Jasta 52 and the Pfalz D.IIIa

[Akaalias]

Dan-San, Russ, thanks for the great info. The dates and equipment info you both supplied look to tie in with each other.

So, it's possible that Billik may not have flown a Pfalz for any length of time. It also looks as if the best tactics for the jastas to adopt we to avoid "mixing it" with the British, and instead adopt the "Hunnish tactics" of pouncing when possible, diving away, then climbing back to altitude when safe to do so.
Does that sound feasible?


Cheers,
A

[R Gannon]

Pips & Akaalias

The hard truth is that the Germans really did not do so well between the Autumn of 17 and Autumn 18. Nor was the Tripe any where near as good, as is the now popularised view. If the Jasta's looked good at all in this period, it is purely by dent of the fact that they fought primarily over their own side; which allowed all manner of advantages in regards scoring and surving. I am also always at pains to point out that the present picture of German losses is somewhat short of the mark. Books like 'Jasta War Chronicle' are great reference books, but they tend to paint an impression of the WW1 air war that is somewhat wide of the mark.

Likewise much of their 'apparent' success, particularly in the Spring of 18, was primarily over low flying British fighters - who low down, either hampered by bombs or low on ammunition, they were relative easy prey for German pilots who dived and zoomed. People should no be distracted by the body counts in regards victories over these low flying planes - these low attacks were doing incalculable damage to the German ground effort in the Spring Offensives. Something the Jasta's never replocated, when the German Army had its back to the wall from Aug 18 onwards!

In the higher level combats there were no run away successes - they often got more than they gave. On 24 Mar 18 for example, MvR leading 25 of his much vaunted JGI could not overwhelm 9 SE5's of 41 Sqn. And had the Jastas took the fight over the British side, as Ludendorf wanted, then it would have been grim indeed. Indeed MvR in his dicta, points out clearly that they would suffer heavy losses in formation fights over the Allied side.

Also one should not be deluded by the DVII aparent successes in the final months - German claiming standards dropped markedly in the last months and there is quite a bit of over claim. Similarly 25% of RAF fighter losses this period to Jasta's, were again low flying machines! And SE5's & Dolphin's generally held their own against the DVII's - and again I must point out - held their own over enemy territory. Ask yourself how DVII's would have gone in an offensive posture?

Cheers Russ

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Akaalias:
The was a major difference between the Pflaz D.IIIa and the Albatros D.Va.
The Albatros had a single spar lower wing and the Pfalz D.IIIa had a two spar lower wing. In fast dives , the Albatros D.Va had a tendency to shed its lower wings. As the center of pressure moved aft caused the leading edge to rotate upward, destroying the spar attachment to the fuselage, thus loosing the lower wing(s). The oddity of the bracing design fittings, were, the upper wing truss remained, even without the lower wing. The Pfalz D.IIIa with its two spars attached to the fuselage did not have this rotational problem. The wing structure could withstand prolong dive. The Pfalz D.IIIa was a stronger machine. With that understanding, you would have mnore confidence in throwing the machine around in combat.
The gross flying weight of the Alb.D.Va was 957kg and the Pfalz ws 23kg lighter at and all up weight of 934 kg. While the performance was about equal, both did 165km/hr at 3000 meters. With its lighter weight, the rate of climb of the Pfalz D.IIIa was better at 33 minutes to 5000 meters, while the Alb.D.Va took 35 minute to the same altitude. However,according to pilots reports, the Pfalz D.IIIa did not handle as well as the Albatros D.Va. The ceiling of the Alb.D.Va was 6250 meters and the Pfalz was slightly less at 6000 meters. I believe I would be more confident in a machine that had no handling limitations, than one I could not use to dive in attack or or disengagement. Besides that the Pfalz D.IIIa, is an elegant aircraft.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Russ Gannon:
Again you have helped me, I have now filled in the blanks on the equipment of Jasta 52.
Still smokey skies,
Dan-San

[R Gannon]

Akaaalais

Dan San's comments hit the mark. In my view the Pfalz has been underrated. I think the problem was that the German's had enjoyed a significant advantage with the Albatros fighters late 1916 through to the summer of 1917 - but this had been whittled away by better Allied types. And my feeling is the Jagdstafflen were looking for a clear advantage again with the introduction of the Pfalz & DR1 in the Autumn of 1917 - but the Pfalz proved only to be on a par with the DV as Dan clearly shows. They had to waite until the Summer of 1918 for the DVII and the advantage they longed for.

None the less Pfalz did a good job and I'm always struck by a photo of Jasta 15 (the old Jasta 18) in early 1918 which shows a line up predominatly of DV's - however the aircraft of Hptm Berthold - JG II's Kommandeur - is a Pfalz! (Gregavan will no doubt remind me - a Pfalz DIIIa) And I agree it is an elagant aircraft.

As to the DR1, I like this appraisal by Jacob's of Jasta 7: that the Triplane was: '
"...much slower than the Alb DV and therefore not very useful. At low altitudes it is very manoeuverable and equal to the English." And in truth, the Triplane's greatest successes fighter wise, were at low level against low flying Camels; as is abundantly evidenced by 27 Mar 18 and again on 6 Apr 18 when JG I Tripes scored a brace of victories over low flying Camels. Their excellent climb would be ideal for the dive & zoom attacks, that Brit accounts show had clearly been employed. However in higher level traditional dog fights, they were not nearly as successful against Camel's and SE5's flying Offensive Patrols.

Jacob's of course had a reasonable degree of success with his two Tripe's in 1918 - but they had been fitted with captured 130hp Clegert engines from downed Camel's, which no doubt increased their performance at hieght.

[Akaalias]

Dan-San, Russ:
Thanks for the great summaries. You learn something new every day.


Cheers,
A

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Russ Gannon:
In my opinion, the Fok.DR.I was an interim aircraft, waiting for the developement to be completed on the V11, V18 and the V21 which became the D.VII standard.
I think the LuftstreitKräfte had their hopes on the Pfalz DR.I, which did not pan out because of the problems with the ShIII engine. I Had read somewhere in one of my books, that: "In March we are going to surprise the Allies by flooding the skies with our new triplanes!" It seems the Siemens-Halske ShIII engine ate pistons for breakfast. In my opinion, the Pfalz DR.I was the better machine in design, construction and performance. Had the SHIII worked out at the time, I believe Pfalz would have gotten the Lion's share of the orders. Pfalz in March 1918, could out produce Fokker two to one, and with better quality!
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[R Gannon]

Dan San

Take on board your comments re the DR1 & Pfalz DR1. I actually have an unmade 1/72nd scale Merlin Kit of a Phalz DR1.

Alaalais

A little more on German tactics - all though surviving German docs do not spell it out another prominant German tactic becomes apparent from a study of Brit reports and the diary entries of the likes of Strahle and Rausch. Evident from early 1917 was the use of an upper and lower patrol - quite simplt 3 machines would fly a lower patrol a couple of thousand below and in front of an upper patrol containing the rest of the staffel (usually 5-7 machines). The primary aim of the lower patrol was to attack artillery machines (ie those calling shoots or photoing the forward zones for targets). Three machine being the ideal number, as any more, then flyers would get in each others way. A bit of suposition here; but I think the process was to try and surprise the 2-seater in a dive attack, whereupon, if that did not send the 2-seater down, then the experten would continue his dive past the target and come up underneath, whilst the other two zoomed and kept the observer distracted. The rest of the staffel would act as top cover for the lower patrol. A secondary purpose of the lower patrol was to act as bait for aggressive Allied fighter patrols. If attacked, the lower patrol would melt away and the upper patrol would attempt to catch the attackers by surprise. If you read MvR's CR's you will see that he often notes flying with either 2 of his staffel or 5 to 6 of his staffel - that is to say leading either a lower patrol or an upper patrol.

Cheers Russ

[Akaalias]

Russ:
Now we're talking. Just looking at those tactics (for early 1917) and assume that they'd still apply 6-12 months later. If I could make a couple of observations..........

1. These tactics wouldn't be detrimental to the effectivenes of the Pfalz; in fact, they'd be favourable. The only problem that I could see would be if a turning dogfight evolved at the end of the diving or higher flying SE5as (or SPADS) were patrolling even higher. Then again, the Pfalz may have the momentum to escape.

2. These tactics wouldn't necessarily be a disadvantage to a mixed jasta of Pfalz and Albatros, since the jasta would be split anyway. Where would (eg) Strahle or Berthold place the Pfalz and Albatros - the higher or lower levels?
Would it matter? It seems that Berthold would have an advantage in his Pfalz if he remained in the top level.

Any thoughts?


Cheers,
A

[R Gannon]

Akaalias

The upper / lower patrol tactic was used well into 1918. I can't speak for Strahle or Berthold, but I can provide this insight - on 4 Apr 18 when Giegle the SF of Js 16 was kia - I can confirm Holtzem was in the lower patrol flying a Pfalz, whilst Giegle was in the upper patrol on an Albatros.

Jasta pilots pilots regardless of type, could almost always escape when things got ugly by diving or spinning away; by virtue of the fact that they fought primarily over their own side of the lines. British pilots knew well not to follow them as they would most certainly be jumped (often by more than one aircraft). In line with this, it is evident from British reports that once a dogfight proper started, certain German planes (the experten) would attempt to climb above the fighting, with the specific aim of diving on those who might follow a German plane down / or Brit aircraft attempting to clear the fight. British pilots would only follow a German plane down close to the front lines, where they could then easily duck back across. Neither Pfalz or Albatros could outrun an SE5a in these situations.

Jasta pilots only crossed the lines on 3 occasions:
1. Attacks on Corps aircraft operating just over the lines,
2. Pursuit of Brit aircraft breaking away from fights - but never more that 2 - 3 km over, and
3. Balloon attacks.

Cheers Russ