Jump to content

What were opposing Air Forces who battled against each others opinions of their enemys Aircraft?


One 48

Recommended Posts

I only stumbled across this by pure accident looking for something else, but of course and as always ... Google can lead you on to other interesting tangents.

In a Nutshell, what did real RAF and Luftwaffe pilots think of their opposing Aircraft if, and actually they did get to fly a captured one?

Its an interesting read and comparable to my oldie and goldie competing Motorcycle days to be honest :) Honestly back in my prime really tried most brands of Motorcycles, Suzuki, Yamaha, Honda's mostly and although I have trained myself out of brand loyalty now, in my prime and in my late teens and early twenties grew a preference for Suzuki Superbikes for lots of reasons, but mostly the hours I put in riding them. This was same age set as typical Battle of Britain pilots, so perhaps a bit of brand loyalty on both sides back then too and not really unbiased reporting me thinks :)

Have a read of the article please, this post will make a lot more sense then I hope.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/testing-enemy-aircraft.html
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha, this is a never ending srorry..

 

In early days the man fought with a sword. If the sword is broken, it is a matter of the smith.

 

In old days and new days in aviation: There is the pilots and mechanic and general view.

If you are beaten by number, than you have a problem. No matter of type. This happened after 1943.

If you are winning, and are superior, it is different.  But here the loosing starts. Because you will not start improoving a winning type. The looser will rapidly start improoving.

Only a short swift war freezes the technology. Happened so in Israel.

 

Each advantage can be tomorrows disadvantage.

 

Happy modelling 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched an interview with a P-51 pilot some time ago. He said that the only airframe the Germans possessed that came even close to the Mustang was the FW-190. He didn't have a very high opinion of the Bf-109, at all. A German pilot has been quoted as claiming the G-Model '109 was a "do-do bucket" (he used stronger words than I have) and he questioned why they were still flying the design. 

 

I read that German pilots on the Eastern Front were ordered to never engage the Yak-3 above 12,000 feet, as the Soviet fighter was significantly better than its Nazi opponents above that height.

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Main Luftwaffe fighters were always dangerous to oponents, as were the main opponents fighters to Luftwaffe fighters.

Early on the Germans seemed to have a slightly upper hand with their BFF 109 E and short nodsed FW-190, late I the war those designs increased in weight a ( and firepower) to fight off bombers.. 

The Me-262 was arguably better compared to Allieds... but is rather short supply....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the time the P-51 came along  - in a version which could get over Germany- the 109 was a seriously old design. The FW-190 was a much later design.

 

Of course the P-51, like all Allied fighters, benefited greatly from the higher octane fuels produced by the Allies. The story of how those fuels were kept available despite the challenges of the loss of so many refineries and oil types was a fascinating one. Some superb chemistry was involved, and some imaginative blending and transport of critical special materials.  The contribution of those chemists is often overlooked. 

 

John B

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

I read that German pilots on the Eastern Front were ordered to never engage the Yak-3 above 12,000 feet, as the Soviet fighter was significantly better than its Nazi opponents above that height.

Cheers. 

Chris. 

I think it was the other way around, the Yak-3 was so dominant at low level, that the The Luftwaffe issued an order to "avoid combat below five thousand metres with Yakovlev fighters lacking an oil cooler intake beneath the nose!

Also borne out by other sources.

Steve.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go for later,

American pilot got the chance to fly MiG-15s during the Korean war and were impress by its turning capability....

Later, Israeli pilits got the chance to fly wrongly landed MiG-21and found out its strength and weaknesses...

The other way round seems to either have occurred less frequently, or not reported.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... what did real RAF and Luftwaffe pilots think of their opposing Aircraft"?

 

Prof. Dr. Ludwig ‘Ziskus’ Franzisket was Adjutant, then Staffelkapitän of the 1./JG 27, and one of the first three “Afrikans” to be awarded the Ritterkreuz (23.July 1941, having already flown more than 200 missions):

“The appearance of the Tomahawks (in the Battle of Sollum, June 1941) was not very impressive.  These units flew a very clumsy and tight formation, massed in immobile groups of thirty to forty aircraft.  The tactics of the Bf 109s was to gain superior altitude very quickly and to dive down single-handed.  The British squadrons answered only with an excited twisting and weaving.  However it was a deadly mistake for a Bf 109 pilot to try and enter a dogfight with the Curtisses.  I have seen the death of two or three comrades in dogfights with Curtisses, among them Leutnant Heinz Schmidt in June 1941.” (Schmidt, a 6-victory ace of the 3./JG 27, was KIA 28.June 1941, 10km West of Capuzzo)

 

Rudolf Sinner, Technical Officer with II/JG 27, later Staffelkapitän of  the 6./JG 27:

“It was unintelligible to me that the British built Hurricanes and used them against the Germans in 1942.  Likewise I was astonished that they used the Curtiss for other tasks than bomber escort.  These points, together with insufficient armament (machine guns in the wings) and bad cannon ammunition, were a blessing to us.  It was a mistake that the Spitfires arrived in Africa so late.  In the course of my not too frequent encounters with Spitfire squadrons in Africa, I had the impression that the pilots were not using the very dangerous advantages of this type to the best.  The Spitfire squadrons in Africa – contrary to those on the Channel Front – operated in a heavy and clumsy way.  Perhaps the pilots had trouble getting accustomed to the new type."

 

Lt. Friedrich Körner, 2./JG 27

“I cannot understand why the Spitfire was introduced so late to the Desert.  Perhaps there was a priority for the defense of the motherland, or maybe the Spitfire was not ready for desert conditions earlier?  The first news of the appearance of the Spitfires caused a certain anxiety and tension, especially among some of the older pilots who had experienced the Spitfires over the Channel in 1940.  Fortunately some Spitfires were shot down in the first days and the spell was broken.  The Spitfire was equal in speed, superior in turning, but inferior in the dive.  I have often experienced Spitfires not pursuing in a dive, or breaking off.  After a few days we lost our fear of the Spitfires.”

 

GRM

Edited by G.R.Morrison
insert missing word
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read from a few sources that the appearance of soviet-piloted Mig-15's in the Korean conflict put the fear of God into many American pilots. Although it was not much to look at, it proved fast, very agile and the 30mm cannon could rip very large holes in anything it hit. I believe they pushed the F-86 Sabre in to rapid service to counter the Migs.

 

Chris. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 7:29 PM, G.R.Morrison said:

"... what did real RAF and Luftwaffe pilots think of their opposing Aircraft"?

 

GRM

And then two of the three quotes mainly point out the lack of proper air combat tactics. 

:shrug:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

There was a mention of this in Chuck Yeager's biography (which is well worth getting hold of if you haven't read it, a quite incredible life and career), he and some other pilots got hold of some of the German planes towards the end of the war as part of the US fighter development program. I can't remember the exact comments, but from memory he thought the Mustang was the superior aircraft. 

 

On a separate note, Yeager quite remarkably became an 'ace' without firing a shot. He surprised a wing of BF-109 (I think), one of the pilots panicked and tipped straight into their next-door aircraft, resulting in them both crashing. 

 

Finally on this topic, I remember seeing at Fairford Air Tattoo a group of RAF pilots looking in (and one actually sitting in) the cockpit of the Ukranian Flanker that was on display (this was 2019 I believe) and the Ukranian pilot obviously pointing out various things. So I would say there is definitely more than a passing interest in what could potentially be adversarial aircraft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
27 minutes ago, P-3s rule said:

Famous test pilot and author Captain Eric Brown's book "Wings of the Luftwaffe" gives opinions on flying captured Luftwaffe aircraft and is a great read. 

 

Eric Brown's companion book "Duels in the Sky - World War II Naval Aircraft in Combat" is an equally informative read.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hauptmann Tietzen, my Staffel commander alone has nineteen [sic] [aerial victories]! I witnessed most of his kills. It is fantastic, the way he shoots. He is the boss, he moves us into position and selects the victims, and we have to do little more than cover him...During the last few days the British have been getting weaker, though individuals continue to fight well. Often the Spitfires give beautiful displays of aerobatics. Recently I had to watch in admiration as one of them played a game with thirty Messerschmitts, without itself ever getting into danger; but such individuals are few. The Hurricanes are tired old 'puffers'."

 

-- Leutnant Hans-Otto Lessing, II.JG/51, 17 August 1940

 

Both Lessig and Tietzen were shot down and killed by Hurricanes of 501 Squadron on 18 August 1940.

 

 

 

"The 29th [of December 1944] dawns with the clearest possible sky, and very early in the morning, the aircraft reporting post informs us of large numbers of enemy fighters aloft, all of them Spitfires, the most feared of our enemies."

 

-- Feldwebel Fritz Unger, 11./JG54

 

 

"Captain [Helmut] Wick gave the impression that fighting the British Air Force was an extremely simple matter...the flier declared that the present quality of British pilots was 'laughable'."

 

-- "NAZI FLYER LAUGHS AT BRITISH AIRMEN", New York Times, October 13, 1940

 

Wick was shot down and killed on 28 November, probably by F/L John Dundas of 609 Squadron. 

 

 

I think generally pilots expressed confidence in their aircraft, as they were trained to use them in a manner that emphasized their strengths. Few German pilots considered the 109 or 190 inferior to the Spitfire, just as few RAF pilots felt the reverse was true, barring the awful period in 1941-42 when the Spitfire V was pitted against the Fw190. Kittyhawk pilots don't seem to have had a lot of confidence in their mounts in 1942; Stocky Edwards recalled pilots requesting transfers back to the more docile Hurricanes. I think almost no pilots in Burma or Malaya in 1941-42 regarded their Buffaloes or Hurricanes as superior to, or even a match for, Ki-43s or A6M2s. 

 

There's also some sample bias: most of the opinions we have now are from people who weren't killed flying their particular aircraft during the war.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Chuck Yeager flying a Spitfire in the UK and expressing the opinion it was "nothing special". I would hazard a guess that most pilots favoured the aircraft that they were most used to flying. That's human nature, I guess. 

 

Apparently, towards the end of the war, many German pilots came to feel that the Bf-109 was then obsolete and heavily outclassed by a number of Russian and Western fighters. One pilot has been quoted as describing his '109 G-Model as a "do-do bucket" (he put it in rather more direct terms than that). Weren't the highest-scoring German aces all '109 flyers?  

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spruecutter96 said:

I remember Chuck Yeager flying a Spitfire in the UK and expressing the opinion it was "nothing special". 

 

Further proof, as if any were needed, that the man who shilled aggressively for the F-20, an aircraft which lacked the ground clearance to carry most USAF stores, was an idiot.

  • Like 7
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Procopius said:

"Hauptmann Tietzen, my Staffel commander alone has nineteen [sic] [aerial victories]! I witnessed most of his kills. It is fantastic, the way he shoots. He is the boss, he moves us into position and selects the victims, and we have to do little more than cover him...During the last few days the British have been getting weaker, though individuals continue to fight well. Often the Spitfires give beautiful displays of aerobatics. Recently I had to watch in admiration as one of them played a game with thirty Messerschmitts, without itself ever getting into danger; but such individuals are few. The Hurricanes are tired old 'puffers'."

 

-- Leutnant Hans-Otto Lessing, II.JG/51, 17 August 1940

 

Both Lessig and Tietzen were shot down and killed by Hurricanes of 501 Squadron on 18 August 1940.

 

 

 

"The 29th [of December 1944] dawns with the clearest possible sky, and very early in the morning, the aircraft reporting post informs us of large numbers of enemy fighters aloft, all of them Spitfires, the most feared of our enemies."

 

-- Feldwebel Fritz Unger, 11./JG54

 

 

"Captain [Helmut] Wick gave the impression that fighting the British Air Force was an extremely simple matter...the flier declared that the present quality of British pilots was 'laughable'."

 

-- "NAZI FLYER LAUGHS AT BRITISH AIRMEN", New York Times, October 13, 1940

 

Wick was shot down and killed on 28 November, probably by F/L John Dundas of 609 Squadron. 

 

 

I think generally pilots expressed confidence in their aircraft, as they were trained to use them in a manner that emphasized their strengths. Few German pilots considered the 109 or 190 inferior to the Spitfire, just as few RAF pilots felt the reverse was true, barring the awful period in 1941-42 when the Spitfire V was pitted against the Fw190. Kittyhawk pilots don't seem to have had a lot of confidence in their mounts in 1942; Stocky Edwards recalled pilots requesting transfers back to the more docile Hurricanes. I think almost no pilots in Burma or Malaya in 1941-42 regarded their Buffaloes or Hurricanes as superior to, or even a match for, Ki-43s or A6M2s. 

 

There's also some sample bias: most of the opinions we have now are from people who weren't killed flying their particular aircraft during the war.  

 

 

 

 

 

That German pilots were shot down by Hurricanes during the BoB does not mean that the average RAF pilot and the Hurricane were superior to the average Luftwaffe pilot and the 109E. Just commenting on the aircraft, nobody would have chosen a Hurricane instead of a 109E in 1940.

Even very experienced aces were shot down and often by relatively poor pilots, does this make those aces lesser pulots than what they were ? We keep believing in the idea that the better pilot will always win but the reality is very different as factors like numbers and tactical situation often matter much more, The 109E over Britain may found themselves in a situation where they were at a disadvantage against the defeders, in the same way as during the various actions over occupied France the same RAF Squadrons that won the BoB showed a much less stellar performance.

16 hours ago, spruecutter96 said:

I remember Chuck Yeager flying a Spitfire in the UK and expressing the opinion it was "nothing special". I would hazard a guess that most pilots favoured the aircraft that they were most used to flying. That's human nature, I guess. 

 

Apparently, towards the end of the war, many German pilots came to feel that the Bf-109 was then obsolete and heavily outclassed by a number of Russian and Western fighters. One pilot has been quoted as describing his '109 G-Model as a "do-do bucket" (he put it in rather more direct terms than that). Weren't the highest-scoring German aces all '109 flyers?  

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris.  

 

With pilots in general they tend to favour the types that are designed and built for the kind of combat they are trained for. There were (and there still are..) quite a few differences between the British and American approach to aircraft design and it's no surprise that someone used to American products would find a British one disconcerting in certain aspects

There's also the matter of what kind of Spitfire Yeager tested and when: a Spit IX for example would have likely been impressive in 1942 but really nothing particularly special in late 1944. It should also be said that aspects of the Spitfire design were considered not fully satisfactory even by Supermariine designers and test pilots, so much that the company proposed a number of improvements that the need for immediate production postponed. Afterall it was the Spitfire VIII that was supposed to be the definitive Merlin variant and yet this was built in much smaller number than the simpler and less ideal Mk.IX.

 

Regarding the 109G, at the end of the war this was indeed an aircraft that was surpassed by many others and the G-6 in particular ended being underpowered when loaded with extra weapons and so on.

And yet yes, the German highest scoring aces flew 109s, meaning that the aircraft in any case retained its value for most of the war.. but then all the factors mentioned above apply, as

 

 

15 hours ago, Procopius said:

 

Further proof, as if any were needed, that the man who shilled aggressively for the F-20, an aircraft which lacked the ground clearance to carry most USAF stores, was an idiot.

 

Yeager was hired by Northrop to promote the F-20, he would have been an idiot if he had criticized the aircraft that his employers were proposing, in praising the aircraft he only did what he was paid for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

Yeager was hired by Northrop to promote the F-20, he would have been an idiot if he had criticized the aircraft that his employers were proposing, in praising the aircraft he only did what he was paid for

 

My comment was tongue in cheek, but there's plenty of testimony to the fact that he was a deeply unpleasant man who was promoted well above his competency principally because he once flew very fast.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Procopius said:

My comment was tongue in cheek, but there's plenty of testimony to the fact that he was a deeply unpleasant man who was promoted well above his competency principally because he once flew very fast.

Anyone who was happy to undergo a very important and historical test-flight fully in the knowledge he had broken-ribs from falling off a horse, has a touch of the over-confident fool to him, to be frank. If he'd had a bale-out for any reason on that test-flight, his ribs' condition could have proved to have been a great detriment to him, or possibly even fatal. Having said that, I'm guessing that punching-out at supersonic speeds would have been impossible in those days, anyway. Was the Bell X-1 even fitted with an ejection-seat? I suspect not. 

 

Still, he got his name in the history-books, didn't he? 

 

Cheers. 

 

Chris.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, spruecutter96 said:

Was the Bell X-1 even fitted with an ejection-seat? I suspect not. 

 

Nope. Not too many seats in service in 1947 even on production aircraft.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Procopius said:

 

My comment was tongue in cheek, but there's plenty of testimony to the fact that he was a deeply unpleasant man who was promoted well above his competency principally because he once flew very fast.

 

We often tend to see great aviators or soldiers as perfect in everything, but really not a few are not nice people in person. Doesn't mean that there aren't nice people among them of course. In any case people who strive to be the best often tend to be so self confident to sometime become totally arrogant.

Regarding promotions, well many in every armed force in the world are promoted due more to their personal connections than their effective value, so at least having one promoted because of a record flight. I mean, there have been generals who really owe their fame more to their good PR skills than their effective value in war....

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

Regarding promotions, well many in every armed force in the world are promoted due more to their personal connections than their effective value, so at least having one promoted because of a record flight. I mean, there have been generals who really owe their fame more to their good PR skills than their effective value in war....

 

 

Yes, I was going to add, it's not unknown. I imagine it will be perennially an issue in any fighting service, where qualities admirable in peace or wartime may not necessarily correspond with those required for grappling with thorny intellectual problems or to lead men, just as Admiral Sir A C F "Pompo" Heneage brought the Channel Fleet to a running moor in Vigo under half a gale and was an outstanding seaman, but was possibly also insane, no doubt a minor bagatelle to his peers, but a subject of keen interest to his subordinates. But I've taken us far afield.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...