Dogfights: The First Dogfighters Part 3

[the82spartans]

how many flippin' rounds of ammo can that tri-play hold?

[Facu4815]

a thing that richtofen showed his squadron is

"our mission is to shoot down aeroplanes not men we are sports men..not butchers"

[Swedeguy1000]

@Facu4815 No, a direct quotation he made is, "Aim for the man and don’t miss him. If you are fighting a two-seater, get the observer first; until you have silenced the gun, don’t bother about the pilot."

[KAISER561]

The german ace guys has balls of steel.

[MostwantedLover1]

Why is it that everytime an ace comes he always dies?

[CaptOReilly]

MvR scored a lot of his kills by downing already damaged aircraft or wounded pilots. Are you calling him a coward?

By this stage of the war all mistaken notions of "chivalry" & "knights of the air" are long past. Combat was all about denying the enemy air superiority & killing his pilots. MvR himself said "I have no longer pardon for any pilot".

[Goodtime618]

Well, in the Voss Fight I only see one pilot and lots of cowards who can't fight with honor

[MarshmallowMasta]

@Goodtime618 This is how SE5's are forced to fight, they have inferior climb rate to the DR1 and maneuver like ass in comparison to most other aircraft. SE5's are 100% "boom and zoom" aircraft, you have to always have a height advantage on your opponent or outnumber him, dive, shoot, climb above him, rinse and repeat.

That and this "honor" you're talking about is mainly seen in movies and was only a part of the early war.

[Goodtime618]

@MarshmallowMasta If you read the Diaries of, especially german, pilots from WWI you see that they only fought 1v1 dogfights for making sure that the best pilot wins because they claim it as a kind of sport.

Rittmeister Manfred Freiherr von Richthofen, the red Baron once told his pilots that they mission is shooting down enemy planes, not killing the pilots ;)

[MarshmallowMasta]

@Goodtime618 Tell me exactly what you think is cowardice in this fight?

[Goodtime618]

@MarshmallowMasta Fighting like 10v1 ;)

[MarshmallowMasta]

@Goodtime618 They engaged in smaller numbers, were clearly outmatched by a DR.1, regardless of the pilot, then more joined in as necessary. It's not like they all swarmed him and were shooting all at once. The SE5 is at a major disadvantage against the Dr1 as it climbs better, making the SE's need for height advantage a moot point. Besides, Voss was putting the aircraft to the test purposely, he could have ran away any time he wanted to. It was war, not a child's game or a fantasy story.

[TheGlenit]

@Goodtime618 I do hope you're joking with that quote! Towards the end of the war Both sides switched to mass squadrons and formation flying with 6-40 planes sure there were cases of heroism and 1 vs 1s but I am equally sure that there a majority of cases where it was just numerical superiority.

[warwatcher91]

@Goodtime618 God not another one of these idiots. Voss was stupid/brave enough to stay in the fight when he could have escaped. He knew what he was getting into and payed for it.

[the101stRANGER]

@warwatcher91 you call a 21 years old guy "stupid"... who dives back in battle against 5 or 6 airplanes!? sry but look at the british pilots... then i would say that werner voss was the only ace who fought on 23. september 1917. he died as a hero.

[warwatcher91]

@the101stRANGER He still could have run away. I wouldn't say he was stupid but those were pretty uneven odds. And its not like the British pilots were rookies, most of those pilots were aces.

Also there was only one luftwaffe. The wehrmacht is the army.

[the101stRANGER]

@warwatcher91 i am from germany;) during ww2 there was the wehrmacht... its "die Luftwaffe" + "die Marine" + "das Heer". today its same, but you call it "Bundeswehr" not "Wehrmacht". and i repeat...: werner voss was the only ace who fought on 23. september 1917.

[warwatcher91]

@the101stRANGER For fucks sake, did you not hear the narrator, he said eveyone of those british pilots were aces. Look it up on google if you don't believe.

I'm honestly done with you, cause honestly youre thick as hell.

[the101stRANGER]

@warwatcher91 ...yes officially they are. but you know how i mean it;) define "ace"... 5 kills and you are an ace. but come on, you have seen the video? what was werner voss, if these british pilots were "ture aces".

[TheGlenit]

@the101stRANGER To be fair given the average life expectancy of the pilot in WWI 5 kills was an ace, it took a lot of skill to to fly the aircraft. A lot of the aces who got the higher range of kills did so because they were active in the earlier stages of the war when pickings were a lot easier - especially on recon aircraft. I recommend a Good read Wings of Glory, it will make you appreciate the ace was not meerly about the number of kills.

[FallFanCan]

@the101stRANGER McCudden had over 60 kills. Idiot.

[Mcplkelly]

@the101stRANGER You gotta be kidding, the nine British pilots who fought him ended the war knocking down almost 200 German planes between them. Voss put up a hell of a fight but his opponents were all skilled aviators. 56 squadron which he engaged was one of the very best squadrons of any nations during WWII with some 427 claims.

Voss is not alone, George Barker engaged in an lone epic dogfight in against 15 German planes in Oct 1918, knocking down three Germans planes.

[theproudicelander]

@niflap both, its cooling holes the make the eyes, wich are then painted to look like a face

[QuickSmasherEXE]

The old Luffwaffa were excelent pilots. a few score over 200 kills(try putting that on your plane) and 1 shot down over 350 planes

[the101stRANGER]

@QuickSmasherEXE Erich Alfred Hartmann, 352 kills;) he was pilot in the Luftwaffe (Wehrmacht) and in the Luftwaffe (Bundeswehr).

[witchywoozle]

How come in both world wars it was Germans who were top aces???

[warwatcher91]

@witchywoozle More targets I guess. They were fighting against aircraft and pilots from nations all over the world. That and they fought till they died, there were no leaves or down time for them.

[canadaloveswhiskey]

@witchywoozle In World War I they had a very talented pilot, and great aerial engerineers. In WWII Many of their Top Aces got the majority of the kills on the Eastern front in the early days of Barbarossa, when they were fighting against obsolete Soviet fighters. They also unlike the Allies had a fly-to-you-die policy, while the Allies had a fly so many missions then you go to train recruits. If you look at losses the German's usally lost more pilots and fighters then the Western Allies.

[the101stRANGER]

9:07 and 9:33 cowards

[warwatcher91]

@the101stRANGER Why, Voss was trying to kill them earlier you moron!

[the101stRANGER]

@warwatcher91 what? voss didnt fight for his life... he was an ace and he fought for glory. But there were some "honor rules", if you know that!? And only the cowards did things like, shooting a volley one someone whos wounded... yes these are the true British aces.

[PlushGallade]

@the101stRANGER He wasn't fight for glory. He fight for the glory of his country.

[Mrwolf591]

I here a tie fighter engine at 7:58 >_>

[niflap]

Front of DR7 looks like a face. Is that art or design?

[MrObsidian7]

@niflap pretty sure its art

[superfortress96]

@niflap both

[bob23yer]

If you like this kind of airplanes, google RISE OF FLIGHT.

FlyingShark.

~S~

[bob23yer]

If you like this kind of airplanes, google RISE OF FLIGHT.

FlyingShark.

~S~

[communism100]

salute to voss

[PlushGallade]

Oswald Said : Never Run Away When U Attack The Enemy After U Attack U Cant Escape Because They Will Tail U And Kill U

[PlushGallade]

6:24 epic fail go google oswald boelcke tactic lol

[PlushGallade]

*So Many S.E.5a Came Toward Against This Wing Failure Triplane*

Triplane : COME ON BABY ! *SHOOT MG.08*

[SandJosieph]

Dang, how many bullets did these planes hold?

[AduneStormwind]

@SandJosieph For the Germans Spandau Machine guns and the British Vickers (which are pretty much Maxim Machine guns) tended to have a standard loadout of 500 rounds per gun. And the Lewis Machine gun mounted on top of the S.E.5a top wing held 97 rounds, though they tended to keep a couple of spare drums for reloads. Though in this show, the amount of rounds fired is really exaggerated. WW1 pilots very seldomly wasted rounds like that.

[PlushGallade]

@SandJosieph About 500 Ammo If Double 150~250 If One

[dcikaruga]

McCudden wrote (in his diary) that a group of albies where above them but some spads arrived and kept them busy.

[Weaponreplicamasta]

how does he not run out of ammo

[Ironzealot7531]

@Weaponreplicamasta they could carry a lot of ammo in those days actually. The guns on the plane aren't big high caliber autocannons like they would end up being in WWII.

They were just conventional MG's mounted on the plane. The rounds we're small enough that most planes could carry between 500 and 1,000 rounds without difficulty.

[justforever96]

@Ironzealot7531 You sound like you know a bit about WWI fighter armament. Here's a few questions that I was thinking about: In planes with twin guns, like the Camel or the Spad, when ONE gun jams, does the other keep firing? You hear stories about the WWI flyer frantically trying to un-jam his guns, so is that JUST 1-gun planes? The only thing I can think that would prevent the second gun from firing is the synchro-gear, but I can't picture it.

[PlushGallade]

@justforever96 Mostly They Dont Share Same Ammunation Just Like S.E.5a Lewis Use Lewis And Vicker Use Vicker All Bullet Has Their Owner

[justforever96]

@PlushGallade That is certainly true...but I think you misunderstand my question. I'm talking about planes like the SPAD XVIII or the Camel, with twin Vickers ahead of the cockpit. When he pulled the trigger, both left and right guns fired together. But the Vickers MG was known for jamming a lot: I wondered if a pilot would still be able to use his right-side gun if the left one jammed. If he still had one working gun, he'd be no worse off than a SPAD VII pilot with his single MG.

[PlushGallade]

@justforever96 Dont Worry Theres Olny 1 Trigger xD U Push The Trigger And Then They Fire Push The Ammo Out And Then Quick Swap New Ammo And Then FIRE ! They Dont Share Same Ammo If It Was Ur Unlucky If U Pilot It :P

[justforever96]

@Ironzealot7531 Second (in a Spad XIII in particular), how does the ammo feed/storage work? The ammo is in cloth belts, and does it feed from the INSIDE (between the guns) and eject outwards, or do the ammo belts run out from the OUTSIDE, and eject between the guns into a spent case collector? Or do BOTH guns feed from the right (or left)? In EITHER case, what happens to the cloth belts? Do they just flap along the fuselage? And what about the cases? Is there a collector for the brass and belts?

[rock4eternity666]

How the hell does those planes carry all of that ammo ??

[Ironzealot7531]

@rock4eternity666 see my other post

[Angerfist2]

i hate the repeat of date and scenes all the time

[justforever96]

@Angerfist2 They have to repeat the date and scene all the time because it was designed as a TV show, with commercial breaks...that's for the benefit of "channel surfers" who just tuned in and would have no clue what they're watching. But maybe you knew that, and yeah, it is really annoying. At least it is usually just a quick refresh "for those just tuning in". =)

[ziherr]

CGI looks like Rise of flight:)

[justforever96]

Funny, WWI planes have this reputation as fragile, flimsy crates of wood, fabric and wire, but in in truth a WWII fighter was far more fragile. Not in construction, obviously; there's no way they could reach those speeds and G-forces otherwise, but all the complex equipment, radio systems and analouge computers, etc. were incredibly delicate. A hard landing could ground an aircraft indefinetly. Finding an electrical fault could take a long time. Even modern fighters are prone to damage.

[Paintballemo]

i think airplanes in ww2 are the best =)

but you're right, modern jet fighters are crap, in my opinion

warfare in ww1 was far more personal than in ww2 or today

but i like the ww2 planes best =)

[justforever96]

Ahh, back when dogfights were really dogfights. I'd love to fly one of those planes someday; I think the S.E.5 may just be my favorite. Apparently the Fokker triplane wasn't really a very good aircraft. Lethal, yes, and manueverable, but it had engineering issues. The only reason it became famous is because the Red Baron died in one. Actually, if I owned one, it would probably be a never biplane fighter, from the '20's. Maybe a Hawker Nimrod, or a Fiat CR.32. Inline-engine biplanes are cool.

[seon126]

@justforever96 ive heard it automatiacally flys right and you have to keep ajusting and corecting it.

[justforever96]

What does? The Fokker Triplane? In any case, that is true of any airplane, just some are worse than others. The tendency to pull right or left is from the rotational torque of the propellor. Not everyone can visualize things well, but you may have heard the whole "for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction" bit, right? I'm tempted to go into detail, but I won't. The main point is that the prop tries to spin the airplane just as much as the plane spins the prop. CONTINUED-->

[justforever96]

It has to do with how much each one weighs, like a big guy shoving a little guy. The little guy will move 10 feet from the force, BUT the big guy moves a few inches back. It's physics. If you were god, and you grabbed that prop, the PLANE would spin instead. It's sort of like that. Now, a Fokker triplane used a "rotary" engine, which is like a radial, only the WHOLE ENGINE spins with the prop...the crankshaft is bolted to the airframe. Wiki it, it's interesting. CONTINUED-->

[justforever96]

Anyway, that big chunk of metal spinning up front is ALSO trying to spin the airplane, causing it to pull to the side. ALL prop planes do this, but the rotary engine makes it worse, since the weight of the whole engine counts, not just the prop like a modern plane. The Sopwith Camel had a rotary too, and it was a bitch to fly. More Camel pilots died in training than in combat. It is said that pilots would turn left to go right, since it was quicker to go 300 left than to go 65 right.CONTINUED

[Ironzealot7531]

@justforever96 you actually got that backwards. The camel could turn right much faster than it could turn left. The rotary engine actually doesn't spin in the plane in flight either.

What it does do is produce torque which pulls the plane to the side, especially when it's on the ground during takeoff or landing.

[Ironzealot7531]

@Ironzealot7531 "spin the plane in flight"

is what I meant to type. It obviously does spin IN the plane

[justforever96]

@Ironzealot7531 Hmm...I dunno. Wikipedia agrees with you, but I'm confused now...in the photos, the prop spins clockwise (to the pilot's eyes)...that OUGHT to cause torque to the left. The A6M Zero (and other fighters) had the same prop rotation, and they could roll faster to the left. But perhaps the torque effect is different than the gyro effect? I can't quite get my head around the "gyroscopic preccession" thing. Maybe the gyro is more obvious with the big rotary in the little plane?

[justforever96]

I don't know how true that is, but it is a fact that the Camel and the Fokker pulled to the left viciously. Of course, this makes the plane more manueverable, since it's like having God take and roll your plane for you, but it makes landing and takeoff interesting. Even during WWII planes would pull to the left, especially in a light plane like the Zero. Of course, some planes like the SPAD XIII had props that spin the opposite way, so THEY pulled to the right instead.

[Phuxxo]

Have you already tried "Rise of Flight"?

[justforever96]

"Rise Of Flight"? What is that, some new kind of drug? LOL, no, it's a flight simulator, right? I was about to type "video game", but then I remembered how upset some people get when you accidently call a FS a "video game". No, I've never tried it. I would if I had it, but I don't. I'll just keep pretending that I'm holding out for the real thing...*sigh*.

[Mattebubben]

its a very nice flight sim but unless u have a very good Pc u wont be able to play it