PDA

View Full Version : Ta 152 vs Tempest V mythology



mynameisroland
01-06-2008, 06:33 AM
The two only ever me once yet there are a lot of assumptions made regarding the outcome of the combat and also of the Ta 152's superiority in the dogfight.

I feel that making a decision based on one combat encouter is a fallacy and here is why :

In the words of Ofw. Reschke:

"Two enemy fighters were spotted some eight kilometres to the south-west of the field, making low-level passes over Ludwigslust railway yards. Three Ta 152 took off at once, piloted by the Oblt. Aufhammer, the Ofw. Sattler and myself. We were immediately in contact with the enemy fighters, which turned out to be Tempests. Flying in n?3 position, I witnessed the Ofw. Sattler ahead of me dive into the ground seconds before we reached them. It was hardly possible for his crash to have been the result of enemy action, as the Tempest pilots had clearly only just registered our presence. Now began a fight at two against two at the ground-level, which was never to climb above 50 metres. At this altitude neither could afford to make the slightest mistake. And for the first time since flying the Ta 152 I began fully to appreciate exactly what this aircraft could do.

"Pulling ever tighter turns, I got closer and closer to one of the Tempests, never once feeling I was even approaching the limit of the Ta's capabilities. When he flicked over onto the opposite wing I knew his last attempt to turn inside me had failed. My first burst of fire caught the Tempest in the tail and rear fuselage; its pilot immediately engaged its aircraft in a starboard turn, giving me an even greater advantage. I pressed my gun buttons a second time, but after a few rounds my weapons fell silent and refused to fire another shot. However, the Tempest, which had already taken hits continued desperately to twist and turn, and I positioned myself so that I was always just within his field of vision. Eventually, inevitably, it stalled. The Tempest's left wing dropped and he crashed into the woods immediately below us, about one kilometre of the site from Sattler's crash. The Tempest pilot, the W/O O.J. Mitchell was buried side by side with the Ofw. Sattler next day in Neustadt-Glewe cemetery with full military honours".


Now when we examine the RAF 2nd TAF's version of the encounter:

"Wing Commander Brooker and and three of the units pilots (486 squadron)were again after some rail targets , but were split up. At 19.30 Wt Off W.J.Shaw, who was in flying with Brooker, saw a lone fighter, apparently a Fw 190 again, and shot this down in flames after a brief combat. Meanwhile the other pair had been caught by three more fighters whilst concentrating of strafing, and Wt Off O.J.Mitchell, a new pilot with the unit, was shot down and killed. It was reported that his opponent may have been a Bf 109 E - an obsolete type. Flg Off S.J short fought with one of the others, which was also identified as a Messerschmitt, claimed to have inflicted some damage on this. Their opponents were certainly not flying Bf 109 E, but fighters of a much more 'exotic' nature. The New Zealanders had been engaged by three members of Stab/JG301, a unit which had recently been equipped with the initial examples of the Fw Ta 152, the ultimate development of the Fw 190 line to see operational service. In one of these, Ofw Willi Reschke had shot down Mitchells Tempest over Ludwigslust at 1920, for his 25th victory, but in another of these fighters, Ofw Sepp Sattler had been shot down and killed - almost certainly by Shaw."

2nd TAF Vol. Three from Rhine to Victory, Jan to May 45, Shores and Thomas, pg 486

What conclusions can be drawn from these two accounts?

Factually it is beyond doubt that 2 RAF Tempests were surprised and attacked while strafing enemy ground targets by 2 or 3 Ta 152s.

We also know that Reschke shot down and killed O.J.Mitchell a new pilot with the unit.

We know that Reschke was an ace, we know that Mitchell was a new pilot.

We know that the Germans attacked with the advantage of surprise.

We know that Shaw claims to have inflicted damage on an enemy aircraft.

We know that Sattler's Ta 152 crashed in to the ground.

We know that Shaw escaped from the remaining Ta 152s.

So ignoring the two aircrafts performance at 50ft altitude - we know the Tempest V was faster and had superior intial rate of climb - we have two differing accounts of the encounter, two aircraft lost one on each side. One inexperienced Tempest pilot shot down by an 'Ace' Ta 152 pilot and that the remaining Tempest pilot Shaw was able to inflict damage on/shootdown one enemy fighter and withdraw from the battle.

What we have to decide is where the truth lies between the two accounts? We know that Reschke claims to have seen Sattler crash in to the ground apparently just at the moment the Tempests sited the Ta 152s. Yet according to the 2nd TAF's accounts one German fighter was damaged by shaws cannon fire in the engagement.

Personally I find it interesting that as suspected an ace, Reschke, shot down an inexerienced pilot new to the unit, and Shaw then faced with odds 2 or 3 to 1 including an 'Ace' was able to disengage from the battle.

I will not draw any conclusions stating one event to be the truth or the other but I wanted to provide both accounts of the story to balance up those who have only read Reschke's.

Personally I think that at low level the Ta 152 was formidable and competitive but a Dora 9 would be equally if not more deadly, and the Tempest V (April 45) possessed greater performance attributes at low altitude and outperformed either. But when surprised and attacked by an experienced opponent Reschke could have been in a Bf 109 E and still got a kill.It does nothing to prove the Ta 152 was a better dog fighter than the Tempest.

cheers

mynameisroland
01-06-2008, 06:33 AM
The two only ever me once yet there are a lot of assumptions made regarding the outcome of the combat and also of the Ta 152's superiority in the dogfight.

I feel that making a decision based on one combat encouter is a fallacy and here is why :

In the words of Ofw. Reschke:

"Two enemy fighters were spotted some eight kilometres to the south-west of the field, making low-level passes over Ludwigslust railway yards. Three Ta 152 took off at once, piloted by the Oblt. Aufhammer, the Ofw. Sattler and myself. We were immediately in contact with the enemy fighters, which turned out to be Tempests. Flying in n?3 position, I witnessed the Ofw. Sattler ahead of me dive into the ground seconds before we reached them. It was hardly possible for his crash to have been the result of enemy action, as the Tempest pilots had clearly only just registered our presence. Now began a fight at two against two at the ground-level, which was never to climb above 50 metres. At this altitude neither could afford to make the slightest mistake. And for the first time since flying the Ta 152 I began fully to appreciate exactly what this aircraft could do.

"Pulling ever tighter turns, I got closer and closer to one of the Tempests, never once feeling I was even approaching the limit of the Ta's capabilities. When he flicked over onto the opposite wing I knew his last attempt to turn inside me had failed. My first burst of fire caught the Tempest in the tail and rear fuselage; its pilot immediately engaged its aircraft in a starboard turn, giving me an even greater advantage. I pressed my gun buttons a second time, but after a few rounds my weapons fell silent and refused to fire another shot. However, the Tempest, which had already taken hits continued desperately to twist and turn, and I positioned myself so that I was always just within his field of vision. Eventually, inevitably, it stalled. The Tempest's left wing dropped and he crashed into the woods immediately below us, about one kilometre of the site from Sattler's crash. The Tempest pilot, the W/O O.J. Mitchell was buried side by side with the Ofw. Sattler next day in Neustadt-Glewe cemetery with full military honours".


Now when we examine the RAF 2nd TAF's version of the encounter:

"Wing Commander Brooker and and three of the units pilots (486 squadron)were again after some rail targets , but were split up. At 19.30 Wt Off W.J.Shaw, who was in flying with Brooker, saw a lone fighter, apparently a Fw 190 again, and shot this down in flames after a brief combat. Meanwhile the other pair had been caught by three more fighters whilst concentrating of strafing, and Wt Off O.J.Mitchell, a new pilot with the unit, was shot down and killed. It was reported that his opponent may have been a Bf 109 E - an obsolete type. Flg Off S.J short fought with one of the others, which was also identified as a Messerschmitt, claimed to have inflicted some damage on this. Their opponents were certainly not flying Bf 109 E, but fighters of a much more 'exotic' nature. The New Zealanders had been engaged by three members of Stab/JG301, a unit which had recently been equipped with the initial examples of the Fw Ta 152, the ultimate development of the Fw 190 line to see operational service. In one of these, Ofw Willi Reschke had shot down Mitchells Tempest over Ludwigslust at 1920, for his 25th victory, but in another of these fighters, Ofw Sepp Sattler had been shot down and killed - almost certainly by Shaw."

2nd TAF Vol. Three from Rhine to Victory, Jan to May 45, Shores and Thomas, pg 486

What conclusions can be drawn from these two accounts?

Factually it is beyond doubt that 2 RAF Tempests were surprised and attacked while strafing enemy ground targets by 2 or 3 Ta 152s.

We also know that Reschke shot down and killed O.J.Mitchell a new pilot with the unit.

We know that Reschke was an ace, we know that Mitchell was a new pilot.

We know that the Germans attacked with the advantage of surprise.

We know that Shaw claims to have inflicted damage on an enemy aircraft.

We know that Sattler's Ta 152 crashed in to the ground.

We know that Shaw escaped from the remaining Ta 152s.

So ignoring the two aircrafts performance at 50ft altitude - we know the Tempest V was faster and had superior intial rate of climb - we have two differing accounts of the encounter, two aircraft lost one on each side. One inexperienced Tempest pilot shot down by an 'Ace' Ta 152 pilot and that the remaining Tempest pilot Shaw was able to inflict damage on/shootdown one enemy fighter and withdraw from the battle.

What we have to decide is where the truth lies between the two accounts? We know that Reschke claims to have seen Sattler crash in to the ground apparently just at the moment the Tempests sited the Ta 152s. Yet according to the 2nd TAF's accounts one German fighter was damaged by shaws cannon fire in the engagement.

Personally I find it interesting that as suspected an ace, Reschke, shot down an inexerienced pilot new to the unit, and Shaw then faced with odds 2 or 3 to 1 including an 'Ace' was able to disengage from the battle.

I will not draw any conclusions stating one event to be the truth or the other but I wanted to provide both accounts of the story to balance up those who have only read Reschke's.

Personally I think that at low level the Ta 152 was formidable and competitive but a Dora 9 would be equally if not more deadly, and the Tempest V (April 45) possessed greater performance attributes at low altitude and outperformed either. But when surprised and attacked by an experienced opponent Reschke could have been in a Bf 109 E and still got a kill.It does nothing to prove the Ta 152 was a better dog fighter than the Tempest.

cheers

Kurfurst__
01-06-2008, 07:29 AM
3:1 that it last at least 3 pages, +5 if /Xiabolu/Josf/Mgunz/Tagert/luftie turns up, +10 pages if more than one of the above, and make it 4:1 if it stays on topic for more than 3 pages, 5:1 that it will be abandoned with distgust after page 3 only to be resurrected by the very bored luftie 2 weeks later.

Bonus bet is possible at 1:1 that Bearcat/Ivan will make a 'shaking head' smiley warning to the consequences then nothing will happen, 2:1 that it will be locked, 1:10 that at least one participant will be banned.

So gentlemen, make your bets if this sounds acceptable.

K_Freddie
01-06-2008, 08:01 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Lot's of 'known unknowns' to make any assumptions - as we all should know how easy it is to be seperated in a DF.

Also there are lots of assumptions on the a/c in IL2 that can create illusions of superiority..
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sergio_101
01-06-2008, 08:11 AM
Fog of war, no one seems to know who did exactly what.

Sergio

Bremspropeller
01-06-2008, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Personally I think that at low level the Ta 152 was formidable and competitive but a Dora 9 would be equally if not more deadly, and the Tempest V (April 45) possessed greater performance attributes at low altitude and outperformed either. But when surprised and attacked by an experienced opponent Reschke could have been in a Bf 109 E and still got a kill.It does nothing to prove the Ta 152 was a better dog fighter than the Tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Dora would have fitted in better, no doubt.

Reschke has had some combat before, but he was sent to the front as a greenhorn, much more of a greenhorn than that Tempest driver who had enough of training to be considered "CR".


The Tas just lift off to counter the Tempests strafing nearby the airfield.
Therefore the Tas were at disadvantage initially.
Some reports qoute there were initially more than two Tempests, however only two were further on observed to take part in the engagement.
maybe the other fighters were able to successfully flee.

Failure to watch out for hostile fighteras can surely attributed to the Tempests.

One was shot down - hardly what you'd call a surprise attack. rather sounds like both of them fiddled for some time (ever tightening turns).

Oberfeldwebel Sattler dived into the ground from high altitude. A claim for a kill, but no confirmation.
Some sources say mechanical/ technical malfuntion was the reason. Could just have been a reason as well.
Is there any guncam-footage - could help a lot.

The third Ta chased a Tempest to high altitudes and could easyly compete - despite a blown supercharger.


That "could have been in a 109E"-comment is nothing but a lame assumption of the author.


The whole engagement was well within the airfields view and has been backed up by other accounts.

Sergio_101
01-06-2008, 08:42 AM
Another better known, almost legendary
example of aircraft rizing to battle in the middle of the fight
is the Bodenplatte air combat over "Y29".
12 Fully loaded P-51Ds (including full rear fuselage tanks)
took off into the fight and shot down at least
26 (some say 24) German aircraft with no losses.

Between 6 and 8 P-47Ds were already airborne.

I think it comes down to the first to see the enemy.
That is how most WWII era air combat went.
First to get a visual wins the day.

Rookies against Vets? Yep!
There were obviously some German vets in the mix
from reading the reports.

My point in posting this in this discussion is that
you can not take this battle and tell what
planes were better no
more then the previously mentioned meeting between Ta-152's and Tempests.

Reading the pilot accounts of Y-29 would leave you
with the feeling that the P-51
was god like with no worthy opponents.

There was not enough time left in WWII to sort
out the difference, or even to find out
if the Ta-152 was even sorted out enough to be combat worthy.

Just looking at the performance figures, over all I would favor the Tempest under 3,500 meters.
Above that the Ta-152 is given the edge.

I would also guess that any version of the Ta-152 would hold the edge in a turn fight at any altitude.

Sergio

MEGILE
01-06-2008, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The two only ever me once yet there are a lot of assumptions made regarding the outcome of the combat and also of the Ta 152's superiority in the dogfight.

I feel that making a decision based on one combat encouter is a fallacy and here is why :

In the words of Ofw. Reschke:

"Two enemy fighters were spotted some eight kilometres to the south-west of the field, making low-level passes over Ludwigslust railway yards. Three Ta 152 took off at once, piloted by the Oblt. Aufhammer, the Ofw. Sattler and myself. We were immediately in contact with the enemy fighters, which turned out to be Tempests. Flying in n?3 position, I witnessed the Ofw. Sattler ahead of me dive into the ground seconds before we reached them. It was hardly possible for his crash to have been the result of enemy action, as the Tempest pilots had clearly only just registered our presence. Now began a fight at two against two at the ground-level, which was never to climb above 50 metres. At this altitude neither could afford to make the slightest mistake. And for the first time since flying the Ta 152 I began fully to appreciate exactly what this aircraft could do.

"Pulling ever tighter turns, I got closer and closer to one of the Tempests, never once feeling I was even approaching the limit of the Ta's capabilities. When he flicked over onto the opposite wing I knew his last attempt to turn inside me had failed. My first burst of fire caught the Tempest in the tail and rear fuselage; its pilot immediately engaged its aircraft in a starboard turn, giving me an even greater advantage. I pressed my gun buttons a second time, but after a few rounds my weapons fell silent and refused to fire another shot. However, the Tempest, which had already taken hits continued desperately to twist and turn, and I positioned myself so that I was always just within his field of vision. Eventually, inevitably, it stalled. The Tempest's left wing dropped and he crashed into the woods immediately below us, about one kilometre of the site from Sattler's crash. The Tempest pilot, the W/O O.J. Mitchell was buried side by side with the Ofw. Sattler next day in Neustadt-Glewe cemetery with full military honours".


Now when we examine the RAF 2nd TAF's version of the encounter:

"Wing Commander Brooker and and three of the units pilots (486 squadron)were again after some rail targets , but were split up. At 19.30 Wt Off W.J.Shaw, who was in flying with Brooker, saw a lone fighter, apparently a Fw 190 again, and shot this down in flames after a brief combat. Meanwhile the other pair had been caught by three more fighters whilst concentrating of strafing, and Wt Off O.J.Mitchell, a new pilot with the unit, was shot down and killed. It was reported that his opponent may have been a Bf 109 E - an obsolete type. Flg Off S.J short fought with one of the others, which was also identified as a Messerschmitt, claimed to have inflicted some damage on this. Their opponents were certainly not flying Bf 109 E, but fighters of a much more 'exotic' nature. The New Zealanders had been engaged by three members of Stab/JG301, a unit which had recently been equipped with the initial examples of the Fw Ta 152, the ultimate development of the Fw 190 line to see operational service. In one of these, Ofw Willi Reschke had shot down Mitchells Tempest over Ludwigslust at 1920, for his 25th victory, but in another of these fighters, Ofw Sepp Sattler had been shot down and killed - almost certainly by Shaw."

2nd TAF Vol. Three from Rhine to Victory, Jan to May 45, Shores and Thomas, pg 486

What conclusions can be drawn from these two accounts?

Factually it is beyond doubt that 2 RAF Tempests were surprised and attacked while strafing enemy ground targets by 2 or 3 Ta 152s.

We also know that Reschke shot down and killed O.J.Mitchell a new pilot with the unit.

We know that Reschke was an ace, we know that Mitchell was a new pilot.

We know that the Germans attacked with the advantage of surprise.

We know that Shaw claims to have inflicted damage on an enemy aircraft.

We know that Sattler's Ta 152 crashed in to the ground.

We know that Shaw escaped from the remaining Ta 152s.

So ignoring the two aircrafts performance at 50ft altitude - we know the Tempest V was faster and had superior intial rate of climb - we have two differing accounts of the encounter, two aircraft lost one on each side. One inexperienced Tempest pilot shot down by an 'Ace' Ta 152 pilot and that the remaining Tempest pilot Shaw was able to inflict damage on/shootdown one enemy fighter and withdraw from the battle.

What we have to decide is where the truth lies between the two accounts? We know that Reschke claims to have seen Sattler crash in to the ground apparently just at the moment the Tempests sited the Ta 152s. Yet according to the 2nd TAF's accounts one German fighter was damaged by shaws cannon fire in the engagement.

Personally I find it interesting that as suspected an ace, Reschke, shot down an inexerienced pilot new to the unit, and Shaw then faced with odds 2 or 3 to 1 including an 'Ace' was able to disengage from the battle.

I will not draw any conclusions stating one event to be the truth or the other but I wanted to provide both accounts of the story to balance up those who have only read Reschke's.

Personally I think that at low level the Ta 152 was formidable and competitive but a Dora 9 would be equally if not more deadly, and the Tempest V (April 45) possessed greater performance attributes at low altitude and outperformed either. But when surprised and attacked by an experienced opponent Reschke could have been in a Bf 109 E and still got a kill.It does nothing to prove the Ta 152 was a better dog fighter than the Tempest.

cheers </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this stuff keep you awake at night?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
3:1 that it last at least 3 pages, +5 if /Xiabolu/Josf/Mgunz/Tagert/luftie turns up, +10 pages if more than one of the above, and make it 4:1 if it stays on topic for more than 3 pages, 5:1 that it will be abandoned with distgust after page 3 only to be resurrected by the very bored luftie 2 weeks later.

Bonus bet is possible at 1:1 that Bearcat/Ivan will make a 'shaking head' smiley warning to the consequences then nothing will happen, 2:1 that it will be locked, 1:10 that at least one participant will be banned.

So gentlemen, make your bets if this sounds acceptable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This makes no sense coming from you kurfurst, considering you are the clown prince of obfuscation, in anything other than moderation.

CloCloZ
01-06-2008, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

I will not draw any conclusions stating one event to be the truth or the other but I wanted to provide both accounts of the story to balance up those who have only read Reschke's.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks.
Reschke's report was the only one Tempest vs TA152 dogfight report I knew.
I think it's absolutely relevant to have the Allies' version too, especially when clarifying it was an ace-vs-rookie combat.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Personally I think that at low level the Ta 152 was formidable and competitive but a Dora 9 would be equally if not more deadly, and the Tempest V (April 45) possessed greater performance attributes at low altitude and outperformed either. But when surprised and attacked by an experienced opponent Reschke could have been in a Bf 109 E and still got a kill.It does nothing to prove the Ta 152 was a better dog fighter than the Tempest.

cheers </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fully agree with you.

Ta 152 and Tempest are both first class late war fighters and I think is difficult (or impossible) to declare a clear winner at low and medium altitudes.
For sure, we can't draw a conclusion from this episode.

In this case it seems to me that if Reschke would have know his opponent was so inexperienced he would have limited his praises to his plane.
BTW, it's even possible that a more expert pilot wouldn't have stalled (from Reschke own words it seems to me the cause for the shotdown could be more a pilot mistake than the previously received shots).
Tempest V was a difficult fighter to fly. Clostermann said young pilots of his Wing were scared by a machine their barely could fly, imagine mastering it against a LW ace at 50 mt!

VW-IceFire
01-06-2008, 09:08 AM
I never took this brief encounter as showing the potential of either aircraft for many of the reasons stated. Its a one of encounter with a variety of unusual circumstances at very low level so its not indicative of the "typical" air combat of WWII.

Its still interesting to see the other side of the story which I had not previously read about. I had looked for it in my 2nd TAF series of books but I hadn't found it mentioned...may need to go back and have another look.

So I guess its possible that the one Ta-152 that dived to the ground was infact the result of enemy action and that Reschke simply did not see the attacker. Its possible, at such low altitude, to not have picked out much of anything. As always the fog of war makes things interesting.

There are lots of examples in my 2nd TAF series of books that describe encounters that don't make sense until both events are correlated for location, time, and units involved and then the pieces start to fall into place. In one encounter I remember the Allied pilots identified the enemy as Bf109s and the Luftwaffe pilots identified the enemy as Spitfires. In reality it was Tempests against FW190s. All manners of things can happen...particularly when were talking about the Tempest. It seems that the Tempest was the least well identified in German encounters. Its called a Spitfire, Typhoon, Mustang, or Thunderbolt in many instances...I'm not sure when it was officially recognized that the RAF had a hot new fighter.

Brain32
01-06-2008, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'm not sure when it was officially recognized that the RAF had a hot new fighter.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well even the Allies had problems with it, there were quite a few accidents were US pilots wrongly "recognized" Typhoons and Tempests as FW190's...

They shouldn't let n00bs in no icon servers... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luftluuver
01-06-2008, 09:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
3:1 that it last at least 3 pages, +5 if /Xiabolu/Josf/Mgunz/Tagert/luftie turns up, +10 pages if more than one of the above, and make it 4:1 if it stays on topic for more than 3 pages, 5:1 that it will be abandoned with distgust after page 3 only to be resurrected by the very bored luftie 2 weeks later.

Bonus bet is possible at 1:1 that Bearcat/Ivan will make a 'shaking head' smiley warning to the consequences then nothing will happen, 2:1 that it will be locked, 1:10 that at least one participant will be banned.

So gentlemen, make your bets if this sounds acceptable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
1000:1 odds that it will be an educational thread if Kurfurst stays out of the thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If he does show up with more posts, we know it will not be him that gets banned with his preferential status here.

tools4foolsA
01-06-2008, 10:05 AM
Agree, combat reports (all of them...and the whole lot of them) do not show superiority of machines. Useless to use them.

Many factors why;
- fog of war
- pilot skill
- fog of war
- condition of plane, engine, fuel
- height advantage
- fog of war
- surprise advantage
- sheer luck
- target fixation
- fog of war

and more...

So stop everybody posting combat reports for porpose of 'plane A is better than plane B' topics.

+++++

Jaws2002
01-06-2008, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You better have a licence to fish in this waters boy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

JtD
01-06-2008, 10:49 AM
Wasn't the Ta-152 a H model and thus a dedicated high alt fighter?

na85
01-06-2008, 11:41 AM
Should we be surprised that someone with a tempest in his sig is trying to debunk myths that show the temp in an unfavorable light?

Here fishy fishy fishy

Xiolablu3
01-06-2008, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
3:1 that it last at least 3 pages, +5 if /Xiabolu/Josf/Mgunz/Tagert/luftie turns up, +10 pages if more than one of the above, and make it 4:1 if it stays on topic for more than 3 pages, 5:1 that it will be abandoned with distgust after page 3 only to be resurrected by the very bored luftie 2 weeks later.

Bonus bet is possible at 1:1 that Bearcat/Ivan will make a 'shaking head' smiley warning to the consequences then nothing will happen, 2:1 that it will be locked, 1:10 that at least one participant will be banned.

So gentlemen, make your bets if this sounds acceptable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot to add yourself. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Oh you are already here....

Oh and just to help you with your spelling ... 'Xio-la-blue' written in easy language...

berg417448
01-06-2008, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'm not sure when it was officially recognized that the RAF had a hot new fighter.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well even the Allies had problems with it, there were quite a few accidents were US pilots wrongly "recognized" Typhoons and Tempests as FW190's...

They shouldn't let n00bs in no icon servers... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite common on all sides. Remember that one of the first times that Ta-152's went into action they were attacked by Me-109s. When Typhoons first went into action several of the early losses were to RAF Spitfires.

BaronUnderpants
01-06-2008, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The two only ever me once yet there are a lot of assumptions made regarding the outcome of the combat and also of the Ta 152's superiority in the dogfight.

I feel that making a decision based on one combat encouter is a fallacy and here is why :

In the words of Ofw. Reschke:

"Two enemy fighters were spotted some eight kilometres to the south-west of the field, making low-level passes over Ludwigslust railway yards. Three Ta 152 took off at once, piloted by the Oblt. Aufhammer, the Ofw. Sattler and myself. We were immediately in contact with the enemy fighters, which turned out to be Tempests. Flying in n?3 position, I witnessed the Ofw. Sattler ahead of me dive into the ground seconds before we reached them. It was hardly possible for his crash to have been the result of enemy action, as the Tempest pilots had clearly only just registered our presence. Now began a fight at two against two at the ground-level, which was never to climb above 50 metres. At this altitude neither could afford to make the slightest mistake. And for the first time since flying the Ta 152 I began fully to appreciate exactly what this aircraft could do.

"Pulling ever tighter turns, I got closer and closer to one of the Tempests, never once feeling I was even approaching the limit of the Ta's capabilities. When he flicked over onto the opposite wing I knew his last attempt to turn inside me had failed. My first burst of fire caught the Tempest in the tail and rear fuselage; its pilot immediately engaged its aircraft in a starboard turn, giving me an even greater advantage. I pressed my gun buttons a second time, but after a few rounds my weapons fell silent and refused to fire another shot. However, the Tempest, which had already taken hits continued desperately to twist and turn, and I positioned myself so that I was always just within his field of vision. Eventually, inevitably, it stalled. The Tempest's left wing dropped and he crashed into the woods immediately below us, about one kilometre of the site from Sattler's crash. The Tempest pilot, the W/O O.J. Mitchell was buried side by side with the Ofw. Sattler next day in Neustadt-Glewe cemetery with full military honours".


Now when we examine the RAF 2nd TAF's version of the encounter:

"Wing Commander Brooker and and three of the units pilots (486 squadron)were again after some rail targets , but were split up. At 19.30 Wt Off W.J.Shaw, who was in flying with Brooker, saw a lone fighter, apparently a Fw 190 again, and shot this down in flames after a brief combat. Meanwhile the other pair had been caught by three more fighters whilst concentrating of strafing, and Wt Off O.J.Mitchell, a new pilot with the unit, was shot down and killed. It was reported that his opponent may have been a Bf 109 E - an obsolete type. Flg Off S.J short fought with one of the others, which was also identified as a Messerschmitt, claimed to have inflicted some damage on this. Their opponents were certainly not flying Bf 109 E, but fighters of a much more 'exotic' nature. The New Zealanders had been engaged by three members of Stab/JG301, a unit which had recently been equipped with the initial examples of the Fw Ta 152, the ultimate development of the Fw 190 line to see operational service. In one of these, Ofw Willi Reschke had shot down Mitchells Tempest over Ludwigslust at 1920, for his 25th victory, but in another of these fighters, Ofw Sepp Sattler had been shot down and killed - almost certainly by Shaw."

2nd TAF Vol. Three from Rhine to Victory, Jan to May 45, Shores and Thomas, pg 486

What conclusions can be drawn from these two accounts?

Factually it is beyond doubt that 2 RAF Tempests were surprised and attacked while strafing enemy ground targets by 2 or 3 Ta 152s.

We also know that Reschke shot down and killed O.J.Mitchell a new pilot with the unit.

We know that Reschke was an ace, we know that Mitchell was a new pilot.

We know that the Germans attacked with the advantage of surprise.

We know that Shaw claims to have inflicted damage on an enemy aircraft.

We know that Sattler's Ta 152 crashed in to the ground.

We know that Shaw escaped from the remaining Ta 152s.

So ignoring the two aircrafts performance at 50ft altitude - we know the Tempest V was faster and had superior intial rate of climb - we have two differing accounts of the encounter, two aircraft lost one on each side. One inexperienced Tempest pilot shot down by an 'Ace' Ta 152 pilot and that the remaining Tempest pilot Shaw was able to inflict damage on/shootdown one enemy fighter and withdraw from the battle.

What we have to decide is where the truth lies between the two accounts? We know that Reschke claims to have seen Sattler crash in to the ground apparently just at the moment the Tempests sited the Ta 152s. Yet according to the 2nd TAF's accounts one German fighter was damaged by shaws cannon fire in the engagement.

Personally I find it interesting that as suspected an ace, Reschke, shot down an inexerienced pilot new to the unit, and Shaw then faced with odds 2 or 3 to 1 including an 'Ace' was able to disengage from the battle.

I will not draw any conclusions stating one event to be the truth or the other but I wanted to provide both accounts of the story to balance up those who have only read Reschke's.

Personally I think that at low level the Ta 152 was formidable and competitive but a Dora 9 would be equally if not more deadly, and the Tempest V (April 45) possessed greater performance attributes at low altitude and outperformed either. But when surprised and attacked by an experienced opponent Reschke could have been in a Bf 109 E and still got a kill.It does nothing to prove the Ta 152 was a better dog fighter than the Tempest.

cheers </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So the Ta(s) Shaw fought, hit and escaped from where flown by experten? (u seem to assume that Ofw. Reschke was on his tail to, at the same time he shot down the "new guy" in the Tempest..no easy feat i tell u) If they where, u have a point, otherwice...got any fish?


As for the crasched Ta that here is claimed to be shot down by the Tempests where witnessed by Ofw. Reschke as crashing before they reached the Tempests, apparently without any reason, maby engine trouble? There never where a 3vs1 situation at any time. 2vs2, 1vs1...take your pick. The only thing we know from the Allied report u posted is that they thought they where facing Bf109`s...Bf109E no less...i think i`ll leave it at that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

If Ofw. Reschke wasnt imagening things when he saw Ofw. Sattler crash before they reached the Tempests and if the Ta Shaw hit crashed, there should have been 2 dead Ta`s not 1.

mynameisroland
01-06-2008, 01:18 PM
Of the two accounts Rescke's is the 1st hand pilots account. The one which he states his Ta 152 was great fighter blah blah blah ect so comparing a battle report logged by the RAF pilot to a pilots account filled with personal emotions i think it is easy to say which one is more reliable. Reschke said it was unlikely to be due to enemy activity - not definitely due to pilot error/ mechanical failure - but how can he know the positioning of Shaw's plane if he was looking to shoot down Mitchell's Tempest?

Reschke's story wouldnt have read so well had he said 3 TA 152s surpise attacked (both Rescke and Shaw say this) 2 Tempests and the net result was 1 aircraft lost each. The net result isnt as impressive when looked at that way/

BaronUnderpants
01-06-2008, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Of the two accounts Rescke's is the 1st hand pilots account. The one which he states his Ta 152 was great fighter blah blah blah ect so comparing a battle report logged by the RAF pilot to a pilots account filled with personal emotions i think it is easy to say which one is more reliable. Reschke said it was unlikely to be due to enemy activity - not definitely due to pilot error/ mechanical failure - but how can he know the positioning of Shaw's plane if he was looking to shoot down Mitchell's Tempest?

Reschke's story wouldnt have read so well had he said 3 TA 152s surpise attacked (both Rescke and Shaw say this) 2 Tempests and the net result was 1 aircraft lost each. The net result isnt as impressive when looked at that way/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, if the Tempests where "jumped" as u say, how in gods name can Shaw shoot down Ofw. Sattler before they even reached the Tempests?

Unless there where another flight of Tempests on the Ta`s tails....making it 4vs3, 5vs3, 6vs3 in favor of the Tempests...not the other way arround?

Ofw. Reschke reported SEEING Ofw. Sattler crash before the engagement started.

A RAF report states Wt Off W.J.Shaw as ALMOST CETAINLY beeing the one shooting down Ofw. Sattler.

Oh, yha....no doubt as to what to belive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

La7_brook
01-06-2008, 01:37 PM
Its case that the 2 Tempests were part of a larger group , makes u think y were there just 2 Tempests on this soite?

Bremspropeller
01-06-2008, 01:41 PM
Alright, I found another Pilot account of this story - for those who have Peter Rodeike's "Jagdflugzeug Fw 190"-book, read on page 416/417.

The account is by Roderich Cescotti, TO (technical officer) of JG 301 - have loosely translated it:

[...]

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.

[...]


Looks like the RAF report is not correct on some issues.

stathem
01-06-2008, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Alright, I found another Pilot account of this story - for those who have Peter Rodeike's "Jagdflugzeug Fw 190"-book, read on page 416/417.

The account is by Roderich Cescotti, TO (technical officer) of JG 301 - have loosely translated it:

[...]

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.

[...]


Looks like the RAF report is not correct on some issues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On that account neither is Reschke's; since he says he was flying No 3 to Aufhammer and Sattler, (who took off late according to your account) and saw Sattler dive into the ground.

Or is it that the account you just posted is not correct on some issues?

Bremspropeller
01-06-2008, 02:35 PM
As my account is a ground witness, I'd give it the moste credit.

luftluuver
01-06-2008, 03:17 PM
Tempest losses
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Temploss-4-2.jpg

Notice there is only one Tempest loss for the day SN141 flown by Mitchell was shot down.

Bremspropeller
01-06-2008, 03:24 PM
Yeah, shooting sb out of a DF doesn't necessaryly mean he crashes afterwards.

Bf109s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Xiolablu3
01-06-2008, 03:57 PM
Most likely the Tempest was a bit better down low, and the Ta152 a bit better up high.


As for the actual fight, its hard to say using just those accounts. it sounds like the Ta152 was easily outturning the Tempest, but then you have to factor in that the Tempsest pilot was a total rookie, and the Ta152 pilot an Ace.

I dont htink we can draw too much info about which type was 'better' at what from these accounts. The German pilot is certainly impressed by his Ta152, however.

Those loss acounts certainly show that the Tempest and 2nd TAF in general was seeing a lot of action, whether from flak or aircraft vs aircraft. (Interesting info for the other thread where we were discussing which plane performed more significant sorties of the late was types, Spitfire 25lbs, Spitfire XIV, Bf109K and Fw190D. The Spitfire XIV squadrons's (around 100 aircraft) in service in France in the last 6 months of the war were part of the 2nnd TAF too. We can deduce that the type saw a lot of action if the records are comparable with the Tempests, as you would think they would be...

mortoma
01-06-2008, 04:19 PM
Ta-152Cs or the H1 model?? Anyone know?? Most likely H1s I'd say.

Bremspropeller
01-06-2008, 04:24 PM
H-1

CloCloZ
01-06-2008, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

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 <span class="ev_code_RED">he couldn't shoot as his weapons didn't fire</span>. Suddenly, the Tempest flipped over and hit the ground.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it seems possible we have a RAF victory claim ("almost certainly by Shaw") that in fact could have been a Ta152 failure and a LW victory claim that could have been entirely a pilot mistake, without any shot fired ("his weapons didn't fire")!

My humble suggestion is please don't use this event to draw conclusions about relative performance of the involved planes, since we have doubtful reports and because there was one and only one ace involved (and claimed a victory on a rookie!).

However, since the episode seems to be commonly used by TA 152 fans to state the superiority of the German fighter I think that the RAF report puts things in a more balanced way.

Bremspropeller
01-06-2008, 04:39 PM
Reschke reports that initially he was able to fire a few rounds that eventually struck the Tempest.

When he attempted a second burst, however, his guns remained silent.

If you ask me, Reschke inflicted minor damage to the Tempest whose pilot then took it beyond the edge, stalled, crashed and burned.

VW-IceFire
01-06-2008, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Reschke reports that initially he was able to fire a few rounds that eventually struck the Tempest.

When he attempted a second burst, however, his guns remained silent.

If you ask me, Reschke inflicted minor damage to the Tempest whose pilot then took it beyond the edge, stalled, crashed and burned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep I'd agree with that pretty much 100% based on the two accounts presented. At such a low altitude and given the Tempests propensity to momentarily flip around on its back when stalled during a turn its not surprising.

I think we should look at these two documents as interesting pieces of history to bring to light. Thanks for posting them!

CloCloZ
01-06-2008, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Reschke reports that initially he was able to fire a few rounds that eventually struck the Tempest.

When he attempted a second burst, however, his guns remained silent.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, but Cescotti, who was a Technical Officer, says otherwise. From his account it seems Reschke didn't fired a single shot.
If we trust Cescotti about the malfunctioning shifting I suppose we could trust him also regarding the weapons ...


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
If you ask me, Reschke inflicted minor damage to the Tempest whose pilot then took it beyond the edge, stalled, crashed and burned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was also my guess before reading Cescotti report.
Now I don't know if is more likely a fal..., well let's say ... "optimistic" claim by Reschke (a victory after a short burst) or a full rookie mistake.

In any case, if we totally trust the German version it seems that in this action they had SERIOUS FAILURES OR MALFUNCTIONING ON THREE TAs OUT OF FOUR! (Sattler crash, Reschke weapons and Aufhammer engine settings - could this last one be just a human error? Cescotti says "malfunctioning").
Not a great achievement in terms of Ta 152 reliability, even considering the troubles LW had in the last months of war ...

HuninMunin
01-06-2008, 05:08 PM
Those planes were merely a preproduction line pushed into operational service for further evaluation.
No need to or sense in drawing any conclusions about the design itself from that.

CloCloZ
01-06-2008, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Those planes were merely a preproduction line pushed into operational service for further evaluation.
No need to or sense in drawing any conclusions about the design itself from that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not bashing the design, I think it was essentially a great plane, but it seems likely that Germans hadn't the time to remove all the flaws before end of the war.
BTW, I don't think the weapons misfire (if true) could be ascribed to bad design.

DuxCorvan
01-06-2008, 05:36 PM
Forum member #1: Are you suggesting big bombs migrate?
Forum member #3: Not at all. They could be carried.
Forum member #1: What? A Tempest carrying a Grand Slam bomb?
Forum member #3: It could grip it by the fins!
Forum member #1: It's not a question of where it grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A four ton plane could not carry a ten ton bomb.
Forum member #3: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell the admins that (Forum member #3) is here?
Forum member #1: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a Tempest needs to turn its propeller forty-three times every second, right?
Forum member #3: Please!
Forum member #1: Am I right?
Forum member #3: I'm not interested!
Forum member #2: It could be carried by a German Ta 152!
Forum member #1: Oh, yeah, a German Ta 152 maybe, but not a British Tempest. That's my point.
Forum member #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
Forum member #3: Will you ask the admin if he can fix my account at UBI?!
Forum member #1: But then of course a-- German Ta 152s are non-ground-pounding.
Forum member #2:: Oh, yeah...
Forum member #1: So, they couldn't bring a huge bomb anyway...
Forum member #2:: Wait a minute! Supposing two Tempests carried it together?
Forum member #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
Forum member #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of steel!
Forum member #1: What, held under the rocket racks?
Forum member #2: Well, why not? Got charts!

luftluuver
01-06-2008, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Those planes were merely a preproduction line pushed into operational service for further evaluation.
No need to or sense in drawing any conclusions about the design itself from that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The 152 H was certainly rushed into service but the H-O was the pre-production model while the H-1 was the production model.

The H-0 for comparison would be an American YP-xx while the H-1 would be a P-xx.

There is also the test combat post war between the Tempest and a Dora 13 flown by a LW experten. How much experience the Tempest pilot is not known.

Bremspropeller
01-06-2008, 06:26 PM
It's "Experte" singular and "Experten" prural.

Viper2005_
01-06-2008, 06:55 PM
Pilot vs Aeroplane debates are fundamentally all about statistics.

It is generally accepted that a good pilot in a bad aeroplane might beat a bad pilot in a good aeroplane.

It is also generally accepted that a good pilot in a bad plane will probably be defeated by an excellent pilot in an excellent aeroplane.

However, in any individual engagement there are so many factors at work that it is unreasonable to attempt a deterministic analysis.

Therefore we should resort to statistics.

***

We may then say that on average provided that we consider a large number of engagements, the better aeroplane will win.

In other words, good aeroplanes will tend to beat bad aeroplanes, irrespective of other factors. That is effectively the definition of a good aeroplane.

Of course, we might also say the same thing about pilot skill; good pilots will tend to beat bad pilots, irrespective of other factors. That is effectively the definition of a good pilot.

Of course, when you try to consider both factors at once you set the cat amongst the pigeons, but that's another debate...

***

What is not debatable is that we may only draw meaningful conclusions if we consider a large number of engagements. Whilst we might have a flame-war about what exactly constitutes a large number, I would hope that we would all agree that 1 is not a large number.

***

Which is why, at the design stage, we consider a variety of performance parameters (top speed, ROC etc). None of these matter. All that matters is combat performance. But in the absence of a war, we can't measure that, so we attempt to make an educated guess by asking pilots what they want, and by conducting simulations of one sort or another which attempt to utilise other performance parameters to advantage in combat.

So for example, it was once thought that sustained turn rate was the key to success. Then somebody worked out that a high roll rate and instantaneous turn rate capability was almost equally useful, but could more easily be combined with a high speed capability due to the fact that roll rate and instantaneous turn rate are not incompatible with high roll rate in the way that a high sustained turn rate is. The result of this insight was called the Fw-190 and the rest is history.

(Actually the above is a considerable over-simplification of the real historical facts, but it is useful for the sake of brevity; which may seem strange coming from me, but these things are all relative...)

***

So, if we seek to measure the sim against combat reports, we may reasonably do this only if we arrange a test based upon a similar number of combats conducted under similar conditions.

Which is never going to happen for all sorts of reasons...

But in this case, dealing with one engagement, I would like to finish by observing that I might win the lottery once...

Viper2005_
01-06-2008, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
It's "Experte" singular and "Experten" <span class="ev_code_red">prural</span>. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

classic!

luftluuver
01-06-2008, 07:07 PM
Thanks Brem. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Please note Viper's correction. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

HuninMunin
01-06-2008, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Those planes were merely a preproduction line pushed into operational service for further evaluation.
No need to or sense in drawing any conclusions about the design itself from that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The 152 H was certainly rushed into service but the H-O was the pre-production model while the H-1 was the production model.

The H-0 for comparison would be an American YP-xx while the H-1 would be a P-xx.

There is also the test combat post war between the Tempest and a Dora 13 flown by a LW experten. How much experience the Tempest pilot is not known. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm quite familiar with the designation system, thank you.
Read a little about the Ta 152s development and you will find that the RLM's decisionto place a 1 behind the H did not give the plane any kind of normal production-ready state.

luftluuver
01-06-2008, 07:25 PM
Did someone miss

"The 152 H was certainly rushed into service"?

Is that why 680 H-1s were scheduled to be built by May 1945? Never mind that some 15,000 Ta 152 were planned to be built by March 1946.

I think it is not me that needs to do the reading. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Phas3e
01-06-2008, 09:22 PM
The side story from the Surviving Tempest pilots is in the book 'Wild winds', one of the pilots definatly reported the german fighters as 109s.

Friendly_flyer
01-07-2008, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
What is not debatable is that we may only draw meaningful conclusions if we consider a large number of engagements. Whilst we might have a flame-war about what exactly constitutes a large number, I would hope that we would all agree that 1 is not a large number. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In common statistical sense a sufficiently large number* is not likely to be less than 30. If the random factors (here pilot skills, weather, surprise etc) are high and hard to correlate for (most definitely the case here), the "sufficient number" is likely to be in the 50-100 range.



* A sufficiently large number is here defined as one where the resulting best aircraft is likely to also be found the best aircraft in a different sample of the same aircrafts with a likelihood of P&gt;0,95.

tools4foolsA
01-07-2008, 02:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Tempest losses
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Temploss-4-2.jpg

Notice there is only one Tempest loss for the day SN141 flown by Mitchell was shot down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Notice that the TO observing said: *Ofw Sattler shot one tempest out of the circling dogfight...*


Shot out can be damaged and therefore retreating from the dogfight, nursing home his plane, plane being repaired and not showing on your all mighty list.

Taking those 'loss lists' as the ultimate truth makes no sense either by the way, there will be mistakes in them as well as in all things in life.
No absolute truth in 'loss papers'...
+++++

Phil_K
01-07-2008, 03:51 AM
These debates are quite simple. If you are British, or from the Anglophone world in general, then obviously the Tempest is the better plane.

If you are German, or from a proximate central European country, then the Ta152 is obviously the better plane.

For those of us who don't give a toss, the studied air of faux-neutrality that you all adopt prior to the histrionic data-slinging is always a joy to behold.

HuninMunin
01-07-2008, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Did someone miss

"The 152 H was certainly rushed into service"?

Is that why 680 H-1s were scheduled to be built by May 1945? Never mind that some 15,000 Ta 152 were planned to be built by March 1946.

I think it is not me that needs to do the reading. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you want me to pull out the numbers for the He 162? Or Me 262? Or other planes that where sceduled for full blown production that where "combat ready" designs?
Don't get defensive mate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Viper2005_
01-07-2008, 04:50 AM
Friendly_flyer, that sounds reasonable. 100 is a nice round number. However, given the complexity of the problem, I suspect that 95% confidence may well be ill-founded...

Phil_K, I am British. However, I am also an engineer.

This means that I am more interested in getting the correct answer to the question than I am in pursuing a nationalistic agenda.

OTOH, it also means that I am liable to participate in histrionic data slinging for all "sides" as a function of that which I believe to be the correct answer rather than as a function of the nationality of the aircraft concerned.

(Unfortunately, my German isn't that good, so this generally means that I attempt to point out the strengths & weaknesses of Allied aircraft)

Having said that, I applaud your sentiments!

However, in this context, the concept of "the best aeroplane" is rather difficult to pin down since the Ta-152 was a high altitude interceptor, essentially designed to combat USAAF heavy bomber raids at 25,000 feet plus. The Tempest was an evolution of the Typhoon, and effectively this made it something of a general purpose aeroplane. The Typhoon was specified before the war based upon the assumption that it would essentially be a better Hurricane, and do much the same job (shoot down He-111s and the like at about 20,000 feet). Obviously by the time Hawkers sorted out the myriad issues associated with their 2nd generation monoplane (amongst other things they made the mistake of trying to use the Vulture), the situation in the air had changed, and tackling the He-111 threat was almost exclusively the preserve of night fighters.

This meant that the Tempest never really had a reference target, and I suspect it probably never really had a design mission in the normal sense.

Which, given the realities of war, was probably sensible.

But it means that:

- it is essentially impossible to use combat between the two to decide which is the better aircraft, just as it would be impossible to use a race between a tractor and an F1 car to decide which was the better vehicle.

- it is equally impossible to compare their respective abilities at performing their design missions, since AFAIK the Tempest didn't have one.

Bremspropeller
01-07-2008, 08:03 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

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

BaronUnderpants
01-07-2008, 08:32 AM
Kind of intresting though, that out of 3 differant reports, of wich 2 where eyewitness accounts and 1 an "official" report, neither one mach up to the other very well.

Depending on wich one u belive the outcome can be interpreted diffrently.

Heat of battle and all that.


P.S. As for the crached Ta i personally would guess that it was hit by groundfire(maby the pilot himselfe) or the controles locked up somehow (cant see any other reason why someone would just plow strait into the ground apparently for no good reason). This i base on the assumption that the Ta`s engaged the Tempests just as they where doing a ground attack (Flak and other groundfire one would presume)

Just because im making this guess doesnt mean im saying Tempest is inferior, its just not possible to determin wich ac is best by 1 single account.

Bremspropeller
01-07-2008, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kind of intresting though, that out of 3 differant reports, of wich 2 where eyewitness accounts and 1 an "official" report, neither one mach up to the other very well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is nothing out of order.
It's quite normal that different witnesses give different accounts.

BaronUnderpants
01-07-2008, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kind of intresting though, that out of 3 differant reports, of wich 2 where eyewitness accounts and 1 an "official" report, neither one mach up to the other very well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is nothing out of order.
It's quite normal that different witnesses give different accounts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I know.

Ask 10 people to tell the same story and u will get 10 differant storys with the same outcome (idealy)


Thats all we ever gonna know for sure...the outcome. How it got that way and who did what is anybodys guess some 60 years after the fact.


A intresting sidenote to this is a WWII documentary i wached yesterday about the Fall of Berlin. The official version about the red flag ending up on the Reichstag is apperently wrong. Both the time it happend and who put the flag up there is incorrect.

Just goes to show that not everything is black and white.

Jaws2002
01-07-2008, 11:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:


I know.

Ask 10 people to tell the same story and u will get 10 differant storys with the same outcome (idealy)


Thats all we ever gonna know for sure...the outcome. How it got that way and who did what is anybodys guess some 60 years after the fact.


A intresting sidenote to this is a WWII documentary i wached yesterday about the Fall of Berlin. The official version about the red flag ending up on the Reichstag is apperently wrong. Both the time it happend and who put the flag up there is incorrect.

Just goes to show that not everything is black and white. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I told you that for long time.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/pony3.jpg

JSG72
01-07-2008, 02:11 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Just did a QMB. Me as Reschke with 2 other 152h-1s against 3 Tempests.
Smolensk map 10:00. Weather poor. Height 100mtrs

One of the Tempests was a rookie.

Started off well My side knocked down two tempests before I could even register they were there!

However the remaining Tempest musthave took severe umbridge to this and shot down one of my wingmen.
I had cottoned on to him though and a tailchase ensued. He was slowly climbing and I applied MW to catch up. He steepened the climb and I stalled out without getting anywhere near him.

I managed to catch it and zooomed around abit to get my bearings only to witness the blighter shooting down my other wingman. Mmmmm...

Now hes getting it I thought.However. He just kept booming and zooming me. I tried in vane to follow him but ended up Hitting the ground and being killed.

So it was actually just him who outflew us all.

Oh BTW. My 8yr old son who was a witness on the ground assures me that Tempest got caught up in my explosion and actually crashed as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BaronUnderpants
01-08-2008, 01:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:


I know.

Ask 10 people to tell the same story and u will get 10 differant storys with the same outcome (idealy)


Thats all we ever gonna know for sure...the outcome. How it got that way and who did what is anybodys guess some 60 years after the fact.


A intresting sidenote to this is a WWII documentary i wached yesterday about the Fall of Berlin. The official version about the red flag ending up on the Reichstag is apperently wrong. Both the time it happend and who put the flag up there is incorrect.

Just goes to show that not everything is black and white. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I told you that for long time.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/pony3.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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


Thats the one, a propaganda pic taken after the fact.(never noticed the P-51 befor though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif)

There are several others, none of wich are the real deal.

Actually, there isnt any pic taken when the real 5 men planted the flag a little after 22.00 in the evening.


Anyhow, just a sidenote showing the effects of fog of war and all that.

cmirko
01-08-2008, 04:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Forum member #1: Are you suggesting big bombs migrate?
Forum member #3: Not at all. They could be carried.
Forum member #1: What? A Tempest carrying a Grand Slam bomb?
Forum member #3: It could grip it by the fins!
Forum member #1: It's not a question of where it grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A four ton plane could not carry a ten ton bomb.
Forum member #3: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell the admins that (Forum member #3) is here?
Forum member #1: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a Tempest needs to turn its propeller forty-three times every second, right?
Forum member #3: Please!
Forum member #1: Am I right?
Forum member #3: I'm not interested!
Forum member #2: It could be carried by a German Ta 152!
Forum member #1: Oh, yeah, a German Ta 152 maybe, but not a British Tempest. That's my point.
Forum member #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
Forum member #3: Will you ask the admin if he can fix my account at UBI?!
Forum member #1: But then of course a-- German Ta 152s are non-ground-pounding.
Forum member #2:: Oh, yeah...
Forum member #1: So, they couldn't bring a huge bomb anyway...
Forum member #2:: Wait a minute! Supposing two Tempests carried it together?
Forum member #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
Forum member #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of steel!
Forum member #1: What, held under the rocket racks?
Forum member #2: Well, why not? Got charts! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO - this deserves a full quote http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - made my day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ratsack
01-08-2008, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Forum member #1: Are you suggesting big bombs migrate?
Forum member #3: Not at all. They could be carried.
Forum member #1: What? A Tempest carrying a Grand Slam bomb?
Forum member #3: It could grip it by the fins!
Forum member #1: It's not a question of where it grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A four ton plane could not carry a ten ton bomb.
Forum member #3: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell the admins that (Forum member #3) is here?
Forum member #1: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a Tempest needs to turn its propeller forty-three times every second, right?
Forum member #3: Please!
Forum member #1: Am I right?
Forum member #3: I'm not interested!
Forum member #2: It could be carried by a German Ta 152!
Forum member #1: Oh, yeah, a German Ta 152 maybe, but not a British Tempest. That's my point.
Forum member #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
Forum member #3: Will you ask the admin if he can fix my account at UBI?!
Forum member #1: But then of course a-- German Ta 152s are non-ground-pounding.
Forum member #2:: Oh, yeah...
Forum member #1: So, they couldn't bring a huge bomb anyway...
Forum member #2:: Wait a minute! Supposing two Tempests carried it together?
Forum member #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
Forum member #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of steel!
Forum member #1: What, held under the rocket racks?
Forum member #2: Well, why not? Got charts! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ratsack

waffen-79
01-08-2008, 02:47 PM
Monty Python FTW

JSG72
01-08-2008, 04:18 PM
For those of us who have the Total inability from distinguishing. "Truth from reality"

You really have to "Be There".

With all the Overestimated/Design criterea charts.

With all the "Rules of engagement" dictitoriums.

To be able to appreciate how we gauge our judgements on performance envelope.

Truth is.

It has been proved time and time again.

Make sure you have the Biggest numerical advantage. With every thing in your favour and all that is perceived to be the factual outcome.

The only reason behind "The rules of engagement".

Anything else is "Pure conjecture"

If you are on the "Inferior" side. You automatically become the Loser

Regardless of how superior your Training/Performance/support ability is.

You fail on any one of these parameters and "You Fail"

That is how Wars are fought and won.

Maybe "Monty Python".

But a good answer to the many pointless threads that appear on this Forum

TA 152H. was undoubtabley the pinacle of "Designed" performance. That could never be totaly realised within the constraints of an armed/losing conflict.

Of the 80 or so that were produced. It is perhaps bewildering to find the number of dedicated Forum/Threads/Posts pertaining to this aircraft.

The Craft that "meant nought" In the scheme of war?

However! As this is not War and is a SIM.

TA152H-1 Is Porked.

AHhhh... Remember the days? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif