guy that he hadn't even seen that many German aircraft.
Beckham
Beurling
Clostermann
Eagleson
Finucane
Gentile
Gabreski
Johnson (RAF)
Johnson (USAAF)
Lacey
Malan
McCampbell
McGuire
Preddy
Tuck
Vraciu
Welch
I think all of them match the best the Germans had, and those Germans match them.
-
The very best stick in our game is not going to beat 5 or 6 average joes in one furball.
Boo
You've never seen films of Drex or Lev fly. I used to have a film of Drex in a Ju88 taking on 6 guys in a 6v1 and he won and another of Lev in a 5v1 and winning. These weren't just one off affairs either, more like routine sorties for these two.
ack-ack
-
'Sailor' Malan, and ace with less than thirty kills at the time, took on and made hundred kill aces Werner Molders run for France, wounded.
Molders wasn't a 100 kill ace at the time. Sous lieutenant René Pomier-Layrargues, flying a French Air Force Dewoitine D.520 did shoot down Molders (5 June 1940). He was shot down and killed 30 minutes after the Molders shoot down.
Flight Lieutenant J.L. Webster in a Spitfire of 41 Squadron, not Malan, was the pilot that engaged Molders.
-
Heck, McCampbell got 34 kills in 5 months of combat. Just imagine what a guy like him would have accomplished had he had stuff to shoot at for 4-5 years (assuming he survived).
-
As for one-on-many-godliness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOQOzGeCO6c
How bout 1 K4 vs 8 late war and perked Spits?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecNF1K7c8pk
-
Heck, McCampbell got 34 kills in 5 months of combat. Just imagine what a guy like him would have accomplished had he had stuff to shoot at for 4-5 years (assuming he survived).
Thats very impressive, shows his talent and the great training the allies did.
Still, who was that german one who got 10 kills in 15 minutes?
-
I think there was a claim something like that for Marseille in Africa.
-
How bout 1 K4 vs 8 late war and perked Spits?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecNF1K7c8pk
Most impressive!
-
Marseilles 17 kill day was never confirmed properly. But is rather established that he hit 17 aircraft that day.
To get 10 confirmed kills in 15 minutes, you need many eyes to either confirm disintergration, a bale-out or a ground smash.
Getting to McCambell, how many kills did he get in a day? like 6 or so?
Robert Stanford Tuck got 5 kills in a day over Dieppe, where (due to smoke and haze) it was difficult to find the enemy. He got shot down eventually, later on, by a flak unit. He actually did put a bulled through the flak gun´s nozzle!
That is something.
And then it was "Screwball" Beurling. IMHO the best shot of the war. Must have had eyes of an eagle. Shooting up planes with wing guns rather than the central mountings, and both aiming for the vital parts as well as counting the strikes who later got verified is absolutely unique.
Malan made a mess of Mölders, in an epic dogfight. Malan engaged and shot down one of Mölders men. Mölders made no mistake and with his plan came down on Malan's six. Malan easily outmaneuvered Mölders and peppered him into a cheese filter before letting go, and there were 2 possible reasons for that, - one being the need to break away, and the second (famous for Malan) was to spare his enemy so he could go home wounded and humiliated. He did that actually on several occations.
Rall, - a crack shot and excellent flyer, and if he had not been injured during a vital phase of the war in the east (like a year or so), he might have topped Hartmann. On the Western front he was injured again, and he stated it had saved his life, for closing on enemy figher formations like the high flying P51's and P47's and being outnumbered, was close to suicide. He got shot down by Zemke's pack (P47), and with a grin he said that probably saved his life. He did get shot down some 8 times, and one noteable German Ace 17 times.
Then the coolest. "Pat" Pattle was the top scoring RAF ace with some 50 victories, there off some 15 in a biplane! Top that!
And that was just the pilot part, . . sigh
-
Marseille's claim was 7 kills in 11 minutes if I remember correctly.
Franz Kurowski (biographer), claims that 24 of the 26 victories credited to JG27 on 1 September 1942 (of which 17 were claimed by Marseille) were verified through Allied records after the war. A USAF historian, Major Robert Tate states: "for years, many British historians and militarists refused to admit that they had lost any aircraft that day in North Africa. Careful review of records however do show that the British and South Africans did lose more than 17 aircraft that day, and in the area that Marseille operated."
-
Maybe it was Krupinski? My memory is worthless. IDK, too late for the research, help me out if you know something about it.
Statistically, there were equally talented ones on each sides. From 10 000s of pilots on both sides, its inpossible that one side has the 100 top ones... i think we can agree in that. My point is the routine, the experience. No traning can replace 100+ won fights.
As for the biplanes... my vote is on the Finns, they were the specialists of turning a poor aircraft into a death trap : )
-
Angus,
Buzz{screwball}Beurling was one of those crazy canuks,it's said that he would practice all the time he wasn't flying. His practice was to shoot any lizards he saw on Malta with his sidearm,this was supposedly the reason for his deadly accuracy.
Have read of his exploits,I'd say his flying had as much to do with his victories as his shooting. He was said to take high deflection shots but most were from real close in,IIRC he struck more than 1 A/C with his spit5.... :D
Those boys who served in Malta had a tough time,no supplies,little food and water and were under constant threat. We owe a great deal of gratitude to those poor boys!
:salute
-
Getting to McCambell, how many kills did he get in a day? like 6 or so?
McCampbell during a single sortie, shot down 9 fighters, with two probables (observed to be burning, but not seen to crash) and two damaged. His wingman shot down another 6 with several damaged as well. McCampbell's is the Allied single sortie record.
-
Marseille's claim was 7 kills in 11 minutes if I remember correctly.
Franz Kurowski (biographer), claims that 24 of the 26 victories credited to JG27 on 1 September 1942 (of which 17 were claimed by Marseille) were verified through Allied records after the war. A USAF historian, Major Robert Tate states: "for years, many British historians and militarists refused to admit that they had lost any aircraft that day in North Africa. Careful review of records however do show that the British and South Africans did lose more than 17 aircraft that day, and in the area that Marseille operated."
LOL I get so tired of the LW fans and the highest scores makes them better.
F/L Terry Spencer, with no kills to his credit, flying a Spit XII in September 44 shot down Bully Lang who had 173 kills to his credit. Who was better? Of course it was the first time that Terry ran into a German fighter. Could be the lack of targets got in the way?
A 474th FG P38J driver named Earl Nuckols had exactly two encounters with Luftwaffe fighters. He and his squadron of 12 38s were lugging bombs on a ground attack mission August 25, 1944. They got bounced by 2 squadrons of higher 109s. As the fight progressed 2 more squadrons of 190s joined the fight. It was at least 4-1 odds against and 8 of 12 38s went down. Nuckols shot down a 109 and 190 and damaged 2 others.
On December 17, 1944, he was leading 8 P38s on a ground attack run when they got bounced by 24 + 190s, which were later joined by 30+ more. It was close to 7-1 odds. He shot down one, damaged another and out flew a bunch more, despite being damaged to survive the fight.
So in the end he finished the war with 3 kills. Imagine a guy like that in a different role where he was the hunter. To go into two fights like that, from below, hopelessly outnumbered and with no other option and come out the other end alive?
Numbers never tell the entire story.
-
LOL I get so tired of the LW fans and the highest scores makes them better.
You must see them everywhere...
-
You must see them everywhere...
I rest my case your honor...
-
I can vouch for Widewing's after clinic flights that Murdr & WideWing had filmed...... ( reply #21 in this thread )......... is like when your crounty mates ( or team mates ) all try going for the kill, they start competing against each other in a race to get the kill, verse working together as an element or unit, etc...... all one has to do is keep the lot of them in the same hemisphere
and as AkAk posted, Levi & Drex did this stuff on a routine basis ( reply #28 of this thread )......... and several others have had this same type of fight and have prevailed on more than a handful of occasions......
just seems like it is less likely to be seen these days as it used to be, the atitude of the arenas seems to have changed direction a little bit......
TC
-
I think there was a claim something like that for Marseille in Africa.
Except RAF records don't support the claims.
ack-ack
-
Terry Spencer you say?
"In early September 1944, Spencer led a section of four pilots on an armed reconnaissance over Belgium where they encountered two of the Luftwaffe’s highest-scoring Aces, Hpt. Emil ‘Bully’ Lang, the Commanding Officer of II/JG26 (173 victories) and Lt. Alfred Gross (52 victories), in FW190s over Tirlemont. Although one of his section was killed, the two Aces were shot down, Lang killed and Gross so seriously wounded that he did not return to service before the end of the War."
"On 3 September 1944, Emil Lang was killed in action when his Fw 190 A-8 (Werknummer 171 240—factory number) "Green 1" hit the ground and exploded in a field at Overhespen. He had experienced mechanical trouble on the runway when he and the other aircraft of his flight took off at Melsbroek at 1.20 pm. Ten minutes later, Lang was still having difficulties raising his landing gear. Flying at an altitude of 200 metres (660 ft), his wingman, Unteroffizier Hans-Joachim Borreck, called out P-47 Thunderbolts to their rear. Lang broke upward, to the left. Leutnant Alfred Groß saw Lang's Fw 190 diving in flames, its gear extended, but he lost sight of Lang when his own craft was hit and he had to bail out. Examination of both German and American records suggests that Borreck and Groß misidentified their opponents. The P-51 Mustangs of the 55th Fighter Group's 338th Squadron intercepted a flight of three to six Focke Wulfs. Lieutenant Darrell Cramer took a high deflection shot at the Focke Wulf on the left, which fell upside down in a steep dive and crashed hard into the ground; this undoubtedly was Emil Lang." (Caldwell 1998, pp. 343, 344.)
Interesting. Must've been helluva dogfight, P51s and Spit XIIs and what ever, Lang at 200 meters with his gear down.
"Numbers never tell the entire story."
Indeed.
-C+
-
Except RAF records don't support the claims.
ack-ack
They do according to USAF historian, Major Robert Tate.
-
LOL I get so tired of the LW fans and the highest scores makes them better.
They need something to cling to to make them feel better, no harm in letting them have their pride (however misplaced)
:salute
-
Funny how defensive some people get whenever Luftwaffe victories are mentioned. Like it actually matters.
-
Terry Spencer you say?
"In early September 1944, Spencer led a section of four pilots on an armed reconnaissance over Belgium where they encountered two of the Luftwaffe’s highest-scoring Aces, Hpt. Emil ‘Bully’ Lang, the Commanding Officer of II/JG26 (173 victories) and Lt. Alfred Gross (52 victories), in FW190s over Tirlemont. Although one of his section was killed, the two Aces were shot down, Lang killed and Gross so seriously wounded that he did not return to service before the end of the War."
"On 3 September 1944, Emil Lang was killed in action when his Fw 190 A-8 (Werknummer 171 240—factory number) "Green 1" hit the ground and exploded in a field at Overhespen. He had experienced mechanical trouble on the runway when he and the other aircraft of his flight took off at Melsbroek at 1.20 pm. Ten minutes later, Lang was still having difficulties raising his landing gear. Flying at an altitude of 200 metres (660 ft), his wingman, Unteroffizier Hans-Joachim Borreck, called out P-47 Thunderbolts to their rear. Lang broke upward, to the left. Leutnant Alfred Groß saw Lang's Fw 190 diving in flames, its gear extended, but he lost sight of Lang when his own craft was hit and he had to bail out. Examination of both German and American records suggests that Borreck and Groß misidentified their opponents. The P-51 Mustangs of the 55th Fighter Group's 338th Squadron intercepted a flight of three to six Focke Wulfs. Lieutenant Darrell Cramer took a high deflection shot at the Focke Wulf on the left, which fell upside down in a steep dive and crashed hard into the ground; this undoubtedly was Emil Lang." (Caldwell 1998, pp. 343, 344.)
Interesting. Must've been helluva dogfight, P51s and Spit XIIs and what ever, Lang at 200 meters with his gear down.
"Numbers never tell the entire story."
Indeed.
-C+
LOL you missed and proved my point at the same time Charge. Would you agree that circumstances played a part in the death of a 173 kill ace? Is defining the greatness of a pilot based on his kills an inaccurate measure as the variables contributing to those numbers are many? I have no problem conceding that the highest scoring fighter aces of WW2 were from the Luftwaffe. I don't believe that suggests they had the best pilots. I believe that all the participants had great pilots who did some amazing things.
Looking through my copy of "Blonde Knight of Germany" is see that it's suggested that Hartmann flew up to 1400 sorties + with combat being a part of 850 of those flights. It appears he started with his first operational unit in October 42 and flew until the end of the war in May 45.
I have the logbook of a Canadian Spitfire pilot. He joined his first squadron in December 1941 and was sent home after his second tour in August 44. He flew 289 operational sorties that included 30 scrambles, 90 sweeps and recces, 139 patrols, and 30 rhubarbs. He never fired his guns at a German aircraft outside of a few V-1s.
How would you compare their experience and abilities as pilots?
-
LOL you missed and proved my point at the same time Charge. Would you agree that circumstances played a part in the death of a 173 kill ace? Is defining the greatness of a pilot based on his kills an inaccurate measure as the variables contributing to those numbers are many? I have no problem conceding that the highest scoring fighter aces of WW2 were from the Luftwaffe. I don't believe that suggests they had the best pilots. I believe that all the participants had great pilots who did some amazing things.
Looking through my copy of "Blonde Knight of Germany" is see that it's suggested that Hartmann flew up to 1400 sorties + with combat being a part of 850 of those flights. It appears he started with his first operational unit in October 42 and flew until the end of the war in May 45.
I have the logbook of a Canadian Spitfire pilot. He joined his first squadron in December 1941 and was sent home after his second tour in August 44. He flew 289 operational sorties that included 30 scrambles, 90 sweeps and recces, 139 patrols, and 30 rhubarbs. He never fired his guns at a German aircraft outside of a few V-1s.
How would you compare their experience and abilities as pilots?
You don't get as much kills and survive as many combat sorties that many of those LW pilots did without being a very good pilot.
While the Canadian served his country well there is no comparison. Really though we will never know.
From Rall 1 minute mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STFdRrWBW2w&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL89B21F966C944BDE
-
You don't get as much kills and survive as many combat sorties that many of those LW pilots did without being a very good pilot.
While the Canadian served his country well there is no comparison. Really though we will never know.
From Rall 1 minute mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STFdRrWBW2w&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL89B21F966C944BDE
And that's the key. We'll never know. What we can agree on is that the countries that provided combat pilots in WW2 produced some very good pilots.
Rall said it well. Thanks for that link
-
Looking through my copy of "Blonde Knight of Germany" is see that it's suggested that Hartmann flew up to 1400 sorties + with combat being a part of 850 of those flights. It appears he started with his first operational unit in October 42 and flew until the end of the war in May 45.
I have the logbook of a Canadian Spitfire pilot. He joined his first squadron in December 1941 and was sent home after his second tour in August 44. He flew 289 operational sorties that included 30 scrambles, 90 sweeps and recces, 139 patrols, and 30 rhubarbs. He never fired his guns at a German aircraft outside of a few V-1s.
How would you compare their experience and abilities as pilots?
As pilots or fighter pilots? I would stake my bet on the man who has actually fired a shot at an enemy plane, but we can never know for sure. Just because a 100+ ace gets shot down by a noob does not mean that the noob is the better fighter pilot. Nor can we assume the vice versa. All it takes is one mistake, one moment of inattention, and you're dead. Even if you don't make a mistake you can still get killed. There are literally hundreds of important variables that come to play in deciding the outcome of an aerial battle. Many aces were even killed in simple accidents like Marseille who jumped to his death from his 109 when it developed engine problems.
Does 100+ kills mean that a pilot is better than any other pilot? Of course not. However, 100+ kills is a damn good indication that the pilot is very good indeed. A pilot with no victories is much more of an unknown, but may very well turn out to be better.
-
I didn't really miss anything Guppy. I'm really in no illusion that some country had inherently better pilots than others. The fact remains that Germany did not really have a luxury to rotate pilots and the overwhelming odds they faced in the end ensured that many of German aces were killed in circumstances where a daily survival would be a miracle itself. But of course their vast experience was of huge help if they had any luck at all with them, some did and managed to survive. So in the end the German aces may indeed have had more "experience" than pilots of any other nationality which was reflected by their kill numbers but only because they had served so long and in such conditions.
I have sometimes thought of M. von Richthofen and the speculations how he broke all his own rules in following an enemy to low alt and got killed in the process. I have read that he was very tired of war and I have also read that some of ww2 era German aces may have suffered same kind of extreme fatique which could have affected their judgement and ultimately lead to their demise. And that goes also for Japanese pilots, which makes me think that everything they lost and all the effort they had made to win the war were ultimately in vain and that had to have a huge effect on their mindset, as well making it easier to understand why some of them even participated in kamikaze attacks as a last resort (rather than being just fanatics).
The allied pilots were also driven into exhaustion but I think that it was not ultimately the same level as that of German or Japanese due to possibility of rotation and that they knew they were winning and all the sacrifices they had experienced were not in vain after all. You could also call it "hope".
So if I set aside the fact what kind of regimes the axis pilots fought for and just think of them as soldiers doing their duty I have to feel great sympathy for them due to extreme conditions they had to experience, not necessarily what they achieved in military sense as "kills".
Having read his biography I think Günther Lützov is a very interesting person who in personal life started to experience the effects of mental exhaustion but it is unclear if it had anything to do with his death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_L%C3%BCtzow
-C+
-
Interesting that you mentioned Von Richtofen, Charge. One of the things I went and looked at was the top aces of WW1 and the top 3 were a German, a Frenchman and a Canadian, all within less then 10 kills of each other. with another German and an Englishman topping out the first 5.
If there is a consistent theme in reading the stories of the WW1 aces of all sides, it's that they all were flown beyond the point of exhaustion as the folks leading them had no idea of the conditions in which they fought. You look at any of the early pictures vs late of aces from all sides and the differences are scary in how physically and emotionally beaten down they look.
As you say, the Axis pilots in WW2 suffered much the same fate, while the Allied pilots benefited from the rotation policy and larger training programs and pools of well trained pilots.
-
Maybe this thread should have been called "Very Inciteful BF-109 Vid"...
-
Maybe this thread should have been called "Very Inciteful BF-109 Vid"...
Getting back to point, I like that our 109's yaw is modeled well. There seems to be evidence that the real world yaw was even better. Does anyone have any evidence of this besides the video I presented (below)? If it is true I'd like to see HTC change the 109 yaw to match the real-world 109.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b69pO7538sE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b69pO7538sE)
Somewhat related, I notice that the yaw in a Typhie is very good too. Do you guys find that true also?
Thanks for your feedback. :salute
-
Yaw authority is a difficult metric to measure. I doubt it was ever done.
-
Modern 109 pilot talks about the 109's yaw. It shows just how well AH got this bird right. Many folks in the history shows dont factor this into their Spit vs. 109 comparisons I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b69pO7538sE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b69pO7538sE)
BTW, it took me a few attempts to get the right URL of THIS the vid. Sorry.
I don't see this video showing much of anything, least of all how any aspect (yaw included) of the flight model in AH matches or varies from reality.
I'm not trying to be snide, but it looks to me like the pilot is just trying to impress the starry-eyed worshiper he's talking to. I'd wager the pilot is really a fan of his 109, and is going to make it sound as impressive as he feels it is. I've been known to do the same when it comes to my flintlock rifle.
What he describes when it comes to yaw could be said true for many planes, and could even be explained by factors such as speed differences rather than yaw effectiveness of one plane compared to another.
-
Ok, so what it is in P-51 that would make it difficult to yaw? I recall that the manual instructs no to yaw the plane in high speed but then again there's this story about Richard Candelaria...
To me it seems that the fuselage due to its vertical flatness and area has a positive effect on stability on yaw axis -or is the problem that in high speed the effect is so strong that you risk overstressing the rudder installation?
If that is a problem in high speed so why would it be a problem also in slower speeds in dogfight?
I recall that Finnish pilots said that 109G2 felt like it flew on rails and that would indicate a good stability on yaw axis although all G models still had the problem that you had to apply rudder all the time to get the plane fly straight at speed. It could also be that the speed alone gave that impression to pilots accustomed to much slower aircraft.
BTW, here is the same video which has been posted on this forum numerous times. Skip Holm talks himself from 3:20 onwards but not about stability issues. The video is made by a WW2OL player and it merely tries to get confirmation to shortcomings of the CRS product. I don't know who the other guy is (who is interviewed on both videos) and what is his actual experience but obviously he has flown these planes, but I get the feeling that he is not as experienced as Skip as a fighter pilot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94
-C+
-
The 109's vertical stabilizer has very little fixed surface area and is mostly just a big rudder. That means that there is very little to counteract rudder forces except the fuselage. Combined with prop wash that should give the 109 a lot more rudder authority at any speed than an aircraft with a more conventional vertical stabilizer with larger fixed surface area.
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/your-completed-kits/164402d1302368691t-1-48-tamiya-bf-109-e4-7-galland-rudder.jpg)
(http://www.aviationartstore.com/images/painting_P-51_Roscoe_Brown_Red_Tail.jpg)
-
Don't forget the shape of the fuselage here, which also affects stability. Anyway, the 190 has a twisted tail to allow for complete stability at a certain speed. No rudder trim.
Anyway, since we're all into aces here, I'll give you a comparison.
On his first flight operational in a military airplane, Hartmann crashed his plane. On his first flight with a 109 he spent a while trying to shoot down his boss. So much for that.
On his first combat sortie, F.O. Jonsson flying with the RAF, wound up in a 2 vs 1 situation, that means 2 x 109 vs 1 Spitfire, altitude practically none. He didn't even catch a bullet, and after a long jostle the enemy was engaged with more RAF fighters.
What does that tell about pilot quality?
He actually complained about the LW doctrine of engaging at better position while the RAF doctrine was more like engaging anytime. That, as well as the LW mostly operating close to "home" will explain the additional part to Rall's excellent layout.
Rall got shot down 8 times by the way, but never over enemy territory. What would the score of the LW aces have been if their career had ended after being shot down for the first time?
-
Hartmann was shot down over Soviet territory and captured early in his career, but managed to escape. I don't know why you want to continue this confrontational Axis vs Allies noodle measuring competition. It serves no purpose.
-
Pathetic
My uncle is stronger than yours... therefor my c0kk is much bigger than yours...
Grow up ladies.
-
The 109's vertical stabilizer has very little fixed surface area and is mostly just a big rudder. That means that there is very little to counteract rudder forces except the fuselage. Combined with prop wash that should give the 109 a lot more rudder authority at any speed than an aircraft with a more conventional vertical stabilizer with larger fixed surface area.
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/your-completed-kits/164402d1302368691t-1-48-tamiya-bf-109-e4-7-galland-rudder.jpg)
(http://www.aviationartstore.com/images/painting_P-51_Roscoe_Brown_Red_Tail.jpg)
Yup, I understand the large rudder part. As Skip mentions though, the 109 has a small rudder. I don't argue that the 109 has a good yaw ability, but I suspect it has more to do with the overall plane design and fuselage moment than the rudder itself.
And my point is to the fact that he gives no information that can be used to correlate the AH flight model to the real aircraft. That video has been linked to on these forums several times over the last few years.
The "if you can yaw through the aircraft and shoot in front of it" statement holds true for any aircraft (even the ones with horrid yaw ability).
I'm curious about the effect of the "balance tab" on the 109 rudder (beyond the less-physical-strain-on-the-pilot effect). I'm of the understanding that it causes more drag, and even decreases the effectiveness of the rudder somewhat (which is why many sailplanes have gone away from that idea).
Why not make the entire vertical surface movable, with no stationary section at all? Would that be a benefit or a hindrance?
When it comes to large rudder / small vertical stabilizer planes, I'm familiar with one too. I fly the F4U, and it has possibly the best rudder in the game... But, I've also read that it was considered to have a too-small vertical stabilizer... Does the 109 fit in there too?
-
Great conversation starter and many good arguments. But it is all based on conjecture. There are way to many variables pilot experience, Theater of war, quality of pilots, quality of planes, time spent in theater, hours flown, quality of instruction, tactics.... I give all my respect to the individuals who fought in the skies during all wars but the truth will only be based on conjecture. And as for examples given in AH fights based on 1 Sim Pilot against another is not a good example. Its a Sim/Game. You can do things in AH that can not be done in real life. But it makes for good conversation.
-
Hartmann was shot down over Soviet territory and captured early in his career, but managed to escape. I don't know why you want to continue this confrontational Axis vs Allies noodle measuring competition. It serves no purpose.
That is the first time I have heard that.
Now on Aug 19 1943 his a/c was damaged by debris from a victim and he had to crash land behind Soviet lines, captured and then escaped.
-
When it comes to large rudder / small vertical stabilizer planes, I'm familiar with one too. I fly the F4U, and it has possibly the best rudder in the game... But, I've also read that it was considered to have a too-small vertical stabilizer... Does the 109 fit in there too?
This was an issue with the 109, that is why in 1944 109s began being built with a taller verticle stab and rudder. Remember the 109 was a 1930s design with top speeds near 380mph until 1941 with the introduction of the 109F. Further engine improvments in the G series increased speeds beyond the capibilities of the standard tail dementions, leading to longitudinal stability issues. Hense, the need for a redesigned tail.
In the case of the Corsair, these issues only began to surface with the F4U-4. With the construction of the F2G-1 "Super Corsair" a taller tail was also fitted. This was a particular need on this model because of the cut down rear fuselage for the bubble canopy. See also P-51D and P-47D,M,and N models.
If you look at most fighters during the war you will see modifacations made to the tail area to increase stability at high speeds and altitudes. Spitfires with the Griffon engines soon saw an enlarged tail. The 190 had fuselage length added before the tail with the Dora, eventually a larger tail was fitted to the Ta 152.
-
That is the first time I have heard that.
Now on Aug 19 1943 his a/c was damaged by debris from a victim and he had to crash land behind Soviet lines, captured and then escaped.
Yes, that's the incident I was thinking about. Could easily have ended his career then and there.
-
The enlarged tail would serve better at lower speeds, since the whole deal was about countering a growing number of horsepowers.
At higher speeds the forces are greater. I belive the 109 was trimmed to be stable at some 200 miles, which means a slight boot on the rudder at higher speeds, - and oh, the 109 was quite a cruiser.
Don't forget TAS and IAS though, since the ceiling and combat zone pushed up to very high altitude inb the mid war.
BTW, Jefferey Quill flew a 109, and was very pleased with the rudder. However not so much with the rest.
He did engage a 109 in a dogfight once, and easily out-maneuvered it, but what would you expect ;)
-
Here we go, Angus.
You stated the allied pilots were superior to the german ones.
On his first combat sortie, F.O. Jonsson flying with the RAF, wound up in a 2 vs 1 situation, that means 2 x 109 vs 1 Spitfire, altitude practically none. He didn't even catch a bullet, and after a long jostle the enemy was engaged with more RAF fighters.
Yet you state the 109 was a poo.
BTW, Jefferey Quill flew a 109, and was very pleased with the rudder. However not so much with the rest.
He did engage a 109 in a dogfight once, and easily out-maneuvered it, but what would you expect ;)
Now what?
No Luftwheenie told you the spitfire (or any allied ride) was a piece of crap, nor the allied pilots were worthless. Please keep your thoughts about it for yourself.
One more thing to note. My 1941, 1350Hp Bf-109 F-4 would be more than a match for your magnificent 1944-45, 1750Hp Spitfire Mk-XVI. Think about it.
-
Interesting that you mentioned Von Richtofen, Charge. One of the things I went and looked at was the top aces of WW1 and the top 3 were a German, a Frenchman and a Canadian, all within less then 10 kills of each other. with another German and an Englishman topping out the first 5.
If there is a consistent theme in reading the stories of the WW1 aces of all sides, it's that they all were flown beyond the point of exhaustion as the folks leading them had no idea of the conditions in which they fought. You look at any of the early pictures vs late of aces from all sides and the differences are scary in how physically and emotionally beaten down they look.
As you say, the Axis pilots in WW2 suffered much the same fate, while the Allied pilots benefited from the rotation policy and larger training programs and pools of well trained pilots.
Wheres Mick Mannock in all this??
-
Wheres Mick Mannock in all this??
Mannock is #5.
Top 10
Manfred von Richthofen
René Fonck
William Bishop
Ernst Udet
Edward Mannock
Raymond Collishaw
James McCudden
Andrew Beauchamp-Proctor
Erich Löwenhardt
Donald MacLaren
-
Debrody, don't misread me. I am just shaking off the ubermench-uberflugzeug myth with some teasing points.
I will however state that after a certain point in the mid-war most of the allied pilots had more training under their belt than the axis ones. However the axis were normally on the defensive line, which allowed them to get shot down on more occations without ending their career, and then they were kept busy untill either they fell, or the war was over.
The allies had a different training programme, and it turned out in a better way.
BTW, Jonsson spent some time as an instructor after his first T.O.D. And promptly hated it!
Rall spent some time as an instructor too, but only because of problems with is thumb, or actually what used to be his thumb, - he was regarded unfit for frontline duty at the time.
Quill, - what would you expect, - would probably not have had a problem with many a 109 pilot, since his job was after all riding the spitty to the limits of the envelope, and the hours under his belt superceeding most aces if not all. I am still having problems with copying one of his maneuvers in AH.
And the 109F, - Rall said it was the finest of the lot. Just wish I had the stats over it. And the 109 was never a piece of crap anyway.....always at least a fast bird with good ROC and a central armament. Will still choose the Spitty though ;)
-
the ubermench-uberflugzeug myth
You found any of that in this thread?
-
You found any of that in this thread?
You've missed them?
From Debrody: "real war is entirely different from this cartoon game. I mean, even a poor stick has hundreds of hours flying and fighting. In the war, the majority were extremely unexperienced (in our standards), so a german pilot who had like 20-50-100-150 kills, was like an unbeatable monster, due to his relatively amazing routine. So thats why i can imagine a real top pilot (Barkhorn, Nowi, Krupinski, Rall, Marseille, Galland or Moelders) succesfully engage more than three-four opponents at once.
From you: "Some might have yes, but there is one factor that is diametrically different between the Luftwaffe and the Allied air forces: The Luftwaffe (and Nazi Germany in general) nurtured a culture of personal achievement and glory while the Allied air forces were far more regimental, where personal exploits were often frowned upon. Teamwork and unit cohesion were the key words.
As you say the Germans flew until they died, but it is telling how special individuals the "Experten" were that about half of them survived the war despite the incredible odds. Of the top ten Experten 7 survived."
Most of the responses you find offensive were sparked by one or both of these posts.
Just sayin' (tm Pasha).
- oldman
-
You read those posts as describing the Germans as "ubermensch" or their aircraft as "uberflugzeug"?
-
German's are such good fighters they were able to loose 2 world war's in a row. I'm thinking they will claim that record for a good while.
not only that but they were once the biggest super power in the world. not to mention the most technilogicaly advanced country in the world.
-
not to mention the most technilogicaly advanced country in the world.
A myth really. While in some areas they might have been a step ahead of everyone else, in a lot of areas they were woefully behind the curve.
ack-ack
-
A myth really. While in some areas they might have been a step ahead of everyone else, in a lot of areas they were woefully behind the curve.
ack-ack
Oh really :huh :huh :huh :old:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8RLOdlrA7l4/S4Z8EvtSJLI/AAAAAAAABoo/UFDLLHk4w9Y/s400/flyingobjects55_31.jpg)
(http://naziufosecret.com/ats28110_hitlerwithalienufovrilhaunebuw.jpg)
(http://www.glenosterberger.com/Nazi.jpg)
-
That alien refused to shake hands with Hitler...
-
not only that but they were once the biggest super power in the world.
Germany has never been the biggest superpower in the world. For all of Germany's existence, right up to the end of WWII, the British Empire was the biggest, perhaps only, superpower in the world.
-
Oh really :huh :huh :huh :old:
Obviously one of the areas where they were "ahead of the curve". ;)
ack-ack
-
The Germans never made it to superpower, but as an individual force were still the strongest military power in the world. Until they got beaten, and I would not know who passed them first.
They were leading in many a design, but lagging in some. And despite enslaving the mainland of Europe they managed to screw up.
So much for that.
-
Germany was never the strongest military power in the world in manpower or equipment. Not even close. Their early victories are solely the product of superior strategy and tactics combined with Allied and Soviet ineptitude.
-
Open for debate. You'd be surprized how sorry the U.S power allone was in 1939, be it in on the ground or the air.
Surely there were numbers, - the western allies had much more "so called" power than the Germans in the beginning days of WW2, but the Germans showed a different muscle, - a combination of plans and forces, and promptly delivered spanking lessons left and right.
I stick to my statement of them being the strongest power alone, - that criteria means complete seperation of course.
Strongest in the air : Yes. Second would be the British
Strongest on the seas: Well, deadly, but the cup goes to the Brits.
Strongest on land: Practically yes.
Strongest on resources: Before Barbarossa probably so.
So, all in all, the strongest "single" force. Swamping up most of the mainland of Europe made the Germans a mighty power which it took several years of combined efforts to smack down.
-
The Battle of France could easily have gone wrong for the Germans if not for pure daring luck and overwhelming Allied ineptitude. In 1941 the Red Army was the largest army in the world with twice the manpower, four-times the number of tanks and ten-times the number of aircraft than the Germans. However, they were encircled again and again and surrendered in the millions (literally). Most of their aircraft were destroyed on the ground. Again it was complete and utter ineptitude on the part of the Soviet leadership and military command. On the sea in 1939 the Kriegsmarine with only 32 warships was no match for the Royal Navy's 272. The British even had more submarines at this time.