Luftwaffe vs RAF

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15420
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by ljadw » 06 Feb 2021 20:55

gracie4241 wrote:
13 Nov 2019 21:38
The fighter v fighterv fighter loss ratio, although complicated, nevertheless shows the media perception/presentation is grossly distorted.I have NEVER seen a movie of any kind where Spitfires are clubbing ME-109's like baby seals.This is the public(and wrong) perception.All the publicity about "the Finest and their exploits overshadows a great performance by the Me-109 pilots, who stayed in action longer and frequently flew more sorties.BTW, until changed, Goering's insistence on close escort of his bombers meant the german fighters were often low and slow, and bounced from higher altitude;as a principal advantage of the me-109 was its "verticality".
Goering's order of close escort was correct : bombers were more important than fighters .

Stravinsky444
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Sep 2022 06:54
Location: Poland

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by Stravinsky444 » 02 Nov 2022 23:11

Smokey Stover wrote:
30 Aug 2018 14:43
I knew you were going to say that.... And for about 2 or 3 months during 1941 you are right. Everyone always trumpets how until the Spitfire lX came into production the Fw 190 rained supreme. But the truth is the German 190 pilots were not fazed by the Spitfire lX when it arrived in numbers. If a Spitfire got behind a 190 the Germans would simply dive away at speed. The real problem however was the introduction of the Hawker Typhoon. If you asked German pilots about what British aircraft they feared the most, many would say the Typhoon + Tempest. The Typhoon was so fast and so heavy that 190 pilots could not outdive them. And many 190 pilots found this out the hard way. After the Typhoon had its initial gremlins ironed out it was just as effective in its introduction as was the 190. Also it has to be noted as with any new aircraft, dogfighting tactics had to be learned and adapted accordingly. This was why captured enemy aircraft evaluation tests were so important. To find out an aircrafts strengths and weaknesses. The Spitfire was a superb fighter all through the war. But its psychological impact was highly overrated. Just as many allied pilots suffered from 190 mania! Sometimes just the sight of an enemy aircraft was enough to give pilots a false sense of fear. The 190 scourge didnt stop just because of the Spitfire lX. Even if it was designed to combat that aircraft. And besides, almost every German pilot i have heard speak about aerial combat with the British stated the last thing they wanted to see behind them was a Tempest. The Typhoon was almost as good. Maybe not as fast or agile as the Tempest but it could still fight. A good comparison is the P-51 & P-47. Both aircraft were more than capable dogfighters, its just one of them was considered more glamorous, therefore better. Which isnt always the case.
I have to disagree a little on the introduction of the Spitfire Mk IX making no changes: It did make a change against the FW-190A, because it had a world beating climb rate that even exceeded that of the Me-109G-6, and maybe even later variants when 150 fuel was introduced in August '44.

The Mark IX redressed the balance by using hit and run, not by turning. Turning at low speed was the only thing the FW-190A did well, and the Mark IX did not turn any better than the Mark V, despite one Russian source stating 17 seconds vs 20 seconds for a turn time. In true sustained turns I don't buy it: Current operators all say the Mark V turns noticeably better than a Mark IX, even more so vs the XIV...

The FW-190A always out-turned the Spitfire, but the 190A had absolutely horrible high-speed handling, of the high G sinking "mushing" "squashing" sort. and this sort of forced the Germans out of the hit and run obsession they had with the 109, which was a good thing, as slow speed turning was an increasingly dominant tactic as the War went on, one that easily defeated hit and run when the pilot was aware of the threat. However, the Germans stuck to throttling up to high power in their 109s and as a result turned poorly. The Allied were more pragmatic, and decreased hit and run use faster than the Germans on 109s did. On the Eastern Front the Russian aircrafts had one-way radios, which favoured hit and run against them. On the Western Front, hit and run was a bad idea for the Luftwaffe, and Eastern Front aces with 130 kills would get killed on their first mission in the West, despite admonitions by other pilots not to use hit and run or the vertical...

I will add quotes to prove the 190 out-turned, badly, all marks of Spitfire, but only at low speeds, as did the 109 to a lesser extent. Like the Spitfire, the 109 did out-turn the 190A at high speeds, probably misleading the Russians into thinking the 109 turned better.

I will take strong issue with the notion of the Typhoon being a good fighter: It was absolutely hated by everyone in the RAF, handled poorly, could not hold its own against most airborne opponents, it poisoned its pilots even if they wore the mask all the time, and was really one of the absolute worst machines ever produced in such large numbers. It was so hated that, as the War ended, they were all immediately scrapped in huge numbers, to the point it was with great difficulty that a single one was preserved today. I don't really know why it was produced in such large numbers, but it had excellent speed at low altitude and a large carrying capacity. That being said, its role with rockets is somewhat overstated, and not that many tanks were its victims. Its landing and take-off characteristics were almost comically bad. None of this applies to the Tempest of course, but the few accounts of flying the Typhoon really read like it was a machine designed in the depths of Hell... Its roll rate was slow. I can't say just why it was so hated, but the fact is that it seemed to have been an easy prey for the Luftwaffe, the rare times it had to deal with fighters directly.

As to the Fw-190A vs Spitfire issue, here are a few quotes by the people who were there, not test pilots with 2 four engine kills like Eric Brown. But first, a brief overview (in parenthesis) of why I think there is a problem with our understanding of the Physics of these aircrafts:

(I would like to address our lack of understanding of the physics of these aircrafts: We do not understand reducing power not only reduces radius, which we do know, but that, on tractive low wing prop types, it also does so while maintaining or increasing the turn RATE... An indication of this lack of knowledge is that we actually think the FW-190A is out-turned by the Spitfire: Absolutely laughable in the face of front-line experience... See my video here for an explanation of why these (related) mistakes exist:

https://youtu.be/uYnCI3XURx0

If we cannot figure out that a supposed 50% difference in wingloading (30 lbs to 45 lbs) between these two types is the reverse of what we think, then we do not understand the physics of low wing tractive single engine WWII fighters.)

Parenthesis closed...

The Fw-190A was the most stereotyped "one trick pony" turn-fighter of the entire War.

A translated Russian article in "Red Fleet", describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from a US Army translation in "Tactical and Technical Trends", No. 37, November 4, 1943.

Quote:

"-The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight.

-They interact in the following manner:
Me-109G will usually perform dive and climb attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.
FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights.

-Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed."

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2): "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their superior turning circle. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost 8 to their one that day..."

Johnny Johnson article (top Spitfire ace at 36 kills, and top FW-190A killer at 20): "My duel with the Focke-Wulf": "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns [Period slang for vertical bank]. I was greying out. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights.---I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech.-It could only be a question of time..."

RCAF John Weir interview for Veterans Affairs (Spitfire Mk V vs FW-190A-4 period): "A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading..."

"The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know."

In "Le Fana de l'Aviation" #496 p. 40:
Première citation : " Dans la journée du 29 avril, le régiment effectua 28 sorties pour escorter des bombardiers et des avions d'attaque au sol et 23 en protection de troupes, avec quatre combats aériens. Les premiers jours furent marqués par des échecs dus à une tactique de combat périmée dans le plan horizontal, alors que le Spitfire était particulièrement adapté au combat dans le plan vertical."

[Translation: "The Spitfire failed in horizontal fighting, but was particularly adapted to vertical fighting."]


I kept my favourite for last: Pierre Clostermann was an 18 kill ace and RAF mission record holder at 432. He was also a Caltech trained engineer and was the only pilot I know of to actually give technical conferences on German aircrafts to fellow pilots. He had 10 FW-190 kills. He wrote what is widely considered the greatest aviation memoir this side of St-Exupery: Le Grand Cirque. He watched litterally thousands of gun camera films for his conferences, most of which are probably gone forever by now. Do you really think this guy does not know what he is talking about?

https://youtu.be/c2zdA9TcIYo

(From 12:44)

Translation: "So there are legends about the Spitfire... Aaaahh the legends... Legends are hard to kill... One of those legends is that the Spitfire turned better than the Messerschmitt 109, or the FW-190. Well that is a good joke... In fact all those who found themselves with a 109 or a 190 turning inside them, at low speeds, well those in general did not come back to complain about the legend... Why? Above 280 to 300 knots, the Spitfire turned better than the Me-109. But, first and foremost, in a turning battle, the speed goes down and down and down and down, and at one point there comes a time, when the speed has gone down below 200 knots, that the Me-109 turns inside the Spitfire."

mezsat2
Member
Posts: 329
Joined: 05 Jun 2009 12:02

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by mezsat2 » 11 Nov 2022 12:03

In the end, the Luftwaffe suffered from lack of fuel and good pilots, not machines.

The aircraft were superb, for the most part. ME-262 had bad engines, but Speer had
a plan to address that (or so he claimed). Speer would have installed this as Germany's
ONLY fighter aircraft by 1944 and completely turned around the war.

The loss of pilots would not be so severe in the 262, since few were trained to fly jet
aircraft, anyway. It was so much faster than any plane flown by the allies, it would be
virtually invincible.

antwony
Member
Posts: 223
Joined: 30 Jun 2016 09:14
Location: Not at that place

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by antwony » 11 Nov 2022 14:06

Stravinsky444 wrote:
02 Nov 2022 23:11
I will take strong issue with the notion of the Typhoon being a good fighter: It was absolutely hated by everyone in the RAF, handled poorly, could not hold its own against most airborne opponents, it poisoned its pilots even if they wore the mask all the time, and was really one of the absolute worst machines ever produced in such large numbers. It was so hated that, as the War ended, they were all immediately scrapped in huge numbers, to the point it was with great difficulty that a single one was preserved today. I don't really know why it was produced in such large numbers, but it had excellent speed at low altitude and a large carrying capacity. That being said, its role with rockets is somewhat overstated, and not that many tanks were its victims. Its landing and take-off characteristics were almost comically bad. None of this applies to the Tempest of course, but the few accounts of flying the Typhoon really read like it was a machine designed in the depths of Hell... Its roll rate was slow. I can't say just why it was so hated, but the fact is that it seemed to have been an easy prey for the Luftwaffe, the rare times it had to deal with fighters directly.
The Typhoon was rushed into service to zoom- and boom Fw190's raiding England's south coast, which it did successfully and the raids stopped. After that, it did ground support.

It was built in such numbers as ground support is how air forces can best help win wars.

As for its popularity, the poisoning can't of helped. Also, ground support couldn't have been the most popular job for fighter pilots. Also, I doubt it was scrapped after VE Day due to its lack of popularity. Better options being available and, once again, the poisoning would seem more salient. I mean really... popularity?

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3665
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by Sheldrake » 11 Nov 2022 17:34

Stravinsky444 wrote:
02 Nov 2022 23:11
Turning at low speed was the only thing the FW-190A did well, and the Mark IX did not turn any better than the Mark V, despite one Russian source stating 17 seconds vs 20 seconds for a turn time. In true sustained turns I don't buy it: Current operators all say the Mark V turns noticeably better than a Mark IX, even more so vs the XIV...

The FW-190A always out-turned the Spitfire, but the 190A had absolutely horrible high-speed handling, of the high G sinking "mushing" "squashing" sort. and this sort of forced the Germans out of the hit and run obsession they had with the 109, which was a good thing, as slow speed turning was an increasingly dominant tactic as the War went on, one that easily defeated hit and run when the pilot was aware of the threat. However, the Germans stuck to throttling up to high power in their 109s and as a result turned poorly. The Allied were more pragmatic, and decreased hit and run use faster than the Germans on 109s did. On the Eastern Front the Russian aircrafts had one-way radios, which favoured hit and run against them. On the Western Front, hit and run was a bad idea for the Luftwaffe, and Eastern Front aces with 130 kills would get killed on their first mission in the West, despite admonitions by other pilots not to use hit and run or the vertical...

I will add quotes to prove the 190 out-turned, badly, all marks of Spitfire, but only at low speeds, as did the 109 to a lesser extent. Like the Spitfire, the 109 did out-turn the 190A at high speeds, probably misleading the Russians into thinking the 109 turned better.
This seems the wrong way around - even if there are individual anecdotes that appear to support the argument.

This is from the AFDU report on the Fw190A3 that landed in error in Wales.

Climb: The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire Mk VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet (7620 m). With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked.

Dive: Comparative dives have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

Manoeuvrability: The manoeuvrability of the Fw 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can guite easily out-turn it. The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat. When the Fw 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. It was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the Fw 190, it was easily caught even if the Fw 190 was sighted when well out of range


This makes sense as the FGw190 has a much higher wing loading that a spitfire V or IX.

These comments are from a RAF Museum dosant in response to a question about whether the Fw190 is a turn fighter.
In terms of sustained rate of turn, no: the wing loading was too high (around 45 lbs/sq.ft for a fully loaded 190A-8); but to turn, first you have to bank, and the 190 could respond quicker and roll faster than any other WW2 fighter. So it could change direction very quickly, and thus evade less responsive opponents with better turn rates - as pilots of MkV Spitfires discovered to their dismay in 1941. Its acceleration was excellent also. In due course faster Allied types like the MkIX Spitfire, P-51B-D and Tempest got the upper hand, but for over a year (mid-41 till late 42) the 190 was the best fighter extant.

This also fits with the analysis ion chapter 4 of Robert L Shaw's Fighter Combat on maneuvering one versus one dissimilar aircraft. The aircraft with the low wing loading fights for angles in the horizontal plane while the high wing loading aircraft maneuvers in the vertical plane - high or Low yo yo

There are a number of good combat flight simulators available. If you turn fighting at low speed in an FW190 you will die quickly...

Stravinsky444
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Sep 2022 06:54
Location: Poland

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by Stravinsky444 » 08 Dec 2022 05:29

Sheldrake wrote:
11 Nov 2022 17:34
Stravinsky444 wrote:
02 Nov 2022 23:11
Turning at low speed was the only thing the FW-190A did well, and the Mark IX did not turn any better than the Mark V, despite one Russian source stating 17 seconds vs 20 seconds for a turn time. In true sustained turns I don't buy it: Current operators all say the Mark V turns noticeably better than a Mark IX, even more so vs the XIV...

The FW-190A always out-turned the Spitfire, but the 190A had absolutely horrible high-speed handling, of the high G sinking "mushing" "squashing" sort. and this sort of forced the Germans out of the hit and run obsession they had with the 109, which was a good thing, as slow speed turning was an increasingly dominant tactic as the War went on, one that easily defeated hit and run when the pilot was aware of the threat. However, the Germans stuck to throttling up to high power in their 109s and as a result turned poorly. The Allied were more pragmatic, and decreased hit and run use faster than the Germans on 109s did. On the Eastern Front the Russian aircrafts had one-way radios, which favoured hit and run against them. On the Western Front, hit and run was a bad idea for the Luftwaffe, and Eastern Front aces with 130 kills would get killed on their first mission in the West, despite admonitions by other pilots not to use hit and run or the vertical...

I will add quotes to prove the 190 out-turned, badly, all marks of Spitfire, but only at low speeds, as did the 109 to a lesser extent. Like the Spitfire, the 109 did out-turn the 190A at high speeds, probably misleading the Russians into thinking the 109 turned better.
This seems the wrong way around - even if there are individual anecdotes that appear to support the argument.

This is from the AFDU report on the Fw190A3 that landed in error in Wales.

Climb: The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire Mk VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet (7620 m). With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked.

Dive: Comparative dives have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

Manoeuvrability: The manoeuvrability of the Fw 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can guite easily out-turn it. The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat. When the Fw 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. It was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the Fw 190, it was easily caught even if the Fw 190 was sighted when well out of range


This makes sense as the FGw190 has a much higher wing loading that a spitfire V or IX.

These comments are from a RAF Museum dosant in response to a question about whether the Fw190 is a turn fighter.
In terms of sustained rate of turn, no: the wing loading was too high (around 45 lbs/sq.ft for a fully loaded 190A-8); but to turn, first you have to bank, and the 190 could respond quicker and roll faster than any other WW2 fighter. So it could change direction very quickly, and thus evade less responsive opponents with better turn rates - as pilots of MkV Spitfires discovered to their dismay in 1941. Its acceleration was excellent also. In due course faster Allied types like the MkIX Spitfire, P-51B-D and Tempest got the upper hand, but for over a year (mid-41 till late 42) the 190 was the best fighter extant.

This also fits with the analysis ion chapter 4 of Robert L Shaw's Fighter Combat on maneuvering one versus one dissimilar aircraft. The aircraft with the low wing loading fights for angles in the horizontal plane while the high wing loading aircraft maneuvers in the vertical plane - high or Low yo yo

There are a number of good combat flight simulators available. If you turn fighting at low speed in an FW190 you will die quickly...
You want to believe Eric Brown with zero fighter kills over Clostermann with 18 kills and Johnnie Johnson with 36? Clostermann was the RAF mission record holder (436), and a Caltech trained engineer. He was the only pilot I know of to give technical conferences on Luftwaffe aircrafts during the War. Johnnie Johnson spouted the same nonsense of the Spitfire out-turning 109 and 190s in 1943. In 1946 he was saying the exact opposite in his article "My duel with the Focke-Wulf"... Why do you think that is?

I linked to a video I made explaining why the physics of these things is not understood because their web of internal leverages is not understood, as well as the asymmetrical load on the prop when turning, with the resulting change in pitch trim, which is the cause of those leverages.

https://youtu.be/uYnCI3XURx0

If the basic physiscs is garbage, how could simulators be any different?

Almost everything we know about WWII air to air combat is trash: The War did not start with turn fighting, it started with the ten year old assumption turn fighting was dead since the 1930s. It turned out turning easily defeated speed and diving attacks except when unaware of the attack... It turned out guns had poor lethality at high speeds and high deflection. It turned out turning "captured" a slow stable target that could not roll out of the turn without being clobbered instantly. It turned out you were hard to hit from outside the circle when turning, and "trapped" in the turn circle once you WERE part of it...

It turned out cutting the power made you turn better, imitating a shorter nose's leverage, for the same internal leverage reasons I outline in the video. As one pilot said: "Turn fighting was the only race where the slowest always won."

By 1945 almost everyone was turning at reduced power (the Luftwaffe, and especially Me-109 pilots, being the last to get it in late 1944), excepting the Japanese Navy, which had never embraced turn fighting on the horizontal. Another fact we got completely wrong... That people think the Zero was turning horizontally all the time is just the most blatant example of how absurdly wrong our entire WWII tactics knowledge base is:

US Navy pilot, Sept 27 1942: "They [Zero pilots] have generally poor fighter tactics. If they would only chop their throttles and turn with us, they could just sit on our tails."

All these are just some of the basic facts we have not been in the remotest ballpark of getting right. Which is why I call this the most confused of all domains of human knowledge. Literally everything is understood upside down, but these misconceptions (ignored informally at the WWII front-line level) were proved as correct in the Jet era (because of the radically different physics of the thrust not interacting with the wings directly), hence this gigantic discrepancy which was never understood. If you want an accurate simulation, try the board game variant I have been refining for the past 27 years (based on the old Avalon Hill Air Force system):

https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/9710 ... -air-force

User avatar
ShindenKai
Member
Posts: 656
Joined: 29 Jan 2012 05:43
Location: USA

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by ShindenKai » 25 Dec 2022 12:19

Stravinsky444 wrote:
08 Dec 2022 05:29
By 1945 almost everyone was turning at reduced power (the Luftwaffe, and especially Me-109 pilots, being the last to get it in late 1944), excepting the Japanese Navy, which had never embraced turn fighting on the horizontal. Another fact we got completely wrong... That people think the Zero was turning horizontally all the time is just the most blatant example of how absurdly wrong our entire WWII tactics knowledge base is:

US Navy pilot, Sept 27 1942: "They [Zero pilots] have generally poor fighter tactics. If they would only chop their throttles and turn with us, they could just sit on our tails."

All these are just some of the basic facts we have not been in the remotest ballpark of getting right. Which is why I call this the most confused of all domains of human knowledge. Literally everything is understood upside down, but these misconceptions (ignored informally at the WWII front-line level) were proved as correct in the Jet era (because of the radically different physics of the thrust not interacting with the wings directly), hence this gigantic discrepancy which was never understood. If you want an accurate simulation, try the board game variant I have been refining for the past 27 years (based on the old Avalon Hill Air Force system):

https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/9710 ... -air-force
Here you are spouting off NONSENSE all over again! YOU are the ONLY one "that's absurdly wrong". You don't understand wing loading. You don't understand ballistics and its effect on aerial gunnery and you absolutely, positively do NOT understand air combat.

Only the inexperienced Japanese pilots weren't dogfighting to the full advantage of their aircraft, PERIOD. -I will say this: not all combat pilots can become Aces it requires a certain athleticism, spatial awareness, timing and aggressiveness that MOST people do not have and never will. Interestingly a lot of the Aces on all sides, through-out the history of aerial combat have a few things in common: they either had previous flying experience or were involved in sports and in particular, martial arts- wrestling, boxing, etc, etc. Air combat is VERY physical.

So, in that regard it could be said that not ALL Zero pilots had "the right stuff". Saburo Sakai even mentions that fellow Zero Ace (with 80+ kills) Hiroyoshi Nishizawa would perform astounding maneuvering displays with his Zero, that neither Sakai nor other Zero pilots could match. Its highly likely he would've survived the war, if the transport plane he was riding in hadn't been shot down.

ALL the Japanese ACEs have talked at LENGTH about basically being FORCED to TURN/DOGFIGHT because they COULD NOT DIVE AWAY TO ESCAPE (the Ki-84 changed that for IJAAF, the Ki-61 & Ki-100 weren't too bad in that regard either). NEARLY ALL Allied Air Forces in the EARLY part of the Pacific war KNEW that dogfighting ANY Zero was a VERY dangerous and MOST often fatal game. Some even stated that the turning performance of the Zero was so good that it appeared to turn within its own length (which it couldn't but it could still out-turn ALL frontline Allied fighters with EASE), they literally described being on its tail one second and then within the next it had turned and as was coming at them HEAD-ON. ALL the ALLIED testing talks expressly about the long-range and extreme agility of the Zero and the Oscar and how the Japanese pilots used them VERY effectively (AKA DOGFIGHTING) early in the war. It wasn't until Koga's Zero did the Allies truly learn the weaknesses of the Zero and they were then told "DON'T DOGFIGHT!" Zeros (ANY Japanese fighter!)

Yes, the aircraft that fly the slowest (reduced throttle) without stalling-out can generally maneuver better, and that's exactly what the Ki-43 & Zero were designed to do, which is why they were extremely lightweight, THEY HAD TO BE. They were the KINGS of DOGFIGHTING. Jiro Horikoshi talks about this extensively in his book "The Eagle's of Mitsubishi" BTW, He's the guy that designed the Zero, FOR DOGFIGHTING in the horizontal. Try reading it sometime.

The Allied pilots towards the end of the PTO knew that most of experienced IJA/IJN pilots had been killed off and were more willing to tempt fate. It didn't hurt that inexperienced pilots tend to give themselves away just by the way they fly, lack of awareness, etc, etc.
A lot of times their assumptions and gambles paid off, but not always and they paid the price.

You are correct on ONE thing ONLY, the boom & zoom fighters absolutely can NOT turn & burn with the dogfighters (assuming the dogfighter KNOWS how to use his plane). The major downside of being in a dogfighting aircraft that doesn't have the speed of a boom & zoomer is that the dogfighters are essentially at the mercy of the B&Z'ers, they have to continually maneuver to avoid the passes of B&Z'ers, until the B&Z'ers run low on fuel, get tired of the whole thing and break combat when they choose to OR the dogfighters have back-up/reinforcements arrive on scene. Do you realize dogfighting maneuvers put G-LOADS on the pilot and aircraft?? Did you know that in sustained G-turns the pilot MUST perform special breathing methods to stay in the fight (aka NOT PASS OUT)???? (It's LITERALLY, VERY PHYSICAL COMBAT) Did you know that is all very taxing and leads to fatigue of pilot and aircraft??? Which in-turn leads to even experienced pilots making mistakes/being less aware (many experienced Japanese Aces perished due to fatigue). Whereas on the flip-side an experienced B&Z'er is putting a lot less G-loads on himself and his aircraft which means less over-all wear/fatigue on both. Generally, when G's start loading-up, the aircraft starts slowly down, which is why the B&Z'ers stick to doing swooping/slashing attacks, maintaining their speed, their advantage.

The Japanese were the only ones to develop "combat" flaps for their aircraft, FOR DOGFIGHTING. For the IJAAF- the Ki-43 Hayabusa (Oscar), Ki-44 Shoki (Tojo) and even the Ki-84 Hayate (Frank) and for the IJNAF- the J2M Raiden (Jack), the N1K1 & N1K2-J Shiden (George) and the A7M1+ Reppu (Sam, but it never saw combat). They were quite ingenious, they were essentially "automatic" once the pilot selected the combat setting they would deploy/retract automatically (based-on airspeed, angle of attack and g-load), WHILE DOGFIGHTING. Reducing the pilots workload because he wasn't forced to grab a completely different stick/lever mid-maneuver, so he could keep his hands on just the flight stick and throttle.

I've tried air-combat board games, they're dog poop. You can NOT replicate a VERY 3D fight on a flat board, PERIOD. Especially equating it to "an accurate simulation". Its laughable. So laughable its actually sad that you believe that. Moreso after you admitted to nerfing (weakened) the 20mm's to ONE THIRD of their actual effectiveness.

Lt(jg) Sadaaki Akamatsu, 30+ kills and survived the war- "our dogfighting techniques were superior to any other country's, but the American's shooting average was better than ours"
The J2M Raiden was his favorite steed but he also flew the Zero and on May 29th 1945 he single-handedly attacked a formation of SEVENTY-FIVE (yes, 75!) P-51 Mustangs with the "obsolete" Zero, shot down 2Lt Rufus Moore of the 45th FS, Cpt Todd Moore also of the 45th FS that witnessed the attack 'if he'd been an American he would've been awarded the Medal of Honor'. Though Sadaaki's aircraft was hit on numerous occasions throughout his career, he was never wounded in combat. Never lost a DOGFIGHT in 8 YEARS of combat, over 8,000 flight hours.

Cpt Hiroshi Onozaki, 14 kills and survived the war- Single-handedly escaped 20+ P-38's at tree-top height with his Ki-43.

MSgt Satoshi Anabuki, 39 kills and survived the war- On Dec 24th 1942 he was forced to do battle with the landing gear of his Ki-43 extended because of damage it had received in a bombing raid, and he shot down 2 Hurricanes in this condition.

WO Katsuaki Kira, 21+ kills, survived the war- Single-handedly engaged 10 USAAF fighters and shot-down 2 with the Ki-84.

WO Takeo Tanimizu, 32 kills, survived war- "P-38's (Mezashi) at low altitude were easy prey...their weakest spot was their tail. A 20mm hit and their tails would snap off" "I think the F6F was the toughest opponent we had, they could maneuver & roll, whereas planes such as the P-38 (Mezashi) and F4U made hit & run passes - they were not very maneuverable" "A few times, I would see F4U making low-level diving attacks and dive into a coconut grove or the water because it couldn't pull-out - the plane was too heavy. We would sometimes chase them into the sea." He single-handedly engaged 11 B-24's with his Zero and shot 2 down.

Ensign Saburo Sakai, 60+ Kills, survived war- In the book "Samurai!" he describes numerous DOGFIGHTS, out maneuvering 15 Hellcats over Iwo Jima, who didn't even hit his aircraft a single time! Maneuver killed a P-39 in a canyon/valley.

Ensign Kenji Okabe, 50+ kills, survived war- Shot down 8 aircraft with his Zero on May 8th, 1942 during the Battle of the Coral Sea. (Possibly split between two sorties)

WO Kiyomi Katsuki, 16 kills (7 float-plane kills), survived war- One of TWO IJNAF float-plane Aces of WW2, Shot down a PBY with his F1M2 (Pete), rammed and destroyed two other B-17s on two separate occasions (his F1M Petes also being destroyed). Shot down a B-24 with a N1K1 Kyofu (Rex).


Your video trying to validate you opinion with the propeller + wheel car, is a completely INVALID example- that "car" is using BOTH the propeller AND the wheels to MOVE forward, let's not forget the very solid ground providing traction AND elimination of torque vectors. Aircraft do not have POWERED wheels gripping SOLID GROUND to assist in their forward movement and torque cancelation.

Lastly, contra-props do not have P-factor.

User avatar
ShindenKai
Member
Posts: 656
Joined: 29 Jan 2012 05:43
Location: USA

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by ShindenKai » 25 Dec 2022 23:52

Stravinsky444 wrote:
02 Nov 2022 23:11
Johnny Johnson article (top Spitfire ace at 36 kills, and top FW-190A killer at 20): "My duel with the Focke-Wulf": "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns [Period slang for vertical bank]. I was greying out. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights.---I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech.-It could only be a question of time..."
A major problem here is you don't understand what's being described.

"I held the Spit V in the tightest of vertical turns..." That is absolutely NOT a "Vertical bank" (as stated by you). Do you realize that banking DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR DIRECTION OF FLIGHT!? A true "Vertical bank" would be more accurately described as 'rolling into knife edge flight' OR "rolling into a 90* bank", which again is NOT changing your direction of flight (when properly done) and does not produce any significant G-loads on the pilot AT ALL (it will be quite awkward however because he'll be pushed into one side of the fuselage, thx normal gravity). The aircraft does start to feel heavier because it is no longer producing the lift needed and will begin to slip vertically downward. A proper coordinated turn, requires the usage of the ailerons, elevators and rudder and it can produce the "greying-out" G-load being described when pulled tightly. A "flat-turn" uses the rudder only and is really only used for small directional corrections.

Notice in the image that the stall speed goes up as bank angle increases, which is why LIGHT wing loading is KEY in slow-speed dogfighting. ALL German fighters would've been absolutely SLAUGHTERED by Zeros and Ki-43s in their low-speed dogfighting element. It would've been an absolute bloodbath (and is, in accurate flight sims). In fact if the Germans just had the Zero (with MG 151 20mm's and their MG's) The Battle of Britain would've most likely looked like Japan at the end of WW2, Zeros roaming ALL the Skies over the UK, strafing/attacking any and every target at will. Complete and total air dominance. Compared to the Zero the German Fighter aircraft had no range at all, LOL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Rio Nightfighter
New member
Posts: 1
Joined: 09 Feb 2023 16:28
Location: Rio de Janeiro

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by Rio Nightfighter » 09 Feb 2023 16:51

Morning and greetings across the Atlantic on my first post here.
Some time ago I heard a story about Hans-Joachim Jabs. He was shot down after a skirmish with four Spitfires and had to bail out, but a turkey he was catching for Christmas was lost in the palne. many years after the war, he and the Spitfire pilot met and became friends. That same year, around Christmas, Jabs received a package. When he opened the box there was a turkey with a note:
"This one is to make up for what you missed out on Christmas.
Merry Christmas" and the pilot who shot him down (and the turkey too) signed it.
The million dollar question is: Does anyone know the name of the pilot who shot Jabs down?
Thanks!

ewest89
Member
Posts: 283
Joined: 04 Oct 2021 20:11
Location: United States

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by ewest89 » 09 Feb 2023 22:47

Post #168

Pure rubbish. The Me 262 had very good engines. The best pilots flew it. I don't know where you get your information. The British had the Gloster Meteor but never used it against the Me 262. Find out why.

Denniss
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 02:52
Location: Germany

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by Denniss » 10 Feb 2023 12:46

The Jumo 004s were neither very good nor very bad. They were not very reliable and pilots had to be very careful with the throttle level or otherwise risk a flame-out

ewest89
Member
Posts: 283
Joined: 04 Oct 2021 20:11
Location: United States

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by ewest89 » 10 Feb 2023 20:53

The Jumo engines had a limited service life, requiring replacement at certain intervals. I watched a Russian film of a captured Me 262 taking off like any modern jet.

Denniss
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 02:52
Location: Germany

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by Denniss » 10 Feb 2023 22:14

Powerful (for the time), delicate to operate and somewhat fragile if kept in service for too long due to heat stress inside the engines. An improvement was on the way but war ended before they got it.

User avatar
ShindenKai
Member
Posts: 656
Joined: 29 Jan 2012 05:43
Location: USA

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by ShindenKai » 16 Feb 2023 01:34

Denniss wrote:
10 Feb 2023 22:14
Powerful (for the time), delicate to operate and somewhat fragile if kept in service for too long due to heat stress inside the engines. An improvement was on the way but war ended before they got it.
Bingo!

Me-262 Training film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBH0ULVmsow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv83yBebiIU

Stravinsky444
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 30 Sep 2022 06:54
Location: Poland

Re: Luftwaffe vs RAF

Post by Stravinsky444 » 21 Nov 2023 16:04

ShindenKai wrote:
25 Dec 2022 23:52
Stravinsky444 wrote:
02 Nov 2022 23:11
Johnny Johnson article (top Spitfire ace at 36 kills, and top FW-190A killer at 20): "My duel with the Focke-Wulf": "With wide-open throttles I held the Spitfire V in the tightest of vertical turns [Period slang for vertical bank]. I was greying out. Where was this German, who should, according to my reckoning, be filling my gunsight? I could not see him, and little wonder, for he was gaining on me: In another couple of turns he would have me in his sights.---I asked the Spitfire for all she had in the turn, but the enemy pilot hung behind like a leech.-It could only be a question of time..."
A major problem here is you don't understand what's being described.

"I held the Spit V in the tightest of vertical turns..." That is absolutely NOT a "Vertical bank" (as stated by you). Do you realize that banking DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR DIRECTION OF FLIGHT!? A true "Vertical bank" would be more accurately described as 'rolling into knife edge flight' OR "rolling into a 90* bank", which again is NOT changing your direction of flight .

Educate yourself on the period slang at the frontlines: You will see I am correct. A vertical turn means a turn initially performed in a 90 degree bank, or close to it (but of course gradually mellowed out to 60-70 degrees as speed drops). The quote's "another couple of turns", and the location near the water, should have been enough to clarify this...

You are also wrong about the rudder: It was crucial to sustain 3G turns at 60 to 70 degrees of bank, which is why the Me-109 performed asymmetrically (better to right) at high speeds, when turning at a moderate bank (3Gs at 60-70 degrees) to try to maintain altitude. It mattered even more at low speeds, around 200 mph, where a 90 degree 5-6G bank turn could not be maintained, or barely for a few seconds, if that. (In the case of sustained turns at low speeds -250 mph or less-, the most important turn speed range for combat, the Me-109G, Merlin P-51, Ki-84 and P-47D Razorback preferred left turns by a significant margin of around 2 seconds (10%+), while the FW-190A, Ki-43-II and all Spitfires were fairly symmetrical at 3Gs, although the FW-190A was much LESS symmetrical at 5-6Gs, with a very asymmetrical wing drop stall that made hard right turns far worse than left hard turns (both being poor). The Yak-9 preferred sustained right low G turns (but was not great at 3Gs below 200 mph, and so preferred to keep speed above 200 mph for more Gs), because its propeller turned the opposite way. It is not known why some types were more symmetrical than others, but often radials are more symmetrical in 3G turns than in-lines, while in-lines are more symmetrical in hard 5-6 G turns. Just a very rough observable trend, nothing more. The Spitfire was pretty symmetrical in both kinds of turns, but was not great at sustained 3G turns at all, which forced it to make faster wider circles to keep a similar rate of turn to German types, and from there its forgiving stall allowed brief snaphots, wings rumbling, at smaller German circles from the outside, which meant poor shooting (P-51 was similar, but much, much touchier on the stall, although with partial flaps it was passable in left low speed turns, partial flaps being denied to the Spitfire!). The Spitfire was much happier on the vertical.

Simple logic should have been enough on your part to understand why your point is wrong: The entire quote was available to you, and it is obvious a vertical "loop" does not yield a context of "on opposite sides to an ever diminishing circle"... There is also his term "held", and the fact looping contests tend to be ovals, with differentiated areas (top or bottom) where an abrupt turning point occurs after a gradual approach. Looping contest tended to be unusual, and so have very different descriptions compared to turns. This is clearly a turning contest, not a looping contest, where any Spitfire would have instantly defeated the FW-190A. This mismatch between vertical and horizontal wing loading is proof wing loading is affected either by propeller load (which is completely unloaded on the downside of a loop), or other factors that are not properly recognised. A good turning aircraft at low speed does not necessarily mean a good looping aircraft (FW-190A is a primary example), although some are (A6M, Ki-43 etc) but a good turning aircraft at high speed (less propeller load at high speeds) does predict a good looping aircraft (Yak-9, Spitfire, P-51D). Me-109G and P-47D were kind of in a gray zone, and were surprisingly similar in loops, while the Razorback was also similar to the Me-109G in sustained turns, including its left preference at low speed. In high speed hard right turns the Me-109G would gain, particularly in climbs, and this is described by Steinhoff as a very important tactic.

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”