sopwith camel kill/loss ratio

Don't forget who had parachutes and who didn't!

-- Charlie Springer

BTW, Eddie Rickenbacher's uniform and letters were sold at auction this week.

-- Charlie Springer

"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

: Now that's a manly sounding steed. Who needs Devastators, Havocs,
: Lightnings or Thunderbolts when you can fly the dreaded Salamander?

If the war had lasted longer, RAF pilots would have had the
opportunity of going to war in the Sopwith Snail...

Yes, yes, but remember that at the time most people would know the
superstitious stories of salamanders, magical creatures that lived in fire or
started fires, or both. (Probably came from people throwing wet wood on the
fire and hibernating salamanders warming up and crawling out).

-- Charlie Springer

On 12 Oct 2003 16:24:26 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin"
wrote:

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

: Now that's a manly sounding steed. Who needs Devastators, Havocs,
: Lightnings or Thunderbolts when you can fly the dreaded Salamander?

If the war had lasted longer, RAF pilots would have had the
opportunity of going to war in the Sopwith Snail...

Emmanuel


Ah yes, with which one could "slime" the enemy :-)


Al Minyard

In article , Keith Willshaw
writes

"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...
I just noticed that approximately 1300 German Aircraft were credited to
Sopwith Camels in WWI.

However, there is a statistic that approximately 1400 hundred pilots were
killed in action with the Camel, not including the 385 that died in
non-combat crashes.

Was this considered a successful kill/loss ratio for allied fighters (not
including the non-operational losses)?


It depends on what point in the war you are speaking of.

This ratio would hardly show the Camel as a dominant fighter, course, I
don't know if the Camel had extensive losses to ground fire.


It did since they were used heavily in the ground attack
role carrying 4 20lb bombs under the wings at the battles
of Ypres and Cambrai as well as the German offensive of 1918.

That would explain the otherwise inexplicable. The Camel had the
engine, the guns and ammo, and all its fuel sited in the front six feet
of the airframe, and with its rotary engine could almost literally turn
on a sixpence. No Camel pilot needed to stay in the gunsights of the
enemy for a second longer than he wanted to - a gyroscopically assisted
turn took him right out. Which suggests that most of the Camels lost in
aerial battle were probably flown by novices (which many would have been
after 'Bloody April' in 1917).

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

In message
, Erik
Pfeister writes

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message ...
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"old hoodoo" wrote in message\

I just noticed that approximately 1300 German Aircraft were
credited to
Sopwith Camels in WWI.



Ven ve were over Normandy on D-Day, ve didn't see one, not one ,Sopwith
Camel!!!

Hehe!

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

In article ,
"M. J. Powell" writes:
In message
, Erik
Pfeister writes

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message ...
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"old hoodoo" wrote in message\

I just noticed that approximately 1300 German Aircraft were
credited to
Sopwith Camels in WWI.



Ven ve were over Normandy on D-Day, ve didn't see one, not one ,Sopwith
Camel!!!

Hehe!

Well, there _were_ a few Fokkers. But those Fokkers were flying
Messerchmitts.

(Somebody had to say it)
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

There is a book called "Winged Victory" first pubished in 1934 by a Camel
pilot by V. M. Yeates tells about flying them in battle in 1918. The camel
was not fast and could not catch anything in a tail chase. The Germans found
that hit and run tactics were the only way to take them on and have any
success. They were fine against Dr1 because they were in the same boat, slow
but manouverable. the camels were used more at mid to low altitude while
SE5a and Dolphines went performed better higher. He writes that sometimes
he would be jelous of them because they were fast er and higher and so were
more able to catch the enemy better but in a Camel he could get out of
trouble easier. The Germans did not want to dogfight Camels because of the
obvious that in a dogfight Camels were better then what the Germans had at
the time


"Dave Eadsforth" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith Willshaw
writes

"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...
I just noticed that approximately 1300 German Aircraft were credited to
Sopwith Camels in WWI.

However, there is a statistic that approximately 1400 hundred pilots
were
killed in action with the Camel, not including the 385 that died in
non-combat crashes.

Was this considered a successful kill/loss ratio for allied fighters
(not
including the non-operational losses)?


It depends on what point in the war you are speaking of.

This ratio would hardly show the Camel as a dominant fighter, course, I
don't know if the Camel had extensive losses to ground fire.


It did since they were used heavily in the ground attack
role carrying 4 20lb bombs under the wings at the battles
of Ypres and Cambrai as well as the German offensive of 1918.

That would explain the otherwise inexplicable. The Camel had the
engine, the guns and ammo, and all its fuel sited in the front six feet
of the airframe, and with its rotary engine could almost literally turn
on a sixpence. No Camel pilot needed to stay in the gunsights of the
enemy for a second longer than he wanted to - a gyroscopically assisted
turn took him right out. Which suggests that most of the Camels lost in
aerial battle were probably flown by novices (which many would have been
after 'Bloody April' in 1917).

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Russell Waterson wrote:

There is a book called "Winged Victory" first pubished in 1934 by a Camel
pilot by V. M. Yeates tells about flying them in battle in 1918. The camel
was not fast and could not catch anything in a tail chase. The Germans found
that hit and run tactics were the only way to take them on and have any
success. They were fine against Dr1 because they were in the same boat, slow
but manouverable. the camels were used more at mid to low altitude while
SE5a and Dolphines went performed better higher. He writes that sometimes
he would be jelous of them because they were fast er and higher and so were
more able to catch the enemy better but in a Camel he could get out of
trouble easier. The Germans did not want to dogfight Camels because of the
obvious that in a dogfight Camels were better then what the Germans had at
the time

I always thought the Sopwith Camel was pretty fast; 130 mph or so, as well as
maneuverable. It's generally considered the best Allied fighter of WWI
(I think), although Spad and SE5a have their adherents.

As a somewhat related question...

PBS recently had a Nova show on "Who Killed the Red Baron?". It mentioned
that he is generally portrayed as having been shot down by a Lt Brown of
the RCAF (RFC??), but the bullet that did him in was noted to have passed
from *below* him, and up and across (from the side) through his chest,
making it questionable that he was actually killed by Brown, in a Sopwith
Camel attacking from behind and above.

It mentioned a couple sets of ground gunners, British and Australian, who
were actively shooting at him too.

Unfortunately, I dozed off for the final 10 minutes of the show and never
heard the "new information" that has apparently been unearthed about the
shooting down of von Richthofen.

Can anyone who saw the show tell me what the final conclusions were? Does
Brown keep the credit, or is someone on the ground now considered the
destroyer of the Red Baron?


SMH

In message , Stephen Harding
writes
Russell Waterson wrote:

snip
As a somewhat related question...

PBS recently had a Nova show on "Who Killed the Red Baron?". It mentioned
that he is generally portrayed as having been shot down by a Lt Brown of
the RCAF (RFC??), but the bullet that did him in was noted to have passed
from *below* him, and up and across (from the side) through his chest,
making it questionable that he was actually killed by Brown, in a Sopwith
Camel attacking from behind and above.

It mentioned a couple sets of ground gunners, British and Australian, who
were actively shooting at him too.

Unfortunately, I dozed off for the final 10 minutes of the show and never
heard the "new information" that has apparently been unearthed about the
shooting down of von Richthofen.

Can anyone who saw the show tell me what the final conclusions were? Does
Brown keep the credit, or is someone on the ground now considered the
destroyer of the Red Baron?

On this point I can recommend 'Who Killed The Red Baron' by Carisella &
Ryan. Pub in USA by Daedalus Pub. Co. 1969 My copy is ISBN 0 85617 306 1
pub by PBS.

A good biography and a good analysis of the final flight, with
interviews of many concerned. Photos, sketches, including that of the
trajectory of the fatal bullet.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell