WW1 Fighter Question

Factual Questions
21

This maybe a nitpick, because I’m not sure how far you are taking “universally”. Obviously the Germans had superior equipment in many areas, but they were lacking in others.

IIRC, the Brits had better tanks and battleships in WW1. I know a little more about WW2… U.S. transport vehicles and bombers were probably superior to the Germans’. I suppose you might consider the Arado 234 superior simply by the virtue of being a jet bomber, but compare actual effects of our B-17’s, B-24’s and B-29’s and there’s no contest. Our standard infantry rifle (the M1) is generally considered superior to the German Mauser because it was semi-auto v. bolt action. Early German tanks (Mark III and IV Panzers) were inferior to the Russian T-34’s and KV-1’s. Later (1943-45) Panthers and Tigers were on about equal footing with the upgraded T-34’s and IS-2’s, but the Germans had superior tactics and organization.

Remember all generalizations are dangerous, even this one.

22

Oh, and one other very important thing… In WW2, the U.S. had the proximity fuse, which made our artillery shells far more deadly.

23

You did get me on a few points…the M1 was far better than the German Mauser, and the Germans did lack heavy bombers. But American heavy bombers were death traps that win only by default. The German Panther is actually considered to be the best tank of WWII…better than the Russian equivalents all around (the big advantage of the T-34 was simply that they were easy to fix, not that they did awfully well, plus there were a lot of them). German fighter planes, tanks, most infantry weapons, artillery all were superior…even many of their boat designs were superior including battleships, they simply lacked numbers.

In WWI the British invented the first tanks, but once again it is generally held that the Germans improved on the British idea.

But of course as you pointed out there are always exceptions…including the proximity fuse (though I might suggest the German 88s make up for this by being so versatile) better bombers, and utility vehicles. I shall take care with my generalizations in the future.

24

(My apologies for the major hijack…)

You might call American bombers death traps, but what of the German U-boats? Their purpose was similar (strategic destruction of enemy resources/production capability), both are probably classified as best of their respective breeds, but your odds of survival were better in the bombers. The fact that U-boat crews were in it for the duration certainly decreased their chances, but 30,000 of 40,000 German submariners were lost at sea.

The Panther was arguably the best all-around tank, in terms of armament, maneverability, and protection, but it was not necessarily the best in survivability, which would likely go to the Tiger II. Somewhere around 80-90% of Tiger II kills were mobility kills, when the crew usually survived. Very important if you are actually in the tank. Honestly I’d prefer Tiger II’s (or better yet jagdtigers) if I had to be on defense in Germany 44-45.

But remember that neither of those German tanks were operational until 1943 and the initial Panther was underpowered. Not until later '43 or early '44 were the bugs worked out. The T-34 was state of the art the entire war, 1941-45, comparable to the German Mark IV in lasting power, and arguably a superior design (to the Mark IV, not the V). The best is often simply a matter of opinion.

One interesting statistic I’ve read regarding about the proximity fuse… When the Russians fought the Germans, roughly 90% of German casualities were incurred by Russian infantry, 10% by Russian artillery. When Americans fought Germans, those percentages were reversed. (90% of German casualities inflicted by American artillery.) I’m not sure where armor and aircraft factored into the equation, though.

Finally, while I don’t remember much off the top of my head about their German counterparts, do not underestimate the importance of the Jeep and other unarmored vehicles. Much of the Wehrmacht relied heavily on horse transport; so did the Russians. That’s why, out of all the equipment we gave the Russians, none was more valuable to them than our trucks.

25

Boris:
thanks for the info on Igor Sikorskie’s 4-engine bomber-it is sad to reflect that this great genius never got the credit he deserved. Two further questions:
(1) I understand that Czar Nicholas actually took a short flight in Sikorskie’s bomber, after which he presented Igor with a gold medal
(2) I saw a cable show a while back-they had an excellent show about Sikorskie, with and interview with (his) son. His son said that his father was quite a mystic-he had several visions of himself in the future, with the planes he latewr designed-are there any good biographies that touch on this?

26

Commenting to Appolion, the Spad XIII did indeed have more power than the Fokker DVII, and had better straight line and diving speed, and could attain a better altitude. It was flown by some of the best allied pilots, including Rene Fonk and Eddie Rickenbacker. The engine was considered “reliable,” but there was an American maxim about selecting a Spad: if it flew for an hour, you kept it.

On the other hand, the DVII had a better power to weight ratio, and was capable of performing what some believe to be the deadliest and most effective maneuver of the Great War: the propeller hang. Basically, a propeller hang involves using the power of the engine to keep it aloft while keeping the nose of the plane at up to forty-five degrees off the line of level flight. This maneuver transformed the DVII into a weapon capable of firing outside of its flight path. Slipping into a propeller hang could force a pursuer to fly past a DVII, often right into the line of sight of its guns. The maneuver could also be used in the same sneak-up-from-below-and-fire fashion that Albert Ball had used with the traversing Lewis gun on his Nieuport, only with twice the firepower and the engine already at full power should the victim notice.

Something like five hundred allied aircraft fell to DVIIs in the final months of the war, largely due to the propeller hang. The DVII was considered so dangerous it was specifically mentioned in the treaty of Versallies: all DVIIs were to be given over to the allies. Antony Fokker snuck off to the Netherlands with several hundred engines and frames, and produced DVIIs for the Dutch Air Force. They remained in service there into the late 1920s.

27

Excellent info! Thanks, Sofa King. :cool:

28

**EGKelly

It sounds like you know about as much as I do. Just about all I know about the man I have gleaned from descriptions of his aircraft. I know virtually zilch about his life, other than that he started out working for the Czar and ended up working in the United States. And some really impressive helicopters have his name on them. It’s funny, the other really big helicopters are all Soviet … maybe there is something inherently Russian about the helicopter…

29

A point or two to add on Rotary engines:

Both the Camel and the DR1 used rotaries - in addition to their unique features aptly described by Johnny L.A., the exhaust stacks, attached to the cylinders, spun around like everything else - as already stated, this meant that the castor-oil laden exhaust “poopified” (sorry, couldn’t help it) the pilot pretty quickly, but it also kept the entire front-half of the fuselage in a perpetual state of filth since any particle of dust, dirt, or whatever would stick to it. Accordingly, Richtofen’s scarlet red DR1 was rarely as pristine as it’s commonly depicted.

While having the whole engine rotate around a fixed shaft offered abundant torque, it also contributed to keeping it cooler for longer periods compared to the radials and water-cooled engines of the time. But its configuration also made it practically impossible to connect any external controls to the engine, like - oh, I dunno, say… a throttle?

Therefore, power was “controlled” through a simple on/off magneto kill-switch - It was flown either at full throttle, or none at all, or put another way: full-torque, or none. This made speed and directional control tricky business, especially during the gradual bleed-off of speed during landing. The pilot would “burp” the engine in short spurts to keep above stalling speed until it was safe to flare.

As if staying alive at full-throttle wasn’t hard enough! :eek:

Finally - if you’d like to fly a DR1 or a Camel yourself, you can! All you need is a moderately powerful computer, and a fun sim called “Dawn Of Aces” (download here). This is a “pay” online combat simulator, but you don’t have to pay a cent to have a blast with it: the download is free, and head-to-head (IP address to IP address) combat is free as well - additionally, the off-line play mode is quite fun has reasonable artifical intelligence enemies. And the flight models are excellent!

30

momo,

Damn! I knew I forgot to mention something! The throttle was it.

(Aside: When I had a Porsche, it had a momo steering wheel.)

How does Dawn of Aces compare to Red Baron 3D?

31

Johnny L.A.

The last time I played Red Baron, 286 MHz desktops cost $2500! :smiley: Although I had a very good time playing it, I’m not at all familiar with the lastest incarnation of that sim. So sorry, can’t help you there.

I like Dawn Of Aces 'cause it’s free, has 3D graphics, and head-to-head play is a blast. The flight models are quite accurate, at least according to the many web-pages I’ve perused that are devoted to this game (although the Camel and DR1’s unique throttle is not duplicated - maybe Red Baron wins out here).

And I’ll also admit I’m even a bigger fan of War Birds, the WWII equivalent of DOA, and available from the same link.

If anything, download it and try it out - at least it won’t cost you anything!