Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Mister Fork on November 17, 2014, 05:16:24 PM
-
While having a debate with a close friend and also a WW2 historian, we were talking about the operation performance disappointment of the Bf-110 series aircraft and what were it's actual downfalls. We were wondering if training was the root cause - not taking advantage of it's performance. Then we looked at it performance data... We also got out my Weapons and Warfare book on the Bf-110 how it was performance wise after the BoB it was a sitting duck for the more nimble and faster Spitfire V/IX and the introduction of American aircraft P-47 and early P-38's. We noted the Mosquito as a fast attack aircraft with no gunners in the rear using its speed solely as its saving grace - speed was key to it's survival as a fast-in-out attack aircraft.
Even with the improved engines, the Bf-110 performance lagged but one thing that my friend came up was the weight of the tail gunner, its ammo, gunner support systems including oxygen, longer cockpit frame, seats, armor for rear gunner, and how much all that extra protection was really needed in a 300+ MPH attack aircraft?
So a couple of questions came up - how much faster would the Bf-110 be if the cockpit was greatly shortened, ammo, chair, comms, oxygen system reduced, and its AA guns deleted and how much more nimble would it be?
The hardest part was figuring out how much all that extra weight to support the rear gunner actually took. The AA mount, the actual seat and frame, reduced cockpit size. Delete of the internal comms system. Reduction of the O2 support system (not much but it also means you only need half the O2. The Bf-110 has an empty weight was 4500kg (9900 in lbs) and it also means that reducing the support systems is a complete guess as the airframe would need additional support to hold the rear guns and gunner.
And we listed the weights of the gunner delete:
100kg (220)- Tail gunner
13kg (30) - two MG-81Z's
240kg (530) - standard ammo count for MG-81Z in Bf-110 at 12g per 7.92mm bullet at 12g each.
100kg (220) - supporting framework for MG's
400kg (880) - rear seat and AA support systems delete
Total reduction of weight would be almost a 20% lighter aircraft. :confused:
And an further conversation occurred about modelling those changes in a simulator (FS:X) to see what kind of changes would it have on the Bf-110. Of course, CoG is a big impact as it moves a lot more weight forward from the nose guns, but I'm sure some fuel tank adjustments could of been made by putting a self-sealing fuel tank there in that spot, further extending the range.
Questions:
1. Our estimate was around Was our weight estimates accurate for the gunner delete was around 850kg or ~1850lbs...is that accurate or 'close enough'? :rolleyes:
2. Operationally, the Bf-110C-4 flew at around 12-13000lbs loaded with max ammo fuel and bombs. So how much difference does 1800lbs mean on a plane that flies for combat at 12500lbs? Not much, but once it does its job, what kind of fighter would 1800lbs make?
3. If the Bf-110 was a single seat attack aircraft with the weight reductions, how effective would it have been?
4. Considering the potential performance gains of removing the rear gunner, why was the BF-110 equipped with one?
5. Finally - how truly effective was a fast-moving aircraft with a tail gunner?
-
Fork,
reshaped
while I'm not prepared to speculate on what if but it might help if you looked at the 410 line!
They did exactly what you are talking about,removed rear gunner and guns,reshaped the cockpit framework and naturally this reduced the weights.
IIRC there was somewhat of a speed advantage and surely the wingloading would be lower but I'm afraid it was a case of too little too late.
DH also did a similar thing with the mossie,only they called it the hornet!
They basically turned the mossie into a single-seater,but they also revamped construction in both materials and technique.One thing they changed that I know of for sure was the use of laminated wood and aluminum,sort of a composite! Of course the Hornet used different engines than most Mossie's so performance figures wont help you but you could also look at weights to give you another prospective of weight savings in doing as you proposed,turning the 110 into a single-seater.
If you could get a G model close to the B/C's weight I would suspect you would have a fairly well balanced twin engine fighter,now if they only would have adopted the handed engines it might even have been close to P38 performance. There I go speculating..... damn you fork!!!!! :rofl
:salute
-
while I'm not prepared to speculate on what if but it might help if you looked at the 410 line!
Essentially what I was thinking, as well. :)
-
looked at the 410 line!
They did exactly what you are talking about,removed rear gunner and guns
....er......
- oldman
-
....er......
- oldman
Not sure what this was meant to say but if you read up on the 410 you will see they modified 40 to 50 airframes. The rear guns were removed and the gunners seat and position was faired over.
I'm pretty sure M00t posted a couple of pix of these machines in the old 410 thread. If I was all techie and such I could post some pix from one of the several references I have,but that way above my pay grade..... :devil
:salute
-
Yes, but even the Me410 has a tail gunner.
Fork,
reshaped
while I'm not prepared to speculate on what if but it might help if you looked at the 410 line!
Even the Me-410 had a tail gunner. What was their fixation with tail gunners for attack aircraft?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjGXn249Fc0
-
1. Our estimate was around Was our weight estimates accurate for the gunner delete was around 850kg or ~1850lbs...is that accurate or 'close enough'? :rolleyes:
that's my first question.. seems a bit much.. you have 400kg as just the seat?
an entire empty Cessna 152 is 490kg. it has 2 seats :)
-
Not sure what this was meant to say but if you read up on the 410 you will see they modified 40 to 50 airframes. The rear guns were removed and the gunners seat and position was faired over.
Didn't know that. Ignorant oldman!
The better follow-up question is: How did the modified 410s do?
- oldman
-
The 410s without tailgunners were meant for high altitude work and they had GM-1 systems installed with a huge GM tank in place of tail gunner. The requirement came from misunderstanding in LW high command that 410 was not capable of high speed, high alt missions, but from front line units came reports that regular 410s were doing those missions just fine so there was no requirement for specialized aircraft variant. The performance boost from GM-1 was probably quite significant but still the squadrons rather kept their tail gunners so I guess the tail gunner was valued more than extra speed and altitude.
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/me410.shtml
Considering the 110 the early configuration of one MG15 was a waste of room and weight IMO but the later MG81Z was much better with its hugely increased RoF. 110s were really not used in day fighter role later in the war, AFAIK, but the requirement for Defense of the Reich operations required also the night fighter squadrons to participate in attacking bombers. This was of course sheer lunacy since the NF 110s were hampered by their NF equipment so the losses were certain to happen. The survivability of German twins was made worse by making them carry Wgr21s (the same false idea also behind the use of Bk5) in combat which made then even more slow and unresponsive and easy meat for escorting fighters and it also gave the bomber tail gunners more time to shoot at them while the weapon effect was not usually worth all the negative effects that came with it.
-C+
-
Tail gunners can only be effective in a non maneuvering plane. This means heavy bombers or night fighters (defending against enemy night fighters). On dive bombers I suppose the purpose was to try and prevent the bomber from ditching the bomb in order to defend itself by maneuvering (and aborting the mission).
In the case of the 110/410 I think that this was simply conservative thinking. Many missions benefit from a second crewman and the tendency is to let that other guy contribute by peppering away with a tiny gun. This however was counter productive. The Brits realized it early and in the mosquito the second crewman does not operate a gun (and faces forwards against early recommendation). In the Beaufighter the observer also gave up his gun when they realized that it was useless for the Beau missions.
-
Well, WW2 wasn't like AH. Most guys got kill from close range by a con at their dead 6 that they never saw. a guy looking rearward increased survivability significantly, not primarily with his gun but with his eyes. At least for planes like 110 an IL-2. Heavy bombers is a different thing.
-
As in Lancasters also in 110s and Ju87s (that I know of) the tail gunner gave the initial warning of the danger and coordinated timing of evasive actions so he was considered "worth his weight" in the plane, whether or not he had a gun. Maybe that explains why the Beaufighters had the GIB too, even if he did not have a gun.
I recall there were some early bombers where the tailgunner did not have comms to pilot so he only had his gun so he could do at least something for his survival.
-C+
-
As in Lancasters also in 110s and Ju87s (that I know of) the tail gunner gave the initial warning of the danger and coordinated timing of evasive actions so he was considered "worth his weight" in the plane, whether or not he had a gun. Maybe that explains why the Beaufighters had the GIB too, even if he did not have a gun.
I recall there were some early bombers where the tailgunner did not have comms to pilot so he only had his gun so he could do at least something for his survival.
-C+
The rear-view mirror most fighters did the same thing no?
-
The rear-view mirror most fighters did the same thing no?
How well can you spot a small fast moving object the size of your vehicle 1000 yards behind you from your rear view mirror?
-
As in Lancasters also in 110s and Ju87s (that I know of) the tail gunner gave the initial warning of the danger and coordinated timing of evasive actions so he was considered "worth his weight" in the plane, whether or not he had a gun. Maybe that explains why the Beaufighters had the GIB too, even if he did not have a gun.
Exactly.
In the Beau and the Mossie, the second crewman had more jobs than just looking backwards. They were doing navigation, spotting, radar operation (night fighters), bombardier (bomber mossie) and photographer (PR . mossies). They were essential to the mission even without a gun.
So why not give them a gun? Having a gun had a lot of disadvantages. It adds weight. It adds drag. In a fight, if the gunner is looking through the sights at one bandit he does not see the others (loss of SA). de Havilland absolutely insisted that mounting a gun turret to the mossie will destroy the whole concept of the plane (he was still forced to test it on a prototype). Extra drag not only means a slower plane, it also means less fuel efficient which reduces the range or requires extra fuel on board at the expense of useful payload. In addition to the drag, the weight of the guns+mount+ammo lowers the efficiency of the bomber (less range, less payload). DH also figured out that if you are the fastest plane in the sky you do not need to look back so much... and the 2nd crewman can perform his more important duties better if he sits next to the pilot instead of in the tail.
-
Yes, but even the Me410 has a tail gunner. Even the Me-410 had a tail gunner. What was their fixation with tail gunners for attack aircraft?
To lay down suppressing fire as the plane egresses?
-
Bf 110 without gunner, sleeker... maybe it's losing competitor, the original Fw 187 concept, is the closest thing you could find.
(http://www.wwiiaircraftphotos.com/LCBW6/FW187-V2-04f+.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_187
In order to improve performance compared to the Bf 110, the fuselage was made as small as possible, so small that there was no room on the instrument panel for the complete set of engine instruments, which were instead moved to the inside faces of the engine nacelles, as would be done for the Hs 129 ground attack aircraft and some versions of the Bf 110.
The first prototype, Fw 187 V1 (D-AANA) flew for the first time in late spring 1937, with Hans Sander at its controls. In testing it demonstrated 523 km/h (325 mph) despite the use of the low-powered Jumo engines. In fact, it was 80 km/h (50 mph) faster than the contemporary Jumo-powered Messerschmitt Bf 109B, despite having twice the range, more than twice the weight, and using two of the same engines. Members of the RLM complained that this was due to faulty flight instruments, but further testing ruled this out.
-
The Fw187 is one of those neat "what if" questions of WWII aviation.
-
I can't see what it could have offered. Short range, one man, not room for guns (but of course a pair of MK103 would have been more than enough IF it could carry them and enough ammo). The whole concept resembles Whirlwind too much and even that was abandoned quite early on. I'm sure it could have been a delight to fly but strategically it would have been a bad choice. Add loadout capability with a set of pods and the speed advantage you may have had would be gone.
If you put two engines in a plane it means you have to use that double power for something useful and that is why these twins were built with lots of room for fuel for different multipurpose loadouts. I'd say that Mossie, Beau and 410 were rather logical choices after all.
These medium bombers/ strike aircraft also fall into category 2 if we place interceptors, escort fighters and heavy four engine bombers into category 1, i.e. the most significant assets to have in a war. Category 3 would be specialized aircraft which really cannot do much more that the specific task they were built for i.e. Hs129, and I only see a more streamlined Hs129 in that Fw187.
-C+
-
If you put two engines in a plane it means you have to use that double power for something useful and that is why these twins were built with lots of room for fuel for different multipurpose loadouts. I'd say that Mossie, Beau and 410 were rather logical choices after all.
That is a very good point. The Beau and then Mossie took on all the jobs that single seat, single engine fighters could not do (or do with limited capacity). The RAF was not very interested in twin-engine short range fighters - they are more expensive, take longer to manufacture and did not offer anything significant that a cheaper Spitfire could not do. This is one reason the Whirlwind program was abandoned even though it proved to be a good day fighter/fighter-bomber.
What twin engines do offer to a fighter is range and cruise speed. de Havilland calculated that twin-engine configuration will achieve the best combination of range, speed, and useful loadout carrying capacity. This is why they pushed for a small twin engine bomber as a more efficient method of delivering bombs than 4-engine bombers. The P-38 in the PTO demonstrated quite well that a twin-engine fighter can achieve great ranges with higher speed cruise than single engine fighters. Indeed the RAF showed interest in a long-range single-seat fighter version of the mossie, but the need for such a fighter quickly faded away as the war progressed (for various reasons), while the demand for Mossie variants was very high. Eventually, post-war, they got the DH Hornet as the evolution of the Mossie single seat fighter program.
-
I think the biggest downfall of the Bf-110, Me-410, and similar multi-role aircraft is that they tried to fill to many roles. The Mossie, to me anyway, is more of an exception than a rule. The Mossie excels in roles that the 410 and 110 are simply mediocre in is because of its construction. The lightness of the wooden construction, the power of twin Merlins, and the awesome firepower of Hispanos 20mm means the Mossie was the pinnacle of peers. However even Mossies are tooled for their respective roles. The high powered late war aircraft like the F-4U, P-47, and P-38 finally put the last nail in the coffin for dedicated multi-role aircraft.
P.S. Bozon, thanks for the help in the Mossie 6!!!
-
I find it curious that no one in this thread has mentioned the use of rear gunners in American planes (TBM/TBF).
-
They fall into the same category as for ex Il-2, every now and then they killed a Japanese plane but they vere much more valuable as scouts keeping an eye on the 6.
-
I find it curious that no one in this thread has mentioned the use of rear gunners in American planes (TBM/TBF).
Torpedo bombers are in the same boat as the heavy level bombers - they have to fly slow and steady for an extended period and thus defense by maneuverability or speed is out of the question. They have no choice but to defend themselves with gunners, until they make the drop.
I think the biggest downfall of the Bf-110, Me-410, and similar multi-role aircraft is that they tried to fill to many roles. The Mossie, to me anyway, is more of an exception than a rule. The Mossie excels in roles that the 410 and 110 are simply mediocre in is because of its construction. The lightness of the wooden construction, the power of twin Merlins, and the awesome firepower of Hispanos 20mm means the Mossie was the pinnacle of peers. However even Mossies are tooled for their respective roles. The high powered late war aircraft like the F-4U, P-47, and P-38 finally put the last nail in the coffin for dedicated multi-role aircraft.
I dont think any of these planes were designed with so many roles in mind. They were converted either because they happened to be the best suited for the job out of all the other planes not intended for the job, or they were removed from some of their original duties and were simply available for other jobs. The 110 as far as I know was intended to be a day-time heavy fighter and optimized for that role. The P-38 was supposed to be an interceptor?
The Mossie was conceived as an unarmed bomber and in that respect it is perhaps more similar to the Ju88 than the 110. However unlike the others, its potential for other roles was recognized early and reconnaissance and night fighter variants were developed in parallel. In fact, the unarmed bomber was only the 3rd to enter service after the photo-recce and night fighter. The Fighter-bomber variant was branched off from the night fighters prototype and ended up being the most produced variant by far (roughly 2/3 of all mossies). Just because it was intended for many roles during development it could be optimized and thoroughly tested for each. DH were smart not to include a day fighter as a design consideration due to the extreme demands from such a role that would have required a lot of sacrifices in the others.
Back to the TBM and tail gunners - the mossie eventually even became a torpedo bomber, though I think that for that specific role it was not well suited. It was a role forced uppon it, that it was not designed for. A tail gunner would have been useful - speed and maneuverability does not help a torpedo bomber much as defense until it drops the fish.
P.S. Bozon, thanks for the help in the Mossie 6!!!
You are most welcome Fish. I rarely go to the DA and I hope that was helpful. If you fly on the rook side you are welcome to join me so we can put the Mossie 6 to the one role it was not designed for (though performed decently when pushed to it) :)
It is nice to have another mossie flying around - I get ganged by only half the enemies :P
-
The 110 was a success as a Night-fighter, you need someone handle the on-board radar, and also one pair of extra eyes in the night.
Heavy armament, long range and radar, and extra pair of eyes made it as success.
-
From all I've read on the Beaufighter there seems to be no consensus on the value of the rear gun. It started without. Had it added when they started doing daylight ops, and in the end it was basically left up to the crew if the wanted to carry it or not. Some chose not to for the reasons some have already posted. They felt it was better to have the second pair of eyes telling the pilot where the threat was an let him evade instead of trying to stay steady for shooting purposes.
-
Something else to look at, as regards all-out top speed: airfoil. Wing design went through a major evolution during the war. Many wing designs of the 1930's were notably slower than the laminar-flow airfoils of the 1940's.
-
With regards to the American carrier planes (TBM's SBD's and SB2C's), I'm at a loss to recall an instant post-Guadalcanal where these planes had to defend themselves against serious fighter opposition. Were the gunners worth the extra weight? A rear gunner might be enough to scare away an enemy fighter if he landed some hits, and it was an SBD gunner that shot Saburo Sakai in the face. In the end, however, it was pretty obvious from Midway that a rear gunner wasn't enough to save a bomber, and perhaps using bomb-loaded corsairs and hellcats might have been more effective.
-
Most attack aircraft with tail gunners where replaced with fighter bombers during the 2nd half of the war, Typhoon, 190F etc so it seems that the conlusion during the war was that speed was better than a gunner. Gunners where effective every now and then but not even heavy bomber formations with hundreds of gunners where enough to protect bombers from fighters.
-
Gunners where effective every now and then but not even heavy bomber formations with hundreds of gunners where enough to protect bombers from fighters.
I have a very strong feeling that all those gunners with exceptions of the rear gunner were totally useless, except for the false feeling of protection that they gave the other crew and some "fear effect" towards the attacking LW. Unlike in AH, hitting a fighter flying above or to the side of the bomber means shooting through a 200 mph crosswind at variable angles, variable elevations and variable amount of lead required. They probably could not hit anything from these directions unless it was flying in formation with the bomber. The rear gunner at least had a much smaller cross-wind component, typically were shooting at small elevation angles and at planes coming straight at them (no lead required), so he stood some chance of hitting an aimed shot.
I would love to see some statistic about % of claims (as unreliable as they are) by B17/24 gunners split by gunner position. Or alternatively, some statistic about damage received by LW fighters by aspect of attack. The only hits on fighters that I read about in pilot stories were obtained by (with high probability) the rear gunner, though I must say that I read mostly allied pilot books and LW bombers did not have many side/top/ball gunner shooting in other directions.
-
Consider the problems a LW pilot had aiming while in a 4 engine bomber's prop wake.
-
Problem for gunner is that they have very little time to aim and land hits on a fighter. Tail gunners had the easiest job of aiming but where also more likely to get hit by fire from fighters. Bomber formations downed/damaged a lot of fighters but usually not until after the fighters had land hits on the bombers. Its a little hard to sort out exact figures but on early B-17 raids it seems like around 3-5 bombers where downed for every fighter downed by gunners.
But its pretty clear that unescorted bombers cannot rely to their own fire power to survive against fighters.
Its however not the same as in AH, where gunners are far more experienced and fighters usually attack one at the time (too often from dead 6), in ww2 bombers where outnumbered by 2-3:1 and fighters mostly HO:ed the bombers in order to hit the more vulnerable and less protected front area.
-
... and it was an SBD gunner that shot Saburo Sakai in the face...
According to Saburo Sakai's memories it was TBM (actually formation of them). He realized that it was well armed TBMs when he was way too close...
-
According to Saburo Sakai's memories it was TBM (actually formation of them). He realized that it was well armed TBMs when he was way too close...
Post-war research, which was able to compare American records with Sakai's account, established that it was a Dauntless formation. I'm not sure Fletcher's task group even had TBFs in early August of 1942.
- oldman
-
Post-war research, which was able to compare American records with Sakai's account, established that it was a Dauntless formation. I'm not sure Fletcher's task group even had TBFs in early August of 1942.
- oldman
Yeah they had them. TBF's flew from Midway in their first action and replaced the Devastator immediately after the battle, but yeah, it was Dauntlesses. I believe Sakai actually met the gunner that shot him after the war.
-
Thanks for the info!