1939-45 airpower and professional historians

[FalkeEins]

" c'est la barbe, ces avions inexpérimentés .."

D.520 pilot GC I/3 mid-May 1940, quoted in Avions Hors Serie 'GC I/3 Les rois du Dewoitine..."

"..These untried machines are a pain in the arse..."

(bit like a certain amateur historian..they just weren't that good)

[Graham Boak]

I found Overy's work unsatisfying too, but as an aircraft performance specialist at one time I can tell you that the sustained turning rate of an aircraft is very much a function of the power. Hence it can be related to the octane rating of the fuel. The attained (maximum) turning rate is normally regarded as a function of the maximum lift coefficient only. There may be a small effect due to power but this can be disregarded for aircraft of this period. Most aerial combats will use turning rates greater than can be sustained but less than the maximum attained value - the fighters would lose too much speed too rapidly.

Just how much operational benefit was gained by the use of 100 octane fuel has not been discussed in any detail, probably because this would be too difficult to measure sensibly. It permitted the limited use of higher boost, and hence higher power, and was therefore a Good Thing. Most of the battle was dependent upon other factors than the extreme performance of the opposing fighters. If you believe in the "Narrow Margin" approach, then use of 100 octane widened that margin. If you believe that the Luftwaffe took on an impossible task with their resources, then it hastened their defeat.

Thanks! I simply agree with you. Yes I think that the main advantage of higher octane rating is higher power, all other conditions remaing unchanged. Besides, it seems that during WW II the Allies including France had no problem producing aviation fuels with high octane ratings while the Germans seemed to have difficulties - remember the conspicuous yellow "87" on Me 109s. I wonder why for German chemists always were among the best in the world and this was no witch-business.

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

" c'est la barbe, ces avions inexpérimentés .."

D.520 pilot GC I/3 mid-May 1940, quoted in Avions Hors Serie 'GC I/3 Les rois du Dewoitine..."

"..These untried machines are a pain in the arse..."

(bit like a certain amateur historian..they just weren't that good)

Firstly, only a person can be "inexpérimenté" (unexperienced), certainly not an aircraft.

You really seem to LOVE this quotation. "a pain in the arse" is too strong. Translation is not that easy my friend. The correct translation reads either "a drag" or "a bore". "a pain in the arse" would be (in French) : ... I can't write these bad words here. ("Wash-your-mouth-words"). They are very fashionable now on French radio and TV but frankly I dislike these dirty words (and dirty people) even though I'll use them sometimes... I was a schoolboy and a soldier too!

Don't give all too great an importance to one single negative statement, possibly made under conditions of great stress, tiredness, anger etc. The D.520 had in fact been systematically "tried" for several months at Cannes precisely by GC I/3, who had received this mission and ironed out hundreds of small or big flaws, which was normal for a new design and a new mass-production in industrial factories. GC I/3's CO (commandant Thibaudet - major or Sqn Ldr) was very strict on this and demanded corresponding modifications. This postponed the use of the D.520s in combat and deliveries but they were much better and the modifications were introduced on all other produced AC. They still had some instances of trouble, like the heating system of the machine-guns which caused explosions of their ammunition (the CO was fed-up and gave the order to disconnect the heating system) and some explosions of the cannon when firing - and its rear part was protruding in the cockpit (nobody was killed for one shell exploded inside the closed breech, and the barrel was open at its end). This was due either to communist sabotage or - much more likely - to small errors in the manufacturing of the cannon, which was state-of-the-art too (factories producing such weapons were carefully watched for saboteurs). I can confirm that a microscopic cause can result in jamming an automatic weapon quicker than you bargained for.

Yes they were good - even better. As a whole all pilots having flown the D.520, including 1940-45 and even later, were full of praise for this aircraft. I am not aware of any SERIOUS criticism but, as I said, I am always eager to learn. Its test pilot, famous champion Marcel Doret, aware of its excellent reputation within the French Air Force, compared the D.520 and the new D.551 in his book : "The D.520 was like a plough-horse, the D.551 was a thoroughbred". This says a lot on what could have been achieved if only... All pilots confirmed that in actual combat the D.520 had the edge over the Me 109 including at high altitudes and in the dive.

I have got a copy of "avions" special issue N° 14 "GC I/3 Les Rois du Dewoitine 520". This title is clear enough : if they were "The Kings" of the D.520 this fighter must have been outstanding. Please tell us EXACTLY where you found the passage you quoted, I was unable to find it and I can't screen a whole magazine for it. Besides, it expresses impatience and anger at some technical flaws - this unit had flown the MS 406 before they got the 520s so it seems that the "Morane" was not THAT hopeless either for the pilots were not used to trouble with these AC which, admittedly, had much lesser performance than the D.520.

On June 14 in the Sedan cauldron GC I/3 had their second air battle on D.520s. They won one probable victory (Me 110) and ten (10) certain ones : 4 Me 110s, 2 Me 109s (totalling 6 fighters), 2 Do 17s, 2 He 111s. One of the Do 17s and one of the He 111s were shot down, respectively, together with some Moranes and (the He 111) with some Hurricanes. Two GC I/3-pilots were killed in the initial surprise attack by German fighters but their comrades reacted fast and effectively.

On June 9 GC I/3's D.520s gave II./JG 27 a terrible licking, shooting down six (6) Me 109s (2 pilots killed) at the cost of one belly-landed D.520 (repairable). II./JG 27 was a very experienced and alert unit which meant business but they could do nothing, or not much, with their ol' 109s against this superior fighter (Adolf Galland had just left JG 27). Even J. Prien admits all these losses, which is exceptional.

I wouldn't say that these examples show any inferiority of the type. As we already discussed, GC I/3 ranked N° 4 among all GCs, with 75 victories of all categories, but N° 2 and 3 won 77 and 76 so they all can be considered even, the more so for, as I already remarked, GC I/3 went into battle first on May 13, having lost 3 or the most active days of battle : May 10, 11, 12. Without this delay they would have won rank N° 2 by a wide margin, with about 95 victories. 24 GCs took part in the French Campaign.

All pilots who fought flying a 520 were very satisfied with it even if some of them criticised some odd flaws - no combat aircraft at the cutting edge of technology is entirely flawless. In June and July 1941 over and off Syria pilot Le Gloan proved once more that his D.520 was vastly superior to the 1941 Hurricane, of which he shot down at least 6 (2 of these shared) plus a Gladiator. 1941 the RAF was still using biplane fighters.

[FalkeEins]

....there is no controversy over Gisclon's book - and his 1,000 victories - his claims are just ridiculous ! And I must say you don't need to be a 'serious' historian to work that out...just check one date, 6 November 1939 (le combat des '9' contre '27') to see how he grossly inflates French victories..by a factor of two no less. Besides he can't even get his own score right - he maintains that he was an ace, although M. Lorant at the SHD (SHAA) only gives him four victories..

It is obvious that you don't like Gillet because he doesn't say what you want him to say - and it is pointless discussing the subject with you.. how did you put it in your last message - with no sense of irony - amateurs who think they know it all...? I know of no other translator who would add pages of text to a leading fighter pilot's memoir to balance the 'story'

As for Peter Cornwell's latest work - it seems to be based on the latest (French) research for claims from what I can tell - in other words, Gillet's ....that must be difficult for you...

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

....there is no controversy over Gisclon's book - and his 1,000 victories - his claims are just ridiculous ! (...) just check one date, 6 November 1939 (le combat des '9' contre '27') to see how he grossly inflates French victories..by a factor of two no less. Besides he can't even get his own score right - he maintains that he was an ace, although M. Lorant at the SHD (SHAA) only gives him four victories.

Obviously Mr. Anonymous FalkeEins (HawkOne) is a troll who is trying to destroy me again. Have you a name, you hero?

Here he is trolling again instead of contributing something constructive. I'll prove it now but after this I won't give him any reply for with such a charcter it will go on and on and on and on.

Firstly "Jean" Gisclon (actually Justin - I don't know why he felt like changing his first name, certainly not in order to hide behind it) was a very JUNIOR member of the 4th escadrille (12 pilots) of GC II/5 1939 and before : he was a sergent, which is the lowest NCO-rank, and he was, like many other pilots, a very young man. What he wrote about 30 years later no doubt was strongly influenced by his own impressions of the time, which possibly were not quite reliable. This is very common. The combat you mentioned, in France very famous (it was celebrated even in the mass media of the time), was fought by his own unit, GC II/5, but he didn't take part in this mission, which means that this time his CO Capitaine Reyné hadn't ordered him to taker part. In his first book he reported "ten victories, of which eight were certain".

Remember that Gisclon's book was published 1967 (41 years ago!), that it was some sort of a pioneer's work at the time and he didn't enjoy all the documents, knowledge and HINDSIGHT we now enjoy. At least HE was a fighter pilot and fought the powerful, very dangerous nazi enemy. It's easy to criticise others, hidden behind a pseudo. What outstanding historical work did you publish you nameless "Hawk"?

The fight which took place on November 6 was very vicious and involved 9 French fighters ("Curtiss") and alledgedly 27 Me 109 Ds but I never saw any clear indication of this number from the German side - I would like to; yes this is a question to all German readers. It could have been anything from 16 to 32 or more even though in theory 29 was possible too but not very likely because normally (except in the case of engine toruble etc.) they flew in 4s (Schwärme of 4). Gisclon wrote that the fighting "lasted for over 20 minutes", which is very long. Of course when the young French pilots came back they were extremely excited. There is no doubt that they had shot down, or hit, at least five 109s. In such circumstances it was very easy to shoot down the same E/A several times or to make many other errors resulting in overclaim. According to the very recently-published French book "Les Curtiss H-75 de l'Armée de l'Air", by Lionel Persyn, the unit - GC II/5 - filed official claims for 5 "victoires sûres" and 5 "victoires probables". Jochen Prien/Gerhard Stemmer/Peter Rodeike/Hans Ring mentioned four Me 109 D-1s "100 % destroyed", one "70 % destroyed" (considered destroyed) and three "damaged less than 10 %" (belly-landings in the countryside etc.). Four of the destroyed 109s fell on French territory, one (Uffz. Hennings) on German territory. This totals 8 but as we know Luftwaffe documents are not always entirely comprehensive and this would not be the first time that they would minimise their own losses, in particular after such a terrible licking (Göring summoned Hptmn Gentzen to his HQ to report on the same day!). This disaster had important consequences for this unit, JGr. 102. Even 5 destroyed and 3 heavily damaged, as compared to the French claims, filed by inexperienced French pilots (inexperienced in actual combat involving shooting in anger), is not really an enormous difference but I wouldn't be surprised at all if some day we discovered that 10 Me 109s were destroyed all right plus 5 damaged! In any case, even according to J. Prien et al, 8 were shot down including 5 which were destroyed. See Prien's volume N° 2 of his purple series, page 526. To be fair it has to be added that Lt Houzé, who brilliantly had led this mission in spite of a very unfavourable initial tactical situation (the German fighters being higher etc. and their pilots having won a lot of combat experience over Poland), had had half a dozen 109s constantly on his tail and he had to belly-land his fighter, riddled with bullets, on his own airfield at Toul. So the score reads at least 5 + 3 to 1. Two of the German flight leaders (Staffelkapitäne) were killed, two other pilots were taken prisoners by French troops. Uffz. Hennings made a belly-landing (70 % damage) on German territory and was badly wounded. Let us also remember that all involved pilots were aged about 20-28. Today you're almost considered a child a this age (which is mighty exaggerated)...

Only four victories were confirmed by French HQ with four "probables", which matches the German losses very exactly. What are you complaining about, you troll?


[qutote]It is obvious that you don't like Gillet because he doesn't say what you want him to say[/quote]

- You're right for once! What I want him to say is the truth - as far as it can be known - and at least publish no bullshit : the latter is fully possible, there is no excuse. Sadly he does the latter systematically, he seems to enjoy bullshit like others, and he, too, enjoys libelling and insulting those who do the job.

You have unmasked yourself as a troll. Don't expect any more replies from me.

[CJE]

What outstanding historical work did you publish you nameless "Hawk"?

And what about yours?

Originally Posted by CJE

What outstanding historical work did you publish you nameless "Hawk"?

And what about yours?

Reply : And what about yours Mr. CJE?