Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Classic fighter duels - Spitfire V vs FW190A

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Good point about aluminium.
    Funny that the Germans didn't put more effort earlier into wooden planes.

    papertank4a.jpg Paper drop tank.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
      Good point about aluminium.
      Funny that the Germans didn't put more effort earlier into wooden planes.

      .
      The Japanese did but the wooden versions were much heavier. The Mosquito got away with it because the plywood had balsa wood sheets in it but Germany and Japan had no access to balsa wood. Also the epoxy glue used in the Mosquito was never replicated by the Axis
      Last edited by MarkV; 07 Mar 19, 13:06.
      Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
      Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        Yes, the RLM and German manufacturers certainly botched up a lot of their aircraft development. But, that apart, Germany had the economy and technological know how to equal or exceed British aircraft manufacturers. That German manufacturers were continuously asked to design aircraft to very exacting specifications by the Luftwaffe's technical and development branch of the RLM is a separate problem from actually making the aircraft.
        You mention the Bomber B program. That was a failure because of the RLM, not manufacturers. The RLM specified each participant would use an untested engine the Jumo 222 as the powerplant. This is akin to Avro using the RR Vulture. The bomber had to be a twin engine design, period. It had to be capable of dive bombing. It had to have a remote control armament. Speed, altitude, etc., specifications were made and very demanding. It had to have the crew grouped in the nose.
        Focke Wulf's design, the FW 191 was to be an all-electric plane because the RLM wanted to try this out as an alternative.
        Henschel wanted to submit a design but was refused (the Luftwaffe saw Henschel as the locomotive manufacturer that was now dabbling in aircraft and nothing but an upstart).
        Henkel was put into the Bomber A program and developed the He 177. Dornier continued with the Do 217 series and bowed out of the Bomber B program.
        With the war going full tilt, the Bomber B program should have been scaled back dramatically. Eventually, only the Ju 288 remained in the program with Junkers building something like 20 + prototypes. Focke Wulf dropped out after building three prototypes. Who builds 20+ prototypes of a plane that is having serious issues over a period of like six years?
        Worse yet, the only successful entry into the Bomber B program came in late 1943 and that was the Henschel Hs 130C! The company refused entry into the program earlier...

        It was this sort of insanity, along with German manufacturers unwillingness to adopt assembly line techniques, among other issues that really held the German aircraft industry back.
        excellent analysis, TAG.
        One salient reason behind the insanity was that the program was run by Field Marshall Ehardt Milch- who was half Jewish, and faced with the reality that if he lost Goring's patronage- he faced a long stay in Thiesenstadt, or a short Gestapo visit.

        Milch had to try to put Goring's fantasies onto some sort of workable program.
        https://www.bing.com/search?q=erhard...ox&FORM=IESR3N

        More on Milch- a somewhat revisionist site..

        https://rafzen.wordpress.com/2013/02...an-von-weichs/
        Last edited by marktwain; 13 Mar 19, 15:37.
        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MarkV View Post

          The Japanese did but the wooden versions were much heavier. The Mosquito got away with it because the plywood had balsa wood sheets in it but Germany and Japan had no access to balsa wood. Also the epoxy glue used in the Mosquito was never replicated by the Axis
          Actually, the Mosquito initially used a casein glue (aka "Elmers") that was reasonably waterproof. The modern equivalent:



          This is a reasonably strong glue for wood but doesn't stand up in humidity well.

          DeHaviland then went to "Aerolite" a urea-formaldehyde based glue. This is humidity and time sensitive in application. This was essentially the same glue the Germans were using on their wooden aircraft, made by at least a half dozen different companies in Germany. The Germans also used phenol-formaldehyde based glues on their planes.

          As far as I can tell, for the Germans it was a combination of poor chemical quality and poor workmanship that caused the problems they were having.

          Comment


          • Off topic temper tantrum post by Lodestar deleted.

            Point of information: You don't own this forum nor are you on staff so you don't get to tell people what they can and cannot post . This misconception seems to be a habit with you.
            Next point of information: once you make a thread it becomes common property. If you want to micromanage everything you post on line, I'd recommend starting your own forum with your own rules. On the ACG forum staff monitor threads and will intervene if thread drift becomes too much. Most times this isn't necessary as threads self correct. Other times digressions are permitted to continue if they add to the historical discussion and fit the time period of the forum they are posted in. That is the case here.

            Short version: Get over yourself, you're not in charge here.

            Discussion now closed. You'd be wise to review the countless warnings you've received on here before getting another of your threads locked. Permanently.
            Last edited by CarpeDiem; 14 Mar 19, 14:30.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MarkV View Post

              The Japanese did but the wooden versions were much heavier. The Mosquito got away with it because the plywood had balsa wood sheets in it but Germany and Japan had no access to balsa wood. Also the epoxy glue used in the Mosquito was never replicated by the Axis
              Its good if we can keep this topic open, as it is now getting quite interesting.

              according to Peter Walmsley, one of the huge difficulties that the Reich faced with wooden aircraft production was - sabotage rings from the impressed labor. You can hide a fatal gluing flaw a lot easier in wood than you can hide sabotage in aluminum.

              Working with wood required skilled committed workers. by 1944, the wooden tails were falling out of the sky- followed by the aircraft .....
              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

              Comment


              • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                Its good if we can keep this topic open, as it is now getting quite interesting.

                according to Peter Walmsley, one of the huge difficulties that the Reich faced with wooden aircraft production was - sabotage rings from the impressed labor. You can hide a fatal gluing flaw a lot easier in wood than you can hide sabotage in aluminum.

                Working with wood required skilled committed workers. by 1944, the wooden tails were falling out of the sky- followed by the aircraft .....
                All you'd have to do to ruin the bonding strength of a urea-formaldehyde glue is add a small amount of water into it when you apply it. That causes the glue to hydrolyze and release formaldehyde weakening the resulting bond. From what I can see, DeHaviland got around this problem in service by bonding a layer of fine linen / canvas over the wooden surfaces and then doping these making the resulting surface very water resistant. It would be almost unnoticeable if someone were doing that, yet the results would be a poor bond.
                I don't think the Germans followed that practice and instead just primed and painted the wooden surfaces. This would have also contributed to the problem by allowing more moisture into the wood.

                Comment


                • Okay.
                  Bearing in mind the warning on Post # 215 I’ll try again.

                  What I was asking was whether the basic principle I outline
                  d n on Post # 73 is completely valid.

                  ie: "Germany was attritioned to defeat in the air in World War Two by massive allied and Soviet aerial forces which eventually simply swamped the Luftwaffe by weight of numbers and resources."

                  I’m asking because I’ll be using it as an example in a planned tutorial thematic tying in with anther thread I raised some months ago:

                  The difference between so-called ‘excuses’ for the Germans losing and REASONS why they lost.

                  I believe the ‘Classic fighter duel of the period mid 1941 to late 1942 is an good example of the Germans doing the best they could against increasingly formidable odds and for s while holding the upper hand.
                  Fair call?

                  Hoping this post gets accepted.

                  Regards
                  lodestar

                  Comment


                  • What I have to say serves no purpose in the debate but I cannot resist this contribution, It brings back memories of standing in the street as a fifteen year old boy and we looked straight up into a clear blue sky and watched the fly's up above us fighting to see who owned that bit of sky. To the delayed action sound of cannon and machine gun fire we occasionally saw one fall from the sky trailing smoke and being young boys we cheered, for in our minds it had to be a German. A sad little story that I may have told before but well worth a repeat. Ken.
                    'By Horse by Tram'.


                    I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                    " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                    Comment


                    • Isn't the accepted wisdom, based on reality, that when the FW190 came out it outclassed the Spitfire V which was an older design. The British then brought out the Spitfire ix which was more than a match for the FW190?
                      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                        Isn't the accepted wisdom, based on reality, that when the FW190 came out it outclassed the Spitfire V which was an older design. The British then brought out the Spitfire ix which was more than a match for the FW190?
                        Here is a free download on what I consider the best book available on the Luftwaffe. It is not overly long, yet presents all of the facts chronologically, on the bomber and fighter development, their tactical/operational and strategic use, while giving the reader the various compounding developments during the course of the war which led to the Luftwaffe's failure.

                        http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/
                        Theo mir ist die munition ausgegangen ich werde diesen ramman auf wiedersehen uns in walhalla

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lcm1 View Post
                          What I have to say serves no purpose in the debate but I cannot resist this contribution, It brings back memories of standing in the street as a fifteen year old boy and we looked straight up into a clear blue sky and watched the fly's up above us fighting to see who owned that bit of sky. To the delayed action sound of cannon and machine gun fire we occasionally saw one fall from the sky trailing smoke and being young boys we cheered, for in our minds it had to be a German. A sad little story that I may have told before but well worth a repeat. Ken.
                          Thanks Ken. Your posts on your memories of the war bring a welcome and witty perspective, for me anyway, from someone who was there.
                          Theo mir ist die munition ausgegangen ich werde diesen ramman auf wiedersehen uns in walhalla

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lodestar View Post
                            Okay.
                            Bearing in mind the warning on Post # 215 I’ll try again.

                            What I was asking was whether the basic principle I outline
                            d n on Post # 73 is completely valid.

                            ie: "Germany was attritioned to defeat in the air in World War Two by massive allied and Soviet aerial forces which eventually simply swamped the Luftwaffe by weight of numbers and resources."

                            I’m asking because I’ll be using it as an example in a planned tutorial thematic tying in with anther thread I raised some months ago:

                            The difference between so-called ‘excuses’ for the Germans losing and REASONS why they lost.

                            I believe the ‘Classic fighter duel of the period mid 1941 to late 1942 is an good example of the Germans doing the best they could against increasingly formidable odds and for s while holding the upper hand.
                            Fair call?

                            Hoping this post gets accepted.

                            Regards
                            lodestar
                            I think we have addressed the questions you proposed in your OP. All the bickering and banter about which country had the "best fighter" aside, I have given as much facts as I can about RAF Fighter Command victories and losses along with Luftwaffe Jagdgeschwader victories and losses during the period posited in your OP.

                            My primary sources are 3 books by Donald Caldwell on JG - 26. Volumes 1 and 2 of JG - 26 war diaries and his more popular book JG - 26 Top Guns Of The Luftwaffe.

                            On the British side I have all 3 volumes authored by Norman Franks titled Royal Air Force - Fighter Command Losses of the Second World War. V1, 1939 - 1941, V2, 1942 - 1943, and V3, 1944 - 1945.

                            The RAF volumes, except for volume 1 which was revised and reprinted recently, are very hard to find as they are out of print and very costly. The 3 volumes together total about 450 pages and covers the losses of RAF Fighter Command on every day of the war 1939 - 45. The information in those 3 volumes was gleaned almost exclusively from, and I will quote the author:

                            The central source of the information came from Fighter Commands Combat and Casualty record (AIR 16) at the public records office and the squadron operational record books (ORB's), the forms 540 and 541's, to be found in AIR 27 at Kew. Additional information came from the ministry of defense casualty records, also various Fighter Command files within AIR 16.
                            Theo mir ist die munition ausgegangen ich werde diesen ramman auf wiedersehen uns in walhalla

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lodestar View Post
                              Okay.
                              Bearing in mind the warning on Post # 215 I’ll try again.

                              What I was asking was whether the basic principle I outline
                              d n on Post # 73 is completely valid.

                              ie: "Germany was attritioned to defeat in the air in World War Two by massive allied and Soviet aerial forces which eventually simply swamped the Luftwaffe by weight of numbers and resources."

                              I’m asking because I’ll be using it as an example in a planned tutorial thematic tying in with anther thread I raised some months ago:

                              The difference between so-called ‘excuses’ for the Germans losing and REASONS why they lost.

                              I believe the ‘Classic fighter duel of the period mid 1941 to late 1942 is an good example of the Germans doing the best they could against increasingly formidable odds and for s while holding the upper hand.
                              Fair call?

                              Hoping this post gets accepted.

                              Regards
                              lodestar
                              Actually, a very good argument can be made that the Luftwaffe by the end of 1941 was pretty much finished. It was just a matter of how long they'd hold out before becoming totally ineffective.

                              The first evidence of this is that their bomber force couldn't sustain an offensive air campaign either in duration or size. This is true in the East where they were unable to make any sort of "strategic" campaign work even in the face of limited defenses. They could ramp up tempo for a short period and run raids on say, Malta but they couldn't sustain even light loses and flying numerous sorties for more than a couple of weeks at the most.
                              Look at the pathetic Bädeker Blitz on England starting in early 1942. That was a total farce. Target planning was done using the Bädeker travel guide to England! Individual raids rarely exceeded 40 planes, and often much less. At the same time, the RAF was delivering a bomb load on German cities in a single raid that exceeded the entire bomb tonnage delivered in all of the German raids.

                              Next, was Germany's inability to halt or even seriously make a dent in Allied strategic bombing. Sure, they had their occasional success like Schweinfurt, but that was more the exception than the rule.

                              On battlefields, the Luftwaffe was nearly nonexistent. Allied air forces had a near complete domination of the sky tactically as early as 1942. Even in the East, the Red Air Force was able to dominate the sky much of the time by the end of that year.

                              The classic fighter duel, as much as it might be romanticized, was a waste of time really. Shooting down bombers and attack aircraft was what counted. Small tactical hit and run strikes, as annoying as they might be, accomplish little.

                              The Luftwaffe as a credible field force was pretty much over and done with by 1942.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post

                                Thanks Ken. Your posts on your memories of the war bring a welcome and witty perspective, for me anyway, from someone who was there.
                                With respects to your knowledge Kurt, Thanks. Ken.
                                'By Horse by Tram'.


                                I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                                " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X