General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: FLOOB on June 03, 2015, 02:03:04 PM
Title: What plane is this?
Post by: FLOOB on June 03, 2015, 02:03:04 PM
Recently watched an interview where a b17 crewman mentioned being attacked by a four engine plane that was "lobbing shells at us from beyond the range of our guns". Anybody else heard of this? What plane and what weapon could it be?
At about 23:30 in this vid.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 03, 2015, 02:12:36 PM
Fw 200 or perhaps a Ju 290 (the most heavily armed bomber of the war with six 20 mm cannon).
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: FLOOB on June 03, 2015, 02:21:40 PM
Well He 177s were equipped with 33 21cm rockets at the time of the schweinfurt raids but that is a two engine plane.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 03, 2015, 02:25:07 PM
Would look like a twin to an American airman.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 03, 2015, 04:30:58 PM
Fw 200 or perhaps a Ju 290 (the most heavily armed bomber of the war with six 20 mm cannon).
I highly doubt it was either the Condor or the Ju 290.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 03, 2015, 04:33:31 PM
Then I'm sure you're just keeping us in suspense as to what you think it was. Please do tell.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Scherf on June 03, 2015, 04:40:47 PM
My bet is it wasn't four-engine at all - people see things that aren't there. One night fighter pilot claimed to have chased a 163 at night, others saw nocturnal jets in places where they never flew.
"Sounds like" a 110, but German use of twins in daylight is not my specialty.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 03, 2015, 04:41:34 PM
Then I'm sure you're just keeping us in suspense as to what you think it was. Please do tell.
From the veteran's rather vague description of the "4 engine plane", it would be difficult to figure out with plane it was. However, one can eliminate the Condor and the Ju 290 because neither of those two planes were ever used in that role. After 1943, the Condor was removed from combat operations and used solely as a transport. The Ju 290 was only used in the maritime/anti-shipping role as well as a heavy bomber and transport. Records verify this.
Most likely the veteran was mistaken.
ack-ack
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Guppy35 on June 03, 2015, 04:54:23 PM
Could be it was straggling B-17s too. In the mass of confusion and flying metal it would be understandable to misidentify. I have heard the bit about Stukas before. That one seems a bit far fetched too.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 03, 2015, 05:15:48 PM
At this time Germany was trowing everything they had at the bombers. Including night fighters and their own bombers who would try to drop time-fused bombs at the B-17's from above. And at night they would use day fighters on wild boar missions over German cities, attacking RAF bombers caught in search lights.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 03, 2015, 05:32:02 PM
At this time Germany was trowing everything they had at the bombers. Including night fighters and their own bombers who would try to drop time-fused bombs at the B-17's from above. And at night they would use day fighters on wild boar missions over German cities, attacking RAF bombers caught in search lights.
While the Germans threw almost everything they could at the bombers, they didn't throw the Condor or the Ju 290. As Guppy pointed out, it has just as much credence as the story of a Stuka dropping bombs on a B-17 raid over Germany.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: FLOOB on June 03, 2015, 06:22:58 PM
Bear in mind they were using everything they had attacking the b17s even stukas. It could be that it was just some ad hoc arrangement on a big plane. Or he just mistakenly referred to a 110 as a four engine bomber but that seems a stretch.
I thought that this monster was being tested at that time but it turns out it wasn't. (http://cdn-live.warthunder.com/uploads/cd/5119813680d20f3aeca3dae0538b4ec35aeae7/he177_103.jpg)
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 03, 2015, 06:38:42 PM
Bear in mind they were using everything they had attacking the b17s even stukas. It could be that it was just some ad hoc arrangement on a big plane. Or he just mistakenly referred to a 110 as a four engine bomber but that seems a stretch.
I thought that this monster was being tested at that time but it turns out it wasn't. (http://cdn-live.warthunder.com/uploads/cd/5119813680d20f3aeca3dae0538b4ec35aeae7/he177_103.jpg)
No, the Luftwaffe never used Ju87s to attack B-17s. There is absolutely no evidence or record of Ju87s being used to intercept B-17s over Germany other than some comment from a B-17 radio operator that claimed he saw a "Ju87 Stacey" drop bombs during a bomber raid.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Zimme83 on June 03, 2015, 06:54:11 PM
Why would anyone belive that ju-87 were used to intercept bombers? Why dont use storches then? They will have the same chance to intercept a B-17 (none whatsoever). A Ju-87 can barley reach the operational altitude of the B-17 and even if it did its like 60 mph slower than the B-17 and have no guns to kill a bomber with.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: FLOOB on June 03, 2015, 07:05:59 PM
Yeah there's no way a ju-87 is attacking anything at that altitude. One theory is that the airmen saw fighters dropping aerial bombs at the b17s and misidentified them as stukas.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: icepac on June 03, 2015, 08:14:46 PM
maybe a JU88p with the 37s?
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Oldman731 on June 03, 2015, 08:56:53 PM
No, the Luftwaffe never used Ju87s to attack B-17s. There is absolutely no evidence or record of Ju87s being used to intercept B-17s over Germany other than some comment from a B-17 radio operator that claimed he saw a "Ju87 Stacey" drop bombs during a bomber raid.
Yet another myth created by Martin Caiden. "Black Thursday" has reference to Ju-87s opposing the October 1943 Schweinfurt raid. One of those "they were throwing the kitchen sink at us" things that intrigued the man.
Not surprising that it has become accepted lore.
- oldman
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: BaDkaRmA158Th on June 03, 2015, 09:03:25 PM
Most likely the veteran was mistaken.
Right.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 03, 2015, 09:04:56 PM
Could be a typo or misidentification. They did use Ju 88's.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Randy1 on June 03, 2015, 09:28:09 PM
I don't think you can discount a single, field modified plane that was never documented albeit unlikely based what others have posted..
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 03, 2015, 09:43:39 PM
Yet another myth created by Martin Caiden. "Black Thursday" has reference to Ju-87s opposing the October 1943 Schweinfurt raid. One of those "they were throwing the kitchen sink at us" things that intrigued the man.
Not surprising that it has become accepted lore.
- oldman
I think Caiden is actually innocent in this case, at least innocent in the fact he didn't make this up but still guilty of not doing any fact checking. He probably got his information from the official 303rd BG's after action report that has the claim of Ju87s attacking the B-17 bomber force, which incorrectly claims they were attacked by Ju87s.
http://303rdbg.com/missionreports/098.pdf It's on Page 7. The report comes only from one source, the radio operator, who probably misidentified another plane as a Ju87.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Scherf on June 03, 2015, 11:13:01 PM
I believe "Gabelschwanzteufel" can't be pinned on Caiden, either. Have seen reference to it (or to "fork-tailed devil", cant remember which) in the P-38 handbook of August '45.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 04, 2015, 02:28:33 AM
I believe "Gabelschwanzteufel" can't be pinned on Caiden, either. Have seen reference to it (or to "fork-tailed devil", cant remember which) in the P-38 handbook of August '45.
I always thought it was coined by a USAAF press officer that was in the MTO. The US military press came up with some good nicknames that were attributed to the Axis forces, like the Japanese calling the F4U "Whistling Death".
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 05, 2015, 12:15:18 AM
Some years back someone posted info from an FW190 A8 pilot's memoirs. I followed the link to read it. I think there was maybe two full time A8 groups with the MK108 wing mounted who fought the bomber streams. From what I remember, the pilot said his group would stand off about 1100m and a bit high. Then fire their MK108 at the bombers outside of the tail gunners range. Their goal was to have the self destruct fuse detonate the round near the bombers. The self destruct fuse for the Mine shell was an 1100m fuse.
As for the mentioning of four engine aircraft standing off from the black Thursday raid. I read years ago from a luft memoir that FW200 stood off to lob their front facing 20mm at the bombers. Chemical potential rounds are pretty much range insensitive versus kinetic potential rounds. Even the MG FF had about a 1000m range.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 05, 2015, 12:41:36 PM
Unfortunately, bustr is mistaken about the Condor being used to intercept bombers. The Condor could never hope to be able to catch an Allied bomber, unless the bomber was on the ground and parked. The Allied bombers on their missions flew higher than the Condor's service ceiling (19,700ft).
ack-ack
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: bustr on June 05, 2015, 01:48:33 PM
And germans 80 years old don't have as bad of memories as americans?? We may need to start a thread that collects WW2 memoirs and debunks them. I had no reason not to believe what I read. Maybe we should just begin saying all of the pilots from ww2 fudged their memoirs for reasons unspecified. That seems to be what this is boiling down to.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 05, 2015, 02:16:58 PM
And germans 80 years old don't have as bad of memories as americans?? We may need to start a thread that collects WW2 memoirs and debunks them. I had no reason not to believe what I read. Maybe we should just begin saying all of the pilots from ww2 fudged their memoirs for reasons unspecified. That seems to be what this is boiling down to.
In the heat of battle it was common for even the most veteran pilot to misidentify a plane. For example in the film footage someone posted the other day of the 8th AF showing gun camera footage of what was described as two P-47s attacking and shooting down a German bomber (ID'd in some captions as a Ju88) but in reality it showed two P-47s attacking and shooting down a RAF Mosquito. The two P-47 pilots were experienced veterans, having flown many combat missions and IIRC, at least one (or possibly both) were aces.
The simple fact is the Condor could not have intercepted bombers attacking Germany.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: FLOOB on June 05, 2015, 04:34:50 PM
Ack-ack is right about the Condor, the facts just don't allow it. Which makes me wonder about the statement about the group of 190s carrying belts of 30mm with the self destruct fuses installed.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 05, 2015, 05:39:40 PM
USAAF bombers wouldn't always fly above 20,000 feet. Against some targets they would fly as low as 15,000 feet for better accuracy. Usually on shorter missions over France or the Low Countries though, not Germany.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 05, 2015, 05:41:49 PM
USAAF bombers wouldn't always fly above 20,000 feet. Against some targets they would fly as low as 15,000 feet for better accuracy. Usually on shorter missions over France or the Low Countries though, not Germany.
Grasp at straws all you like, it didn't happen.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on June 05, 2015, 06:04:27 PM
I never said it did, but I'm not half the hubristic egocentric you are. I'm not willing to accuse veterans of lying unless I have definite proof.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 05, 2015, 06:11:37 PM
I never said it did, but I'm not half the hubristic egocentric you are. I'm not willing to accuse veterans of lying unless I have definite proof.
I never accused any veteran of lying. There is a difference in mistaking a plane for something else in the midst of combat and intentionally telling a lie. Maybe one day someone will teach you the difference.
ack-ack
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: MiloMorai on June 05, 2015, 06:12:08 PM
I think Crumpp had returned using a new nick.
Ack, USAAF Mossies had their tail and rudder painted red to help with other USAAF pilots IDing the Mossie. It looked to much like a Me410.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Butcher on June 05, 2015, 06:15:32 PM
I never said it did, but I'm not half the hubristic egocentric you are. I'm not willing to accuse veterans of lying unless I have definite proof.
I don't think the Veteran was lying, its not even a case of "lying" - rather misidentification. For example, the Marine Airwing at Midway submitted their After Action Report; said the Zero was flying above 450mph, could absorb shells and turn circles around everything let alone dive away. The problem was none of it was true; the pilots were just in the heat of the moment. Problem was there was no information on the Zero yet, the pilots were all Green against Veteran pilots of the Japanese Navy. Does this make the pilots liars? Of course not. It is possible for a Zero to dive till 450mph, however its not turning on a dime then; however the pilots didn't know that. Tactics were not developed to combat the Zero yet In fact these pilots have not even faced the Japanese yet. This is why the Japanese Zero had "invisibility" tagged to its name for the first 6 months of the war, eventually pilots developed the necessary tactics, the Zero's "invisibility" status slowly faded away.
I've read plenty of accounts of pilots; from first encounters of Me-262's doing 750mph to Bf-110s firing "rocket propelled bombs into formations". There were cases of Fw-190s that dropped "Time delayed" fragmentation bombs on box formations of B-17s in order to break them up; however there were no such "rocket propelled" bombs shot into formations; rather a crew member of a bomber mis identified what he seen.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: MiloMorai on June 05, 2015, 06:43:57 PM
Not only that Butcher, many American pilots said they were in combat with A6M Zeroes when in fact it was Ki-43 Oscars.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 05, 2015, 07:04:32 PM
Not only that Butcher, many American pilots said they were in combat with A6M Zeroes when in fact it was Ki-42 Oscars.
When the Ki-61 started to arrive in the south-west Pacific area of the PTO, some Allied pilots misidentified it as a Bf 109 and in other cases as a C.202 in their AAR/debriefs.
ack-ack
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Oldman731 on June 05, 2015, 07:48:16 PM
When the Ki-61 started to arrive in the south-west Pacific area of the PTO, some Allied pilots misidentified it as a Bf 109 and in other cases as a C.202 in their AAR/debriefs.
Which is why it was given the code name "Tony." Heck, everyone knew the Japanese could only copy other people's planes.
- oldman
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Butcher on June 05, 2015, 08:43:02 PM
Which is why it was given the code name "Tony." Heck, everyone knew the Japanese could only copy other people's planes.
- oldman
Interestingly the Japanese ignored proven designs - in tank building they ignored the Christie suspension, they were unimpressed with the American designs. The Japanese were interestingly the forefront of tank design in the mid 1930s - using Diesel tanks for example. By 1940 the Japanese had the 5th largest tank army in the world, if It wasn't for the shifting of industrial resources to aircrafts and ship building later in the war that slowed down tank building. Some people would argue; that Japanese "tank design sucked" and indeed it did; when you compare it to the 1940 designs. The reason is the Japanese had no need for "tanks" or as we call "Tank on tank" designs, rather they needed cruisers as the British developed in the early 1940s. The Chinese had no anti-tank guns, so tank design for the Japanese pretty much went towards what they assumed tanks were needed for; bunker busting and infantry support. If you look at the Russian Army in 1945, they basically adapted to what the Japanese were trying to produce in 1934.
That brings me to the Ki-61, the Japanese had no way to really copy the Bf-109's engine, instead they basically backwards engineered the engine and design to adapt to their own. The engine required precision machines to make it; something the Japanese industry lacked. In another words they were trying to produce something that was way out of their league to produce. It might of worked if the war progressed differently, but even simple Japanese maintenance was a little backwards; if one Ki-61 was damaged and two planes could be flyable with the spare parts from the one aircraft; the Mechanic was not allowed to salvage the parts off the damaged plane. That plane was from the Emperor - it was forbidden to use ingenuity, something most nations adapted during the war.
If you really want to know how bad japanese tank design became due to the shifting of industry in 1940; in 1945 the Japanese produced a "M4a2" killer; a prototype that never seen action with 3 inches of Armor and a 75mm main cannon. The prototype never went into action and actually was turned over to the united states because it had a 37mm cannon installed in the Hull; which any "armed" vehicle was taken after the war. It took the Japanese over 3 years to come up with a design to beat a simple Sherman tank.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: FLOOB on June 06, 2015, 09:27:28 AM
I'm not sure if it was one of the schweinfurt raids but a unit reported being attacked by he-100s or he-113s. I think it was a 303rd unit. Hows that for misidentification.
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Ack-Ack on June 06, 2015, 03:46:40 PM
I'm not sure if it was one of the schweinfurt raids but a unit reported being attacked by he-100s or he-113s. I think it was a 303rd unit. Hows that for misidentification.
It is possible that the He 100s could have been the Heinkel's factory defense unit that was flown by Heinkel's test pilots. At the time the He 100 was used (replacing the He 112) Allied bombers weren't venturing that far into Germany yet and there are no records of the unit ever seeing action. However, there are also no records as to what happened to the small number of He 100's, so it is possible if any remained that it could have been pressed into service to fight off the Allied bomber attacks.
As for the He 113, well that would have been impossible for anyone to see in combat as it didn't exist and was only a propaganda invention by Goebbels. Whether it was for Allied or German public consumption, Goebbels' started a propaganda campaign to show that Germany was getting a "new plane" and had some of the He 100s painted in different Luftwaffe unit colors and published the pictures in a German magazine. Most likely the campaign was put on for both the Allies and the German public, to make the Allies worried about the new super plane and to raise German public morale. It was a successful propaganda campaign too, the Allies bought it hook, line and sinker.
ack-ack
Title: Re: What plane is this?
Post by: Wmaker on June 15, 2015, 03:50:06 AM
That brings me to the Ki-61, the Japanese had no way to really copy the Bf-109's engine, instead they basically backwards engineered the engine and design to adapt to their own.
Ha40 was a license built DB601. There was no "backwards engineering" involved. Japanese delegation went to Stuttgart, Germany and negotiated a licensing deal with Daimler-Benz, simple as that. Like with any licensing deal, they got the blueprints, documentation, etc. There was nothing to "backwards engineer". They simply tooled and adapted to produce BD601 and started producing them and gave it a designation Ha40.