Jump to content

Dogfight duo?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

What 'baffles' me is your insistence on arguing against this view

If you look at this chaps typical responses and style in other threads, you'll get an idea. I advise not feeding them.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, messsucher said:

There was talk that Hurricane was good in Battle of Britain


It was good, or at least good enough. Other contemporary fighters may well have proved better. In terms of aircraft destroyed it was effective. In terms of probably victories per losses it was worse than the Spitfire and 109. But as part of a force structure it was undeniably effective as evidenced by the end result. Its design shortcomings became increasingly apparent because it has a limited evolutionary potential, hence its gradual replacement by newer and / or more effective types.

 

2 hours ago, messsucher said:

the tactics British used play a major role in it,


What tactics do you mean specifically?

 

2 hours ago, messsucher said:

and it can't be denied populist by saying that they had vic


That is a non-sequitor: the close formation flying hindered its effectiveness. But these did not prevent it from achieving measurable results.

 

2 hours ago, messsucher said:

But maybe I best just find a book about it.


There are plenty. I suggest Price, Bungay and Bergstrom as a good start. I always recall the oft-cited (and poignant) letter from JG51s Lt. Hans-Otto Lessing to his parents In mid-August 1940 in which he extols the superiority of the 109, the confidence in his Staffel-captain Horst Tietzen (a SCW veteran) and the inferiority of Hurricanes as ‘tired old puffers’. A few days latter (18th August) he and Tietzen were both shot down and killed by Hurricanes. A simple example, certainly, but the loss rates among 109s owed as much to Hurricanes as to anything else.

 

Forward the clock 2 years and you have a platform being outstripped in almost every area by newer fighters. A situation not helped in the East by poorer support structure, less familiarity and - probably - fewer flight hours among the Soviet Hurricane pilots.

 

I am merely re-stating what I said from the start. If you think that such a post is hostile then I really cannot help you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:


It was good, or at least good enough. Other contemporary fighters may well have proved better. In terms of aircraft destroyed it was effective. In terms of probably victories per losses it was worse than the Spitfire and 109. But as part of a force structure it was undeniably effective as evidenced by the end result. Its design shortcomings became increasingly apparent because it has a limited evolutionary potential, hence its gradual replacement by newer and / or more effective types.

 


What tactics do you mean specifically?

 


That is a non-sequitor: the close formation flying hindered its effectiveness. But these did not prevent it from achieving measurable results.

 


There are plenty. I suggest Price, Bungay and Bergstrom as a good start. I always recall the oft-cited (and poignant) letter from JG51s Lt. Hans-Otto Lessing to his parents In mid-August 1940 in which he extols the superiority of the 109, the confidence in his Staffel-captain Horst Tietzen (a SCW veteran) and the inferiority of Hurricanes as ‘tired old puffers’. A few days latter (18th August) he and Tietzen were both shot down and killed by Hurricanes. A simple example, certainly, but the loss rates among 109s owed as much to Hurricanes as to anything else.

 

Forward the clock 2 years and you have a platform being outstripped in almost every area by newer fighters. A situation not helped in the East by poorer support structure, less familiarity and - probably - fewer flight hours among the Soviet Hurricane pilots.

 

I am merely re-stating what I said from the start. If you think that such a post is hostile then I really cannot help you.

 

I have been thinking that maybe Brits were a bit more ferocious, they were defending their home island. So maybe they flew to the edge more daringly, and took wins they would had not taken above France for example. Brits afaik were though impressed by commitment Polish did, which afaik was literally ferocious. Maybe Luftwaffe pilots were a bit too rash? I don't know, there can be and most surely is many factors contributing some to the outcome.

 

BoB is anyway an interesting battle because it was so decisive to the course of war. Will have to take a look can I find books you mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

I have been thinking that maybe Brits were a bit more ferocious, they were defending their home island. So maybe they flew to the edge more daringly, and took wins they would had not taken above France for example. Brits afaik were though impressed by commitment Polish did, which afaik was literally ferocious. Maybe Luftwaffe pilots were a bit too rash? I don't know, there can be and most surely is many factors contributing some to the outcome.

 

BoB is anyway an interesting battle because it was so decisive to the course of war. Will have to take a look can I find books you mentioned.

 

I think that is a good point. But perhaps issues of fuel range come into play. Didn't the 109 have only about 10 -15 minutes  of combat time over England before it had to turn back or risk running out of fuel? If so would that discourage them from getting into a time consuming turning fight with a Hurricane and so limit the benefit of the edge they had there? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

I have been thinking that maybe Brits were a bit more ferocious, they were defending their home island. So maybe they flew to the edge more daringly, and took wins they would had not taken above France for example. Brits afaik were though impressed by commitment Polish did, which afaik was literally ferocious. Maybe Luftwaffe pilots were a bit too rash? I don't know, there can be and most surely is many factors contributing some to the outcome.


Probably. They were fighting over home, so crash-landing or bailing was an option. German pilots had 20 minutes of sea to cross and limited fuel so you can sympathise with their being a little cautious. When Osterkamp was CO of JG51 he placed a premium on attacking only with advantage given that the 109s were over hostile territory, but necessity of escort missions meant that such an approach become almost impossible.

 

The continental pilots - Poles, Czechs etc - often had more combat experience than many new UK aircrew, which was obviously important. They also may have felt a more personal vendetta.

 

22 minutes ago, messsucher said:

I don't know, there can be and most surely is many factors contributing some to the outcome.


Yes, it is rarely one thing. Individual encounters can tell you little about the wider picture, while operational analysis may hide many truths about specifics concerning aircraft in particular. However, it is important to recall that the 5 minute dogfight owes as much to wider factors as it does to the individuals and their aircraft that clashed in those encounters.

 

27 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

 

BoB is anyway an interesting battle because it was so decisive to the course of war. Will have to take a look can I find books you mentioned.

 

It is interesting as a comparative piece to 1943-45 over France and Germany. One thing that always struck me was that while Fighter Command abandoned formation attacks in 1940, the Luftwaffe started using them from 1944. An odd symmetry

 

14 minutes ago, Monksilver said:

If so would that discourage them from getting into a time consuming turning fight with a Hurricane and so limit the benefit of the edge they had there? 

Yes, almost certainly. The Luftwaffe had better doctrine and approach for fighter operations in 1940. Getting caught below 15,000ft with Hurricanes many miles from home went against the grain both in terms of training and general self-preservation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a polite reminder that I had zero intention of starting a thread about the BoB or the Hurricane, or reigniting the battle here. The Hurricane MK.II that is about to be released did not even participate in that battle did it?

 

Thanks :good:

 

========================

 

More toward the sort of debate I was looking for, what would anyone think was a balanced opponent to say the P-40E as it's depicted in BOX?, and I don't just mean an Axis aircraft as there are pretty much only the 109, 190 or Macchi to choose from, which leaves plenty of scope in the Allied hangar? (forgot the 110)

 

How do think the P-40E would run against the Spitfire MK.VB for example?

Edited by Pict
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pict said:

Just a polite reminder that I had zero intention of starting a thread about the BoB or the Hurricane, or reigniting the battle here. The Hurricane MK.II that is about to be released did not even participate in that battle did it?

A few of the 'Series. 1' 8-gunned Mk IIs did; later renamed the IIA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lythronax said:

A few of the 'Series. 1' 8-gunned Mk IIs did; later renamed the IIA. 

 

Splitting hairs is fun, especially when there's someone around who want's to glue them back together :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, messsucher said:

 

I have been thinking that maybe Brits were a bit more ferocious, they were defending their home island. 

 

To be fair, among the German pilots even into late war, the Brits had a reputation for being more “bulldogish” than American pilots.

 

Willie Heilmann wrote of this in his account (190 pilot)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1CGS
11 hours ago, messsucher said:

FYI, Finland got 16 new bf 109-G2 at march 1943 14 second hand bf 109-G2 at May 1943. G6 Finland got a year later, March 1944. Finland fought against Russia with dated fighters all the time, and also had only very limited numbers of those dated aircraft. Remember that all those same "limited hours" Russians flew with various other aircraft, so If Finnish pilots agreed Hurri is the most easy to shoot down, then it was so. Period. I understand this is very very "baffling" for you since you want to wishfully think Hurri was "magical" and have absolutely no fucking real knowledge of history, just another ignorant forum warrior.

If you continue this aggressive behavior that I see on various topics, you'll receive a complete ban on access to the forum.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfect match for me  in this game against AI using  QMB 

Me in FW 190  any version  VS YAK  any version. It bring a lot of frustrating situation, but it give you a lesson in dogfight

Me in a 109 E 7 against I 16 More frustration but educational 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

To be fair, among the German pilots even into late war, the Brits had a reputation for being more “bulldogish” than American pilots.

 

Willie Heilmann wrote of this in his account (190 pilot)

 

Guenther Rall (275 victory ace) allegedly said of the campaign of 1943–1945:

 

"In my experience, the Royal Air Force pilot was the most aggressive and capable fighter pilot during the Second World War. This is nothing against the Americans, because they came in late and in such large numbers that we don't have an accurate comparison. We were totally outnumbered when the Americans engaged, whereas at the time of the Battle of Britain the fight was more even and you could compare. The British were extremely good."

 

Kaplan, Philip (2007). Fighter Aces of the Luftwaffe in World War II. Auldgirth, Dumfriesshire, UK: Pen & Sword Aviation. p. 65 ISBN 1-84415-460-2.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

110 is a good one as well, had forgotten about that 👍

 

AI P-40 against a VB is one-sided but possibly an interesting human match (with my money on the Spit). 

 

I mentioned the P-40E & the Spitfire MK.V as they were of a similar time frame, arriving in 1941, and had a similar development through combat experience in that the engine & armament had been upgraded while the air-fame remained relatively the same.

 

The Spitfire MK.V was on a par with the Macchi 202, yet so was the P-40E, at least according to Charles W. Dryden in his book "A-Train" it could out turn the Macchi 202 in the horizontal.

 

20 minutes ago, sevenless said:

at the time of the Battle of Britain the fight was more even and you could compare. The British were extremely good."

 

To be fair, not all of the pilots flying for the RAF at that time were British, not by a long way. So Rall could have been talking about Polish or Czech pilots, or Canadians, South African's, Aussies or Kiwi's...or even Americans.

 

I still find it hard to take that while we don't have a BOX BOB, or anything like it, this thread just keeps on getting pushed back to the Channel front of 1940.

 

Someone should start a topic about the BOB or the Hurricane, wait it's already been done, over & over. :rolleyes:  

Edited by Pict
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Debate in a calm and pleasant manner and I am happy to exchange. Continue in an adolescent manner, including the use of language proscribed in the forum, and I will not.

 

I fail to see what RAF 'tactics' over the UK in 1940 have to do with Russian-flown fighters over AGN in 1942.  The entire situation is so fundamentally different as to be border-line irrelevant. You seem to be focused primarily on the activities and opinion of Finnish 109 pilots in the Leningrad region in 1942. Fine. At that stage the Hurricane had become more-or-less obsolete. What was roughly competitive in 1940 was - by 2 years later - become a decidedly inferior fighter versus the competition. My point was that flying in tight formations of 3 in 1940, Hurricane's should have been less competitive then when flying in a loose spread of 4 in 1942, but the reality is precisely the opposite. That would suggest that improvements in tactical handling of formations did not offset a steadily worsening comparative performance. Wider operational factors also play a part, but the major problem is the Hurricane's 1934 - and fairly conservative - design became steadily less capable in competition with likely opposition

 

What 'baffles' me is your insistence on arguing against this view - do you disagree with anything in the paragraph above? - and your reference to 'magic'. No aircraft is magic. The Hurricane was solid in the first 2 years of the war and increasingly less so after that. If Finnish pilots felt it to be an easy target then fine, I am sure they had good reason for this. It does not bother me personally. 

That interview was not from the view of a 109 pilot though. (And Finland only started getting 109s in 1943)

 

Hans wind scored 39 kills in the Brewster Buffalo (B239)

He flew the Brewster in combat starting in August 1941

Then in Oct 1943 he was taken off combat duty for a period and this is when he wrote that lecture series.

and at that point he had only scored kills flying the B239 and not the 109.

 

(So all of the comments he made regarding the Hurri was from the view of a Brewster 239 Pilot)

 

It was only after he returned to flying in Febuary 44 that he started flying the 109 in combat Scoring his first 109 kill in May.

 

So he was flying an aircraft that was Older (All the Finnish Brewsters were delivered in January-Febuary 1940)

and slower then the hurricane.

 

So while yes the Hurricane might have been more or less obsolete in 1942 that was even more true for the B239s the Finns were flying.

And the other Aircraft the Finns were flying in 1942 were P-36s, Fokker D.XXI and MS.406/410s so aircraft that were just as old as the B239.

 

So the performance of the Hurricane against the Finns is not because "it was old and outdated" because that was even more true for the Finnish aircraft of the time.

I think tactics and pilot training are the Primary reason for the results on the Finnish fronts since the qualities of the plane rarely matters if they are not used to their strength.

(Which the Brewster itself is a perfect example off when you compare the results the Finns had with the Results in the Far east)

 

And if you have not already read the text that was linked http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html

i suggest you do so because its very interesting and it also very clearly shows why the Finns had the success that the did (as it outlines the tactics that they used for each type of opponent etc)

 

Edited by mattebubben
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Pict said:

To be fair, not all of the pilots flying for the RAF at that time were British, not by a long way. So Rall could have been talking about Polish or Czech pilots, or Canadians, South African's, Aussies or Kiwi's...or even Americans.

 

Sure, when he says "British" or "RAF" he means "Commonwealth". No way for a german pilot to find out about the nationality of the RAF pilot from the exterior of the plane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2020 at 3:50 PM, Pict said:

With all the hype surrounding the imminent release of the Hairy Khan, I wondered about what would make for a good balanced opponent to it in a classic Dogfight duo (Airfix iirc) sort of scenario. It seems like it's going to be out of it's depth with the 109's,190's & Macchi? And the VVS pilots reckoned it was between the I-16 & LaGG-3.

 

This all led me on to thinking about any and all good pair ups that can be had with any of the currently available aircraft set.

 

Anyone got any suggestions, or favorite sparring pairs?*

 

 

 

*(don't have to be from opposing sides, any combination that's well balanced will be of interest, thanks)

To make up for my part in taking this off topic earlier..

 

The Airfix dogfight doubles included

 

Mosquito v ME262 (the forthcoming version is Mustang v ME262)

IL2 v FW190

ME110 v Spitfire ix

Camel v Albatross (packs don't say which one!)

Spifire Vb v 109-E (again doesn't say which E)

Spitfire Vb v 109 F4

FW190 A8 v Typhoon Mk1

Hurricane v Ju88 as already mention.

 

I'm not sure those are the best pairings for this game and there are some mis-matches but I think I'd go with with this one. 

 

See the source image

 

Anyway  picture of this kit just because this is an IL2 forum

See the source image

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sevenless said:

when he says "British" or "RAF" he means "Commonwealth"

 

"Repeat please" :) 

 

Spoiler

 

 

I'm not sure what he really meant, as by the time he was quoted saying it he must have been fully aware of the significant number of Polish and Czech pilots that made up the RAF number during the height of the battle. None of whom were any part of the "Commonwealth".

 

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Polish-Pilots-the-Battle-of-Britain/

 

Quote

In total 31 out of the 145 Polish pilots who took part in the Battle of Britain died in action, while the Polish War Memorial at RAF Northolt commemorates 1903 personnel killed. The Commander-in-Chief of Fighter Command, Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, was blunter in his assessment, ‘Had it not been for the magnificent work of the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of battle would have been the same’. This assessment was echoed by the Secretary of State for the Air Force and indeed, during some of the most desperate points of the battle, the RAF had ‘only 350 pilots to scramble, of which nearly 100 were Poles’.

 

That's almost every third pilot the Luftwaffe would encounter, that was neither British nor from any Commonwealth nation.

 

Lest we forget.

 

Edit: I forgot to add other non British or Commonwealth nations whose pilots flew for the RAF during the Battle of Britain, these included, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands & France.

 

So 1 in 3 is an even more probable ratio of non-Commonwealth to Commonwealth pilots at the height of the battle. I wonder what the ratio of actual British pilots was?

Edited by Pict
I forgot some.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Monksilver said:

I'm not sure those are the best pairings for this game and there are some mis-matches but I think I'd go with with this one. 

 

See the source image

 

Yes, that's certainly a classic, both in BOX and historically. I recently re-read "Malta Spitfire", George Beurlings biography, so I reckon the Macchi 202 should be in the mix with the Spitfire MK.V too :good:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2020 at 11:53 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

A really good late war match up would be P51 vs. Ki84.

 

And while we are in the Pacific, how about P40N vs. Ki61?

 

Wouldn't that be great to see in BOX :good: The Ki-61 & Ki-84 were certainly well received by many, but for some reason I always had a soft spot for the Ki-44. What would you pair a Ki-44 with?

 

I hope they get around to fleshing out the P-40 we already have with some more variants in the mean time.

Edited by Pict
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Pict said:

 

Wouldn't that be great to see in BOX :good: The Ki-61 & Ki-84 were certainly well received by many, but for some reason I always had a soft spot for the Ki-44. What would you pair a Ki-44 with?

 

I hope they get around to fleshing out the P-40 we already have with some more variants in the mean time.

 

Speaking of the P40

See the source image

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pict said:

 

Wouldn't that be great to see in BOX :good: The Ki-61 & Ki-84 were certainly well received by many, but for some reason I always had a soft spot for the Ki-44. What would you pair a Ki-44 with?

 

I hope they get around to fleshing out the P-40 we already have with some more variants in the mean time.

 

I dis give an option for the Ki-44 vs above.😉 I've never flown the Shoki in a flight sim, much less a real one, but from what I've read, sounds close to the FW-190A3 is flying style. It's slower, less durable and has a weaker armament than the Focke-Wulf fighter but it climbs a lot better. Unstable at low speeds and prone to a violent stall in sharp turns but it turned "bad" by Japanese standards, 20 seconds for 360 degrees turn, which sounds like very good turn performance.

 

Ki-44-I (Ha-41 engine) would be a good matchup for the later P-40s. Ki-44-II (Ha-109 engine) would be a good matchup for the P-51A and maybe the Spitfire Mk.V. Later P-51Bs and Mk. VIIIs generally had better performance than the Shoki.

 

My money would be on the P-51A vs Ki-44-II as the closest matchup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Allison engined P51 and early P40 (Hawk 81) would be a great addition to the sim in any case.  The early Mustang gets very little love, yet it was exemplary in it's low level performance. It would make for some interesting cross channel missions against contemporary German aircraft.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burdokva said:

My money would be on the P-51A vs Ki-44-II as the closest matchup.

 

Sounds good to me, just need to get them into the BOXing ring now ;) 

 

14 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The Allison engined P51 and early P40 (Hawk 81) would be a great addition to the sim in any case.  The early Mustang gets very little love, yet it was exemplary in it's low level performance. It would make for some interesting cross channel missions against contemporary German aircraft.

 

Absolutely, I always preferred the look of the early P40's over the later ones for some reason and they would make a great stepping stone towards the PTO with a Flying Tigers chapter of BOX, while still being useful on the Moscow map (not sure about the rest?)

 

The P-51A would also be great. I really like the earlier versions of the hot rods that got all the glory and media cover. The Mustang MK.I was active in the ETO and 4 Squadrons saw action during "Operation Jubilee" (Dieppe landings '42) doing long range recon.

 

Long range recon/intruder missions in Mustang MK.I would be sound :good:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...