PDA

View Full Version : Fw 190 Vs the VVS



Wildnoob
03-02-2011, 04:36 PM
Hello!

I always was a supporter of the idea the Focke Wulf is a great fighter capable of fight another aircraft, even more nimble ones, on equal terms using the correct tactics, particulary in the East, talking about the Anton.

I simply always ignored the Soviet reports talking about the inferiority of the aircraft in comparison with the 109 due to the reasons always cited here.
But I simply got to the following preliminary conclusion analizing the aircraft: the Soviet fighters were lighter, but with the same or more power (in the case of the La, Yak-3 and 9U). But ok, the 190 can always outdive them and as long as it keep attacking them with energy tactics everything will be ok. The problem I found here is while this looks very real for free huntigs in the case of anything that demands other actions than simply dive away in bad situations like an escort mission the aircraft looks cleraly in disadvantage due to it's heavy wheight in a prolongued combat. Especially if the mission is escort vulnerable and low altitude flying Ju 87G's for instance. What I found that supports this idea is a recommendation in the Aircraft Guied of a plane quiet similar to the Fw; the P-51, which tells the superiority of the plane goes diminishing until it completely disappears at ground level. In the case of the Mustang this is surely also due to it's supercharged Merlin, but probably also because the heavy wheight of the plane in comparison with the 109. In the case of the 190, while not a standard order in the LW, I read that one LW officer ordered their aircraft to not engage with Yak-3s bellow 5000m. And I see this represented in the sim as well. I already had some long fights with VVS aircraft when flying high, but when the fight comes to low level I must disengage because the plane simply can't compete. This is also due to the increase in avaliable power of the Soviet planes as the altitude drops.

The follow conclusions I managed to obtain are the same as those from the VVS:

The Fw 190 has a lot of firepower, damage tolerance, easy control, range and other advantages, but it's offensive fighter characteristics are inferior than those of the 109. It cannot sustain prolongued combats especially at low level although is very good as an anti Sturmovik aircraft and fighter bomber.

I will try antecipate some counter arguments here:

* Most of the planes were in the fighter bomber role and were flow by ex Stuka and bomber pilots.

> It doens't matter. I'm talking about pure fighter performance here.

* The Fw pilots scored thounds of victories.

> It still doens't matter. The same as above. The question is pure performance here. The Fw wasn't any I-153, it was a respectable aircraft, and the LW pilots have reasons to achived such victories. I can shoot down much more Yak-9s in my B-239 and still the Brewster will be a inferior plane.

Another question was the use of the Fw 190 in the offensive role against capable oponnets. In Kursk it was used in large scale, but even flying planes such as the La-5FN, most Soviet pilots have 10-15 flight hours. The Fw must be evaluated against comparable oposition in all cinrcunstances offensively. Here used offensively by the reasons already mentioned it will suffer because it can't sustain combat for much time. This is a big difference in it's use in counter offensive operations were it was simply "hit and run".

The situation in the west was very different. Despite it's lack of high altitude performance and later being much more used as an anti bomber aircraft the 190 was always directed by radar which was not comon in the East and could bounce it's enemies in high speed attacks with their tactical situation being prodived by the radar operator which garanteed maximum efficience were with it's advantages being used in this way it was really superior. And always flying at high altitude it could compensate it's heavy wing load against the lighter Spits.

Well, I just want to let clear that I'm not claiming this as facts. I really belive in the words of the German pilots and don't know nothing about their tactics, but after analizing the opinions of the VVS I must say I'm in doubt about what was the real capability of the Fw. The VVS obtained this conclusion after analizing a captured aircraft as well. While maybe it was not in perfect conditions couple with the experiences at front the pilots and enginners that conducted the tests must have been able to form a good picture of the aircraft. And not even need to be mentioned that their work was strictly technical.

It's a long time since I don't fly, and I can't conduct "field tests" about this now, so if someone can provide me with LW tactics with the Fw (both offensive and deffensive) for we discuss I would be glad.

Bremspropeller
03-02-2011, 04:42 PM
It cannot sustain prolongued combats, especially at low level.

Prolenged combats are the exception, not the rule.

The russian assesment of he P-47 would be kind of similar, although I'd say the P-47 was propably the best overall-fighter of the war (not considering servicability at the front, which would - no doubt - have suffered, had it been used in Russia).

Romanator21
03-02-2011, 06:32 PM
The russian assesment of he P-47 would be kind of similar, although I'd say the P-47 was propably the best overall-fighter of the war (not considering servicability at the front, which would - no doubt - have suffered, had it been used in Russia).

If we don't count its ground attack capability, which isn't relevant to air-air combat, I would say that it's fairly mediocre "overall". It does a great job at high altitude escort, but would fail as an interceptor or dog-fighter, for instance. (I consider "overall" as satisfying more than one of above or some other criteria).

M_Gunz
03-02-2011, 06:58 PM
P-47 used right as it was over Europe from 43 on did great as an air superiority fighter. They did so freaking well that the LW kept deep bomber intercepts beyond the combat range of the P-47's. That worked until the legs of the P-51's allowed effective escorting of the bombers clear out to deep targets and back with collateral strikes as well.

FW's in Russia were most if not all JABO's. Did they ever get used to escort Ju-87's???

In early US operations over Africa the USAAF planes were under control of the ground commanders. They were scattered piecemeal over the front as dedicated air cover. The LW would send massed sweeps over the front and a lot of US planes went down. So the US pilots got their leaders to powow with Eisenhower and USAAF Fighter Command was born. The fighters were not tied to ground units but rather formed up into effective units and ran sweeps of their own. Same planes, same bunch of pilots, same opponents, suddenly no longer prey but hunters.
Here's a lesson: a deft agenda seeker can take quotes and stats from before or after the change and make a characterization based on such limited info. Don't get fooled by selectively collected quotes.

BillSwagger
03-02-2011, 09:28 PM
FW's in Russia were most if not all JABO's

That would take a bit more searching to find out.
In threads past its been revealed the types of configurations used.
The 190A-4 was not technically JABO fitted and having a drop tank did not make it a JABO.
A 190 fighter competing with Russian fighters was not likely to be fitted as a JABO given the nature of JABO missions, ie ground attack.
I think seeing a 190 struggle with Russian fighters in a lower energy scenario is not that surprising. I think altitude is only an issue because normally height transfers to speed, but if already too low, then the energy fight becomes more challenging.
This would be true for any heavier plane.

M_Gunz
03-02-2011, 11:15 PM
Look into how many LW fighter groups were equipped with FW's and how many LW bomber groups were equipped with FW's as JABOs.
I've seen the threads too.

Of course we can't take Oleg's word for it and we don't have his documents. Maybe Kurfurst will show up.

K_Freddie
03-02-2011, 11:19 PM
From what I remember the LW would always come in with an altitude advantage, making interceptor type attacks, which suited the FW perfectly.

The VVS as we know had problems with altitude, and their fighter a/c were not as durable as the FW, but they had the numbers - high LW scores.

If it ends up being a low alt, close in DF, the LA and yak will have and advantage, but it all depends on the pilots and who is the more devious. The FW seems to be more stable in the lo-n-slo (you can throw it around somewhat) compared to allied a/c, if Olegs modelling is anything to go by.

csThor
03-03-2011, 01:26 AM
I think just looking at the performance side of things the picture becomes somewhat onesided and inaccurate. There are various factors that had way more influence on the outcome of the aerial engagements than pure HP. Since the Battle of Kursk was mentioned I'll gladly take it as an example.

1.) The VVS was - at least until 1944 - one year behind in performance of its fighter aircraft. At Kursk the mainstay were the Yak-1b, Yak-7b (late type) and early La-5s. Types such as the La-5FN or Yak-9 (in its various forms) were only being introduced or even field-tested for the first time.
Additionally one more factor was the still insufficient equipment of fighter aircraft with both radio receivers and emitters. This was one of the reasons why Leand&Lease aircraft were popular since they contained reliable radio systems which had both. In soviet types the full set would not become standard until late 1943.

2.) The VVS achieved its enormous growth in early 1943 through pressing a large number of rookies into frontline units. For example Christer Bergström gives the number of aircrews participating in the disastrous attack on german airdromes near Kharkov on July 5 1943 who had any kind of field experience as a frippin 7 percent. Which means the LW faced a horde of inexperienced and often totally overstrained youngsters which are - for the core of highly experienced german pilots - little more than sitting ducks.

3.) The VVS suffered greatly from a distinctive performance gap between its pilots and its supreme command. On the regimental side of things a lot of very experienced commanders did their utmost to improve the performance of their subordinates. Same goes for the supreme command of the VVS but in between, at higher staff levels, there was a serious shortage of experienced and able men. And even those who had previously distinguished themselves were not immune to making hair-raising mistakes. Let's take for example GenLt. Sergey Rudenko who had performed well at Stalingrad but fouled up badly in command of 16th Air Army at Kursk. His gross misjudgement of the situation caused considerable losses to his fighter aviation and allowed the Luftwaffe in the northern sector to fly CAS sorties almost at will for the first few days. This misjudgement was then made worse by inherent weaknesses of soviet command and control systems (which were at this time far inferior to the german system of air liaison officers and their modus of operation) ...

4.) Lastly the VVS also suffered from its outdated doctrine which pressed the fighters into the defensive role. This in turn handed the LW more often than not all the tactical advantages on a silver platter. The VVS was a stiff institution, not as bad as in 1941 but still considerably inflexible for the standards of 1943.

All of these factors - which had nothing to do with engine performance or similar things - were what influenced the air war on the eastern front most.

Wildnoob
03-03-2011, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
All of these factors - which had nothing to do with engine performance or similar things - were what influenced the air war on the eastern front most.

No doubt. But what I want to mean is: "was the 190 really everything when operated in equal circunstances with it's enemies?"

csThor
03-03-2011, 06:53 AM
The question is IMO pointless since it strives to create an artificial environment which has nothing to do with the real environment it found itself in. Academic "d*ck length comparisons* based on an artificially leveled playground serve no purpose but gaining artificial (laboratory) results.

JG53Frankyboy
03-03-2011, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FW's in Russia were most if not all JABO's

That would take a bit more searching to find out.
In threads past its been revealed the types of configurations used.
The 190A-4 was not technically JABO fitted and having a drop tank did not make it a JABO.
A 190 fighter competing with Russian fighters was not likely to be fitted as a JABO given the nature of JABO missions, ie ground attack.
I think seeing a 190 struggle with Russian fighters in a lower energy scenario is not that surprising. I think altitude is only an issue because normally height transfers to speed, but if already too low, then the energy fight becomes more challenging.
This would be true for any heavier plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the only Fighterwings using Fw190 as fighters at the easternfront were JG51 and JG54 (with a very ahort appearance of one JG26 group http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).
when they got the 190 and, if, reequipted with 109s is easy to check here
http://www.ww2.dk/

the rest where fighterbombers.

csThor
03-03-2011, 10:34 AM
IIRC the highest number of Fw 190 fighters on the eastern front was counted on the eve of the Battle of Kursk with just over 200 planes. Afterwards numbers declined drastically due to the reequipment of JG 51 with the Bf 109 (only Stab, I. and II./JG 54 plus Stabsstaffel/JG 51 retained the 190). In comparison the number of ground-attack 190s was always higher after mid-1943 (and especially after mid-1944).

Wildnoob
03-03-2011, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
The question is IMO pointless since it strives to create an artificial environment which has nothing to do with the real environment it found itself in. Academic "d*ck length comparisons* based on an artificially leveled playground serve no purpose but gaining artificial (laboratory) results.

I also think the same, Thor. My point was try to understand the VVS opinion, which looks realistic at least in some aspects, but usually could not be applied in field conditions due to reasons such as the ones you mentioned.

But even the Soviets were surprised with their opinions, as this report states:

Actual combat on the Soviet-German front differed greatly from simlated combat at the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute. German pilots did not engage in maneuverable combat in either the vertical or the horizontal plane. Their fighters tried to shoot down a Soviet aircraft in a surprise attack and then went into clouds or towards friendly territory. Ground-attack aircraft also strafec our ground troops unexpectedly. They rarely were intercepted on these and other occasions. Special trials the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute conductec focused on development of procedures and tactics to counter Focke-Wul: ground-attack airplanes. Captured Fw 190A-8 No. 682011 and "lightened Fw 190A-8 No. 580967 took part in this testing. Yak-3, Yak-9u and La-7—the most modern Red Army Air Forces fighters—took off to intercept them.
The "combat" showed that new tactical procedures were needed to counter German aircraft flying at low levels. After all, the Focke-Wulfs usually ingressed at low altitudes and regressed at treetop level at maximum speed. Under such conditions, it was hard to detect an attack in time. The pursuit became more complicated, because the gray matte paint concealed the German aircraft against the background of the landscape. In addition, German pilots employed engine reheat at low altitudes. It was determined here that the Focke-Wulf could deliver 582 km/h, i. e. neither the Yak-3 (the aircraft at the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute developed 567 km/h) nor the Yak-9U (575 km/h) could overtake them. Only the La-5 reached 612 km/h in augmented mode, but the speed margin was insufficient to reduce the range between the two aircraft to a distance permitting aimed fire.
Based on test results, the institute leadership issued recommendations: it is necessary to echelon the fighters in patrols at different altitudes. In this case, the mission of the pilots on the higher tiers would be to disrupt the bombing and to attack the enemy fighter escort, while the lower patrol aircraft, having the capability to overtake in a shallow dive, probably would be able to intercept the ground-attack aircraft themselves.

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/fw190a7.shtml

Wildnoob
03-03-2011, 11:15 AM
Actual combat on the Soviet-German front differed greatly from simlated combat at the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute.

Well, I have to say that even the Soviets admitted. Even if my objective was not this.

Bremspropeller
03-03-2011, 11:46 AM
There were a couple of pilots that showed the quality of the 190:

Kittel
Nowotny
Rudorffer
Lang
etc


It's not so much the aircraft that wins/ loses - it's the pilot's ability of employing it.
The 190 was never more than 10% off below the best VVS-fighter's performance in level-speed.
Performance-differences are only becoming signifigant beyond that 10%-threshhold with relatively equal pilots.

Then:
As already brought up, most 190s on th eastern front were Schlachtflieger with pilots that usually were re-trained from Stukas or other ground-attack aircraft. They had little to no experience in the air-to-air buissnes at all.

It's not especially surprising to see many russian pilots have a somewhat distorted picture of the aircraft's capabilities.

Look at the western front, where the 190 gained it's good reputation early-on, and it never really lost it, despite other planes getting equal or even surpassing it in raw-performance terms.

M_Gunz
03-03-2011, 11:52 AM
Special trials the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute conductec focused on development of procedures and tactics to counter Focke-Wul: ground-attack airplanes.

Wildnoob
03-03-2011, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
It's not so much the aircraft that wins/ loses - it's the pilot's ability of employing it.
The 190 was never more than 10% off below the best VVS-fighter's performance in level-speed.
Performance-differences are only becoming signifigant beyond that 10%-threshhold with relatively equal pilots.

This is absolutely truth. And even today is still the same. As the combat fundaments still are.


It's not especially surprising to see many russian pilots have a somewhat distorted picture of the aircraft's capabilities.

Now talking about this, we all know how that things are relative in aviation, so I will not be surprised and really belive there are VVS pilots that have a different opinion about the Fw 190.

JtD
03-03-2011, 01:55 PM
It could be noted that late war 190 fighter bombers carrying the bombs and rockets then typical, lost a lot of level speed. Coupled with worse manufacturing quality and lowered acceptance standards in the Luftwaffe, this meant maximum low level speeds in the region of 400 km/h in attack runs. Add to that the poor pilot quality and a bad numerical disadvantage, and you can imagine how 190ies fared in the last months of the European war.

Xiolablu3
03-03-2011, 02:34 PM
We can see in Russias choice of fighter characteristics (Su27/Mig29) how they prefer differing qualities to Western Countries.

Russia places great importance in horizontal turning and close in dogfighting capabilities, whereas the Western Allies not AS much.

Of course the Western Allies still value turning circles and close-in dogfighitng, but I would not say it is seen as quite as important in their eyes. Of course there are some exception to this rule.

Sharkey Ward, the most successful Harrier pilot in the Falklands War places great importance on having a tight turning circle and cites the Harriers better turning circle az one of the main reasons they had so much success vs the faster Agentine jets. (plus sidewainder of course).

Its not really surprising that the Russians preffered the Bf109 when we look at the characteristics each side prefers in their fighters.

Wildnoob
03-03-2011, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
and cites the Harriers better turning circle az one of the main reasons they had so much success vs the faster Agentine jets. (plus sidewainder of course).

I will add the following:

The Argentine Mirage IIIs were being flown from the continent, had limited fuel and could not use their speed and R.530 missiles. About the skill of the Argentine pilots, I don't know, but this is the same as you have an advantage and make the enemy fight in your way. In other words, what you said was like I be in a 190, you in a Yak-3, and you make me play your turninfight game. When I refuse it, things were not so easy for you.

Bremspropeller
03-03-2011, 03:31 PM
Russia places great importance in horizontal turning and close in dogfighting capabilities, whereas the Western Allies not AS much.

That's actually not what either the MiG-29 or Su-27 were designed for: they were designated interceptors with a marginal A-G secondary role in the case of the MiG-29.
Russian aircraft were never designed for "mixing it up" in the first place, that's clearly evident when looking inside their copckpits and recognizing how much effort was made to streamline those aircraft into a most-efficient intercept-system.

That doesn't omit lessons learned from past wars, though.

Western aircraft were much more designed to go in and mix it up with the enemy, as is shown by superrior view out of the cockpit, HOTAS and other design-features that have the pilot in mind, rather than the intercept-GCI officer giving vectors, orders or even remote-flying the aircraft.


Sharkey Ward, the most successful Harrier pilot in the Falklands War places great importance on having a tight turning circle and cites the Harriers better turning circle az one of the main reasons they had so much success vs the faster Agentine jets.

What Mr. Ward doesn't talk about is how there pretty much never was an occasion for the SHs to actually show off as Mr. Ward likes to talk about:

Argentine pilots were too short on fuel and too busy finding the targets, lining up and not getting shot down by AAA or SAM, for really tussleing it out with the overblown and noble cavalry. The dogfights that actually emerged were quickly decided by the AIM-9L.

Dagger-pilots were very unexperienced on the type and subsequently had to suffer a tremendous loss-rate.

Shooting down a rookie in a tactically inferrior position (bombs, low fuel level, low-level flight at high speed (Daggers don't exactly like this because of their delta-wing and low wing-loading...)) with low situational awareness and thinking about an all-over-water return-trip with no rescue-capabilities, is nothing to be overly proud of.

What Mr. Ward also doesn't want to tell you is that a Squadron of F-4Ks (Phantom FG.1 that is in Oxford-English) would have been able to not only knock out more planes in the first place, but do that before they were getting a real threat to british shipping.

Treetop64
03-03-2011, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by csThor:The question is IMO pointless since it strives to create an artificial environment which has nothing to do with the real environment it found itself in. Academic "d*ck length comparisons* based on an artificially leveled playground serve no purpose but gaining artificial (laboratory) results.

About as concise an explanation of the subject as can be made.

Too often comparisons are made with "this plane versus that plane" in s sterile environment, with absolutely no consideration for command structures and decision making; crew training, condition, disruption, and the consequent level of morale; equipment condition; tempo of ops; and the deployment of forces and their M.O., etc. They are all parts of the whole in how things turn out.

BillSwagger
03-03-2011, 03:55 PM
I would add that the P-47 actually regained a turn advantage while in turn battles against the 190 on deck. Maybe the 190 loses some turn circumfrence when limited by altitude height.

Russian accounts also compare the 190 more closely to their P-40s in acceleration and vertical performance when compared to Yaks and La-5s.

There is also a LoneSentry article that spells out more of the details when La5s confronted 190s. In that article it specifies the advantages in taking on the 190 from an altitude advantage and following it in the horizontal would require careful use of the trim tab.
Otherwise, vertical maneuvers were not a problem and the La-5 could easily catch the 190 in a climb.
However, that artical is less specific about scenarios on deck or in situations where the 190 has an altitude advantage. Its presumable that most differences in performance can easily be countered by a difference in altitude.
I wouls suspect when these aircraft confront each other on even terms that is more up to the pilot, each flying to their strengths and avoiding manuevers that would give the other the advantage.
From that perspective, neither has a distinct advantage. If it were a turn contest, or a loop contest then maybe different advantages would present themselves, but combat rarely offers repeated instances of the same maneuver over and over.


Bill

Wildnoob
03-04-2011, 07:02 AM
http://www.amazon.com/5-Fw-190...942-45/dp/1849084734 (http://www.amazon.com/5-Fw-190-Eastern-1942-45/dp/1849084734)

Anyone already read this book? what the author presents?

csThor
03-04-2011, 07:53 AM
Release date for this is Sept 2011. I only have the Panther vs T-34 book and found it shallow, the arguments somewhat crude and patched together to gain a specific result. Because of this I did not buy any further books from this series since I do not expect an accurate picture but a limited and potentially biased presentation. Not to mention that Osprey takes 1:1 from archives without bothering to check their plausibility (blatantly obvious in their "Aircraft of the Aces" series on soviet aces).

Treetop64
03-04-2011, 08:16 AM
I have both "LaGG and Lavochkin Aces of WWII" and "Yakovlev Aces of WWII", and have read both of them through. Couple of things that struck me is A: the number of ace pilots whose fates are unrecorded and unknown, and - particularly in the case of the Lavochkin publication - B: the number of LaGG-3 ace pilots who survived the war unscathed.

While certainly not minimizing their role in the defeat of the Nazis, one can't help but notice that the Soviet/Rusian writing style on historical events is "different", to say the least, even when the level of zeal is toned down through translators and western publications. Still, it's interesting reading on a fascinating subject from a point of view that goes ignored by much of the western world.

Wildnoob
03-04-2011, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
Release date for this is Sept 2011. I only have the Panther vs T-34 book and found it shallow, the arguments somewhat crude and patched together to gain a specific result. Because of this I did not buy any further books from this series since I do not expect an accurate picture but a limited and potentially biased presentation. Not to mention that Osprey takes 1:1 from archives without bothering to check their plausibility (blatantly obvious in their "Aircraft of the Aces" series on soviet aces).

Thor, what do you think of the Fw aces of the EF?

This was the first Osprey book I read, and I liked it very much. The author puts a very good German perspective, never claiming the aircraft was inferior to the Soviet fighters (apart from a mention in the case of the anti bomber versions that were transfered to the East), puts the opinions of pilots in the use of the plane, it's advantages and disadvantages. A very good read reading.

csThor
03-04-2011, 11:04 AM
I always take Osprey with a grain of salt. I have quite a collection of them and some aspects are quite interesting (i.e. description of specific missions) but on a general scale I rate them as introduction into the topic at best.
And unfortunately the german colour profiles are generally horrible. Other nations get much better profiles and believable colours. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Wildnoob
03-04-2011, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
I always take Osprey with a grain of salt. I have quite a collection of them and some aspects are quite interesting (i.e. description of specific missions) but on a general scale I rate them as introduction into the topic at best.
And unfortunately the german colour profiles are generally horrible. Other nations get much better profiles and believable colours. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Yeah, I found the description of missions very good, but also from the plane and some of it's features and disadvantages as I already mentioned. The problem with the Osprey books is they depended of the author or authors.

JSG72
03-04-2011, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
I always take Osprey with a grain of salt. I have quite a collection of them and some aspects are quite interesting (i.e. description of specific missions) but on a general scale I rate them as introduction into the topic at best.
And unfortunately the german colour profiles are generally horrible. Other nations get much better profiles and believable colours. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I like the cut of your jib CS. I have most if not all of the Osprey Aces series (Only because I am a completest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif).

Anyways any Aces accounts are always going to be "Sided". They wouldn't be Aces if they hadn't shot down so many planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.
Luftwaffe fighter squadrons became "Jabos" when the need was there.(Something the Fighter pilots disliked as they had not been trained as such) Also True ground attack squadrons/Geschwader. also had to be utelised as adhoc fighters when situations arose. The Battles that took place on the Southern front saw II/SG2 account for 2/5ths of the 604 Russian aircraft shot down during the last few weeks of this conflict. With one pilot August Lambert shooting down 70 of them(Remember JG52 flew there as well!!!)

There are many dicriptions of isolated instances about how Pilots outurned/manouvred their foe. Just a shame that most planes that were shot down were "Sitting Ducks" Mostly "In the wrong place at the wrong time"

These episodes say nothing about the victors planes performance but more about the reality of War Regardless of the their opponants weapon?

As you elude to csThor. Noone fights the War in a laboratory. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Bremspropeller
03-04-2011, 02:44 PM
With one pilot August Lambert shooting down 70 of them

...within two or three weeks!

Xiolablu3
03-04-2011, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Russia places great importance in horizontal turning and close in dogfighting capabilities, whereas the Western Allies not AS much.

That's actually not what either the MiG-29 or Su-27 were designed for: they were designated interceptors with a marginal A-G secondary role in the case of the MiG-29.
Russian aircraft were never designed for "mixing it up" in the first place, that's clearly evident when looking inside their copckpits and recognizing how much effort was made to streamline those aircraft into a most-efficient intercept-system.

That doesn't omit lessons learned from past wars, though.

Western aircraft were much more designed to go in and mix it up with the enemy, as is shown by superrior view out of the cockpit, HOTAS and other design-features that have the pilot in mind, rather than the intercept-GCI officer giving vectors, orders or even remote-flying the aircraft.


Sharkey Ward, the most successful Harrier pilot in the Falklands War places great importance on having a tight turning circle and cites the Harriers better turning circle az one of the main reasons they had so much success vs the faster Agentine jets.

What Mr. Ward doesn't talk about is how there pretty much never was an occasion for the SHs to actually show off as Mr. Ward likes to talk about:

Argentine pilots were too short on fuel and too busy finding the targets, lining up and not getting shot down by AAA or SAM, for really tussleing it out with the overblown and noble cavalry. The dogfights that actually emerged were quickly decided by the AIM-9L.

Dagger-pilots were very unexperienced on the type and subsequently had to suffer a tremendous loss-rate.

Shooting down a rookie in a tactically inferrior position (bombs, low fuel level, low-level flight at high speed (Daggers don't exactly like this because of their delta-wing and low wing-loading...)) with low situational awareness and thinking about an all-over-water return-trip with no rescue-capabilities, is nothing to be overly proud of.

What Mr. Ward also doesn't want to tell you is that a Squadron of F-4Ks (Phantom FG.1 that is in Oxford-English) would have been able to not only knock out more planes in the first place, but do that before they were getting a real threat to british shipping. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1: What is a thrust vectoring system for if not for close-in manouverability and tight turns?

2: Of course, the RAF and Fleet Air Arm are absolute rubbish. I would take your opinion over Mr Wards massive experience (and success) any day. After stalking the British planes for a while and trying to get the British to come to their height, the Argentine pilots came down to play, not to try and shoot down the Harriers.

3: Where would they land an F4K thousands of miles from a freindly airfield in 1982??

JSG72
03-04-2011, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Russia places great importance in horizontal turning and close in dogfighting capabilities, whereas the Western Allies not AS much.

That's actually not what either the MiG-29 or Su-27 were designed for: they were designated interceptors with a marginal A-G secondary role in the case of the MiG-29.
Russian aircraft were never designed for "mixing it up" in the first place, that's clearly evident when looking inside their copckpits and recognizing how much effort was made to streamline those aircraft into a most-efficient intercept-system.

That doesn't omit lessons learned from past wars, though.

Western aircraft were much more designed to go in and mix it up with the enemy, as is shown by superrior view out of the cockpit, HOTAS and other design-features that have the pilot in mind, rather than the intercept-GCI officer giving vectors, orders or even remote-flying the aircraft.


Sharkey Ward, the most successful Harrier pilot in the Falklands War places great importance on having a tight turning circle and cites the Harriers better turning circle az one of the main reasons they had so much success vs the faster Agentine jets.

What Mr. Ward doesn't talk about is how there pretty much never was an occasion for the SHs to actually show off as Mr. Ward likes to talk about:

Argentine pilots were too short on fuel and too busy finding the targets, lining up and not getting shot down by AAA or SAM, for really tussleing it out with the overblown and noble cavalry. The dogfights that actually emerged were quickly decided by the AIM-9L.

Dagger-pilots were very unexperienced on the type and subsequently had to suffer a tremendous loss-rate.

Shooting down a rookie in a tactically inferrior position (bombs, low fuel level, low-level flight at high speed (Daggers don't exactly like this because of their delta-wing and low wing-loading...)) with low situational awareness and thinking about an all-over-water return-trip with no rescue-capabilities, is nothing to be overly proud of.

What Mr. Ward also doesn't want to tell you is that a Squadron of F-4Ks (Phantom FG.1 that is in Oxford-English) would have been able to not only knock out more planes in the first place, but do that before they were getting a real threat to british shipping. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1: What is a thrust vectoring system for if not for close-in manouverability and tight turns?

2: Of course, the RAF and Fleet Air Arm are absolute rubbish. I would take your opinion over Mr Wards massive experience (and success) any day. After stalking the British planes for a while and trying to get the British to come to their height, the Argentine pilots came down to play, not to try and shoot down the Harriers.

3: Where would they land an F4K thousands of miles from a freindly airfield in 1982?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem! On Topic Lad. Cough! As you were. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Lead by example and all that.

berg417448
03-04-2011, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:


1: What is a thrust vectoring system for if not for close-in manouverability and tight turns?




I seem to recall reading that the British pilots said that they never used thrust vectoring in their combats with the Argentines in the Falklands.

Treetop64
03-05-2011, 08:34 AM
In the case of the Harrier, thrust vectoring eliminates the need of runways. Handy, in case a flock of Tupolevs bombed the hell out of the airfield. VTOL was it's intended use anyways, not airshow maneuvering.

Bremspropeller
03-05-2011, 11:22 AM
1: What is a thrust vectoring system for if not for close-in manouverability and tight turns?

In case of a VTOL-aircraft such as the Harrier, it's mainly used for take-off and landing (well, most of the time it's for landing only, as engine-power is not suficient for hauling off even the laughable payload a Harrier could carry).


2: Of course, the RAF and Fleet Air Arm are absolute rubbish. I would take your opinion over Mr Wards massive experience (and success) any day.

Thanks for the trust you're putting in me. It's not that I base my opinion on a single source by some Harrier-adict, but by multiple sources and even RAF/ FAA Phantom-pilots that pretty much thought the SH was a joke.


After stalking the British planes for a while and trying to get the British to come to their height, the Argentine pilots came down to play, not to try and shoot down the Harriers.

That was a single occassion, where a pair (or was it a flight?) of Mirage IIIEAs was trying to engage a pair or flight of SHs. The Mirages were short on fuel (one ton less internal fuel than a Dagger!) and couldn't use their afterburners to keep E up.
The Harriers sneaked in behind them and Foxed them - no thrust-vectoring-magic required.


3: Where would they land an F4K thousands of miles from a freindly airfield in 1982??


On an aircraft-carrier that was dumped a couple of years earlier.

M_Gunz
03-05-2011, 12:44 PM
AFAIK the Harrier vector thrust system has to be 'deployed' and thrust routed through it to work. For takeoffs and landings there is water involved (steam increasing the thrust gas volume) from a limited number of seconds supply. It's going to be hard to land on that short carrier if you use your water up pulling extra hard turns isn't it?

horseback
03-07-2011, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
I always take Osprey with a grain of salt. I have quite a collection of them and some aspects are quite interesting (i.e. description of specific missions) but on a general scale I rate them as introduction into the topic at best.
And unfortunately the german colour profiles are generally horrible. Other nations get much better profiles and believable colours. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I have a ton of these books, and I find that the credibility begins and ends with the author. Some will give you (where they are able to) not only claims but also the oppostion's actual losses recorded for that date/locale. Some are unable to, because the records no longer exist (Japanese and German units often destroyed their records when it looked like they would fall into Allied hands for example), and some simply do not take the responsibility for anything but recording the pilots' recollections or reports.

Ultimately, it lies with the reader to discern whether the author is a serious historian trying to reveal the facts and provide credible balance or just a glorified recording device.

I agree with you about the German color profiles, Thor, but we have to consider that Osprey commissions original profiles; in the case of aircraft that have literally been done to death, an artist has to be careful of even seeming to 'copy' someone else's work or style, even on specific aircraft that have a similar paint scheme to one that has been done by another artist. The more work that has been done on a given subject, the harder it is to be 'original', and the demand for originality can result in stuff that is either ridiculously esoteric, or simply ridiculous when taken to extremes. Sometimes, you just run out of 'new' facts.

cheers

horseback

HerrHomuth
03-07-2011, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
About as concise an explanation of the subject as can be made.

Too often comparisons are made with "this plane versus that plane" in s sterile environment, with absolutely no consideration for command structures and decision making; crew training, condition, disruption, and the consequent level of morale; equipment condition; tempo of ops; and the deployment of forces and their M.O., etc. They are all parts of the whole in how things turn out.

+ 1

When you put things into perspective, let's say the battle around Kursk, you can judge things better. The 190 in it's best performance could not be effectively used against very low flying Sturmoviks without taking a serious risk of getting one of the newer Soviet aircraft type behind you. I think the 109 could handle the situation somewhat better, taking the larger numbers in mind, and the close combat which overall the 109 gains a little egde. But then again the 190 isn't that bad either when it comes to those actions + the heavier armament.

I remember a phrase from somewhere, and I hope I'm correct recalling it, some pilots found the 109 to be a sportswagon and the 190 to be a truck. Perhaps that was just the imago of the 2 aircraft or direct performance ( the truck being robust and strong), or a bit of both perhaps.

JG53Frankyboy
03-07-2011, 04:48 PM
in the book "Feindberührung" a german Fw190 Pilot and a german Bf109 pilot fought a "dogfight" , after some heavy discussions on the ground http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , to find out what is the better plane - it was a draw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anyway, because of the weopons the 190 is most propably the better killer and about its wider landing gear i think we have no to discuss..

M_Gunz
03-07-2011, 05:45 PM
IMO the FW is better at high speed maneuver as well as being a heavy-hitter. A really good BnZ plane, one of my faves.

csThor
03-08-2011, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
I have a ton of these books, and I find that the credibility begins and ends with the author. Some will give you (where they are able to) not only claims but also the oppostion's actual losses recorded for that date/locale. Some are unable to, because the records no longer exist (Japanese and German units often destroyed their records when it looked like they would fall into Allied hands for example), and some simply do not take the responsibility for anything but recording the pilots' recollections or reports.

Ultimately, it lies with the reader to discern whether the author is a serious historian trying to reveal the facts and provide credible balance or just a glorified recording device.

Quite frankly in all the Osprey books on soviet types I own it's always (yes, always) astonishing how this or that soviet ace was wounded, sitting in a burning aircraft and still downed three or four german types ... or how this or that soviet ace sacrificed himself by crashing into a german aircraft or into a gound column. Such things (may have) happened, but not on the scale as portryed in Osprey's titles. Which tells me they're taken 1:1 from the russian archives without any plausibility checks. And it saddens me to say that ex-soviet archives contain anything but accurate data because Stalin ordered "improved historiography" after the end of WW2.

For example there's a story about a soviet ace in the LaGG & Lavotchkin Aces book and how he downed a number of JG 54's most experienced pilots. Of the five or six pilots mentioned only 1 can be verified - Max-Hellmuth Ostermann. The rest are either impossible to verify because their names don't show up anywhere or (even worse) the stories are simply inventions and utter BS. Hans-Joachim Heyer was killed in a mid-air collision with a Yak fighter, Hans-Joachim Kroschinski was badly wounded (losing eyesight and a leg) by a Pe-2 gunner over Libau two weeks before that soviet "ace" supposedly shot him down but the most obvious example for the lack of credibility is Herbert Findeisen whom this soviet pilot claimed to have shot down in 1942 and taken as a POW. Interesting that a man who became POW of the soviets in 1942 became CO of II./JG 54 in late 1944 and led the Gruppe into british captivity in Denmark.

ROXunreal
03-08-2011, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
IMO the FW is better at high speed maneuver as well as being a heavy-hitter. A really good BnZ plane, one of my faves.

Indeed, at high speed elevator authority is just superb, and roll is still very good. even at 600-700km/h

Wildnoob
03-08-2011, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by HerrHomuth:
[The 190 in it's best performance could not be effectively used against very low flying Sturmoviks without taking a serious risk of getting one of the newer Soviet aircraft type behind you. I think the 109 could handle the situation somewhat better, taking the larger numbers in mind, and the close combat which overall the 109 gains a little egde. But then again the 190 isn't that bad either when it comes to those actions + the heavier armament.

Well, the Fw 190 is surely equal or better here, as it can destroy Sturmoviks much more faster and compensate it's disadvantage in wheight with the light controls by making attacks with much higher speed.

The problem is when the Soviet fighters find an a lead angle. But when they found a angle in the 190 they would always do it it in the 109, assuming the combat is realistically a WWII one were in most times the victim never saw what hit it or saw too late. I don't see pratically any difference.

horseback
03-08-2011, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I have a ton of these books, and I find that the credibility begins and ends with the author. Some will give you (where they are able to) not only claims but also the oppostion's actual losses recorded for that date/locale. Some are unable to, because the records no longer exist (Japanese and German units often destroyed their records when it looked like they would fall into Allied hands for example), and some simply do not take the responsibility for anything but recording the pilots' recollections or reports.

Ultimately, it lies with the reader to discern whether the author is a serious historian trying to reveal the facts and provide credible balance or just a glorified recording device.

Quite frankly in all the Osprey books on soviet types I own it's always (yes, always) astonishing how this or that soviet ace was wounded, sitting in a burning aircraft and still downed three or four german types ... or how this or that soviet ace sacrificed himself by crashing into a german aircraft or into a gound column. Such things (may have) happened, but not on the scale as portryed in Osprey's titles. Which tells me they're taken 1:1 from the russian archives without any plausibility checks. And it saddens me to say that ex-soviet archives contain anything but accurate data because Stalin ordered "improved historiography" after the end of WW2.

For example there's a story about a soviet ace in the LaGG & Lavotchkin Aces book and how he downed a number of JG 54's most experienced pilots. Of the five or six pilots mentioned only 1 can be verified - Max-Hellmuth Ostermann. The rest are either impossible to verify because their names don't show up anywhere or (even worse) the stories are simply inventions and utter BS. Hans-Joachim Heyer was killed in a mid-air collision with a Yak fighter, Hans-Joachim Kroschinski was badly wounded (losing eyesight and a leg) by a Pe-2 gunner over Libau two weeks before that soviet "ace" supposedly shot him down but the most obvious example for the lack of credibility is Herbert Findeisen whom this soviet pilot claimed to have shot down in 1942 and taken as a POW. Interesting that a man who became POW of the soviets in 1942 became CO of II./JG 54 in late 1944 and led the Gruppe into british captivity in Denmark. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>"Glorified recording device" authorship.

I assume in these cases that either the author is extremely gullible or is hesitant to offer criticism because it might cost him his access to Soviet/Russian archives. The Russians are heavily invested in their contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany, and their continued good will would be very important to an author whose book advance is based on his ability to 'tell the other side,' even if it requires him to repeat new and improved facts.

This sort of thing is also fairly common on Japanese subjects as well, but for different reasons. Here, I think it has to do with the fact that by Japanese standards, it would be incredibly rude to question or even 'fact-check' an old warrior's version of events. Again, we're possibly risking access to rare sources and in this case, the only sources are usually very old men's memories. Offend them, or portray their efforts as less than noble, and you may lose them forever.

Again, 'balance' and accuracy are always going to be the responsibility of the reader.

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
03-08-2011, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
Again, 'balance' and accuracy are always going to be the responsibility of the reader.

LOL, History Channel on paper.

Wildnoob
03-09-2011, 07:26 AM
Stalin ordered "improved historiography" after the end of WW2.


LOL!

Bremspropeller
03-09-2011, 10:01 AM
LOL, History Channel on paper.

I wonder what a joint-venture between History-Channel and the Stalin-Archives on Cold War would look like.

Ae we possibly gonne find out the truth then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

M_Gunz
03-09-2011, 01:56 PM
I doubt it. And even worse with Discovery Channel, makers of "Wings" series.