Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
My understanding of that footage is that is a captured B-17 that was sent up as a test to see what it took to shoot down.
Note that it is not part of a formation, nor is it shooting back.
WWII Luftwaffe gun camera footage
- Thread starter MikeD
- Start date
My understanding of that footage is that is a captured B-17 that was sent up as a test to see what it took to shoot down.
Note that it is not part of a formation, nor is it shooting back.
Interesting. Oddly enough too though, it appears none of the others noted are shooting back. After the hits they've taken, they may not have had the ability too.
Regards, the test bird. I wonder who they put in it to be at the receiving end of the 20/30mm cannons of the 110? "Hey Leutnant, go fly that B-17 straight and level".
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
I wonder who they put in it to be at the receiving end of the 20/30mm cannons of the 110? "Hey Leutnant, go fly that B-17 straight and level".
It has been many years since I read about it, but I believe that they flew it up to altitude and bailed out.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Interesting. Oddly enough too though, it appears none of the others noted are shooting back. After the hits they've taken, they may not have had the ability too.
Regards, the test bird. I wonder who they put in it to be at the receiving end of the 20/30mm cannons of the 110? "Hey Leutnant, go fly that B-17 straight and level".
Hey Beef,
Congratulations! You got your upgrade!
Sincerely,
MGMT
Minuteman
“Dongola”
I was reading about this plane the other day, "Flak Magnet". It was shot down in April 1944 by Heinrich Bär, which became his 200th victim. By the end of the war he had 220 aerial victories.
bunk22
Well-Known Member
I agree, it's allied video as my guess is, much of the enemy's video (if they had it) was destroyed. Not even sure the Japanese had much of anything in terms of gun camera to account for victories or post mission analysis. Obviously the Germans did but they lost the war.
Not sure why the German aces are the incredible ones even though they racked up very high scores and usually that was in the East against the Russians. A book called the Ace Factor analyzed two ace pilots, German and American. He looked at the number of missions and procalimed victories and both were pretty much even, right until the American Ace rotated back. The German pilots score increased as he flew till he was injured, died, war over, etc. Not saying their accomplishments were minor but not so sure they were the more incredible ones. Many high scoring German aces racked up many victories in single missions against a numerically superior foe but inferior quality of pilots. I would use the Navy's leading ace David McCampbell who scored 16 victories in 3 missions, 9 on a single mission, 5 and 2 on two flights, same day. All against inferior pilots, such as Kamikaze's flying inferior aircraft. He scored 34 victories in 5 months....very similar to some German pilots in terms of number and time. Let him fly another tour, or two and maybe he scores more. Just my opinion though.
The best figher was the 262, hands down I think. The Dora was probably the best prop fighter but it's not the best as it didn't make much of an impact, too little too late. I'm a big fan of the Japanese side of the house and some of their stories might be amazing, as some of their aces (many scores were inflated) were scored flying inferior aircraft against hard hitting, well armored American aircraft. For example, two JAAF aces, Yasuhiko Kuroe and Yohei Hinoki, scored together 7-8 kills on a sinlge mission against American P-38, P-51 and B-24's flying a lightly armed Oscar. The kills were confirmed by American records as kills were inflated by all sides during the war but the Japanese seemed to be the worst at over claiming. The 343rd Kokutai formed at the end of the war was interesting as the idea was to use the most experienced Navy pilots left to engage American fighters using the best Japanese Naval fighter at the time, the Shiden-Kai N1K2. They did well initially, going 13 to 15 on their big opening day but ended the war with a 30-90 kill loss ratio. Good planes and pilots but just overwhelmed by the American assualt. I would say the Japnese never developed fighters superior to allied aircraft but could at least be their equal in many regards. The KI-84, KI-100, J2M and N1K2 come to mind. The Germans certainly held the technical aviation advantage.
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
All great points...
I think part of Japenese fighter success is likely due to their culture as well. It was honorable and in some cases desired to die in combat, removing fear from the equation, with nothing to lose short of victory makes a formidable foe.
The Oscar, while essentially made of paper mache, was incredibly maneuverable, I'd also wonder, given the Japanese tending to be shorter in stature, they would be able to handle higher g-loadings for longer period of time than their American counterparts, on average.
The last part is pure conjecture on my part I admit.
What I find most amazing about the "Nazi Era" is that when it came to weapons development of any sort, they simply had to think of the idea, and they had the brainpower in the country to actually create it.
Thankfully, for us, Hitler was too stupid to realize the importance of atomic research.
That being said, after years of self-study, I've come to the conclusion that "we" didn't win the war, Germany simply lost it all on her own.
On several critical junctures during the war they had the chance to strike victory, yet the addled brain of Hitler led them down the wrong path on several occasions.
Catch 22, if Hitler was a little less crazy they would have won the war in Europe, but if he was less crazy, probably wouldn't have gone to war in the first place
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
On what basis do you say this?
I don't see anything, quite honestly, that makes it even a "good" fighter, much less "hands down" the "best".
It was innovative, certainly, as well as pretty fast compared to some of the piston fighters, but other than that....it was never really used in a way where it had to test its mettle in many serious real dogfights, and it was plagued by extremely problematic and unreliable engines. From a tactical perspective, the Luftwaffe used it mostly to make very fast slashing attacks at the bombers and avoid turning fights with the escorts.
bunk22
Well-Known Member
Best based on technology only, it was a swept winged jet...yes, plagued with issues but imagine that jet in 42 or 43, in great numbers, it could have had an impact. It had an impact but not enough to stop the allies. Eric Brown, the famous British test pilot and fighter pilot, had flown pretty much every WWII fighter out there and I base my opinion based on his opinion. Of course his opinion was often biased to the Spitfire, especially later versions but he felt the jet was the best or technologically the best fighter of the war, if that makes sense.
undflyboy06
Well-Known Member
Luftwaffe had some of the best pilots during those days. When you read about some of the top Luftwaffe aces that were stationed along the Eastern Front, some had over 300 confirmed kills.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Unfortunately, numerical kills alone are not a reliable yardstick of "fighter pilot skill". Since it is a relative competition, it has a lot to do with who they were fighting, what kind of equipment they were both in, the numbers of engagements they were in, their geographic location during the war and the potential for aerial engagement to occur, etc.
A lot about air-to-air combat during the fog of war has to do with luck and opportunity.
It is like saying that the #1 seniority pilot, or the pilot with the most hours at an airline is the "best pilot" on property.
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
Exactly, the whole point of the jet fighter at that time is that no allied fighter even remotely approached it's speed.
The 262 bled energy at an alarming rate when turning, and was not overly quick to regain it. If you had the chance to enter a dogfight knowing that if you do that you stand almost zero chance of being shot down, combine that with part of the engine problems they faced was high power/ low airspeed they often began to overheat quite rapidly, so flying at low energy rates was not a safe option even by yourself.
Boom N Zoom fighter tactics wasn't limited to the 262, the 190 wasn't the best turning fighter at slow speeds/ low altitude, they often utilized the same tactics on the allies slower but better turning fighters.
Lets not forget that the 262 was two years late arriving in the theater, because again Hitler was a bumbling idiot, he decided he wanted the 262 made into a bomber when in fact had they pushed them into fighter production in 1942 it's been widely argued they could have had enough of them by 1944 to make a very serious impact, if not completely halt daylight bombing raids. Some variants had SIX 30MM cannons in the nose... even a short burst of that would have devastating impact on even the B-17, provided the aerial marksmanship was good enough, which in 1942 it was.... late in 1944 not so much due to attrition.
Factor also the survivability in the 262 was greater than in their piston counterparts, makes for a scary scenario.
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
Concur exactly, which is why I feel the P-51 is hardly the "best" fighter of the war, despite how many dogfight shows proclaim it... it had no real competition.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
To me, this says precisely why I would never consider the 262 a "great" (or even 'good') fighter.
If "fast in a straight line" is its only strength, but has serious problems with energy management when turning (which is exactly what dogfighting is), then this is actually the very definition of a "bad" fighter.
The slashing attacks against the bombers were not some brilliant tactic -- it was adapting tactics to the (limited) capabilities of the aircraft. Those tactics weren't all that effective (air to air gunnery is most effective when the shooter has minimal closure/relative velocity with the target) compared to the normal tactics employed by 109s, 110s, and 190s, and its appearance did not notably impact allied bomber losses. Yes, the ability to run away is a good one, but it is only one tool in the toolbox. In order to kill other fighters, you either have to catch them unaware, or be as good or better than they are in turn performance and energy management. The Sturmvogel's poor turn performance, sketchy reliability, and limited availability of fuel really meant that it was of more limited utility than its piston counterparts.
So, while the 262 us undoubtedly a landmark aviation engineering achievement, it really wasn't much to write home about it terms of how much butt it kicked or how it turned the tide of the war, which is the real measure of a combat aircraft.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
I think "best fighter" comparisons are all crap anyway -- there is no way to really yardstick metal against metal just by looking at the stats. Different missions require different capabilities, and different aircraft brought different strengths to the different fights.
It would be possible to compare "best air-to-air dogfighters", or "best CAS/attack fighters", or any number of subset missions....but crowning some overall 'best' (or even comparing one airframe against another airframe overall) is just a waste of time.
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I miss the old Discovery Wings days.Without this, the Military Channel on TV loses 75% of their programming.
Bob Ridpath
Pit Bull love
Wow ... speechless.
