Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

LUFTWAFEE 1946 (Would Have Happened if ...)

Discussion in 'Alternate History' started by ww2archiver, Dec 31, 2017.

  1. EKB

    EKB Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    45

    In theory everyone is supposed to stay together and no one is supposed to get lost. :)

    Seriously though the USAF had enough data to know that 1940s air fighting tactics were out of date. In 1965 Project Feather Duster was designed to test the century series fighters against a MiG-17. The Air Guard supplied an old F-86H to stand in for the MiG. The most important finding was that the fluid four was not effective against stern attacks. The wingmen flew so close to leaders that they were useless, with results about the same as one vs. one combat. After the war hotted up USAF reports noted that wingmen expressed great difficulty at staying welded to the leader in max performance manuevers.

    The recommendation of Feather Duster is that when attacked, wingmen should maintain wide spacing. In effect the USAF report endorsed the navy’s tactical pair, but institutional resistance to change blocked major reform.

    I don’t want to over-simplify USAF policy and motives but it’s hard to ignore politics. To cut costs the Secretary of Defense pressured the air force to buy existing navy designed aircraft (F-4, A-7). They also used navy designed missiles (AIM-7, AIM-9). I guess the air force was not eager to admit that the navy also knew better about tactics.
     
    lwd likes this.
  2. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    Sorry to be so late with this, but I have had some problems that prevented more attention to this thread. I thought the discussion was about early jets, before 1946? Lets comp accident rates between early jets and then current props? Preferably those with wide track and tricycle gear?
     
  3. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    By the BoB many of the RAF's top Aces were "Harmonizing, or Zeroing" their guns at 180-200 yards. Part of this was caused by the huge dispersion of the shots from the Spitfire's RCMGs, 1.1 Meters at 100 meters. When Zeroed at closer ranges the hail of bullets would be dense enough to cause fatal damage quickly. Also the .303 Caliber rounds lost power at longer ranges to the point they lacked the ability to damage major sub-systems, or perforate the Pilot's seat back armor.
     
  4. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    I love it! These two photos prove my point. There is a small but visible difference in their apparent sizes in these two photos. In spite of the fact they were shot with a telephoto lens and the smaller plane is closer to the camera. With some time and effort, I could compute the distance between them, but I would guess at ~100' between the wing tips? Maybe more? But what do they look like head on, in planform? Plus the long lens compresses distance making them appear to be close together. In reality their critical dimension is slightly different meaning that there is about a 11% larger image to see, except in planform, then the Spit's big wing gives it away much sooner. Like all things that are subjective, small differences, or the average make large effects.
     
  5. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    This last one kind of makes my point does it not?
     
  6. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    Last item first; 330 MPH on 550 HP with out a blower! How fast does it go with ~900HP and a turbo+supercharger at 30-36,000'? The need for wood evaporated before it was built. Aluminum construction reduces EEW by roughly 20-25%. One of the prototypes had lead bars in the engine compartment to simulate the weight of the guns. The reason why it took three years is because is was made from wood. And it did handle like crap. Part of the problem was the extra weight and bad weight distribution because of the lack of guns up front. ALL things that could have been easily fixed and with the addition of a CR Prop, it could have been a winner.
     
  7. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    Yes, but not relevant. If Me-109s shot down more EA than all ten of the best Allied types then one could state that it was the better plane. As to the time line, the plane changed dramatically during it's life. So did the Spitfire., So did the P-51, 47, 38, etc. But early 109s beat early Spits on similar mission profiles etc.
    The 109 was great because it could do things other planes at the time could not. For instance; in a 300 M radius circle, the 109 could be 115 M behind and WO pulling more G, or turning inside, could shoot down the Spit it was chasing. That gave several advantages. WO pulling more G, it did not shed speed so quickly. Better energy management. Because of the higher Aspect ratio wing and LE slats, it could, if required, turn inside the Spit, IF flown by an expert pilot not afraid to fly to the stall. In the reverse contest, the Spit would have to be less than 79 M back, fly to the very edge of the stall and not loose control. Under the exact same conditions, the 109 could be 130 M back and still shoot across the circle to down his target. This is one of those things where the pilot quality makes a huge difference. The Spit is easy to fly to near the edge and forgiving when it did stall, but the most AoA it could pull with the best pilot on the planet was ~15 degrees! The 109 was harder to fly near the edge and not very forgiving, but any clown could pull to 18-20 degrees AoA and an expert could pull 23-25! No Allied plane could match that number! Or even come close!
     
  8. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    I would dispute that!
     
  9. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    I would counter with if the plane is good enough that the bad guy can not reach a firing Poss and you have the range a speed to run him down, it does make a huge difference.
     
  10. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Funny how your point goes from
    to
    Hmmm...Over 133% larger target to a "small, but visible difference."

    Move goalposts much?
     
  11. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    I think logistic considerations had as much to do with the Navy's choice as anything else? After the War the USAF did a lot of soul searching and went for 20 MM Vulcan Gun shooting shells that were only 78% as heavy as those in use by the Navy at the time at a considerably higher MV and RoF! Since that time that choice has been shown to be correct! All of the other players went to 30 MM caliber at MVs between 765 and 820 M/S, the French then went to a lighter shell with a larger propellant charge to raise the MV to 810-820 M/S. They had trouble hitting the sleeve no mater what plane was towing it! The Ruskies took more than a few decades to catch up but also switched to a lighter shell at ~25% higher MV. We toyed with a lighter, more pointed shell in the Vulcan gun, 84 Grams at 1525M/S using moderated RDX as the propellant base, but decided the fuse, or lack there of, was not safe, but we installed the longer BBL'd Vulcan gun in the F/A-22 so we could have the option in the future. No foreign plane with the Aden/Defa gun has had so many easy shoot downs by guns as planes with the Vulcan gun.
     
  12. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    But it is the Ambush that succeeds! Depending on who you read, 80~92% of all shoot downs are ambushes where the target never sees the attacker! Would you build your plane for the 80-90% side of the ledger, or the 20-10% side? I'll take the faster plane every time. Some other thoughts, the faster the plane, the harder it is to ambush! At least in WW-II terms!
     
  13. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    You can not use missile era jets as a argument that relates to gun armed props. There is absolutely nothing subjective about my argument. The Me-109 shot down more EA than any other plane by a huge margin!
     
  14. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    1,171
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    The stupid... it hurts...
     
    lwd and RichTO90 like this.
  15. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    No.
    Certainly one could say that. Not much in the way of logic or reason to back it up but nothing prevents you from saying things that are questionable at best and almost assuredly wrong.
     
  16. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
     
  17. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    Then what criteria do you use to determine which is the better plane? Why is it a better way to judge types? How many different attributes do you use and what weight do we give each one?
    These questions are what started the entire debate. As far as I can tell, no one here has answered any of those questions. So, until some one does come up with a list of attributes and a weighting procedure to use them, I believe that numbers of EA shot down is the only valid way to judge WW-II combat planes.
     
  18. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    Then what attributes do you use to find the best fighter plane? And how do you weight them as surely some are much more important than others.
     
  19. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    10,103
    Likes Received:
    2,574
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    No one can answer such questions...Because best is a subjective term.

    Which is the best beer?
     
  20. Shooter2018

    Shooter2018 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    Just a quick reply after re-reading it much later? You mention widgets as a euphemism for Victories and I am OK with that. You mentioned V/Plane numbers and just off the top of my head the P-51 was good for ~5800 with over 15000 made for <1/2.5? Similar calcs can be run for all other fighter planes and I would bet you a car my blue T-Bird coupe' Vs the change in your pocket that no other plane matches the Me-109's numbers? 25-45K down for <35K made/ Some place in this long series of posts there is a list of the top six or eight fighters on the Allied side, the Spitfire downed ~4,000 EA for ~22K made = 1/5.5 making it half the plane the -51 was. The P-38 Got 3,800 for 10K made = 1/2.6, or almost twice the Spit's value? What about the Fw-190? Probably more kills than any Allied plane, but certainly much less than the 109 and >20K made!
    I do not know how else to put this, but no other plane seems to have the same K/# made ratio as the 109 It's not even close as far as I can see. If you wish to dispute that it is therefore not the best fighter plane of WW-II. What criteria would you stipulate to judge by?
    No one has ever answered that question in this entire thread!
    PS. Germany lost 76,875 aircraft during the war. 12,452 fighters, 12,037 bombers, 15,428 trainers, 10,221 2 engine fighters, 5,548 CAS planes, 6,733 recce, 6,141 Xports! The Ruskies lost 106,400, 46,100 in combat. The Brits lost 30,045 fighters and 11,965 bombers, and we lost ~95,000, 52,951 operational, 38,418 in Europe and 14,533 in the PTO! All estimated numbers.
    How do you think we should determine what was the best Fighter plane of WW-II?
     

Share This Page