Bristol Fighter.

For the purposes of a comparision.What fighter British or German,was most like the Bristol in performance.It is only for a set of simple wargames,so near enough will do.
Thankyou
Missy.

[Craig]

I don't think that the Germans, nor the French, developed a counterpart to the Brisfit, or even really tried.

I'd agree with Craig the Brisfit was in a class of it's own. I've read the Dh4 made a good account of itself though.

However Rumplers had a pretty good advantage in Ceiling. Which kept them out of a lot more trouble than 3 Lewis's on a scarf ring.

Did it compare to a SE5,Spad,Albatros as a fighter?

[cam]

Missy,

FA300 in Palestine used the Rumpler CI in the same multi-role that 1 Sqn AFC used their Brisfits in 1918. The Rumpler CI dominated the theatre until late 1917. 1 AFC recieved Brisfits in late 1917 as well, they dominated the aerial war in Palestine until the armistice with Turkey.


cam
AFC - http://members.xoom.com/PointCook/index.htm

Missy,

The Brisfit was occasionally used as fighter in the "Classical" sense. IE get on the enemies tail and shoot him down with the forward gun. Turn rates are nearly impossible to figure out today without getting data from authentic replica AC, however it was said that for a 2-seater it was very manuverable.

Could this put it on par for manuverability with say a spad? Possibly, one thing it did have was a very nice top speed, faster than most of the german fighters excepting the D7 and other late models. So most of the time if the chips were down it could get away.

The best way a brisfit could be used is a pair of brisfits with 2 skilled pilots and 2 eagle-eyed gunners. Fighting as a team and avoiding a circle-jerk turn fight is where any two-seater excelled.

For a good account of the possiblites with a good crew, I recommend Alfred Atkey's Bio.

Kory!

That is I think good description of the effective
use of the Bristols as teams. Dad also flew the
Dh4 and had 9 claims before he was transfered to the bristol. I believe the thinking was that the bristol was a better dogfight aircraft than the DH 4.

George Atkey

[Graeme]

Missy et al

I recall having read that the Bristol was described as a "fighter with a gunner" and that once crews had got over the old two-seater way of flying (the Lufbery circle when attacked), pilots could go after anything in front of them knowing that their back was covered by the guy in the back seat. I think the type's combat record shows that it was capable of at least holding its own against the Pfalz, Albatros and Fokker scouts of 1917/early 1918 but may have been pushed when faced with the Fokker DVII (tho' plenty of those were claimed by Bristol crews). Like most types, those who did well on it, loved it.

VBR Graeme

[Barrett]

Apparently the Halberstadt CL-2 was a sporty two-seat machine but I don't have any intel as to how it actually compared to the BrisFit. Would be an interesting matchup, though.

Hab CLII is not a bad aircraft, but not as speedy or as well armed as the Bristol. It could put up a good fight but IMHO the Bristol was a better plane.
A side note. All two-seat aircraft flown by a good crew, not getting surpised by fighters, could be very, very, dangerous to fighters. In the board game Dawn Patrol I have played several two-seaters (including the Sopwith 1 1/2) and when they cooperate are very deadly. However two-seaters not flown well can be "easy meat".

A Victoria Cross was awarded to AA Mcleod (I hope I spelled that right) flying a Armstrong FK8, this crew shot down two Fokker DRI's before crashing. Not bad for a bomber.