PDA

View Full Version : Why Did WW2 Pilots Wear Goggles..??



MB_Avro_UK
05-02-2008, 08:20 PM
Hi all,

Pilots who flew in enclosed cockpits were issued with goggles. Why? In fact, all aircrew were issued with goggles e.g. Navigators.

Was it to protect from fire? Most goggles were not tinted to protect from the sun.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

fabianfred
05-02-2008, 08:25 PM
maybe in case of damage to their canopy...or if they had to bail

ImMoreBetter
05-02-2008, 08:27 PM
When your canopy is shot, pieces of Plexiglas are not fun to get in your eyes.

I don't know why they were issued, really. But they sound like a standard protection device.

MB_Avro_UK
05-02-2008, 08:45 PM
Hi all,

But pilots flew with the goggles 'up'. They preferred to fly WITHOUT goggles over their eyes.

No matter how good goggles are, they impede your vision.

I have a pair of RAF WW2 googgles and a pair of WW2 Luftwaffe goggles in my collection.

There is no way way that I would wear these goggles online or offline in il2.(And if I did so, my neighbours would call the Police... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

The restrictions imposed with goggles are similar to typing with gloves.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Schwarz.13
05-02-2008, 08:57 PM
Hi Avro,

As someone has already stated above - shards of Plexiglass in the eyes do not help a fighter pilot do his job! The following are two examples of German Splitterschutzbrille which can be translated as anti-splinter goggles or splinter-protection goggles:

http://www.flightgear.ch/img/LW%20LKPN101/LKPN101%204050%20LW%20CR%20MAIN.jpg
http://www.flightgear.ch/img/LW%20LKPN101/LKPN101%204050%20LW%20CR%20P9.jpg

As can also be seen, these German 'goggles' are far more ergonomic and practical when compared to the more unwieldy Allied equivalents and may explain the reluctance of many allied pilots to wear them (their own ones)...

Aaron_GT
05-03-2008, 03:12 AM
But pilots flew with the goggles 'up'. They preferred to fly WITHOUT goggles over their eyes.

What is the basis for this assertion? I've certainly read reports in which pilots mention having their goggles up, some down, and some putting their goggles down prior to or during combat.

In 1940s war films (fictional) it is common to see pilots put their goggles down, whereas in the 1950s and later they seem to keep the up as it allows better characterisation (but often showed the enemy with goggles for depersonalisation). Drawing conclusions from popular culture would be dangerous. exceptions are Battle of Britain and Tora! Tora! Tora! which tried to be historically accurate.

Aaron_GT
05-03-2008, 03:14 AM
As can also be seen, these German 'goggles' are far more ergonomic and practical when compared to the more unwieldy Allied equivalents

Allied goggles were designed such that the portion in front of the eyes was flat for minimum distortion. What sort of spherical abberations were present in the German ones?

Hkuusela
05-03-2008, 03:32 AM
Jesus H... Now were gonna have a debate over which had better goggles, the Allied or the Germans. I bet in the end the German ones were better BUT they were designed by an Englishman... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Pirschjaeger
05-03-2008, 04:14 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

If I were a pilot I imagine I'd fly with my goggles up but as soon as the enemy appears, goggles down.

BTW, the Italian goggles were the best; they were rose colored. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Fritz

Inadaze
05-03-2008, 04:18 AM
During negative-g maneuvers a fair bit of dust and debris from the cockpit floor could fly around, goggles stopped it getting in the pilots eyes.

Also, apart from plexiglass getting in the eyes from battle damage, goggles could offer some protection from fire and smoke. I'm sure I've heard of a pilot who met a badly burnt flyer in hospital and decided to always wear his gloves and goggles when flying after he saw the damage that fire had done to exposed skin. Obviously they wouldn't help much in a big blaze, but for flash burns the most damage was done to uncovered parts of the body.

x6BL_Brando
05-03-2008, 05:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

B

R_Target
05-03-2008, 06:15 AM
USN carrier takeoffs were made with cockpit open for quick egress in case of engine failure. Even at 100mph goggles are handy to block the wind. Shaded goggles were probably welcome at any altitude.

MB_Avro_UK
05-03-2008, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by Schwarz.13:
Hi Avro,

As someone has already stated above - shards of Plexiglass in the eyes do not help a fighter pilot do his job! The following are two examples of German Splitterschutzbrille which can be translated as anti-splinter goggles or splinter-protection goggles:

http://www.flightgear.ch/img/LW%20LKPN101/LKPN101%204050%20LW%20CR%20MAIN.jpg
http://www.flightgear.ch/img/LW%20LKPN101/LKPN101%204050%20LW%20CR%20P9.jpg

As can also be seen, these German 'goggles' are far more ergonomic and practical when compared to the more unwieldy Allied equivalents and may explain the reluctance of many allied pilots to wear them (their own ones)...

I used to own the above set as part of my collection. The 'fliegerbrille' you describe were not designed to be splinter/shatter-proof as that is not possible.

Their advantage was that the lenses were of a high quality 'curved' design which allowed for better vision and could hopefully deflect small splinters..

If you are interested in buying such a pair today they will cost you about 300.00 / $600.00! But beware of fakes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

The flight helmet (LKpN101) was typical of Luftwaffe flight helmets in that they were fitted with throat-mics.

There was a greater variety of Luftwaffe flight gear compared to RAF equipment.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Aaron_GT
05-03-2008, 08:09 AM
The flight helmet (LKpN101) was typical of Luftwaffe flight helmets in that they were fitted with throat-mics.

Also standard in the USAAF for both aircrew and tankcrew.

When I used to collect military kit there were some people who had tanks who would use their US Army tank helmets, which had comms gear in, to listen to their walkmans.

x6BL_Brando
05-03-2008, 09:19 AM
The split-lensed RAF issue goggles were made of laminated glass to prevent them shattering into the eyes. Obviously they would still break, but not generally causing eye injury. The padded surround was quite comfortable too.

B

x6BL_Brando
05-03-2008, 09:22 AM
If you are interested in buying such a pair today they will cost you about 300.00 / $600.00!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif a fool & his money ....

B

Wildnoob
05-03-2008, 09:36 AM
fligth googles have a lot of aplications, as well as post war visors.

just some ones :

* protect the pilot eyes from any damage that may trow fragaments, oil or any other nocive body on the eyes of the pilot.

haven't you guys alreay hear about Robert S. Jhonson ?

It was the second lead US ace in ETO, and in probably his most famous mission, a FW-190 hit his P-47 and badly damage it. because he was not whearing googles on that day, oil from the damaged engine soake his eyes. it's googles where to fix on that day. bad lucky ?

he survivived, even after he manage to avoid the other 190's and receive many fire from a lone FW-190 (maybe was Egon Mayer) wich for his lucky, was only with ammo from their MG-17's.

he stay almost blind during the time it was with his eyes soaked with oil. if should whearing his googles that day, nothing would happen with his vision.

* in case of the pilot bail out, be able to still see with high winds on his face.

* some models where in fact sunglasses as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khNM7dt3TdU

this video is part of the propaganda documentary of the bombing campain on mailand Japan "The last bomb" - at 43 until 45 seconds we can see the pilot whearing sunglass fligth googles.

and many, many other aplications.

BRASSTURTLE
05-03-2008, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
fligth googles have a lot of aplications, as well as post war visors.

just some ones :

* protect the pilot eyes from any damage that may trow fragaments, oil or any other nocive body on the eyes of the pilot.

haven't you guys alreay hear about Robert S. Jhonson ?

It was the second lead US ace in ETO, and in probably his most famous mission, a FW-190 hit his P-47 and badly damage it. because he was not whearing googles on that day, oil from the damaged engine soake his eyes. it's googles where to fix on that day. bad lucky ?

he survivived, even after he manage to avoid the other 190's and receive many fire from a lone FW-190 (maybe was Egon Mayer) wich for his lucky, was only with ammo from their MG-17's.

he stay almost blind during the time it was with his eyes soaked with oil. if should whearing his googles that day, nothing would happen with his vision.

* in case of the pilot bail out, be able to still see with high winds on his face.

* some models where in fact sunglasses as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khNM7dt3TdU

this video is part of the propaganda documentary of the bombing campain on mailand Japan "The last bomb" - at 43 until 45 seconds we can see the pilot whearing sunglass fligth googles.

and many, many other aplications.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif


I CANNOT believe I had to go to the bottom of the page to see Robert S. Johnson mentioned.
If ever there were a poster child for flight goggles, it was this man.

Aaron_GT
05-03-2008, 10:16 AM
Of course these days health and safety would require that you have goggles, do a full assessment to ensure your seat is not going to give you back pain, do a full COSH assessment on the oxygen system, require a 10 minute break every 4 hours, no missions longer than 8 hours, and ammunition would be a definite no-no. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Remember, don't run with scissors.

horseback
05-03-2008, 10:57 AM
As has been mentioned before, protection from dust and debris tossed about in the cockpit while maneuvering, blast or flash fire, small splinters, or engine/hydraulic fluids, or in the case of darkened or colored lenses, vision enhancement and protection from glare were all good reasons for wearing goggles in flight.

Also, especially in the early war years, many pilots flew with the canopy back (or completely removed, as in the case of many Soviet fighters) for large portions of their flights; the canopies either blocked too much of their vision or simply made them feel a bit crowded into their cockpits. For most US naval aircraft, it was doctrine to takeoff and land with the canopy open, especially for carrier ops, so that in the event of a crash, they could get out of (or be removed from) the aircraft quickly. At those times, goggles are far more practical than sunglasses.

cheers

horseback

Wildnoob
05-03-2008, 11:27 AM
for those who play MGS-3, in Snake's first mission on the USSR (damm, I forgot the operation name), he jump from an AC-130 from 30,000 ft. it's possible to see thougth his fligth googles. damm, how I wish to see this first person view on SOW.

much more cool then just see the pilot from third person with the arms opened like we have in IL2.

anyway, it's just a sugestion from my part.

Bearcat99
05-03-2008, 01:30 PM
The goggles were there because it was better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them.

WeedEater9p
05-03-2008, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
The goggles were there because it was better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
Besides goggles are too fricken cool not to wear http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
05-03-2008, 03:20 PM
A link to one of the Armstrong and Miller Battle of Britain sketches might be good at this point http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Inadaze
05-03-2008, 07:15 PM
A link to one of the Armstrong and Miller Battle of Britain sketches might be good at this point (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-oPgbPdnWk&feature=related)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Schwarz.13
05-03-2008, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As can also be seen, these German 'goggles' are far more ergonomic and practical when compared to the more unwieldy Allied equivalents

Allied goggles were designed such that the portion in front of the eyes was flat for minimum distortion. What sort of spherical abberations were present in the German ones? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well obviously i've never worn either (in combat or otherwise) but i would imagine the difference is similar with regards to the following:

A pair of giant ski goggles
http://www.glacierskiwear.co.uk/ski_shop/images/uploads/bolle_ski_goggles_black_vermillon.jpg

or some Oakley wraparound shades
http://mi.oakley.com/images/catalog/generated/380x340/9b/47e83833bc925.jpg?1206401424

Metatron_123
05-03-2008, 07:23 PM
That analogy also corresponds to their respective coolness factors. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Skoshi Tiger
05-03-2008, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Inadaze:
A link to one of the Armstrong and Miller Battle of Britain sketches might be good at this point (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-oPgbPdnWk&feature=related)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

That is, like, really sick. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leitmotiv
05-03-2008, 08:51 PM
The father of a friend of mine who flew the Hellcat off of a USN carrier in WWII said they all flew with gloves and with goggles down because they had learned from all the RAF pilots burned earlier in the war. None of them wanted to lose eyes or hands to a blowtorch blast of fire from the fuel tank under the pilot's seat. They also flew with the canopy hood open at all times for a fast exit if necessary. Finally, and this will blow minds: he always flew without using trim tabs---he kept them all in neutral. He said he only used the tabs on long cross-country flights across the USA. (So I bought some replica RAF goggles and used them when I used IL-2---note: "flying" with goggles is a pain in the neck---try it and see for yourself.)

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-04-2008, 07:38 AM
Why Did WW2 Pilots Wear Goggles..??

To keep stuff out of their eyes of course.

Bremspropeller
05-04-2008, 07:45 AM
Rule No. 1 on wearing sunglasses:

It's never too dark to look cool. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

DKoor
05-04-2008, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I've certainly read reports in which pilots mention having their goggles up, some down, and some putting their goggles down prior to or during combat. Yes me too... some pilots certainly put their goggles on when there is combat about.

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-04-2008, 08:19 AM
Sometimes I forget to put mine on too.

Kettenhunde
05-04-2008, 05:54 PM
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/9591/glassfragmentsyy5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/9591/glassfragmentsyy5.7361b29906.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=505&i=glassfragmentsyy5.jpg)

major_setback
05-04-2008, 06:07 PM
That test might have been done with a stationary gun.

With a closing speed of several hundred miles per hour the cockpit becomes a even more dangerous place to be.

I don't know what the relative speed of a shell/bullet hitting the cockpit from a head on attack would be, but it must be high (closing speed of the aircraft + bullet velocity).

Aaron_GT
05-04-2008, 07:41 PM
Well obviously i've never worn either (in combat or otherwise) but i would imagine the difference is similar with regards to the following:

I'd imagine a bit worse as the goggles would probably be thicker and have larger total refraction, plus materials have improved. But the only WW2 goggles I owned were a pair of army ones for use in dusty climates with thin plastic lenses like the ski goggles (they also came with red and brown glare filters.)

[Off topic - nothing in my ww2 collection could beat the full set of unissued underwear treated with anti gas treatments for wierdness, and why a junk shop had a set I'll never know!]

Lurch1962
05-05-2008, 06:31 PM
@Aaron_GT,
The curved German goggles will not introduce "spherical" aberrations. Indeed, if the curvature is such that the eye's pupil is located at the centre of curvature, the distortion will be absolutely zero. But even without this constraint, a curved shape is better than a flat one.

Schwarz.13
05-06-2008, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Lurch1962:
@Aaron_GT,
The curved German goggles will not introduce "spherical" aberrations. Indeed, if the curvature is such that the eye's pupil is located at the centre of curvature, the distortion will be absolutely zero. But even without this constraint, a curved shape is better than a flat one.

Plus German optics/lenses were, at that time, the best in the world thanks to companies such as Zeiss....

John_Pimlott
05-06-2008, 03:28 AM
German lenses are way better than Allied. They nice tint and get the get the girly. Looking like Marty Feldman and Blanch Hunt love child! Hmmm dreamboat!! I wearing one goggle upward and one goggle down on left occular - best of both world eh!
After three years of wedding I try beer goggle. but give up after 25 years - wife still a sow. I try German beer goggle and still not work, but goggles so sood I care not a jot!! I forget who wife is... Good no?

Schwarz.13
05-06-2008, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by John_Pimlott:
German lenses are way better than Allied. They nice tint and get the get the girly. Looking like Marty Feldman and Blanch Hunt love child! Hmmm dreamboat!! I wearing one goggle upward and one goggle down on left occular - best of both world eh!
After three years of wedding I try beer goggle. but give up after 25 years - wife still a sow. I try German beer goggle and still not work, but goggles so sood I care not a jot!! I forget who wife is... Good no?

Seems like 'YORGO' posted with the wrong user account http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Pirschjaeger
05-06-2008, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
Why Did WW2 Pilots Wear Goggles..??

To keep stuff out of their eyes of course.

It was said that the Atagirls tended to come in two models - cropped hair and sensible shoes, or "powder puff". That Diana Barnato Walker was one of the latter variety was clear from her autobiography, Spreading My Wings (1994), in which she described an occasion when, delivering a Spitfire, she decided to try some aerobatics but got stuck upside down: "While I was wondering what to do next, from out of my top overall pocket fell my beautifully engraved silver powder compact. It wheeled round and round the bubble canopy like a drunken sailor on a wall of death, then sent all the face powder over everything."

When she eventually arrived at her destination a "very tall and handsome" RAF flight lieutenant hopped on to the wing to meet her: "One glance was enough. His mouth dropped open. 'I was told,' he gasped, 'that a very very pretty girl was bringing us a new aircraft. All I can see is some ghastly clown!' "

There you go, a definitive answer to the original question. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fritz

Daiichidoku
05-06-2008, 08:26 AM
wow

Oleg did indeed model Spits right down to the "T" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

MB_Avro_UK
05-06-2008, 02:57 PM
Hi all,

Goggles reduce a pilot's vision. Vision is vital in combat.

Most RAF pilots in the Battle of Britain did not wear goggles for this reason. But many suffered horrific burns to their eyes as a result http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif. The Spitfire and Hurricane had a large fuel tank in front of the instrument panel.

The RAF goggles were redesigned after the Battle of Britain.(The Mark VIII).

In general the problem is:

1. Wear goggles and risk failing to see the enemy.

2. Don't wear goggles and risk loosing your eyes from fire.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Aaron_GT
05-06-2008, 03:06 PM
Then there was the compromise option - goggles up whilst scanning the skies before combat for signs of the hun, goggles down when combat was started.

It's hard to do in a sim. Visually you could model it, but you'd not have such a great imperative to wear then in a sim.

DKoor
05-06-2008, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
wow

Oleg did indeed model Spits right down to the "T" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MB_Avro_UK
05-06-2008, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Then there was the compromise option - goggles up whilst scanning the skies before combat for signs of the hun, goggles down when combat was started.

It's hard to do in a sim. Visually you could model it, but you'd not have such a great imperative to wear then in a sim.

Agreed!

But whilst wearing goggles 'up' you could get bounced and suffer burns. No easy answer.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Aaron_GT
05-06-2008, 04:27 PM
In the context of the game if the pilot gets blinded and is out of the game you just start a new pilot career... It's one of those impossible things to incentivise properly, just like dogfighting risks.

About the only way I can think of to do it would bring in an element from mmorpgs - you get to assign 100 points to stats for the pilot - resistance to pulling Gs, strength to pull on the joystick, eyesight (for seeing the enemy controlling the distance when dots appear), and one being 'propensity to wear goggles'. But it could get silly very quickly!

Lurch1962
05-06-2008, 05:39 PM
Regarding the earlier remark following the published test report in which glass thickness recommendations were made... The question was about the case of head-on rounds impacting where the relative velocities were higher.

Here's the answer, by way of example. Two planes approaching each other, each doing 500 km/h, have a closing speed of 1,000 km/h, or about 278 m/s. Bullets fired at 800 m/s then have an additional relative speed of 278 m/s, resulting in an impact velocity of 1,078 m/s.

The kinetic energy scales as the square of the velocity. The ratio 1,078^2 : 800^2 is 1.82:1. So the head-on bullet will have 82% greater hitting power than when fired at a target having no relative velocity.

Dantes_CHK6
05-07-2008, 12:32 PM
Protection seems the most common reason.

Goggles up to scan the sky: Better peripheral vision. The plane would be banking gently or ascending/descending gently in formation and heading.

Goggles come down for attack: Time for potential hard maneuvering; resulting in all the dust, metal shavings and other **** lifting off the floor and crevices into the cockpit and eyes.

Take a look at your car floors. Imagine all that swirling around the cockpit when you have to go inverted to catch a 109.

Would one want to lose track in a life and death situation because of some grit in your eye?

I think not.

S!

MB_Avro_UK
05-07-2008, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Dantes_CHK6:
Protection seems the most common reason.

Goggles up to scan the sky: Better peripheral vision. The plane would be banking gently or ascending/descending gently in formation and heading.

Goggles come down for attack: Time for potential hard maneuvering; resulting in all the dust, metal shavings and other **** lifting off the floor and crevices into the cockpit and eyes.

Take a look at your car floors. Imagine all that swirling around the cockpit when you have to go inverted to catch a 109.

Would one want to lose track in a life and death situation because of some grit in your eye?

I think not.

S!

Good Point http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But have you ever tried driving a car whilst wearing goggles?

I have. Apart from looking slightly weird to passing motorists http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif, it does have a negative effect on peripheral vision.

I have experimented with both WW2 Luftwaffe and RAF goggles in my collection.

Also, I have experimented whilst driving with Luftwaffe and RAF flight gloves/gauntlets.

They are clumsy and difficult to use. Many pilots were reluctant to use gloves for this reason but suffered severe burns to the hands.

As an aside, the Police in London stopped me recently whilst wearing Luftwaffe Goggles,Gloves and a flying helmet in my car. I explained to them that I was conducting historical research for the il2 Forum.

They were very understanding and yesterday I was released from psychiatric supervision.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Schwarz.13
05-07-2008, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
They were very understanding and yesterday I was released from psychiatric supervision.


You mean the Orderlies were wearing goggles and didn't notice you make your escape!

MB_Avro_UK
05-07-2008, 06:16 PM
It's a long story Schwarz.13.

I was confined for 24 hours under a Mental Health Order. This was not the first time for me nor maybe the last.

My dedication to historical enactment is well known in certain circles.

Three years ago I set fire to myself in a simulated Hurricane cockpit from the Battle of Britain period 1940.

The effects were severe. I am typing now with one thumb and two fingers. Only one eye is partially functional as a result.

But thank goodness I was wearing goggles! Otherwise I would now be totally blind.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.