Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How to judge what the best fighter plane is?
45-Shooter    1/3/2013 5:09:26 PM
I would list the following traits in the order of their importance; 1. Cruising speed under combat conditions. 2. Range/Persistence under combat conditions. 3. Flight qualities, specifically the ability to point the nose at the target easily and a very high rate of roll. 4. CL Guns with high MV/BC and rates of fire. 5. Pitch response, IE the rate at which you can load the plane. 6. Climb at Military Power. In WW-II terms, that means ~75-80% throttle, rich mixture and appropriate pitch on the prop.( A setting that can be held for at least 30 minutes!) 7. Top speed! To escape or run down the target. 8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"! After you rate these choices, I'll mark the list with what I think is the strength of each atribute.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
oldbutnotwise       7/11/2013 3:36:02 PM
let me see, Mike Spick on one hand and Shooter on the other, now who to believe!
 
one a respected published author with an excellent reputation
 
the
 
other, a self opinionated fantasist which little clue about the real world
 
who to believe, oh these difficult descisions
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/13/2013 2:55:11 PM

let me see, Mike Spick on one hand and Shooter on the other, now who to believe!
one a respected published author with an excellent reputation
the other, a self opinionated fantasist which little clue about the real world
 
who to believe, oh these difficult descisions

It's not that difficult a choice! Take Mike Spick's word for it, just use a different part of the book and or different books! The question is not on shooting prowess, or stick and rudder skills, it is on the simple fact that in the real world cauldron of WAR, he shot down more planes than any other person in history and survived to talk about it!
The question that you have still managed to not so artfully dodge is what about the rest of the German pilots who out scored ALL American and British Aces, or if you would like to narrow the field, just those who out scored all Allied Aces! that is, IIRC, only about 1500 pilots. What about them?
It is easy to try to dismiss this as something other than what it is because then you do not have to answer the really hard questions.
Given that the Me-109 had only three attributes that were even marginally better than their Allied counterparts, why was that? Those three attributes were, it was marginally faster under operational conditions than the Allied types, The leading edge slats allowed it to utilise a higher angle of attack and it had CL guns which gave it a longer effective range.
It could not turn as quick as the Spit or American types. It was almost as short ranged as the Spitfire. It had fewer guns and they had less ballistic performance and hitting power. So what was it that made them such good killers? Is it that those three minor attributes are some how significant, or is it that there were some other environmental condition that let them do that?
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/13/2013 4:26:46 PM
It's not that difficult a choice! Take Mike Spick's word for it, just use a different part of the book and or different books!
strange how all his books are consistent on this fact, but then again I doubt you have actually read any of them
 
The question is not on shooting prowess, or stick and rudder skills, it is on the simple fact that in the real world cauldron of WAR, he shot down more planes than any other person in history and survived to talk about it!
but as usual you can only see the simplistic number, any in depth understanding of the subject is obviously beyond your comprehension
The question that you have still managed to not so artfully dodge is what about the rest of the German pilots who out scored ALL American and British Aces, or if you would like to narrow the field, just those who out scored all Allied Aces! that is, IIRC, only about 1500 pilots. What about them?
Wow 1500 scored more than 34 victories that's out of 2500 German pilots that scored more than 5 where do you get these facts, do you make them up beforehand or do you do it on the spur?
 
do you know that Johnnie Johnson scored his 34 victories in only 57 encounters with German fighters? but that counts for nothing in your world does it
 
It is easy to try to dismiss this as something other than what it is because then you do not have to answer the really hard questions.
I bow to your superior knowledge on this
 
Given that the Me-109 had only three attributes that were even marginally better than their Allied counterparts, why was that? Those three attributes were, it was marginally faster under operational conditions than the Allied types, The leading edge slats allowed it to utilise a higher angle of attack and it had CL guns which gave it a longer effective range.
yet if you read all the Aces they all waited until point blank until firing so range was not actually an issue, Hartman wired shut his slats as the different opening could and did cause the me to fall into spins and/or stall
yet you fail to mention what is the biggest contributor to the 109's success - strategic advantages
 
I have just been reading fighter combat and that states that the wing guns were under no disadvantage to nose guns
 
It could not turn as quick as the Spit or American types.(or roll) It was almost as short ranged as the Spitfire.
It was actually less without drop tanks of which it didn't get to quite late
 
 It had fewer guns and they had less ballistic performance and hitting power.
the MGs - they actually outperformed the browning 30/303s and had better hitting power, the 20mm cannon was better than none (until we got the hs404) and was always superior to the .5
 So what was it that made them such good killers? Is it that those three minor attributes are some how significant, or is it that there were some other environmental condition that let them do that?
yes there was, and it has been pointed out many times
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/14/2013 8:55:41 PM


Late night, screwed the pooch! But that still does not change the argument. It is not about any one guy, or gal if she was a Ruski, but about what attributes make it easier for the rest of them to score.

do you know that Johnnie Johnson scored his 34 victories in only 57 encounters with German fighters? but that counts for nothing in your world does it Not at all. He is the outlier in that most other pilots were not so lucky as to find that many targets in so little time.
 
It is easy to try to dismiss this as something other than what it is because then you do not have to answer the really hard questions.

I bow to your superior knowledge on this But you still have not answered the prime question!
Given that the Me-109 had only three attributes that were even marginally better than their Allied counterparts, why was that? Those three attributes were, it was marginally faster under operational conditions than most of the Allied types, The leading edge slats allowed it to utilise a higher angle of attack and it had CL guns which gave it a longer effective range.


yet if you read all the Aces they all waited until point blank until firing so range was not actually an issue, Hartman wired shut his slats as the different opening could and did cause the me to fall into spins and/or stall So did others, but as you point out above, he is not relevant. yet you fail to mention what is the biggest contributor to the 109's success - strategic advantages Yet when the British had those same "Strategic advantages" they had a 1.2/1 Victory Ratio and when the Germans had them over Northern France, they had a 5-6/1 Victory Ratio! Why was that?
I have just been reading fighter combat and that states that the wing guns were under no disadvantage to nose guns
There were lots of P-38 Aces and German Victoms who would dispute that! 
It had fewer guns and they had less ballistic performance and hitting power.
So what was it that made them such good killers? Is it that those three minor attributes are some how significant, or is it that there were some other environmental condition that let them do that?

yes there was, and it has been pointed out many times
  But when the so called "environmental conditions" were against them, why did they loose so badly?



 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/15/2013 3:13:37 AM
Late night, screwed the pooch! But that still does not change the argument. It is not about any one guy, or gal if she was a Ruski, but about what attributes make it easier for the rest of them to score.

do you know that Johnnie Johnson scored his 34 victories in only 57 encounters with German fighters? but that counts for nothing in your world does itNot at all. He is the outlier in that most other pilots were not so lucky as to find that many targets in so little time.
 
if you allow "strike rate" as an indicator of ability then Hartman isnt even in the top 100 german aces, in short Hartman had a bigger oppotunity to score than did others thats why he di so well
 
It is easy to try to dismiss this as something other than what it is because then you do not have to answer the really hard questions.
 
How would you know you refuse to even look at the hard questions much prefering to make assumptions based on insufficent dat

I bow to your superior knowledge on thisBut you still have not answered the prime question!
Given that the Me-109 had only three attributes that were even marginally better than their Allied counterparts, why was that? Those three attributes were, it was marginally faster under operational conditions than most of the Allied types, The leading edge slats allowed it to utilise a higher angle of attack and it had CL guns which gave it a longer effective range.


yet if you read all the Aces they all waited until point blank until firing so range was not actually an issue, Hartman wired shut his slats as the different opening could and did cause the me to fall into spins and/or stallSo did others, but as you point out above, he is not relevant.
he wast the only one just the one you mention
 
 yet you fail to mention what is the biggest contributor to the 109's success - strategic advantages Yet when the British had those same "Strategic advantages" they had a 1.2/1 Victory Ratio and when the Germans had them over Northern France, they had a 5-6/1 Victory Ratio! Why was that?
 
er what stratigic advantages? the Brits in the BoB had to intercept and intercept in tactical adverse situations, the Germans in France could choose when and where to fight, rarely did they engage unless they had masive advantage, yet you conveintly forget this dont you assuming incorrectly that the combat enviroment was equal when it wasnt even close
 

I have just been reading fighter combat and that states that the wing guns were under no disadvantage to nose guns
There were lots of P-38 Aces and German Victoms who would dispute that! 
 
and many more that would agree
 
It had fewer guns and they had less ballistic performance and hitting power.
So what was it that made them such good killers? Is it that those three minor attributes are some how significant, or is it that there were some other environmental condition that let them do that?

yes there was, and it has been pointed out many times
  But when the so called "environmental conditions" were against them, why did they loose so badly?
 
why should I repeat something that you have been told hundreds of time yet still ignore? either you are dilibrately ignoring it or are to stupid to understand so it is pointless repeating it 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/16/2013 12:32:24 AM

 
It is easy to try to dismiss this as something other than what it is because then you do not have to answer the really hard questions.

yet if you read all the Aces they all waited until point blank until firing so range was not actually an issue, But not all of them as you state. Some were great shots. Hartman would aim for specific parts of the enemy plane! Not just the plane, but specific SMALL parts, like the oil cooler! He was a great shot and rarely used more than a few rounds to down his targets.
 
yet you fail to mention what is the biggest contributor to the 109's success - strategic advantages Yet when the British had those same "Strategic advantages" they had a 1.2/1 Victory Ratio and when the Germans had them over Northern France, they had a 5-6/1 Victory Ratio! Why was that?
 
er what stratigic advantages? the Brits in the BoB had to intercept and intercept in tactical adverse situations, Like the Germans were restricted to part throttle, far from home and tied to the bombers? RIGHT! the Germans in France could choose when and where to fight, rarely did they engage Actually, they intercepted far more RAF sweeps than the RAF was able to intercept the Germans! unless they had masive advantage, yet you conveintly forget this dont you assuming incorrectly that the combat enviroment was equal when it wasnt even close Given the number of planes the Germans had on the Western front, it seems unlikely that they massively out numbered the RAF at that point in the War.
 
It had fewer guns and they had less ballistic performance and hitting power.
So what was it that made them such good killers? Is it that those three minor attributes are some how significant, or is it that there were some other environmental condition that let them do that?

yes there was, and it has been pointed out many times
But when the so called "environmental conditions" were against them, why did they loose so badly?
 
why should I repeat something that you have been told hundreds of time yet still ignore? either you are dilibrately ignoring it or are to stupid to understand so it is pointless repeating it No, I do not ignore anything! I dispute that the RAF was at any significantly DIFFERENT strategic disadvantage than the Germans were over southern England! They were out numbered, low on fuel, and far from home, ALL significant disadvantages and similar to those of the RAF over France.
It's just that the Germans were much better at finding and fighting their targets than the RAF over southern England. Their intercept rate was over 64% comp'd to the RAF's <50% over England during the BoB. The RAF was much stronger than the Germans over Northern France when they made their fighter sweeps. The only reason that the Germans did not intercept more of them was that there were so many more targets than there were planes to fight them. It was the proverbial target rich environment that so favors the so called "Angle" fighters like the Spitfire and Zero, but hurts the less turn and burn types like the Me-109.

 
Quote    Reply

Jabberwocky       7/16/2013 2:51:38 AM
Shooter, before you proceed further with your claims, can I see proof* of the following.
 
1. RAF/Luftwaffe total losses for the Battle of Britain period and 1941 ETO.
2. RAF/Luftwaffe fighter losses for the above
3. RAF intercept rates for the Battle of Britain
4. Luftwaffe intercept rates for 1941 ETO
5. Average raid sizes (bomber and fighter) for the Battle of Britain and 1941 ETO
6. Losses by cause for RAF/Luftwaffe for the Battle of Britain and 1941 ETO
 
Once you've established these numbers - established, not just asserted - then you can continue with your argument.
 
*By proof, I mean the following:
Primary source (original documents)
Secondary source (book, paper, article with author and page number/referencing)
Internet source (with link)
 
The reason that I want this, is that the vast majority of the numbers you are putting forward are either partially or wholly incorrect and when corrected on them, you continue to repeat them ad nauseum.
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/17/2013 8:31:05 AM
 It is easy to try to dismiss this as something other than what it is because then you do not have to answer the really hard questions.
 
I have noticed you do that

yet if you read all the Aces they all waited until point blank until firing so range was not actually an issue, But not all of them as you state. Some were great shots. Hartman would aim for specific parts of the enemy plane! Not just the plane, but specific SMALL parts, like the oil cooler! He was a great shot and rarely used more than a few rounds to down his targets.
 
Really? have you a source for that? it sounds like another Shooter "made up on the spot" fact
 
er what stratigic advantages? the Brits in the BoB had to intercept and intercept in tactical adverse situations, Like the Germans were restricted to part throttle, far from home and tied to the bombers?
and they had height advantage, the RAF would be coming to them, they had numerical advantages in nearly all engagements (it wasnt till late in the BoB the Germans were tied to the Bombers, prior to that they were EXPECTED to hunt the RAF)
 
RIGHT! the Germans in France could choose when and where to fight, rarely did they engage Actually, they intercepted far more RAF sweeps than the RAF was able to intercept the Germans!
Were did you get this from as its just not true, the Luftwaffe rarely engaged the fighter sweeps and never unless they had tactical and more often numerical superiority
 
 unless they had masive advantage, yet you conveintly forget this dont you assuming incorrectly that the combat enviroment was equal when it wasnt even close Given the number of planes the Germans had on the Western front, it seems unlikely that they massively out numbered the RAF at that point in the War.
 
again you show a complete lack of understanding again, whislt the Luftwaffe didnt out number the RAF in the ETO that does not prevent then outnumbering the RAF in a PARTICULAR RAID!
 
why should I repeat something that you have been told hundreds of time yet still ignore? either you are dilibrately ignoring it or are to stupid to understand so it is pointless repeating it
No, I do not ignore anything!
OK then not ignore, that leaves option 2
 
 I dispute that the RAF was at any significantly DIFFERENT strategic disadvantage than the Germans were over southern England!
That shows you have zero understanding of the enviroments
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       7/17/2013 8:32:20 AM
They were out numbered, low on fuel, and far from home, ALL significant disadvantages and similar to those of the RAF over France.
but you are wrong, as you would see if you look at teh raids, contact with the Luftwaffe was rare and nearly always against superior numbers, have you checked how mwany of these Spit losses were from Ground fire? I think you will be supprised
It's just that the Germans were much better at finding and fighting their targets than the RAF over southern England. Their intercept rate was over 64% comp'd to the RAF's <50% over England during the BoB.
true, but that is what happens when you get anothe couple of years developing radar, by 43 the german radar chain was far more effective than Home Chain was in 40
The RAF was much stronger than the Germans over Northern France when they made their fighter sweeps.
Actually not, the average circus contained less fighters than the average BoB raid and thats not including rubbarbs (where the vast majority of RAF losses were)
The only reason that the Germans did not intercept more of them was that there were so many more targets than there were planes to fight them.
no it was a case of these raids could and were ignored as being being just anoying and of little threat, it wasnt like the targets was part of Germany
It was the proverbial target rich environment that so favors the so called "Angle" fighters like the Spitfire and Zero, but hurts the less turn and burn types like the Me-109.
so now you admit the Me109 is a energy fighter, but wait a minute it didnt have a significant speed advantage over the Spit, in fact was by this time slower, and being able to chose when and where to attack and being able to break off at will (not really being worried about the damange the couple of Belmheims could do) not as if they were bombing your capital city is it , strangly the ability to attack from tactical advatagous positions with superior numbers is exactly the situation you want to be in in an boom and zoom
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       7/17/2013 8:42:15 PM

*By proof, I mean the following:
Primary source (original documents)
Secondary source (book, paper, article with author and page number/referencing)
Internet source (with link)
See link above.
 
The reason that I want this, is that the vast majority of the numbers you are putting forward are either partially or wholly incorrect and when corrected on them, you continue to repeat them ad nauseum.
I am having trouble finding the particular batch of numbers concerning RAF Fighter sweeps over Northern France that I find most interesting. They have been posted several times on this board. That is why I use them. Still looking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fighter_Command

1941 air offensive[edit]

As 1941 began, Fighter Command began the onerous task of winning air superiority over North Western France from the Germans. By May 1941, the Squadrons based at all the main fighter airfields were now to operate together as integral Fighter Wings, under the tactical control of the newly created post of 'Wing Leader', invariably an experienced 1940 veteran of wing commander rank. Various types of short-penetration fighter operations were tried out in a bid to draw the Luftwaffe into a war of attrition, and keep inordinate numbers of fighters tied down in France, particularly after the German attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941. Large numbers of Spitfires were sent out with small groups of medium bombers in often vain attempts to lure the German fighters into combat. Results of these operations through 1941 were decidedly mixed, as the short range of the Spitfire precluded an overly aggressive stance, and with just two experienced Jagdgeschwader units left in Western Europe (JG 2 & JG 26; comprising 180 fighters at most) targets were often few but dangerous. Most of the factors that had allowed Fighter Command to win the Battle of Britain were now reversed. For example, British pilots who were shot down in 1940 and survived would be patched up and sent back to their units as quickly as possible. In 1941, over France, a shot down pilot would, as likely as not, end up a prisoner of war. The year saw RAF Fighter Command claim some 711 Luftwaffe fighters shot down (although only 236 were lost from all causes, 103 in combat) for losses of approximately 400 RAF fighters lost.[2] As 1941 ended, the appearance of the new Fw 190, with its obvious technical superiority over the current Spitfire Mark V, would make Fighter Command's job that much harder in 1942.

Note that the extensive foot notes list all of the sources to meet the verifiability demand! I have highlighted the relevant facts above! Over England, the RAF had a ~1.2/1 K/L ratio in their favour. But over France, they got 103 for 428 losses! ( 428 From another source and my memory, but not important! Over France, the RAF looses 4/1! So 1.2/1 win over Southern England and looses 4/1 over Northern France! AND it was before the advent of the Fw-190.)

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics