heavy losses Camel/SE5a

[steven brown]

Please excuse me if this has already been covered, but in my ongoing reading, I have noticed that Camel formations ( flight or squadron size )suffered very heavy losses on several occasions, almost to the point of being annihilated. I haven't found anything similar happening to SE5a formations. Does this reflect my lack of information or did the SE5a somehow avoid this fate?

[YavorD]

Heavier and a bit faster S.E.5as had, probably, somewhat better chance to break out of a fight and go back another day. Just my opinion.
Regards,
Yavor

[Romani]

It depends of the time period, the sample you have picked probably reflects that in 1918 Camel squadrons were increasingly used for ground attack duties and suffered heavily as a result. Also, the SE5a flew top cover for them at higher altitudes, so they had a less risk of being bounced from above. In addition, another thing that skews your perception is that there were many more Camel squadrons than SE5 units, basic probability, the more Camels around, the higher the chance of some unit of them having a misfortune.

You have to consider all these factors before drawing conclusions. Differences in performance between the fighters were slim. Truly inferior aircraft never get accepted into service or for the most part are quickly withdrawn from frontline service.

[Mad Mac]

Originally Posted by Romani

Truly inferior aircraft never get accepted into service or for the most part are quickly withdrawn from frontline service.

Except the BE2c

[steven brown]

Gentleman,
I was using the Camel incidents as an example and did not mean to imply that the Camel was inferior to the SE. The performance characteristics weren't that dissimilar. As YavorD points out the SE was faster and the Camel excelled at tight tuns, but both aircraft were equal to or better than the most likely opponents they would face. Only the BMW powered Fokker D7 was clearly superior. I'm sure you're correct Romani, that the Camels often got caught down low; a clear disadvantage. I'm just curious why the SE seems to have suffered less. In an old thread Graeme notes that the losses as a percentage of total production for the SE was 5.89% and for the Camel, 10.97 % to all causes. Maybe the low altitude missions of the Camel are responsible for that.

[R Gannon]

Steve

I would have thought this was common knowledge, but in 1918 there was an equal number of Camel and SE5's squadrons on Western front - 14 each. Moreover SE5 squadrons did more than their share of ground attacks and suffered their share of casualties. Saying that SE5 squadron's played top cover for Camel's on low attacks is an over simplification. The greater horsepower of the SE5 was most certainly a factor.

But the real point which I will stress time and time again is that the Camel's & SE5's fought their war over the German side of lines; be it Offensive Patrols or Low Bombing missions - this gave the 'defensive' German Jasta's a whole raft of advantages in regards scoring, survivability and engineering the advantages in numbers.

That said most of the Camel 'carve ups' were against low flying formations or when they were literally swamped by DVII's. In general mix ups Camel's did not fare that badly against DVII's. And the SE5's rarely did.

JG III with their BMW Fok DVII's certainly did some real damage in final months but the majority of other DVII Jasta's were hardly terrifying the British. The Marine JG did some damage particularly against 204 & 213 Sqn's, but they also indulged in some pretty fanciful claiming too.

The point you (and others) should ponder is how well the DVII would have fared if it was to have performed Offensive Patriol's and Low Bombing missions. Do you think it would be a Camel 'carve up' if six low flying, bombed up, DVII's were suddenly bounced 5-10 km over the British side by 15 to 20 Camels?????????? And how would 6 DVII's fare if they met 6 SE5's ten to twenty kilometers behind the British lines????????

And as always we should be careful about the incomplete nature of German records - do not miss that goodly numbers of these Camel victims were only POW's ie brought down on the German side in damaged machines - do not be missled by the seeming one sided nature of the scorelines so often seen in print - plenty of Fok DVII pilots most certainly recieved what Js 27's De Ridder called 'birthday presents' - being shot down and ininjured.

Cheers Russ

[steven brown]

Russ,
I've only been reading and learning about WW1 avaition for about 6 or 7 months, so what may be common knowledge to some is certainly not to me. That's why I find this forum and the comments by you and others so valuable. Like I said in my previous post, I think the Camel and SE were equal to or better than the various Albatros, Pfalz and low powered Fokkers. I was just curious why I haven't come across any SE group being " carved up ", as you put it. Another fact I've noticed is how often the British claimed to be outnumbered. It seems that by 1918, the Germans were using large formations all the time. Anyway, thanks for the lengthy and informative response. I always look forward to your posts.

[R Gannon]

Steve

As you are clearly enthralled with the WW1 airwar might I expound on the SE5 top cover issue. This notion largely comes about from what were called Wing raids - that in the second half of 1918 the British mounted a goodly number of Wing raids on German Aerodromes. These usually entailled four squadrons and due to the SE5's better record against German fighters they were often given the top cover role. Here are a few culled from my air war log.

1 Aug 18 - 13 Wing raided Epinoy A/D with 60 Sqn (SE5's) & 11 sqn (Bristols) providing top over for 56 Sqn (SE5's) & 3 Sqn (Camels) who bombed and shot up the airfield. It was the base of Jdgp 8 and known losses were: Js 23 - 7 aircraft destroyed, Js 32 3 destroyed & 8 damaged & Js 35 - 3 aircraft destroyed. Rudolf Stark of Js 35 recorded that only 3 aircraft of the Gruppe were not hit.

13 Aug 18 - 61 Wing 204, 210, 213 & 17 Aero (US) all Camels - raided the Marine JG - 17 DVII's were destroyed or damaged & 5 pilots also became casualties.

16 Aug 18 - 80 Wing raided Harbourdin home of JdGp 3 - 88 Sqn (Bristols) & 92 Sqn (SE5's) played top cover for 2 AFC (SE5's) & 4 AFC (Camels) - known losses: Js 43 lost 3 DVII's dest & 2 Damaged and was out of action until 3 Sep 18. Js 63 losses are described as 1 destroyed & many damaged.

17 Aug 18 - 80 Wing again and same units & roles - attacked JdGp 6 at Lomme - pows reported 17 DVII's were destroyed. Degelow reported that his Js 40 had 4 Dest and that the other Jastas all had damage.

19 Aug 18 - 10 Wing attacked Phalempin with 64 Sqn (SE5's), 22 Sqn (Bristols) & 209 Sqn (Camels) - Js 30 lost all its aircraft.

Pointedly none of these, or any othe Wing attack, were seriously confronted in the air. Indeed if WW1 had gone into 1919, I'm certain these Wing attacks would have brought the German Air Service to its knees. There was of course no German equivilent - they left it to night bombers who only had some scattered success against British airfields. The Germans however did take note and in the Blitzskrieg's of 39 to 41 the Luftwaffe specifically target airfields.

Hope you find this of interest.

Cheers Russ

[steven brown]

Russ,
Thanks much for the detail of those wing attacks. I find it remarkable that the Germans either could not or would not contest these attacks. In fact, it's becoming obvious to me that the German strategy of defense was not very effective. As you and Old Man have pointed out to me, the British, while suffering heavily at times, were never prevented from accomplishing what they wanted to do. As a newcomer to this field, I can tell you that the perceived public wisdom of some aspects of the war are quite incorrect. I've been shedding preconceived ideas at a steady pace here.

[R Gannon]

Steve

Yes mate, the present wisdom has been rather dominated by what I commonly allude to as 'Germanophile myth'. But beware, as I was warned myself long ago by a wise old owl, that there are those who can be quite hostile to those of us who challenge this myth.

The bottom line is that the SE5A was a very capable fighter and the SE5 squadrons - regardless of overclaiming - all did some very real damage to the Fliegertruppe at relatively lower losses to themselves. In my view it was only equalled by the DVII, who's seeming success had much to do with the home town advantage. Few German aces achieved more than a handful of victories over SE5's. The Camel was a good workhorse, but was certainly outclassed by the DVII.

Indeed it is interesting to note how several German pilots, when they actually concede they were downed, often attributed their misfortune to being shot down to 'SE5's', when in fact close research will reveal that theses SE5's in several instances were actually Camels. The SE5 clearly had the 'bogy man' status amongst the Fleigertruppe.

Happy researching.

Russ