Hannover CL.III And Halberstadt CL.IV

[Pips]

Curious as to why the Germans did not employ either of these aeroplanes in a similar fashion as the British did with the Bristol F2b.

Reportedly both possessed excellent manoeuverability at all levels, were light yet robust, adequately armed, had a good climb and dive rate and an outstanding power to weight ratio. The only drawback would be a less than stellar top speed. Issues that also impacted on the Camel, Albatross D series and Dr.1.

[Brom]

My guess would be that the Germans had to be more careful to husband scarce resources of men and aircraft than the British, whose 'gung-ho' approach cost them heavy casualties.
Therefore the German aircrew were expected to use their planes as escorts for C-types, and for ground attack where circumstances dictated they must, but attack on enemy aircraft only where odds and conditions were overwhelmingly favourable.
The CL types were surely capable of successful offensive use in the same aggressive manner as the Biffs, so that's the only explanation I can think of.

[HoHun]

Hi Pips,

Originally Posted by Pips

Curious as to why the Germans did not employ either of these aeroplanes in a similar fashion as the British did with the Bristol F2b.

There are probably various reasons, but I suspect an important one, which we discussed on this board in a F2b-related thread semi-recently, is that the Bristol Fighter owed its great characteristics to an especially powerful engine.

In the absence of a comparable engine model, the Germans couldn't be expected to built a comparably effective two-seat fighter, and even if somehow they could have provided such an engine, the two-seater concept might not have fit their air combat doctrine, which probably would have been served better by a better performing single-seat fighter.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Pips]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Pips,
the two-seater concept might not have fit their air combat doctrine, which probably would have been served better by a better performing single-seat fighter.

Regards,
Henning (HoHun)

Think you may have hit the nail on the head HoHun. Two seater (fighter capable) use in the Luftstreitkräfte was certainly orientated earlier in the war to escort role of reconn aeroplanes, and later in the war to ground attack.

[HoHun]

Hi Pips,

Originally Posted by Pips

Think you may have hit the nail on the head HoHun. Two seater (fighter capable) use in the Luftstreitkräfte was certainly orientated earlier in the war to escort role of reconn aeroplanes, and later in the war to ground attack.

Just to throw a wrench into my own works, there was the Roland C.II Walfisch though! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Pips]

The Roland C.II is a good example to mention.

The Walfisch was used in both the escort and reconn role in 1916, with reasonable success. While difficult to handle (mainly in take-off's and landings) once airborne was quite handy with good performance. It certainly was superior to most Entente aeroplanes, with the exception of the Nieuport and Dh2.

It only seems to have fallen out of favour with the introduction of the Albatross D.I/II in late '16. The concept of the Roland showed good promise, sadly the Germans didn't pursue the concept.

[HoHun]

Hi Pips,

Originally Posted by Pips

The concept of the Roland showed good promise, sadly the Germans didn't pursue the concept.

It comes back to the basic relationship of power to weight and drag. Making an aircraft a two-seater inevitably adds weight and drag, so if you use the same engine as for a single-seater, you'll end up with less performance.

The additional fighting power you gain is largely defensive, but it's gained at the expense of mobility, which is both an offensive and a defensive power as it enables you to choose favourable engagement conditions and evade unfavourable ones.

Fighting from a position of numerical inferiority, defensive firepower at the expense of tactical mobility is not a good option in the context of a WW1 fighters, as numerical superiority can negate the defensive firepower if several attackers work together against a single defender relying on firepower for defense.

I believe one standard tactic used with the Brisfits was to use them as the lowest element in offensive patrols, so despite their relatively more powerful engine, they were employed in a position were in addition to their defensive firepower, they could be supported by single-seaters flying top cover.

If you can't count on this type of (local) air superiority, and don't have an especially powerful engine available, a two-seater isn't necessarily a good choice as a fighter aircraft.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi again,

Originally Posted by HoHun

If you can't count on this type of (local) air superiority, and don't have an especially powerful engine available, a two-seater isn't necessarily a good choice as a fighter aircraft.

Here's a 1925 book on the topic, summing up the lessons learned in WW1:

https://archive.org/details/strategy...e/103/mode/2up

(The Strategy and Tactics of Air Fighting by Major Oliver Stewart, with a foreword by Wing Commander W. G. Barker)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)