1945

redcoat · Oct 23, 2024

Michele A said:
The problem with that is the assumption the enemy would follow the same doctrine as Bomber Command - sending unescorted bombers in broad daylight. For some reason, this doctrine got upturned and Bomber Command resorted to night bombing. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe, when sending bombers in daylight, escorted them with fighters - thus the Defiants would never have their day.

The assumption was based on the belief that France wouldn't be occupied by the Germans and any bomber attacks would be launched from Germany, a distance too far for single engined escort fighters of the period.

Michele A said:
And the bad reputation comes from events like that on July 19, when #141 Squadron lost seven aircraft in one engagement (two managed to arrive home, but crash-landed and were write-offs). Truth be said, they were a newbie init and it happened to them the deadliest situation in those engagements, a dive-in attack they did not see coming. But things did not get better for the Defiants.

When a Defiant unit got bounced, there was little they could do, the enemy aircraft could decide how to attack and when to break it off.

redcoat · Oct 23, 2024

Tercios Espanoles said:
Why leave out the day actions?

264 Sqn claimed 37 kills in two sorties on May 29 in operations over Dunkerque: 19 Stukas, 9 Bf-110s, 1 Ju-88 and 8 Bf-109s. This was early in its operational career - the unlucky 109s probably attacked them from the rear.

Claimed. There is little evidence to back up these claims in Luftwaffe records.

redcoat · Oct 23, 2024

RandomRodent said:
It was in part based on misleading experience from World War 1 in which fighters with a machine gun armed observer had been fairly effective.

If you are referring to the Bristol F2b Fighter, it was unsuccessful when first used and the tactic was to use
the observers gun as the main weapon, it was only when they changed it to making the pilots gun the main weapon and the observer as a sting in the tail that it became a effective fighter.

Tercios Espanoles · Oct 23, 2024

redcoat said:
Claimed. There is little evidence to back up these claims in Luftwaffe records.

True of every claim everywhere. It's safe to cut the number in half for a more realistic tally. Unless it's a Japanese claim, in which case divide the claim by a hundred. Point is, they had their good days as well as bad ones. Nothing exceptional there.

pugsville · Oct 23, 2024

In the Ealry 1930s aircraft was rapidly changing from being very simple to quite different and more complex.
1919-1930 there is mostly a simple iteration and small advancements.

And developments started happening very quickly 1938 on, something quite reasonable when designed cold be quite obsolete when delivered. Aircraft with troubled development with delays became highly questionable. Aircffat designs were often competing for engines, and designs allocated second class engines often struggled.

Teh British turrent fighters were a dead end. But many heavy twin engines fighters were pretty much faliures, some designs were able to repurposed to others roles.

Oldandeasilycofused · Oct 23, 2024

Leftyhunter said:
Absolutely and the the British and Soviets thought so to as they used a lot of American equipment as did the Free French forces as well.
Not to say German equipment was all that shabby as the Mg-42 LMG was produced in the post war period in Yugoslavia and then latter in West Germany.
One way to look at your question is what WWII era weapons systems were produced post WWII one of which was the Chance-Vought Corsair produced in France under license and used in combat missions by the French AF in Vietnam and Algeria.
Of course during the Cold War France and the UK definitely revived their defense industries to compete with the US on the global arms market and over the decades new competitor's such has Brazil, Israel and South Africa also wanted a piece of the pie.
Leftyhunter

Germany produced some interesting weapons towards the end of the war, such as the Messerschmitt ME 262 fighter jet. It was just too late. Would have been interesting if those jets had been produced in quantity in say 1940.

I guess everyone has 20/20 hindsight. In recent years, it's become clear to me that Germany could never have won a war of attrition against the Americans. It's just my impression that Britain only survived because of American support in war materiel. Russia also received a lot of US equipment.

It's my feeling (can't prove it) that the Germans would still probably have lost without the US entering the fray. But, it would have taken a lot longer, perhaps several years. WW 2 could have lasted 10 years.

Haven't even mentioned the US vs Japan in the China and the Pacific, on land and sea. God only knows what would have happened to Australia. It's my understanding that the A bomb was not necessary for the US to win against Japan. That it arguably shortened the war, and saved a great many US lives which would have been lost if the US invaded the Japanese mainland. Or at least Honshu, to protect the emperor.

Michele A · Oct 24, 2024

Tercios Espanoles said:
At the time the Defiant was on the drawing board, there weren't any German fighters that could reach Britain. For German bombers to be escorted, they'd need to have bases on the Channel coast, and nobody was predicting that was ever a possibility. If the things suffered unacceptable losses during the Battle of Britain it's because those pesky Germans were being very uncooperative and sending their bombers during the day. But criticizing a thing for not being good at something it was never designed to do in the first place is just silly. For all its excellence, I wouldn't want a Mosquito in a dogfight either, or, as my Italian friend says, "If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bike."

I wasn't particularly critical to the Defiants for being a questionable design. I replied to another poster who said that using the Hurricane as a fighter - as opposed to as a fighter-bomber - was "very desperate", and pointed out that the fighters that had a "very desperate" performance at the heyday of the Hurricane as a fighter were two other models, the Defiant and the Bf 110.

And yes, both these two aircraft were somewhat specialized designs; yet they both were designed to carry out air combat primarily. Thus they were fighters, and comparing their performance as fighters with other fighters seems fair to me.

Michele A · Oct 24, 2024

Tercios Espanoles said:
Why leave out the day actions?

264 Sqn claimed 37 kills in two sorties on May 29 in operations over Dunkerque: 19 Stukas, 9 Bf-110s, 1 Ju-88 and 8 Bf-109s. This was early in its operational career - the unlucky 109s probably attacked them from the rear.

The realistic take is that they very probably inflated their claims by a factor of 3. It's likely they did take down a number of Stukas.
Note that #141 was exactly attacked from behind on July 19, and lost the first 4 Defiants on that first pass.

Michele A · Oct 24, 2024

Tercios Espanoles said:
At the time the Defiant was on the drawing board, there weren't any German fighters that could reach Britain.

That's true. However, at the time when the first Defiant made its first flight, the first Bf 110 had made its first flight a year before.

Leftyhunter · Oct 24, 2024

hop said:
From a post war summary by the former head of the Air Fighter Development Unit (AFDU) that compared the Spitfire XIV, Mustang III (P-51B/C), Tempest V, Thunderbolt II (P-47D) and Meteor III, the Meteor was the fastest and had the best dive, the Thunderbolt the best range, the Spitfire XIV had the best climb, acceleration, turn, ceiling and shared best roll with the Tempest.

Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft

Flight trials and reports of Spitfire aircraft.

www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org

Eric Brown, who was a UK fighter and test pilot during the war, and holds several world records such as flying the most aircraft types, ranked the Spitfire XIV as the best piston fighter of the war.

That's partly a desire to get more aircraft, partly a recognition that no WW2 fighter was superior at everything. The Tempest was preferred for lower altitudes, the Corsair for carriers (although the RN continued to buy Seafires as well), the P51 for long range.

That's why we need better metrics or definition of subjective words such as " the best X". If we use the metrics of air to air kills alone then no fighter plane comes even close to the Me-109. Yes there are many reasons for that such has the Me-109 often encountered inferior aircraft and or pilots. No doubt the Spitfire was in the hands of well trained pilots a formidable adversary.
Leftyhunter

hop · Oct 25, 2024

Leftyhunter said:
That's why we need better metrics or definition of subjective words such as " the best X". If we use the metrics of air to air kills alone then no fighter plane comes even close to the Me-109. Yes there are many reasons for that such has the Me-109 often encountered inferior aircraft and or pilots. No doubt the Spitfire was in the hands of well trained pilots a formidable adversary.
Leftyhunter

There was a lot of flight testing during the war to quantify performance characteristics. Speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates etc were all measured precisely. You can see a lot of the original reports at WWII Aircraft Performance
But because it's so complex, with every characteristic changing at different heights, different speeds, with different marks of aircraft etc (and even individual examples) a handy summary of "better" is pretty much essential.
The UK for example had the Air Fighting Development Unit that compared British, allied and enemy aircraft with each other to work out tactics and advise pilots. Their reports are full of comparisons like "the same", "better" etc. For example, the comparison of the then new Spitfire XIV with the Fw190 (A series) and some guesses about likely performance of the Fw190 D (then believed to have have the Db 603 engine):

Maximum Speeds
38. From 0 - 5,000 ft and 15,000 - 20,000 ft., the Spitfire XIV is only 20 m.p.h. faster; at all other heights it is up to 60 m.p.h. faster than the Fw 190 (BMW.801D). It is estimated to have about the same maximum speed as the new Fw 190 (DB.603) at all heights.
Maximum Climb
39. The Spitfire XIV has a considerably greater rate of climb than the FW 190 (BMW.801D) or (estimated) the new Fw 190 (DB.603) at all heights.
Dive
40. After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Mk XIV has a slight advantage.
Turning Circle
41. Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.
Rate of Roll
42. The FW 190 is very much better.
Conclusion
43. In defense, the Spitfire XIV should use its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against any enemy aircraft. In the attack it can afford to "mix it" but should beware of the quick roll and dive. If this manoeuvre is used by the FW.190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close the range until the FW.190 has pulled out of its dive.

Spitfire Mk XIV Tactical Trials

M9Powell · Oct 25, 2024

How does the Bismarck compare too the USN North Carolnia aka the Showboat?

RandomRodent · Oct 25, 2024

M9Powell said:
How does the Bismarck compare too the USN North Carolnia aka the Showboat?

In 1945? Well for a start the North Carolina is afloat...

Congo100 · Oct 25, 2024

A bit off topic, but I have the title of this year as:

1945: Year of the Atomics

Saphroneth · Oct 25, 2024

Tercios Espanoles said:
During the Battle of Britain, when they were sortied against bomber formations there were always Hurricane or Spitfire squadrons assigned to cover them. Obviously, aerial combat being what it is, those covering fighters were not always in position, and losses resulted when the 109s got amongst them. It was eventually phased out even as a night interceptor because there were better aircraft available at that time like the Mossie and the Beaufighter, not because it was a bad machine as it was. Turned out to be a great trainer too, for both pilots and air gunners.

The way I've come to view the Defiant is as basically the 1935 (designed) equivalent of Schrage Musik - the ability to put heavy fire on a bomber by not needing to point the plane at it, allowing a longer engagement time - and as being informed by a conceptualization of interception that doesn't allow for Radar. If you don't have Radar you need your interceptors to be in the air when the enemy is detected, and that means long endurance.

The Defiant would, AIUI, do quite well against unescorted bombers - and the idea of the Germans being able to fly escorted bomber attack missions is pretty unlikely until May 1940.

Dentatus · Oct 25, 2024

M9Powell said:
How does the Bismarck compare too the USN North Carolnia aka the Showboat?

Guns: Weight of broadside: Bismarck-14,117lbs. NC-24,300
Armor: Bismarck-belt 12.6" vertical, bulkheads 8.7", deck 4.7", turret faces 14.1"
barbettes 13.4"
NC-belt 12.2" @19` inclination, bulkheads 11", deck 5.5", turret faces 16", barbettes 16"
US plating was Special Treatment Steel which could often "de-cap" AP rounds before they struck the armor.
Bismarck could sustain ~30 kts, NC ~ 27.
Bismarck had a shallower belt, but her broad beam made her a good gun platform.
US damage control was unequalled, but Bismarck had extensive watertight subdivision (so much so that its boiler rooms were cramped).
Optics were about equal but if fitted with the MK13 radar fire control system, NC was far superior to german Seetakt . (When was it fitted?)
NCs AA outfit was initially 20 x 5"/38 DP, 16 x 1.1" plus MGs, later upgraded to 15 quad 40MM, 20 single and 8 dual 20MM; Bismarck had 8 dual 105MM/65, 8 dual 37MM/'83 and 12 x 20MM.
Bismarck was 41,700 tons standard displacement, NC 35,000.

Tercios Espanoles · Oct 25, 2024

Saphroneth said:
The way I've come to view the Defiant is as basically the 1935 (designed) equivalent of Schrage Musik - the ability to put heavy fire on a bomber by not needing to point the plane at it, allowing a longer engagement time - and as being informed by a conceptualization of interception that doesn't allow for Radar. If you don't have Radar you need your interceptors to be in the air when the enemy is detected, and that means long endurance.

The Defiant would, AIUI, do quite well against unescorted bombers - and the idea of the Germans being able to fly escorted bomber attack missions is pretty unlikely until May 1940.

That the Germans would find being behind a bomber such an unsatisfying place to be that they invented a weapon system to allow them to attack from a safer angle is itself a vindication of the concept.

Search

Search

1945

redcoat

redcoat

redcoat

Attachments

Tercios Espanoles

pugsville

Oldandeasilycofused

Michele A

Michele A

Michele A

Leftyhunter

Comparitive Performance of Fighter Aircraft

hop

M9Powell

RandomRodent

Congo100

Saphroneth

Dentatus

Tercios Espanoles

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions