Wittmanns counterattack

[Guest Mike]

I don't think I'd be rreading too much into the "detail" at the tail or anywhere else - the photo is too grainy IMO for such positive conclusions.

Certainly the vertical stabiliser LOOKS like it's behind the horizontal ones, and the plane looks like it might have a ridgeback.

But I wouldn't want to bet your left testical on either!

[JonS]

No, but I'd bet yours in a heartbeat

I cropped, rotated, and zoomed the a/c in question (which incidentally makes the rudde-tailplane relationship a lot clearer), then compared it to various 3-views from 'your' site. I agree about the grainy-ness (and the a/c banking doesn't help either), but the Spit looks like the best match, for the reasons given.

[Guest Mike]

Nope - been taking my kids to archery lessons for 6 weeks now - even dusted off my old longbow (flatbow) - there's lots of different techniques - even simple things such as where you put your fingers on the bow varies with range, whether you're using sights or barebow, recurve vs compund vs longbow.

Where you anchor the string varies with those too...and then there's Asian archery, which is entirely different again....

Anyway - I think the original photograph might be found in a magazine called "After the Battle", issue #48 - I don't have a copy but there's references to it as a source of such a photo around on the 'net.

[kawaiku]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Gentlemen,

I must respectfully disagree with your aircraft ID.

I think it's a P-47, not a Spitfire. Here's why.

1. Wings are too stubby for a Spitfire; not long enough relative to fuselage length. Spot on, though, for a Thunderbolt.

2. Chord is too shallow for a Spitfire, but right for a Thunderbolt.

3. Nose is too short for a Spitfire and not pointed. Thunderbolt has short squared off nose (giant radial engine) and no pointed prop hub, exactly what's visible in the picture.

4. Fuselage is way too chunky and barrel like to be a Spitfire's slim, graceful frame. It's just what I'd expect to see, though, for a Thunderbolt and is what I first noticed as being not right for a Spitfire when peering at the photo. It nagged at me so badly that I broke out my AIRCRAFT OF WORLD WAR II by Gunston, in which I found the all-important overhead views which allowed me to look at proportions, assess chords, examine wing shapes and relative spans, etc. After that drill, I see no way in which, even with significant glint from what looks like a polished aluminum fuselage,

that the plane shown could be a Spitfire.

Regards,

John Kettler

That was my first thought too but I thought the body wasn't thick enough.

BTW, what are those blocky things on the ground next to it?

[John Kettler]

kawaiku, etc.,

After a daylong standdown on this topic, I've looked at it with fresh eyes. Here're my thoughts.

There doesn't seem to be anywhere nearly enough wing on it to be a Spitfire, even factoring in some shortening from the bank. Besides, the wingtip shape is off, both for the standard models and the clipped ones. Whatever we're looking at simply doesn't have the characteristic Spitfire double tapered wingtip. I've already discussed the chord issue.

The Typhoon/Tempest also have way more wing, relative to fuselage length, than does what we're seeing, and the wing shape's not even close. The chord at the main part of the wing is also

not even proximal to what's visible in the picture, being too long. Neither aircraft has the kind of nose seen in the picture, either.

Turning now to the Thunderbolt, there's not much taper on the leading edge as it starts wrapping back to the wingtip, just as seen in the picture,

the ratio of wing length to fuselage length looks right, the chord looks right, and I even came up with a response to the ridgeback Spitfire argument. Early Thunderbolts have a prominent ridge running from the faired in cockpit clear back to the vertical stabilizer, a feature not found on the later bubble canopy models. The relatively high viewing angle would tend to make the Thunderbolt look much slimmer than usual if you're used to looking at this beast of a plane in the horizontal, where it's huge when seen from the side or even close to it. From what I can tell, the shape of the horizontal and vertical tailplanes is right, too.

I don't pretend to know why a Thunderbolt would be there, certainly haven't looked at whatever the relevant tacair mission logs for the day were, but it remains my best guess as to what we're seeing.

As for that "block," I think it's another crater or whatever those things are on the ground, with shape distortion thrown in as a result of small pixel count, image graininess, lack of contrast, etc.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Wicky]

Leading wing edge on a jug is straighter than the one in the photo.

Clipped wing Spit would be my guess

[ March 26, 2007, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: Wicky ]

[GRUMLIN]

Wow. I walked this terrain in August last year and it is incredible to see this photo.....

The thing you don't get from this lot is how bloody flat the ground is for miles. From where the Tigers were knocked out to where the AT guns were is very very very flat indeed. the Tigers had good cover to their left flank (cos the road was/is higher than the surrounding).

Grum

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Anyway - I think the original photograph might be found in a magazine called "After the Battle", issue #48 - I don't have a copy but there's references to it as a source of such a photo around on the 'net.

There is a low res copy in ATB Magazine 48 and a better copy (2mb)from the French site mentioned earlier in the thread

http://www.kipperboxes.co.uk/vue_aerienne-8_aout_1944.jpg

The copy I use is 16mb and taken from the original held at Keele University.

[John Kettler]

Wicky,

Beautiful shot! As for the ID, may I invite you to take a look at the relative amount of nose visible forward of the wing in your pic as compared to what's visible on the ID disputed image? The clipped wing Spitfire would appear to have considerably more nose, and that's not counting the spinner!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Beautiful shot! As for the ID, may I invite you to take a look at the relative amount of nose visible forward of the wing in your pic as compared to what's visible on the ID disputed image? The clipped wing Spitfire would appear to have considerably more nose, and that's not counting the spinner!

...which is why I said "Merlin Spit" rather than "Griffon Spit".

All the best,

John.

[Guest Mike]

I just noticed something about these 2 photos - the blown up one loses the protrusions from teh front of the wing - in the top one they look very much like gun barrels on each wing, but they'er lost in eth bottom one.

I don't have any means of checking where they are placed viz detailed a/c drawings, but perhaps someone can do that?

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Spitfire?.........

[wunwinglow]

Tim

[rune]

yeah, it looks like a razorback P-47 to me. If anyone is keeping count.

Rune

[Gen Von Television]

For one thing, it's kind of difficult to judge the real proportions of this bird: I believe it's also moving so fast, and in a different direction from the camera...

One thing I noticed, I believe it's not silver, but painted: note the light 'duck egg blue' band before the tail, which is typical of the spits, and Brits anyway... Just to add some fire to our QUIZ

[ May 02, 2007, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: Gen Von Television ]

[Gen Von Television]

I just throw another stone in the pond:

why not a Hurricane II armed with rockets, or a IIC with cannons?!?

This Bird?!?

[ May 03, 2007, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: Gen Von Television ]

[Tux]

Hi all.

As you can see I comment very rarely on these forums, although I do browse them a lot. Until now I've always felt that I have had nothing to offer, since my knowledge of the WWII ground war is vastly inferior to most of yours, and I come here to learn about aspects I do not understand, driven by my love for CM and my increasing fascination with the subject in general. When it comes to the air war and aircraft recognition however, I'm a bit more knowledgable.

The aircraft that I originally considered possible candidates for this case were the Spitfire, Typhoon, P-51, P-47, Bf 109 and Fw 190, which will have comprised the vast majority of single-engined aircraft roaming the skies of Northern France in early August 1944.

Apart from a brief week's operations over Normandy after 8th June, the RAF's entire complement of Tempests were tasked with defending southern England from the V1 threat, and they didn't re-enter the skies over the continent until 25th August. Hurricanes of all marks had long since been reassigned to secondary service in Europe, and were not to be found scooting about alone, at low level, over heavily-contested areas of France.

I think the Bf 109, Fw 190, Mustang and Typhoon can all be safely discounted straight away. Multiple differences in appearance can be demonstrated between this machine and either German type. The aircraft has too many curves to be a Mustang and appears to have a high-backed fuselage, ruling out a Typhoon.

To my eye the wing looks like a Spitfire's, but I think the wing in this photograph is the wrong place to look for a distinction between a Thud and a Spitfire. The aircraft is clearly in a bank, as evidenced by the visible step of the cockpit canopy towards the nose and also by the angled line of the wing leading edge in relation to the axis of the fuselage. The wing's exact planform is therefore difficult to ascertain. Add this to the fact that the photo is hideously blurred, and I think you could argue forever about whether the wing belongs to a Thunderbolt or a Spit.

The length of the nose ahead of the wing leading edge is also misleading. The nose in the photograph looks short, but only if you measure to the end of the bright section of the fuselage. We have no way of telling whether the darker section ahead of that is part of the engine cowling, or is caused by the blur of the propeller, or otherwise.

The tailplane of the aircraft appears to start ahead of the fin. That would make it a Spitfire. The leading edge of the tailplane appears to curve rearwards. That would make it a Spitfire. Again however, the poor quality of the image means that this can't be relied upon.

At first glance the rear fuselage is not arched enough to be that of a T-Bolt, but, again, it is extremely difficult to tell, as is the angle of bank and therefore the depth of the fuselage.

Finally, the step of the cockpit canopy is clearly visible and is clearly located above the rear half of the wing, even allowing for distortion due to the bank. The windscreen of a razorback Jug C or D is located approximately 1/3 of the way back from the wing leading edge. That of a Spitfire is located approximately 2/3 of the way back.

Basically, In my opinion this aircraft is a Merlin-engined Spitfire (it's DEFINITELY too short-nosed to be a XIV), but I can only say that I am 75% certain. For some reason, every time I come back and look at it I immeditely think "Spitfire", and I have learned to trust my instincts in this respect. I'm afraid that's all I can say. If it is a Spifire then it could be a dedicated PR machine, such as a Mk XI, but it could just as well be a vanilla V or IX, since it's impossible really to tell what it's doing.

Can someone describe more accurately which hulk is the wreck of Wittmann's Tiger? I'm buggered if I can tell the difference between little dark blobs on the ground...

[JonS]

Nice post Tux.

Re you last para; see the map here, put up by Gpig.

Jon

[michael kenny]

A bit more detail for the anoraks.........

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/1152397987/

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/thread/1171387067/

[JonS]

Amusing threads. Paraphrasing: "Wittmann was too good to be killed by other tankers - and especially not the British, of all people - so it must have been airpower or mechanical failure."

[Tux]

Cheers JonS and michael kenny. It took me a worrying amount of time to work out I needed to flip either the photo or the diagram to make any sense of them, but that's very useful. I'm pretty certain I can see the spot on the photo where the diagram says 007 is, but I can't see it myself...

Ah well, not to worry - I can take people's word for it.

[michael kenny]

[Tux]

Good grief! That's ridiculous, lol! I take it whoever spotted that originally had ground reports of its location to go on?

On a side note it must take a ridiculously powerful hit to 'decapitate' a Tiger?!

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Tux:

On a side note it must take a ridiculously powerful hit to 'decapitate' a Tiger?!

Or an internal explosion from ammo cooking off.

[Tux]

Ah, of course. But still... bloody hell!