Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: uptown on January 22, 2013, 05:06:42 PM
-
Every where I look the service ceiling for the P51-D is listed @ 41,900 . Why is it that in this game the plane flattens out and become pretty useless at 30K? :headscratch: :furious
The Lancs, B24s and 17s are flying well and steady at over 30K when the ceiling chart in the game clipboard doesn't even show them being able to climb to 30K. Something isn't right about these climb rates listed in the game.
-
The Lancs, B24s and 17s are flying well and steady at over 30K when the ceiling chart in the game clipboard doesn't even show them being able to climb to 30K.
Did you try to get a loaded Lancaster to 30k lately? ;)
-
Isn't service ceiling a pretty narrow definition though, something about it being the max alt that it's able to maintain a certain climb rate without stalling out?
What I recall reading was it doesn't say anything about planes actually being able to do anything at their service ceiling alt.
Wiley
-
Not any Lancs yet but have been trying to hunt 17s and 24s. But when they're at 30K the 51 is useless. That's when I started checking into the service ceiling of the 51D. It appears to me that the service ceiling for the 51D is around 30K in the game and not the 41900K listed from outside sources.
Maybe there's a difference between official service ceiling and (perceived) practical usabaility at altitude? They don't necessarily have to match exactly. And keep in midn that bomebrs do fly faster here than in RL at any altitude.
That being said, the 51D is far from useless against enemy bombers at 30k. I have killed quite a number of bombers at that alt (and even more, eneyy interceptors, because traditionally I have used the 51D more for hi alt escorts than buff hunts.).
There are, of course, fighters better suited to combat at 30k and beyond, like the 47M or the Ta 152H, both of which had a higher service altitude than the pony in reallife.
Oh, and on the Lanc, the days of Lancasters doing 30k bomber runs with full bombload on a regular base are long gone since HTC did some adjustments.
-
I have killed Lancs, B29s, B24s, B17s all above 30k with the 51D. That does not mean it is the best at it, but there you go.
def. Service Ceiling - altitude at which an aircraft makes only 150ft/min. climb.
-
Service ceiling
It is the density altitude at which flying in a clean configuration, at the best rate of climb airspeed for that altitude and with all engines operating and producing maximum continuous power, will produce a 100 feet per minute climb.
Absolute ceiling
The highest altitude an aeroplane can sustain level flight, which means the altitude at which the thrust of the engines at full power is equal to the total drag at minimum drag speed.
Combat ceiling
It is the highest altitude at which an aircraft is expected to have a 500 feet per minute climb
-
Isn't service ceiling a pretty narrow definition though, something about it being the max alt that it's able to maintain a certain climb rate without stalling out?
What I recall reading was it doesn't say anything about planes actually being able to do anything at their service ceiling alt.
Wiley
Pretty much you got it right. Except there is a big difference between the methods of flying at high altitude. If you are a crank-and-banker you will not be able to fly that way at high altitude.
The altitude Uptown listed for the P-51 is actually absolute ceiling, which is defined as the maximum altitude at which an aircraft can maintain level flight. At that point increasing the angle-of-attack will cause a stall, because the maximum thrust available is equal to the minimum thrust required to maintain level flight.
There is much more to it than definitions though. Anyone that has ever been to levels above 300 will know that any time you try to turn you lose altitude more than you do at low altitude. Makes sense because of the thinner air, right? So, when you turn you want to use more rudder and less aileron. Two aircraft, the Spit 14, and Ta152 are exceptional at this. You bank to the point at which the inboard wing is parallel to the ground, and you use the rudder to turn.
99.9% of the people that read this will be reading it for the first time.
-
Pretty much you got it right. Except there is a big difference between the methods of flying at high altitude. If you are a crank-and-banker you will not be able to fly that way at high altitude.
The altitude Uptown listed for the P-51 is actually absolute ceiling, which is defined as the maximum altitude at which an aircraft can maintain level flight. At that point increasing the angle-of-attack will cause a stall, because the maximum thrust available is equal to the minimum thrust required to maintain level flight.
There is much more to it than definitions though. Anyone that has ever been to levels above 300 will know that any time you try to turn you lose altitude more than you do at low altitude. Makes sense because of the thinner air, right? So, when you turn you want to use more rudder and less aileron. Two aircraft, the Spit 14, and Ta152 are exceptional at this. You bank to the point at which the inboard wing is parallel to the ground, and you use the rudder to turn.
99.9% of the people that read this will be reading it for the first time.
Your right there, first I'd heard about it, although it makes sense when you think it through. Thanks for the education Chalenge, that should help my Buff killing LOL. :rock
-
Your right there, first I'd heard about it, although it makes sense when you think it through. Thanks for the education Chalenge, that should help my Buff killing LOL. :rock
Makes little sense to me. You're already lacking power, why skid the airplane and create drag? I'd wager you'll lose as much altitude skidding the turn as you would with a coordinated banked turn.
-
I thought the same thing, colmbo, until I started flying that high. I think you should test it.
-
I have killed Lancs, B29s, B24s, B17s all above 30k with the 51D. That does not mean it is the best at it, but there you go.
def. Service Ceiling - altitude at which an aircraft makes only 150ft/min. climb.
That makes sense. I went level at around 32K I guess and was getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 or 500ft/min. climb rate. That's when I figured that there's no way I'm going to get another 8 or 9 k out of it.
-
Every where I look the service ceiling for the P51-D is listed @ 41,900 . Why is it that in this game the plane flattens out and become pretty useless at 30K? :headscratch: :furious
One other thing I think is worth a mention. If you're not used to fighting at alt, most planes become 'pretty useless' at 30k.
At alt, I find the thing to do is keep your E up, use gentle turns to set up your proper angles for shots. If you turn too hard, you bleed E much much faster than at low alt, and most planes' acceleration is minimal.
It's a different kind of fighting altogether.
Wiley.
-
The rules are not much different. The closer you get to absolute ceiling the closer you approach stall, so less aileron and more rudder. Near a stall avoid aileron. That's the same. It takes less room to compress, so you don't dive as far and you make less nose movements overall. Crank-and-bank works, but it takes less crank and less bank. Most of the time if you are escort at that kind of alt you only need to threaten opposing fighters and once they start down they don't come back up.
-
That makes sense. I went level at around 32K I guess and was getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 or 500ft/min. climb rate. That's when I figured that there's no way I'm going to get another 8 or 9 k out of it.
In little airplanes like the ones I fly, service ceiling is where you can no longer maintain a 200fpm climb.
-
In little airplanes like the ones I fly, service ceiling is where you can no longer maintain a 200fpm climb.
100fpm for piston engine single, 500fpm for jets.
-
Yep, correct.
Also....."altitude at which airplane flys badly" is not the same as service ceiling.
-
The higher you fly the more important it becomes to fly coordinated. Something very few do in this game.
-
You bank to the point at which the inboard wing is parallel to the ground, and you use the rudder to turn.
If your inboard wing is parallel to the ground, how can you be banking?
-
If your inboard wing is parallel to the ground, how can you be banking?
Very gently.
-
If your inboard wing is parallel to the ground, how can you be banking?
Every plane in this game except maybe the Arado Ar234 have positive dihedral, and I think the 234 does also but it's very little.
One contrast with reality is the way most people in AH go about combat. In WWII it was ever higher, ever faster. In AH it is ever slower, ever lower. Of course, it's not the game that has created that mindset, but I think the people refusing to play the game the way it was designed.
-
That's relative Chalenge... Some experienced pilots used throttle control very effectively. Marseilles' tactic to counter the allied Lufbery circle was to fly inside it... sometimes so slow that he needed to deploy flaps. I've read other accounts of both German and Finnish 109 pilots throttling down and using flaps to turn inside of their Russian opponents. In this game we are immortal, and thus we fight with utter disregard for our own safety... However, every move, every trick we employ to win our cartoon fights have been done in real life by some desperate soul trying to stay alive.
-
Ever lower, possibly. Ever slower, not sure what game you are playing. The life for slow turny planes has gotten harder and harder in AH in recent years. P-51Ds didn't become as dominant as they are because they are good at slow and turny.
-
Sounds like a typical day in the MA...
"-As the direction of take-off was in line with the railway tracks leading straight to Ludwigslust, we were almost immediately in contact with enemy fighters, which turned out to be Tempests Flying in No. 3 position. I witnessed Oberfeldwebel Sattler ahead seconds before we reached them. It was hardly possible for his crash to have been the result of enemy action, as the two Tempest had clearly only just registered our presence. So it was now two against two as the ground-level dogfight began. We knew the Tempest to be a very fast fighter, used by the British to chase and shoot-down our V-1s. But here, in a fight which would not rise above 50m, speed would not play a big part. The machines ability to turn would be all important. Both pilots realized from the start it would be a fight to the finish and used every flying trick and tactical ploy possible to gain the upper hand. At this altitude neither could afford to make the slightest mistake. And for the first time since flying the Ta 152 I began to fully appreciate exactly what this aircraft could do.
Pulling ever tighter turns I got closer and closer to the Tempest, never once felling that I was approaching the limit of the Ta 152 capabilities. And in order to keep out of my sights , the Tempest pilot was being forced to take increasingly dangerous evasive action. When he flicked over onto the opposite wing I knew his last attempt to turn inside of me had failed.
The first burst of fire from my Ta 152 caught the Tempest in the tail and rear fuselage. The enemy aircraft shuddered noticeably and, probably as an instinctive reaction, the Tempest pilot immediately yoked into a starboard turn, giving me an even greater advantage. Now there was no escape for the Tempest. I pressed my gun buttons a second time, but after a few rounds my weapon went silent, and despite all my efforts to clear them, refused to fire another shot. I can no longer remember just who and what I didn't curse. But fortunately the Tempest pilot didn't realize my predicament as he'd already taken hits. Instead he continued desperately to twist and turn and I positioned myself, so I was always just within his field of vision. Eventually-inevitably-he stalled. The Tempest's left wing dropped and he crashed into the woods below.
It so happened that that the site of Oberfeldwebel Sattler's crash site and that of the Tempest pilot, who proved to be New Zealander Wt Off O. J. Mitchell, were only about a kilometer apart. They were buried side-by-side in Neustadt-Glewe cemetery next day with full military honors."
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/lastgasp_large1.jpg)
-
That's relative Chalenge... Some experienced pilots used throttle control very effectively. Marseilles' tactic to counter the allied Lufbery circle was to fly inside it... sometimes so slow that he needed to deploy flaps. I've read other accounts of both German and Finnish 109 pilots throttling down and using flaps to turn inside of their Russian opponents. In this game we are immortal, and thus we fight with utter disregard for our own safety... However, every move, every trick we employ to win our cartoon fights have been done in real life by some desperate soul trying to stay alive.
Irrelevant, since you are comparing early war to late war.
@Karnak: see the thread on the F4U and how it can hover with full flap deployment. Ever lower ever slower applies. The survival rate is like the Tempest vs 152 story, I.E. 1 for 1. Good luck with that.
-
How am I "comparing early war to late war" ?
-
Marseille died in 1942. Pretty obvious.
-
1942 is not early war. Not for Europeans anyway. 1942 is Stalingrad, El Alamein, Hamburg, it's when the fortunes of war turned against Germany. The Finns didn't get their 109s until 1943, and that is certainly not early in the war.
'39 - '40 - '41 - '42 - '43 - '44 - '45
1942 is as mid-war as you can get. Pretty obvious.
-
:airplane:Question: Are you allowing the "game" to control your fuel burn? If you are, you are making a mistake! Burn your internal,(fuseledge tank first), then your outer's. Remember, the "Ponies" CG moves to the rear as you burn fuel and if you leave the game to manage it for you, by the time you get to 30K, your CG is to far aft for maximum turn and climb performance. Most single engine aircraft perform their best with a neutral or forward CG. The reason for this is simple, with a "aft" CG, the aircraft's natural tendency is for the nose to pitch up during a turn, hence decaying your speed more in a turn than with a forward or neutral CG. Check the AOA,(angle of attack) of the wing at various fuel loads and you will see real quick that the top speed is reached with a slight "negtive" AOA, not with a "postive" AOA!
-
1942 is not early war. Not for Europeans anyway. 1942 is Stalingrad, El Alamein, Hamburg, it's when the fortunes of war turned against Germany. The Finns didn't get their 109s until 1943, and that is certainly not early in the war.
'39 - '40 - '41 - '42 - '43 - '44 - '45
1942 is as mid-war as you can get. Pretty obvious.
So delete the first three years and you'll have the American perspective.
- oldman (hey, it's obvious!)
-
Apparently someone has never gone into Early War arena. :rolleyes:
-
No, why would I? I fly the 109F in the LW arena and it is quite competitive. Regardless of Oldman's "American perspective", WWII started in 1939, and I dare anyone who has a differing opinion to find a published historian who thinks otherwise. Some of the largest, and most important battles of the war happened before America officially got involved.
-
War in the Pacific started in 1937. Can be argued to be earlier. Just saying ;)
-
The Second Sino-Japanese War was not a "world war". The German invasion of Poland is considered the start of WWII because it provoked two world-spanning empires into declaring war on Germany.
-
The Second Sino-Japanese War was not a "world war". The German invasion of Poland is considered the start of WWII because it provoked two world-spanning empires into declaring war on Germany.
That's the European perspective (You see what i did there) ;)
Japan's war against China had nothing to do with them declaring war on the US later on?
The USSR fought quite a substantial campaign against Japan in 1938 to 39.
Vast territories .. certainly more global in geography than Poland no?
You know I'm pulling your leg here, don't you :)
However, I think it is worth looking at things from a different perspective sometimes (even though you are right about the usual definition of WW2 of course)
-
Sounds like a typical day in the MA...
"<snip>"
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/lastgasp_large1.jpg)
Perspective, perspective... indeed, quite like the MA.
Two of the Best
It was the 14th April 1945 and the war against Germany was rapidly drawing to an end. A young New Zealander from Nelson, Warrant Officer Owen Mitchell, had found that he was centre-stage to the death-throes of a nation.
An excellent cricketer and sensitive musician Mitchell had joined the RNZAF in 1942 directly from University where he had been studying engineering. At 20 years of age the young pilot transferred to England where, after training, he started to accumulate flying hours as an instructor and pilot with various Operational Training Units.
By early 1945 Mitchell had over 700 hours to his credit and was converted onto the latest fighter in the RAF inventory - the Hawker Tempest V. The next step was operational flying and he was delighted, when in early March he found that he had been posted to No. 486 (NZ) Squadron based at Volkel in Holland. The squadron was on the front-line and coming into daily contact with a still very efficient Luftwaffe as well as fierce anti-aircraft fire.
By early April the squadron had moved into Germany itself and was using their base at Hopsten to harass the enemy both in the air and on the ground.
At the German base of Neustadt-Glewe, Oberfeldwebel Sattler was also delighted with his new posting - to the elite Luftwaffe unit called the Stabsschwarm (part of JG301). They were flying the latest German fighter and ultimate development of the Focke Wulf 190 series of aircraft - the Ta-152.
At 6-25pm on the evening of the 14th Mitchell and three others from his squadron took off on an armed reconnaissance of the area. The section attacked a train north of Ludwigslust and then became split up. The leader and his number two ordering Sid Short and Owen Mitchell to make their own ways home.
Short and Mitchell, busily strafing along the rail tracks nearby on their way home, came under the watchful eye of lookouts at Neustadt-Glewe who immediately despatched three Ta-152 to intercept. The pilots - Aufhammer, Sattler and Reschke were on the scene in seconds. Reschke takes up the story;
"Flying in No.3 position I witnessed Oberfeldwebel Sattler ahead of me dive into the ground seconds before we reached them. It seemed impossible for the crash to be from enemy action."
Unknown to Reschke the New Zealander Short had managed to fire at Sattler in a quick pass before being attacked by Aufhammer. Friend and foe now started a turning match that seemed to last forever. Neither could gain the advantage and after 15 minutes the two pilots broke away and returned to their respective bases - glad to be able to fly home in one piece.
In the meantime Reschke and Mitchell were also in mortal combat.
"So now it was two against two as the ground level dogfight began... <snipped for long repeat> .... he crashed into the woods immediately below us."
The young New Zealander was killed instantly and in a quirk of fate his aircraft crashed less than 500 metres from the German pilot Sattler. The Luftwaffe technicians recovered the two pilots' bodies that evening.
The next day Mitchell and Sattler were buried side by side with full military honours in the Cemetery Neustadt-Glewe. During the funeral Oberfeldwebel Willi Reschke stood guard of honour in front of the coffins.
It is fitting to end this story here by allowing these two relatively unknown pilots - each flying arguably the most advanced piston-engined fighter produced by their respective nations to see service in the air war over Western Europe - to represent the many thousands on both sides who had gone before.
Footnote:
In 1947 the body of Owen James Mitchell was reinterred in the British Military Cemetery in Heerstrasse, Berlin. The Missing Research and Enquiry Unit who recovered the body in September 1947 noted;
"We visited the area (now in the Russian Zone) and found Body No. 1. This body was found to be clothed in khaki battledress and had New Zealand marked on the shoulder. The socks were RAF blue and the boots RAF escape type flying boots. On a handkerchief found in the pocket I found the name Pettitt in print letters, about ¼ inch high on the hem."
Owen Mitchell, the New Zealander from Nelson was killed 18 days before the end of hostilities.
-
Actually I'm pretty sure WW2 started the moment Hitler got a nut blown off in WW1. He vowed from that day forward someone was going to pay.......guess he meant it :bolt:
-
Perspective, perspective... indeed, quite like the MA.
:aok
On the Eastern Front they fought like that all the time.
-
Despite popular belief, like those expressed by Chalenge, only in regard to long-range strategic bombing did aircraft technology strive to go ever higher. In all other fields of combat the altitudes were far less, usually below 15k feet, because they flew in support of ground or naval operations. They could bomb a city from 30k, however attacking ground forces or ships required far greater accuracy. We see this clearly in the summer of 1944 as the Western Front stopped being only a strategic bombing campaign: With the Normandie landings the primary task of the Allied air forces changed, with the RAF and USAAF being tasked to support ground forces, interdict enemy forces and conduct airfield denial operations. Quite suddenly Allied fighter pilots went from having to fight at nose bleed altitudes to having to dodge church spires.
From the summer of 1944 onwards the air war in the west changed to the same type of air war that had been fought everywhere else since the start of the war. Our "war" in the "arenas" mimics this type of air war very well (for a game). While there are a few players who fly high, long-range, strategic bombing raids, most of our "war" is airfield denial (capping/vulching), supporting ground operations (capturing/defending) and supporting naval forces (carrier ops).
-
From the summer of 1944 onwards the air war in the west changed to the same type of air war that had been fought everywhere else since the start of the war. Our "war" in the "arenas" mimics this type of air war very well (for a game). While there are a few players who fly high, long-range, strategic bombing raids, most of our "war" is airfield denial (capping/vulching), supporting ground operations (capturing/defending) and supporting naval forces (carrier ops).
No. Just....no. With the barely-arguable exception of the period June-August, 1944, and again in January, 1945, Luftwaffe activity on the Western front after the invasion was virtually entirely directed to opposing the Eighth Air Force. Even the forward-based Gruppen - and there were only a handful of those after August 1944 - were often directed to 8th AF interception.
"Airfield denial," such as it exists in AH, may have occurred in the Pacific, and it may have occurred ("may") during the 1940-41 German invasions of Norway-Denmark-Belgium-France-Yugoslavia-Greece-Crete-USSR, but otherwise there was no real-world counterpart for the type of land-grab we have here.
- oldman
-
This chart is from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey's report "The Defeat of the German Air Force". It shows the German allocation of single-engined fighters on fronts and in roles throughout the war. After Normandy the majority of Luftwaffe fighters on the Western Front were fighting in a tactical role in support of German ground forces, as opposed to in a strategic defense role.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/lwfighterstrength.PNG)
Airfield denial operations were, and are, an essential part of air warfare doctrine. Cratering the runways, destroying fuel tanks and hangars, strafing planes on the ground... From the Battle of France to the Battle of Berlin it was the primary objective of tactical aviation on all sides. In late 1944 and in 1945 Allied fighters would circle German airfields like vultures; that's how most of the 262s claimed by Allied fighters were shot down. Vulched on landing.
-
This chart is from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey's report "The Defeat of the German Air Force". It shows the German allocation of single-engined fighters on fronts and in roles throughout the war. After Normandy the majority of Luftwaffe fighters on the Western Front were fighting in a tactical role in support of German ground forces, as opposed to in a strategic defense role.
*****
Airfield denial operations were, and are, an essential part of air warfare doctrine. Cratering the runways, destroying fuel tanks and hangars, strafing planes on the ground... From the Battle of France to the Battle of Berlin it was the primary objective of tactical aviation on all sides. In late 1944 and in 1945 Allied fighters would circle German airfields like vultures; that's how most of the 262s claimed by Allied fighters were shot down. Vulched on landing.
The graph simply indicates the German organization table. We would need a task-per-sortie table to demonstrate that most of the post-invasion Luftwaffe missions were flown as low altitude tactical missions. "Western Front Tactical Force" units, such as JG26, were frequently committed to high-altitude interception missions.
Certainly airfield strafing pre- and post-invasion was a major role for Allied fighters. Vulching was a high-risk mission which eventually accounted for more Allied losses than enemy aircraft did. I can't think of any operation, after Crete, which duplicates AH's land-grab feature.
- oldman
-
Ok, so we're down from "virtually entirely" to "frequently". We're making progress.
In reality JG26 was almost entirely committed to countering Allied fighter-bombers and to providing support to German ground forces. The Luftwaffe were in fact pulling units away from Reichsverteidigung to reinforce JG2 and JG26 in their tactical role. Alongside them some 20 gruppen would fly intensively over the French battlefields during the summer of 1944. Later they were withdrawn to the Netherlands and were heavily engaged in close support and interdiction tasks during Operation Market Garden. After that they withdrew to Germany to rebuild their strength. After Bodenplatte in January 1945, JG26 was tasked for the rest of the war to provide what support it could for the German Armies defending the Northern sector of the Western Front.
It is noteworthy that in this time period also the Allied air forces had more fighters tasked with close support and interdiction than on protecting bombers. In an effort to encourage their pilots to attack German airfields, Allied command allowed them to claim aircraft destroyed on the ground as victories. Later this would be rescinded however.
"Duplicate" is your word. I used the word "mimics". This is a game, it will never be a true representation of real life.
-
oldman you could always go thro Tony Wood's Lw claim list. It usually gives the altitude.
-
oldman you could always go thro Tony Wood's Lw claim list. It usually gives the altitude.
Thanks! It will take me some time to puzzle through them, I haven't found the altitude figures yet. But there are certainly a lot of 4-engine bomber claims.
- oldman
-
1. August 1944
JaFü II. Jagdkorps/Lfl. 3:
01.08.44 Ofhr. Heckmann 9./JG 1 P-51 AA-AB-BA-BB Sées-L'Aigle: 100-150 m. 14.58 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.30
01.08.44 Uffz. Brechtold 9./JG 1 P-51 AA-AB-BA-BB Sées-L'Aigle: 100-150 m. 15.00 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.31
01.08.44 Uffz. Alfred Reckhenrich 15./JG 27 B-26 La Meignanne-Angers: 6.000 m. 16.45 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: 36
Bold is altitude in meters.
-
Should be interesting for sure.
-
... But there are certainly a lot of 4-engine bomber claims.
- oldman
The type of aircraft does not tell you what mission it was on; the target of the bomber determines if it is on a strategic or tactical mission. The Allied heavy bombers were also tasked with tactical missions like the bombing of the Falaise pocket, bombing German strongholds like Cherbourg, and interdiction missions like bombing rail and communications targets etc.
-
Despite popular belief, like those expressed by Chalenge, only in regard to long-range strategic bombing did aircraft technology strive to go ever higher. In all other fields of combat the altitudes were far less, usually below 15k feet, because they flew in support of ground or naval operations. They could bomb a city from 30k, however attacking ground forces or ships required far greater accuracy. We see this clearly in the summer of 1944 as the Western Front stopped being only a strategic bombing campaign: With the Normandie landings the primary task of the Allied air forces changed, with the RAF and USAAF being tasked to support ground forces, interdict enemy forces and conduct airfield denial operations. Quite suddenly Allied fighter pilots went from having to fight at nose bleed altitudes to having to dodge church spires.
From the summer of 1944 onwards the air war in the west changed to the same type of air war that had been fought everywhere else since the start of the war. Our "war" in the "arenas" mimics this type of air war very well (for a game). While there are a few players who fly high, long-range, strategic bombing raids, most of our "war" is airfield denial (capping/vulching), supporting ground operations (capturing/defending) and supporting naval forces (carrier ops).
Again, early war concepts which proved to be impractical precisely because the air superiority the luftwaffe had early war was gone by late war. In the 2nd Battle of the Bulge (operation Bodenplatte) the Luftwaffe stupidly went in low level in order to smash the Allied air assets. They experienced heavy losses and in fact it was the end of the Luftwaffe as a result. Oh, sure, they had more aircraft and they could still fly, but they could never again mass forces against the allied assault.
What you are attempting to say in your rebuttal is contrary to all of aviation history. From the very beginning the recon aircraft would take pictures and harass ground forces. Someone came up with the brilliant idea of taking a gun with them to shoot down one of those recon planes, and the rest is history. Ever since it has always been about flying higher and faster. Yes, there were air operations at lower altitudes. Even at the last stages of the war American Bombers over Japan went in at low altitudes, but by that stage of the war the losses they encountered were considered acceptable in order to bring about the end of the war.
And what happened after the war? More speed. Higher altitudes.
It continues to this day.
-
The type of aircraft does not tell you what mission it was on; the target of the bomber determines if it is on a strategic or tactical mission. The Allied heavy bombers were also tasked with tactical missions like the bombing of the Falaise pocket, bombing German strongholds like Cherbourg, and interdiction missions like bombing rail and communications targets etc.
Possibly you missed my original thought on this: "With the barely-arguable exception of the period June-August, 1944, and again in January, 1945, Luftwaffe activity on the Western front after the invasion was virtually entirely directed to opposing the Eighth Air Force. Even the forward-based Gruppen - and there were only a handful of those after August 1944 - were often directed to 8th AF interception."
All 8th AF missions, except for those associated with Cobra, were high altitude missions. The 9th AF had no four-engine bombers. The only time the RAF sent its Lancasters in low, so far as I know, was in conjunction with Goodwood (Dam Busters aside). Consequently virtually all Luftwaffe claims for B-17s and B-24s would be from 8th (or 15th, which also flew at high alt) Air Force Missions. Nearly all four-engine bomber claims would have occurred at high altitude.
- oldman
-
Nonsense Chalenge. In the Pacific theater combat would very rarely occur above 15k feet, even in 1945. Same on the Eastern Front, Africa, Mediterranean, Middle East and Atlantic... On the western front combat above 20k would normally only occur when strategic bombing was involved, and only with the USAAF. The RAF bombers flew at lower altitudes; the Lanc could barely get above 20k in a clean configuration. The only high-flying RAF bomber was the Mossie, and during daylight even they preferred to fly at treetop levels.
Faster and higher did indeed become the priority post-war; the advent of the atomic bomb combined with the long distance between the USA and USSR meant that strategic bombing became the most important part of the cold war (at least until ICBMs became dominant). Now however, the current generation of fighters are actually slower than the last, and the new designs coming into service, like the F-35, are even slower than many fighters from the 1950s and '60s... So no, it does not continue to this day.
-
All 8th AF missions, except for those associated with Cobra, were high altitude missions. The 9th AF had no four-engine bombers. The only time the RAF sent its Lancasters in low, so far as I know, was in conjunction with Goodwood (Dam Busters aside). Consequently virtually all Luftwaffe claims for B-17s and B-24s would be from 8th (or 15th, which also flew at high alt) Air Force Missions. Nearly all four-engine bomber claims would have occurred at high altitude.
- oldman
Lancs can't go high... How goes your research into the Luftwaffe claims?
-
Lancs can't go high... How goes your research into the Luftwaffe claims?
Oh please. Your original assertion was:
"In all other fields of combat the altitudes were far less, usually below 15k feet....With the Normandie landings the primary task of the Allied air forces changed, with the RAF and USAAF being tasked to support ground forces, interdict enemy forces and conduct airfield denial operations. Quite suddenly Allied fighter pilots went from having to fight at nose bleed altitudes to having to dodge church spires.
From the summer of 1944 onwards the air war in the west changed to the same type of air war that had been fought everywhere else since the start of the war...."
Lancs flew higher than 15k. The air war in the West didn't suddenly become the same low-altitude fight as the air war in the East. As to my review of the materials MiloMorai identified: Heh, it will take awhile!
- oldman (but there are still a lot of four-engine bombers there, that's easy to see)
-
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/364-orndorff-31dec44.jpg)
-
Oh please.
No.
Your original claim was, and I quote:
Luftwaffe activity on the Western front after the invasion was virtually entirely directed to opposing the Eighth Air Force.
I'm sorry, but that's just total bull...
Lancs flew higher than 15k.
Not often. They struggled at higher altitudes with a full bomb load. Their best performance was achieved at 13-14k.
The air war in the West didn't suddenly become the same low-altitude fight as the air war in the East.
It sure did...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Kd6e7bYX4
- oldman (but there are still a lot of four-engine bombers there, that's easy to see)
For your claim to be true four-engined bombers would have to be the overwhelming majority.
-
Just scanned quickly through the document "Reich, West and Südfront, Aug to Dec 1944. Vol. I".
If we exclude Luftflotte Reich which was a dedicated Reichsvertedigung unit operating out of Germany, and the Südfront units which would be Italy and the Med, we find this as typical:
Not one... NOT ONE of these claims are above 15k. Most are below 10k.
JaFü II. Jagdkorps/Lfl. 3:
14.08.44 Ltn. Hans Grünberg: 72 5./JG 3 P-38 TH-6: 4.000 m. [Fismes area] 07.36 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.553
14.08.44 Uffz. Walter Jürling 1./JG 2 P-47 CD-5: 400 m. [12 km. S.E. Chartres] 14.38 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.228
14.08.44 Ltn. Eickhoff 2./JG 2 P-47 CD-1 to CD-4: 500 m. [Chartres 120˚] 14.40 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.109
14.08.44 Ltn. Fritz Bachmann 3./JG 2 P-47 CD-2: 50 m. [10 km. E. Chartres] 14.44 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.162
14.08.44 Uffz. Topp 4./JG 2 P-38 CD-5.9: 1.000 m. [Voise-Ouarville] 14.45 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.37
14.08.44 Ltn. Hans Waldmann: 128 4./JG 52* P-47 BC-7: 1.000 m. [S.W. Ch.-en-Thymerais] 16.45 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.567
14.08.44 Ltn. Hans Waldmann: 129 8./JG 3* P-47 BC-8: 600 m. [S. Ch.-en-Thymerais] 16.47 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.1
14.08.44 Ltn. Hermann Wolf: 54 8./JG 11 Spitfire BE-9: 1.000 m. [S. Corbeil-Essonnes] 16.50 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.23
14.08.44 Ltn. Oskar Zimmermann: 26 9./JG 3 P-47 CC-8.3: 1.800 m. [Illiers-Combray 045˚] 16.50 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.831
14.08.44 Fw. Otto Schicketanz 4./JG 52 P-47 BC-6: 800 m. [12 km. S.S.W. Dreux] 16.55 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.568
JaFü Süd-Frankreich/Lfl. 3:
14.08.44 Ofw. Eduard Isken 2./JGr. 200 Mustang CM-6.8: 4.000 m. [South France] 10.23 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.11
14.08.44 Uffz. Kniestedt 2./JGr. 200 Mustang CM-6.8: 4.000 m. [South France] 10.23 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.10
JaFü Ost-Preussen :
15.08.44 Ltn. Gustav Francsi 1./NJG 100 Lancaster 25 Ost S/QB: 2.800 m. [Warsaw] 00.28 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: 114
15.08.44 Ltn. Gustav Francsi 1./NJG 100 Lancaster 25 Ost S/RA-1: 2.800 m. [Warsaw] 01.38 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: 16
15.08.44 Ltn. Gustav Francsi 1./NJG 100 Lancaster 25 Ost S/QC-8: 2.800 m. [Warsaw] 01.54 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: 114
JaFü II. Jagdkorps/Lfl. 3:
15.08.44 Uffz. Tempel 9./JG 2 Mustang 15 West S/UQ-8: 1.200 m. [S. Jersey] 08.12 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.132
15.08.44 Ltn. Alfred Heckmann 3./JG 26 Mustang BC-3: 1.000 m. [Dreux] 12.28 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.156
15.08.44 Ltn. Gerhard Vogt 5./JG 26 P-47 BC-3: 1.000 m. [Dreux] 12.29 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.144
15.08.44 Ltn. Stein 5./JG 26 P-47 BD-6: 2.500-3.000 m. [E. Rambouillet] 12.30 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.145
15.08.44 Hptm. Emil Lang Stab II./JG 26 P-47 AD-BD: 2.000 m. 12.31 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.80
15.08.44 Ltn. Wilhelm Hofmann 8./JG 26 P-47 AC-AD: 5.000 m. [N. Dreux] 12.34 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: ASM
15.08.44 Uffz. Corinth 5./JG 26 P-47 AC-AD: 5.000 m. [N. Dreux] 12.34 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.43
15.08.44 Oblt. Georg-Peter Eder 6./JG 26 P-47 AD-BD: 2.000 m. [Houdan-Rambouillet] 12.38 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.109
15.08.44 Oblt. Georg-Peter Eder 6./JG 26 P-47 AD-BD: 3.000 m. [Houdan-Rambouillet] 12.40 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.110
JaFü II. Jagdkorps/Lfl. 3:
16.08.44 Uffz. Ottmar Kruse 8./JG 26 Mustang AD: 1.000 m. [Houdan S. Mantes] 14.35 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.44
16.08.44 Oblt. Bertels Stab II./JG 26 Mustang AD: 1.000 m. [Houdan S. Mantes] 15.32 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.82
16.08.44 Uffz. Hans-Joachim Burkel 11./JG 27 Mustang S.W. Rambouillet: 3.500 m. 16.58 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.
16.08.44 Ofhr. Scheiber 13./JG 27 Mustang Épernon: 3.500 m. [S.W. Rambouillet] 17.03 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.
16.08.44 Ltn. Hans Schliedermann 10./JG 27 Mustang BC südl. Dreux: 1.000 m. 17.05 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.
16.08.44 Oblt. Franz Stigler 11./JG 27 Spitfire BD: 3.000 m. [Rambouillet area] 17.06 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: Nr.
16.08.44 Uffz. Bodo Ring 10./JG 27 Mustang S. Dreux: 8.000 m. 17.15 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: ASM
16.08.44 Ltn. Hans Grünberg: 73 5./JG 3 P-47 BD-59: 1.100 m. [Rambouillet 120˚] 17.15 Film C. 2025/I Anerk: ASM
And it continues like this for the rest of the war... Now in December:
Not ONE over 15k.
JaFü II. Jagdkorps/Lw.Kdo. West:
17.12.44 Hptm. Kaufmann Stab III./JG 4 P-47 PN at 200 m. [St. Vith-Bïllingen] 10.04 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Oblt. Weber Stab III./JG 4 P-47 PN at 300 m. [St. Vith-Bïllingen] 10.06 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Fhr. Kühne Stab III./JG 4 P-47 PN at 1.500 m. [St. Vith-Bïllingen] 10.30 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Ofhr. Malsch Stab I./JG 4 P-38 QN-96 at 700 m. [N.W. Bitburg] 10.51 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Fhr. Meinke 1./JG 4 P-47 QO-69: 3.000 m. [Daun-Wittlich] 14.17 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Fhr. Lachmann 16./JG 4 P-47 05 Ost S/ON-5: 4.500 m. [Roetgen] 12.10 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Stenglein 6./JG 27 P-47 ON-6 at 2.800-3.000 m. [N. Mechernich] 10.46 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Stenglein 6./JG 27 P-47 ON-9 at 2.800-3.000 m. [Mechernich] 10.48 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Fw. Ubber 16./JG 27 P-47 S. Euskirchen: 1.050 m. 10.50 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Hptm. Keller Stab II./JG 27 P-47 W. Euskirchen: 2.500 m. 10.55 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Hptm. Dudeck Stab IV./JG 27 P-47 NN-NO at 1.200 m. [Aachen-Kerpen] 11.02 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Hptm. Kutscha 15./JG 27 P-47 ON u. PN: 1.200 m. [Monschau-St. Vith] 11.02 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Fhr. Pejas Stab IV./JG 27 P-47 NN-NO at 1.200 m. [Aachen-Kerpen] 11.03 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Ofhr. Prigge Stab IV./JG 27 P-47 NN-NO at 1.200 m. [Aachen-Kerpen] 11.04 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Fw. Arnold 9./JG 27 P-47 ON-98 at 2.500 m. [Mechernich] 11.10 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Prisille 14./JG 27 P-47 Euskirchen-Bodenh. 2.500 m. 11.30 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Saffranovski 1./JG 27 P-47 PN-2 at 1.000-1.200 m. [Butgenbach] 14.41 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Fw. Deutschmann 3./JG 27 P-47 PM-3 at 1.200 m. [Spa] 14.42 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Ltn. Stein 7./JG 27 P-47 NO-78/OO-12: 2.300 m. [N. Euskirchen] 15.00 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Fw. Patan 13./JG 27 P-38 PO-8 at 2.000 m. [N.E. Gerlostein] 15.24 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Ofw. Leo Schuhmacher: - Stab/JG 3 P-47 OO-69/OP-47: 1.500 m. 11.16 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Hans Hermann: 1 11./JG 3 P-47 OP-42 at 100 m. [S.E. Bonn] 11.20 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Gustav Aigner: 1 11./JG 3 P-47 OO-42 at 800 m. [Altenkirchen] 11.22 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Hptm. Wolfgang Kosse: 25 13./JG 3 P-47 NN-NO at 1.000 m. [Aachen-Kerpen] 11.30 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Werner Talkenberg: 1 16./JG 3 P-47 05 Ost S/NO-8 at 1.500 m. [Mechernich] 12.05 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Gefr. Walter Reichert: 1 16./JG 3 P-47 05 Ost S/NO-7 at 1.500 m. [Mechernich] 12.10 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Horst Schöne: 2 3./JG 3 P-47 NN-9 at 2.500 m. [Düren] 12.46 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. –
17.12.44 Fw. Karl Kleinemeier: 3 13./JG 3 P-38 OO-OP at 2.500 m. [S.W. u. S.E. Bonn] 15.30 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Helmut Keune: 4 14./JG 3 P-38 OO-OP at 2.000 m. [S.W. u. S.E. Bonn] 15.30 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Fw. Gerhard Querengässser 8./JG 2 P-47 ON-8/PN-2: 2.000 m. [Monschau] 11.34 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Oblt. Siegfried Lemke Stab/JG 2 Tempest 05 Ost S/PO: 2.500 m. [Eifel] 11.37 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Werner Stab I./JG 11 P-38 RO-4 at 3.000 m. [S. Bitburg] 14.34 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Fw. Koch 4./JG 11 P-38 RO-24 at 3.600 m. [S. Bitburg] 14.35 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Hptm. Rüdiger von Kirchmayr Stab I./JG 11 P-38 QO-QN at 3.000 m. [Prüm-Daun] 14.36 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Ltn. Klein 4./JG 11 P-38 RO-2 u. QO 8: 2.500 m. 14.43 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Grube Stab II./JG 11 P-47 SR-1/TR-19: 1.500 m. 16.00 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Ltn. Bell 15./JG 54 P-38 ON-7 at 2.500 m. [Hohe Venn] 15.10 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Ltn. Resch 15./JG 54 P-38 PN-8 at 1.000 m. [S.E. St. Vith] 15.12 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Ltn. Brandt 16./JG 54 P-38 PN-8 at 2.500 m. [S.E. St. Vith] 15.12 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Gefr. Beckert 15./JG 54 P-38 OP-77 at 3.000 m. [N.E. Gerlostein] 15.30 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Rudolf Delor 4./JG 26 P-38 PN-ON at 3.000 m. [Hohe Venn] 15.25 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Uffz. Rudolf Delor 4./JG 26 P-38 PN-ON at 2.500 m. [Hohe Venn] 15.30 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
17.12.44 Ltn. Joachim Günther 2./JG 26 P-38 PN-3/ON-12: 200-300 m. [Hohe Venn] 15.27 Film C. 2027/II Anerk: Nr. -
-
Nonsense Chalenge. In the Pacific theater combat would very rarely occur above 15k feet, even in 1945. Same on the Eastern Front, Africa, Mediterranean, Middle East and Atlantic... On the western front combat above 20k would normally only occur when strategic bombing was involved, and only with the USAAF. The RAF bombers flew at lower altitudes; the Lanc could barely get above 20k in a clean configuration. The only high-flying RAF bomber was the Mossie, and during daylight even they preferred to fly at treetop levels.
Faster and higher did indeed become the priority post-war; the advent of the atomic bomb combined with the long distance between the USA and USSR meant that strategic bombing became the most important part of the cold war (at least until ICBMs became dominant). Now however, the current generation of fighters are actually slower than the last, and the new designs coming into service, like the F-35, are even slower than many fighters from the 1950s and '60s... So no, it does not continue to this day.
I think you are suffering from a reading disability, or brainlock. You don't want to go faster and higher, so you are channeling your denial into events as you prefer them to have been rather than how they were in actual fact. Even Boyington's boys fought above 30,000 feet in the Solomons and I know they weren't fighting Germans!
Rarely? I don't know. I haven't read ever combat report ever written, but somehow I doubt your capacity to speak authoritatively on this.
-
Check the action reports and you find that more than a few battles were fought over 30,000 feet regardless of whether spitfire, P47, or P51.......with the enemy being equally high.
Type 30,000 in your "find" dialog on this document linked below for spitfires.
Better yet, try numbers like 37,000.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html#combat-reports
I find the same for p51 and p47.
-
I didn't see any combat reports from 1944 for the Spitfire.
-
I didn't see any combat reports from 1944 for the Spitfire.
:airplane: The reason is very simple, the combat range had been exceeded for the Spits, by the allied bombers, hence, other than shipping patrols and training flights, not much use for the spits, from late 43 till end of war. NOt sure, but only could find a intercept mission against JU-88's attempting to bomb shipping in the Northern end of the Channel between Ireland and Holland, by Spit 16's.
-
:airplane: The reason is very simple, the combat range had been exceeded for the Spits, by the allied bombers, hence, other than shipping patrols and training flights, not much use for the spits, from late 43 till end of war. NOt sure, but only could find a intercept mission against JU-88's attempting to bomb shipping in the Northern end of the Channel between Ireland and Holland, by Spit 16's.
Never heard of the 2 TAF then, have you. Spit 9s (RCAF 401) were one of the first Allied a/c to shoot down a Me262
-
[ad hominem removed]
Even Boyington's boys fought above 30,000 feet in the Solomons and I know they weren't fighting Germans!
I would really like to see some documentation on that claim. Sure, American pilots would cruise at high altitude to gain the initial advantage, and increase their range. However, to my knowledge no Japanese plane is able to fight at 30k; the few that can even get up there would be so close to their service ceiling that they'd struggle to stay in level flight. Boyington would have had to come down to fight them.
-
Check the action reports and you find that more than a few battles were fought over 30,000 feet regardless of whether spitfire, P47, or P51.......with the enemy being equally high.
Type 30,000 in your "find" dialog on this document linked below for spitfires.
Better yet, try numbers like 37,000.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html#combat-reports
I find the same for p51 and p47.
These are all from 1942 and 1943. In other words before the Allied landings in Normandy. You don't fly close support missions if you don't have an army to support. We are talking post D-Day here...
-
:airplane: The reason is very simple, the combat range had been exceeded for the Spits, by the allied bombers, hence, other than shipping patrols and training flights, not much use for the spits, from late 43 till end of war. NOt sure, but only could find a intercept mission against JU-88's attempting to bomb shipping in the Northern end of the Channel between Ireland and Holland, by Spit 16's.
This is just wrong. RAF fighter units would operate out of captured Luftwaffe airfields in France, the Low Countries, even in Germany itself. To my knowledge the first Spitfire over Berlin was a Spitfire PR XI, flying from Allied controlled territory in France on 26th June 1944. It took this picture of Tempelhof airbase.
(http://www.airrecce.co.uk/WW2/imagery/BAGraphics/Tempelhof/images/Tempelhof_main1.jpg)
-
Ok... I've gone through Tony Wood's document "Reich, West & Südfront August-December 1944".
Kill claims are not really a reliable measure; success does not equal effort. It would have been better to use sortie rate, but we use what we have...
First I removed the "Südfront" listings, leaving only Reich (strategic) and West (tactical). I further separated Reich and West into two separate documents...
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/Luftflotte%203%20-%20LwKdo%20West.doc
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/Luftflotte%20Reich.doc
...so that Word could automagically count kills (lines).
I found that Luftflotte Reich, including night-fighters, accounted for 1,537 of the documented claims. Luftflotte 3 / Lw.Kdo. West accounted for 1,033 of the documented claims. Reich+night-fighters thus make up 59.8% of the documented claims, leaving 40.2% to the tactical units.
Now... Oldman claimed that the tactical component of this chart...
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/26232318/lwfighterstrength.PNG)
...just "simply indicates the German organization table", or in other words they were tactical only on paper and were really used in strategic defense. He continues: " 'Western Front Tactical Force' units, such as JG26, were frequently committed to high-altitude interception missions."
The numbers show this to be in error. I took a tap-counter and went through the West (tactical) document and counted the kill claims that were listed at altitudes above 5,000 meters; the result was 46.
46!
Out of 1033 documented claims only 46 were higher than 5,000 meters. Frankly I found that astounding.
Out of curiosity I then counted the claims that were listed at under 1,000 meters. The result was 188 + 11 that were listed as "tiefflug", meaning low-flight between 10 to 600 meters.
So we have:
46 claims above 5,000 meters
199 claims below 1,000 meters
788 claims somewhere in between.
Next I wondered what sort of aircraft did these" tactical" units shoot down? I found that the vast majority are fighters/fighter-bombers, with most of the rest being medium-bombers and support aircraft (a lot of C-47s were claimed over Arnhem).
I tap-counted the number of B-17 and B-24 claims by the West (tactical) units. The number is 35.
I also looked specifically at Lancaster claims, and their altitudes ranged from below 2,000 up to 5,000 meters with most at around 3,000 meters. A single Lanc kill was recorded at 5,500-6,000 meters.
Note: About 10% of the claims have no altitude listed. In addition I consider my counting to have a margin of error of 5%. Total margin of error would then be about 15%.
Conclusion:
No. Just....no. With the barely-arguable exception of the period June-August, 1944, and again in January, 1945, Luftwaffe activity on the Western front after the invasion was virtually entirely directed to opposing the Eighth Air Force. Even the forward-based Gruppen - and there were only a handful of those after August 1944 - were often directed to 8th AF interception.
This is incorrect. The balance of claims indicate that there was an about 50-50 split in Luftwaffe day-activity against strategic bombing and tactical support of German ground forces. The night-fighters make up the difference of the 60%-40% in favor of strategic defense.
Oh please. Your original assertion was:
"In all other fields of combat the altitudes were far less, usually below 15k feet....With the Normandie landings the primary task of the Allied air forces changed, with the RAF and USAAF being tasked to support ground forces, interdict enemy forces and conduct airfield denial operations. Quite suddenly Allied fighter pilots went from having to fight at nose bleed altitudes to having to dodge church spires.
From the summer of 1944 onwards the air war in the west changed to the same type of air war that had been fought everywhere else since the start of the war...."
Lancs flew higher than 15k. The air war in the West didn't suddenly become the same low-altitude fight as the air war in the East.
It sure did, and Lancs generally did not fly above 15k.
-
General Echols (The Man Who Won World War II) talks about the need for superchargers (they used to call them turbosuperchargers) so they can get to higher altitudes faster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFwwgbj9Bi8
I'm sure we spent all that time, effort, and labor on superchargers so we could fight down low, right? :rolleyes:
-
They use to call them turbosuperchargers because they were of the GE type as used on the B-17, P38 and P-47.
When the P-51 (supercharger) began to replace the P-47 (turbosupercharger) doing escort duty, the P-47 was sent to the IXth AF, a tactical force supporting the army.
-
Every where I look the service ceiling for the P51-D is listed @ 41,900 . Why is it that in this game the plane flattens out and become pretty useless at 30K? :headscratch: :furious
I do not know, but could it have to do with 100 octane avgas in AH, vs 150 octane in R/L by mid '44 ?
Best.
-
They use to call them turbosuperchargers because they were of the GE type as used on the B-17, P38 and P-47.
When the P-51 (supercharger) began to replace the P-47 (turbosupercharger) doing escort duty, the P-47 was sent to the IXth AF, a tactical force supporting the army.
We're not talking about mudhens here. We are talking about fighter pilots.
-
We're not talking about mudhens here. We are talking about fighter pilots.
So you are saying mudhens, ie fighter bombers, never shot down enemy a/c?
-
I do not know, but could it have to do with 100 octane avgas in AH, vs 150 octane in R/L by mid '44 ?
Best.
Increasing octane rating does not make your engine perform better at higher altitudes. When the Allies introduced 150 octane fuel it actually reduced the full pressure height of the P-51D from 24,500 feet to 21,200 feet. The limiting factor is the blower, not the fuel.
-
General Echols (The Man Who Won World War II) talks about the need for superchargers (they used to call them turbosuperchargers) so they can get to higher altitudes faster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFwwgbj9Bi8
I'm sure we spent all that time, effort, and labor on superchargers so we could fight down low, right? :rolleyes:
That propaganda film is from 1943; a time where the USAAF still believed in its strategic bombing doctrine. By the end of that same year the Luftwaffe had brought down the USAAF strategic think-tank from its lofty clouds at the cost of the lives of two-thirds of USAAF bomber crews in Europe.
Now let's disregard the propaganda films and quotes from unrealistic Generals, and look at what really happened.
The USAAF started its operations in Europe with the P47 which had a full pressure altitude of around 30,000 feet. It's long range companion, the P-38, also had a full pressure height of just under 30,000 feet.
When the P-51B/C started to arrive in late 1943 it had the Packard Merlin V-1650-3 with a full pressure height in high-blower of 29,400 feet. Very similar to the P-47 and P-38. However what did they do with the P-51D in early 1944, after they've learned the bitter lessons of 1943? They switched production to the Pacard Merlin V-1650-7; an engine optimized for medium-altitudes, with a full pressure height of 24,500 feet.
Now why did the USAAF do this? Because from costly experience they learned that it is no point in having your fighters' best performance at 30,000 feet if the enemy wasn't there. The high-blown V-1650-3 actually put USAAF pilots at a disadvantage at actual combat altitude against the Luftwaffe. So they lowered the full pressure height to an altitude band more comparable with their Luftwaffe adversaries. The introduction of 150 octane fuel also resulted in the full pressure height being further reduced to just over 21,000 feet.
Conclusion: The USAAF ended the war in Europe with a fighter that had its best performance at an altitude almost 10,000 feet lower than the fighters it started with. Your assertion that the USAAF strived for "higher and faster" fighter aircraft is wrong. Faster yes, but not higher, and that is an indisputable fact.
-
This is incorrect. The balance of claims indicate that there was an about 50-50 split in Luftwaffe day-activity against strategic bombing and tactical support of German ground forces. The night-fighters make up the difference of the 60%-40% in favor of strategic defense.
GScholz, thanks for spending the effort to look at these figures. While the kill claims certainly aren't conclusive, they do add useful information. I regret that I haven't had the time - and probably won't, within the life-span of this thread - to go over those materials.
That said, your conclusion here is broader than its supporting evidence. You've found that the bulk of Luftwaffe claims from the units you studied (and why omit the Sudfront units, which would have flown against the 15th AF's strategic missions?), during the months you analyzed, were reported to have occurred between 3,000 feet and 15,000 feet. That is consistent with both of our positions. Eighth AF escorts often chased Luftwaffe planes (or were chased by them) to lower altitudes; 9th AF fighters were instructed to strafe German bases upon conclusion of their escort duties; and Luftwaffe missions sometimes were begun at and confined to lower altitudes. We can only surmise that some of these Luftwaffe claims occurred during "tactical support of German ground forces" on the West Front, which, by nearly unanimous anecdotal accounts, was quite sparse except during the early Normandy fighting and for a few days during the Bulge.
- oldman
-
We're not talking about mudhens here. We are talking about fighter pilots.
Yes, isn't it ironic that the high-altitude P-47 ended the war in Europe as a ground attacker?
-
Oldman, the most telling statistic from that document is that out of 1033 claims by the tactical units only 35 were of B-17s or B-24s. Given that the Luftwaffe had orders not to engage escort fighters, the number of USAAF heavy bombers should have been dominant if these tactical units actually were used for strategic defense instead. Also, the kill claims of the Reich units are predominantly above 5,000 meters, and predominantly USAAF heavy bombers, in stark contrast to the tactical West units.
I omitted the Southern Front units because you claimed that "Luftwaffe activity on the Western front after the invasion was virtually entirely directed to opposing the Eighth Air Force". Well, The Mighty-Eighth did not operate in Southern Europe, and thus every singe Luftwaffe victory on that front would have supported my position. Since the Southern Front technically is not part of the Western Front I thought you would have surely protested had I included them.
-
Sorry for all the edits; I'm a little too quick on the "Post" button today.
-
Oldman, I just scanned quickly at the Southern Front claims. This late in the war they are predominantly of Soviet aircraft.
-
We can only surmise that some of these Luftwaffe claims occurred during "tactical support of German ground forces" on the West Front, which, by nearly unanimous anecdotal accounts, was quite sparse except during the early Normandy fighting and for a few days during the Bulge.
- oldman
I'm curious: Which anecdotal accounts are you referring to?
-
This is just wrong. RAF fighter units would operate out of captured Luftwaffe airfields in France, the Low Countries, even in Germany itself. To my knowledge the first Spitfire over Berlin was a Spitfire PR XI, flying from Allied controlled territory in France on 26th June 1944. It took this picture of Tempelhof airbase.
(http://www.airrecce.co.uk/WW2/imagery/BAGraphics/Tempelhof/images/Tempelhof_main1.jpg)
:airplane:You make my point sir! The Spits, until after "D" day, in 44, did not have the combat range to escort the bombers deep into Germany and other European targets. The only reason the 51's could escort them all the way were the drop tanks. Even the "Jugs", even with 2 150 gallon on wing pylons and 1 75 gallon under the center line, could go part of the way, but it took the ole ponie to successfully provide escort all the way to Berlin and back. Then, you have to remember, by the time the Spits could go deep into Germany, the "Krauts" only had very in-experenced pilots flying any of their aircraft. Don't misunderstand my reply, the Spit was a great aircraft, just didn't have very long legs!
-
I didn't see any combat reports from 1944 for the Spitfire.
:airplane: The reason is very simple, the combat range had been exceeded for the Spits, by the allied bombers, hence, other than shipping patrols and training flights, not much use for the spits, from late 43 till end of war. NOt sure, but only could find a intercept mission against JU-88's attempting to bomb shipping in the Northern end of the Channel between Ireland and Holland, by Spit 16's.
This is just wrong. RAF fighter units would operate out of captured Luftwaffe airfields in France, the Low Countries, even in Germany itself. To my knowledge the first Spitfire over Berlin was a Spitfire PR XI, flying from Allied controlled territory in France on 26th June 1944. It took this picture of Tempelhof airbase.
(http://www.airrecce.co.uk/WW2/imagery/BAGraphics/Tempelhof/images/Tempelhof_main1.jpg)
:airplane:You make my point sir! The Spits, until after "D" day, in 44, did not have the combat range to escort the bombers deep into Germany and other European targets. The only reason the 51's could escort them all the way were the drop tanks. Even the "Jugs", even with 2 150 gallon on wing pylons and 1 75 gallon under the center line, could go part of the way, but it took the ole ponie to successfully provide escort all the way to Berlin and back. Then, you have to remember, by the time the Spits could go deep into Germany, the "Krauts" only had very in-experenced pilots flying any of their aircraft. Don't misunderstand my reply, the Spit was a great aircraft, just didn't have very long legs!
You do not make any sense Sir. You mistake Milo's question as confirmation that there are no combat reports for the Spitfire from 1944. At no time during the war was the Spitfire not in combat. The Spitfire was in combat throughout 1944, not just after D-Day. Despite popular belief, which is starting to aggravate me, the air war in the west was not all about strategic bombing. Spitfires flew fighter sweeps and escorted bombers over France and the Low Countries almost daily.
-
I'm curious: Which anecdotal accounts are you referring to?
You're asking me to prove a negative. Why don't we reverse the question? How many accounts have you seen of Allied troops on the western front being attacked by German aircraft?
- oldman
-
Considering the Allied numerical advantage the Luftwaffe would have been mostly doing counter air interdiction. I.e. trying to prevent Allied fighter-bombers from doing their job. Supporting ground forces also means protecting them, not just shooting at the other guys.
However they did that too. I quote from "Luftwaffe over Arnhem":
"During the Battle of Arnhem/Oosterbeek the Germans were able to effectively request air support through the Luftwaffe Liaison officers located within the IInd SS Pz Kps HQs during the whole operational period. The Liaison officers requested air support not only for engaging allied transports over the drop zones but also for air cover for German troop movements as well as strafing runs on known British strong points. Of course the Luftwaffe did not always hit the right target on the ground and the Germans did suffer casualties from their own planes during the operation.
During the period 17th – 26th September 1944, the Luftwaffe employed up to 10 different Jagdgeschwaders that flew from airfields such as Dortmund, Werl, Paderborn, Guetersloh, Stoermede, Achmer, Lippspringe and Plantluenne. They were to score a total of 122 victories over this period with more than half of them coming from JG 11 and JG 26 combined. It was these two units during September 1944 that housed the famous Luftwaffe Aces or ‘Experten' such as Priller, Grislawski, Mietusch and Krupinski."
-
You're asking me to prove a negative.
No. I'm asking about the anecdotal accounts you were referring to?
-
No. I'm asking about the anecdotal accounts you were referring to?
I think we're done here. You can have the last word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
- oldman
-
You do not make any sense Sir. You mistake Milo's question as confirmation that there are no combat reports for the Spitfire from 1944. At no time during the war was the Spitfire not in combat. The Spitfire was in combat throughout 1944, not just after D-Day. Despite popular belief, which is starting to aggravate me, the air war in the west was not all about strategic bombing. Spitfires flew fighter sweeps and escorted bombers over France and the Low Countries almost daily.
:airplane: I did not mean to start an augrument about the value of the Spit in winning the war sir! The only point I brought up was the fact that the Spit did not have fuel range for bomber escort, until after "D" day time frame. Even then, it was late August, if I remember right before any forward bases were established for the Spit to operate from. As far as Strategic bombing is concerned, there would not be an end to the war as quickly as it happened, with-out bombers killing the oil supplies, bearing factories and aircraft factories which were producing the war machine run by that "paper-hanging SOB" as General Geo Patton refered to him. It took all elements of the allied forces to bring the war to an end, not just one part. History has proved that the destruction of oil supplies and the constant bombing of the "bearing" factories, both roller bearings and ball bearings which really allowed the war to end as soon as it did.
From the history I have read, the Spit operated mostly in and around the "front" line area's, keeping the German fighter-bombers off the troops and convoys. Of course, one of the vauable missions flown by spits, because of their speed, were "photo" recon missions.
-
Spitfires also flew escort to the American heavies, freeing up more American escorts for the deep penatration missions.
-
... But when they're at 30K the 51 is useless. That's when I started checking into the service ceiling of the 51D. It appears to me that the service ceiling for the 51D is around 30K in the game and not the 41900K listed from outside sources.
For kicks I put the D into auto climb and let it go. I came back a some time later to check and it was at 37,400, and in very minimal climb. Tried it again and shot all ammo after takeoff. This time it went to 37,600. One more time, climbed to about 37,000 and then tried to finess by going to level, and then manual trim up. I got to 38,900 and the stall buzzer came on.
Then, I put the B into auto climb and let it go. I came back later and it was holding at 41,000.
I compared the B's and D's manifold pressures at 30K, and lower, for every 1000 feet difference and I found.
B
30000 - 40
29000 - 45
28000 - 50
27000 - 55
26000 - 60
25000 - 63 wep
24000 - 67 wep
D
30000 - 50
29000 - 53
28000 - 55
27000 - 57
26000 - 60
25000 - 63 wep
24000 - 67 wep
I was under the impression that the Merlin V-1650-3 of the B had higher manifold pressure at higher alts than the Merlin V-1650-7 of the D.
The following link has reports that show different manifold pressures.
There are also remarks that the higher octane fuel does improve performance somewhat.
Have fun... :)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html)
-
:airplane: I did not mean to start an augrument about the value of the Spit in winning the war sir! The only point I brought up was the fact that the Spit did not have fuel range for bomber escort, until after "D" day time frame.
I'm sorry, it just seemed like you didn't think there were any combat reports from 1944 for the Spitfire. Despite the fact that none are presented on that site, I assure you that's not the case.
I didn't see any combat reports from 1944 for the Spitfire.
:airplane: The reason is very simple, the combat range had been exceeded for the Spits, by the allied bombers, hence, other than shipping patrols and training flights, not much use for the spits, from late 43 till end of war. NOt sure, but only could find a intercept mission against JU-88's attempting to bomb shipping in the Northern end of the Channel between Ireland and Holland, by Spit 16's.
-
There are also remarks that the higher octane fuel does improve performance somewhat.
Below full pressure altitude, yes. Above that altitude the blower is unable to sustain the manifold pressure required to take advantage of the higher octane rating.
-
There's some evidence to suggest that the Aces High P-51D's performance may decline above critical altitude more quickly than that of the actual airplane. Historic flight test data posted on various web sites consistently show V-1650-7 powered Mustangs at military weights maintaining a climb rate in the vicinity of 1500 to 1600 feet per minute at 30,000 feet with a ceiling somewhere in the general vicinity of 41,000. The last time I tested the P-51D in aces high, with similar weights I was climbing at a mere 1100 FPM at 30K and my climbs topped out at about 38K. I was able to stagger up to about 39K if I stripped the plane as bare as I could (4 guns, no ammo, hardly any fuel) but that doesn't represent the condition used in the real flight tests.
By comparison, the V-1650-3 powered Mustangs could sustain a climb of over 2K feet/min at 30,000 feet, still decidedly better than where the -7 equipped planes tested to.
The climb performance of the P-51D in aces high very closely mirrors that of a performance calculation prepared by North American around the end of the war. That report was an estimate, not a flight test.
Yeah, I still lurk here from time to time.
J_A_B
-
Are you using auto-climb? If so, are you changing the climb speed during the climb? The default is the best climb speed only at sea-level.
-
I don't know about the OP, but when I tested it myself I flew the airplane manually and used manual trim control to achieve best results. You have no choice but to do it that way--the automatic settings don't work right up that high and will give you a best altitude of about 37K. Note that I did this a little over a year ago. If there's been some major revision of the Aces High P-51D flight model since then my knowledge would be out of date, but I know of no such revision.
Manifold pressures observed during climbs:
20k.......67
21k.......67
22k.......67
23k.......67
24k.......64
25k.......62
26k.......58.7
27k.......56
28k.......53.2
29k.......51
30k.......49
31k.......47
32k.......45.2
33k.......43
34k.......41
35k.......39.5
36k.......37.5
37k.......36
38k.......34
39k.......33
Here are altitudes I was able to achieve at various weights:
75% fuel, 6 guns, full ammo (combat load): 38,600
75% fuel, 6 guns, no ammo: 39,100
50% fuel, 4 guns, no ammo: 39,250
I did these tests offline and in the final test was very low on fuel by the time I reached 35K-plus.
I did speed tests as well, but seem to have deleted that file. My recollection is that speeds were generally in order, though perhaps a hair (5-7 MPH or so) optimistic for a P-51 running at only 67'' MAP.
J_A_B
-
How do they compare with the real-life tests over at wwiiaircraftperformance.org ?
-
Neat site, it compiles a great deal of research into one place--thanks for showing it to me.
As I noted in my first post, flight tests at military weights for V-1650-7 powered Mustangs indicate a ceiling in the vicinity of 41K. A climb rate of about 1500-1600 FPM could be maintained at 30K versus the ~1100 achieved in AH. In general the Aces High P-51D's performance falls off at altitude more quickly than that of the flight tested airplanes.
Using the site you linked as a reference, V-1650-7 engined mustangs are shown in a couple different flight tests as maintaining around 54-55 inches MAP at 30,000 versus the 49'' my own test in-game maintained at the same level. This largely correlates to the difference in rate of climb between the modeled plane and the flight tests.
The Aces High performance, as I noted, closely correlates to an estimate North American drew up around the end of the war which is also posted on that site you mentioned. This estimate was not directly based on flight tests.
I made no tests in the mid-altitude (~15K) "dead zone" range for this airplane. I tested level speeds, but no longer have the file I made.
J_A_B
-
If I'm not mistaken, the tested aircraft were B-models.; could that be the cause? Although I admit the difference in manifold pressure seems very large.
-
Good hypothesis, so I checked it. On the site you posted the flight tests include both -B and -D models with the 1650-7 engine. Climb performance for the two types appears essentially equivalent as would be expected.
Also note that the AH performance chart on the AH wiki agrees with my own testing so I don't believe I flubbed my in-game tests of the performance we have.
Upon reflection the manifold pressure difference can likely (almost certainly, actually) be attributed to ram effect. It might be possible to push the manifold pressure in the Aces high P-51D over 50 inches at 30K by getting it fast enough. Therefore this does not correlate to observed variations in climb rate after all.
The site you linked me has much more detailed info than my own personal sources. I've been going through it all evening. One flight test of a P-51D shows a climbing speed manifold pressure of 46.4 at 30K alt, but the plane still climbing at 1700 FPM. Another involving P-51B's also show MAP in the upper 40's at that elevation but also show a climbrate of ~1600 FPM. Therefore the number on the Aces High manifold pressure dial is probably about right for that speed.
What I can't wrap my head around is the sustained climb rate and ceiling discrepancy. In all flight tests the -7 engined planes (be it a B or a D) plot something in the vicinity of ~1600 FPM at 30K and could stagger up to around 41K. Mostly they plot about ~600 feet per minute or so at the 38-39K range where the AH P-51D doesn't even want to climb anymore with a military load.
On the other hand there's still that NAA-estimated report that puts the P-51D right as it performs in AH. If you believe that report, then AH is spot on.
For my part in several years of on-and-off researching and testing I never have been able to come to a conclusion that I find entirely satisfactory which is why I never posted on this subject myself.
J_A_B
-
I guess they use the NAA-estimated report then.
-
Remember that if take off is a military load you probably will draw down at least 80-90 gallons getting to ceiling for the 1650-7 which was spec'd at 41900
-
In 8th AF scenarios, lots of P-51 fights are above 30k (and up to 34k).
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame1/005-disrupt-SNAG-0006.jpg)
Here, bombers are at 25k.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame1/006-disrupt-SNAG-0007.jpg)
-
Upon reflection the manifold pressure difference can likely (almost certainly, actually) be attributed to ram effect. It might be possible to push the manifold pressure in the Aces high P-51D over 50 inches at 30K by getting it fast enough. Therefore this does not correlate to observed variations in climb rate after all.
The only problem with this idea (if it did anything) is the airspeed required would be so high it would fool the supercharger into thinking it was at low altitude and your power would disappear instead of increase. Fortunately the airspeed required is well beyond the capabilities of the P-51.
I think you missed where I pointed out the B-model in AH does not have the same engine as the D. At least, according to the performance charts it cannot.
-
I'm well aware that the Aces High P-51B is an early production variant with the V-1650-3 powerplant. I'm not sure why you think I missed that or what real relevance it has anyhow; the core of the discussion relates to the Mustangs equipped with the V-1650-7 engine. If Ram effect cannot make up the manifold pressure difference I noticed then that wouldn't affect the bottom line anyway: Bottom line is that at high altitudes the Aces High P-51D climbs more slowly than any flight-tested Mustang with the same engine and doesn't reach the same maximum altitudes. Performance only correlates to a pen-and-paper estimate drawn up by NAA of suspect accuracy.
Were the Aces High P-51D changed to better reflect flight test data, the game's P-51B (unchanged) would still have a superior high altitude climb rate as well as a higher ceiling.
My ongoing interest is academic only since I haven't played this game online since before you even registered on the forum.
J_A_B
-
If Ram effect cannot make up the manifold pressure difference I noticed then that wouldn't affect the bottom line anyway
This is exactly why I thought you did not know the difference, because ram effect will not make the difference at that altitude. How long you have been posting here and absent from the game makes no difference.
Now that I know you are a troll only. Ignored.