Ares Games

View Poll Results: Which one was the best Allied Fighter?

Voters
80. You may not vote on this poll
  • SE5a

    56 70.00%
  • Sopwith Camel

    18 22.50%
  • SPAD XIII

    6 7.50%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 51 to 93 of 93

Thread: SE5a vs Sopwith Camel vs SPAD XIII: which one was the best?

  1. #51

    Default

    Steve: I think you're right... however I've been thinking (and testing) some house-rules that make the SPAD VII and especially S.XIII funnier and lethal to play.
    It's a combination of 3 house rules my friends and I have been using:

    1) Boom&Zoom tactics using a 'over-climb' house rule. Over-climb mirrors over-dive. It's a 3 cards maneuver: STRAIGHT-CLIMB-STALL, plane earns a climb-marker after CLIMB and STALL.
    2) Dividing planes into structurally "sturdy", "normal" and "weak". "Normal" planes play with regular rules. "Weak" ones (Sopwith Triple, Ni-28, Albatros D.III) take a "B" damage card if Over-Dive. "Sturdy" ones (SPAD, SE5, Plafz D.III) can combine over-climb, over-dive, Split-S and Imelmann
    3) SPAD XIII when playing a STRAIGHT and 'DIVE' card they don't place the base maching the maneuver card's arrow (as any other plane), but place the rear edge of the base touching the front edge of the maneuver card. That gives SPAD 1cm plus of speed, making it the fastest plane in the game for real.

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    In-game, these same tactics apply and the SPAD XIII especially can be absolutely dominant - so long as the play area is big enough to support its speed. Two Ares mats side-by-side butted on the long edges is good, three is even better. With room to run, the SPAD XIII outpaces all Central fighters and absolutely crushes turnfight specialists like the Dr. 1 (just as in real life). Playing with altitude rules only makes the case stronger.

    As in real life, if you try to fly the SPAD as a turnfighter, you will die. If you play to the plane's strengths, and are able to play on a suitably sized play area, you can and should dominate - as in real life.
    Agreed. Trying to fly a SPAD like a Camel or a Nieuport is a recipe for disaster.

    And thanks for the video!

  3. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    And thanks for the video!
    Glad you liked it! I am a middling Rise of Flight pilot at best, but I do appreciate the challenge and sometimes have success.

    Here is a compilation of some of my best "SPADding" from the "Wargrounds" multiplayer server. It gives some idea of how the SPAD works best, to wit, as a hit-and-run machine flown with energy management foremost in mind.


  4. #54

    Default

    Except, of course; It isn't actually possible to play SPADs as they were used in Reality, due to the altitude rules being such an utter hash. For all practical purposes, the SPAD has two moves: Straight, and Immelmann.

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Except, of course; It isn't actually possible to play SPADs as they were used in Reality, due to the altitude rules being such an utter hash. For all practical purposes, the SPAD has two moves: Straight, and Immelmann.
    Care to elaborate?

    I've had very good luck with the SPADs, especially the XIII, both with and without the altitude rules. I may have different expectations of a tabletop game, however, and I play PC flight sims that definitely scratch the "realism" itch, so it's possible I am not as sensitive to WOG's perceived shortcomings in this area. My feeling is that table size is the most important to making the SPADs feel right, not the altitude rules.

  6. #56

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    Care to elaborate?

    I've had very good luck with the SPADs, especially the XIII, both with and without the altitude rules. I may have different expectations of a tabletop game, however, and I play PC flight sims that definitely scratch the "realism" itch, so it's possible I am not as sensitive to WOG's perceived shortcomings in this area. My feeling is that table size is the most important to making the SPADs feel right, not the altitude rules.
    G'day Steve!
    I found your comments on the Spad XIII in the game interesting as when I first flew my 2 x SE 5a's I kept getting shot down until I learned to play its advantages. I.E. Speed, Climb & Dive. It is also good with its side slip.
    Strangely I do not have a Spad XIII but I do have & really like my 2 x Spad VII's.

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    My feeling is that table size is the most important to making the SPADs feel right, not the altitude rules.
    I agree, though playing with altitude helps... as does patience.

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gully_raker View Post
    Strangely I do not have a Spad XIII but I do have & really like my 2 x Spad VII's.
    That's a surprise! If you like your SPAD S.VIIs, you'll love flying an S.XIII! It's faster, and twice as heavily armed.

    And you're absolutely correct about Steve's advice... his approach to flying SPADs has worked for me, too.

  9. #59

    Default

    The last thing you'll never see...


  10. #60

    Default

    Nice bounce! Beware the Hun... er... SPAD in the sun!

  11. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    Care to elaborate?
    Simply put: It takes 2-3 turns (depending on which altitude data one is using) to recover from a dive; by which point, the fight has wandered away from one, or is over.

    Coupling the above to the SPAD's cinderblock-like turning radius, and one is reduced to "straight-Immelmann-straight" for the duration of the game. The only redeeming virtue of this is: The ending straight from one Immelmann can be used as the lead straight for another Immelmann (it's on a copy of Official Errata sitting next to me right now).

    Contrast this with, for ex., _Richthofen's War_, where one can trade airspeed for altitude, or vice versa, in *one* turn with relative ease-of-play (for ex.: The SPAD 7 undamaged can climb three 50-meter altitude levels every turn, and drops its speed three 50-meter hexes if its does; so as long as it has those 3 MP to spare, it can climb if the player desires).

  12. #62

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    When the SPAD XIII is on table here there are allways talk about its exelent climb and dive. Well no arguments there but should tha XIII have a better climbrate in the game? Should it be 1 insted of 2? That would make it a real "zoom and boom"-er.
    Just asking your opinion.

  13. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOOP View Post
    When the SPAD XIII is on table here there are allways talk about its exelent climb and dive. Well no arguments there but should tha XIII have a better climbrate in the game? Should it be 1 insted of 2? That would make it a real "zoom and boom"-er.
    Just asking your opinion.
    Maybe, but a rewrite of the altitude rules to something which matches with the rest of the game would work better.

  14. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Maybe, but a rewrite of the altitude rules to something which matches with the rest of the game would work better.
    With the Spad XIII, by 1918 it's engine was upgraded from a powerful 220hp to an even more impressive 235hp. So, IMHO by 1918 the Spad XIII (or at least some of them) could have a climb rate of 1.

    For a couple of years now I've played with re-written altitude rules which does what you've mentioned for boom and zooming. With the mods the 1918 Spad XIII is the ultimate boom and zoomer; climb rate of 1, able to dive 3 levels in a turn and a serious dive bonus and able to dive down and get back up fast. But, I still much prefer the SE5a. The problem is that, although the Spad is a beast, it's still a beast to control. The SE5a has many of the advantages of the Spad (good climb and serious dive capability) but the turn makes it more forgiving.

  15. #65

    Default

    Cheers Nicola!
    Where can I find those altitude rules you're talking about?

  16. #66

  17. #67

    Default

    Of these I would pick the SE.5 but only because there is no Bristol on the list

    Never Knowingly Undergunned !!

  18. #68

    Default

    Might as well add my $0.02

    In the hands of a skilled pilot the Camel was an excellent fighter... in the hands of a new or mediocre pilot, it was a deathtrap. The Camel could take an excellent pilot and make him amazing. The SE.5, on the other hand, could take a mediocre pilot and make him excellent.

    Take two excellent pilots, put one in an SE.5 and one in a Camel, and see who "wins".. my money would be on the Camel. Simply because it has the maneuverability advantage. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily a better overall aerocraft. I don't think the SE.5s killed near as many of their pilots as Camels did.

    And as for the Camels having such a high kill number, it's a completely meaningless stat by itself. You have to factor in a lot of other things (numbers deployed, opposition deployed, location deployed, opposition types, etc.).

    IMO the SPAD XIII was overall a good fighter, with no particularly outstanding qualities save its durability.

    I still think, given experienced pilots in all 3 A/C in a straight dogfight the Camel would come out on top... but I think the SE5 and SPAD had a better chance of not killing their pilot on his journey to get there.

  19. #69

    Default

    It is very interesting that we are still discussing the very same thing a Century after the pilots of WWI had the same debates. The first time I came across Camel vs SE5a was in a Biggles book back in the early sixties. Even with the statistics which the pilots of the time did not posses, but with a lack of personal experience of flying them in the conditions of 1917/18, we seem no nearer a definitive answer than they were. I guess it all comes down to flying technique and personal choice in the end, much like the way we fly our favorite models. Incidentally, some of us have now been flying them for longer than the actual aircraft were flown, and indeed this thread has been going on longer than they were used during WW1, and it is still a good discussion.
    Rob.
    Last edited by Flying Officer Kyte; 06-26-2016 at 11:57.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  20. #70

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    on longer than they were used during WW2.
    Rob.


    WW2??

  21. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post
    WW2??
    Thanks for spotting the slip Barry. One of the results of doing both periods I'm afraid.
    At least I did not say 1788 which is what I'm working on at the moment.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  22. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hedeby View Post
    Of these I would pick the SE.5 but only because there is no Bristol on the list
    Nice one Chris


    I'm learning to fly, but I ain't got wings
    Coming down is the hardest thing

  23. #73

    Default

    Love the Spad , Camel is great but the SE5Aa is the dogs ......


    I'm learning to fly, but I ain't got wings
    Coming down is the hardest thing

  24. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackronin View Post
    I've heard from a secure source that there weren't even Camels in WW1. They were a case of mass propaganda that achieves 110% effect, turning into believers even those that initiated the process.
    That's nonsense! Everybody knows Snoopy flew one, and Snoopy is real!

    Name:  snoopy.jpg
Views: 572
Size:  29.0 KB

  25. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Ross View Post
    That's nonsense! Everybody knows Snoopy flew one, and Snoopy is real!

    Name:  snoopy.jpg
Views: 572
Size:  29.0 KB


    I believe you Stuart.


    Then I also believe in the InSanity Clause.


    Name:  DSC_6171.jpg
Views: 649
Size:  156.6 KB


    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  26. #76

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Officer Kyte View Post
    Thanks for spotting the slip Barry. One of the results of doing both periods I'm afraid.
    At least I did not say 1788 which is what I'm working on at the moment.
    Rob.

    Air-to-air combat in 1788. Two hot air balloons and a man armed with a blunderbus in each basket.

    Blunderbus? That's a 'D' card, isn't it!

  27. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post
    Air-to-air combat in 1788. Two hot air balloons and a man armed with a blunderbus in each basket.

    Blunderbus? That's a 'D' card, isn't it!
    You must be thinking of 1808 Barry.

    "Monsieurs Granpree and Le Pique fight for the hand of Mademoiselle Tirevit in the skies above Paris."

    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  28. #78

  29. #79

    Default

    I have not voted because I do not own all of the planes. I think I've enjoyed the Camel more. But it seems from other posts that the SPAD can be both a challenge to play against.

  30. #80

    Default

    I have to say, for the sheer love of the plane, I vote Spad XIII every time.
    If, however, I have to base my decision on what I've read down through the years, I'd probably say SE5a. (SE5 doesn't even get a look in.)
    Camel - sorry boys, it was good, but...

  31. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalnaren View Post

    I still think, given experienced pilots in all 3 A/C in a straight dogfight the Camel would come out on top... but I think the SE5 and SPAD had a better chance of not killing their pilot on his journey to get there.
    I'd respectfully disagree. The SE5a is ~20mph faster, can climb faster & dive harder plus maintains its manoeuvrability better at altitude. Any half way decent pilot, let alone an experienced one, is going to exploit those advantages to set the terms of the engagement. Why would you try to turn with a Camel when you could boom and zoom it with relative impunity?

    Unsurprisingly I voted for the SE5a

    Tom

  32. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Conall View Post
    I'd respectfully disagree. The SE5a is ~20mph faster, can climb faster & dive harder plus maintains its manoeuvrability better at altitude. Any half way decent pilot, let alone an experienced one, is going to exploit those advantages to set the terms of the engagement. Why would you try to turn with a Camel when you could boom and zoom it with relative impunity?

    Unsurprisingly I voted for the SE5a

    Tom
    You're assuming the Camel would fight on the S.E5's terms. Why would you stay in a mid-high altitude fight with a plane that can out-climb and outrun you? Camel is also better armed.

  33. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalnaren View Post
    You're assuming the Camel would fight on the S.E5's terms. Why would you stay in a mid-high altitude fight with a plane that can out-climb and outrun you? Camel is also better armed.
    If the opponent's aircraft has a higher top speed, has a greater altitude ceiling, and can climb faster than your aircraft - then he dictates the engagement.

    You do not get to shoot at him, unless he allows you to.

    He will exploit his aircraft's advantages to boom-and-zoom you to death, and you'll be so busy trying to evade his attacks, it will require him to make serious mistakes in order for you to have a chance.

    This is one of the main reasons why, for all its turnfighting prowess, the Camel was relegated to ground attack duties by mid-1918.

    (And one of the main reasons why they only built 340 Dr.1s)

    With that said, in the boundary-limited play space of WoG, all things are possible!

  34. #84

    Default

    I voted for the S.E.5a, simply because of it's remarkable staying power. The Camel, as others have noted, could not really compete in the later stages of the war - yes, it was a terrific performer for the better part of a year, but its high kill totals are in part the product of the sheer number of Camels that saw combat. Consider also that the primary opponents of the Camel during its heyday (mid-1917 to mid-1918) were the Albatros D.III, D.V, and, briefly, the Fokker Dr.I. Of these, only the Fokker was more or less the equal of the Sopwith in terms of performance, and the Dr.I was never in action in large numbers. Again, as others have pointed out, the Camel was clearly inferior to the D.VII, which is why it began to be relegated to ground attack and support roles later in 1918.

    The S.E.5 entered service before the SPAD or the Camel, and remained an extremely effective front-line fighter right up until the Armistice. Considering how rapidly aviation technology progressed during the war, that is quite a remarkable achievement. While the S.E.5 was never available in the numbers of the Camel (and therefore did not achieve as high a total of raw victories), the pilots that were lucky enough to fly it did incredible things. It's telling that virtually all of the top British aces flew the S.E.5 - Bishop*, Mannock, McCudden, Ball, Little, Beauchamp-Proctor...

    So it gets my vote.

  35. #85

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by horsepyre View Post
    I voted for the S.E.5a, simply because of it's remarkable staying power. The Camel, as others have noted, could not really compete in the later stages of the war….
    Another thing against the Camel was its reputation for crashes - in training or at the front. Low altitude turns to the right had to be carried out with care. Modern pilots have a horror of the 'dead stick landing' - gliding in with the engine switched off. However some Camel pilots favoured just that approach as it was regarded as safer. In many respects the Snipe was a Camel with the bugs ironed out.

    Contrast this with the SE5a of which Sholto Douglas said: "Comfortable, with a good all-round view, retaining its performance and manoeuvrability at high level, steady and quick to gather speed in the dive, capable of a very fine zoom, useful in both offence and defence, strong in design and construction, [and] possessing a reliable engine".

    Barry

  36. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post
    Another thing against the Camel was its reputation for crashes - in training or at the front. Low altitude turns to the right had to be carried out with care. Modern pilots have a horror of the 'dead stick landing' - gliding in with the engine switched off. However some Camel pilots favoured just that approach as it was regarded as safer. In many respects the Snipe was a Camel with the bugs ironed out.

    Contrast this with the SE5a of which Sholto Douglas said: "Comfortable, with a good all-round view, retaining its performance and manoeuvrability at high level, steady and quick to gather speed in the dive, capable of a very fine zoom, useful in both offence and defence, strong in design and construction, [and] possessing a reliable engine".

    Barry
    Right you are. And if the comparison is which aircraft was better overall, the Camel's tricky handling has to be taken into account - sure, the pilots that mastered it had a very capable dogfighter, but so many never lived long enough to achieve that mastery. Whereas the SE5, similarly to the DVII (but much earlier in the war) had the reputation of being very easy to handle even to a novice pilot, right out of the gate.

    If the question is who would win a dogfight between an ace Camel pilot and an ace SE5 pilot, it's a closer call, but the SE5 is still the bird for me.

  37. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by horsepyre View Post
    ... It's telling that virtually all of the top British aces flew the S.E.5 - Bishop*, Mannock, McCudden, Ball, Little, Beauchamp-Proctor....
    It's not telling - they flew what they were given ! I think what is telling is that the most talented air fighters made the best of what they had.
    Donald Roderick MacLaren claimed 54 flying the Camel including 11 Fok D.VII... Raymond Collishaw also claimed 11 Fok D.VII of his 22 claims with a Camel out of his total 60 victories... maybe this indicates talent balances supposed inferior aircraft ?!
    Robert Alexander Little got 19 of his 47 claims in Camels; Ball only got 11 of his 44 claimed with the SE & preferred his N.17 for hunting alone.
    I'd still go for the SE over the other two myself though, speed is life ! (though in the game that steep on the sharp turn can hamper you, particularly if wounded)
    Last edited by flash; 03-28-2017 at 22:43. Reason: Ball's SE kills upped.

    "He is wise who watches"

  38. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    It's not telling - they flew what they were given ! I think what is telling is that the most talented air fighters made the best of what they had.
    Donald Roderick MacLaren claimed 54 flying the Camel including 11 Fok D.VII... Raymond Collishaw also claimed 11 Fok D.VII of his 22 claims with a Camel out of his total 60 victories... maybe this indicates talent balances supposed inferior aircraft ?!
    Robert Alexander Little got 19 of his 47 claims in Camels; Ball only got 9 of his 44 claimed with the SE & preferred his N.17 for hunting alone.
    I'd still go for the SE over the other two myself though, speed is life ! (though in the game that steep on the sharp turn can hamper you, particularly if wounded)
    Fair enough, and I commend you for your well-researched counter-examples! There's no doubt that the pilot's talent was important no matter the aircraft, and certainly there are examples of Camel pilots scoring heavily even against the D.VII. It's a tricky thing because, unlike in a fantasy wargame, real life was never "balanced" - while the D.VII was undoubtedly a superior plane to the Camel, the German pilots towards the end of the war were much greener than the experienced Camel aces, and heavily outnumbered. But if you were to look at, say, Bloody April, the Germans had far more experienced pilots on the whole and superior machines (though they were still fairly heavily outnumbered).

    Anyway, there's no question that the Camel was a fine machine in the hands of a capable pilot. The same could be said for the S.E.5 or SPAD. But the S.E. had the longest operational history and excelled throughout, in the hands of experienced and novice pilots alike.

  39. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    It's not telling - they flew what they were given ! I think what is telling is that the most talented air fighters made the best of what they had.
    Donald Roderick MacLaren claimed 54 flying the Camel including 11 Fok D.VII... Raymond Collishaw also claimed 11 Fok D.VII of his 22 claims with a Camel out of his total 60 victories... maybe this indicates talent balances supposed inferior aircraft ?!
    Robert Alexander Little got 19 of his 47 claims in Camels; Ball only got 9 of his 44 claimed with the SE & preferred his N.17 for hunting alone.
    I'd still go for the SE over the other two myself though, speed is life ! (though in the game that steep on the sharp turn can hamper you, particularly if wounded)
    Although I agree with your overall point, I think it's should be made clear that the SE5a was much superior to the SE5. The SE5 had several issues. For a start the synchronisation device on the SE5 was erratic. The windscreen was likened to a glass house leftover. The seat position was all wrong. Worse the engine was unreliable and underpowered.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_..._Factory_S.E.5

    It was built around the new 150 hp (112 kW) Hispano-Suiza 8 a V8 engine that, while providing excellent performance, was initially underdeveloped and unreliable.

    It's not surprising Ball decided he much preferred his old plane to the SE5 but the teething issues were soon sorted out and the later and up-engined (200hp) SE5a was an excellent fighter and in every sense superior to the N 17 and superior in almost everyway to the Camel - especially at high altitude.

  40. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    Although I agree with your overall point, I think it's should be made clear that the SE5a was much superior to the SE5. The SE5 had several issues. For a start the synchronisation device on the SE5 was erratic. The windscreen was likened to a glass house leftover. The seat position was all wrong. Worse the engine was unreliable and underpowered.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_..._Factory_S.E.5

    It was built around the new 150 hp (112 kW) Hispano-Suiza 8 a V8 engine that, while providing excellent performance, was initially underdeveloped and unreliable.

    It's not surprising Ball decided he much preferred his old plane to the SE5 but the teething issues were soon sorted out and the later and up-engined (200hp) SE5a was an excellent fighter and in every sense superior to the N 17 and superior in almost everyway to the Camel - especially at high altitude.
    Indeed. I'm reading Peter Hart's Bloody April right now and just hit a blurb about Ball working over the new S.E.5 to make it flyable. In addition to the issues you mention, there was also a steel plate in the seat which they ditched to save weight.

  41. #91

    Default

    Yes, it should be pointed out that both the SE5 and SPAD really only came into their full capability once equipped with the Hispano Suiza 8b (or better). Even then, the engine proved unreliable at first, with many aircraft flyable only a few days a week as consequence.

    The 180hp SPAD VII was arguably a much better plane than the original SE5, while the SE5a (with the 200hp Hispano Suiza 8b) along with modifications noted previously, are what brought the design into its own.

    As I wrote previously in this thread, my vote goes to the SPAD family (VII and XIII) as the most important, as they were the first Entente designs in widespread use to make full advantage of the tactics afforded by speed and energy, as opposed to maneuverability alone. These tactics were later adapted to great success with the SE5a (and Fokker D.VII, etc.), but their success - for the Entente - begins in my view with the SPAD.

    (Of course the Albatros fighters were the first designs to compromise maneuverability for speed and ceiling - to great success!)
    Last edited by surfimp; 03-28-2017 at 10:43.

  42. #92

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    The SE5 (before the 5a) was very 'Mark 1' and suffered from problems. Ball was critical of it but, at the time, he was also involved in development of the short-lived Austin-Ball so he may have naturally favoured that. After all the Royal Aircraft Factory did not have a reputation (up to then) for supplying good machines. The BE2 and FE8 are cases in point!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin-Ball_A.F.B.1

    Barry

  43. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    Yes, it should be pointed out that both the SE5 and SPAD really only came into their full capability once equipped with the Hispano Suiza 8b (or better). Even then, the engine proved unreliable at first, with many aircraft flyable only a few days a week as consequence.

    The 180hp SPAD VII was arguably a much better plane than the original SE5, while the SE5a (with the 200hp Hispano Suiza 8b) along with modifications noted previously, are what brought the design into its own.

    As I wrote previously in this thread, my vote goes to the SPAD family (VII and XIII) as the most important, as they were the first Entente designs in widespread use to make full advantage of the tactics afforded by speed and energy, as opposed to maneuverability alone. These tactics were later adapted to great success with the SE5a (and Fokker D.VII, etc.), but their success - for the Entente - begins in my view with the SPAD.

    (Of course the Albatros fighters were the first designs to compromise maneuverability for speed and ceiling - to great success!)
    Totally agree, some French escadrilles had 12 Spad XIII's and 6 Spad VIIs in inventory late in the war. French pilots would use the XIII when the squadron was flying but the VII for solo hunting. Looking at French victories they spiked when the VII first came out then dipped until the XIII came out. If the war con't they were really looking at producing more 2 seaters for the bomber escort.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Missions

  1. SPAD XIII
    By Gallo Rojo in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-20-2011, 12:43
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-19-2011, 06:16
  3. Sopwith Camel Vs SE5a
    By batesyboy in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-28-2011, 09:47
  4. Baracca Spad XIII
    By STICK in forum Sale/Trade/Wanted Classifieds
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-08-2011, 12:42
  5. Wings of War SPAD XIII vs. Reveresco SPAD XIII
    By sucklingpig in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-08-2010, 00:51

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •