Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK (Adrian Hurt) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Surprise in air combat Message-ID: <10185@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 13 Oct 89 02:39:59 GMT References: <9876@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Computer Science, Heriot-Watt U., Scotland Lines: 65 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Adrian Hurt In article <9876@cbnews.ATT.COM> amdcad!tanner@dssmv1.mpr.ca (Tim Tanner) writes: >Germany started off the war with two very different fighters. The Me-109 and >Me-110... The Me-109 is comparable to the Spitfire or Hurricane in >design philosophy. The initial design of the Me-109 was with TWO machine >guns in the wings. Once the German high command found out that the British >planes were going have EIGHT machine guns, they changed their design specs and >required eight machine guns too. Minor correction; the early Me-109's had two MG's in the wings, two in the nose above the engine, and sometimes a fifth inside the engine, firing through the propellor hub. The Me-109E replaced the wing guns and propellor guns with 20mm cannons. But the bulge in the wings to accomodate the cannon there impaired the handling of the aircraft, and no subsequent Me-109 had guns mounted in the wings again. (This doesn't include various bolt-on kits, such as gun pods and rocket launchers.) The Me-109F had one 20mm cannon, but that was the fast firing MG 151, whose rate of fire made it the equivalent of at least two of the older cannons. This was mounted in the propellor position. And some later variants had a 30mm cannon there instead. >... Another German fighter plane that was designed (?) and >produced during the war was the Fw-190. It was suppose to be an excellant >fighter, and I think it emphasised speed and firepower over maneuverability It had the lot. It was fast, manoeuvrable, and the earlier versions had two old-type MG FF 20mm cannons plus two of the fast-firing MG 151 cannons. The latter were mounted in the wing roots, and had to fire through the propellor arc, which slowed them down a bit. Later versions of the Fw 190A had four of those MG 151's, giving them firepower unmatched until the Ta-152 (four MG 151's plus a 30mm gun in the nose) and the Me-262 (four 30mm guns in the nose). >One final point on this, wasn't the Sopwith Pup replaced by the Sopwith >Camel which was very tricky to fly, but highly maneuverable? It was indeed. >In WW2, German high command had (initially) a highly trained and well motivated >air crews. However, these crews and their airplanes were used for missions >that they were not designed for. For instance, during the Battle of Britain >Me-109's could not stay over the UK long enough to defend the bombers since >they didn't have long range tanks. It also didn't help that Goering (Britain's greatest ally in the Battle of Britain) insisted that the fighters stick close with the bomber formations, instead of going and using their speed and agility. > Also the bombers were one or two engined >bombers that were meant to support the army. They were not designed for >actions such as the blitz. I'd think the Heinkel He-111 was designed for exactly that - it did it in the Spanish Civil War, for a start. The Ju-87 Stuka wasn't a strategic bomber, and wasn't used as such. It was intended to be used when enemy fighters had been wiped out; fortunately, the Germans didn't quite succeed in doing that to Britain. (They came close; then the RAF bombed Berlin; so Goering switched targets, and went for London, giving the RAF the break it needed. See above comment on Goering.) "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk