PDA

View Full Version : Ta-152 H.



Metatron_123
08-29-2011, 11:15 AM
This is a much hyped aircraft, in fact I have never written anything 'neutral' about it. It's all 'I wish we had this earlier!' or 'We were lucky the Germans didn't make more' or 'contender for the best fighter of the war'

I know it was designed as a high altitude fighter, but it was never used as such. Also what I have read suggests it was supremely maneuverable.

In game, I find it completely inferior to the Fw-190D, it's not maneuverable, and presents a huge target with those endless wings. In fact, even against a Spitfire IX, it has a tough time. If you let the ai fight among themselves, the Tank rarely wins against it's contemporaries.

So what's the deal? Is this strictly a high altitude plane? Is the performance pessimistically modeled?

(I have searched the forum and have found similar topics, but not much useful feedback)

Bremspropeller
08-29-2011, 12:20 PM
Think about it this way:

Most (if not all!) pilots that flew the 152 in combat had been flying A-8s or A-9s before and were now upgrading to a much superior aircraft - kindo of like stepping up to the D-9.

The Ta 152 was not exactly as hot as the D-9 down-low, but boy could it turn (comparatively) and boy did it go up-high!

Morale and spiritual strength can never be overestimated!

Imagine the boost to fighting-spirit when you see one of those thing being towed in front of you and being told "there are some more in the pipe!".

JtD
08-29-2011, 12:56 PM
In game, climb, turn, range, firepower and high altitude speed are all superior to the D-9(45). It's not a bad thing for a high altitude plane.

You should also consider that the D-9 is modelled very optimistically in game, so it might not be fair to compare the Ta 152 directly.

Wildnoob
08-29-2011, 02:23 PM
I don't fly in any sim since the start of the year, but have to say that I'm shocked with some of the comments here.

I have checked the lastest vanilla planes with the IL2 compare, and the TA 152 H-1 looks a monster against the Allied fighters in medium and specially high altitude to me. Since I'm studying a lot of flight theory to start my private pilot course soon, think I'm with a too much theorist basis, damn! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Metatron_123
08-29-2011, 02:30 PM
@Wildnoob The thing it was almost never used as a high altitude fighter, but was praised anyway.

I fly it in game accordingly, at low to mid altitudes.

@Brems, what you are saying makes sense, I hadn't considered that most pilots that flew it had either the Fw-190A or Bf 109G previously.

Jtd, you are right about the D-9(44) being modelled optimistically, there is a mod that gives it almost spot on historical top speed. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

So is the consensus that the Ta-152 is only really better than the Fw-190 D at high altitude?

Wildnoob
08-29-2011, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
@Wildnoob The thing it was almost never used as a high altitude fighter, but was praised anyway.

The H, really. It was an interceptor after all. But you need to considerate the C series, with shorter wings and the DB603 engine. This was the 152 intended for more low level work.

Luno13
08-29-2011, 09:04 PM
So is the consensus that the Ta-152 is only really better than the Fw-190 D at high altitude?

As far as I recall, the Ta-152 and FW-190 D-9 had to be used at low altitude to deal with the Russians, who were also generally fighting at lower altitudes. In this situation, I think the advantages of the D-9 disappear as it can't zoom away as easily when in trouble.

In order to find Il-2's in a patrol area with closed pit, flying low is necessary to find the aircraft. At such an altitude, I had a lot of trouble dealing with the Yaks that normally escort the Il-2s. I had little altitude advantage to start, and turn rate is not the strong suit of the D-9. I think the Ta-152 would fare a bit better here. Long story short, my flight got bogged down with the Yaks and were unable to make passes on the Sturmoviks before they made their targets. Even though I made a Yak kill, it was a hollow victory.

DKoor
08-30-2011, 10:07 AM
Put that long winged baby in shallow dive at 8500m... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Bah, to me it's one of the most potent airplanes in the game. Always was, always probably will be unless they seriously nerf it.
Unless on high speed it is nothing special down low, but medium and high altitudes are where this airplane is at home.

Wildnoob
08-30-2011, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Luno13:

In order to find Il-2's in a patrol area with closed pit, flying low is necessary to find the aircraft. At such an altitude, I had a lot of trouble dealing with the Yaks that normally escort the Il-2s. I had little altitude advantage to start, and turn rate is not the strong suit of the D-9. I think the Ta-152 would fare a bit better here. Long story short, my flight got bogged down with the Yaks and were unable to make passes on the Sturmoviks before they made their targets. Even though I made a Yak kill, it was a hollow victory.

AI or human players?

horseback
08-30-2011, 12:54 PM
sounds to me as though Luno's talking about the stock single mission for the D-9 that came with Forgotten Battles.

There aren't a lot of pilot reports from either side about the Ta-152; the only one I can recall involved a turning contest at low level with a Tempest, which stalled out and crashed. So the Ta was probably more maneuverable than a Tempest, which was generally considered equal to or better than the Dora at medium alts and below.

Would that make the Ta-152C/H competitive with a Spit Mk XIV or a lightly loaded Mustang in a medium altitude turning contest?

cheers

horseback

Wildnoob
08-30-2011, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by horseback:

Would that make the Ta-152C/H competitive with a Spit Mk XIV or a lightly loaded Mustang in a medium altitude turning contest?

cheers

horseback

About the Spit I will not say nothing, but against the Mustang B/D will risk to say the 152 H would enjoy a good advantage because the conventional wings with better lift coefficient than the Mustang's laminar profile, and their greater span, also providing more lift and therefore superiority in prolongued maneuvers. Engine power and weight of both planes were similar.

Luno13
08-30-2011, 05:15 PM
AI or human players?

AI. I often can't find enough human players to fill even a small coop game. Although the AI don't compare to human players, they are always available to play with http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Wildnoob
08-30-2011, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Luno13:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
AI or human players?

AI. I often can't find enough human players to fill even a small coop game. Although the AI don't compare to human players, they are always available to play with http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the problem with the uber Yaks then. The AI is much superior to any human player. The more respectable Yaks are the 3 and 9U, and being flow in group the 152 H is capable of deal with them and Sturmoviks effectively even at low level.

Metatron_123
08-30-2011, 07:50 PM
DKoor, you are right about medium to high altitudes. Had some fun with it last night against some Spit XIVs.

Bah, I don't know, it seems to me one of those fussy planes that promise a bit more than they deliver under practical circumstances. I'd rather go with a D-9 just cause it's a smaller target and pretty much equal to anything in the allied arsenal anyway.

TipsyTed
08-31-2011, 03:14 AM
I remember having an online duel with one of these things while I was in a Mustang Mk III (maybe on spits vs 109s, or pehraps on UKD-3). While none of us was able to achieve an advantage over the other at medium altitudes, he then dragged me up into stratospehere where he easily outperformed me. I had to dive and run like there is no tomorrow to save my @ss. Whole thing must have lasted an hour or so, one of the most epic online duels I've had, despite none of us scored any hits.

CloCloZ
09-01-2011, 11:22 AM
Some times ago I wrote on a web page my considerations about Ta-152, taking my cue from a famous (and usually misunderstood) air dogfight event.

Frankly speaking, I really think that it's an incredibly over-hyped and overrated plane, whose reputation has been built mainly onto dubious tales.
That doesn't mean it was a bad plane but that it wasn't much better (or no better at all, all things considered) than late FW Doras.

The amount of hype surrounding Ta-152 is huge, considering that it was, in substance, an operational failure.
It failed, for suspiciously obscure and little believeable reasons (an attack from friend aircrafts!), its only action against US bombers, i.e. the goal it was designed for (!).
It had a lackluster score against fighters too (about 2:1 kill-loss ratio), even more if you consider that it was flown by a lot of aces.

However, by this time I think it's difficult to stop the hype: business reasons (books, scale models ..., there are likely more than the number of operational Ta152 in WWII http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and a good amount of "fans' bigotry" contribute to that.

My considerations here:
http://clocloz.altervista.org/...ombat_14-4-1945.html (http://clocloz.altervista.org/history/wwii/aviation/ludwigslust/Ludwigslust_aerial_combat_14-4-1945.html)

(Part 2 is specifically about the hype issue).

All this is obviously related to RL, in game I think it's a good plane but nothing exceptional (especially at medium and low heights).
The only thing I found to be above average is its AI Ace skill, one of the better I've seen (as verified setting up all-AI ace battles). At skills lower than Ace the AI advantage is not so relevant.

Bremspropeller
09-01-2011, 12:29 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It's kinda hard to stack up enormous kill-scores when an aircraft is only out in-service for a couple of weeks, basicly in pre-serial state and laden with lots of detail-problems to solve in-service.

Then again, it's hard to blame an airplane for it's business-case not materializng that much (anymore) at a time-frame that late into the Luftwaffe's breakdown.

BTW: the 152H wasn't so much aimed at shooting don B-17s, it was aimed at shooting down the evntual B-29s and photo-recce planes.

When the 152H came into limited"service", the state of the Luftwaffe was so bad, they'd throw up anything against any threat, regardless of mission-suitability.

Those "aces" not scoring any more kills isn't a fault of the airplane, unless you'd argue that only weeks before war's end, any of the Alte Hasen wanted to get killed in a stupid dogfight - just to get one or two kills more to brag about.
The issue was all about survival.

What's more interesting is how those pilots assessed the aircraft to be a real step forward and pretty much besting the planes they flew beforehand in any category.

The aircraft was very good, yet it hadn't come up to it's full potential.
Was it the best airplane? Most-assuredly not.
Was it among the best and did it possess the capability of going strong for another couple of years during the transitions to jet-fighters? You betcha!

Metatron_123
09-01-2011, 12:32 PM
@Cloclo, Lots of interesting information in your analysis, the only thing I disagree with is comparing kill/loss ratios, because that assumes that it was a level playing field. Even the Me-262 has a similarly unimpressive kill/loss ratio though it was flown by many aces and everyone freely admits that it was the most advanced operational fighter of the war.

edit: Agree with Brems that Luftwaffe pilots were nowhere near as confident as during the early days, the good pilots knew that there was no point in seeking combat unless there was a good chance of success/survival.

JtD
09-01-2011, 02:16 PM
It's funny that the Ta 152 is supposed to have been an operational failure where I'd argue that it wasn't even operational.

Replacing the Fw 190 A-8, it gave a good boost in overall performance.

CloCloZ
09-01-2011, 02:52 PM
Some points.

1) Allies vs Luftwaffe from D-Day to Victory.
First: the setting.
No doubt that Allies had global HUGE air superiority (number, total power of fire, fuel ...) but that doesn't imply that they had so much LOCAL superiority in air battles between fighters and fighter-bombers, such as battles where Ta152 was employed. Simply, Luftwaffe was able to fought just small scale battles, especially after the failure of Bodenplatte, leaving the most part of the territory largely uncovered.

Second: the pilots.
Pierre Clostermann wrote that "All in all the average standard of German fighter pilots was much higher at the turn of the year 1944-45 than any other time since 1940".
Clostermann also said that downing the survived german aces of the last part of the war was near to impossible: they flown and fought continuously, until death or victory, so they acquired an incredible high skill. These are the men that constituted half of all Ta-152 pilots (obviously, they weren't at the same level of Heinrich Bar but some of them got many kills in one year of career or less).
I never know of any sign that German aces were renunciative during last months. In my examination I also pointed out the risk of court-martial if they were!
If you consider that HALF of the pilots that flown Ta-152 were aces, you can easily understand that Ta-152 opponents were, on the average, at a clear skill disadvantage. The Ludwigslust combat is one example.

Third: the task.
Ta-152 were pure fighters/interceptors whereas some of its stronger opponent planes (P47, Tempest) were fighter-bomber, usually dedicated to ground attack much more than to interception.
So, I found quite surprising that a fighter-bomber like the Tempest, so much dedicated to ground targets attack and so often using its precious ammunitions against trains and the like (the Ludwigslust battle is an example, again), has a MUCH better (8:1) air combat kill-loss ratio than the pure fighter (and often ace-flown) Ta-152. Is not surprising just if you forget all the hype about the German plane and start to think at it nowhere near to an exceptional plane.

So, was it a level playing field?
Not about numbers in the most cases (although in some cases, as the case I examined, it was) but (for Ta-152) not even about pilots' skill! And in the last case, the advantage was all for the German plane.


2) Me-262 was much more an interceptor than a fighter. It fought against large and very dangerous bombers formations, heavily escorted, so it's not surprising it suffered heavy losses. Moreover, it was vulnerable at landing (at least until Germans started to protect them with a deadly flak).
Ta-152 never fought, AFAIK, such dangerous battles against overwhelming number of opponents.

3) High praises for the plane from German pilots: a large part of my examination is devoted to explain that, so I won't repeat it here. I think we have to face the fact that neither combat score nor performance data (at least at medium-low heights) justify such resounding judgments.

4) Would Ta-152 have been relevant if it would have been deployed in larger numbers? I'm quite skeptical about that.
Against high altitude bombers, Me-262 was a much more advanced plane and there would have been no much sense in investing on a piston-powered interceptor. He-162 could have been another good solution against bombers.
Against fighters and fighter-bombers, D-12 and D-13 Doras were even better at low-medium heights and BF109-K was great too.

My conclusions.
I think that Kurt Tank simply missed the jet boat (not missed by Messerschmitt, Heinkel and Arado) and tried to make up for that betting on a long-winged piston interceptor, in the same planning line of the Doras (please, don't tell me that it replaced A8 ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ).
But, at the end, it turned out to be an useless (and, in fact, unused) high-altitude interceptor (which miserably failed its only interception mission) and an anything but exceptional low-heights fighter.
Not bad but not better than the last Doras (it seems that Tank himself admitted that after the war, talking with Eric Brown, confirmation sought here).
That's why I call it an operational failure.

JtD
09-01-2011, 10:46 PM
please, don't tell me that it replaced A8 ...

Yeah, yeah, why bother with facts. But for everyone else on this board: The first and only Luftwaffe unit to be (partially) equipped with Ta 152 was was the III group of JG 301, a unit that had been using 190 A-8's up to January 45, which was when the few Ta 152's came.

Outside of that, there only was the Rechlin based "Erprobungskommando Ta 152" ("test unit Ta 152" of the Rechlin Luftwaffe test center) which got designated Stabsstaffel JG 301 in early 1945, but had nothing to do with JG 301 as it remained a test unit for Rechlin.

Metatron_123
09-02-2011, 01:05 AM
The problem with the logic of comparing kill ratios is that probably no German fighter had an impressive kill ratio in 1945. The Fw-190D? Let me guess, 1-1.5:1 in the West and 2-3:1 in the East? The real numbers might never be known, but in general that's the sort of pattern we're looking at. The fact is that Western Allied 'rookies' were still receiving more training than their Luftwaffe counterparts, and the Soviet air force had become reasonably competent and well equipped while of course having the advantage of numbers. There were to be few easy victories for the Luftwaffe pilots regardless of their skill level at this point.

Another point-Both in Kommando Nowotny and in Jg-7 during it's formative stages, many accidents and losses during combat were attributed to insufficient training-two separate observations to this effect being made by a Messerschmitt test pilot and an operational Jg-7 pilot(can't be bothered to dig up the names, source: Jg-7 by Robert Forsyth which is very well researched). So even though most pilots in Jg-7 were generally experienced, they were often inexperienced Me-262 pilots and stuck to bad habits because there was no one to correct them. Of course the peculiarities of jet engines were new to them in a big way, but who is to say that many Ta-152 pilots were similarly inexperienced on that particular type, while otherwise competent pilots? And this is just one hypothesis.

Any number of things could have been going wrong, especially at the beginning of a plane's career. What if the Hawker Typhoon's career had ended as soon? Wouldn't we have been left with the structural problems and the assumption that it wasn't that great? Imagine that situation but with ten times the pressure from enemy air forces and the resulting hopes invested in the type.

I agree that the type is hyped, because there is not much operational proof that it was great(though the pilots themselves including Eric Brown praise it, so that's something).
However I do not agree that there is proof that it wasn't a good plane. I think your conclusion from a messy and inconclusive situation is too 'clean'.

Anyway, I think we are splitting hairs, and I always feel like a massive nerd when I realize that the pilots actually involved in these events don't lose sleep over these things. Pilots give you simple, to the point opinions: 'This plane was great.' 'this plane flies like a brick'. 'More Me-262s pls'

CloCloZ
09-02-2011, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">please, don't tell me that it replaced A8 ...

Yeah, yeah, why bother with facts. But for everyone else on this board: The first and only Luftwaffe unit to be (partially) equipped with Ta 152 was was the III group of JG 301, a unit that had been using 190 A-8's up to January 45, which was when the few Ta 152's came.

Outside of that, there only was the Rechlin based "Erprobungskommando Ta 152" ("test unit Ta 152" of the Rechlin Luftwaffe test center) which got designated Stabsstaffel JG 301 in early 1945, but had nothing to do with JG 301 as it remained a test unit for Rechlin. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Facts? Well, let's look at these ...

Fact 1: Ta152-H was designed to overcome high-altitude limitations of FW190-A series
Fact 2: Fw190-D was previously designed for the same goal
Fact 3: Ta152-H airframe is derived from D9
Fact 4: Ta152-H had the same Jumo engine as Dora (since DB603 had technical problems for implementation in the plane)

So, should we consider Ta152-H as A8 successor o D9 successor/improvement?
Had its performances to be judged against D9 performances or against the older A8?
The answer is clear for everyone who honestly wants to see it.

The fact that Ta152 was performance-tested by Germans against A8 and not against its immediate and more performant D9 predecessor is one of the many things that suggest for an accurate planning of building a Ta152 image better than reality, since the beginning.
In my examination I tried to explain the reason for that, too.

CloCloZ
09-02-2011, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
The problem with the logic of comparing kill ratios is that probably no German fighter had an impressive kill ratio in 1945.


It's likely so but it's also likely that other German fighters weren't assigned just to elite units, full of aces, like Ta152 was.

Regarding German pilots skill, it was certainly a mix of experienced pilots and rookies but there is no reason to think that the average Allied pilot in 44-45 was superior to German one.
There were a lot of rookies into Allied camp too, you can read Clostermann book to have a first-hand testimony of the often poor level of young pilots he commanded.
And I don't think Allies had so many aces on the air in ETO.


Originally posted by Metatron_123:
I agree that the type is hyped, because there is not much operational proof that it was great(though the pilots themselves including Eric Brown praise it, so that's something).


In reality, Eric Brown didn't praised it so much, as I reported in my web page.



Originally posted by Metatron_123:
However I do not agree that there is proof that it wasn't a good plane. I think your conclusion from a messy and inconclusive situation is too 'clean'.


I just tried to show how insubstantial and unjustified is the hype (to which I believed too, before getting more info!), not to say it wasn't good at all.
In my opinion, it was likely good enough at high altitudes (where it was designed for), even if we had no practical proof of that, but not better than a D9 (maybe worse) at medium-low alts.
Nothing that justifies such a persistent myth.

Kettenhunde
09-02-2011, 07:30 AM
Fact 2: Fw190-D was previously designed for the same goal

Not correct


Fact 3: Ta152-H airframe is derived from D9

Sure, just as the Spitfire XXI had an airframe derived from K5054.


Fact 4: Ta152-H had the same Jumo engine as Dora (since DB603 had technical problems for implementation in the plane)

Again, not even close to being correct. Your conclusion is on the same simplistic level as someone who would make the claim all Merlin engine Spitfires are the same.

JtD
09-02-2011, 08:13 AM
"Replacing" has nothing to do with technical plane evolution. The P-51 replaced the P-38 in the 8th AF - likewise the Ta 152 replaced the Fw 190 A-8 in III/JG 301. This doesn't mean that the Ta 152 is the most recent Fw 190 A-8 version, nor does it mean that the P-51 is a direct development of the P-38.

CloCloZ
09-02-2011, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
"Replacing" has nothing to do with technical plane evolution. The P-51 replaced the P-38 in the 8th AF - likewise the Ta 152 replaced the Fw 190 A-8 in III/JG 301. This doesn't mean that the Ta 152 is the most recent Fw 190 A-8 version, nor does it mean that the P-51 is a direct development of the P-38.

In this sense I agree with you.
My point was a technical one, not related to plane replacement on JGs.

One of the main goal of D series was to overcome A series high-altitude poor performances and Ta152-H had the same aim, although even more specialized (also thinking about upcoming B29s).
This means that the touchstone for Ta152 is Dora, not the older A8 (and this especially for the many daring to state it was the best all-round fighter of the war!).
Otherwise you can't judge if Ta152 was a success or (as I think) a not so successful effort.

Fact seems to be that Tank ever considered D series just as a stopgap, to be likely improved by the upcoming and "stellar" Ta152, whereas Doras were, in reality, his best (and remarkable) achievement.
A lot of "fans" seems to go on thinking as Tank did, but at least he had the excuse that he thought that before building Ta152 ...

This also means that Ta152 was performance-compared to A8 and not to the "interim solution" D series.
But comparing a new plane with its "penultimate" predecessor can hardly be considered correct.

I'm talking about Ta152-H, since Ta152-C was not even near to be operational and any discussion could be based just on speculations.

Bremspropeller
09-02-2011, 10:06 AM
For the development-history of the entire Ta 152-project, check-out Thomas Hitchcock's book (highly recommended!) on this subject.
It draws the entire history from the initial realization about the Anton's high-alt shortcomings to the ways of tackleing the (mostly political) problems of building a high-alt fighter/ fighter with increased high-alt performance.


Factually, it was Messerschmitt who couldn't build a suitable multi-role prop-fighter, while Focke-Wulf had a pretty good contender in the Fw 190 "mid-life update" programme.

The 152-project was actually initiated pretty early in the war (together with the then cancelled 153-project) - back when the stop-gap Dora wasn't even planned.

The reason why Focke-Wulf didn't throw in a service-ready jet fighter till war's end was their pre-occupation with getting the 152 to fly - at last!

How potent their work on their own jet-fighter project was, can be seen in the eventual "Pulqui II" and "Marut" projects - both were carried-on developments of wartime studies.

BTW: don't believe too much of what Mr. Clostermann tells - most of his stories are either fiction or poorly researched/ edited.

Sillius_Sodus
09-02-2011, 10:59 AM
...BTW: don't believe too much of what Mr. Clostermann tells - most of his stories are either fiction or poorly researched/ edited.

Of course a cynic would say that Clostermann would say that the LW pilots were very good because it sounds better than bragging about shooting down pilots with only 50 hrs in their logbooks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

...Just kidding.

Bremspropeller
09-02-2011, 11:25 AM
That's not what I was implying, but several anecdotes in his book "The Big Show" made me rise an eyebrow every once in a while.

I always took it more as a great story-book than an autobiographic work.

CloCloZ
09-02-2011, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The reason why Focke-Wulf didn't throw in a service-ready jet fighter till war's end was their pre-occupation with getting the 152 to fly - at last!


I know that Tank has often to fought battles on two fronts, the technical one and the political one (but Willy Messerchmitt had its share of trouble with Nazi hierarchs, too!) and that he put his bets on Ta152.
This also gives a hint about some things, such as the propaganda that surrounded Ta152 since the beginning.
Nevertheless, I still believe that he missed a milestone not putting into a service a jet before war end (and not getting even close!).

Although I've ever liked better FW190 than BF109, at last I got convinced that Willy Messerschmitt was not only a more effective manufacturer but also a much more significant innovator than Tank (Me262, Me163, both operational!).



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
BTW: don't believe too much of what Mr. Clostermann tells - most of his stories are either fiction or poorly researched/ edited.

Well, at least he wrote his book at the end of the war and not many decades after that, such others did (e.g. Willi Reschke) ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Clostermann is often bashed but without much substantiation from his bashers (apart the usual "A yellow Focke-Wulf? It never existed!").

Contrary to your opinion, I think that Clostermann accounts are in general more trustable than the average war tales (such as Reschke's ones, just to mention one of them, even if one of the more unreliable ...).
And, in any case, its judgement about German pilots skill is not something that needs to be "researched" or "edited": it's just his opinion. You can agree or not with him, nothing to "demonstrate" here. But, remember, he was there.
I just want to add that, contrary to some beliefs, Clostermann was usually honest when speaking about his personal ability (e.g. the "it's a piece of cake!" episode which he reported in detail and with a good amount of self-irony).

Bremspropeller
09-02-2011, 11:36 AM
Although I've ever liked better FW190 than BF109, at last I got convinced that Willy Messerschmitt was not only a more effective manufacturer but also a much more significant innovator than Tank (Me262, Me163, both operational!).

Neither the 262, nor the 163 were designed by Messerschmitt himself. You titleing him as "inventor" is overblown - to say the least.


Nevertheless, I still believe that he missed a milestone not putting into a service a jet before war end (and not getting even close!).

Why waste engineering- and producton-ressources when your cash-cow is running well?
Messerschmitt had to come up with something, as his 109-airframe wasn't up to the task anymore. The 109K was what we call "Ende der Fahnenstange" - it had no uprgrade-potential whatsoever, compared to the 190-family.

The 262 needed prop-fighter escorts to cover the take-off and landing-phase. Would have been a bad idea to do that with jets too, wouldn't you agree?

BTW: the He 162 - although remarkable in it's own way - was a dead-end.



And, in any case, its judgement about German pilots skill is not something that needs to be "researched" or "edited": it's just his opinion. You can agree or not with him, nothing to "demonstrate" here.

I don't have to "not agree" with somebody who is factually wrong.

CloCloZ
09-02-2011, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Although I've ever liked better FW190 than BF109, at last I got convinced that Willy Messerschmitt was not only a more effective manufacturer but also a much more significant innovator than Tank (Me262, Me163, both operational!).

Neither the 262, nor the 163 were designed by Messerschmitt himself. You titleing him as "inventor" is overblown - to say the least.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wrote "innovator" not "inventor".
Like Enzo Ferrari in sport cars, you can be a driving force in innovation even without being an engineer.



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nevertheless, I still believe that he missed a milestone not putting into a service a jet before war end (and not getting even close!).

Why waste engineering- and producton-ressources when your cash-cow is running well?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that even a huge swarm of Me262 could have allowed Germany to win, but at least Messerschmitt gave Luftwaffe what was needed: a chance to play with new and unrivalled cards.
Same for Heinkel, although I agree with you that hard-to-fly He-162 was more an interesting exercise than a viable mass-produced interceptor (and Me163 was even worse under this aspect!).




Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And, in any case, its judgement about German pilots skill is not something that needs to be "researched" or "edited": it's just his opinion. You can agree or not with him, nothing to "demonstrate" here.

I don't have to "not agree" with somebody who is factually wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Frankly speaking, I think that he had many, many more "factual" arguments than you and me combined.
Anyway, that's just what I called "unsubstantiated bashing" ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bremspropeller
09-02-2011, 12:23 PM
I wrote "innovator" not "inventor".
Like Enzo Ferrari in sport cars, you can be a driving force in innovation even without being an engineer.

Neither term applies to Messerschmitt.
The driving force behind initial jet-development in Germany was Ernst Heinkel.


I don't think that even a huge swarm of Me262 could have allowed Germany to win, but at least Messerschmitt gave Luftwaffe what was needed: a chance to play with new and unrivalled cards.

The 262 was most-assuredly not what Germany needed at this time: it couldn't live up to it's potential without critical ressources for it's engines.
It also couldn't use either front-line runways or asphalt-runways, so a new concrete-runway 262 airfield was retty evident to any half-arsed recce-pilot.

The 262 was a dead-end with the prevailing ressource-state in 1945 (then again, any aircraft was, but to a much lesser extent)


Frankly speaking, I think that he had many, many more "factual" arguments than you and me combined.


Like the yellow Fw 190, or Walther Nowotny whom he fought against in the skies above Normandy?
Get real, would ya?

Wildnoob
09-02-2011, 01:15 PM
Why people keep saying a high altitude interceptor is mediocre? Why they can accept the Mig-3 was not adequated for combat at low and medium altitude and can't accept the case of the Ta-152 H? (more the fact that the 152 was much more comparable to it's enemies in the less optimum altitudes than Mig-3).

I don't know about RL, but the plane is simply excellent, and superior to anything the Allies had at the time in high altitude, were he was supossed to operate. Just check in the IL2 compare.

If the wish is compare low altitude combat, than, if is avaliable, compare the 152C data. The C, the Dornier 335, Fw 190 A-10, as well as the strike jets that were supossed to operate low. Again I mention the Mig-3 case!

CloCloZ
09-02-2011, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wrote "innovator" not "inventor".
Like Enzo Ferrari in sport cars, you can be a driving force in innovation even without being an engineer.

Neither term applies to Messerschmitt.
The driving force behind initial jet-development in Germany was Ernst Heinkel.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you are playing with words: "initial".
Being the first doesn't diminish merit of who arrived second ... but first operational (and technically more advanced).


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The 262 was a dead-end with the prevailing ressource-state in 1945 (then again, any aircraft was, but to a much lesser extent)


So, lets' summarize:
- BF109 was a dead end
- He162 was a dead end
- Me262 was a dead end

We are just left with (let me guess ...): Focke-Wulf Ta152! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Do you really believe that Ta152-H, even it would have been marginally superior to Mustangs, Thunderbolts and late Spits (that has to be demonstrated) would have succeeded where Me262 failed? Are you serious?
Well, I'll leave you with your opinion, I don't want to burst any bubble ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif





Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Frankly speaking, I think that he had many, many more "factual" arguments than you and me combined.


Like the yellow Fw 190, or Walther Nowotny whom he fought against in the skies above Normandy?
Get real, would ya? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, these are the charges! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

First, the usual "yellow FW".
Someone tried to explain that with some sunlight reflection, I just wonder why Clostermann would have needed to invent such an irrelevant detail, even in bad faith. It could be just a bad memory, maybe related to a yellow-marked FW.
BTW, in at least another occasion he wrote about yellowish FWs, maybe he was colour-blind! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ("The Focke-Wulf slowly turned over, showing its yellow belly").

More seriously, in the last edition of "The Big Show" the author made several corrections.

One of these is about the "Von Graff's yellow FW" (he admits that it wasn't Von Graff, at least).

Others corrections are related to Nowotny, implicitly correcting its wrong statement about him being in charge of JG44 (he likely got confused with JG54) and being downed by Bob Clark's Tempest.

Regarding "our adversary in Normandy and in the German skies" its quite clear from that book chapter that he meant "ETO after Normandy invasion", since he mistakenly mentioned Nowotny being at Rheine-Hopsten (which is not in Normandy) with JG44.

I can't see how mistakes like those, some of them explainable with a lack of correct information at war-time (JG placement, etc.), not worse and not more numerous than in many others post war memories, can bring to a general judgement of implausibility (even about his opinions on pilots he fought against or at their side).

Clostermann made many enemies in post-war (american pilots that he criticized, even his old RAF comrades after Falkland's War) so it seems that some contempt has been scattered against him.
I'm speaking in general, not against you.
In particular, I remember a shameful post by a so called "moderator" in another (US) forum, plainly insulting him.

Anyway, Clostermann's plausibility is a quite O.T. subject, so I'll stop here.

Bremspropeller
09-02-2011, 03:27 PM
Again, you are playing with words: "initial".
Being the first doesn't diminish merit of who arrived second ... but first operational (and technically more advanced).


Had it not been for Ernst Heinkel, there would have been no Me 262. Peroid.

So much for "innovation".


So, lets' summarize:
- BF109 was a dead end
- He162 was a dead end
- Me262 was a dead end

We are just left with (let me guess ...): Focke-Wulf Ta152!

Killing the 109 had been Galland's plan for a couple of months when the 152 arrivd in "service" in March/ April 1945.
In 1945, there was no development-capability left within the 109 - and no use for it as well, as high-alt Doras were to be availiable starting in late spring '45.

The 162 had never been quite a bright idea - it's performance was pretty good for such a stop-gap programme, but the attrition-rate and the aircraft's nutorious stability-problems basicly made it a death-trap for any inexperienced pilot (it's initail intent...).


Now the 262.
The 262 suffered from bad materials, bad labour and a high-attrition rate in service (look at the attrition-rate of the first jet-generation in general!).
The 262 was of limited use anyway: it couldn't carry a decent bomb-load or throw a bomb accurately.
It couldn't operate from front-line airsprips or asphalt-runways.
As such, any new 262-airbase (with a concrete-runway) would have been dead-meat in a couple of hours.

The 262's only combat-role was tha of an interceptor or recce-plane.
In both roles, it needed fighter-escort during take-off and landing.

It's actual only advantages were:
- unprecedented speed
- it's engines would eat anything even remotely flammable


Now talk about an overrated plane!


It could be just a bad memory

Bingo!
The singl-most important reason why pilot-reports are insignifigant most of the time...


One of these is about the "Von Graff's yellow FW" (he admits that it wasn't Von Graff, at least).


He could as well have called him "Boogie Man" - there was no "Von Graff" flying yellow Fw 190s - ever.


Others corrections are related to Nowotny, implicitly correcting its wrong statement about him being in charge of JG44 (he likely got confused with JG54) and being downed by Bob Clark's Tempest.


Two examples of bad editing...

CloCloZ
09-02-2011, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Killing the 109 had been Galland's plan for a couple of months when the 152 arrivd in "service" in March/ April 1945.


And pushing enthusiastically the Me262 was Galland's idea since 1943.

I agree that Me262 operational effectiveness is usually overestimated, nevertheless I can't see any better alternative at that time (not only for speed but also for heavy armament) to cope with high-altitude bombers.

By the way, I see no point in your criticism against Me262 because it needed to be escorted in takeoff and landing.
Apart the fact that after some months a huge flak deployment almost solved the problem by itself, it would be like to criticize battleships and aircraft carriers because they need to be surrounded and supported by destroyers.
More significant is the criticism about airbase tracks but remember that even in this condition the main obstacles were lack of fuel and reliability. The first is not a plane's fault, the second could have been amended in the course of time.
And, BTW, it seems that Ta152 itself had a quite impressive amount of technical problems too.

Pushing Me262 as a bomber was a bad idea anyway, German needed interceptors first.
Alternatively, one could say that they even more needed for medium-low heights air superiority fighters, to contrast all those Typhoons, Tempests and Thunderbolts that were systematically destroying their transports and infrastructures, making impossible any ground counter offensive.
For that task, latest Doras were perfectly suited, being about on a par with the best Allied fighters.

Ta152-H was technically surpassed by Me262 in the role against bombers and was not better than Doras at low-medium heights.
All in all, my opinion is that Ta152-H, really!, could be considered a dead end. Had the war lasted another couple of years, high altitude skies would have likely be dominated by B29s and jet interceptors. The road to follow would have been to improve Me262 and its successors against USAAF bombers.
That's why I consider Ta152-H an almost futile effort, which wasted many precious years.

Ta152-C could have had more sense, speaking about medium and low height scenario, although it was so heavy that I'm skeptical it should have been significantly better than a D-12 or D-13.

Of course, in my opinion no new weapon could have saved Nazis if becoming available in 1945 (luckily!) but I'm pointing out that Tank followed the wrong path, being mildly evolutionary whereas times and war needs required to be revolutionary.


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It could be just a bad memory

Bingo!
The singl-most important reason why pilot-reports are insignifigant most of the time...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On specific episodes, yes (or, better: you have always to cross-check those accounts with other sources).
On general judgements on planes, pilots, etc., not necessarily.
The fact is that Clostermann alone is publicly bashed when he make mistakes and this after a while becomes quite annoying ...

Bremspropeller
09-03-2011, 03:54 AM
And pushing enthusiastically the Me262 was Galland's idea since 1943.

Rightfully so!
In 1943 nothing suggested the dire-straits ressource-situation Germany had found itself in by 1945.


By the way, I see no point in your criticism against Me262 because it needed to be escorted in takeoff and landing.
Apart the fact that after some months a huge flak deployment almost solved the problem by itself, it would be like to criticize battleships and aircraft carriers because they need to be surrounded and supported by destroyers.

By 1944, Germany had lost it's initiative.
The 262 was tied to specific runway-conditions, so allied airpower had a field-day of identifiing and levelling 262-bases from all altitudes with even half the assets availiable. There's no way, a sophisticated flak-umbrella could have solved that problem.
Allied airpower had reign of the day and the night - Germany just didn't have the assets to counter their efforts in achieving air supremacy!
The Allies had enough aircraft and manpower to put enough pressure on the airfields to basicly run them out of ammonition.
There' nothing the few serviceable 262s could have done besides sitting in a (hopefully!) bomb-proof shelter and awaiting better days to come.


More significant is the criticism about airbase tracks but remember that even in this condition the main obstacles were lack of fuel and reliability. The first is not a plane's fault, the second could have been amended in the course of time.

A lot of systems-issues could have been solved over time (that's about the category of problems the 152H was in).
There were design-related issues that couldn't be overcome, however - mainly related to the 262's engines and the lack of heat-resistant ressources for the engines' hot-sections (burner-cans and turbine-blades).

The 152's problems were more of a system-inegation-type which is easier to overcome.

Any talk about fixing reliability-issues is moot anyway:
In 1945, german fighters AFAIK used plain-bearings instead of roller-bearings, whereever possible and graphite had replaced oil as lubrication.
They didn't even expect the planes to last very long...


Pushing Me262 as a bomber was a bad idea anyway, German needed interceptors first.


What the Germans needed most were multirole-aircraft, similar to the P-47.
The Ta 152-line was an inportant step into that direction.
The 109's airframe couldn't cope with that demand.

The 262 was useless as fighter-bomber, limiting it's operational effectivity to a single role.
That's a wase of ressources.


Ta152-H was technically surpassed by Me262 in the role against bombers and was not better than Doras at low-medium heights.

In a way, that's perfectly true, as the Ta 152 (just as the Dora) were of the soon-to-be obsolete prop-fighter generation, while the 262 was of the dawning jet-fighter generation.

Comparing the 152H with the Doras is very moot, however.
The 152H's mission was downing high-flying aircraft (recce-birds/ high-alt bombers, etc), while the Dora was a stop-gap-measure.
The D-9 didn't do much at all to improve the 190's high-alt capability - it wasn't noticed, as throughout the Dora's initial combat-history, it was used mostly against 2nd TAF fighters and fighter-bombers.
Only the later Doras (with the E and F engines) had improved high-alt performance (without compromising low-alt performance).

Your problem is thinking that "Ta 152 = Ta 152H", which is not the case.
The 152H was only ONE series (a high-alt specialized one) of a broad family of fighters and fighter-bombers.
The Ta 152 had better range and better multirole-capability than the entire Dora-family, which performance-wise closed the gap to the Ta 152-family. It's sort of "lightweight interceptors vs multirole combat-aircraft".
Both aircraft had their own right of existance, with the later Doras replacing the 109s and the 152s replacing the 190A/F/G.


All in all, my opinion is that Ta152-H, really!, could be considered a dead end. Had the war lasted another couple of years, high altitude skies would have likely be dominated by B29s and jet interceptors.

You'd have to find a way to alter history pretty early on, for that kind of scenario.
Germany and the Luftwaffe were broke very early in 1945 - there was simply no way of your scenario happening


The road to follow would have been to improve Me262 and its successors against USAAF bombers.
That's why I consider Ta152-H an almost futile effort, which wasted many precious years.

See above: it's not that the Ta 152 compromised the 262's devellopment in any way.

I'd rather blame Messerschmitt, providing the Luftwaffe with medocre aircraft such as the Me 210/ Me 410 that wasted precios DB 603 engines that could have been employed on more important/ successful airframes.


Ta152-C could have had more sense, speaking about medium and low height scenario, although it was so heavy that I'm skeptical it should have been significantly better than a D-12 or D-13.


The 152C was to be the medium-alt bomber interceptor/ multirole-platform.
There were different versions with different amounts of armor and armament, leading to different gross-weights.
See above for the Ta 152C/ Dora-11/12/13/14/15 comparison.


Of course, in my opinion no new weapon could have saved Nazis if becoming available in 1945 (luckily!)

I'm with you on that one.


but I'm pointing out that Tank followed the wrong path, being mildly evolutionary whereas times and war needs required to be revolutionary.

You're absolutely correct - from a tactical standpoint.
Wars, however do have more than one dimension and strategical considerations are usually more important than tactical issues.
On a strategical basis, the Ta 152-family was the better plane for the eclipsing Luftwaffe:
It had a better input (ressources/ training/ ops considerations/ etc)/ output (performance/ mission-suitability) ratio.

CloCloZ
09-03-2011, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pushing Me262 as a bomber was a bad idea anyway, German needed interceptors first.


What the Germans needed most were multirole-aircraft, similar to the P-47.
The Ta 152-line was an inportant step into that direction.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But certainly not with H version.



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Your problem is thinking that "Ta 152 = Ta 152H"


Not at all.
But the fact is that in practice we can judge just version H.
In fact, not only I think at Ta152-H as a waste of time and resources but, worse, is should be Ta152-C that would have been good if entered into service before the high-alts H version!
At least, version C could have been useful (maybe ...) against P47 and Tempests if not against ground Allied troops.



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> All in all, my opinion is that Ta152-H, really!, could be considered a dead end. Had the war lasted another couple of years, high altitude skies would have likely be dominated by B29s and jet interceptors.

You'd have to find a way to alter history pretty early on, for that kind of scenario.
Germany and the Luftwaffe were broke very early in 1945 - there was simply no way of your scenario happening
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same applies to the perspective of Ta152-H fighting against B29s bombers.
There wasn't enough time and resources, anyway.



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The road to follow would have been to improve Me262 and its successors against USAAF bombers.
That's why I consider Ta152-H an almost futile effort, which wasted many precious years.

See above: it's not that the Ta 152 compromised the 262's devellopment in any way.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but it distracted Tank from jets.



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I'd rather blame Messerschmitt, providing the Luftwaffe with medocre aircraft such as the Me 210/ Me 410 that wasted precios DB 603 engines that could have been employed on more important/ successful airframes.


I agree on this.
But I think that the biggest mistake was to accept to use a twin-engine design as a daylight bomber destroyer, against heavily escorted bomber formations.
Pure madness, just as if BF110 outcome in Battle of Britain had taught nothing.


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but I'm pointing out that Tank followed the wrong path, being mildly evolutionary whereas times and war needs required to be revolutionary.

You're absolutely correct - from a tactical standpoint.
Wars, however do have more than one dimension and strategical considerations are usually more important than tactical issues.
On a strategical basis, the Ta 152-family was the better plane for the eclipsing Luftwaffe:
It had a better input (ressources/ training/ ops considerations/ etc)/ output (performance/ mission-suitability) ratio. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree here ad this is likely the crucial point: Ta152 (H but also C) could have been a TACTICAL resource, not certainly a strategical one!

We know that time was running out for the Germans, as much as their resources, but if they would have managed to resist for a couple of years Ta152-H would have been outdated by jets and is also likely that Allied jets would have start to substitute or to flank P47s and Tempests, contrasting and likely surpassing Ta152-C (for which I suppose that even piston fighters such as Tempest VI and II would have been perfectly able to cope with).

Bremspropeller
09-03-2011, 05:28 AM
But certainly not with H version.


See below...


In fact, not only I think at Ta152-H as a waste of time and resources but, worse, is should be Ta152-C that would have been good if entered into service before the high-alts H version!

The reaon why the 152H came out before the 152C is mainly due to development-issues with the DB603-engine.
Had the 603 not been used for useless aircraft (410/210, see below), devellopment for Ta 152-integration could have started earlier.
In fact, the DB603 had been Tank's favoured engine during initial Fw 190-development.
Had RLM agreed on integrating the DB603 into the Fw 190 (as initially intended), neither the Dora nor the Ta 152 would have been planned and developed.


The same applies to the perspective of Ta152-H fighting against B29s bombers.
There wasn't enough time and resources, anyway.


Even though the initail boost for a extreme-alt version of the Fw 190 was an eventual B-29-class attack on german soil, the actaul Ta 152H's business-case was in fact high-flying recce aircraft (mainly PR.Mosquitos and PR.Spitfires).
The number of Ta 152Hs would not have been that signifigant in comparison with the eventual output of C-models (kind of similar to the specialized Bf 109 high-alt versions VS total Gustav-output).


No, but it distracted Tank from jets.


Tank and his team had parallely worked on other projects, such as the Ta 154, which was eventually (as all too often!) cut short despite very promising performance and capability after the had sorted out it's bugs.

Tank and his development-teams actually had quite a lot of jet-designs on their desks. They just hadn't materialized till war's end - they were busy keeping the planes they built up to the challenges - a far more important task than promising Hitler a dreamland-Blitzbomber.


But I think that the biggest mistake was to accept to use a twin-engine design as a daylight bomber destroyer, against heavily escorted bomber formations.
Pure madness, just as if BF110 outcome in Battle of Britain had taught nothing.

The Bf 110's rival, the Fw 187 actually had performance-specs as good or better than any contemporary Bf 109.
Of course it wouldn't have needed a Jack-of-all-trades "replacement" by the infamous Me 210, stealing all the desperately wanted engines...


I disagree here ad this is likely the crucial point: Ta152 (H but also C) could have been a TACTICAL resource, not certainly a strategical one!

How can an aircraft with a terrible dispatch-reliability and hunger for exotic materials (Me 262) be more of a valuable strategical-ressource than an aircraft that uses nothing that isn't already avaliable (Ta 152)?


We know that time was running out for the Germans, as much as their resources, but if they would have managed to resist for a couple of years

And that's where the Tooth-Fairy comes into play: it just couldn't!
No business-case for the 262 here!

CloCloZ
09-03-2011, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, but it distracted Tank from jets.


Tank and his team had parallely worked on other projects, such as the Ta 154, which was eventually (as all too often!) cut short despite very promising performance and capability after the had sorted out it's bugs.

Tank and his development-teams actually had quite a lot of jet-designs on their desks. They just hadn't materialized till war's end - they were busy keeping the planes they built up to the challenges - a far more important task than promising Hitler a dreamland-Blitzbomber.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fact: Tank was a major manufacturer that failed to provide any operational jet, whereas its German competitors, including the principal one, did.
Anything that was left on paper doesn't count.



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The Bf 110's rival, the Fw 187 actually had performance-specs as good or better than any contemporary Bf 109.


Yes, performance tested on an unarmed prototype plane ...
And with not insignificant problems of rear visibility, that could have lead to some redesign.

Fw 187 story includes another of the many barely credible Focke-Wulf/Kurt Tank tales, such as the statement that it got victories when defending the FW Bremen factory!


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I disagree here ad this is likely the crucial point: Ta152 (H but also C) could have been a TACTICAL resource, not certainly a strategical one!

How can an aircraft with a terrible dispatch-reliability and hunger for exotic materials (Me 262) be more of a valuable strategical-ressource than an aircraft that uses nothing that isn't already avaliable (Ta 152)?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing?
What about ball bearings? And what about fuel?
Ta152 would have suffered from resource shortage almost as much as jets.

All these reasoning, both mine and YOURS, had to rely on the mere (and now known as very unlikely) hypothesis that Germans could sufficiently cope with resource shortage.
This is the only possibility where it has some sense to say the word "strategic" here.

Now we know it was impossible, but at that time it could have been some faint hopes for the Germans. This is the reason why Galland went on supporting Me262 until the end of the war.
Within this hypothesis, jets were strategic, piston fighters were not.

In my opinion, Galland was right.



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> We know that time was running out for the Germans, as much as their resources, but if they would have managed to resist for a couple of years

And that's where the Tooth-Fairy comes into play: it just couldn't!
No business-case for the 262 here! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above.
No business case for no plane, in reality.
But no great business for piston fighters in the surprising case Nazi Germany managed to had a future beyond May '45 (even leaving aside A-bomb, obviously).

Bremspropeller
09-03-2011, 09:31 AM
Fact: Tank was a major manufacturer that failed to provide any operational jet, whereas its German competitors, including the principal one, did.


So what?
Fw had a pre-prototype jet ready to be produced by mid '44 - they even had plans for fitting a version of it with a turboprop propulsion-system (so much for "lack of innovation").
Building and testing it was only a phone-call by RLM away. They didn't want it, despite better chences for getting it into service than the He 162.
RLM has never been a friend of Focke-Wulf, I guess.


Anything that was left on paper doesn't count.


Kind of like the 262 defending the onslaught of advanced allied fighters in 1946, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Yes, performance tested on an unarmed prototype plane ...
And with not insignificant problems of rear visibility, that could have lead to some redesign.


The performance-loss by armament, armor and avionics of a twin-engined aircraft is less than on a single-engined fighter (the percentage of added weight is lower, as is the percentage of added drag compared by a possible higher power-output).
On top of that, the Bf 110 was also test-flown without armament.
No excuse for RLM screwing up here.


Fw 187 story includes another of the many barely credible Focke-Wulf/Kurt Tank tales, such as the statement that it got victories when defending the FW Bremen factory!

Highly dubiuos - especially as they didn't even have to search for the bombers which came directly overhead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Heinrich Beauvais (RLM test-pilot) appearantly didn't think the 187 was a dog.
Kill-claims are very plausible, but not neccessarily true.

Something tells me, that you're very kill-oriented with your assessment of fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


Nothing?
What about ball bearings? And what about fuel?
Ta152 would have suffered from resource shortage almost as much as jets.

Look at what I had previously written...
The Ta 152 was simpler and relied on a much lower percentage on critical ressources.
It also didn't have to cope with ever-cracking turbine-blades or other kinds of teething-problems relted to it's groundbreakingly-new propulsion-system.


Now we know it was impossible, but at that time it could have been some faint hopes for the Germans. This is the reason why Galland went on supporting Me262 until the end of the war.

Galland was an attention-whoe fighter-pilot, who cried havoc, when during the war's outbreak others (fighter-pilots) would get their Iron Crosses, while he (Hs 123 stuka-pilot) didn't get any recognition.
So much for Galland and ground-attack considerations.

Also Galland didn't recognize, that the Red Army outsped it's keenest expectations on the eastern front. He hadn't quite thought about attack- and interdiction-aircraft.
The lack thereof sped-up the war's pace in favor of the Allies.

The 262's inability of cutting the allied supply-limes basicly nulled it's overall combat-use.
Shooting down a couple (quite a lot, actually!) of bombers wouldn't turn the tides.
Galland propably hadn't spent a thought about that.


Within this hypothesis, jets were strategic, piston fighters were not.

Jet-fighters needed high-quality compressor-blades, burner-cans, turbine-blades, low-vibration-spools and a savvy ground-crew (not to mention a caring and savvy pilot - where to take those from in 1945?).
None of that was avaliable in great numbers.


Piston-fighters of considerable performance, trained ground-crew and B4 fuel were all over the place or ready to be sent to the front by war's end.

The 262 could have made a difference in 1942, where your scenario could actually have materialized.
But by 1945, ole overhyped Willy had screwed up and his Golden Goose wouldn't win him the war for ole Adolf.

CloCloZ
09-03-2011, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Fact: Tank was a major manufacturer that failed to provide any operational jet, whereas its German competitors, including the principal one, did.


So what?
Fw had a pre-prototype jet ready to be produced by mid '44 - they even had plans for fitting a version of it with a turboprop propulsion-system (so much for "lack of innovation").
Building and testing it was only a phone-call by RLM away. They didn't want it, despite better chences for getting it into service than the He 162.
RLM has never been a friend of Focke-Wulf, I guess.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tank's team started designing Ta-183 THREE YEARS later than the start of planning of Me262.
So, coupled with the focus on Ta-152, no surprise that it arrived too much late.
Prototypes were said to be ready to fly for May '45 but I can imagine that RLM people, at that time, were thinking to other issues (including to save their lives ...).
So much for innovation and fast response to war needs ...

Messerschmitt had troubles with RLM too, at least when Milch ruled it.


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anything that was left on paper doesn't count.


Kind of like the 262 defending the onslaught of advanced allied fighters in 1946, eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm ... I suppose this should this be a joke ...


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yes, performance tested on an unarmed prototype plane ...
And with not insignificant problems of rear visibility, that could have lead to some redesign.


The performance-loss by armament, armor and avionics of a twin-engined aircraft is less than on a single-engined fighter (the percentage of added weight is lower, as is the percentage of added drag compared by a possible higher power-output).
On top of that, the Bf 110 was also test-flown without armament.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but usually Fw 187 supporters compare it with BF 110 performances WITH armament!



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
No excuse for RLM screwing up here.


I could agree with you, since test pilots said good things about Fw 187 and Bf-110 wasn't a great plane anyway.
But, really, for a daylight-fighter there has never been any room in WWII. Had Fw-187 been mass produced and deployed, it likely would have been dead meat facing single seat fighters.
And you have to consider the peculiar design of the plane, with a fuselage so narrow that there were no room for all the instruments and no room at all for radars. So, bye bye to night-fighter role, too.
Luftwaffe didn't suffered a great loss by not deploying FW-187.



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Fw 187 story includes another of the many barely credible Focke-Wulf/Kurt Tank tales, such as the statement that it got victories when defending the FW Bremen factory!

Highly dubiuos - especially as they didn't even have to search for the bombers which came directly overhead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Heinrich Beauvais (RLM test-pilot) appearantly didn't think the 187 was a dog.
Kill-claims are very plausible, but not neccessarily true.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think they are very unplausible, with a very, very small chance to be true!


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Something tells me, that you're very kill-oriented with your assessment of fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


Not at all.
The fact is I've learnt to know "Kurt Tank's propaganda tales" (encounter with Mustangs, Ta152 "strange" failure of first mission against bombers, a not operational fighter claiming unconfirmed victories, ...).


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Nothing?
What about ball bearings? And what about fuel?
Ta152 would have suffered from resource shortage almost as much as jets.

Look at what I had previously written...
The Ta 152 was simpler and relied on a much lower percentage on critical ressources.
It also didn't have to cope with ever-cracking turbine-blades or other kinds of teething-problems relted to it's groundbreakingly-new propulsion-system.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it also was technically inferior to an already operational jet solution, and was plagued by teething problems too, notwithstanding it wasn't revolutionary at all.



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Now we know it was impossible, but at that time it could have been some faint hopes for the Germans. This is the reason why Galland went on supporting Me262 until the end of the war.

Galland was an attention-whoe fighter-pilot, who cried havoc
...
Galland propably hadn't spent a thought about that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, Galland was right in 1942 and stupid in 1944? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The 262's inability of cutting the allied supply-limes basicly nulled it's overall combat-use.
Shooting down a couple (quite a lot, actually!) of bombers wouldn't turn the tides.


That's the reason why Ta152-H wouldn't have been relevant, too.
Anyway, the blame for the lack of tactical bombing capabilities can't be put on Me262, no more than on BF109 or FW190.
Luftwaffe had better (although scarce) options for that, like Arado AR-234.

BTW, one could open the issue of the relative importance of strategic air bombing (which never "won a war", since WWII to 2011 Libyan conflict, excluding the use of A-Bomb) and tactical bombing/ground support.
But it would be completely OT here.



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Piston-fighters of considerable performance, trained ground-crew and B4 fuel were all over the place or ready to be sent to the front by war's end.



The fact is that if they wanted to win they had to have a clear technical advantage, fighting overwhelming numbers with superior performances. It was a desperate try but it was the more logical.
Ta series for sure didn't gave any superior performance over Allied planes.

BTW, B4 fuel doesn't match well with "considerable performance", too ...



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The 262 could have made a difference in 1942, where your scenario could actually have materialized.
But by 1945, ole overhyped Willy had screwed up and his Golden Goose wouldn't win him the war for ole Adolf.

I hope you are not saying that Nazis lost the war for BF109 and Me262 shortcomings! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
09-03-2011, 11:28 AM
Tank's team started designing Ta-183 THREE YEARS later than the start of planning of Me262.
So, coupled with the focus on Ta-152, no surprise that it arrived too much late.
Prototypes were said to be ready to fly for May '45 but I can imagine that RLM people, at that time, were thinking to other issues (including to save their lives ...).
So much for innovation and fast response to war needs ...

I wasn't talking about the Ta 183.
I was talking about the Fw "TL-Jäger" - a dseign very similar to the British Vampire.


But, really, for a daylight-fighter there has never been any room in WWII. Had Fw-187 been mass produced and deployed, it likely would have been dead meat facing single seat fighters.

Test-pilot-reports say it had a similar maneuverability as the 190.
It's very much comparable to the Westland Whirlwind.


And you have to consider the peculiar design of the plane, with a fuselage so narrow that there were no room for all the instruments and no room at all for radars. So, bye bye to night-fighter role, too.

With a potency for day-fighter use, there would not have been any need to swap all the unsuitable "Zerstörer" into night-fighter units.
There were other aircraft that could have been used in that role.
Also, during the initail stage of Bf 110 night-ops, there wasn't a radar abord either.
I'm quite confident that the engineering-dept of Focke-Wulf would have come up with a fix.


Luftwaffe didn't suffered a great loss by not deploying FW-187.


Well, pilots shot-down by Spitfires and Hurrcanes above france and Britain might see that differently.


Not at all.
The fact is I've learnt to know "Kurt Tank's propaganda tales" (encounter with Mustangs, Ta152 "strange" failure of first mission against bombers, a not operational fighter claiming unconfirmed victories, ...).


So, based on a stupid tale by ole Kurt, all of his designs are inherently flawed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


But it also was technically inferior to an already operational jet solution, and was plagued by teething problems too, notwithstanding it wasn't revolutionary at all.

As I wrote abov, the Ta 152's problems were of a systemes-integration-type (pressurized cockpit, GM-1 and MW-50 boost systems, etc), not of exploding engines or minimum-control-speed WAY above take-off speed.
I'd like to see a list of pilots that were killed by engine-trouble on the 262 alone.


That's the reason why Ta152-H wouldn't have been relevant, too.
Anyway, the blame for the lack of tactical bombing capabilities can't be put on Me262, no more than on BF109 or FW190.
Luftwaffe had better (although scarce) options for that, like Arado AR-234.

You obviously don't understand that the 152H is just one specialized version of the 152-fmily, which in turn was designed to fulfill a multirole-mission.
In contrast to both the 109 and 262, the Fw 190 could carry a decent A-G load - at the expense of range.
The 152 addresses that problem (although it still won't beat a miltirole P-47N!).

The Ar 234 is just another example of RLM's inability to demand a multirole-jet that was suitable to both A-A and A-G missions.


BTW, one could open the issue of the relative importance of strategic air bombing (which never "won a war", since WWII to 2011 Libyan conflict, excluding the use of A-Bomb) and tactical bombing/ground support.


You obviously haven't understood the practice of interdiction-missions (cutting the front-line units from rear-area supplies).


The fact is that if they wanted to win they had to have a clear technical advantage, fighting overwhelming numbers with superior performances. It was a desperate try but it was the more logical.
Ta series for sure didn't gave any superior performance over Allied planes.

The problem with technical advantages is that each loss leads to a trmendous loss in firepower.
There is no point in using vastly-superrior aircraft, when the supply-chain that keeps them in the air is ever-growing and evermore complicated.


BTW, B4 fuel doesn't match well with "considerable performance", too ...


That's where MW-50 comes into play.

thefruitbat
09-03-2011, 03:47 PM
first genuinely interesting thread that i've read here for a while.

going on a slight tangent here, what do you think about Gallands plan which he termed 'Der Grosse Schlag' (The Great Blow)in Nov '44?

Metatron_123
09-03-2011, 06:07 PM
It would have had been much more beneficial to the Luftwaffe in the short term than the Bodenplatte attack, seeing as a few hundred bomber crews would be lost (in theory), but ultimately I still don't think it would have made a huge difference.

It wouldn't have won the war for Germany, that's for sure! It would have possibly delayed the war which would mean more a few more months of pointless bloodshed.

I'm not sure I agree that more Ta-152s would have been better than a few Me-262s, the question is academic, but tactically there was virtually no way of reversing the defeat. What effect would a few multirole Ta-152s have had other than shooting up a few trucks and giving a few pilots a cool ride? Just saying.

TipsyTed
09-03-2011, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
It would have had been much more beneficial to the Luftwaffe in the short term than the Bodenplatte attack, seeing as a few hundred bomber crews would be lost (in theory), but ultimately I still don't think it would have made a huge difference.

It wouldn't have won the war for Germany, that's for sure! It would have possibly delayed the war which would mean more a few more months of pointless bloodshed.


Drifting off-topic, but I can't really see how that would stem a tidal wave of tens of thousand of T-34s rolling towards Berlin.

I'm afraid had such a massive air operation been attempted, it would rather resemble a Mariannas Turkey Shoot as the high flying US escorts would really find themselves in a target rich environment.

About the Ta 152 discussion - yeah, finally an interesting debate around here again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Metatron_123
09-03-2011, 08:06 PM
That's the thing, the air war over western Europe wasn't even the main factor...

Kettenhunde
09-03-2011, 09:21 PM
The fact is I've learnt to know "Kurt Tank's propaganda tales"

Kurt Tank was the StaffleKaptain of the Focke Wulf Bremen Industrieschutzstaffeln. It is a fact that he flew his own design in combat.

Tully__
09-03-2011, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by CloCloZ:
....
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
No excuse for RLM screwing up here.


I could agree with you, since test pilots said good things about Fw 187 and Bf-110 wasn't a great plane anyway.
But, really, for a daylight-fighter there has never been any room in WWII. Had Fw-187 been mass produced and deployed, it likely would have been dead meat facing single seat fighters.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In addition to the Whirlwind mentioned by Brems, consider the Lockheed P-38. Twins could work.

Bremspropeller
09-04-2011, 02:00 AM
I'm afraid had such a massive air operation been attempted, it would rather resemble a Mariannas Turkey Shoot as the high flying US escorts would really find themselves in a target rich environment.


I would second that.

AIFAIK, Galland didn't so much aim at more intensive training (although saving the pilots for an eventual big hit ceratainly helped them amass some more flying-hours, instead of being thrown into the meat-grinder right off flying-school) - instead, it aimed at throwing as many assets into the fight as possible (as in "The more the merrier!" or as we Germans say in a slightly sarcastic-tone "Viel hilft viel!" (as in "A lot helps a lot!")).

This plan looked more onto saturating the escorts' gunsights than really striking a major blow.
Very propably, the percentage of bombers shot-down would have starkly increased (and to a much lesser extent the loss-rate of escort-fighters and fighter-bombers). But that would have been a short-term effect only, as the Allies had high-quality aircrews in their backyards, while the Luftwaffe would have to start all over again, "training" crews for another major "blow" in order to make any difference.

I thin Galland both underestimated the industrial capablities of popping out airframes, engines and (most important!) aircrews of the western Allies. He also underestimated the 9th AF's and 2nd TAF's missions in cutting german supply-lines and production-supply-routes.

Could a major blow have had any impact on the bombers? Well, the Allies might have had a hard time recruiting any bomber-volounteers for a short period. But then again, Galland's "blow" was a thing of early 1945, when the concept of daylight bombing/ escort fighters was relatively well-proven (as opposed to 1943, when the AF still tried to define the eventual mission with different succeses).
I don't think that this plan would have lifted the pressure on Germany for any substantial period:
It didn't provide an answer to the freely roaming fighter-bombers, that arguably did more to spin up the war's pace during the final months (in the West!) than day- or night-time bomber-attacks.
But that's clearly just my OPINION.

CloCloZ
09-04-2011, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tank's team started designing Ta-183 THREE YEARS later than the start of planning of Me262.
So, coupled with the focus on Ta-152, no surprise that it arrived too much late.
Prototypes were said to be ready to fly for May '45 but I can imagine that RLM people, at that time, were thinking to other issues (including to save their lives ...).
So much for innovation and fast response to war needs ...

I wasn't talking about the Ta 183.
I was talking about the Fw "TL-Jäger" - a dseign very similar to the British Vampire.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TL-Jäger?
Even worse: it's design started FOUR years after Me262! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif






Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> But, really, for a daylight-fighter there has never been any room in WWII. Had Fw-187 been mass produced and deployed, it likely would have been dead meat facing single seat fighters.

Test-pilot-reports say it had a similar maneuverability as the 190.
It's very much comparable to the Westland Whirlwind.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, unarmed prototype, etc.
If a twin-engine daylight fighter would have been a convenient design it would have been developed and deployed as such from someone, somewhere in WWII.
There is just one case, P38, which was somewhat successful just in PTO against poor trained Japanese pilots. often flying poor planes, but become one of the favourite victim of Luftwaffe pilots in ETO.

Fw 187 presumed great contribution, like Westland Whirlwind's one, is supported just by the fact it wasn't deployed at all and hadn't to face EA!



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Not at all.
The fact is I've learnt to know "Kurt Tank's propaganda tales" (encounter with Mustangs, Ta152 "strange" failure of first mission against bombers, a not operational fighter claiming unconfirmed victories, ...).


So, based on a stupid tale by ole Kurt, all of his designs are inherently flawed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all, again.
I've already said my great appreciation for Doras, for example.
What I'm not willing to do is to believe to every barely credible tale or anecdote that is usually promoted to praise Tank's planes.
I don't know any other designer that has to its credit so many little plausible or obscure anecdotes to support "how good were its planes".
Too many not to be suspicious.


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> BTW, one could open the issue of the relative importance of strategic air bombing (which never "won a war", since WWII to 2011 Libyan conflict, excluding the use of A-Bomb) and tactical bombing/ground support.


You obviously haven't understood the practice of interdiction-missions (cutting the front-line units from rear-area supplies).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you obviously haven't understood me: interdiction and ground-support from air is in my opinion the most effective use of aviation in war.
Once I said that "WWII hasn't been won by B17, B24 and P51 but by Typhoon, Tempests and P47s"!
An exaggeration, of course, no single weapon has "won the war", but is to say that in my opinion capillary destruction of German transports and infrastructures, so preventing any ground counter offensive, was more important and effective than carpet bombing on German territory (excluding some specific cases on critical targets such as on Ploesti oil refineries or ball bearings factories).




Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The fact is that if they wanted to win they had to have a clear technical advantage, fighting overwhelming numbers with superior performances. It was a desperate try but it was the more logical.
Ta series for sure didn't gave any superior performance over Allied planes.

The problem with technical advantages is that each loss leads to a trmendous loss in firepower.
There is no point in using vastly-superrior aircraft, when the supply-chain that keeps them in the air is ever-growing and evermore complicated.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think at it in this way:
you have to face the attack by a lion.
Obviously you can't hope to save yourself contrasting it with you bare hands.

You have little time and scarce resources to prepare a weapon and you have to decide if:
- built a couple of knives, quite simple to do
or
- built a crossbow, more complicated to do
In both cases you have little chance to survive, but just with the second option you have a little more realistic chance to kill the lion, maybe with a lucky shot.
On the contrary, by using a just couple of knives, you'll likely just delay your fate by a few minutes.
Ta152-H was a couple of knives, Me262 was a crossbow.

Ta152-C would have been a good option to have a P47 or Tempest equivalent, although there is nothing, even on paper, that let me think it should have been significantly better (if any) than those in both ground-attack and dogfighting and more dangerous in medium-low level interception than latest Doras.
Developing a fighter-bomber jet (more suited to the role than bomber version of Me262) should have been the only way to have a technical superiority a medium-low levels but this wasn't done.
Anyway, Ta152C was never operational and we can't know how much successful or unsuccessful it could have been. Ta152-H actual outcomes, even if it was a different machine, don't speak in its favor.

These are the reason why I think that there is no reason to think to Ta152, both H and C versions, as "the (theoretical) last great hope" for Germans.

Bremspropeller
09-04-2011, 03:55 AM
TL-Jäger?
Even worse: it's design started FOUR years after Me262!

Or looking at it the other way 'round:

What a great plane the 262 was! It took only five years to develop such a crash-prone ressource-disaster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

The He 162 (and very likely the Fw "TL-Jäger", given it's promising configuration) were more bang for the buck.


If a twin-engine daylight fighter would have been a convenient design it would have been developed and deployed as such from someone, somewhere in WWII.


See below...


There is just one case, P38, which was somewhat successful just in PTO against poor trained Japanese pilots. often flying poor planes, but become one of the favourite victim of Luftwaffe pilots in ETO.


Lack of knowlegde everywhere...
The early P-38s suffered from compressibility at medium and high-altitudes, making it very dangerous in prolonged dives.
By the time this was fixed, the P-38 had made itself a name as versatile - gosh! - multirole fighter-bomber.


Fw 187 presumed great contribution, like Westland Whirlwind's one, is supported just by the fact it wasn't deployed at all and hadn't to face EA!

Both aircraft were mainly hampered by having to stick to "non critical engines". Both aircraft were as good or better than their single-engined brethren.
Both aircraft could have been superrior machines had they gotten the go for an upgrade to more powerful engines.
Their growth-potential was way larger than those of Supermarine/ Messerschmitt's single-engined fighters.


On the contrary, by using a just couple of knives, you'll likely just delay your fate by a few minutes.
Ta152-H was a couple of knives, Me262 was a crossbow.


The 262 was more like a sword, which is completely useless in slicing-apart and eating the lion.
Have you ever tried throwing a sword accurately?

More and less complicated, easily-handleing knives > hard-to make and handle sword!


Ta152-C would have been a good option to have a P47 or Tempest equivalent, although there is nothing, even on paper, that let me think it should have been significantly better (if any) than those in both ground-attack and dogfighting and more dangerous in medium-low level interception than latest Doras.

A larger wing, more armament-options and a greatly-enlarged combat-radius is a start, don't you think?


Anyway, Ta152C was never operational and we can't know how much successful or unsuccessful it could have been. Ta152-H actual outcomes, even if it was a different machine, don't speak in its favor.

1) Wrong: there are lots of similarities involved, so we can very easily (though academically, of course) assess the combat-potential of the 152C, based on versions of the Fw 190 in every role.

2) Why? A handful of planes (most aircraft were unserviceable anyway) facing large numerical odds against them, pilots exhilarated by their performance and keen on engaging fighters they otherwise propably wouldn't have engaged.
It's not that hard to see they had a boost in confidence by that plane.
It's comparable with the boost of confidence the original 190 gave to it's pilots in 1941 - despite lots of teething problems yet to solve!

BillSwagger
09-04-2011, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by CloCloZ:
Fact 1: Ta152-H was designed to overcome high-altitude limitations of FW190-A series
Fact 2: Fw190-D was previously designed for the same goal
Fact 3: Ta152-H airframe is derived from D9
Fact 4: Ta152-H had the same Jumo engine as Dora (since DB603 had technical problems for implementation in the plane)

So, should we consider Ta152-H as A8 successor o D9 successor/improvement?
Had its performances to be judged against D9 performances or against the older A8?
The answer is clear for everyone who honestly wants to see it.

The fact that Ta152 was performance-tested by Germans against A8 and not against its immediate and more performant D9 predecessor is one of the many things that suggest for an accurate planning of building a Ta152 image better than reality, since the beginning.
In my examination I tried to explain the reason for that, too.

It had the longer wings and the engine was aspirated for higher altitude performance despite being the same used in the Dora.
These two facts would also explain why it would under perform at lower altitudes.
As for maneuverability....that's a bit more opinion based, i wouldn't expect it to be more maneuverable than the Dora and the longer wings suggest that it would be more of a hindrance in thicker air and more beneficial in thinner air.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that my history is a bit watered down when it comes to explaining the more obscure German aircraft designs.
What i do know is that the Germans had made advancements with their jets and rockets about the same time they started to integrate the H model, and even so, the jets were obviously more superior which is why the 152H was shelved.
The explanation i received was that it did excel up high but was particularly vulnerable at lower heights, meaning that if it needed to dive away it no longer held any advantages that the Dora might otherwise retain.

CloCloZ
09-04-2011, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Or looking at it the other way 'round:


Well, it seems that nothing can cast any doubt on your belief about "Ta152, the great German hope"! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I really can't see any good reason for this (maybe a little bit zealot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) thinking.

The only barely operational version (H) performed really well only in German tales (like Reschke's or Ceccotti's ones) and every point of failure when it faced real fights has been hidden by Germans with barely credible (or not credible at all) excuses, many of which I examined in my web page (mission against bombers failed because of a friendly attack, it's "not possible" that Sattler havs been downed, Aufhammer didn't downed the Tempest just because its plane had a significant blower malfunction, etc.).

On the contrary, Version C was no operational at all, so you had to resort to "assessing the combat-potential of the 152C, based on versions of the Fw 190 in every role".
Well, the easiest criticism to apply to this approach is that there is absolutely no guarantee that Ta152-C would have been the summation of just all GOOD things of the other versions of the Fw 190 in every role, without having any shortcoming!
And I'll stop here, without adding other considerations.

Anyway, when you are in trouble you start blaming Me262 (which I agree was far from perfect but, hey!, it was the FIRST operational jet in history!) or ... praising even Tank's jet that never become more than some sheets of paper!
Fw 187 high praising belongs instead to the same league of many others (quite pointless) "what-if" exercises, based just on early tests of prototypes.

I don't want to deal with the almost impossible task to convince a Tank's uncritical admirer and a Ta152 fan and I've already wrote a lot about that, but I can't let pass the following not commented (it's not related to Ta152):


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There is just one case, P38, which was somewhat successful just in PTO against poor trained Japanese pilots. often flying poor planes, but become one of the favourite victim of Luftwaffe pilots in ETO.


Lack of knowlegde everywhere...
The early P-38s suffered from compressibility at medium and high-altitudes, making it very dangerous in prolonged dives.
By the time this was fixed, the P-38 had made itself a name as versatile - gosh! - multirole fighter-bomber.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, lack of YOUR knowledge.
In fighter role P-38 performed POORLY in ETO, to the extent that in 1944 Captain Eric Brown explicitly advised General Doolittle to withdrawn it from escort duties!
Luckily for them, Americans then converted P-38 pilots in ETO to Mustangs, for fighting and escorting tasks. This could have something to do with relative production costs too, but the basic fact is that both Allied and German pilots usually judged P-38 quite unfit to ETO (although some German pilot praised the plane, in one case comparing it to P-40 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif in others pointing out the danger of its concentrated firepower).
Although the last L version solved many of its many issues, the need to adopt boosted ailerons and dive flaps demonstrates more the shortcomings of the basic project, even more when used in the role of dogfighter, than its merits.

For ground attack and recce it was good or good enough, but as a dogfighter it was really good only against poorly flown and fragile Japanese fighters.
In ETO it was in trouble even against Romanian IAR81!
This doesn't mean it didn't got victories against LW fighters but the almost scornful judgement of many German aces (e.g. Heinrich Bar) speaks for itself.

Metatron_123
09-04-2011, 04:12 PM
Wouldn't it be possible to continue this debate sans the bickering? ''You obviously don't understand/your lack of knowledge'' etc. What's the point of that? No one's family honour has been insulted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I think the P-38 made an excellent attack plane, proving that it's best to have a plane with a speed comparable to it's potential interceptor adversaries in this role. (As opposed to something like the Il-2 which was shot down in droves). Same logic applies to the Mosquito as opposed to Lancasters and B-17s.
(That would make another great debate, could something like the Mosquito have negated the need for slow four engine bombers? large bombers don't see much action in today's conflicts)

I see Brems point about multi-role planes.

But then the Fw-190 fulfilled this role with distinction and it was not enough to change the fortunes of the Wehrmacht in 1943. So how would the Ta-152 would have made a difference in 1944/45.

I think it isn't a question of Me-262 OR Ta-152, ideally you would make both in large numbers, one for multirole fighter/bomber and one for interception. Wasn't that the goal anyway? (Something comparable to a Sabre/Shooting Star/Skyraider combo in Korea)

Would the He-162 have really been more cost effective? It was likely more dangerous to fly and didn't carry enough armament for bomber interception. In spite of the accidents, pilots universally praised the Me-262.

csThor
09-05-2011, 12:44 AM
The Jumo 213A of the D-9 series and the Jumo 213E of the Ta 152 H series were not the same engine. It shared the version number and the basic layout of the engine parts (so to speak), but performance-wise (especially WRT FTH and altitude band) they were as different as day and night.

CloCloZ
09-05-2011, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
Wouldn't it be possible to continue this debate sans the bickering? ''You obviously don't understand/your lack of knowledge'' etc. What's the point of that? No one's family honour has been insulted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


You are right.

Anyway, I think that it's difficult to reconciliate mine and Brem's view on Ta152 topic, since I advocate for the need for a quantum leap in technology as the only hope for the Germans in 44-45 (that's was Galland's opinion too) whereas he seems to think that an evolutionary step (Ta152) would have been sufficient.
Now, in retrospect, we know that Me262 and He-162 effectiveness wasn't so great and Germans had no time or resources to improve them to the needed extent but we also have no proof that Ta152s should have performed well or better.
Since is not possible to prove wrong something that never happened (Ta152 series largely deployed) this risks to be an endless debate.

My main goal in examining Ta152 "myth" was to show that, contrary to a common belief, there is no factual outcome from Ta152-H combat history to justify so much hype, which is usually pushed to the limit to state it as "the best" even at low-altitudes.
And I stand firm on this point.

I think that for the same reason we can't reasonably think at Ta152 series as the best card LW had to play in the last years of war, the solution to gamble on.
Too little, too late. A palliative solution, when a bold solution was needed, albeit risky.
Of course, others' mileage may vary.

Bremspropeller
09-05-2011, 07:39 AM
Well, it seems that nothing can cast any doubt on your belief about "Ta152, the great German hope"!
I really can't see any good reason for this (maybe a little bit zealot ) thinking.

It seems you're having a hard time understanding me:

What I'm saying is that given the situation germany found itself in in 1945, producing more Ta 152s would have been a better idea than concentrationg on ressource-intensive TWIN-engined jet-fighters.


The only barely operational version (H) performed really well only in German tales (like Reschke's or Ceccotti's ones) and every point of failure when it faced real fights has been hidden by Germans with barely credible (or not credible at all) excuses, many of which I examined in my web page (mission against bombers failed because of a friendly attack, it's "not possible" that Sattler havs been downed, Aufhammer didn't downed the Tempest just because its plane had a significant blower malfunction, etc.).


The good old Ta 152-conspiracy...who hasn't heard of that one in his/ her childhood? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


On the contrary, Version C was no operational at all, so you had to resort to "assessing the combat-potential of the 152C, based on versions of the Fw 190 in every role".

I'm not "resorting" to anything - unless you'd state that FAA "resorted" to similarity-rules when they certified the GE90-engine (components of it), based on partial similarities to the CF6-engine (components of it).
That's only ONE example of assesment by similarity http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

It's aproper engineering-procedure.
It's also backed by what is commonly known as "common sense".


Well, the easiest criticism to apply to this approach is that there is absolutely no guarantee that Ta152-C would have been the summation of just all GOOD things of the other versions of the Fw 190 in every role, without having any shortcoming!

I didn't suggest that - however - the propable shortcomings would not have been show-stoppers.
Read under "similarity" above.


And I'll stop here, without adding other considerations.


Thanks for sparing me!


Anyway, when you are in trouble you start blaming Me262 (which I agree was far from perfect but, hey!, it was the FIRST operational jet in history!) or ... praising even Tank's jet that never become more than some sheets of paper!


1) being FIRST on something doesn't mean you're good at it
2) every design starts from a sheet of paper - many designs are canned before they can even prove themselves - often by political quirks
3) similar jet-designs (Vampire, Saab J21-jet) suggest the basic feasibility of the TL-Jäger
4) I'm not "praising" it - but even you'll agree that havin one engine less to get ± the same performance is a pretty good argument http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Fw 187 high praising belongs instead to the same league of many others (quite pointless) "what-if" exercises, based just on early tests of prototypes.

No "what-ifs" here.
Plane 1 had better performance than plane 2.
Fact.


Yes, lack of YOUR knowledge.
In fighter role P-38 performed POORLY in ETO, to the extent that in 1944 Captain Eric Brown explicitly advised General Doolittle to withdrawn it from escort duties!

No lack of knowledge on my side:
As I wrote, EARLY Lightnings had issues during high-speed dives at high altitudes (apart from the Brits ordering them without the superchargers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif ).
That Mach-Tuck was fixed by a dive-recovery flap.
By then, the P-51 had replaced the P-38 and it could never prove it's true potential.
It then went on to become a great fighter-bomber in 9th AF.


For ground attack and recce it was good or good enough, but as a dogfighter it was really good only against poorly flown and fragile Japanese fighters.

Really? How come then, that german pilots were surprised by the Lightnings climbrate and turning-capability?


In ETO it was in trouble even against Romanian IAR81!
This doesn't mean it didn't got victories against LW fighters but the almost scornful judgement of many German aces (e.g. Heinrich Bar) speaks for itself.


1) Pilots have a more important impact on the outcome of dogfights than aircraft have
2) Heinz Bär's opinion is irrelevant unless he had the chance to fight a similaryly gifted adversary 1vs1.



-----------------

My main goal in examining Ta152 "myth" was to show that, contrary to a common belief, there is no factual outcome from Ta152-H combat history to justify so much hype, which is usually pushed to the limit to state it as "the best" even at low-altitudes.


How could there be an "outcome" by throwing a handfull of aircraft into a multi-thousand a/c meat-grinder? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Who said it was "the best"?
Nobody did.
It was just substantually better than the 190As the pilots flew before - as written on page 1 of this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

------------------

But then the Fw-190 fulfilled this role with distinction and it was not enough to change the fortunes of the Wehrmacht in 1943. So how would the Ta-152 would have made a difference in 1944/45.

There were never enough 190-Jabos sent to the front, as they were just a "byproduct" of the fighter-production.

NO fighter could have changed the war's outcome, but using the more versatile, less exotic-material-intensive option would have been the better decision at that stage.

CloCloZ
09-05-2011, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, it seems that nothing can cast any doubt on your belief about "Ta152, the great German hope"!
I really can't see any good reason for this (maybe a little bit zealot ) thinking.

It seems you're having a hard time understanding me:

What I'm saying is that given the situation germany found itself in in 1945, producing more Ta 152s would have been a better idea than concentrationg on ressource-intensive TWIN-engined jet-fighters.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brem, I don't want to bore anyone here (I suppose it has already started to happen ...) going on repeating the same things, more when I see repeated arguments like "it could never prove it's true potential" (you said that about Ta152, about Fw 187, about TL-Jäger, about P-38 ...).
It's a no through road I don't want to follow any longer, because I don't want to pointlessly repeat MY arguments too.
At this point, everyone can read them, both mine and yours arguments, and form an opinion.

I just want to add that I wasn't thinking about you when criticizing "it was the best" statement (your opinion seems instead to be "developing it was the more convenient choice at that time").
But many fans, as you certainly know, stated adamantly that "it was the best" (to the point that one of them made a fool of himself stating that "Ta152-H was perfectly carrier capable, too"). My criticism to the myth (not conspiracy, just an enduring, widespread and not substantiated myth) was addressed to that (that's the subject of the second half of that web page I wrote).

For sure, at the same time I disagree with your above mentioned position, too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But they are parallel more than coinciding issues, even if somewhat linked together.

JtD
09-05-2011, 12:21 PM
The dive recovery flaps did not fix the high speed problems of the P-38, they just cured the most important symptom. Also, the problems occurred already in fast level flight at high altitude, not just in a high speed speed dive.

Kettenhunde
09-05-2011, 08:28 PM
My main goal in examining Ta152 "myth"

What is the Ta-152 Myth?

The aircraft existed and flew in combat. It's performance is recorded and can be examined. It was one of the top performing piston engine aircraft designs of the war and is one of a handful of fighter designs that represent the pinnacle of piston engine fighter technology. That is fact.

Try reading Willi Reschke book. It gives a pretty good account of the combat experience gleaned with the Ta-152H.

http://www.naval-military-pres...-190-and-ta-152.html (http://www.naval-military-press.com/jagdgeschwader-301-302-wilde-sau-in-defense-of-the-reich-with-the-bf-109-fw-190-and-ta-152.html)

CloCloZ
09-06-2011, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My main goal in examining Ta152 "myth"

What is the Ta-152 Myth?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a various and vast collection of false assertion (e.g. "it has never been shot down"), ridiculous statements (e.g. "it could have been carrier capable"), barely credible tales (e.g. "it easily escaped from four Mustangs", even at an altitude where Ta152 wasn't faster than P51 ...), laughable excuses and mysterious events to cover its defeats ("we weren't able to keep contact and engage USAAF bombers since we were mistakenly attacked by our comrades in BF109s", so much for the faster high-altitude piston interceptor! "Sattler? He fell from the sky without any apparent reason but no, he can't have been shot down, certainly not ...").

It's all that barely credible anecdotes that sparkle the career of that plane and onto which have been written statements such as "it was the pinnacle of piston engined fighters" or, even worse because more ridiculous and written by a respected book writer, "its high speed, tight turning radius and enormous climb rate must actually have brought many P-47 and Tempests pilot to the point of desperation".

I'm pretty sure there is no other plane which benefited from such a propaganda, especially a plane with just a few dozens of operational aircrafts.
On these very flimsy bases, books and articles were and still are written, almost invariably without ANY critical examination of FACTS.

This is the reason why I wrote a web page:
http://clocloz.altervista.org/...ombat_14-4-1945.html (http://clocloz.altervista.org/history/wwii/aviation/ludwigslust/Ludwigslust_aerial_combat_14-4-1945.html)

In fact, i did just what you said: I examined its performance in war and found it was nothing remarkable. This, at first, surprised me a lot! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
On the contrary, I found a lot of propaganda, even further to what I already knew.

So, if you want to know what's "Ta152 myth" and because it does exist, you can read my detailed opinion on that.



Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Try reading Willi Reschke book. It gives a pretty good account of the combat experience gleaned with the Ta-152H.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Resckhe's tales are just what I mean when I speak of "building Ta152 myth"!
They are amongst the LEAST RELIABLE WWII pilot reports, as testimonies and examinations from researchers (such as Lorant) demonstrated.
Even my humble examination of Ludwigslust battle shows huge logical and factual gaps in his account.
I prefer not to give my own real definition of "Reschke's tales", not to show disrespect toward and old man who risked its life for its country.
Let's hope in his good faith and think it's just a case of (very) bad memories ...

Anyway, I'm not certainly alone in thinking at Ta152 as vastly overrated, see for example:
http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/...-ta-152-reschke.html (http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2010/04/towards-perfection-tank-ta-152-reschke.html)
"combat reports of its "superiority" are questionable at best."

Kettenhunde
09-06-2011, 06:40 AM
even at an altitude where Ta152 wasn't faster than P51 ...


What are the conditions? You don't know.

Oskar Bösch easily out ran a whole gaggle of P51's in an extended tail chase at tree top level over the Ardennes forest AFTER shooting one down in a sustained turn fight. He was flying an FW-190A8. It is also the only time in combat he ever used the Focke Wulf's emergency rating.

http://www.aviationarthangar.com/avarthawarwo.html

Are you now going to start a website claiming Oskar, is a liar?


I'm pretty sure there is no other plane which benefited from such a propaganda, especially a plane with just a few dozens of operational aircrafts.

P47M comes to mind. An absolutely dismal combat career plagued by fuel problems trying to operate on an infant technology high octane fuel.

Even though the type was available for months, it was incapable of flying a single mission profile until the last few days of the war.

I just looked at your website. It is all wikpedia and gaming forums. Not very impressive sources IMHO.


DISCOVERINGS AND OPINIONS ON WILLI RESCHKE'S (AND OTHER GERMAN PILOTS) STORIES "RELIABILITY":

Really??? Honestly, your site seems racist...


For example:


Reschke also describes the death in combat of Hptm. Stahl in this same combat, 24 April 45 - other thus-far-unpublished JG 301 documentary sources indicate that Stahl was shot down & killed on 11 April 1945.

First of all, you call into question the mans integrity because he is off a few days in a 50 year old memory?

Are you really that arrogant??

Next you dare to use "other" sources? What the hell is that? What "other" sources??? Some kids in subway station? An Allied document? What source??

The allies were reporting combat with FW-190D9's as early as 1943 and dates events occurred get changed on their side too as the story is related. Go research EB-104, the allies did not even know what variant of Focke Wulf they tested.

You need to turn the same critical eye to all the evidence and not just the one that supports a racist theory of German deceit and embellishment.

I do give you credit for noting this all your opinion.


my detailed opinion on that......."combat reports of its "superiority" are questionable at best."

Some simple physics and acceptable methods can easily determine this question.

That is the bottom line.

CloCloZ
09-06-2011, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> my detailed opinion on that......."combat reports of its "superiority" are questionable at best."

Some simple physics and acceptable methods can easily determine this question.

That is the bottom line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sources?
Didn't you even realize that I cited researchers as J-Y Lorant and even reputed Ta152 writers/fans http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif as Dietmar Harmann?
Didn't you even realize that I cited original RAF reports?
And which are YOUR sources?
Are them Kurt Tank's tales, about an encounter never reported by USAAF pilots?
Are them Reschke's tales, those tales that Lorant (no, not me or Wikipedia ...) found to be unreliable?
Boy, if even me can found obvious inconsistencies in Reschke's reports, it's not surprising at all that a researcher can find more!


Racism?
Is it my fault that RAF pilots left after-fight reports whereas German pilots not only left just some tales (some of them reported 50 years after the facts) but, worse, ABSOLUTELY INCONSISTENT BETWEEN THEMSELVES?


Arrogant?
Didn't you even realize that I'm not alone in thinking that there is something "strange" surrounding Ta152 hype?
Didn't you even realize that you criticized my web page citing statement made by others, not by me, that just like me became aware of that "strangeness"?


"Simple physics and acceptable methods can easily determine this question"?
Are you joking?
So, are these your technical "arguments"?
OMG ...


The bottom line is not what you said.
The bottom line is there are fans, like you, that keep their head into sand.

I didn't need any confirmation, though.
I already knew that.

Tully__
09-06-2011, 08:25 AM
Kettenhunde, CloloZ and Brems have been conducting this discussion with fervour but civility and without direct insults and almost completely without implied insults for 3 pages, you could do them the courtesy of maintaining the same standards please.

TipsyTed
09-06-2011, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by CloCloZ:
(e.g. "it easily escaped from four Mustangs", even at an altitude where Ta152 wasn't faster than P51 ...),

Hmm, maybe this generalizing is a bit too stretched.

I mean - this report is describing a single incidence, not general behaviour of the two types of aircraft. In other words - on that single occasion a Ta 152 was able to outrun mustangs (which aren't even confirmed to have seen the Ta). This of course does not mean Ta 152s were faster than mustangs at those altitudes generally.

Ken Walsh managed to shoot down a couple of Zeros in a slow speed turning combat. This of course doesn't mean F4U was a better turner at slow speeds than A6M.

Bremspropeller
09-06-2011, 09:14 AM
(e.g. "it could have been carrier capable"), barely credible tales (e.g. "it easily escaped from four Mustangs", even at an altitude where Ta152 wasn't faster than P51 ...), laughable excuses and mysterious events to cover its defeats ("we weren't able to keep contact and engage USAAF bombers since we were mistakenly attacked by our comrades in BF109s", so much for the faster high-altitude piston interceptor! "Sattler? He fell from the sky without any apparent reason but no, he can't have been shot down, certainly not ...").

- ANY airraft can be turned into a carrier-capable plane. It's amatter of cost.

- Who said the Mustang had seen him? Who stated the altitude and respectively the Mustangs availiable power-output.

- Anybody can be bounced when flying at slow (cruise) speeds. Acceleration to top-speed takes time.

- Oxygen-starvation is the most obvious of the possible causes.

Kettenhunde
09-06-2011, 09:38 AM
"Simple physics and acceptable methods can easily determine this question"?
Are you joking?


No I am not.

Do you know how to do the math? I would be happy to show you a few simple things to evaluate data. It is not hard and some basic calculus can return a very accurate prediction for relative performance.


Is it my fault that RAF pilots left after-fight reports

Just because the "tale" was written down does not mean it is accurate at all.

Here is a flight report. We cannot conclude it is accurate at all despite the fact the men who wrote it firmly believed it was factual. Written documentation does not trump eyewitness accounts just because it is written.

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/5322/britishintelfw190d9.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/585/britishintelfw190d9.jpg/)

Kettenhunde
09-06-2011, 10:02 AM
Kettenhunde, CloloZ and Brems have been conducting this discussion with fervour but civility and without direct insults and almost completely without implied insults for 3 pages, you could do them the courtesy of maintaining the same standards please.


Sure. I certainly hope there is no offense taken. When you single out a group based on ethnic origin, it is racism, right?

CloCloZ
09-06-2011, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by TipsyTed:
I mean - this report is describing a single incidence, not general behaviour of the two types of aircraft. In other words - on that single occasion a Ta 152 was able to outrun mustangs (which aren't even confirmed to have seen the Ta). This of course does not mean Ta 152s were faster than mustangs at those altitudes generally.


I absolutely agree.
My point, in fact, is that one can't use such an uncertain episode to draw conclusions about Ta152 performances.
An this EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE since, as you said, there is no proof that Mustangs even saw the Ta.
But this is exactly how the event is generally described: a strong clue, if not a proof, of Ta152 superior performances.

Kettenhunde
09-06-2011, 10:39 AM
My point, in fact, is that one can't use such an uncertain episode to draw conclusions about Ta152 performances.

One can certainly use:

ROT = Velocity * cos y divided by Radius

or any other acceptable method to derive the relative performance in either BGS or SI.

I believe if you do the math, a Tempest has no hope of out turning a Ta-152H at best rate.

A pilot that attempts to match low speed realm performance will stall out. If he does not have the altitude to recover from an aggravated stall, he will encounter the dirt barrier before recovery.

Kettenhunde
09-06-2011, 10:53 AM
Before we go any further, please define the specific performance you think the Ta-152H-1 is mythical.

It will make it much easier to discuss. If you can't do that, I will ignore you.

For example, Both the Ta-152H-1 and the P-51D are ~370mph aircraft on the deck.

Add the weight of fuel or external stores, normal wear and tear, etc....

What is so unbelievable about Kurt Tanks anecdote?

CloCloZ
09-06-2011, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
- ANY airraft can be turned into a carrier-capable plane. It's amatter of cost.


Agree.
The fact is that who advocates that "carrier capability" meant it was well suited to that just for its supposed low wing loading, without any consideration on the need to reinforce its structure, so adding weight, etc.


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
- Who said the Mustang had seen him? Who stated the altitude and respectively the Mustangs availiable power-output.


The event is usually cited to show Ta152 performance (and is said to have happened to 7000m).
I agree on the fact that we don't even know if the Mustang had seen him, so I hope you agree with me that's no reason to use that event as a "proof" of Ta152 good performances.


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
- Anybody can be bounced when flying at slow (cruise) speeds. Acceleration to top-speed takes time.


I suppose you are referring to the "attack from BF109" of March 2nd 1945, which is a quite obscure and almost incredible episode. According to Harmann's book twelve Ta152 were "repeatedly attacked" by BF109 at an assembly point at 8000m.
According to Harmann, there were no direct radio contact between fighter units and the fighter control center reacted too late to inform BF109 pilots.
So ALL of the twelve aircraft representing the fastest high-altitude piston-engined fighter of the history missed the opportunity to enter in contact with the much slower USAAF bombers. Nevertheless they all managed to escape from the much faster BF109!
Am I alone to think that this story seem suspiciously strange and suspiciously similar to other stories regarding Ta152?


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
- Oxygen-starvation is the most obvious of the possible causes.

In this case I suppose you are referring to Sattler's crash near Ludwigslust.
Well, since I examined that event with a lot of attention, I can assure you there is no way a Ta152 pilot could have climbed so high, in a few minutes flight from Neustadt-Glewe to Ludwigslust (eight kilometers away), to suffer from oxygen-starvation!
Maybe, if he were flying a V2 ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In addition, Sattler very likely had to fly at very LOW level to regain time initially lost on the ground for a technical problem, as I explained examining the events.

Kettenhunde
09-06-2011, 11:03 AM
I can assure you there is no way a Ta152 pilot could have climbed so high, in a few minutes flight from Neustadt-Glewe to Ludwigslust (eight kilometers away), to suffer from oxygen-starvation!

Why not???

A simple exhaust leak can cause oxygen starvation in any aircraft.

There is reason why CO detectors are mandatory cockpit safety gear.

http://www.google.com/search?q...529&biw=1912&bih=933 (http://www.google.com/search?q=CO%20detector%20pilot%20supplies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-UShttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.giffficial&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np#q=CO+detector+pilot+supplies&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=e1z&rls=org.mozilla:en-UShttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.giffficial&channel=np&prmd=ivns&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=LVJmTs3bNc3qgQe9lPmxCg&ved=0CE8QrQQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=cdfe36b48f36a529&biw=1912&bih=933)

Bremspropeller
09-06-2011, 11:17 AM
So ALL of the twelve aircraft representing the fastest high-altitude piston-engined fighter of the history missed the opportunity to enter in contact with the much slower USAAF bombers. Nevertheless they all managed to escape from the much faster BF109!


Intercepting aircraft is a game of precision and timing.
Fighting-off the attacking Bf 109s may either have cost too much time and/ or fuel for the 152s to make it to a renezvous-point with the bombers.

That's just the most obvious possibility.

CloCloZ
09-06-2011, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I believe if you do the math, a Tempest has no hope of out turning a Ta-152H at best rate.


I think that you should suggest your VERY simplified math to Oleg and his team of engineers, since they modelled the two planes in the opposite way! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif




Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
A pilot that attempts to match low speed realm performance will stall out. If he does not have the altitude to recover from an aggravated stall, he will encounter the dirt barrier before recovery.

If you are referring to Mitchell being shot down, this is another (and in this case really SILLY) attempt to "demonstrate" Ta152 superiority:

- Mitchell was an absolute ROOKIE (less than two months at the front line!)
- he was shot down by an ACE!
- Tempest was a notoriously difficult plane to handle at low speeds, even more for a rookie
- he was caught but SURPRISE, likely with both ALTITUDE ans SPEED disadvantage too
- he was chased by TWO Ta152 at once

He has no hope to escape to his fate, without external help, since the fight started.
Notwithstanding this, he likely stalled himself rather than being shot down by German bullets (kill credit goes to Reschke, anyway).

On the contrary, his more experienced comrade Short managed to turn-fight with the remaining third Ta152 and to damage it. He could possibly have shot it down if not immediately chased by the other two, then he returned home eluding the three Ta152s.
All is explained in detail in my page.

Play it again, Kette ...

CloCloZ
09-06-2011, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I can assure you there is no way a Ta152 pilot could have climbed so high, in a few minutes flight from Neustadt-Glewe to Ludwigslust (eight kilometers away), to suffer from oxygen-starvation!

Why not???

A simple exhaust leak can cause oxygen starvation in any aircraft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is intoxication, I think that Brems was conjecturing about high-alts oxigen-starvation.
An exaust leak would be a possibility like any other purely hypothetical failure on Sattler's plane.

Since there is a Focke-Wulf surely shot down by an Allied pilot, belonging to the same Allied four-plane section committed to the same mission over Ludwigslust, there is no need to resort to such hypothesis, as I shown in that page.

CloCloZ
09-06-2011, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Before we go any further, please define the specific performance you think the Ta-152H-1 is mythical.

It will make it much easier to discuss. If you can't do that, I will ignore you.

For example, Both the Ta-152H-1 and the P-51D are ~370mph aircraft on the deck.

Add the weight of fuel or external stores, normal wear and tear, etc....

What is so unbelievable about Kurt Tanks anecdote?

When interrogated by Allies after the war, Tank said that he flew a Ta152B at 7000m and that he could escape a group of six Mustangs.
So, an hypothesis that has been done is that it was a test-bed plane with a 2400 hp DB603EC engine and MW 50 injection, being able to reach 720 km/h at 7000m and so being faster than Mustangs even at that height, and not a production model.

It could be certainly true, no doubt for me about that, but not to be used to ASSESS the level of performance of PRODUCTION aircrafts!
For example, as I already said, nobody could use Tempest Mark I prototype performance (750 km/h in horizontal flight) to assess a general "Tempest performance" ...

Bremspropeller
09-06-2011, 12:16 PM
No Ta 152B with a DB-engine was ever built.


I think that you should suggest your VERY simplified math to Oleg and his team of engineers, since they modelled the two planes in the opposite way!


I wouldn't lean my head too far out of the window if I were you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

An exaust leak would be a possibility like any other purely hypothetical failure on Sattler's plane.


Or any other hypothetical kill-claim...


It could be certainly true, no doubt for me about that, but not to be used to ASSESS the level of performance of PRODUCTION aircrafts!


720km/h @ 7km is perfectly reasonable for a producton-model Ta 152H-1 acc Fw speed-chart dated 3rd Jan 1945.

Kettenhunde
09-06-2011, 01:07 PM
I think that you should suggest your VERY simplified math

It is the same math for determining turn performance in almost universal use....

There are other techniques but you can bet no home computer uses them.

That "simple formula" is formula 3.9.29 on page 329 of Mechanics of Flight Second Edition by Warren Philips. I had to buy my copy for my college classes years ago.


Mechanics of Flight is designed as a textbook for a two-semester sequence of courses for students in mechanical and aerospace engineering. The book is also a valuable reference for engineers working in the aerospace industry.

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/...culty_monographs/42/ (http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/usufaculty_monographs/42/)

CloCloZ
09-06-2011, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
No Ta 152B with a DB-engine was ever built.


I'm sorry Brems but this time you'll have to contradict not me but another guy (please look at the signature ...).
For sure, I dont want to meddle into such a Ta152 experts debate! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

However, if it weren't a DB603-engined testbed, it would be even more difficult to give credit to the reality of the event.


--------------
I think that the statement from Prof. Tank after the war had more validity than Wofgang Wagner´s story. Prof. Tank stated in his interrogation that he flew in 7000m and that he could escape a group of six Mustangs. So this encounter was near enough that Prof. Tank could noticed the type and the number of his follower. Tank stated also that he flew a Ta152B. Possible that this type caused a confusion. The planned maiden flights of the Ta152B test beds were designated in March 45.

Because this incident was also mentioned in a Daimler Benz report from the technical director Nallinger to Tank from 27.2.1945 and no DB document mentioned it before I think that this encounter took place most likely in February 1945. Nallinger stated also that Tank flew a test-bed with DB603 engine. At this time it existed 6 test-beds with DB603 engines, the Ta152C V6, V7 and V8 and the Fw190V21/U1, Fw190V76 and Fw190V77. We don´t know if the V21U1, V76 or V77 were ever for testing by Focke-Wulf in Langenhagen. All three were test-beds from Daimler Benz and used the 2400 hp DB603EC engine with MW 50 injection. With MW 50 injection these test-beds reached a maximum speed of 720 km/h at 7000m. The Ta152 C test-beds in Langenhagen used the same engine. Two Ta152C V6 test reports obtained the war and we knew that Tank made only short flights with the V6. But the reports of the V7 and V8 never survived the war. But we know that the V8 flew for testing in Rechlin firstly reported at 16.2.45. So the conclusion is that Tank flew the V7 or possibly the V8.

Best wishes
Dietmar Hermann
--------------
http://www.luftwaffe-experten....iew=findpost&p=30264 (http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?s=6514bc815fd910cd348bda9818326a25&showtopic=5691&view=findpost&p=30264)




Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> An exaust leak would be a possibility like any other purely hypothetical failure on Sattler's plane.


Or any other hypothetical kill-claim...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hypothetical?
Which hypothetical kill-claim?
Shaw's kill claim is a kill claim with every needed confirmation, including cine-camera movie! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

In fact, it has been confirmed by RAF.
Only thing that remains to see is if that Focke-Wulf was really Sattler's one.

Please, HONESTLY ask to yourself: how great is the chance that it was NOT Sattler? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Same location, same time, same Tempest section involved, even good compatibility within reports once inconsistencies has been explained ...

One can stubbornly think that it's "impossible" that Sattler has been shot down and resort to mere hypothesis or accept the simplest and more coherent possibility.
I perfectly know that some people will refuse to see their bubble bursted, but I made that examination just for people willing to think.

Bremspropeller
09-06-2011, 01:42 PM
I'm sorry Brems but this time you'll have to contradict not me but another guy

In fact, I don't:

DH never mentions a combination of "Ta 152B" and "DB 603".

The "B" could also be a typo, given it's proximity to the letter "H" on the keyboard (maybe a bad interrogation-transscript/-copy).


One can stubbornly think that it's "impossible" that Sattler has been shot down and resort to mere hypothesis or accept the easiest and more coherent possibility.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Nothing is "impossible" and nobody states that.
You're the one, forcefully suggesting Sattler was shot-down, despite witnesses claiming something different.

Account vs. account.

Unless one could have a look at the guncam-tape, this one's gonna be pretty hard to settle.
What puzzles me about your version is the complete lack of information about the eventual "oddball" Focke-Wulf.
It's not that a Ta 152H wouldn't stand out like a pink elephant http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CloCloZ
09-06-2011, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sorry Brems but this time you'll have to contradict not me but another guy

In fact, I don't:

DH never mentions a combination of "Ta 152B" and "DB 603".

The "B" could also be a typo, given it's proximity to the letter "H" on the keyboard (maybe a bad interrogation-transscript/-copy).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe, but it remains that Harmann finds trustable the hypothesis it was a testbed and not a production model (he also dismisses the "escape on the deck" hypothesis) .



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> One can stubbornly think that it's "impossible" that Sattler has been shot down and resort to mere hypothesis or accept the easiest and more coherent possibility.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Nothing is "impossible" and nobody states that.
You're the one, forcefully suggesting Sattler was shot-down, despite witnesses claiming something different.

Account vs. account.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NOT AT ALL!
Official and coherent RAF reports vs. simply tales, even tales told 50 years after the event and full of contradictions!



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Unless one could have a look at the guncam-tape, this one's gonna be pretty hard to settle.
What puzzles me about your version is the complete lack of information about the eventual "oddball" Focke-Wulf

It's not that a Ta 152H wouldn't stand out like a pink elephant http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Why? If you aren't in a position to clearly see it (especially its wings) it's quite similar to a long-nosed 190.
Even more if you, Allied pilot, don't know that a new machine, a Ta152-H, does exist!
In fact, in my opinion by recognizing it as a “FW190”, Ta152 predecessor and the most similar plane of all, Shaw demonstrated to be good in identifying enemy aircraft types!

I collected as many as information I could, including all the Tempest kills reported that day in the area.
If you are aware of another non-Ta152 Focke-Wulf in the same area, shot down at the same hour of the same day, please tell us.
It would be an useful element for a more thorough judgment.
Until then, I'll stand that Sattler's shoot down is a possibility so simple and so able to explain even so far overlooked details that it's by far the most credible one.

BTW, I think that too many people forget (or want to forget) that Shaw's kill has been confirmed by RAF and that from British sources Sattler's shoot down by Shaw is considered likely (or "almost certain").

Bremspropeller
09-06-2011, 02:27 PM
NOT AT ALL!
Official and coherent RAF reports vs. simply tales, even tales told 50 years after the event and full of contradictions!

So the entire head of RAF watched the incident?
Interesting!

It's more like they credited him after his report. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


In fact, in my opinion by recognizing it as a “FW190”, Ta152 predecessor and the most similar plane of all, Shaw demonstrated to be good in identifying enemy aircraft types!

No, he didn't - unless he shot-down an actaul Fw 190.

BTW: what makes you so sure that he actaully *shot* it down, instead of watching it crash and claim it as a kill?
You know, like our old friend Chuck Yeager? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

CloCloZ
09-06-2011, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by CloCloZ:
Brems, frankly speaking it seems to me you are starting to clutch at straws.

If you don't believe to Shaw's confirmed kill you couldn't believe to ANY RAF confirmed kill too. So, there would be no point in continuing this discussion and many others.
Only uncertainty is if it was a Ta152 or a FW190.

Saying that Shaw wasn't good in E/As recognition because he wrote "a FW190" and not "a so far unknown FW190-like E/A" or such is quite ridiculous, even more if at the same time you believe to BF109 pilots that mistakenly identified Ta152s as USAAF planes (it seems they even didn't saw the black crosses, so much for "recognition skill" ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ).

I mercifully gloss over the last silly "question", I won't spent more time to answer to such wisecracks and I hope you don't even expect that.

Reports are there, tales are there, logic faults (especially in German accounts) are there, you can autonomously draw a better conclusion than mine ... if you are able to! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Kettenhunde
09-06-2011, 03:22 PM
Official and coherent RAF reports

Like the 1943 reports of RAF dogfights with the FW-190D9??

It is official and coherent....

AND very very wrong.

Kettenhunde
09-06-2011, 03:41 PM
This is intoxication, I think that Brems was conjecturing about high-alts oxigen-starvation.
An exaust leak would be a possibility like any other purely hypothetical failure on Sattler's plane.

Since there is a Focke-Wulf surely shot down by an Allied pilot, belonging to the same Allied four-plane section committed to the same mission over Ludwigslust, there is no need to resort to such hypothesis, as I shown in that page.

If you read Reschke's account, Sattler was in formation and as the number 3 man, Reschke watched him crash for no apparent reason. They had not engaged the Tempest at all and were still on climb out.

The Ta-152H is a pressurized aircraft. Any number of things can cause a pilot to loose consciousness due to a lack of oxygen.

Carbon Monoxide is a common cause in any aircraft.

In a pressurized aircraft, inadvertent activation of system resulting in an uncontrolled cabin pressure change or failure of the regulator, pressure relief valve, outflow valve, or any number of systems could have left the pilot without life support resulting in unconsciousness.

I don't see any factual basis to question Reschke's eyewitness account.

Kettenhunde
09-06-2011, 03:50 PM
The true problem comes when exposure is so gradual that you don’t perceive it. You can become incapacitated before you can vacate the environment. In an airplane, the result most likely will be a fatal accident.


He was flying alone, cruising at 5,500 feet on autopilot, with the sun coming up on a clear, beautiful day. Per established routine, he switched the fuel selector to the auxiliary tank and set up the navigation system for nearby Topeka.
About 90 minutes later, Dr. Frayser found himself in a hay field. The engine was silent. He was confused, disoriented, and groggy as he struggled to rouse himself from a deep sleep. His head was throbbing.
Thinking he was still in the air, he went through his landing checklist. As he became more oriented to his surroundings, a new reality dawned: The airplane’s right wing was nearly torn off from an impact with a tree, but the plane was otherwise intact.


What is not known is the full extent of carbon monoxide poisoning in aviation. Analysis of toxicology samples from fatal U.S. aircraft accidents between 1967 and 1993 showed that at least 360 victims had been exposed to sufficient carbon monoxide before or after the crash to impair their abilities.


The most common symptoms of carbon monoxide exposure are shown in Table 1. These symptoms are typical for an individual with normal hemoglobin at sea level. You can expect these symptoms to worsen at altitude and/or appear sooner than they otherwise would. Wide personal variations may also occur, depending on the circumstances and whether or not the individual smokes.

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safe...edia/CObroforweb.pdf (http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/CObroforweb.pdf)

JSG72
09-06-2011, 05:07 PM
Ahem..?

Don't know what this thread's trying to prove.
Other than contributers ignorance of subject or their ability to "Cherrypick" Tidbits of information from the 'net. But none have convinced me so far as to either the reasons behind "The Myth" or indeed if there is "A Myth".

One thing is for certain. There are, pilots that contributed their survival of WW2 in the final months. To the fact. That they were flying the TA152H-0/1
That is not to say it was the best aircraft around. But the fact that the performance levels over their previous steads was far superior.

Which did not mean that The TA152 was the best plane available. But it was the best they had flown.

As far as being a fighting machine?

The case for the TA152 can not be proven. As it barely fought and certainly not within its design parameters.

Why does all this Tosh end in a "Chart" fight that bares nothing to the reality of War?

BTW. Even George Loos.(Well known TA152 pilot...Yeh?) Admitted.

He shot down Nothing/Zilch/Zero in the TA152. Contrary to what Willie Reschke would have us beleive.(Yaks over Berlin?)

Now! Stop this nonsense.

Or I'll open a thread up about how B17 gunners were actually snipers.
And how Oleg based his calcs on testimonies from said participants. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

JSG72
09-06-2011, 05:33 PM
Just to admit that from a very young age.

I did really admire the look of the TA152.From an old "Frog" 1/72 model kit I used to have.

Since then I have gleaned as much "Published" information that I could on this craft. Without actually realising. There was a pilot that flew it.

Dependant on his ability or "Orders". Would determine how "Great a plane" it would become.

Sadly. To me? The TA152 is now a footnote. That perhaps allowed some pilots to survive and relate as to how they did it.

Without actually saying."I used the planes performance to "Beetle it" when things were looking CoCo.

Such is War. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

End of thread apparently?

Kettenhunde
09-06-2011, 07:28 PM
George Loos.


As to his Ta 152 claims, they can only be described as 'unsubstantiated'.

EVERY Luftwaffe claim after around December 1944 is "unsubstantiated". The RLM confirmation process generally up to a year to complete and award credit for a kill.

On that evidence and logic, the Luftwaffe did not shoot down a single allied aircraft the entire last 4 months of the war.


His logbook shows no flights on 5 December 1944 and indeed, none between 4 December and 16 December 1944. Of course most Flugbücher contain errors and omissions. It is not my intention to 'slander' Loos.

Every pilot that has ever flown has logbook omissions and errors. It is just a book that relies on a human being to maintain it.

http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/...ul-ta-152-pilot.html (http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2011/08/walter-loos-successful-ta-152-pilot.html)

JSG72
09-06-2011, 08:32 PM
LOL! Kettenhunde.

Here is a quote from, I guess. Your source:

"However the point of this is that when interviewed in the late 1970's Walter Loos stated that he had no victories - not a single enemy fighter claim - while flying the Ta 152."

Stop Cherrypicking. Face the truth from the horses mouth.

JG301 Did not have TA152s on the dates you mention and Walter wasn't even flying with them then!(apologise for naming him George.) How easy it can be in the heat of battle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



BTW. Will be over at "White One Foundation" next Mid April.

Hope you are there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Missed you last year.

We have sooo... much to discuss.

Kettenhunde
09-07-2011, 05:15 AM
Walter Loos' Ta 152 "claims" were expressly denied by Loos himself in an unpublished interview given to Jean-Yves Lorant in the late 70's

There is no cherry picking of data. I just am a very critical historian and require solid evidence before I go contradicting eyewitnesses who have gone on the record.

The source is a "private interview" "off the record" and is third hand information.

Really, that is the source??? Sounds like a very questionable source to me. You of course are free to maintain your own standards and believe what you like.

Facts are we don't know what Walter Loos said at all. We only know what a friend said he said, off the record 30+ years ago. In fact, it does not even come from Loos. It comes from somebody else and is only attributed to Loos. In a court of law, that is called "hearsay" and is not admissible as evidence.

Typical of the internet, it is now being presented as solid fact.

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?p=132470


BTW. Will be over at "White One Foundation" next Mid April.

Come on down. We just moved hangers and are sharing space with Stallion 51. The fuselage is almost finished. The wings are coming along. The engine is still being baffled.

We have the winter starting equipment rebuilt for White 1 and ready to install.

Bremspropeller
09-07-2011, 07:33 AM
If you don't believe to Shaw's confirmed kill you couldn't believe to ANY RAF confirmed kill too.

That's not what I' suggesting.
What I'm suggesting is that Shaw could have claimed "a Fw 190" he hadn't actually shot at, just because he saw it crash.
A lot of pilots of both sides have done that.


Saying that Shaw wasn't good in E/As recognition because he wrote "a FW190" and not "a so far unknown FW190-like E/A" or such is quite ridiculous, even more if at the same time you believe to BF109 pilots that mistakenly identified Ta152s as USAAF planes (it seems they even didn't saw the black crosses, so much for "recognition skill" ... ).

Most pilots sucked at a/c recognition - although pointing-out the vastly increased wing-span of the Ta 152 would have been almost inevitable in a kill-report.
The difference between shaw and the alleged Bf 109s is that most of the kids flying the 109 had never seen an unfamiliar fighter in the air before.


I mercifully gloss over the last silly "question", I won't spent more time to answer to such wisecracks and I hope you don't even expect that.

Reports are there, tales are there, logic faults (especially in German accounts) are there, you can autonomously draw a better conclusion than mine ... if you are able to!

I'm terribly sorry for getting in the way of your agenda (hehe, what are we going to do tonight, Brain??).

BS doesn't become anymore true just because you repeat it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Meanwhile, I recognize the failure of your "exposure"-thingy - mostly by a lack of un-biased analytical thinking.
The key-word here is "un-biased".

CloCloZ
09-07-2011, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If you read Reschke's account, Sattler was in formation and as the number 3 man, Reschke watched him crash for no apparent reason. They had not engaged the Tempest at all and were still on climb out.

...

I don't see any factual basis to question Reschke's eyewitness account.

Really?
It seems you didn't read my (quite long and borìng, I had to admit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) examination.

Reschke tale is irreconciliable with Cescotti's version, especially on two aspects: number of German and Alled planes involved and Sattler's flight path.
In particular, you have to completely deny Cescotti's report about Sattler delay at take off to accept Reschke's statement that he flew behind Sattler during the flight toward Ludwigslust.

It's not possible at all that Reschke flew behind Sattler during the flight from the airfield to the battle zone, if we had to believe to Sattler's delay in takeoff, which is a particular that a technical officer like Cescotti should remember much more easily than the German ace, also considering that Cescotti was at Neustadt-Glewe during the battle and that one of his duties was just to solve technical troubles!

Speaking in general, I could think that both version have the same plausibility if they would come from two pilots but in this case I have no doubt that just one of the two, i.e. the technician Cescotti, who remained at the airfield and witnessed Sattler's problem, can be right on that point.

Cescotti was a witness of Sattler's trouble, on the contrary Reschke was busy to reach Ludwigslust as soon as possible, not to solve a comrade's technical problem at take off.
I can't give much credit to Cescotti about the battle (he wasn't directly involved in that) but I have to give him some good credit about what appened on the airfield before and after the battle.

But if Cescotti is right on this point, Reschke is SURELY wrong.
It's just a question of MATH regarding Sattler's possible flight path (no, not your naive math, i speak of simple but real math involving time, speed and distance).

Maybe Reschke could be in perfectly good faith, but he would be wrong.
And if it's wrong even on his relative position to Sattler, he can be wrong on many other things related to Sattler's fall.


I've shown on my page how this usually overlooked fact (Sattler's delay at take off) casts light on his likely flight path and on his fatal encounter with Shaw.

JtD
09-07-2011, 12:59 PM
I keep wondering if historically and technically far more important and vastly more numerous planes like say an I-16 could ever get the attention late war bigger better faster nonsense keeps getting.

Anyone willing to discuss the I-16 in a 50 page topic? I could start it by pointing out how it initially owned the opposition it faced in Spain, but then it would take about three posts until we were discussing the 109 and then another five to arrive at Spitfires and 190ies...

CloCloZ
09-07-2011, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you don't believe to Shaw's confirmed kill you couldn't believe to ANY RAF confirmed kill too.

That's not what I' suggesting.
What I'm suggesting is that Shaw could have claimed "a Fw 190" he hadn't actually shot at, just because he saw it crash.
A lot of pilots of both sides have done that.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, Shaw fired a long burst to the FW, then he saw flames on that side of EA and after that the EA crashing (all this in his official report, supported by cine camera, that RAF people surely checked) and your guess is that FW could have had, at that exact time, some independent technical trouble and not a generic one but (strangely enough ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) one causing fire aboard and a crash for technical reasons? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Hey Brain, it seems to me that you are worried because you are starting to consider the possibility it was Sattler as a REAL possibility, otherwise I'm not able to explain such a silly statement! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But I'm also wondering if you still have some sense of the ridiculous ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Saying that Shaw wasn't good in E/As recognition because he wrote "a FW190" and not "a so far unknown FW190-like E/A" or such is quite ridiculous, even more if at the same time you believe to BF109 pilots that mistakenly identified Ta152s as USAAF planes (it seems they even didn't saw the black crosses, so much for "recognition skill" ... ).

Most pilots sucked at a/c recognition - although pointing-out the vastly increased wing-span of the Ta 152 would have been almost inevitable in a kill-report.
The difference between shaw and the alleged Bf 109s is that most of the kids flying the 109 had never seen an unfamiliar fighter in the air before.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?
Unfamiliar fighter with black crosses? NO BF109 pilot detected ANY black cross on ANY of the TWELVE Ta152s?
And just on the German meeting area, BTW? ("Hey, we are at our meeting point now, so ... they are likely Mustangs, lets' shoot them down!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)
And for which strange reason Shaw should have been "more familiar" with Ta152 than German BF109 pilots?



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I mercifully gloss over the last silly "question", I won't spent more time to answer to such wisecracks and I hope you don't even expect that.

Reports are there, tales are there, logic faults (especially in German accounts) are there, you can autonomously draw a better conclusion than mine ... if you are able to!

I'm terribly sorry for getting in the way of your agenda (hehe, what are we going to do tonight, Brain??).

BS doesn't become anymore true just because you repeat it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Meanwhile, I recognize the failure of your "exposure"-thingy - mostly by a lack of un-biased analytical thinking.
The key-word here is "un-biased". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Analytical thinking? Said by you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Well, I've hoped you were able to, until I realized that you are not.
So, you are right, I won't repeat my points and I won't mind your BS.
As I already wrote, I prepared that web page for people being able and willing to think.
No reason to argue with a badly disguised Ta152 uncritical fan.

Bye. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kettenhunde
09-07-2011, 01:17 PM
From your own webpage....

Cescotti's account is second hand hearsay.


Considering that Cescotti was a grounded technical officer, the details he gives about the dogfight are surely "second hand" details, i.e. heard from pilots after that mission.

http://clocloz.altervista.org/...ombat_14-4-1945.html (http://clocloz.altervista.org/history/wwii/aviation/ludwigslust/Ludwigslust_aerial_combat_14-4-1945.html)


Reschke tale is irreconciliable with Cescotti's version,

Reschke was an eyewitness and present during the battle. He has given a first hand account and gone on record with that account.

I will look thru my records to see if I have any encounter reports to see what other FW-190 units were in the vicinity that day.

CloCloZ
09-07-2011, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
From your own webpage....

Cescotti's account is second hand hearsay.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Considering that Cescotti was a grounded technical officer, the details he gives about the dogfight are surely "second hand" details, i.e. heard from pilots after that mission.

http://clocloz.altervista.org/...ombat_14-4-1945.html (http://clocloz.altervista.org/history/wwii/aviation/ludwigslust/Ludwigslust_aerial_combat_14-4-1945.html)


Reschke tale is irreconciliable with Cescotti's version,

Reschke was an eyewitness and present during the battle. He has given a first hand account and gone on record with that account.

I will look thru my records to see if I have any encounter reports to see what other FW-190 units were in the vicinity that day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kette, until some posts ago I frankly thought that your way of reasoning was worse than Brem's one.
Now, I think your and Brem's reasoning are equally negligent! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I wrote "the details he gives about the dogfight are surely "second hand" details, i.e. heard from pilots after that mission."
The dogfight, not the pre-flight and post-flight! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif
Cescotti, obviously, didn't take part to the battle (he was an "eyewitness" ... eight kilometers away from a low-height battle, at dusk ... so no eyewitness at all! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) but at take off, since Reschke and other two pilots already flew to Ludwigslust, just Cescotti was able to witness Sattler problem with the starter (causing some minutes of delay).
Is this a concept simple enough to be understood?

Bye to you, too.
After all, I have a life and, above all, I wrote a long web page also to avoid to repeat things! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Read it and try to understand it before making pointless criticisms. Or forget it.
I'm pretty sure of what will be your choice ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bremspropeller
09-07-2011, 01:55 PM
I keep wondering if historically and technically far more important and vastly more numerous planes like say an I-16 could ever get the attention late war bigger better faster nonsense keeps getting.

Anyone willing to discuss the I-16 in a 50 page topic? I could start it by pointing out how it initially owned the opposition it faced in Spain, but then it would take about three posts until we were discussing the 109 and then another five to arrive at Spitfires and 190ies...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nobody loves a crap-plane, eh?

------------------------------

So, Shaw fired a long burst to the FW, then he saw flames on that side of EA and after that the EA crashing (all this in his official report, supported by cine camera, that RAF people surely checked) and your guess is that FW could have had, at that exact time, some independent technical trouble and not a generic one but (strangely enough ... ) one causing fire aboard and a crash for technical reasons?

So, IF we have film-evidence (can you prove that?), why is there no mention of the Ta 152's unique features, such as the mildly attention-grabbing wings?

It's hardly believable that post-flight intelligence-meetings weren't interested in the surprisingly different-looking "Fw 190" on the tape. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Tempest gun-cam quality looks like this, btw:
http://www.thomasgenth.de/D9_1.jpg
http://www.thomasgenth.de/D9_2.jpg
http://www.thomasgenth.de/D9_3.jpg

The aircraft can esily be identified as a JG 26 Fw 190D-9 - now don't tell me, they'd have had a hard time recognizing the Ta 152H's most obvious features on a guncam similar to this one...

Reporting "impacts and flames" alone is not quite convincing, given the amout of false or premature kill-claims that feature those exact words.

-----------------------

I will look thru my records to see if I have any encounter reports to see what other FW-190 units were in the vicinity that day.

Could be anything or nothing, really:

JG 301 surely had some Antons or even Doras within a couple of Km of the alleged vicinity.
But it could have been a delivery-flight from a factory, a training flight, a staggler from elsewhere, some post-heavy MX-flight, etc.

Just "Fw 190" is pretty much leading nowhere without having the actual and complete knowledge of any flight-movement withing the vicinity at that time.

Given the fact how small Germany was by that time, a lost aircraft from "another" front could even be possible.

Kettenhunde
09-07-2011, 02:56 PM
The dogfight, not the pre-flight and post-flight!

However you want to slice it, Cescotti was not present DURING any portion of the FLIGHT.

That makes any information he has about those events hearsay.

He could not have witnessed Sattler crash or anything relevant to the events in the air.

A delay in Sattler's departure does not mean the aircraft did not link up in the air. Furthermore, technical difficulties with the aircraft adds further credence to Reschke's conclusion.

In my own experience, I had to repair my cowling and replace the starter ring/bendix when a kickback broke a tooth off the ring. The shrapnel from the starter could have easily damaged the firewall and gone unnoticed.

Kettenhunde
09-07-2011, 02:59 PM
Could be anything or nothing, really:

JG 301 surely had some Antons or even Doras within a couple of Km of the alleged vicinity.
But it could have been a delivery-flight from a factory, a training flight, a staggler from elsewhere, some post-heavy MX-flight, etc.

Just "Fw 190" is pretty much leading nowhere without having the actual and complete knowledge of any flight-movement withing the vicinity at that time.

Given the fact how small Germany was by that time, a lost aircraft from "another" front could even be possible.

On the 14th of March 1945, the 8th USAAF concentrated all of it's missions within 200Km of where Reschke's dogfight occurred.

TipsyTed
09-08-2011, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Nobody loves a crap-plane, eh?


In my humble opinion I-16 was more revolutionary and far less "crappy" than Ta 152 in its respective years.

CloCloZ
09-08-2011, 04:36 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fhZZ63PRjhQ/S9blRADKbuI/AAAAAAAAA0k/CIzdxhXSBLk/s1600/ta152emlarged.jpg

http://christophe.arribat.pagesperso-orange.fr/stoffwd9.jpg

No way to easily distinguish a Ta152-H from a FW190-D9 if you see it mainly from the side (especially during a short adrenalinic fight!).

It was a extremely short encounter on the deck, so an horizontal and not a vertical battle, where it seems Shaw hit the EA fuselage from the side ("just forward of the cockpit"), so it's very likely that Shaw couldn't notice the prolonged wings.

Moreover, he didn't knew of the existence of that new type of Focke-Wulf, so the recognition as a long-nosed FW was a very good identification indeed (in the same battle, Short mistook Ta152 for BF109s!).
Nothing strange here.

BTW, even if it was Sattler to be shot down, this doesn't mean anything about "Tempest superiority" (in fact, nobody ever said that), because he was took by surprise (just like Mitchell, BTW ...).
But, on the contrary, Ta152 fans harsh reaction to this possibility is particularly revealing of the willingness by some to strenuously defend "Ta152 superiority" myth, which is mainly based on just a couple of very dubious "successes", one of these being Ludwigslust battle.

About unavailability of Shaw's cine-camera recording today, this is a regrettable fact that goes well beyond that episode.
For example, Tempests shot down about 240 EAs but just an handful of their gun-cam recordings still remains publicly available (the three or four usually shown, no more).
I suppose that the same is true for a lot of other planes, too.

Some times ago I've read that after war British authorities ordered a lot of Allied fighter-bomber gun movies to be destroyed, fearing the impact on public opinion of movies also showing attacks on "civilian" targets such as trains and boats.
I suppose it could be just an urban legend and I don't know anything more.

DKoor
09-08-2011, 04:44 AM
TA-152 is extremely sexy aircraft.
I fully understand that this fact did not occur to those that faced it in combat.

CloCloZ
09-08-2011, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The dogfight, not the pre-flight and post-flight!

However you want to slice it, Cescotti was not present DURING any portion of the FLIGHT.

That makes any information he has about those events hearsay.

He could not have witnessed Sattler crash or anything relevant to the events in the air.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact, this is exactly what I said! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
He could have been a witness of just the take off, including Sattler's starter trouble ...


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
A delay in Sattler's departure does not mean the aircraft did not link up in the air.


Certainly not with a "few minutes" delay on a scramble flight to a target just eight kilometers away!
Already explained in my page, I'll not repeat here.

In fact, I've tried to reconcile this (delay issue) even with Reschke's tale, accepting his reported particular that Sattler managed to reach the battle zone at the same time of his comrades, otherwise I should have to consider Reschke's account fully untrue even on this point.
The latter would be the simplest hypothesis, indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
09-08-2011, 06:48 AM
n fact, I've tried to reconcile this (delay issue) even with Reschke's tale,

A tale....


1. A recital of events or happenings; a report or revelation: told us a long tale of woe.
2. A malicious story, piece of gossip, or petty complaint.
3. A deliberate lie; a falsehood.
4. A narrative of real or imaginary events; a story.
5. Archaic A tally or reckoning; a total.

I think Reschke's account is a better word....

An account...


1. A narrative or record of events.
a. A reason given for a particular action or event: What is the account for this loss?
b. A report relating to one's conduct: gave a satisfactory account of herself.
c. A basis or ground: no reason to worry on that account.

Let’s take a look at the evidence….

Your best piece of evidence is the third party relation of Cescotti, who tells the story of the events of the take off as related to Peter Rodeike.
RODERICH CESCOTTI TO (technical officer) of JG 301, version (from Peter Rodeike's "Jagdflugzeug Fw 190" book,...


“The Geschwaderführungskette was on alert with four Ta 152H-1 and they scrambled to intercept four inbound Tempest.

Three of those Tas were involved into dogfights just after take-off, which ensued between ground and 4000m - without any evidence of the Tempest's superiority despite it's 4:3 advantage.

The fourth Ta 152 of Ofw. Sepp Sattler had difficulties with it's starter and therefore took off a few minutes after the leading Kette, lead by Kommodore Oberstleutnant Fritz Aufhammer.

He climbed away, above the ongoing dogfight and dived into the action.

Ofw Sattler shot one Tempest out of the circling dogfight, but continued to dive and hit the deck out of an altitude of about 2000m - there was no evidence of an attempted recovery.



Another Ta 152, flown by Uffz Willi Rescke, turned with a Tempest. Both were close to the ground. reschke was on closest firing range, yet he couldn't shoot as his weapons didn't fire. Suddenly, the Tempest flipped over and hit the ground.



Now the odds were 3:2 in favor of the Tas and the remaining two Tempests elected to run away.



Our Kommodore was engaged in dogfights at medium and high altitudes, but despite his experience he was unable to get a kill.

After his landing, it became evident, that he flew on the low-alt blower setting all the time.

The shifting-automatic malfunctioned and left Obstlt. Aufhammer flying at reduced power. Despite this handicap, the Ta 152 still prove at least equal to the Tempest under all circumstances.”

Everything except for the delay is hearsay as Cescotti was not present in the air during the battle. I reread Reschke's official account on record in his book. Nowhere does Reschke state he was in formation with Sattler.

He only states he witnessed Sattler's machine go down for no apparent reason just BEFORE the Ta-152's engaged the Tempest.

To quote Reschke in his own recorded words:


As our takeoff was in the same general diretion as the railway line, we reached the Tempests' attack area shortly after takeoff. I was flying as number three in the formation, and as we reached the area where the Tempests were I saw Sattler's Ta 152 go down for no apparent reason.

The other version you quote as evidence are as related to a third party:


Another WILLI RESCHKE's version (from John Weal’s book “Fw 190 Aces of the Western Front”, pages 87/88):

Including Wikpedia of all things.....


A third WILLI RESCHKE's version, in a somewhat agreement with the previous ones apart the fundamental fact of Sattler “being hit” (unknown source, quoted by Wikipedia:

You can throw the wikpedia source completely out. Pure hearsay and does not nothing but call into question your judgment.

Both John Weals version AND Peter Rodeike's relation of events agrees with Reschke first hand account except in minor details. Considering most authors take notes and write from memory, this is going to happen with third party relation of an event.

I am sure we have all played the game in school where a story is verbally passed from one person to another and by the end of the line it is a completely different story.

The most reliable account is therefore the first person eyewitness, Reschke himself.

Reschke only states that a Kette took off to intercept the Tempest and he was the number 3 man in that Kette. That does not mean he was in formation or that they took off together, it could simply mean he was the lowest rank of the formation.

That brings us to Cescotti's minor differences…


Certainly not with a "few minutes" delay on a scramble flight to a target just eight kilometers away!
Already explained in my page, I'll not repeat here.

First we have the number of aircraft. Reschke says there were only 3 and Cescotti says the “Geschwaderführungskette” was four aircraft. By Luftwaffe doctrine, a Kette is a three aircraft formation and not four. Both accounts agree on the three pilots involved and the fourth Coscetti relates is never named.

Next discrepancy is a “few minutes” delay? Let’s just rule out the possibility that something was lost in translating from German to English and assume that Rodieke quoted Cescotti verbatim.

A few minutes is extremely subjective. Ask 10 people to wait a few minutes and you will get 10 different times. Furthermore, in the excitement of a scramble, it is human nature for time to become diluted. A few minutes may actually be only a few seconds.

Nobody timed the event so we really don’t have any facts to discount Reschke’s account of the events.

Bremspropeller
09-08-2011, 07:16 AM
It was a extremely short encounter on the deck, so an horizontal and not a vertical battle, where it seems Shaw hit the EA fuselage from the side ("just forward of the cockpit"), so it's very likely that Shaw couldn't notice the prolonged wings.

The enlarged wing-span is evident from any other angle than 90° off-bore, looking from the side.

Also, even at deck-level, turning requires some amount of bank, which in turn reveals a favourable position for spotting the enlarged wings.
We're not talking about a Ta 152C vs Dora thing here!

Comparison of different 190-versions:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avfw1904.gif


BTW, even if it was Sattler to be shot down, this doesn't mean anything about "Tempest superiority" (in fact, nobody ever said that), because he was took by surprise (just like Mitchell, BTW ...).
But, on the contrary, Ta152 fans harsh reaction to this possibility is particularly revealing of the willingness by some to strenuously defend "Ta152 superiority" myth, which is mainly based on just a couple of very dubious "successes", one of these being Ludwigslust battle.


Well, given the dubiousity of your Tempest kill-claim, you really fit nicely to them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

CloCloZ
09-08-2011, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">n fact, I've tried to reconcile this (delay issue) even with Reschke's tale,

A tale....

[/b] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Flying in n°3 position, I witnessed the Ofw. Sattler ahead of me dive into the ground seconds before we reached them."

I've already pointed out how much Reschke's tales are not coherent even among themselves and this is just an example of that.
However I see no reason for Reschke to give such a precise detail if that weren't his memory.
BTW, there in no "official report" fron Reschke, all his tales are based just on memories, written by him or told to other writers, so it isn't surprising there are some differences between them,

Alternatively, the flight "behind Sattler" could be a false particular added just to reaffirm his credibility as a witness, but I don't want to say so.
I prefer to think about bad memories.

Anyway, this (behind or not) is not really relevant since Reschke said (and this is the relevant point) that Sattler reached the battle zone at the same time of his comrades and this is non possible at all for such a short and hurried scramble flight, being late at take off (even just one minute would be too much to make up following the same flying path of his comrades).

So, Resckhe's tale is surely wrong if we believe to a grounded technician that was present at take off and so (unlike Reschke) was surely aware of Sattler's technical problem.

In fact, the relevant things are two:
1) Cescotti testimony, as a grounded witness on the airfield, of A) how many Ta152s took off B) Sattler problem at take off. They are both independent from the development of the dogfight.
2) Shaw's shooting down a Focke-Wulf in the same battle, a fully credible reason for Sattler's shootdown, more if coupled with Sattler's delay issue.

There is not much more to say, it's just a case of thinking or "to have faith" (in the myth ...).

Kettenhunde
09-08-2011, 10:24 AM
Read what Reschke writes in his first person on the record account:


As our takeoff was in the same general diretion as the railway line, we reached the Tempests' attack area shortly after takeoff. I was flying as number three in the formation, and as we reached the area where the Tempests were I saw Sattler's Ta 152 go down for no apparent reason.

Nowhere does he say Sattler was in front of him in any formation.


WILLI RESCHKE's version, from his book "Jagdgeschwader 301/302 "Wild Sau" - In Defense of the Reich with the Bf 109, Fw 190 and Ta 152":



"Attacks by enemy fighter-bombers became more frequent in the areas around the airfields, and Tempests were seen more frequently. From Neustadt-Glewe we could see them hanging in the air like hawks, ready to swoop down on anything that moved. During the late afternoon hours on 14 April 1945 two of these aircraft were seen attacking the railway line from Ludwigslust to Schwerin, which passed just a few kilometers from the airfield. Immediately three Ta 152's took off flown by Oberstleutnant Auffhammer, Oberfeldwebel Sattler and Oberfelwebel Reschke.

As our takeoff was in the same general diretion as the railway line, we reached the Tempests' attack area shortly after takeoff. I was flying as number three in the formation, and as we reached the area where the Tempests were I saw Sattler's Ta 152 go down for no apparent reason. Now it was two against two, and the low-level battle began.

The Termpest was known to be a very fast aircraft, with which the English had been able to catch and shoot down the V-1. In this engagement, however, speed played a less important role: at low level an aircraft's maneuverability was more important. As I approached, my opponent pulled up from a low-level attack and I attacked from out of a left-hand turn.

Both pilots realized that this was a fight to the finish, and from the outset both used every tactical and piloting ploy in an attempt to gain an advantage. At that height neither could afford to make a mistake, and for the first time I was able to see what the Ta 152 could really do.

Twisting and turning, never more than fifty meters above the ground, I closed the range on the Tempest. At no time did I get the feeling that my machine had reached the limit of it's performance. The Tempest pilot quite understandably had to undertake risky maneuvers to aviod a fatal burst from my guns. As my Ta 152 closed in on the Tempest, I could see that it was on the verge of rolling the other way: an indication that it could not turn any tighter. The first burst from my guns struck the Tempest in the rear fuselage and tail. The Tempest pilot reacted by immediately flicking his aircraft into a right-hand turn, which increased my advantage even further. There was no escape for the Tempest now. I pressed the firing buttons again, but my guns remained silent. Recharging them did no good: my guns refused to fire even a single shot. I can't remember whom and what I cursed at that moment. Luckily the Tempest pilot was unaware of my bad luck, for he had already had a sample. He continued to twist and turn, and I positioned my Ta 152 so that he always had a view of my machine's belly. Then came the moment when the Tempest went into a high-speed stall: it rolled left and crashed into a wood. This combat was certainly unique, having been played out at heights which were often just ten meters above the trees and rooftops. Throughout I never had the feeling that my Ta 152 had reached its performance limit, instead it reacted to the slightest control input, even though we were practically at ground level. Oberstleutnant Auffhammer also gained the upper hand against his Tempest, but in the end the enemy succeeded in escaping to the west. As the combat had taken place just a few kilometers from the airfield, in the late afternoon we drove out to the scene and discovered that Oberfeldwebel Sattler's Ta 152 and my Tempest had crashed within 500 meters of each other. The treetops had absorbed some of the force of the crash and the Tempest looked like it had made a forced landing. The damage inflicted by my cannon shells was clearly visible on the tail and rear fuselage and the pilot was still strapped in his cockpit. It turned out that he was a New Zealander, Warrant Officer O.J. Mitchell of No.486 Squadron, Royal Air Force. The next day the two fallen pilots were buried with military honors at Neustadt-Glewe cemetary.

For a long time that evening the crash of Oberfeldwebel Sattler occupied the minds of the pilots and the many witnesses who had observed the combat from the airfield. The engagement had not even begun when Sattler went down, as both Tempest pilots were still busy with their low-level attacks on the railway line and incapable of posing any threat to the Ta-152's. Moreover he was too experienced a fox to place himself in a disadvantageous position in such a situation. We could not find an explanation for his crash, which will remain a mystery forever. This was the third crash of a Ta 152, and all were unexplained."

http://clocloz.altervista.org/...ombat_14-4-1945.html (http://clocloz.altervista.org/history/wwii/aviation/ludwigslust/Ludwigslust_aerial_combat_14-4-1945.html)

You quote below DOES NOT COME FROM Reschke.

It comes from a SECOND hand retelling of what that person thinks Reschke said.


"Flying in n°3 position, I witnessed the Ofw. Sattler ahead of me dive into the ground seconds before we reached them."

You keep trying to turn it into Reschke's own words. It is NOT RESCHKE's OWN WORDS.

Reschke's words are a matter of record and found in his book.

You can keep repeating what others have attributed to Reschke all day long but it does not change the facts.

CloCloZ
09-08-2011, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
You quote below DOES NOT COME FROM Reschke.

It comes from a SECOND hand retelling of what that person thinks Reschke said.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "Flying in n°3 position, I witnessed the Ofw. Sattler ahead of me dive into the ground seconds before we reached them."

You keep trying to turn it into Reschke's own words. It is NOT RESCHKE's OWN WORDS.

Reschke's words are a matter of record and found in his book.

You can keep repeating what others have attributed to Reschke all day long but it does not change the facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So John Weal evidently invented the detail! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Anyway, as I've already wrote (and I'm really tired to have to endlessly repeat myself ...), the relative position of Sattler's plane in respect to Reschke's one (ahead, behind, ...) is not relevant at all (BTW, in another version is said "[Sattler was] on our side").
The relevant point is that Sattler couldn't fly in formation at all, if he was delayed at take off.
And I can't imagine why Cescotti should have invented that.

BTW, Cescotti is right about number of inbound Tempests at Ludwigslust (4) whereas Reschke is surely wrong (2) and the technician seems to have a clearer picture of the forces deployed by both sides.
It seems that Reschke never realized that over Ludwigslust area there were MORE than two Tempests (!), hence his disbelief about Sattler being shot down by an EA.

I think that's impossible to be sure if German version is true or, on the contrary, Sattler has really been shot down by Shaw.
But German versions are full of contradictions and "mysteries" whereas a quite simple and coherent hypothesis can be made and it leads to think that Sattler fell victim to Shaw.

Ockam's razor, inconsistencies in German versions, already proven faults in other Reschke's accounts (such as about Loos victories), lack of official (and wartime) Luftwaffe reports and, on the contrary, the fact that Allied pilots gave (on the same day) official reports with significant details (e.g. there were THREE remaining Ta152 at the end of the battle, so AFTER Sattler's fall!, see Short's report; this fully deny Reschke's tale about number of Ta152), all this concurs in building such an hypothesis.

JSG72
09-08-2011, 04:18 PM
I would be interested to here of Kettes.

Analysis of the "Orange" TA152. With links to Cescottis Log book

Kettenhunde
09-08-2011, 05:52 PM
already proven faults in other Reschke's accounts

There is no proven faults with Reschkes on the record eyewitness account of that day. All of the "other evidence", including Loos, comes from hearsay.

In Loos case, you have used "a friend of a friend said he was told off the record" and wikipedia which repeats the same unfounded rumor.

There is nothing more to discuss on it.


I would be interested to here of Kettes.

Analysis of the "Orange" TA152. With links to Cescottis Log book



When you come to visit White 1, we can discuss it. Let me know the dates.

JSG72
09-08-2011, 06:21 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Last two weeks in April 2012.
I am greatly enthusiastic to see the Teams work on the engines.


OH BTW. Think you? Submitted. "Hearsay" to a previous question/answer of mine?

Hope to meet you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

CloCloZ
09-09-2011, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> already proven faults in other Reschke's accounts

There is no proven faults with Reschkes on the record eyewitness account of that day. All of the "other evidence", including Loos, comes from hearsay.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even the simplest detail of Reschke's tale, i.e. how many Ta152s scrambled to Ludwiglusts, is denied by an official report (and not a tale) by a sure witness, directly involved, i.e. RAF pilot F/O S.J. Short, who said that at the end of the battle (so AFTER Sattler's fall) there were still THREE Ta152s and not just two: "after 3 turns I was able to give the 109 a burst with about 45° off. The 109 flew through & I observed 4 strikes aft of the cockpit. I was unable to observe further results because I had one 109 on my tail & another positioning to attack."
Total: 1 crashed (Sattler) + 1 (Aufhammer, attacked by Shaw) + 2 others (Reschke and the fourth pilot, attacking Shaw) = FOUR. And not three, as Reschke wrote.
So much for the "Kette" (just 3 planes formation) issue at Ludwigslust ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
(Short mistook Ta152s for 109s but this is a completely unrelated issue concerning to his poor plane recognition skill during a fight to the death, surely he fought a battle against Ta152s).

Reschke's tale about Ludwigslust is so unreliable that just on the number of involved Ta152s he is denied both by an Allied source (Short) and a German source (Cescotti)!.

Your faith in Resckhe's credibility is really touching ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JSG72
09-09-2011, 04:50 PM
There is much more of a tangled web in here.

Kette may be away in the Huff. Checking his paperwork. And CloCloZ is trying to prove Reschkes provenance within the scope of one interlude.

I would suggest that the initial poster was questioning. The perceived Myth of the TA 152. One encounter does not create a "Myth" in my book (Sorry I don't write books http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif)

In my life(And I would believe in the experiences of others). What is write down. May not be Fact. Compared to what actually happened.

Now this doesn't matter so much nowadays. As one has the ability to "Edit posts".

Not something that was available to pilots Logbooks in 1945.

I would request that anyone relying on what they have as definate written evidence.

Sit back over a coffee a few years later and discuss.

Once all the High profile and order following and without fear of repercussion. Has been gotten out of the way.

Guaranteed an answer will start. "Well to be honest" (Unless they have a recent publishing deal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)

The "Facts" will come out.

This may not be the way, Law works?

But it sure is Life?

Still looking for the definitive TA 152 story. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Kettenhunde
09-09-2011, 05:51 PM
Kette may be away in the Huff.

Not at all. It is already covered in the thread and I don't feel the need to rehash it.

Frequent_Flyer
09-09-2011, 06:28 PM
quote:

"We could not find an explanation for his crash, which will remain a mystery forever. This was the third crash of a Ta 152, and all were unexplained."


How about, poorly designed and poor craftmanship!!!! Thats one hell of a combat aircraft, it shoots itself down. The myth of German engineering. At least the soviet engineers could reverse engineer the B-29 design and have it perform similarly. The Germans could not even reverse engineer the US radial engine/supercharger . They had to put an inline engine in the FW-190 to get high altitude performance from the airframe.

JSG72
09-09-2011, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kette may be away in the Huff.

Not at all. It is already covered in the thread and I don't feel the need to rehash it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Posted Fri September 09 2011 17:56

Hide Post




Hi!

No it hasn't.

The only thing that is Fact.

Is that you persist on trawling up Reschkes account of things.

As written in 1945.

Would that be when..... Jg301 were trying out a new craft? When every, old flier knew The War was lost. When certain persons knew that. Even though the War was lost.

They could still win?

A "Jailors Dog" comes to mind.

Bremspropeller
09-10-2011, 02:44 AM
How about, poorly designed and poor craftmanship!!!! Thats one hell of a combat aircraft, it shoots itself down.

How about under-motivated forced-labour building a machine that's designed to prolong the war when the war is quite obviously almost over?

Of course, I could post a list of crash-prone american aircraft, but I won't feed the Troll more than neccessary http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


The myth of German engineering.
http://www.thespacebuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/saturn_v_night.jpg
Truely overated! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


At least the soviet engineers could reverse engineer the B-29 design and have it perform similarly.

That's not too hard: all the hard issues were already solved. The challenge is down to building the tools and getting the alloys right.


The Germans could not even reverse engineer the US radial engine/supercharger .

They didn't need to, they had Turbo-Superchargers on their own.
See "German Engineering".

BTW: as you're truely a Systems-Integration Nobel-Prize holder, you can surely tell us how a Turbosupercharger (well, that's the easy part!) and all the piping (d'oh!) is gonna fit inside the Fw 190 airframe?


They had to put an inline engine in the FW-190 to get high altitude performance from the airframe.

Not a big deal as they only put the radial in, because it was the only engine widely availiably at the time - without compromising engine-production for other aircraft.
They wanted to have an inline-engine in the first place.

CloCloZ
09-10-2011, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kette may be away in the Huff.

Not at all. It is already covered in the thread and I don't feel the need to rehash it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cescotti was a witness of take offs (and of nothing else, since the battle was fought far away his airfield).

Cescotti is VERY explicit on this point: a Kette (3 planes) took off some minutes before the fourth Ta152 ("The fourth Ta 152 of Ofw. Sepp Sattler had difficulties with it's starter and therefore took off a few minutes after the leading Kette").
He talks explicitely of a Kette PLUS a fourth (delayed) Ta152: FOUR planes in total.
This (four planes) is in perfect agreement with Short's official report (three remaining Ta152 at the end of the battle) and not with Reschke's tale, as I explained both in my page and in my previous post.

Cescotti refers to a peculiar event he witnessed (a delay caused by starter's trouble) and I can't imagine why he should have invented it.
Moreover he was a technician, so particularly interested in technical troubles (and likely involved into solving Sattler's problem too).

A bad memory could be possible but unlikely: it wasn't an event witnessed while frantically fighting to the death but when staying on airfield ground.
During a battle pilots have just some seconds to look at enemies, to look around themselves, etc. and mistakes are fully understandable.
Not so much for a witness on the ground.


Of course, it's a matter of high likelihood, not of absolute certainty.

Kettenhunde
09-10-2011, 06:31 AM
He talks explicitely of a Kette PLUS a fourth (delayed) Ta152: FOUR planes in total.


There are three pilots listed by name common to all accounts.

There are three pilots in a Kette by Luftwaffe doctrine.

Who is the fourth pilot in Cescotti's account?

CloCloZ
09-10-2011, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He talks explicitely of a Kette PLUS a fourth (delayed) Ta152: FOUR planes in total.


There are three pilots listed by name common to all accounts.

There are three pilots in a Kette by Luftwaffe doctrine.

Who is the fourth pilot in Cescotti's account? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont' know, as I wrote on my page, since Cescotti doesn't name him. Maybe he didn't remember his name and didn't want to hazard a name.
But the fact that he talks about four pilots even if he names just three of them is in my view a clue that he REALLY remembered four planes and wanted to be accurate at least on that point. In fact, it would have been simpler for him to talk about three planes, leaving out the fourth unnamed pilot from his tale, whose attendance wasn't relevant.
In fact, the unnamed pilot was the only German pilot not really involved into the fight, neither as a "killer" nor as a "victim", so if there has to be a forgotten name it's understandable it was his name.

Anyway is pure nonsense to say that there has to be just three since "there are three pilots in a Kette by Luftwaffe doctrine":
Cescotti explicitly says "The fourth Ta 152 ... took off a few minutes after the leading Kette".

He obviously knows very well that a Kette is made by three planes, so well that he says, in fact, that a Kette, formed by three planes, took off and after then was followed by Sattler's plane.
No mystery about numbers declared by Cescotti: a Kette PLUS one more plane.

Short's official report tells about three Ta152 remaining after Sattler's crash, fighting directly with him, so reinforcing Cescotti's credibility.

Reschke, on the contrary, was so unaware of the overall numbers of involved planes that he went on thinking (or, at least, writing ...) that nobody could have likely shot down Sattler because "both Tempest pilots were still busy with their low-level attacks on the railway line and incapable of posing any threat to the Ta-152's".
He was evidently unaware that TWO MORE Tempests (Shaw and Brooker) were involved into the strafing action on the area! On the contrary, Cescotti accounts correctly on the total number of Tempests (4) that called for a scramble.
Reschke's tale is insufficient when seen from more than one aspect. Not surprising, since it's based just on memories (likely including bad memories) of events dating back some decades.

I want to speak basing on the hypothesis of good faith and bad memories here.
I think that he, rushing to the battle, probably didn't even realize, at that time, that Sattler has been delayed and so he could likely have now a bad memory about the pilot flying ahead of him towards Ludwigslust: he could well have been the fourth unnamed pilot, instead of Sattler.
After having entered in contact with Tempests, Reschke's formation broke so his plane identification shuffled and his focus diverted to Sattler's crash and to EAs.
If Sattler followed a flight path similar to what I suggest, he would have been arrived at battle area at about the same time of Reschke, so the latter never had a clue of the initial delay of the comrade!
Emotional event regarding Sattler's crash has been likely much more present in Reschke's mind, for long decades, that any other memory about a further pilot taking part to the fight (but without showing himself in any action to remember and this detail could be quite significant).
Reschke's mistakes about Loos victories (as J-Y Lorant found) demonstrate that we have to expect also bad memories from him.

So, why to believe to Reschke and not to Short and Cescotti, whose fully independent accounts are in perfect agreement about total number of planes involved (not a subtle and ambiguous detail, just the number of planes)?
Please don't say "he was a witness".
Short was a witness too and I suppose he should have remembered quite well (with a shiver down his spine) those TWO EAs attacking him, so likely at quite close distance, in ADDITION to Aufhammer's plane he was fighting with! So well to write about that on an official report.
And Cescotti was by far in the best position of all to witness take off phase at Neustadt-Glewe and the number of Ta152 thrown into the battle.

I dont think I have to explain further my position, which has already been explained in much detail on my page (http://clocloz.altervista.org/...ombat_14-4-1945.html (http://clocloz.altervista.org/history/wwii/aviation/ludwigslust/Ludwigslust_aerial_combat_14-4-1945.html) <--- UPDATED SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2011, with an examination of main objections and criticisms too).

Kettenhunde
09-10-2011, 01:35 PM
They didn't need to, they had Turbo-Superchargers on their own.
See "German Engineering".

BTW: as you're truely a Systems-Integration Nobel-Prize holder, you can surely tell us how a Turbosupercharger (well, that's the easy part!) and all the piping (d'oh!) is gonna fit inside the Fw 190 airframe?


Actually Focke Wulf investigated using the BMW801J which was already in production and operational use on the FW-190A series.

Even though the Germans were ahead in turbosupercharging technology over the allies, they ran into the same issues as everyone else.

The additional weight of a turbosupercharger means you sacrifice all other performance except for very high altitudes where the power to weight ratio of the engine comes back into manageable numbers.

Although everyone had turbocharger technology, only the American's saw it as being viable for fighter aircraft. The European philosophy was a smallest aircraft possible with the largest engine possible. Turbochargers cannot change power settings quickly at all unlike a supercharger.

They simply discarded it as a power plant for fighter aircraft designed for air superiority. Oxygen enrichment offered better performance without the weight penalty of the turbo equipment and retained the instant power advantage of a normal supercharging.

Bremspropeller
09-10-2011, 02:58 PM
Exactly - Turbocharging is very nice for cruising at high alts for a long time with few power-changes.

At lower alts, TCH is just dead weight and added complexity to the airframe, possibly lowering dispatch-reliability.

Frequent_Flyer
09-10-2011, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How about, poorly designed and poor craftmanship!!!! Thats one hell of a combat aircraft, it shoots itself down.

How about under-motivated forced-labour building a machine that's designed to prolong the war when the war is quite obviously almost over?

Of course, I could post a list of crash-prone american aircraft, but I won't feed the Troll more than neccessary http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


The myth of German engineering.
http://www.thespacebuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/saturn_v_night.jpg
Truely overated! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


At least the soviet engineers could reverse engineer the B-29 design and have it perform similarly.

That's not too hard: all the hard issues were already solved. The challenge is down to building the tools and getting the alloys right.


The Germans could not even reverse engineer the US radial engine/supercharger .

They didn't need to, they had Turbo-Superchargers on their own.
See "German Engineering".

BTW: as you're truely a Systems-Integration Nobel-Prize holder, you can surely tell us how a Turbosupercharger (well, that's the easy part!) and all the piping (d'oh!) is gonna fit inside the Fw 190 airframe?


They had to put an inline engine in the FW-190 to get high altitude performance from the airframe.

Not a big deal as they only put the radial in, because it was the only engine widely availiably at the time - without compromising engine-production for other aircraft.
They wanted to have an inline-engine in the first place. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The goof we have in the White House won a Nobel prize.
The Germans could not get the high altitude performance from their radial engine and waited till the war was over to essentially attempt recitifing this, and your talking about nobel prize winning engineers. The US did not have to engineer the next generation fighter aircraft and they still had better performance where it most useful, protecting the bomber stream at higher altitudes. Check the performance of the FW-190 at the average altitude the US bombers operated at over Europe. It would have been helpfull if the better of the two main fighters Germany produced had better performance at these altitudes.

Do not worry about feeding the troll I have had a great laugh watching you and Kittenhunde apologize and pontificate about the wonders of German engineering.

Kettenhunde
09-10-2011, 06:23 PM
Here is what the British had to say about German Turbosupercharger technology:

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/1038/turbok.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/560/turbok.jpg/)

At 10Km the turbosupercharged BMW801J engine is only producing 1350PS but adds ~500lbs of weight. Much lighter than the 1000(+)lbs of the R-2800 turbocharger found in the P-47 series.

At 10Km, GM-1 at 80g/sec is producing 1300PS of power for ~240lbs of weight. Of that weight, ~180lbs was consumable Nitrous Oxide and could be used for 22 minutes of flight.

From an engineering standpoint, the oxygenation gives you much more bang for your buck than a heavy turbocharger system. The allies tried it but ran into the same issues as the Germans. However the Germans had more experience with it and were able to overcome much of the technical issues. Just like turbocharging, the system never lived up to its potential. Intake icing remained the largest danger with oxygenation systems.

In the Focke Wulf, GM-1 was approved for use on the FW-190A8 but was not encouraged. In the Bf-109 series, it was in use much earlier.

The Germans did use Turbochargers on their high altitude bombers where it makes more sense. The Junkers 388 was the most numerous high altitude bomber in the Luftwaffe and used the BMW801J almost exclusively.

I have some conference reports on the BMW801J in Geschwader use that are pretty interesting.

To get back on subject so it does not get buried and this shameful character assassination of a Willie Reschke continue....

I just am a very critical historian and require solid evidence before I go contradicting eyewitnesses who have gone on the record.

The source is a "private interview" "off the record" and is third hand information.

Really, that is the source??? Sounds like a very questionable source to me. You of course are free to maintain your own standards and believe what you like.

Facts are we don't know what Walter Loos said at all. We only know what a friend said he said, off the record 30+ years ago. In fact, it does not even come from Loos. It comes from somebody else and is only attributed to Loos. In a court of law, that is called "hearsay" and is not admissible as evidence.

Typical of the internet, it is now being presented as solid fact.

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?p=132470

You can throw the wikpedia source completely out. Pure hearsay and does not nothing but call into question your judgment.

Both John Weals version AND Peter Rodeike's relation of events agrees with Reschke first hand account except in minor details. Considering most authors take notes and write from memory, this is going to happen with third party relation of an event.

I am sure we have all played the game in school where a story is verbally passed from one person to another and by the end of the line it is a completely different story.

The most reliable account is therefore the first person eyewitness, Reschke himself.

Reschke only states that a Kette took off to intercept the Tempest and he was the number 3 man in that Kette. That does not mean he was in formation or that they took off together, it could simply mean he was the lowest rank of the formation.
Your best piece of evidence is the third party relation of Cescotti, who tells the story of the events of the take off as related to Peter Rodeike.

Everything except for the delay is hearsay as Cescotti was not present in the air during the battle. I reread Reschke's official account on record in his book. Nowhere does Reschke state he was in formation with Sattler.

He only states he witnessed Sattler's machine go down for no apparent reason just BEFORE the Ta-152's engaged the Tempest.

Reschke says there were only 3 and Cescotti says the “Geschwaderführungskette” was four aircraft. By Luftwaffe doctrine, a Kette is a three aircraft formation and not four. Both accounts agree on the three pilots involved and the fourth Coscetti relates is never named.

Next discrepancy is a “few minutes” delay? Let’s just rule out the possibility that something was lost in translating from German to English and assume that Rodieke quoted Cescotti verbatim.

A few minutes is extremely subjective. Ask 10 people to wait a few minutes and you will get 10 different times. Furthermore, in the excitement of a scramble, it is human nature for time to become diluted. A few minutes may actually be only a few seconds.

Nobody timed the event so we really don’t have any facts to discount Reschke’s account of the events.


In fact, the unnamed pilot was the only German pilot not really involved into the fight, neither as a "killer" nor as a "victim"

He very well might have simply confused another aircraft taking off for a completely unrelated reason that had nothing to do with intercepting Tempest on that day.....

Of course that reasonable explanation for the discrepancy would not align with your agenda.

Frequent_Flyer
09-10-2011, 08:21 PM
Kettenhunde posted:

Here is what the British had to say about German Turbosupercharger technology:

This would be Heresay and irrelavant.

Read the design specifications for the Fw-190D and Ta-152. They were designed/engineered to amend the high altitude deficiencies of the FW-190.
The German's were hopelessly behind the US in Radial engine/sytems design.

Bremspropeller
09-11-2011, 02:16 AM
The German's were hopelessly behind the US in Radial engine/sytems design.

1) Relevance?

2) The Americans were hopelessly behind german inline-engine-design. They even had to "Buy British" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Frequent_Flyer
09-11-2011, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The German's were hopelessly behind the US in Radial engine/sytems design.

1) Relevance?

2) The Americans were hopelessly behind german inline-engine-design. They even had to "Buy British" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely, they built it under licensed and and engineered signicant improvements to the performance of this engine.An outstanding example of allied collaberation. However, when BMW built a licensed copy of the US radial engine( in the 1930's) they could not engineer the high altitude performance from it necessary to compete with the performance the US acheived in 1942. This was Kurt Tank's own admmission in 1944, thus the shift to a heavier less effceint inline engine. With a power to weight ratio far inferior to the radial and much less rugged.

It took the "master race" from the 1930's till the end of a conflict in the mid 1940's and they could not put up a fighter to effectively challenge the high altitude performance of either the US radial nor the US engineered Rolls/Merlin.

Interesting since nothing was more devastating to Germany's collective war effort than the allied high altitude bombing,-RELEVANT!!!!!- don't ya think.

Bremspropeller
09-11-2011, 11:17 AM
This was Kurt Tank's own admmission in 1944, thus the shift to a heavier less effceint inline engine. With a power to weight ratio far inferior to the radial and much less rugged.

Looks like you haven't read this thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif


Interesting since nothing was more devastating to Germany's collective war effort than the allied high altitude bombing,-RELEVANT!!!!!- don't ya think.

No.