LUFTWAFFE EXPERTEN, Fact or Fiction?

[Crump]

 

 

Of course they do, if that's what higher command wants them to undertake. That sort of thing goes all the way back to WWI with planes such as the Camel, which were employed heavily in the ground attack role.

 

 

And that would not be a fighter role but rather using a fighter aircraft to perform the role of a ground attack aircraft.  Not the same thing.

 

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/fighter.htm

 

 

 

These areas would be .........

 

I think you have initiated enough discussions on the specific performance to know already.

 

 http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

 

Fact is both designs simply reached a very real barrier in the aerodynamics of piston engine propeller aircraft performance.

[Wulf]

See I would not agree from a design standpoint.  The Bf-109K was very competitive and outperformed the Spitfire Mk XIV in many areas.  That being said, the differences between the two were so small as to be unnoticeable in the air and tactically irrelevant. 

 

Why?  They were both piston engine propeller aircraft at the design possibility frontier.

 

 

There is obviously a point at which prop aircraft hit a performance wall and in 1945 that wall was fast approaching.  On that we can agree.  However that doesn't mean that all late War aircraft performed the same.  A well built K 4 (if such a thing really existed at all, in late '44-'45)  would have exhibited good performance in certain respects, climb and straight line speed for example,  but it would be a mistake to believe it was a match for a Mk XIV.  It wasn't, not even close.  It's a bit like comparing a pro-stock dragster with a Caterham 7 and saying that the dragster is a better car, or at least as good, because it can go as fast or faster than the 7.  Yes, it can, but one of the two cars is a practical proposition while the other is a bit of a monster and somewhat limited, lets say.

 

I haven't flown either aircraft but the Eric Brown RN did - along with virtually every other aircraft type manufactured by the Germans during the War.  He was most unimpressed by the late model 109s and thought the Spitfire vastly superior in comparison.  I trust his opinion on this. 

Edited September 29, 2014 by Wulf

[MiloMorai]

LOL, a link to a Kurfurst article. :lol:

 

Wasn't asking for myself Crump but for others who might not know.

[Crump]

 

There is obviously a point at which prop aircraft hit a performance wall and in 1945 that wall was fast approaching.  On that we can agree.  However that doesn't mean that all late War aircraft performed the same.

 

 

Sure it does, it is a real physical barrier.  Niether aircraft had the ability to transcend physics.  Because of the inaccuracies in the ability to express compressible aerodynamics during that time period, folks are left arguing about what amounts to very small difference of lines on a piece of graph paper.

 

You do know that it takes some pretty hefty perfomance differences for aircraft to classified as "dissimilar" combatants in the first place?

[Wulf]

Sure it does, it is a real physical barrier.  Niether aircraft had the ability to transcend physics.  Because of the inaccuracies in the ability to express compressible aerodynamics during that time period, folks are left arguing about what amounts to very small difference of lines on a piece of graph paper.

 

You do know that it takes some pretty hefty perfomance differences for aircraft to classified as "dissimilar" combatants in the first place?

 

 

Yeah, but, that argument could be employed at almost any point in the history of military aviation.  If you examine a random selection of the latest fighter types at any given point, you'd find that generally speaking, their performance was roughly the same.  So ... where does that take us exactly??  Are you suggesting some sort of one size fits all flight model?

[Crump]

 

 

Yeah, but, that argument could be employed at almost any point in the history of military aviation

 

No it cannot.

 

It is a function of physics of power producer aircraft. 

 

Piston engines had reached their technological limits for aircraft development.  While bigger more powerful engines were produced, their weight precluded any significant gains.  There is a technological limit to the size of power of piston engines.  In the past, the pace of development was such that while plateau's might be experienced, the general trend was steady progress kept expanding the performance envelope.  The velocity was low enough that performance gains were much more attainable.

 

 

Of course, there are technological limits caused by strength and durability of the material, but it is possible to overcome these limits in the future.

 

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/329.pdf

 

 

 

So ... where does that take us exactly?? Are you suggesting some sort of one size fits all flight model?

 

Not at all. 

 

The problem lies in the definition of the "same".  To some readers, that means absolute values.  Airplanes performance does not work in absolute values.  

 

Performance comparison works in relative performance.   Relative Performance is based on trends and requires a large percentage advantage to be noticeable in the air.   For example, physics dictates that all aircraft at the same angle of bank and velocity will make exactly the same turn.  That means the portion of the performance envelope were the aircraft requires pure sustained turn performance at the lift limit is pretty small.  It is on the backside of the power curve where airplanes do not really like to go anyway because it requires more power and thrust than going at a faster velocity/lower angle of attack. 

 

That is why the percentage difference to be considered "dissimilar" to so large.  In the case of the late war piston engine fighters of World War II, there just is not a large enough percentage difference to be noticeable in any practical way.

 

The performance charts most folks point out as harbingers of the truth are usually based on a mathematically "standard" atmospheric conditions.  Airplanes do not fly based on a "standard atmosphere" unless the atmospheric conditions really are standard.  The perform in the actual conditions.  That greatly effects their performance.  An airplane that performs well at high altitude will see those characteristics exaggerated on a warmer than standard day.  One that performs well at low altitudes will also see those characteristics exaggerated on a colder than standard day. 

 

 

Specific aircraft performance is not even an absolute under standard conditions.  Specific performance is based on a mean average over percentage variation.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The Me 209 of 1943 was a proposal for an enhanced version of the highly successful Bf109 which served as the Luftwaffe's primary fighter throughout WW2. The Me 209, despite its designation, bore no relationship to the earlier Me 209.

 

This is your record setting 209.

I might be late to the discussion but I'll try to undelrine what Auva said (since he's right).

 

The pic you posted was the first prototype of the Me 209 (resignated V-1). It was a racer plane and after succesfully setting the speed record Messerschmitt wanted to fit it with guns and bigger fuel tanks in order to get a fighter contract with it. This proofed to be an issue though as the very slim wings and fuselage didn't allow for enought armarment (only 2 MG17 nose guns) and very small fuel tanks providing it with less range than the Bf 109.

 

As result the RLM dropped the project and Messerschmitt went ahead to redesing it changing it's appearance more to ab more conventionally. The new Me209 V-5, also known as Me209-II (first pick you posted earlier) was the result. He attempted to create a deisgn and layout very similar to the Bf 109 to make the eventual transition of Luftwaffe pilots form the 109 easier. Infact it was a completely new plane.

 

The RLM though didn't show interest and closed the project, even prohibited Messerschmitt form conducting any further developments of the aircraft to keep focus on Bf 109 production, which as result of the increasing allied bombing raids gained higher priority than developing superiour fighter aircrafts.

 

The later developed Me 309 had a similar fate as the 209 with the exception it served as a testbed for the Me 262's trycicle landing gear. The Bv.155 B btw was developed by Messerschmitt under his own initiative, than passed on to and redesigned by Blohm and Voss. There has never been any contract by the RLM for this design.

Edited October 1, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuka

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Well according to Soviets memo is that German fighter pilots, especially toward the end of the war, were reluctant to engage if they didn't have vastly superior number and would circle high above Soviets aircrafts and wait till friendly German aircrafts from other sectors come, usually by that time when the Germans started to engage Soviet bombers and attackers already had their ways with German ground forces.

[=LD=Hethwill]

Well, this might be worth a read.

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/

 

It is very interesting, especially on the strategic side point of view and given many of you don't get lost into 1 on 1 duels but see the big picture can surely understand that only 5% of the 5% pilot that scored a kill during the war became aces, and probably only 5% of those got expert status in any air force. Yep, that's fictional %% given but can't be so far from truth. 0.005% of all the fighter pilots were experts.

[JeffK]

 

Addition to the above, That article you cite is a hoax, cut and pasted in forums for over 10 years. The book and the author does not exist.

Exactly the same post, was posted on another forum on 04/01/2004, which is prior to your cited article.    

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/138508-LUFTWAFFE-EXPERTEN-Fact-or-Fiction-Forums?s=646a8c402463d51ee0f255be8b72352b

Despite rumours to the contrary, I do exist.

 

Many have cut and posted my article, mostly without even crediting the original source. Unfortunately the 1jma forum which  this was originally posted on has gone under, a great forum where a lot of interesting ideas were talked over.

 

While I may temper some of the arguments I used I still believe that despite an apparent fool proof claim system, many Luftwaffe claims were incorrect. We have become used to disparaging RAF, USAAF, JAAF etc claims, why not the Luftwaffe equvalent.

 

In the 3 pages of comment (& dozens of other forums who decided to rip into me)I havent yet seen anyone come up with data to question the details I quoted. It may be I'm wrong, prove it.

 

And while I'm a shamatuer hostorian, heres a quote from Christopher Shores who is an expert;

 

http://www.warbirdforum.com/claiming.htm

 

Firstly, those who seek to attack what I have written on the subject should be made aware that I found AVG claims no more or less unreliable than those of most other air forces I have researched. Always the circumstances of each engagement needs to be looked at carefully. In fighter-v-fighter combats the claim:loss ratio always seems to climb rapidly, multiplied by the numbers of aircraft/units involved. In Burma the AVG were often fighting over jungle and attacked in steep dives before climbing back for altitude. Good tactics, but fraught with opportunities for double claiming - or triple claiming for that matter.

When I wrote ' Fighters over the Desert' way back in the 1960s, I could not understand why I kept finding claims that I could not verify when I seemed to have all the available records to hand. It was only years later, and after I had been attacked by apologists for just about every air force in the world, that I found in the official British war histories published in the early/mid 1950s a clear warning that claim totals were likelty to be inflated and could not be relied upon - and that was admitted within ten years of the end of WWII !!

Indeed, overclaiming, albeit in the best of good faith in most cases, certainly seems to have been endemic in aerial combat. It happened on every front and with every air force. Some (though not all) Luftwaffe units and Finnish units were considerably more accurate than most, most of the time. Fighter pilots by and large were young, aggressive and optimistic men who knew what they should be seeing and wanted to see. Even now, some still get very upset when it is pointed out that something they were quite certain had happened (and wanted to have happened) had not in fact occurred just as they recalled it. Others are much more pragmatic and realistic - and strangely, it is usually the latter whose claims prove to be easier to verify as having been accurate (or at least reaonably so).

I always remind myself of the little verse Barrett Tillman recited once - "You can tell a bomber pilot by the spread across his rear, and by the ring around his eye, you can tell a bombadier; you can tell a navigator by his maps and charts and such, and you can tell a fighter pilot - but you can't tell him much !"

Just for the record, I love it when I can find a loss that fits a claim so that I can properly confirm what actually happened at the time. It gives me no joy at all to have to point out that there was not a loss for a particular claim. I love the world of fighter pilots and have spent more than 40 years of my life researching and recording their exploits. But in doing so if one is to retain credibility as a historian, one must look at the full picture, not just one side.

In ' Bill; a Pilot's Story' by Brooklyn Harris, the author records how day after day Japanese formations kept returning to targets in the Solomons despite the losses apparently being inflicted on them by the 13th Air Force. It never once occurred to the author that perhaps the reason for the apparently inexhaustible supply of aircraft the Japanese seemed to have available to them - something to which he specifically referred - might have indicated that at least in part the losses they were actually suffering were not as severe as those being claimed.

To research matters from as wide a perspective as possible and to report the results as accurately as one can, should reflect no shame on those participating except in the occasional and thankfully rare occasions when some individual is deliberately falsifying their contribution. (The latter did happen now and again, but fortunetly [sic] not often). From my own researches I can certainly state that the vast majority of fighter pilots (and aircrew generally) of all nations did their duty in an exemplary fashion. If anyone has done them a disservice I would suggest that it was more likely to be those who wrote about them carelessly for sensational and propaganda purposes - not those who have tried to be objective and honest in recording history to the best of their abilities. Personally, I am always pleased to be able to update and correct any statement I have recorded in the past where further or more reliable evidence becomes available.

If you should feel it appropriate to include these words on the Forum I would be grateful. If you feel it is too long, then fine.

Kind regards,

Chris

Edited February 5, 2016 by JeffK