"Black September -- rise of the Fokker D.7" Topic

Black September
Camel Tactics

By September 1918, the Fokker D.7 emerged as the dominate aircraft on the western front. As good as the D.7 was, the Sopwith Camel was still considered by many to be the best dog fighting machine. Recently Sheldon Olds and myself played a game between Fokker D.7s and Camels to explore the ability of the Camel to oppose the Fokker D.7 head to head.

We played this game with 1/72 aircraft using Watch Your Six rules.

For this game, pilot abilities were equal. Both players had two ‘junior' ace pilots; two very good pilots; and two average pilots. Each player was free to organize his pilots and aircraft as he wished. Sheldon went with two flights of three Fokker D.7 aircraft distributing his pilots equally in terms of quality between the two flights. I organized my Camels in a single wedge formation of six aircraft lead by an ace; my average pilots next; the very good pilots next and my 2nd ace trailing on the right side. Sheldon's two flights began the game at 14,000 feet. I chose the optimal altitude for the Camel – 10,000 feet.

My initial problem was how to get the Fokker's to fight at my level. In this game there was nothing going on below that would entice the Germans earthward. A Camel cannot out run a Fokker; cannot out climb a Fokker and cannot out dive a Fokker.

So . . . I had to create some bait! I figured better to deal with three of them at a time than all six. I accomplished this by increasing my airspeed to the max and swinging my entire formation right under the nose of one of the Fokker formations.

Sheldon reacted cautiously nosing down to 12,000 feet. This move did not gain his aircraft much airspeed and left him trailing me with his second flight well behind his lead flight. In this manner he began to trail my much larger formation. As my airspeed was still greater than his, I held the initiative even though the Germans were moving in directly behind my flight.

The Fokkers continued to nose down and as they approached 10,000 feet, my trailing ace banked and slid in behind the Fokker ace! My first burst into the Fokker shot up his control surfaces making maneuver difficult for the German. There was no way the crippled Fokker was going to shake my trailing Camel after this exchange, so he attempted to dive away.

My Camel engaged with superior airspeed and was able to stay with the diving Fokker long enough to riddle the diving German aircraft until it exploded in front of him! Alas, all of this pursuit took too long and the second Fokker flight managed to close the distance on my attacking Camel ace. Three on one, the Fokkers proceeded to make Swiss cheese out of my aircraft and forced it to retire. Well, an ace for an ace. So far we were even up!

Better still I had managed to draw the Fokkers down to that magical 10,000 feet. My Camel formation exploded into a number of individual combats. In each and every case I managed to reverse my direction using that legendary Sopwith Camel maneuverability, engage and fire at a trailing Fokker before the Fokker could begin to fire back!

This would have been a brilliant maneuver IF I managed to inflict some damage on the Fokkers. I had hoped to do a little engine damage which would have compromised all of those superior attributes of the D.7. Alas, in five combats I failed to score a single hit!!!

As my Camels roared past the Fokkers Things decidedly took a turn for the worse. In executing those tight turns and climbing to turn on the Fokkers, my Camels were robbed of valuable momentum! Now the Fokkers had the superior air speed, and, when turning to the left, could out turn my Camels!

In desperation I attempted to initiate a number of individual dog fights. The Fokkers would have none of it. My Camels in a position to engage were unable to chase down the faster moving Fokkers and when assailed by a Fokker, my Camels were unable to get away!

Now my only hope would be to create a large furball. When large numbers of aircraft are concentrated in a limited airspace the relative advantages/disadvantages between aircraft tend to disappear. Instead the action turns into a game of luck, surprise and being surprised. Really not much better than a flip of a coin in many respects, but at this point 50% was starting to look real good.

Two of my Camels were crippled before the furball materialized. Another sustained a gun jam while tattooing one of the Fokkers and sending it into a spin! Now the odds were effectively 4:2 – but the Germans didn't know that! My Camels had attained a circular defensive formation. Any Fokker venturing into that hornets nest would receive a very warm reception (in theory at least).

From the perspective of the German, he was temporarily out numbered, facing a united front, and his forces were scattered. The spinning Fokker had recovered but it would be some time before that aircraft could climb back into the fight. As the Camels withdrew, the German player was more than happy with his victory.

ANALYSIS:

I was actually doing quite well in this game until I violated the first rule of WWI air combat: "NEVER climb to attack your opponent frontally." I felt I could achieve a level of surprise by doing this and indeed I did. However, I suffered a double whammy when my attacks didn't work out. I had neither air speed nor position. The initiative passed completely to the Germans. Had Sheldon aggressively taken advantage of this moment, things would have been much worse for me.

Instead Sheldon cemented his position overall and badly ripped up a couple of my less fortunate aircraft. Only one of my aircraft held his own – and did a nice job in sending his opponent down out of control!

Sometimes its better to be lucky than to be good. IMO this was one of those days.

I'll have to think of something better than this if I'm going to win against the dreaded D.7s.

mjc

My sympathies,dude.

Hi

Hmmmm. Look, a technical difference between the germans and the allies is that the brits used a prop of more course pitch versus germans, meaning that with a given drag/engine/prop variables, the allies were usually a bit faster.

The Camels with the major engines are 5 to 7 mph faster than the D7 with the 160 merc, and about the same as the BMW. The all have a far better initial rate of rurn, but with the pitch of the germans, the climb is better, therefore sustained turns are better.

In short, it is your rules.

Rocky

Rocky,

It is the rules.

I dunno if your assumptions are valid however. It appears, like many you assume an aircraft is going to sustain a maximum possible speed in all situations when in combat.

Not so.

Aircraft flying in formation often flew at speeds well below their maximum.

Aircraft that are climbing go slower. Aircraft that make tight turns go slower. Aircraft that dive go faster -- sometimes quite a bit faster. A Camel in a steep dive could easily attain speeds in excess of 160 mph -- maybe 180mph. I suspect a Fokker (much better construction than a Camel) could easily attain speeds in excess of 200 mph in a steep dive.

Do your rules take this kind of stuff into account?

When aircraft lose speed performing combat maneuvers it is not restored instantaneously. Indeed if you continue to turn or stunt, you might not gain much speed at all -- if any.

Likewise, when aircraft gain speed that momentum is not lost instantaneously when the aircraft levels out.

If we assume firing distances are less than 200 yards (more like 50 yards in most cases), a difference in speed of 10 mph would create a separation of 50 yards in a single second. (1 mph = 1780 / 360 = 5 yards per second).

How much time does it take a pilot to line up a shot and fire?

Further, (not that it matters much) my Camels sported the 130hp Clerget engine – still in wide use in the RAF at the end of the war. We tend to game 'historically' rather than grabbing the best models ever made. This way we are always comparing apples to apples.

So if we are going to talk about maximum speeds:

The 130 hp Clerget Camel has a maximum speed of 105 mph (169 km/h); the Bentley Camel – 111 mph (179 km/h); the Le Rhone – 108 mph (173 km/h); and the 150 hp Monsoupape (used almost exclusively by American Aviators in combat) – 117 mph (188 km/h).

The Fokker D.7 with the Mercedes has a maximum speed of 118 mph (189 km/h). Wiki puts it at 116 mph.

I'm sure you can find sources and give differing top speeds than those listed -- so can I. Suffice to say these are 'representative' in a relative context (or perhaps a propaganda context -- unless of course you feel the Brits would never misrepresent top speeds and the Germans always did).

We should also note that 'optimal' top speeds and 'actual' top speeds vary considerably. Further, the Rotary engine required relatively frequent rebuilds. The engine didn't just go down the tubes at 124 hours of flight time. The performance of the engine degraded over time to a point where its performance was unacceptable. The in-line Mercedes had less trouble with engine wear and provided better sustained performance over time.

Hmmm . . . well so much for the speed arguments. Using your analysis -- not mine, the Fokker traveling at 118 mph would leave the Clerget Camel (105 mph) in the dust in just a couple seconds.

No way, no how was the Camel faster than the Fokker D.7. Take a look at Franks book "Black September". I think Mr. Franks amply supports my position.

As for the turning issues. There are any number of ways to analyze this and frankly they are extremely complex if you do a good job. So much so that you practically have to perform a computer analysis at virtually every degree of incidence and consider issues such as wind and humidity to accurately predict results. IMO there are a lot of computer games that don't get this kind of stuff 'perfectly'. Table top games will never 'perfectly' portray this stuff. The best we can do are approximations. My opinion.

Suffice to say, my rules do not assume turns are being made on the flat (like a lot of rules). Turns in combat are made using any number of aerobatic techniques -- the most basic being a bank. The power of the engine has a lot to do with the ability of an aircraft to perform turns and sustain speed -- particularly when climbing or banking. I also assume the pilot is somewhat familiar with his aircraft and will adopt attack angles that minimize any slippage in the turn.

In the end, air combat is all about relative advantage and disadvantage between the relative positions of the aircraft at a given point in time. In addition, how a pilot flies his aircraft will definitely impact how well the aircraft performs. It isn't just the box, the man is just as important.

I have to wonder? Have you ever played Watch Your Six or even looked at it?

mjc

You dropped an order of magnitude in your calculation there.
1 mile = 1760 yards.
10 mph = 17,600 yards / hour.
1 hour = 3600 seconds (60 x 60)
17,600 / 3600 = 10 mph = 4.9 yards / second.

So the speed of separation is not nearly as fast as you wrote.

Right you are Simon.

My bad!

Thanks for the correction.

Poor example anyway.

A Camel that pulls an abrupt 180 and climbs 500 to 1000 feet isn't going anywhere near 105 mph anyway -- while a Fokker in a shallow dive attempting to close will be going well in excess of 118 mph.

mjc

Hi

Quid, yes my rules take all that into consideration.

As for the rest.

My creds are this. I worked for the government doing analysis of upcoming aircraft and using computer analysis to predict the real world performance. In MY circles, we relaxed by doing similar analysis on pre-modern aircraft…like for fun.

Similarly, I wrote flight sims for the USAF as training aids. And have done lectures to serving pilots on the history of air combat, current tactics, and have been given the task from time to time to write parts of the dash one of current aircraft, especially the bits suggesting how do to combat with various aircraft.

so, ya, I know all these details and can do the math.

The clue was my discussing prop design.

All sources I have show camels at 115 to 120, none show 103 as you cite. So, again, I am unsure why your game has Fokkers faster.

It is the most common aspect for me to see aircombat games where the aircraft's value is a matter of the designer's feelings for the airplane. I was not interested in a wargamer's game, back in the day, it was work and hobby to study aircraft, and gaming guys said "if you can do the math, why don't you FIX our rules".

Rocky

Well Rocky,

Guess we will disagree on this one.

Camel pilots often felt the only plane they were faster than was the Fokker Triplane.

I believe the numbers I quoted you were from the Profile Series. Checking Mick Davis' Sopwith Aircraft, those numbers match exactly those I quoted. Guttman's book places the Clerget Camel at 104.5 mph at 10,000 feet.

Now it is true that you can get a few more mph out of a Rotary engine at sea level. But there were precious few aerial combats fought at sea level.

Please note the action I described took place at 10,000 feet and the numbers I quoted were based on performance at 10,000 feet. In Watch Your Six engine performance will vary at differing altitudes. I don't know if this is something you account for in your gaming.

I too have done my homework in this area. Perhaps unlike some I place more value on the evaluations performed at the time; more value on evaluations given by the men that flew the plane in combat.

Fact of the matter is, Rotary engines lose power as they ascend in altitude. Using a bigger rotary engine will generate more power but the weight of the bigger rotary more than offsets the increased horse power as the aircraft climbs. This type of 'diminishing returns' spelled the death knell for rotary engine technology in air craft.

In fairness, almost any aircraft engine of the Great War suffered a loss of power at higher altitudes. Rotary engines were most severely affected.

So where the speed thing is concerned, I stand by my numbers. It appears your numbers may be derived from sea level trials probably performed in optimal weather conditions.

Where turning is concerned we can argue about that until we are both blue in the face. In my opinion it has less to do with the plane than how the plane is being flown. The Fokker D.7 was a very forgiving aircraft and very easy to fly near the limits of its design. On the other hand the Camel may have been the most difficult to fly -- of any single seat aircraft of the Great War.

I think this is important and should be reflected in the game. There are a lot of folks that think you can crunch numbers and recreate 'reality'. I don't believe this is true by any streatch of the imagination. Very few combats were fought by new aircraft with new engines. Indeed what 'should' have been the case was a far cry from the actual events.

As Rickenbacker (flying a Nieuport 28 -- Hartney said this aircraft was better than a Camel) said following a very close encounter with Albatros D5's on April 24, 1918, ""I felt a queer sort of admiration for the [German's] misjudged flying ability, mingled with an unspeakable contempt for the judgment of my instructors."

Call this bias if you will. Frankly there's a lot of NIBU (not invented by us -- so its not as good) criticism and yellow paper in the British post war writings. As most of us find reading English writings easier (if not the only source of information) than studying French or German, we tend to gravitate to sources written in English -- which may contain or perpetuate myths and propaganda from the war.

It takes a lot of work to separate the wheat from the chaff sometimes.

But we can look at a more telling statistic to determine the relative merits of the Camel when compared to the Fokker D.7. Actual Combat returns.

As the numbers of Fokker D.7's increased the Camel Squadrons suffered disproportionate losses. It is difficult to do an analysis of this kind because it is impossible to ascertain the type of aircraft being flown by the Germans in many cases. That said, if one looks at the actual loss returns from both sides in September 1918 (actual losses not claims). The Brits in Camel squadrons were losing somewhere between 4 and 6 men for every man lost by the Germans.

Now if we assume the Camel killed at least as many pilots as the Germans did (which is a valid assumption). That still means the D.7 was knocking down 2 or 3 Camels for every Fokker lost. Despite the best British propaganda Pilots in the Camel Squadrons were demoralized.

There was a reason the Fokker D.7 was singled out in the Armistice.

As Mr. Franks says in his book, the Camel was rapidly becoming obsolete in the face of the Fokker D.7. The Sopwith Snipe was rushed into production largely because the Camel could not hold its own.

The Snipe had serious design flaws that had not yet been addressed: in the tapering and balancing of the upper airlerons, changes to the mainplane dihedral angle, and an enlarged rudder (all these changes made after the war concluded). Because of these short comings the Snipe of the Great War was not as maneuverable as the Camel.

That indictment is most telling for me. The proof is in the pudding. If the D.7 is scoring at a rate of 2:1 or 3:1 or more . . . seems there is a reason for that.

IMHO, aircraft characteristics at various altitudes, pilot abilities and unit operations all contribute to the final result. It isn't just the box -- and indeed if the alleged capabilities of the box do not match the outcomes, maybe we should take a harder look at the box.

Just my opinion.

mjc

Hi

I have a nice little library, and once upon a time using anacdotes like you did, "proved" that every primary fighter was often observed to out maneuver every other fighter.

So, first start with the real numbers, then you can diddle with "how the pilot changed things.

You realize that what you have done is deciding ONE source says 103 or 104 and THEREFORE all D7s are faster?

As for your loss of speed with altitude, you realize, of course, that this is due to thinning atmosphere which, in short, is proportional with altitude for most of the aircraft in WW1. Until the use of superchargers and turbochargers of course.

But to your sources, have we reached the quibble that "my sources can beat up your sources". You realize how OLD profile pubs are?

The kill rate ratio you cite also applies to virtually ALL german pilots who fought "above their weight". By your measure, Albatross D3s were better dogfighters based on results.

Rocky

Intresting comments by both it really is great seeing someindepth discussion on this subject. I will have to dust off my Mustangs and Mersersmidts and The WWI version of Rockys rules and look for my 1/300 planes and take to the skies again.
Thanks for the information.
William

Rocky: Do you have a link to or information on your rules?

Hi

We are currently upgrading, expanding the WW1 stuff. Mostly involving the idea of new model available from when the rules were first published.

The WW2 are still in print.

Rocky

I'm curious, why would the power of a rotary engine degrade with altitude more quickly than the power of a water-cooled engine? I'd never heard that before.

As for using kill/loss ratios to compare aircraft performance….Kill/loss ratios have more to do with how aircraft are used than how good they are. Flying intercept missions over friendly territory is a lot safer than escorting slow observation aircraft over enemy territory. The kill/loss ratios you mention reinforce the idea that the introduction of the DVII improved the average quality of German fighters but doesn't by itself prove great superiority over the Camel.

And for further confusion…my "Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft" gives a BMW powered DVII a top speed of 124mph .095 hp/lb. The camel with a Clerget 115mph and .091 hp/lb. These numbers aren't from a primary source so I don't say they are conclusive, but thay do illustrate the point that you can get wild differences in references for airplanes this old.

Hi

The germans produced various high compression versions of their BMW engine that had the manifold system and internals designed to work better at high altitude, including valve design.

So, there was a slight advantage but that advantage wasn't restricted to just the D7 but all the hi-compression versions including that of the Pfaltz DIIIa and the Albatros DVa.

One problem with "encyclopedia" is translation. Often people get their sums wrong when working back and fort between english and metric and back. To THEM rounding back and forth doesn't matter.

In fact, the british and american tests of their captured D7s were slower.

Rocky

There is some anecdotal evidence for the superiority of the Bentley engined Camel in Winged Victory by Victor Mazlin Yates, he also includes the Couplet " A Fokker, a Snipe and a Bentley Camel: met for a scrap over Beaumont Hamel". Take from that what you will. The implication being that the Clerget engined Camel he was flying wasn't quite up to scratch vs. the Fokker.

Hey quidveritas, your game seems like fun. How does one get a copy? Do you know if anyone in Portland Or plays?

Don't want to step on Mike's toes, but..

IIRC, he's still having trouble with his online order/webpage, so he recommends that you send him an email at:

wy6_at_hughes_dot_net

…and yes: his game is fun.

thanks!

I have nothing to add, except that I would rather fly a Merc D7 than a Bentley Camel in a dogfight any day….