|
Post by sirchaos on Apr 24, 2015 14:21:09 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. Didn´t their planes tend to be a lot more maneuverable than those of their enemies, at least up until planes like the F6F and F4U were introduced? In that case, doing their best to force the enemy into a kind of combat that favored the Japanese would be a sound tactic for Japanese pilots. Also, from a cultural angle, one might think that twisting and turning dogfights felt like the equivalent of a duel between swordsmen to the Japanese pilots who considered themselves basically samurai of the air - thus this would have felt more appropriate and honorable to them than Richthofen-style ambushes or the US pilots´ "zoom in, shoot, zoom out" high speed tactics. Plus I would assume that in dogfights, the relative importance of pilot skill and experience is higher than in high speed tactics or especially ambushes - another point that would appeal to the Japanese pilots who tended to be a lot more experienced than most Allied pilots early in the war.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 24, 2015 17:31:55 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. The problem for the Japanese was their lack of good radios, without which, command in the air was almost impossible. Once engaged, they had no wingmen and without radio communication, it was everyman for himself. I have read three accounts by Sakai, and two other surviving aces. They used similar hunting tactics but they rarely used team tactics like the Germans and Allies.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 24, 2015 17:32:31 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. Didn´t their planes tend to be a lot more maneuverable than those of their enemies, at least up until planes like the F6F and F4U were introduced? In that case, doing their best to force the enemy into a kind of combat that favored the Japanese would be a sound tactic for Japanese pilots. Also, from a cultural angle, one might think that twisting and turning dogfights felt like the equivalent of a duel between swordsmen to the Japanese pilots who considered themselves basically samurai of the air - thus this would have felt more appropriate and honorable to them than Richthofen-style ambushes or the US pilots´ "zoom in, shoot, zoom out" high speed tactics. Plus I would assume that in dogfights, the relative importance of pilot skill and experience is higher than in high speed tactics or especially ambushes - another point that would appeal to the Japanese pilots who tended to be a lot more experienced than most Allied pilots early in the war. The majority of Japanese aircraft were lighter and more maneuverable than US aircraft. This was due to a conscious effort by the Japanese pilots to influence the designers like Hiro Horikoshi to build very maneuverable aircraft. You are correct that it might have something to do with their samurai tradition but more because of their experience against the Russians and Chinese in the China War starting in 1932. Japanese aircraft had lighter structures and thinner fuselage and wing panels which lightened the plane but also lowered the diving speed. If a Japanese A6M2 Model 21 dived faster than 320 knots, it could shed a wing and did so. This led to the US pilots adopting the tactic of the split S and dive away if jumped. In regards to the F4F and F6F, they were never as maneuverable in the horizontal as the Zeke, but the F6F could out dive, out climb and out roll the Zeke. It also had self sealing tanks like the rest of our fighters, better radios and cockpit armor. They were more survivable aircraft and over the course of the war, that made a difference as our pilots became more experienced and theirs generally didn't survive for long. By the end of the Guadalcanal operation in January 1943, the most experienced pilots both on the carriers and on the land based naval air forces were generally decimated and the pilot training could not keep up. We also developed better tactics like the Thach weave named after Commander James Thach. If the Japanese and German's had an advantage, it was in experienced pilots. The Germans learned lessons in Spain, the Japanese in China. This carried over into WWII, it was that aspect and less equipment quality that made the difference. Differences in aircraft flying characteristics is of less importance than pilot training and experience.
Addendum: I forgot to add that beyond 180 knots, the Zero's controls because very stiff and hard to move. It was a good medium speed aircraft, but really hard to fly above 200 mph. This was why the dive and climb tactic worked so well.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 26, 2015 10:12:39 GMT -6
For those of you remotely interested in comparing fighter aircraft throughout history, here are the two main factors to use; Wing loading, thrust to weight. For wing load, divide the Max. Combat Weight by the wing area. Example - The Me-109E of the BOB - Wing area is 176.5 sq. Feet and the combat weight or loaded weight is 5600 lbs. The wing load is 5600 lbs / 176.5 square feet or 31.75 lbs. per foot squared. This value is excellent for determining which bird will out maneuver another.
Thrust to weight ratio indicates how efficient total aircraft propulsion is. The higher this figure is, the faster the fighter can climb. The formula is Thrust/weight. For the same Me-109E, the engine thrust was 1100 hp. The weight was 5600 lbs. The ratio then is .196 HP of thrust per pound of weight.
For its adversary in the BOB, the Spitfire 1A, the ratios are 25.5 lbs. per foot square; the Thrust to weight is .200 HP per pound of weight.
So, which one is more maneuverable and which one could out climb the other? The Spitfire is more maneuverable, but does not have a sizeable lead in climb rate. It appears that the pilot and tactics might be the deciding factor and it was.
For WWI, you can calculate and compare the same factors but keep in mind about multiple wings. Calculate the wing area for one wing and double or triple it. The Fokker Triplane had a wing area of 200 sq. feet, with a weight of 1295. Wing loading was 6.475 lbs. per sq. foot. Thrust to weight was about .08 HP per lbs. Compare with WWII figures.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Apr 27, 2015 10:13:03 GMT -6
Take a look at "the Decisive duel" by David Isby. It's a fascinating read (for geeks like me anyway) that talks about the development of the Spitfire and Me 109 from early pre-war all the way through the final models.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 27, 2015 14:06:45 GMT -6
Take a look at "the Decisive duel" by David Isby. It's a fascinating read (for geeks like me anyway) that talks about the development of the Spitfire and Me 109 from early pre-war all the way through the final models. I like the engineering details of designs, I have looked at the book but will wait till it is on Kindle. I have a book on the Griffin powered Spits.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 27, 2015 14:53:04 GMT -6
Here is something about the difference between the Spitfire Merlin engine and DB 601 of the BF 109. The DB 601 had fuel injection and the Merlin did not. The carbs on the Merlin were not negative G so, a pilot could not push the stick forward and dive, without the engine cutting out, the DB 601 could. For the Spitfire, you had to roll and dive away, that takes more time. The British, in 1940 had a DB 601 Fuel injector pump given to them in Italy, but it never made it to England. One wonders how different things would have been with fuel injectors on the Merlin. BTW, the Merlin was not a direct descendent of the R Engine in the Supermarine racing plane, but the Griffin was. What did make a difference was the three bladed metal prop that was adjustable. In the BOB, the octane was increased to 100 and supercharging was increased to 12 lbs. per sq. in. at 3000 rpm . www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Apr 28, 2015 10:22:45 GMT -6
My two favorite what ifs from the BOB: Goering relents on his insistence of close escort and allows the fighters off the leash And/Or - 109E drop tanks.
Back to WW1 though - it's not nearly as easy to compare the aircraft as it is to investigate the characteristics of the WW2 planes. What is available is interesting. Some of the aircraft considered to be the best were pure dogfighters (such as the Dr1 try plane), others were less maneuverable, but had a good head of speed (SE5a for example). The aicraft that comes out as the 'best' in most discussions is the Fokker D VII. Neither the fastest or most maneuverable - but had a great climb rate and I believe (but it's hard to find conclusive evidence) a good roll rate. Some of the aircraft had some really interesting characteristics - such as the Sopwith Camel which was a beast to fly, but once learned was a good machine. Turned much better one direction than the other due to engine torque.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 28, 2015 12:09:49 GMT -6
My two favorite what ifs from the BOB: Goering relents on his insistence of close escort and allows the fighters off the leash And/Or - 109E drop tanks. Back to WW1 though - it's not nearly as easy to compare the aircraft as it is to investigate the characteristics of the WW2 planes. What is available is interesting. Some of the aircraft considered to be the best were pure dogfighters (such as the Dr1 try plane), others were less maneuverable, but had a good head of speed (SE5a for example). The aicraft that comes out as the 'best' in most discussions is the Fokker D VII. Neither the fastest or most maneuverable - but had a great climb rate and I believe (but it's hard to find conclusive evidence) a good roll rate. Some of the aircraft had some really interesting characteristics - such as the Sopwith Camel which was a beast to fly, but once learned was a good machine. Turned much better one direction than the other due to engine torque.
My favorite counterfactual would always be, General Wever does not get killed in 1936 and the four engine bombers, like the Junkers 89 or Dornier 19 were developed and deployed; think of how the BOB might have changed and Barbarossa.
As to WW1, air combat was still in its infancy. Air strategy and tactics were still being conceptualized and developed. This means that requirements and specifications were still be debated and the best combination was not decided upon yet. As you say, the Camel was a beast but an excellent aircraft, the SE-5A was probably the best fighter, provided you used dive and zoom tactics, that would be the primary air combat maneuver in the future. The triplanes were slow due to excessive drag and low power to weight in the engines. I agree that the DVII was probably the best but consider the DVIII, parasol. If it had improved engines, what might it have done?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 29, 2015 8:24:12 GMT -6
I thought some of you who are interested in the engineering details of flight might enjoy this page from NASA - history.nasa.gov/SP-468/contents.htmAt the end, is a symbolic index and flight parameters including wing area for aircraft from 1914 - 1918. This is really an interesting document. Another archive is the MAGIC Archive which contains engineering documents from NACA which was converted to NASA in 1958- naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Apr 29, 2015 11:25:39 GMT -6
Interesting stuff! I don't understand much of what is on the charts - Much of it is all Greek to me (some literally, Greek characters).
BOB with 4 engine German bombers would have been interesting. Probably fewer bombers going out, but each carrying a greater load. They would have run into issues once outside Me 109E range just as the B-17s did penetrating into Europe when beyond escort fighter range. The Me 110 needed its own escort so wasn't a good option, at least the P-38 was reasonably good and long ranged, though had issues in Europe. In the Soviet Union, being able to hit factories well behind the lines may have made quite a difference. Dis-assembly of a factory to move to Siberia was hard enough without bombs 'helping' to speed up the dis-assembly process!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 1, 2015 9:38:04 GMT -6
Interesting stuff! I don't understand much of what is on the charts - Much of it is all Greek to me (some literally, Greek characters). BOB with 4 engine German bombers would have been interesting. Probably fewer bombers going out, but each carrying a greater load. They would have run into issues once outside Me 109E range just as the B-17s did penetrating into Europe when beyond escort fighter range. The Me 110 needed its own escort so wasn't a good option, at least the P-38 was reasonably good and long ranged, though had issues in Europe. In the Soviet Union, being able to hit factories well behind the lines may have made quite a difference. Dis-assembly of a factory to move to Siberia was hard enough without bombs 'helping' to speed up the dis-assembly process! It is complicated but interesting.
Our view of WWII in the air has always been clouded by Allied strategic bombing and its reported success by the Allies. Since we were successful, if you believe the figures, then that is the way Germany should have gone. I disagree with that assumption. In the German position, centered geographically in Europe, there was no reason to have long range strategic bombers and their aircraft industry really did not have the capability of adequately supplying such bombers which are more expensive to build, fly and maintain. The German concept of war, kick the door open and the whole house falls, was successful even in Russia. Mistakes in strategy might have caused the latter to fail but conceptually it was a workable idea.
I really can’t see the advantage of a heavy bomber if all your targets are within the range of medium bombers and with war being attrition based, numbers are important. The German aircraft industry did not really get organized until about 1942. After that, they diffused their production and assembly plants which made destruction much more difficult. However their problem was never the number of aircraft but simply lack of pilots. I cannot see any reason why a heavy bomber would have made any real difference. The idea that a "Ural Bomber" could destroy Russian means of production is simply fantasy. Some of the factories were over 1700 miles from Moscow and Stalingrad, the furthest points the German's ever reached. One of the planned "Ural Bombers" , the JU 89 V2 had a range of 1862 miles with a bomb load of 3520 lbs. In terms of 500 lbs. HE bombs, that's six bombs. How much real damage could it really do, especially without a fighter to escort it and an effective targeting system. I am certain the Russian's would have had extensive AA system and fighters along with camo. For a comparison, bombers in England, flying to Munich had a round trip of 1044 miles. Most targets for the Allies were even closer, and look at the problems we had. The best air support was; interdiction, armed reconnaissance and CAS. Land based armies gain territory, and anything air support that expedites that, is a war winner. Even the BOB was fought in support of land based operations; i.e an amphibious landing.
As much as it would be interesting to theorize about the effect of a "Ural Bomber" in the Luftwaffe, it isn't realistic, not at all.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on May 1, 2015 11:29:52 GMT -6
Oh, I totally agree with you. If I could grab a history book from an alternate reality where the Germans built 4 engine bombers and had much fewer twin's I doubt things would look much different. They would have been 'inconvenient' for the Soviets possibly, allowing deeper penetration but they would not have made a huge difference. The red tsunami of T-34's and troops would still have come to Berlin. The BOB would have ended the same as it did, I'm reasonably sure. Goring and the top leadership in Germany was incompetent for the most part (thankfully).
There are many tactical battles where alternate history is interesting (Bismarck escapes, Hood doesn't blow up, etc) but once you pull the scope out the end is pretty inevitable without HUGE changes.
WW1 is somewhat more 'fun' to play with to me, as far as considering the what if's. The Germans were not so clearly the bad guys in the same sense they were in WW2. There were times, such as in the air war where a more forward thinking leader could have made a big difference. Of course that's easy for me to spot sitting here 100 years later!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 1, 2015 14:02:06 GMT -6
Exactly, you and I have studied this material and discussed it for a few moons, and we both know that there is not one factor or variable that can change the outcome of wars. They are a complex human activity and as such, many factors and variables are at work. The key to Operation Sea Lion was the destroyers on both sides and the U-boats. Had the German's deployed well over 300 U-boats at the beginning of the war, the BOB might never have been needed.
As to the Russians, geography and attrition were always the enemy of Barbarossa, not the lack of a "Ural Bomber". You can't change geography.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 1, 2015 23:46:58 GMT -6
I've always asked the question; why didn't the German Luftwaffe build a massive strategic bombing force? As I've already indicated, and correctly, Germany was a continental power centrally located in Europe. Due to that position, it was the army that had the lions share of any rearmament program, and that makes sense. But there were also two other factors; lack of foreign exchange and raw materials; specifically oil. Four engine bombers use a lot of fuel, and Germany did not actually have much, that's why the investment in synthetic fuels. Germany also lacked iron ore imports for steel, rubber, etc. Japan had the same issues.
The lack of a strategic bombing force was never due to doctrine, because most Luftwaffe leaders prior to the war believed, as did the Allied countries in the concept of strategic bombing as the chief mission of an air force. Ask yourself the question; why did the Luftwaffe change its strategy from air supremacy to a direct bombing of London? Most historians believe it was because of the bombing of Berlin. Rubbish; it was because they believed that the best way to bring the English to their knees was with strategic bombing. Sound familiar? What did the Allies do? Same thing, bomb Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg and other major cities. The English bombed areas, not specific targets to destroy German morale. Bombing specific targets requires detailed intelligence but more importantly, finding and hitting those specific targets and hence, the German knickbein blind bombing system and others. Both sides understood the basic problem of find the target and hitting it. It wasn't until recently, with laser guided bombs that the problem was essentially solved.
It was these factors that pushed the German Luftwaffe to become a tactical air force at the beginning of the war. Economic reality placed severe restrictions on the nature and force structure of the Luftwaffe in the prewar period. The Germans always faced the prospect of large land battles, something the Allies really never faced. The German's could never ignore that reality and hence, the Army demands were prime.
I believe that when we consider these issues, they explain why the Luftwaffe appeared to be a tactical air force. Economics and geographical realities forced it to be such a force.
|
|