PDA

View Full Version : THe Military Channel: Dr.I vs. Sopwith Camel



PBNA-Boosher
01-21-2005, 11:09 AM
I don't know if you guys were watching this, but the military channel seems to have lost its touch.

They state that the Sopwith Camel is drastically superior to the Dr.I. However ,they outright disregard pilot ability. I think the biggest insult I heard was when they stated that the "ONLY factors making a fighter superior" were:

maneuverability
Visibility
Speed

While I agree these factors are important I am horribly disgusted with their research. Now watching their Sherman vs. Tiger tank episode, they claim that the ONLY "important factors in tank combat" are:

Armor
Speed
Firepower

I half expect them to say the Sherman was a better tank because it was faster.

It's time to either send the History and Discovery channels an e-mail, or tell them to take them off the air. They have now become an embarrassment to history.

PBNA-Boosher
01-21-2005, 11:28 AM
Ok, Bullsh!t spotted!

They just claimed the Sherman a better tank than the Tiger.

Now... Let's see what they think of the Bf-109... Oh I should shoot the guys who made these shows, don't ya think?

BlitzPig_DDT
01-21-2005, 11:33 AM
The Camel was faster, but speed tactics had not been too developed at that point. Pilots would engage in turn fights far more readily than energy tactics. That's why it took 7 SE5as to take down Werner Voss in his Dr.1. And even then he took a few with him, damaged one beyond repair, and had hits on the others.

Plus the torque of the Camel was so much that it was more difficult to fly (not that the Dr.1 was exactly "easy"), and killed quite a lot of it's pilots.

So yeah, you're right that they are disregarding things, but, they are also disregarding things they claim to be regarding. lol

BlitzPig_DDT
01-21-2005, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
Ok, Bullsh!t spotted!

They just claimed the Sherman a better tank than the Tiger.

Now... Let's see what they think of the Bf-109... Oh I should shoot the guys who made these shows, don't ya think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of those shows claimed the 109G had MGs in it's wings.

I wanted to come here and start joking about how we'd been ripped off. lol

PBNA-Boosher
01-21-2005, 11:44 AM
Ok, 100% BS. They just claimed that the 20mm cannon was "somewhat more effective than the .303. PLUS: They're comparing the wrong versions of the planes for the Battle of Britain. Hist. Channel just went down the drain.

Capt._Tenneal
01-21-2005, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
Ok, 100% BS. They just claimed that the 20mm cannon was "somewhat more effective than the .303. PLUS: They're comparing the wrong versions of the planes for the Battle of Britain. Hist. Channel just went down the drain. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

History Channel or Military Channel ? I thought you saw this on Military Channel.

PBNA-Boosher
01-21-2005, 01:53 PM
Was the Military channel, which is hosted by Hist. Channel and Discovery channel.

Capt._Tenneal
01-21-2005, 02:06 PM
OK, I got it. Thanks.

I was starting to dig Military Channel too. Now I have to watch with a critical look at their shows. Thanks for the heads up.

JG52MadAdler
01-21-2005, 02:27 PM
I watched the BoB episode.
They claimed the 20mm wing cannons on the Emil
were more devestating than the .50's
They actualy tested the guns with real ammo.
on wing sections, also two real life pilots
who verified this.
They said the 109E and Spit40 were pretty even.
Seemed pretty good to me

But what do they know. LOL

BenvZijl
01-21-2005, 02:33 PM
i saw the episode of the sherman vs the tiger and i must say that the sherman has some advantages that are vital in combat over the tiger(tiger had better armour and weapons but not the speed and manuverability)

Blackdog5555
01-21-2005, 02:57 PM
Yes you need to post the whole story.. history Channel is biased, but not completely stupid. First. The first Spits had 8 (thats eight) 303's. Eight 303s, even at close range is not as effective as 2 20s, but it it was still effective enough to to bring down a 109...thats all they are saying.. and the Tiger thing. Everyone knows that the Sherman was a fast underarmoured , undergunned "tommy cooker." Tankers hated them. It took four shermans loses to bring down a panzer. could only kill them from behind. But tactically. the Tiger was slow and too heavy for terrain and most bridges. also too few in numbers. Vulnerable from air attack and had poor maintenance. Especially the super tiger. But give me a Tiger anyday or a T34....LOL. The sherman was a POS. History Channel has acurately showed the horror of the sherman tank and the tankers frustration with them until..the Persching Tank was developed. I even watched an episode scolding the US war dept for chasing away a famous tank developer who went to Russia to help develop the T34. The US want Tank Devepment to come from within the Military agency, in house, not civilian. therefore the sherman pos. Newer episodes of HC are less propaganda. cheers and keep watching!

New_York_Flyer
01-21-2005, 03:13 PM
I kind of have to agree when they say the Sherman is a better tank than the Tiger.

The tiger was good since it had that huge 88mm cannon and had a lot of armor, but due to lack of numbers and poor turret traverse time, it wasnt the greatest tanks of the war. It was an excellent tank, and could knock out ANYTHING at long range, but at close range when surrounded by many enemy tanks, it can easily be picked off.

The Sherman on the otherhand was made in much greater numbers than the Tiger. It proved itself to be a poor tank in the sense of its armor and cannon capabilities, but due to numbers it won the war. Sherman variants such as the British Firefly also dominated on the battlefield. They had the power to really knock out a tiger.

Its a totally different design philosophy. The Sherman was made to be quick and overpowering (through numbers), while the Tiger was made to domininate Tank V. Tank combat. The American tank destroyers such as the M36 Jackson and M18 Hellcat, lacked roofs. The operators were pretty vunerable to enemy fire, but they were designed to be quick (which is what they were) and to pack a powerful punch.

Moses

ouston
01-21-2005, 05:52 PM
To get back to the original post about the relative merits of the DrI and the Camel my opinion is that the Camel was very much the better machine. The DrI seems to have attracted more than its fair share of attention due to von Richthofen who actually scored most of his kills in Albatross machines of various marks. I am not disputing von Richthofen's skills and he had a good number of Camels to his credit but the DrI was superceded by mid 1918 but the Camel continued to the Armistice. I recall seeing not one but two DrI replicas in the air at an airshow in the 1980s and was astonished at their ability to turn on a sixpence. This was hardly a test of their capability in combat but seemed to indicate that they were pretty shifty. I saw in a post a few days ago the comment that Oleg Maddox had expressed the opinion that a WWI development was out of the question because of the difficulty of accurately mapping the performance of WWI aircraft. What a shame. If there is anybody who can do justice to the men the Second World War fighter pilots looked up to it is the Maddox operation.

Pip pip

Ouston

LEXX_Luthor
01-21-2005, 06:00 PM
Never thought of this... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

ousten:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If there is anybody who can do justice to the men the Second World War fighter pilots looked up to it is the Maddox operation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We look up to the WW2 pilots for inspiration, who did they look up to...?

ouston
01-21-2005, 06:27 PM
There are a number of comments from 1939-1940 period RAF pilots that they had nothing to go on in terms of text books. It is said that copies of Yeat's "Winged victory" were changing hands at pretty substantial prices if you could find a copy. It is a briliant novel but closely based upon Yeat's own experiences in the RFC/RAF. A gut-wrenching read. I see that there is a new biography of Yeats just issued which I will be getting. Whether it was a good textbook for pilots who were flying at over twice the speed of the late 1918 designs is debateable. As an account of what the pilots of the RFC actually felt it is up there with the best.

Pip pip

Ouston

JG53Frankyboy
01-21-2005, 06:48 PM
can anyone imagine what they would have siad IF a Tank like the Tiger would have been build form the USA with its huge industrial ans suppliy cabilities and a Tank like the Sherman would have been build by germany with its much lesser cabilites ?

well, perhaps Tiger was superior ?

as already said, a well used Tigers was horror for Shermans (without Air aore Artillerie support) - if they had 76mm canons ore were UK Fireflies ore not.
that is what counts. sure, the germans build to less of it. fortunatly.

realy, Tiger vs Sherman, face to face, without the tactical souroundings, any questions ?


BUT, the Sherman wasnt a bad tank. it was reliable, good protection (compare it to a german PzIV ) , gun was ok. think about that with an Armoured Division in advance the most enemies they would face after brake through enemy lines werent tanks.
but again, in a brutal face to face with a Tiger, it had no chance (with standartgun)

LStarosta
01-21-2005, 06:51 PM
Boosher, you only NOW realized that the History Channel is BS?

It's been a propaganda outlet for years. . .

Howie A
01-21-2005, 07:23 PM
History Channel is one of my favorites. I can see flaws too and wouldn't argue anything here, but for most my viewing their analysis can be indepth and they can bring a sense of being there. Also, I don't know of any other channel that has brought forth more veterans and their personal accounts. Some of the most riveting experiences with men of simplicity and honor.

Blackdog5555
01-21-2005, 08:40 PM
I remember, could be wrong but the Camel had a rotary engine which made it very difficult to roll/turn right. The DR1 triplane also used a rotary ,as opposed to radial engine. It was only flown by the best pilots as it was extrememly difficult to keep out of a spin. I use CfS2 as a base, through in some high res tiles and WW1 aircraft from simviation and edit thm into the quick missions, and have a pretty good WW1 sim. the are a couple of good 1% out there for FS2004/CFS2.. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,And you must remember the old reals the History channel play were meant for old time American Audiences, war and post war. History Channel is more fair and balanced in the new segments. History Channel is where i first learned about the horror of the Molotof-Ribbenov (sp) (Hitler-Stalin Pact) and the allied abandonemnt of the Polish people in their struggle against the Axis..then the Russians, the destruction of the cities/ Warsaw riots bla bla vla. These things dont make most US History Books. Not total BS. Not perfect for everyone, Lately they have been getting interviews with real LW and BoB and IJN pilots. So we get the whole story now. Just have to catch the right time. cheers

Blackdog5555
01-21-2005, 08:48 PM
One more time; One History Segment with LW and BOB pilots went into detail about the lack of training pilots did prior to combat. The Show went on to discuss the importance of training. one third of all pilots got in on their first mission. if your survived 5 mission you had a good chance to survive. The LW or Bob stated it was a horrible injustice to let the your untrained pilots go against seasoned veterans.sending them to the slaughter. you just need to watch the right show.

LW_August
01-21-2005, 09:28 PM
This "which tank is best" argument is stupid. What the most important aspects are of any tank depend on the type of force that fields it.

Highly mobile forces like the US Army of WW2 reqired a tank that could move fast and support the infantry. Also a tank that, most importantly, can be built and shipped all the way from other side of the world in large numbers.

The same was true, the first part anyways, of the early war German Army. They didn't Blitzkreig into Poland and France with ponderous and slow moving Tigers, they did it with lightly armored and undergunned (sound familiar?) Mark II's III's and IV's, all of which i might add were no better than the Sherman and worse in many ways.

By 1943 and especially by 44, the Germans had gone over to the defense and the best attributes of the tanks they made like the Tiger, heavily armored and gunned (but therefore slow moving and prone to breakdown) reflected that defensive posture.

As for the Dr1 versus Camel argument, the Fokker was indeed a deadly plane in the hands of an expert especially if the opposing pilot played the Dr1s game and get into a turn fight, but it was slow. That's not as big an issue with favorable pervailing winds as it would be to the allies whose planes needed speed to make it back quickly to their side of the lines after a mission, BUT the Dr1 was a dangerous plane to fly in the hands of a n00b. Given the attrition rates on both sides a plane like the Camel offered a far greater chance for an inexperienced pilot to actually live long enough to become proficient.

Precise flight specifications be ****ed. Oleg just has to do a WW1 sim. No one could come closer to what those old canvas and wire crates, (which were by definition IMprecise) were capable of than he could, and in this case I think that is enough.

Its either that or see WW1 sims dissapear altogether, perhaps forever, and that gentlemen would truely be a shame.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-22-2005, 12:01 AM
The Dr.1 didn't have near the torque problem. In fact, the only thing slightly dangerous about it was the loss of rudder on landing.

You can buy Dr.1 kits and plans to build and fly yourself. Full scale. They really aren't that deadly. ('course, the metal spar and rib design of the modern kits means a little extra safety margin in the area of equipment failure, but that isn't what we're talking about here)

The Camel couldn't hold a candle to the DVII though. But that's a different story. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oh, for WWI sims, get FS-WWI. THAT is the best there is. And in some ways better than what Oleg would do. Be sure. (though Oleg would certainly kill in the areas of looks and MP setup)

Atomic_Marten
01-22-2005, 03:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
I.
maneuverability
Visibility
Speed

II.
Armor
Speed
Firepower
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I prefer first 'bunch' of factors.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Itto_Okami
01-22-2005, 05:01 AM
Well...

Dr.I - Camel comparation must be done keeping in mind, expecially about speed, various factors.
First. Both had rotative engines with very different power outputs. The Bentley B.R. engine nearly gave twice the output of the Oberursel used on the Fokkers. The usual HP output of the engines mounted on the Dr.I was of about 110 HP while the Camel had usually a 180 HP engine. This created some troubles about control for the Camel and pilots found more easy to turn a 270 right turn than a 90 left turn because the torque and many "green" allied pilots met their end because this thing.
Another thing to keep in mind was that The Camel was a biplane while Dr.I was a triplane. Less resistence. so... More power output, less resistence and we have the Camel nearly reaching 200km/h while the Dr.I going a bit more than 150km/h. Speed was the real advantage of the Camel over the Dr.I.
One of the advantages of the Fokker was the capacity to make a flat turn because his rudder. This gave a good advantage in turning combat because the Dr.I was a more controllable fighter.
One of the true problems faced by the Dr.I was the fact that castor oil was present in very limited quantity in Germany and this thing created very high maintenance troubles.
Anyway, Fokker Dr.I was flown successfully by many german Aces like Joseph Jacobs, Kirchstein, Ernst Udet, von Greim, Paul Baumer and others. Jacobs elected the Dr.I as his primary airplane even when the D.VII was well into service (if you have read that the Red Baron did the same it's not true. D.VIIs entered service in May-June 1918, well after the Baron demise) and used it 'til July 1918.
I guess that Dr.I and Camel could be placed on the same level as combat effectivenes. Both had lights and shadows and was to the pilots to be able to use their weapons in the right way.

S!

Itto

The190Flyer
01-22-2005, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by New_York_Flyer:
I kind of have to agree when they say the Sherman is a better tank than the Tiger.

The tiger was good since it had that huge 88mm cannon and had a lot of armor, but due to lack of numbers and poor turret traverse time, it wasnt the greatest tanks of the war. It was an excellent tank, and could knock out ANYTHING at long range, but at close range when surrounded by many enemy tanks, it can easily be picked off.

The Sherman on the otherhand was made in much greater numbers than the Tiger. It proved itself to be a poor tank in the sense of its armor and cannon capabilities, but due to numbers it won the war. Sherman variants such as the British Firefly also dominated on the battlefield. They had the power to really knock out a tiger.

Its a totally different design philosophy. The Sherman was made to be quick and overpowering (through numbers), while the Tiger was made to domininate Tank V. Tank combat. The American tank destroyers such as the M36 Jackson and M18 Hellcat, lacked roofs. The operators were pretty vunerable to enemy fire, but they were designed to be quick (which is what they were) and to pack a powerful punch.

Moses <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Yes, it was probably the greatest tank of the war, it took FOURShermans to knock out a tiger, 3 to get blasted by it, and one to manuver around and disable it from the back where the weak spot is.

S! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

a.k.a. BIFF P-51 PILOT in ubi.com lobbies

Brotrob
01-22-2005, 07:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LW_August:

.. BUT the Dr1 was a dangerous plane to fly in the hands of a n00b. Given the attrition rates on both sides a plane like the Camel offered a far greater chance for an inexperienced pilot to actually live long enough to become proficient.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wrong.
The Camel actually killed more of its pilots in training- or flightaccidents then pilots were killed in combat. It was known for making widdows. Like all rotary-engine-planes also the Dr.1 was hard to fly, compared with an inline plane. But it wasnt such a pilot killer.

You can see the propaganda-character of this Chanel when you just look at the planes compared. Why didnt they compare the Camel to the Fokker DVII ? The fighter it had to oppose the most ? Well, seems obvious...

As for the comparison Tiger vs Sherman, no comment.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif ===> History Cnanel <=== http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Just sad that such idiots addle the youth today and "make history".

Television ? READ A BOOK !!!

SeminoleX
01-22-2005, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
I don't know if you guys were watching this, but the military channel seems to have lost its touch.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was watching that same night their Air War in the Pacific feature.

In that segment,it was flatly stated(with a straight face no less) that: the Japanese second wave attack was broken off because the pilots encountered stiff American opposition.

That raised some eyebrows around here.

I'll bet that when they get around to the War of Northern aggression they will make the C.S.A. out to be the villan.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-22-2005, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeminoleX:
I'll bet that when they get around to the War of Northern aggression they will make the C.S.A. out to be the villan. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems (just about) everyone does that.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-22-2005, 10:13 AM
Was just thinking about the speed emphasis. I mentioned it wasn't a big deal then, but really, it was irrelevant. Even the one plane known for it's speed - The SPADs - wasn't good enough to be a "Camel", if you know what I mean. Speed simply meant the ability to disengage at will and get home quicker, as well as to catch faster 2 seaters (the real purpose of fighters in the first place).

They couldn't energy fight, even if they knew what it was. Think about it, I'm not sure about the top speed of the Camel, but the Dr.1 was about 105mph. Now, if the kph #s mentioned earlier are correct, then the Camel is about 50kph faster. What's that do for ya? Try going online with someone, get them to fly at a certain speed, then make a pass at 50kph faster. You won't get away without being shot up. And if they can outclimb and outturn you to boot, you better hope you can out accelerate and dive them to get away with your skin.

The Dr.1 was known or being able to loop so well, pilots ran the risk of completeing a loop and still being in front of the enemy chasing them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Yowza!

If a Camel came along a 50kph faster, the Dr.1 breaks hard. If the Camel follows, he's toast. If he doesn't, the Fokker swings around and actually gets a lead shot straking the whole plane. Not a good idea to try to hit and run when speeds are that close against an adversary that agile.

Now in multi on multi the tables would turn. But that didn't often happen either. It was about 1on1 back in the day.

Oh, as for diving on the opponent, ever try diving in the Gladiator? Aside from zero G issues, the prop is fixed pitch. You VNE is not much higher than the level top speed because you'll feck the engine. So BnZ and HnR are out really.

And I think the reason they compared these 2 is that they did fight, and they are the most famous of each side. THC is still a buisness afterall, so ratings matter.

jeroen_R90S
01-22-2005, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Itto_Okami:
Well...

Dr.I - Camel comparation must be done keeping in mind, expecially about speed, various factors.
First. Both had rotative engines with very different power outputs. The Bentley B.R. engine nearly gave twice the output of the Oberursel used on the Fokkers. The usual HP output of the engines mounted on the Dr.I was of about 110 HP while the Camel had usually a 180 HP engine.
Itto <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the Bentley was the most common engine fitted to the Camel, that were either 130hp Clerget and 110hp Gnome-RhĂ´ne. The Oberursel was a rip-off of one of these engines, can't recall which, though.


@Brotrob: that's not entirely fair if you look at the numbers of airplanes produced. Only few Dr.Is were made and in general they were flown by the most experienced pilots. They got theirs while they were serving at the front, and in most cases only a few were given to each Jasta. The lesser Gods would have to make-do with Albatrosses and Pfalzes.
If 1 pilot gets killed in plane of which only 10 were made, it's not a widow-maker, but if 100 pilots get killed in in a plane of which 1000 were made it apparently is. %-wise it's the same.


BTW, Josef Jacobs indeed used his Triplane well into 1918, but it's slow speed meant all other flight members would have to throttle way back to stay in formation and they weren't always happy with that.

The Dr.I was indeed torquey and difficuly to fly, just like the Camel. The kit versions usually have a radial, making it easier to handle I would think.

Jeroen

BlitzPig_DDT
01-22-2005, 10:21 AM
Hey Little Fokker


Hey little Fokker don’t you know your gonna shoot’em doooooowwwwwn!

I took my Fokker down to Ardennes
Hitched to the back of my Mercedes-Benz
Everyone was there just a'wait'n for me
There were plenty of Sopwiths and Nieuport BeBes

(Shoot’em down)
Spring little Fokker gettin’ ready to strike
(Shoot’em down)
Spring little Fokker with all of your might
(Shoot’em down)
Spring little Fokker gettin’ ready to strike
(Shoot’em down)
Spring little Fokker with all of your might
Hey little Fokker don’t you know your gonna shoot’em doooooowwwwwn!

When the flight came down
You could smell av-fuel burn
The Sopwith had me going into the turn
I hung a big move and I got up high
And when I blew away the Sopwith I waved bye-bye

(Shoot’em down)
Spring little Fokker gettin’ ready to strike
(Shoot’em down)
Spring little Fokker with all of your might
(Shoot’em down)
Spring little Fokker gettin’ ready to strike
(Shoot’em down)
Spring little Fokker with all of your might
Hey little Fokker don’t you know your gonna shoot’em doooooowwwwwn!

Through the sharp turns and all through the day
I was blowin’ up everything that got in my way
The Sopwiths and Nieups were so far behind
I found my Fok was out of fuel and let it coast to the line

(Shoot’em down)
Spring little Fokker gettin’ ready to strike
(Shoot’em down)
Spring little Fokker with all of your might
(Shoot’em down)
Spring little Fokker gettin’ geady to strike
(Shoot’em down)
Spring little Fokker with all of your might
Hey little Fokker don’t you know your gonna shoot’em doooooowwwwwn!

shoot’em doooooowwwwwn!
shoot’em doooooowwwwwn!
shoot’em doooooowwwwwn!
shoot’em doooooowwwwwn!

PBNA-Boosher
01-22-2005, 10:47 AM
I like the debate going here guys, sorry I haven't been able to give any feedback. I ate something really weird yesterday, bad bag of chips or something, have just vomited about 6 times in the past 7 hours. But I'm doing better now.

This was the decisive factor. I will never trust the Hist. Channel again. From now on I'm only watching movie channels, hehe.

WWSensei
01-22-2005, 10:54 AM
"They couldn't energy fight, even if they knew what it was."

They could and they did.

Before BnZ was called BnZ it was called the "Fokker Bounce". Immelmann modified the bounce with his infamous turn in order to get that second and third pass--that's a pure energy tactic.

Read the tactics trestise from Rickenbacher on the tactics and manuevers used by the Spad XIII against Fokker D7s and you would swear Shaw plegarized Eddie some 50 years later. Richenbacher's Vrille maneuver (his favorite) is almost a pure vertical energy tactic.

The Red Baron seldom turned and burned. His whole approach was like that of a Hunter. He disdained pilots who went for the fancy maneuvers. Voss thought Richtofen to be one of the worst pilots but an excellent fighter pilot--because he knew how to get kills. The Baron was fond of stalking a furball and picking off the stragglers.

It was in pursuing just such a target where he ended up getting killed.

Brotrob
01-22-2005, 11:26 AM
Sorry, cant resist posting, man its WWI, I need to hold the flag up...

Never seen so much misinformation cancerning my favorite avitation period.

First, the topspeeds of the Camel and DrI were not 200 and 150 km/h but 185 (2000m) and 165 km/h (3500m) in favor for the Camel, so indeed it was faster, but as one expected Historychanel exaggerated.

And yes, the Camel was especially difficult to fly, due to its very concentrated masses of Engine, Weapons, Fuel and Pilot on a very small section of its fuselage. Aditionaly the rotaryengine added huge torque, as in the Dreidecker.

Here a quote from 29-victory-ace Arthur Cobby:

"A great number of trainee pilots had been killed learning to fly this machine, as its tricks took some learning, although they were really simple to overcome. Its main trouble was that owing to its very small wingspan, and its purposely unstable characteristics, coupled with the gyroscopic effect of a rotating engine and propeller, it flipped into a spin very easily at low speeds. Consequently, in landing and taking off, a tremendous number of fatal accidents occurred, and a general felling of dislike for the machine was prevalent. It really had people frightened."


And as some already mentioned, "BnZ" was used in WWI. Planes which were suited best for this tactics were Spad's. SE5's and, especially the Fokker DVII. At the end of the war, BnZ was the only combat-style who kept the germans alive, due to overwhelming allied odds. And the DVII was perfect for it.

I strongly recomend reading some books written by former WWI fighter pilots, they are exiting and instructional. All great aces wrote books, no matter what side they fought for. Ebay should help.

Also, this side is the staging area for WWI enthusiasts, and on the Forum you'll be answered any question:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/

Now forget what you heared of WWI in History-Chanel, for god's sake... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Best Greetings..

Hastatus
01-22-2005, 08:21 PM
The Dr1 Triplane was not a major combat type in WW1 despite all the BS you hear on TV shows about it.

It was not popular among many German Air Service pilots because of its poor speed, and poor diving abliity. Only three hundred or so were delivered before it was phased out. In the hands of a master it could be a very formidable fighter, yes, but there were inherent problems in a triplane design that led to them being superseded by biplanes and monoplanes (like the Fokker DVIII).

The Albatros DV/DVa and Pfalz DIII (and the later Fokker D VII), were much more numerous than the Dr1.

Its more famous than it should be because Von Richtofen flew it, and died in it.

The main adversary for the Camel and SE5a in WW1 was *not* the Dr1, but the Albatros, Pfalz, and Fokker DVII types, its nothing but TV fantasy that WW1 was some big furball of Dr1 Triplanes and Sopwith Camels, something I think is perpetuated by the general high level of ignorance about WW1 air combat.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-22-2005, 09:38 PM
- I think the point was that the Dr.1 did face the Camel a fair amount, and yes, it is more popular. THC is a money making buisness so they want Ratings.

- The DVII out did the Allies in everything. Climb, speed, turn, and dive. The Allies were terified of it and specifically banned it in the Treaty of Versaille (the treaty which set the stage for WWII).

- Diving on targets with the E3 was so it could catch the bloody things. That was a slooow plane. Unless you could gently dive on them you couldn't catch them. And so you want to conserve E as much as possible, hence Immelmans turn and Boelckes idea of always being above. It gave you more options and let you turn harder (by diving to keep speed up). Energy tactics, yes, but let's be honest, ALL aerial combat is about energy tactics. Those things hardly classify as BnZ or E-fighting as we know it from a WWII perspective. The planes were very limited in dive speeds, and the engines had fixed pitch props leading to overspeed problems as well. Again, take a Gladiator and dive it from 1K or so. If you get a bit over it's max speed you hose the engine. It's not enough of a speed difference to really perform good post hit extensions, be they zoom climbs or HnR. So I guess my point was about relative degree. Not that it wasn't done at all, but that it wasn't like we think of it from a WWII perspective and that wasn't nearly as effective and not a fighting style it's own. (I mean, think of the relative speed difference you can create with a P-51 or P-47 or 190. The tactics opened up are a whole new world)

LW_August
01-23-2005, 01:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brotrob:

Television ? READ A BOOK !!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this the way you talk to people when you're face to face? If so i'll bet your nose has been broken many times.

If you want to compare librarys Sonny i'll be happy to oblige you.

Hastatus
01-23-2005, 08:27 AM
I cant disagree with anything that you posted there, and I have nothing against HTV doing a show on it either. Yes the DVII was the real jewel in the GAS in 1918 for sure.

...as far as diving ability though, that was important. It enabled you to disengage from an enemy a/c if things went badly. Something an SE5a could do, and a Dr1 could not.

...oh yes, the comment about 50 km/h not meaning anything?, in some post above. Thats easy to say when its not your life depending on out running an enemy flight. 50 km/h would have mattered in WW1. Speed always mattered. Always. If it didnt then air forces would still be flying biplanes.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-23-2005, 08:44 AM
I think you misunderstood me. I agree that it was important for disengaging. I even mentioned that the SPAD's only real claim to fame was it's ability to disengage or catch fast planes. I was just saying that as an offensive capability that small a speed difference was not very useful.

Blackdog5555
01-23-2005, 01:39 PM
I did think ther are too many people remember the Snoopy from Charlie Brown and the song Snoopy and the Red Baron by the Royal Guardsman. It was like 1967-68 i dunno. But that is where the Camel (snoopy's plane) and the DRI (red baron) first entered or became part of American pop culture. So most you guys or over analyzing this thing. Everyone know the SE5 or Spad or Dr VII was "safer/better to fly" though average life span of a WW1 aviator was something like six weeks. Boeckes Dicta is something that is still relevant today:

Here is a Snippet of my favorite German ace's thoughts;
Boelcke's Dicta:
1. Always try to secure an advantageous position before attacking. Climb before and during the approach in order to surprise the enemy from above, and dive on him swiftly from the rear when the moment to attack is at hand.
2. Try to place yourself between the sun and the enemy. This puts the glare of the sun in the enemy's eyes and makes it difficult to see you and impossible for him to shoot with any accuracy.
3. Do not fire the machine guns until the enemy is within range and you have him squarely within your sights.
4. Attack when the enemy least expects it or when he is preoccupied with other duties such as observation, photography or bombing.
5. Never turn your back and try to run away from an enemy fighter. If you are surprised by an attack on your tail, turn and face the enemy with your guns.
6. Keep your eye on the enemy and do not let him deceive you with tricks. If your opponent appears damaged, follow him down until he crashes to be sure he is not faking.
7. Foolish acts of bravery only bring death. The Jasta must fight as a unit with close teamwork between all pilots. The signal of its leaders must be obeyed.

cheers

PBNA-Boosher
01-23-2005, 02:14 PM
Yeah, personally I'd prefer the Se.5a. I think it looks cooler overall, and the way the MG's are aligned I'd prefer it. One gun for over the top shooting, and one gun for direct fire, instead of two direct firing guns. Also the top gun, in case the interruptor gear was damaged, the top gun could be fired without worry. Although, if I had to pick a plane to fly from WW1, I would go for the Albatros D.Va

huggy87
01-23-2005, 05:22 PM
PBNA- I TIVO'd this show, but in the first 5 minutes it is about howitzers vs. the 18lbs. I hope the aircraft come later.

As far as the tanks go I think you are being too hard on the program. It did say that 1v1 the Tiger was much better and crews on both sides would rather be in the tiger- it was only superior mobility and numbers that led the sherman to victory. It also brought up the reliability issue in great length (not mentioned here in this thread so much). The Americans had an extensive field repair capability with simple, easily produced and repaired vehicles. That goes along with the superior numbers argument.


Blitzpig- uh oh. Here we go with the rebellion again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Do you have any links or other info on the modern Fokker Dr. 1? I didn't know any company would take that insurance risk. I would sure like to get my hands on one. Also, what game are you referring to about WW1. Is it a mod?

LW- August, good points about the tanks.

Botrob- good link, thanks

BlitzPig_DDT
01-23-2005, 05:40 PM
I assume you are talking to me, and not all of us. (http://www.blitzpigs.com) It's strikes me as funny that the guys in other squads with their "uniform" in their username don't get referred to as the entire squad all the time. lol

What is this about a rebellion?

Kits/plans - been a while since I was looking at them, so I had to google. But the second link to pop up is this - http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/selecting/kits/1Fokker%20DR-1.html Looks like a good one to start. They are not that hard to find, you just have to dig a little.

FS-WWI is a mod for FS:SDOE. That game (Fighter Squadron : Screamin' Demons Over Europe) used the OpenPlane physics engine (which purportedly Oleg considered before choosing to start from scratch to make his own - something about resource utilization being too high for the #s he wanted, at least, that's what I've heard). Once Activision let the game die, the community started modding it. First it was WWII stuff, obviously, but then a WWI project started. At first it was called OP-WWI, then had it's name changed. It would take too long to explain all about it, including why it's good and how the community is, so you'll have to look into that on your own. Here's a link to get set up - http://argonv.tripod.com/FSWWI_Page/readme.htm Not sure where they are hanging out these days. They had a site - OpenPlaneSims.com but that was problematic, and I haven't messed with it since early last year or so, maybe longer (too many FB/PF patches... lol).