|
Post by kyle on Apr 20, 2015 10:35:59 GMT -6
Interesting that WW2's top pilot (Eric Hartmann) was also a hunter not so much a flyer or great shot. In the Blond Knight of Germany (good book by the way) he talks about carefully hunting is prey and moving in really close before firing, then breaking away. He wasn't a dogfighter at all and preferred his BF 109 right to the end of the war. Of course the 109 wasn't the best dogfighting aircraft but did have a good climb rate and was a good boom and zoom.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 20, 2015 11:15:13 GMT -6
Interesting that WW2's top pilot (Eric Hartmann) was also a hunter not so much a flyer or great shot. In the Blond Knight of Germany (good book by the way) he talks about carefully hunting is prey and moving in really close before firing, then breaking away. He wasn't a dogfighter at all and preferred his BF 109 right to the end of the war. Of course the 109 wasn't the best dogfighting aircraft but did have a good climb rate and was a good boom and zoom.
Whether Allied or Axis, most good pilots and especially aces were hunters. They stalked their enemy, dived on him, got close and shot him down. They harmonized their guns to hit one point in space usually about 100-150 yards in front, calibrated the gunsight for that range and went hunting. The aircraft they preferred had good structures, excellent climbers and had good level speed. The BF-109 was that kind of bird, as was the P-38, P-47, and others. As I stated, a good pilot knows the best characteristics of his aircraft and uses those advantages over his enemy. He also can size up a situation and know when not to engage or when its time to bug out. Gunther Rall, Werner Moelders, Adolf Galland, Robert Johnson, Saburo Sakai, and many others used those superior tactics and got inside the decision cycle of the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Apr 21, 2015 2:14:23 GMT -6
What do these qualities of a top-scoring ace mean for their performance as part of a unit? The tactics you use for scoring kills at minimum risk to yourself aren´t necessarily the tactics you use for achieving the goal of a mission; if you stick to your hunter´s tactics rather than focussing on the mission and being a team player, that has got to be a headache for your superiors, not to mention endangering the success of the mission.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Apr 21, 2015 9:43:56 GMT -6
What do these qualities of a top-scoring ace mean for their performance as part of a unit? The tactics you use for scoring kills at minimum risk to yourself aren´t necessarily the tactics you use for achieving the goal of a mission; if you stick to your hunter´s tactics rather than focussing on the mission and being a team player, that has got to be a headache for your superiors, not to mention endangering the success of the mission. Correct - it depends on the circumstances under which you are flying - the mission If you are to intercept enemy aircraft or fly a patrol route then you're job is hunting. On the other hand if your job is to escort bombers then you're going to be restricted on how much hunting you can do. Your job there is to protect the bombers not shoot down enemy planes. I believe that history shows that fighters used offensively are generally much more successful than those used defensively. The Germans did not learn this in the battle of Britain where Goring would not release the fighters to hunt but instead insisted on close escort where the Bf 109 was not an ideal aircraft. Richthofen and Hartman both appear to have made most of their kills on hunting missions (patrol). Orders being fly to a location and then destroy any enemy aircraft found. That's the perfect job for them. How Hartman would have done on the western front trying to down B-17 bombers is debatable. No sneaking up on them to 150 meters away and opening fire!
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Apr 22, 2015 4:58:23 GMT -6
What do these qualities of a top-scoring ace mean for their performance as part of a unit? The tactics you use for scoring kills at minimum risk to yourself aren´t necessarily the tactics you use for achieving the goal of a mission; if you stick to your hunter´s tactics rather than focussing on the mission and being a team player, that has got to be a headache for your superiors, not to mention endangering the success of the mission. Correct - it depends on the circumstances under which you are flying - the mission If you are to intercept enemy aircraft or fly a patrol route then you're job is hunting. On the other hand if your job is to escort bombers then you're going to be restricted on how much hunting you can do. Your job there is to protect the bombers not shoot down enemy planes. I believe that history shows that fighters used offensively are generally much more successful than those used defensively. The Germans did not learn this in the battle of Britain where Goring would not release the fighters to hunt but instead insisted on close escort where the Bf 109 was not an ideal aircraft. Richthofen and Hartman both appear to have made most of their kills on hunting missions (patrol). Orders being fly to a location and then destroy any enemy aircraft found. That's the perfect job for them. How Hartman would have done on the western front trying to down B-17 bombers is debatable. No sneaking up on them to 150 meters away and opening fire! Add to this that, in all likelihood, such fighter aces develop a certain... personality - if you order Richthofen to act as close escort to a bomber, or Hartmann to attack a B-17 bomber box, they´ll both perform below par and are likely to become, let´s say, argumentative. Also, they will have a certain clout due to their propaganda value, more some in some air forces than others, so as their commading officer you might be overruled if you order them to do something which does not suit their hunting style - not to mention that you probably would not want to have to explain to Goering (not to mention Hitler) that you got the Reich´s top-scoring ace killed by ordering him to go against his specialty. So, while high-scoring aces have their value for propaganda, and most likely for pilot morale as well, I can only assume that they are also something of a headache for any higher-ranking officers who need their air assets to perform missions in support of the war effort, beyond a simple "shoot down a lot of enemy planes".
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 22, 2015 10:56:31 GMT -6
I recall reading about Richtofen many years ago. He started out in an Uhlan (cavalry) unit on the Eastern front. His unit was later transferred to the Western front, and when trench warfare set in, is unit was disbanded and Richtofen was assigned to be a supply officer, a task that did not exactly appeal to him- he wrote his CO "I did not go to war to collect cheese and eggs, but for other reasons."
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Apr 22, 2015 11:37:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 22, 2015 13:16:27 GMT -6
I recall reading about Richtofen many years ago. He started out in an Uhlan (cavalry) unit on the Eastern front. His unit was later transferred to the Western front, and when trench warfare set in, is unit was disbanded and Richtofen was assigned to be a supply officer, a task that did not exactly appeal to him- he wrote his CO "I did not go to war to collect cheese and eggs, but for other reasons." His title of Rittmeister means riding master or cavalry captain, so yes, he was initially a cavalry officer although he always wanted to fly.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 22, 2015 13:25:40 GMT -6
Correct - it depends on the circumstances under which you are flying - the mission If you are to intercept enemy aircraft or fly a patrol route then you're job is hunting. On the other hand if your job is to escort bombers then you're going to be restricted on how much hunting you can do. Your job there is to protect the bombers not shoot down enemy planes. I believe that history shows that fighters used offensively are generally much more successful than those used defensively. The Germans did not learn this in the battle of Britain where Goring would not release the fighters to hunt but instead insisted on close escort where the Bf 109 was not an ideal aircraft. Richthofen and Hartman both appear to have made most of their kills on hunting missions (patrol). Orders being fly to a location and then destroy any enemy aircraft found. That's the perfect job for them. How Hartman would have done on the western front trying to down B-17 bombers is debatable. No sneaking up on them to 150 meters away and opening fire! Add to this that, in all likelihood, such fighter aces develop a certain... personality - if you order Richthofen to act as close escort to a bomber, or Hartmann to attack a B-17 bomber box, they´ll both perform below par and are likely to become, let´s say, argumentative. Also, they will have a certain clout due to their propaganda value, more some in some air forces than others, so as their commading officer you might be overruled if you order them to do something which does not suit their hunting style - not to mention that you probably would not want to have to explain to Goering (not to mention Hitler) that you got the Reich´s top-scoring ace killed by ordering him to go against his specialty. So, while high-scoring aces have their value for propaganda, and most likely for pilot morale as well, I can only assume that they are also something of a headache for any higher-ranking officers who need their air assets to perform missions in support of the war effort, beyond a simple "shoot down a lot of enemy planes". I disagree, they are trained military officers and as such will do the job the best that they can. They might raise some questions about the missions, execution and such but if told to just shut up and do the job, they will do it. I've known many officers including pilots, they will do their jobs and lead their men the best they can. Its part of their training.
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Apr 23, 2015 16:27:53 GMT -6
In the USAF and most, if not all, modern day air forces, I agree with you. But in Hitler´s Luftwaffe, Stalin´s Red Air Force or WW1 Germany´s air corps? Not so much, I think. I recall reading, for example, that a number of top-scoring German and Soviet aces were grounded after a while because it would be bad for morale if they got killed in action - yet some of them (Hartmann among them, I believe) went on flying combat missions nevertheless. Ignoring a direct order, most likely coming from the very top of the chain of command, like that is not a professional behavior.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 23, 2015 16:49:52 GMT -6
In the USAF and most, if not all, modern day air forces, I agree with you. But in Hitler´s Luftwaffe, Stalin´s Red Air Force or WW1 Germany´s air corps? Not so much, I think. I recall reading, for example, that a number of top-scoring German and Soviet aces were grounded after a while because it would be bad for morale if they got killed in action - yet some of them (Hartmann among them, I believe) went on flying combat missions nevertheless. Ignoring a direct order, most likely coming from the very top of the chain of command, like that is not a professional behavior. Most pilots do not want to abandon their fellow pilots and friends. They want to fly with them and keep them safe, especially if they were an element leader, flight leader or higher. They feel a sense of comradeship and its easy to order a pilot to stand down but these orders are from men who might never have flown with others. Many German aces were lost because their skills were needed in the air to lead the ever decreasing experience of the newer pilots. Even Adolf Galland went back to flying after being the Inspector of fighters. Although they've been ordered to stay on the ground, everyone will look the other way if they don't.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 23, 2015 20:40:09 GMT -6
We speak of situational awareness and it is vital in air combat. A pilot or leader must know where he is, how many enemy planes he is facing, which direction they came from, weather, and are there other enemy planes lurking around. This is an easy task with one to three aircraft but when you get thirty or forty, then SA drops dramatically. Aces always understood this and this is why most would stay on the fringes of the massed air battle waiting for a straggler or wounded aircraft then attacked them. This wasn't something the Red Baron figured out on his own, it was part of Dicta Boelke. Boelke taught it too his pilots, McCudden did it, Ball, Billy Bishop, they all did it. Don't be surprised when you read about the Baron flying on the edge of the combat area waiting for prey to show up, it was a learned technique of all good pilots. All predators; lions, cheetahs, alley cats etc. all wait for a straggler or lame prey and attack it.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Apr 24, 2015 6:57:22 GMT -6
We speak of situational awareness and it is vital in air combat. A pilot or leader must know where he is, how many enemy planes he is facing, which direction they came from, weather, and are there other enemy planes lurking around. This is an easy task with one to three aircraft but when you get thirty or forty, then SA drops dramatically. Aces always understood this and this is why most would stay on the fringes of the massed air battle waiting for a straggler or wounded aircraft then attacked them. This wasn't something the Red Baron figured out on his own, it was part of Dicta Boelke. Boelke taught it too his pilots, McCudden did it, Ball, Billy Bishop, they all did it. Don't be surprised when you read about the Baron flying on the edge of the combat area waiting for prey to show up, it was a learned technique of all good pilots. All predators; lions, cheetahs, alley cats etc. all wait for a straggler or lame prey and attack it. Reminds me of something I read about Eddie Rickenbacker. When he was assigned to his squadron, Raoul Lufbery (who had flown with the Lafayette Escadrille) took him and another newbie on an orientation flight over the front lines (the airplanes the squadron had recently been equipped with had not yet received their machine guns). After the flight, Lufbery asked his neophyte pilots what they had seen. They remarked that they had seen nothing. Lufbery then proceeded to inform them of all the friendly and enemy aircraft in their vicinity during the flight which they had failed to notice.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 24, 2015 10:46:27 GMT -6
We speak of situational awareness and it is vital in air combat. A pilot or leader must know where he is, how many enemy planes he is facing, which direction they came from, weather, and are there other enemy planes lurking around. This is an easy task with one to three aircraft but when you get thirty or forty, then SA drops dramatically. Aces always understood this and this is why most would stay on the fringes of the massed air battle waiting for a straggler or wounded aircraft then attacked them. This wasn't something the Red Baron figured out on his own, it was part of Dicta Boelke. Boelke taught it too his pilots, McCudden did it, Ball, Billy Bishop, they all did it. Don't be surprised when you read about the Baron flying on the edge of the combat area waiting for prey to show up, it was a learned technique of all good pilots. All predators; lions, cheetahs, alley cats etc. all wait for a straggler or lame prey and attack it. Reminds me of something I read about Eddie Rickenbacker. When he was assigned to his squadron, Raoul Lufbery (who had flown with the Lafayette Escadrille) took him and another newbie on an orientation flight over the front lines (the airplanes the squadron had recently been equipped with had not yet received their machine guns). After the flight, Lufbery asked his neophyte pilots what they had seen. They remarked that they had seen nothing. Lufbery then proceeded to inform them of all the friendly and enemy aircraft in their vicinity during the flight which they had failed to notice. In a study written by Herbert K. Weiss on System Analysis in Limited Wars, he provides a chart of the probability of surviving combat missions versus number of decisive engagements. The graph drops precipitously after about 9-10 engagements. This is consistent with everything I've read. One reason the German's developed the finger four formation was to eliminate the problem of pilots spending more time worrying about staying in formation and more time with their heads on a swivel looking for the enemy. The V formation is notorious for that problem. Also, it provides a wingman who can watch the element leaders back and vice versa. Situational awareness, as Mike Spick states, " is combination of many things, but in essence it is the ability of the pilot to keep track of events and foresee occurances in the fast-moving, dynamic scenario of air warfare. (From The Ace Factor, introduction). Major John Boyd of energy-maneuverability fame and the primary leader for the F-16, stated "he who can handle the quickest rate of change survives." I think we can examine the history of different aces and see this characteristic in all of them.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Apr 24, 2015 14:05:49 GMT -6
Moving a way from the Red Baron (as these threads tend to do!). The Japanese in WW2 are largely the unknowns here with regards to tactic of their top aces. Few of their really good pilots survived. Anecdotally it appears that their doctrine was to dogfight. There are cases where combat is joined and the Japanese planes start doing apparently meaningless loops and rolls apparently to psyche out their opponents. I'm talking about early WW2, before the majority of the pilots were hardly able to fly at all, let alone do aerial manuvers. I have not heard many instances of the Japanese pilots hunting in the same respect that we are discussing above with regards to Richthofen or Hartman, etc.
|
|