Bf.109G-8 vs Caproni 313(S-16) Swedich

[Juha]

Hello Hans
thanks for the iinteresting info!
I have one question, what was the "in sort of a secret mission in Finland"? I know and the Soviets knew in 1944 that before its transfer to Baltic II./JG 5 had operated from Lappland. I'm pretty sure thatn also Swedes were aware of that.

Juha

Ps even the national markings of this size and colour combination were more visible than necessary from 600 m on a cloudy day according to the Finnish testsin in late 1943.
https://www.facebook.com/airforcemus...type=3&theater

[sveahk]

Paul Schalk was very much convinced he had a Russian aircraft in his sights...at least the first one. In the Hearing after the shoot-downs he states his reasons why he acted like he did.

He there mentions a conference with his superiors on the 13th of May, before the shootings. There they were all convinced, through the flight patterns of the enemy machines so close to the Latvian border, that they must be Soviet planes. Only a Oberst Dangers (Jagdabschnittsführer Ostland) mentioned, casually obviously, that they could be Swedish (App 2).

But Schalk says he didn't think this remark was of importance. Furthermore he says he never got any thorough instruction regarding the 3-milezone, and his knowledge of Swedish markings was - as we've seen above - poor...

So, when he attacked from the back and underneath, he saw some insignia - and I'm quite certain he saw them clearly, those huge yellow and blue markings underneath the wings. But his belief that they were Soviet planes just made him push the gun-button...and there perhaps we've sort of an explanation - because of poor, even misleading information...in his mind...he was attacking Russian planes before he even saw them...

More questions arise by the second shooting though, the next day. At that time he knew it was a Swedish plane he had taken down the day before - and now, same plane, same markings, but still he shot the second one down too...

His explanation in the Hearing is the following:
"By the new encounter on the 15.5., with the same kind of aircraft, I didn't have the slightest hesitation in attacking it, because immediately (it showed a) defensive reaction and moved away towards the west, instead of showing its peaceful intention and moving towards the coast." (App 1).

Originally Posted by Juha

I have one question, what was the "in sort of a secret mission in Finland"? I know and the Soviets knew in 1944 that before its transfer to Baltic II./JG 5 had operated from Lappland. I'm pretty sure thatn also Swedes were aware of that.

Juha
[/url]

You misunderstood me there, Juha. In my attempt trying to explain why Paul Schalk and his Jagdkommando were left out of the German censored report, I wrote that perhaps "II.JG5, Jagdkommando Libau came from Finland in sort of a secret mission"...not in Finland...

Greetings Hans K

[bearoutwest]

Am I sure? Well, I’ll tell you what I know, and let you decide.

1. Apparent sizes of target:

In Alfred Price’s “Spitfire at War” (I assume Volume 1, as there is no number mentioned), on page 63, is a photo of a Spitfire at 600 yards distance. The instructions in the caption are to hold the page 18 inches away from your face. The Spitfire’s wingspan measures an apparent 1cm (or approximately one fingernail space).
Look up “Mil-Dot Range Estimation” in Google or Wiki for a more scientific calculable range estimation method.

2. Opening fire at 600m or 400m or closer:

The RAF had their Hurricane and Spitfire wing guns harmonised to 450yards range. The average pilot couldn’t hit the side of a barn at that range. Through operational experience, this was lowered to 250 yards. It was shown to be far more effective range to cause damage.
The Luftwaffe Bf109G would have centreline 20mm or 30mm cannon and nose (close to centreline) heavy machine guns. Longer ranging and more hitting power than the early RAF 0.303-in Brownings. Centreline weapons also simplified the ballistic trajectory for aiming. However, I suggest you want to get close to be able to hit a jinking target effectively. I would also suggest 400m is a reasonable compromise between weapon range versus hitting power (i.e. longer range is possible but likely to result in less hits). Hartmann was noted as liking to get really (almost collision) close to effectively hit targets like IL-2s.

3. Estimated closing speed:

100 km/hr closing speed; i.e. 100,000 m/60min
400m distance is covered in 0.24 min (approx. 14 seconds)
I rounded to 10 seconds for the discussion, so OK, you have 4 more seconds to make up your mind to fire or not.

4. What sort or detail can you see (colours or markings, etc) at 150m or at 400m:

1m = 1.09 yards, so not much change from using either.
I base my observations from my own flight training. I flew from a General Aviation airfield at Moorabbin in Melbourne. Twin parallel runways, and quite busy at times. Saturday mornings in Spring or Summer, not unusual to have 12 aircraft (Cessna 170s, or 180s, Piper PA-28s and some light twins) in the dual circuits. Head constantly swivelling and eyeballs on stalks to keep track of aircraft. Only thing different to war was that no one was shooting at me…..though some would say the “bark” of the Air Traffic Controllers was sometimes worse! I know I could make out the colours and details of aircraft flight school or charter company logos from across the flight circuit (so approx. 100-150m). From forward or rearward direction, I could tell you it was a blue aeroplane or a white aeroplane or maybe white with red fin. From 400m away, I could tell you it was a dark shadow on a blue sky or a white shape on a grey sky. If they turned to join in the circuit, and you could see the plan shape then you could make out what colour the fuselage was, but not much of the logo.
Try the exercise yourself with trucks on the road. Hopefully from the safety of a house window….see how much of the truck company logo you can see at 100m or approx. 400m or more.

5. How effective were aircraft markings:

I would say next to useless!

I don’t think they were much use for identification in flight combat. If they were so good, ask yourself, why the Luftwaffe needed yellow nose theatre markings on the Bf109E and F models during the Channel Front operations 1940-41. With the huge difference between a Black Balkenkreuz and the oversized RAF Red/Blue upper wing roundels, why were so many RAF Mustangs and Typhoons bounced and attacked by friendlies? Why did markings shrink in size with the passage of time?
Why would the Swedish AF remove the yellow crowns from the top of the wings on these Capronis? Perhaps to make the dark camouflage more effective against the dark sea. If they were to make their neutrality obvious, why not go high-viz with yellow upper-wings with blue crowns? I suggest because the markings were not going to be obvious enough at 400 km/hr speeds at 400-600m ranges, when a likely attack would be initiated. So far better to hide in the background to enhance survivability.

Like I said, just my thoughts.
…geoff


Additional (noticed sveahk's last comments):
I have no problem believing Schalk saw and recognized the markings, but he was being interviewed some time after the event. How close was he when he realized they were Swedish markings? How low were the Ca 313s flying? How low was Schalk? Did he attack the second Ca 313 a day later because he had convinced himself they were Russians flying with Swedish markings?


Juha, 1.5m diameter marking is not very big from 600m away. Spitfire has 11m wingspan and has an apparent size of about 1cm at 600 yards (say 590m). Do the truck test, and you will see what I mean.

[sveahk]

Originally Posted by bearoutwest

Additional (noticed sveahk's last comments):
I have no problem believing Schalk saw and recognized the markings, but he was being interviewed some time after the event. How close was he when he realized they were Swedish markings? How low were the Ca 313s flying? How low was Schalk? Did he attack the second Ca 313 a day later because he had convinced himself they were Russians flying with Swedish markings?

Schalks "Gefechtsbericht" was written 15.5, one day after his first shoot-down, and a couple of hours after the second.

How close he was - he does'nt say.

The first Ca 313 flew at 1.000 meter over the water - the second one about 500 meter.

How low was Schalk? Obviously lower...

The second shoot-down:
In his own report he writes: "Beim Einkurven erkannte ich denselben Flugzeugtyp wie am 14.5. Hoheitszeichen: 3 goldene Kronen auf blauem Grund, am Seitenleitwerk eine weisse Zahl, es kann eine 11 gewesen sein. Ich griff das Flugzeug von hinten an."
(In short: He recognized the plane, saw the insignia and attacked it from behind...)

This is missing in the Hearing report. His superiors presumably didn't like this part that much, so what we read in that report is what I've scanned in my last post...App 1.

Only reason, as I see it, why he still attacked the second Ca 313 - is, he was still not that convinced it was Swedish...and when the "enemy" aircraft tried to escape to the west - voila, he shot...!

Greetings Hans K

[Juha]

Hello Geoff
my flying experiences have been only as a passenger, so no practical experience on my ability to discern aircraft markings while flying. But
I know the results of the FiAF tests on the visibility of its markings and those of designed to give lower visibility to national markings but still be reasonably visible on cloudy weather slightly farther away than 600 m (the firing range of a fighter)

and at least in theory Naked eye: Angular resolution: about 1 arcminute, approximately 0.02° or 0.0003 radians, which corresponds to 0.3 m at a 1 km distance. That's from Wiki, so certain amount of sceptism maybe needed.

I have a copy of Fighting in the air. The official combat technique instructions for British fighter pilots, 1916-1945 and from the 1943 Bag the Hun! instructions I would say that from 500 y and 30 deg. off (above or above and side) it might well be possible to discern the over wing Balkenkreuz but the fuselage Balkenkreuz might be more difficult to discern even from a much shorter distance if on the shadow side and the angle off is small. This is of course speculation on my part.

That one side had crosses and the other roundels or stars made things easier in ETO and on the Eastern Front.

Finns shrank their markings on bombers after the Winter War so that the max dimeter became 1 m. Pilots had strongly protested that our national markings were too visible. Even so no confirmed FiAF "own goals" (there are some rumours on one case but they are not substantiated) during the 3 ½ years of wars but FiAF shot down at least two German bombers (one He 111 at night and one Ju 188).

[bearoutwest]

Hello Juha,

A healthy discussion as always. I don't believe my hypothesis is definitive, just an attempt to explain to myself why so many "own goals" and "mistakes" occurred. While the first few points are scientifically based, and I have higher confidence in; the recognition of markings is purely speculative.

Gosh there must be so many variables! Not least of which was the overwhelming desire to shoot down the "perceived"enemy. Elsewhere on this forum was discussed an incident in Italy where a pair of USAAF P-51s slipped passed the escorting Spitfires or RAAF Mustangs to shoot down an RAF Lysander - believing it to be a Hs126.

With the Finnish AF study on markings, does it go into greater depth on what the pilots were picking up on? Did the prominent white circle on Finnish markings stand out so much, that it was what the pilots were seeing first....and then summerizing that nothing else had big white circles, so had to be Finnish?

Anyway, it is becoming thread-creap away from the original subject, so I will close off here. A subject for another time and place and a beer perhaps.
...geoff

[Juha]

Hello Geoff
yes we had somewhat "off the track" so only a short note of the FiAF study.

Yes, the problem was the white disk, flying personel were aware of that even before the Winter War and in late autumn 1939 many planes had that overpainted but the C-in-C of the FiAF, he had come from Coastal Artillery to the post of the C-in-C and had many good qualities but he was not so well aware of the practicalities of aerial combat, took dim view of that and by the Winter War the markings were “clean”.

In those late 1943 tests clearly saw the white disk a problem and the report recommended a plain white outline swastika. That was too much for the HQ and they ordered another tested marking, which was as before but with grey disc, to be used. In practice the disk was usually painted with light blue-grey matt colour (RLM colour Hellblau 65) because of availability.

Juha

[Juha]

Hello Hans
thanks for the extra info!

Juha

[Kari Lumppio]

Hello!

There is photo of the Bf 109 shooting down the Swedish Capronis. It is now viewable in digitized material from Remi Milk collection at
Eesti sõjamuuseum - kindral Laidoneri muuseum (Estonian War Museum ( https://www.muis.ee/catalogue;jsessi...C11663F194A5E5 )

Below should be hotlinked spotview of the album photo (the picture down, right). I don't know the photo author, it is not necessarily Milk's own and he has got it from someone else. There was Lw flight school at Libau IIRC where also Estonians were trained as pilots.

The caption
"Liibavis, kevadel 1944
ME-109 peale Rootsi luurelennuki "Caproni" allatulistamist" means:

In Libau, Spring 1944
Me-109 after shooting down Swedish reconnaissance aircraft Caproni



The album page can be downloaded in larger format here:
https://www.muis.ee/digitaalhoidla/a...1-1f01cf70571c

The link downloads directly to one's computer not opening any new page.
It is a pity that the tactical number or other markings are not visible.


Cheers,
Kari

[Peter]

Thank you Kari,


Very interesting!