This article appeared originally as a series of posts on http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/ during a debate on the suitability of the Sopwith Snipe as a replacement to the Sopwith Camel. The thread in it's entirety is mirrored on this site as Sopwith Snipe Thread Mirror. The debate centred around whether the Snipe was superior to the Camel and a failure for the aerial combat requirements of 1918 and possibly 1919.
Was the Sopwith Snipe a successor to the Camel?
Brief history on the Sopwith Snipes development and it's replacement of the Sopwith Camel. Also why did it get to the front so late. 4 and 43 recieved it.
The Sopwith Snipe was Sopwith's design to satisfy the Air Ministries April 1917 specification for a dual machine-gun tractor scout with the performance of 135 mph at 15000 feet and being capable of climbing from 10000 to 20000 feet i under 10 minutes. Sopwith's design, followed the lightweight rotary engine style that Sopwith had had success with, such as the Strutter, Pup, Triplane and Camel. The Snipe was to be powered by the Bentley BR.1 which was developing horsepower of 230 hp. As the Snipe was being tested and modified as a prototype, a new specification was written for a Type 1 specification, for a high altitude scout. The evaluations for the Type 1 specification were held in April of 1918.
The Sopwith Snipe had a long and protracted development period, the initial design was drawn up in August of 1917 and the Sopwith Snipe didn't enter front line service until October of 1918.
How the Australians viewed the Camel and their tactics with the Camel and with 80 Wing.
Edgar McCloughry a Flight Commander and 23 victory ace with 4 Sqn Australian Flying Corps wrote of the Camels lack of speed;
"I at once turned but they did not wait, one of the horrible characteristics of a camel being, as I will describe later, that it is un-able to catch any other machine with the exception of the Fokker triplane on the level."
Edgar McCloughry also wrote of the Camels lack of speed in the same document;
"One word on the 'Camel': There is not one pilot in the squadron who would not argue to the end for a Camel. Although slow, she could get around anything, also one could not run away from anything, which rather aimed for success."
The phrase "aimed for success" meaning that a Sopwith Camel pilot had to fight their way out of an engagement. In comparison the SE5a and Spad XIII pilots were often capable with their superior speed to dive away and not be caught by chasing Enemy Aircraft. As McCloughry wrote the slowest combat aircraft present in 1918 were the Fokker Dr.I and the Sopwith Camel.
Arthur Cobby the commander of A Flight and the leading ace of the Australian Flying Corps with 29 victories wrote of the Camel's lack of diving speed when the Squadron set traps using decoys in the air;
"In this manner we accounted for a few of the enemy, but they could dive faster than our Camels. Unless we got close to them early in their dive, they would just keep on diving and so get away. ... If we were only able to encourage the enemy to get in a dogfight, things were easy, as a Camel could outmanouvre anything."
The Sopwith Snipe was a welcome exchange for the Sopwith Camel by the Australians. The Fokker DVII's were becoming more prevalent in the German Jasta's and has Arthur Cobby had noted, the Sopwith Camels were out performed by the DVII's at height. No.4 Squadron Australian Flying Corps was the second British or Commonwealth squadron to be equipped with the Sopwith Snipe. The first being No.43 Squadron Royal Air Force. Arthur Cobby was transferred back to the Australian Training Wing in England soon after the squadron re-equipped with the Snipe, however he noted how comfortable Captain Roy King who took over command of A Flight, was in the Snipe. King scored 7 victories in the Snipe, the leading scorer in the Snipe. Incidentally Roy Kings attestation papers measure him as 5 foot 10 inches.
"We received our first batch of the new Sopwith Snipes soon after this, but I did not have enough practise on them to handle them properly. 'Bo' King liked them from the start, as his rather large frame was given plenty of room in which to move."
Cobby however in the little time he did get to fly the Snipe noted the improvements in performance the Snipe offerred;
"I managed to obtain a couple of weeks grace, with the excuse that I wanted to try out the new Sopwith Snipes. They proved to be much faster than the Camel, had a far higher ceiling, and did not posess any of it's vices, although we had mastered these long ago."
Captain John 'Jack' Wright the Flight Commander of C Flight also wrote of the Snipe's improvement in performance over the Camel. Specifically in terms of climb.
"Here, 4th Sqd. exchanged its Camels for Sopwith 'Snipes', then the last word on the British side in Scout and Fighter design. It was really a larger edition of the 'Camel', but without the 'hump' which gave the Camel it's name. Powered with 200 hp Bentley Rotary engines ( which developed 260 hp at 1400 revs ) they had a ceiling of 19000 feet and a top speed of about 127 mph, flying level with a war load. This gave them a slight advantage in speed over the Fokker, but we still could not get as high as the Fokkers. They were of slightly more robust construction than the Camel, but were a little less manouvreable. However. their rate of climb was better than the Camel, a ceiling of 15000 feet could be reached in 30 minutes, a Camel took upwards of 45 minutes."
An operation in 1918 would often spend the first 40 minutes or so climbing to patrol height before even passing over the lines on an Offensive Patrol. An aircraft that climbed faster at war load gave the scouts a greater period to spend over in German territory. This fitted well with the Royal Air Forces offensive doctrine.
Notice also how Wright noted that the Snipe has a slight speed advantage over the Fokker DVII, however the DVII's superior aerofoil gave the Fokker DVII a superior ceiling. One other limitation of the Rotary engined scout was the ability of the Rotary to take in oxygen rich air. George Jones, another ace with No.4 Squadron noted improvement of the Snipe inbeing able to handle the Fokker DVII as well;
"The Squadron [No.4 Squadron Australian Flying Corps] was equipped, in the first instance, with Clerget Camels and it continued to use this type until eight weeks before the Armistice, when it was re-equipped with Sopwith Snipe. It was, I believe, the second Squadron to receive them, and is therefore one of the few Squadrons which enjoyed their superiority over the Fokker D7."
Wright also related a story about a German Ace noting the Sopwith Snipe while No.4 Squadron was based at Bickendorff in Cologne as part of the 14 AFC, RAF and USAS Squadron of the Occupational Forces. During their stay there, the allied suqadrons were testing their equipment against the captured German equipment.
"One German pilot, swaggering with three decorations which had been awarded him for his skill in shooting down a number of British machines, on viewing for the first time this aerial exhibition of British machines at Bickendorff, asked open-mouthed the name of the type of 'plane with which 4 Sqdn was equipped. When informed they were Sopwith Snipes, he remarked with heart felt emphasis; 'I thank God I did not meet any of them before the Armistice.'"
The comparison of figures, speed and climb figures. Power to weight ratio table. Why the performance figures are suspicious. Figures are at odds with pilot statements. Dallasto 26000ft. No Deming in 1917. Camel and Dr.I appear to be the most over-stated of the WWI figures.
In 1918 the allies with the SE5a and Spad had two aircraft with a great advantage in speed. Previous to the SE5a and Spad VII's entry to the Western Front, the allied scout aircraft had been rotary engined tractors or pusher aircraft. While the Corps aircraft were inline engined aircraft, such as the BE2 and the RE8, the scouts still held to the lightweight rotary engined design. The introduction of the Albatros DII and DIII with inline Mercedes engine proved that a heavy, high powered, well armed and fast scout could maintain air superiority. The British paid for the introduction of the Albatros with 1917's "Bloody April".
By April 1917 the Spad VII was entering service with the French and British forces. The Spad VII was powered by the 180 hp Hispano Suiza. The SE5a also entered British service at the same time with 56 Squadron bringing the aircraft to the Western Front. These aircraft were flown to their advantage, which in the SE5a's case, was high altitude performance and speed in the dive. 'Mick' Mannock the RFC ace taught his pilots that an SE5a should never dogfight a Fokker DrI.
Aircraft Engine Sea Level 10,000 ft 15,000 ft SE5a 200 hp Wolseley Viper - 132.5 mph - Spad XIII 220 hp Hispano Suiza1 - (approx) 132.5 mph (approx) 127 mph Spad VII 180 hp Hispano Suiza - (approx) 127 mph - Fokker DVII 185 hp BMW IIIa 124 mph - - Sopwith Snipe E8006 230 hp Bentley - 121 mph 113 mph Sopwith Camel 150 hp Bentley BR1 - 116.5 mph 103 mph Fokker Dr.I 110 hp Oberursal UrII 115 mph (approx) 106 mph (approx) 99 mph Pfalz DIII 160 hp Mercedes DIII - 102 mph 91.5 mph Nieuport 17bis Clerget 9B 109 mph - 107 mph Sopwith Triplane 110 hp Clerget 9Z - 107.5 mph 98 mph Sopwith Pup 80 hp Le Rhone 9C - 102 mph 85 mph
It should be noted that most of these figures come from the variants with more powerful engines, in essence an ideal performance speed figure for the aircraft. In the Camels case, the 150 hp Bentley engined Sopwith Camels only went to the Royal Naval Air Service squadrons. Most other squadron flew variants of the Clerget rated between 100 hp and 140 hp. In the case of No.4 Squadron Australian Flying Corps, the Sopwith Camels they flew were the long stroke 140 hp Clerget 9Bf engined type.
In the case of the Fokker DVII, the high compression BMW engined DVII's appeared only late in the war and in few numbers, the common DVII was fitted with a 160 hp Mercedes engine. The Spad figures also appear with the most powerful engine the aircraft was fitted with, the Spad VII's for instance were commonly sent to the front with the lower powered 15 and 180 hp Hispano Suiza's, the Spad XIII's more commonly with the 200 hp Hispano Suiza. The same for the SE5a, the Australian squadron was fitted with the 180 hp Wolseley Viper variant of the Hispano Suiza.
The one off nature of these figures also do not display the problems the Luftkraftkreig was having with the quality of lubricants. The Royal Navy's blockade of Germany caused problems in Germany being able to get high quality petroleum products, two area's which were hit the hardest in terms of aviation was fuel and lubricant quality. The German aircraft were using synthetic oils and lubricants which were far inferior to the petrol, oil and lubricants the allies were using. This translates to the German engines having less horsepower, higher wear and less reliability than the allied engines.
Most of these figures despite coming from official tests represent the indertimant quality and measurement of the aircraft industry between 1916 and 1918. In 1918 the aircraft industry was still in a craftsmans era, quality control as industry knows it today, did not exist in 1918. There was no Deming Way and there was no statistical anaylsis of products and quality. In essence each product that the aircraft and engine factories produced was a "one off".
Two prominent examples which represent this lack of modern style quality control occurred in the aircraft the Australian Flying Corps was issued with. 1 Squadron AFC had a Bristol Fighter that no matter who they rigged it, or overhauled it's frame and engine, would not perform to the same standard as other aircraft in the squadron. In the end the aircraft was lost when it's engine faltered over enemy lines. Another aircraft, a DH5 of 2 Squadron AFC, passed through the factory and the Aircraft Park with oil soaked wing timbers. The squadron flew it operationally but most pilots feared the aircraft as it's wings flexed disproportionately in flight. It was stripped down by the squadron mechanics and once the problem discovered it was written off by the squadron.
The other problem with these figures is the nature of overstatement of the Camel and Dr.I figures. Of the figures that are commonly accepted for aircraft in WWI, the Dr.I and Camel figures are most often the figures that are at odds with the pilots words and recordings. Note in Edgar McCoughry's writings he writes of the Camel, "it[Sopwith Camel] is un-able to catch any other machine with the exception of the Fokker triplane on the level." This statement is consistent with a pilot who flies a replica Dr.I with a rotary engine who reported that the aircraft is lucky to get above 75 mph. In war trim I would not be surprised if the Camel or Dr.I never got above 100 mph at 10,000 ft.
The time to climb figures
Despite the Sopwith Snipe being 600lbs heavier than the Sopwith Camel, the Sopwith Snipe still had a remarkable power to weight ratio, the best of the war of the scouts that saw operations.
% Aircraft Ratio 8.78 Sopwith Snipe 2020 lbs / 230 hp 9.44 Spad XIII 1888 lbs / 200 hp 9.61 Nieuport 28 1539 lbs / 160 hp 10.05 Sopwith Camel (150 hp Bentley) 1508 lbs / 150 hp 10.18 Bristol F2b 2800 lbs / 275 hp 10.36 Spad VII 1554 lbs / 150 hp 10.48 Fokker DVII 1940 lbs / 185 hp 11.22 Nieuport 17 1235 lbs / 110 hp 11.47 Albatros DVa 2065 lbs / 180 hp 11.73 Fokker Dr.I 1291 lbs / 110 hp 12.92 Albatros DIII 2068 lbs / 160 hp 14.19 Sopwith Triplane 1561 lbs / 110 hp 15.31 Sopwith Pup 1225 lbs / 80 hp
Industry in 1918 had had a deal of experience in measuring and quantifying weight and horsepower.
The main problem the Sopwith Camel in late 1918 was the introduction of the Fokker DVII. The Fokker DVII outclassed the Sopwith Camels of 4 Squadron in altitudes above 12,000 feet. Arthur Cobby wrote of the problems the Fokker DVII caused for the Camel pilots;
"We had not come into contact with it [Fokker DVII] to any extent as most of our patrol work was being done at lower altitude, but our fellow Australians in No.2 [No.2 Sqn Australian Flying Corps] were continually meeting them. Their SE5a's could get to greater heights than our Camels, which were at their best up to about 12,000 ft. We could get much higher of course, but the performance fell off rapidly above this level, and against the new Fokker, would put up an indifferent show. Later on we did meet them up higher and managed by sheer hard flying to hold our own, but unless one was an exceptional good pilot the odds were definately not good."
Both No.4 and No.2 Squadron Australian Flying Corps were a part of 80 Wing RAF, which consisted also of the ssquadrons, No.88 RAF flying Bristol Fighters, No.92 RAF flying SE5a's, No.46 RAF flying Camels and No.103 flying DH9's. The Wing used stacked offensive formations to obtain local air superiority, in this manner the squadrons would be stacked to in a wedge formation with different squadrons flying at different elevations. Strange recorded two such formations in his book, "Recollections Of An Airman" for the 80 Wing raids on the aerodromes of Harbourdin and Lomme. Interestingly Strange describes the formations with No.4 Sqn flying Camels in one and Snipes in the other.
8000 ft 6500 ft 6000 ft 5000 ft 5000 ft 92 Sqn RAF (SE5a) 88 sqn RAF (Bristol F2b) 103 Sqn RAF (DH9) 2 Sqn AFC (SE5a) 4 Sqn AFC (Camel)
Strange wrote the second wing formation with the Sopwith Snipes being at the top of the formation. Strange also wrote this formation had the advantages of a better downward view of position as well as being a more dofficult target for Anti-Aircraft gunners.
8000 ft 6000 ft 4000 ft 3000 ft 2000 ft 4 Sqn AFC (Snipe) 88 Sqn RAF (F2b) 46 Sqn RAF (Camel) 2 Sqn AFC (SE5a) 103 Sqn RAF (DH9)
The problem with the Camel during operations (and training). The Snipes effectiveness at height and how 80 Wing changed their operations due to the Snipe.
4 Sqn AFC's record with Snipes. For and against,
The Sopwith Snipe is often written as instead of being the start of a new era, was the last of an era. Basically it was the epitome of the lightweight Rotary engined scout. The Snipe did not have the speed and climb performance of it's contemparies such as the SE5a, Spad XIII and the to come Martinsyde Buzzard. However the Sopwith Snipe's main rival in the air was the Fokker DVII, which was not in itself a fast airplane.
Was the Sopwith Snipe an improvement over the Sopwith Camel? By the writings of the Australian pilots of 4 Sqn AFC and their Wing Commander, Louis Strange, the Sopwith Snipe was. The greater performance of the Sopwith Snipe at altitude gave the Australian pilots the confidence to take on the Fokker DVII at altitude on equal terms. The improvement in the performance of the Snipe was such that 80 Wing changed their tactics and used the Sopwith Snipe as the high flying Scout in the Wing formations.
The record of 4 Squadron AFC with the Snipe is indicative of the change in their tactics since re-equipping with the Snipe. Of their victories all but one is against Fokker DVII's and most are of the destroyed claim.
The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Gordon Branch for the kind use of Gordon's research work into the Claims and Operations of the Sopwith Snipe with 4 Squadron Australian Flying Corps.