Battle of Britain

[Marcel]

The Dutch used 8 rifle calibre MG's on the G.1. I wrote a story in the stories selection of how one pilot shot down 4 a/c (1 He111, 1 ju52 and 2 Bf109's) in one short flight (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/sto...ot-16209.html). So it seems that this armament was more than adequate. I wonder however how much this had to do with the fact that all MG's were centered in the nose instead of in the wings?

[HoHun]

Hi Slaterat,

>I believe the results of the BoB demonstrate that the armament of 8 x .303 was adequate for 1940

Hm, I don't think one can possibly conclude that from the outcome of the Battle of Britain. With the RAF fighters possessing more effective armament, the Luftwaffe might have been forced to abandon their daylight raids much earlier than they actually did - which would have been a great advantage for Britain as night bombing was much less effective.

Just think of the early RAF daylight raids against the German coast ... they took so heavy losses that Bomber Command pretty much became a night bombing force for the rest of the war.

More effective armament for the RAF fighters would have translated in higher losses for the Luftwaffe, and the Battle of Britain probably would have been much less critical as a result.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Marcel,

>So it seems that this armament was more than adequate.

On the other hand, there is an account by a Luftwaffe fighter pilot with WW1 combat experience shooting down a Fokker G.1 with cannon, and he was shocked by the destructiveness of his guns when the G.1 blew up ... the sight made him immediately consider his own mortality in a modern war.

>I wonder however how much this had to do with the fact that all MG's were centered in the nose instead of in the wings?

That certainly helped to get the full effect regardless of range.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Marcel,

>So it seems that this armament was more than adequate.

On the other hand, there is an account by a Luftwaffe fighter pilot with WW1 combat experience shooting down a Fokker G.1 with cannon, and he was shocked by the destructiveness of his guns when the G.1 blew up ... the sight made him immediately consider his own mortality in a modern war.

>I wonder however how much this had to do with the fact that all MG's were centered in the nose instead of in the wings?

That certainly helped to get the full effect regardless of range.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Henning,

I can imagine. Do you have the full account of this pilot? I would love to read it and maybe track down which G.1 it was.

[HoHun]

Hi Marcel,

>Do you have the full account of this pilot? I would love to read it and maybe track down which G.1 it was.

That would be quite interesting! Here it is - the pilot was Theo Osterkamp.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

...

[slaterat]

HoHun wrote

Hm, I don't think one can possibly conclude that from the outcome of the Battle of Britain. With the RAF fighters possessing more effective armament, the Luftwaffe might have been forced to abandon their daylight raids much earlier than they actually did - which would have been a great advantage for Britain as night bombing was much less effective.

I'm not sure what you mean here Henning. One would have to agree that increased firepower for the RAF would lead to increased losses for the Luftwaffe. I'll try to explain why I believe the armament of 8 x .303s was
adequate during the BoB. I'll start a new thread though.

Slaterat

[Marcel]

Thanks Henning and would you know: I have no report of a G.1 Mercury patroling the the area described on May 11th and also no report of a lost G.1 on that day

[HoHun]

Hi Marcel,

>Thanks Henning and would you know: I have no report of a G.1 Mercury patroling the the area described on May 11th and also no report of a lost G.1 on that day

Any other day perhaps? The description clearly is not from a combat report but from some form of anecdotal account, so maybe the date got confused somewhere.

At least the quoted part does not mention the G.1a designation. While it would be difficult to confuse the G.1 with any other type, I guess it would be hard to tell the differently-engined subvariants apart, so I wonder where the writer of the Osprey book has this bit of information from.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Marcel]

Only 3 G.I wasps flew combatmissions and only on May 14th. None of them were shot down.

As for attacks on the Grebbeline (which is the area we are talking about) we have:
I found out that 325 flew a reconaissance mission to the Grebbe and waterlinie on may 11th, but it returned home.
318 and 321 flying escorts for C.X's, both were heavily damaged, but returned home.
322 flew to the Grebbe on May 12th, but was reported on missions later on May 14th, so probably returned home safely.
325 is known to be damaged while straffing german troops, but returned home.

Shot down G.I's other area's:
315 over Ridderkerk (may 13th)
319 Near Zevenbergen May 10th
330 near Vlaardingen (Rotterdam Harbour) May 10th

There are 3 G.I's whose fate is unknown, though.

[HoHun]

Hi Marcel,

>There are 3 G.I's whose fate is unknown, though.

Hm, that leaves some room for Osterkamp's reported victory, I'd say.

I checked Tony Wood's claims list, and it reports the kill on the same date, with the location "Soesterberg" which appears to be compatible with the location given in the above scan.

Interestingly, the victory is marked as "confirmed" in Tony's list, while 3 of Osterkamp's 6 kill are marked as "not confirmed" - in conjunction with his description of aircraft debris near the road, that could be a hint that his Fokker claim might be accurate.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Marcel]

Hi Henning,

In fact I'm not doubting the claim, but it's again an example of the fact that the term "fog of war" applies very much on our 5 day war.
For example, we always thought that 310 was destroyed when having to crash land after having a undercarriage failure near Badhoeverdorp. Mind you, every military report, even the pilot's confirms this. And yet I saw a photograph last week of 310, undamaged safe for some flat tires, at a damaged dutch airfield with German soldiers all over it This could be another of those gaps. It's possible that one of the unaccounted G.1's was this victim.

There is however a report of a C.X bomber being destroyed in the same way as described in the claim at about the same spot. But this is a bi-plane, so should not be confused by the pilot. Maybe this C.X was in fact a G.1 and the archieves are again wrong? Would be interesting to find out.

[HoHun]

Hi Marcel,

>In fact I'm not doubting the claim, but it's again an example of the fact that the term "fog of war" applies very much on our 5 day war.

You're absolutely right, and I understood your post as a summary of the available information on the type, with all the usual problems wartime data tands to have :-)

>And yet I saw a photograph last week of 310, undamaged safe for some flat tires, at a damaged dutch airfield with German soldiers all over it :lol:

Hey, quite a find! :-)

>Maybe this C.X was in fact a G.1 and the archieves are again wrong?

Interesting lead - maybe not only the claims were doubtful, but also the loss reports. I imagine if your aircraft did not come back and you received a visual report of an aircraft being shot down over enemy territory, there is the possbility for a mistake just as there is such a possibility for the victory claim itself.

By the way, did you see the additional claims I found in Tony Wood's list over in this thread?

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/per...res-11733.html

(Maybe better to continue our discussion there ... it's not really Battle of Britain related, so I'm afraid we're a bit off topic currently :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Marcel]

No hadn't seen it. You're right, let's do that