# Spitfire V ME109. I have found these links on the net.



## Readie (Jun 19, 2011)

I found these interesting and give a balanced view. 

There are some remarks from the Germans about conditions in the last year of WW2 that suprised me. Sabotaged Me109's from the factory and how production standards had slipped.

Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K

Spitfire Mk IX versus Me 109 G - Flight Testing

Enjoy
Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 19, 2011)

I'd advise you to look up Spit stats from that site *BUT* Bf109 stats from here: Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance.Or you could search this forum for posts comparing the two aircraft.


----------



## Readie (Jun 19, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I'd advise you to look up Spit stats from that site *BUT* Bf109 stats from here: Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance.Or you could search this forum for posts comparing the two aircraft.



Ok, but there is other background information there too.
Is just for general interest...
Cheers
John


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jun 21, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I'd advise you to look up Spit stats from that site *BUT* Bf109 stats from here: Kurfurst - Your resource on Messerschmitt Bf 109 performance.Or you could search this forum for posts comparing the two aircraft.


 
Unfortunately there are NO guarantees of accurate Bf 109 stats on the site given above (nor can you rely on the so called "discussions" on the forum attached to this site, which mostly seem to be led by a _Purple Fang_  who has a real hard-on against the Spitfire and most allied aircraft); your best sources for 109 info are still to be found in authoritative and reliable books written by authors such as Prien Rodeike, or Willi Radinger etc .


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 21, 2011)

I find two sites informative, tests written down, very genuine, only have to read and make conclusion. What is why you say about accuracy bad on sites? What "guarantee" needed? Co-signiture by Prof Messerschmitt or Prof Mitchell? I find this works very useful. Of course author may write in his own article (different from tests) his own opinion, this will be subjective.. even biassed... but no problem with this is there is no lie.. Forum..? Forum is opinions. This forum too people have opinion, a real hard-on both for and against the Spitfire. Which type is you? I guess first with hard on for, because you do not like Purple Fang with against.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 21, 2011)

NZTyphoon said:


> Unfortunately there are NO guarantees of accurate Bf 109 stats on the site given above (nor can you rely on the so called "discussions" on the forum attached to this site, which mostly seem to be led by a _Purple Fang_  who has a real hard-on against the Spitfire and most allied aircraft); your best sources for 109 info are still to be found in authoritative and reliable books written by authors such as Prien Rodeike, or Willi Radinger etc .


 
Actually i think the other site is biased and in a very obvious way but instead of arguing why not simply check every source for yourself? Maybe ,just maybe the Bf didnt explode on take off and it's speed may have been more than 5 km/h .Shocking i know


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2011)

Honestly people. If you want to get realistic "Info" you need to take info from both sites. Both sites are very well done and both sites present good info, but they *both have there bias*. Take the info from both sites and meet yourself in the middle...

It is an aged old discussion between the "Pro Luftwaffe" and the "Pro RAF" camps.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 21, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It is an aged old discussion between the "Pro Luftwaffe" and the "Pro RAF" camps.


 
Yep i will agree to that.


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Yep i will agree to that.




You sure? 

I may agree to that 

We could agree to differ 

Cheers

John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 21, 2011)

If you learned something new that may challenge your beliefs it was worth it...


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

ctrian said:


> If you learned something new that may challenge your beliefs it was worth it...



I enjoy learning something new ctrian, and a spirited debate.
I have noticed though that no one really changes their beliefs,just accepts others points of view.
But, that's ok.
Cheers
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2011)

Readie said:


> You sure?



Why the rolling of the eyes?


----------



## jim (Jun 21, 2011)

Mr Kurfust has wtritten an article that demonstrates and proves the unreliability of that site , and especiallythe subject of Spit XIV vs Bf109K4 . It is full of lies, selective evidence, ignorance of evidence, constuction of evidence and many other thinks. Read Kurfust answer and will realize the worth of that site. its not enough for them to lie to glorify the Spit XIV ,they want at the same time reduce the 109. These articles are free on internet for a few years now and i am surprised that anyone still takes seriously that site


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jun 21, 2011)

jim said:


> Mr Kurfust has wtritten an article that demonstrates and proves the unreliability of that site , and especiallythe subject of Spit XIV vs Bf109K4 . It is full of lies, selective evidence, ignorance of evidence, constuction of evidence and many other thinks. Read Kurfust answer and will realize the worth of that site. its not enough for them to lie to glorify the Spit XIV ,they want at the same time reduce the 109. These articles are free on internet for a few years now and i am surprised that anyone still takes seriously that site


 
Oh yes, Mr KF was always so balanced, non-selective and reliable.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 21, 2011)

What was that that someone said about stats?

_Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say_. ~William W. Watt


And be careful with comments. Don't want this to turn into a bashing thread.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 21, 2011)

The link to the Barbarossa Isegrim, aka Barbi, aka Kurfurst Spit XIV - Me109K-4 article.

Kurfürst


----------



## Readie (Jun 21, 2011)

I posted these links for a general read not to make any particular point. There are some reports that suprise me and seem genuine. After the passage of years can we really be certain that any stats are 100% reliable? More to the point does it matter, it doesn't take away our admiration of the aircraft involved.
Just a thought...
Cheers
John


----------



## Njaco (Jun 21, 2011)

I understand what you were doing Readie, I'm not sure everybody else does.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

Im surprised that either side would wish to denigrate the other. both aircraft are truly great. I dont think i have ever denigrated the 109, even though i am one of those in th Spitfire camp. 

To my mind the Spitfire was on the side that eventually won, but they achieved that at terrific cost, which in no small measure was due to the efforts of the Me 109.

Both sides should perhaps respect the achievements and qualities of the other.

As for personalities, well, we are all what we are. Lord knows how many times I clashed with kurfy, but I would never say he wasnt knowledgeable on the subject. Just that i disagreed with just about every conclusion he ever drew, but thats okay in my opinion


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Im surprised that either side would wish to denigrate the other. both aircraft are truly great. I dont think i have ever denigrated the 109, even though i am one of those in th Spitfire camp.
> 
> To my mind the Spitfire was on the side that eventually won, but they achieved that at terrific cost, which in no small measure was due to the efforts of the Me 109.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, absolutely. Standford Tuck had the utmost respect for his foe and, interestingly, never claimed to hate the Germans.
I am firmly in the Spitfire camp ( in case you hadn't noticed) but, I admire other countries aircraft as well.
We have the right to our opinions and the right to disagree with others provided its done in a gentlemanly fashion.
Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

I think it's also important to credit people who bring up new information and destroy older paradigms.For example i used to think that the Bf109 was a deathtrap ,heavy ,slow ,old and it should have been completely replaced by the FW190.That's what i read in magazines and ''popular'' history books.I even remember a pc game simulator which had a mid late war Bf109G with max speed of 620km,no mention of improved performance or of other versions like AS , G10 , K4.It took me a while to believe the people who were defending the Bf here and in other sites but now i'm firmly on the Bf side.You live you learn....


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I think it's also important to credit people who bring up new information and destroy older paradigms.For example i used to think that the Bf109 was a deathtrap ,heavy ,slow ,old and it should have been completely replaced by the FW190.That's what i read in magazines and ''popular'' history books.I even remember a pc game simulator which had a mid late war Bf109G with max speed of 620km,no mention of improved performance or of other versions like AS , G10 , K4.It took me a while to believe the people who were defending the Bf here and in other sites but now i'm firmly on the Bf side.You live you learn....


 
I must confess that I thought the 109 had had its day, not realising that the G version was so fast.I'm reading Galland's book and that has also brought me to a different view. As you correctly say we live and learn.

However (you were waiting for this), for me the Spitfire is more than just a plane. It while she represents the obvious things like victory, style, grace, power etc, the Spitfire is England's guardian angel and the sight of a Spitfire flying over England has a huge emotional appeal to the English that other countries do not understand.
So, in the Spitfire camp, you have facts and emotive appeal.That is why the Spit is so special to us.
That does not mean that I cannot appreciate other warplanes, quite the opposite. I wouldn't go as far as to say 'I love 'em all' but, I can and do quietly applaud.

Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2011)

To me the 109 had had it's day. But things are not black and white or 1st rate fighter vs total pig. The Germans did a very good job of trying to keep the 109 competitive but then they didn't have much choice. The 109 was limited by it's size, this, in some ways was a blessing as it gave high performance for a given amount of power and in other ways a curse as it limited both fuel and weapons load. 
That the 109 was falling behind is shown by it's armament load. 155-171kg for a "G" or "K" depending on if it used a 20mm cannon or 30mm cannon. A Spitfire with 2 X 20mm and 4 X 303 carried 295kg of guns and ammo while a Spitfire with 2 X 20mm and 2 X .50 was could hit 342kg with full ammo. A Mustang "D" would carry 440kg of guns and ammo. 
While the external bomb load of a 109 was first rate in 1940-41 it made zero progress as the war went on. Granted the Germans weren't flying many bomb missions with the 109 in the last year of the war but the air frames capability had pretty well maxed out. 
The small size of the 109 meant there was less room for fuel. Perhaps they could have put small tanks in the wing but there is only so much room in a 173-4sq ft wing. Trying to feed 1800-2000hp engines from the same size tank that feed 1100hp engines is going to mean very limited combat endurance even if the new engines get better specific fuel consumption. The extra tank behind the main is a one trick pony. It is either a fuel tank or NO2 tank or MW-50 tank. not two at once. Which performance aspect is it enhancing on a given mission? 
Spitfire can lift a 90 gallon drop tank with the same increase in wing loading as 109 with the 400 liter tank if measured in lbs/sq ft. This is just a function of size, not genius (with 880hp available for a take off and a fixed pitch prop I doubt Mitchell envisioned routine take-offs over over 8000lbs for the Spitfire.) 

The late model 109s were still quite capable of performing certain missions but their capability in performing a variety of missions had not grown as well as some other fighters. It may be said that some other 1940-41 Fighters didn't show any better growth if as well. 

The very fact that the Luftwaffe had to use both bomber destroyer versions and anti-fighter versions at the same time shows that the 109, while still a useful plane and a dangerous opponent, was no longer in the very first rank of fighters.


----------



## stona (Jun 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> that the Luftwaffe had to use both bomber destroyer versions and anti-fighter versions at the same time shows that the 109, while still a useful plane and a dangerous opponent, was no longer in the very first rank of fighters.



I was right there with you until your final sentence 
Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2011)

I have always been in the 109 camp, not because I think it is a better fighter, but because of my "emotional" feelings for it. 

My honest belief is to decide which is better (Spit/Bf 109) is not an easy task. It is not black and white. I believe these things:

1. Both aircraft traded "superiority" over each other throughout the war.
2. There are just to many factors involved to just go off of "paper stats" (granted most of us have nothing to off of more than that).
3. Both aircraft had their advantages and disadvantages (as any great warbird does).
4. The "better" aircraft was the one which had the pilot that could get the most out of its advantages. That pilot would win the fight. Take a Spit with a good pilot and a Bf 109 with Adolf Galland and chances are the 109 is going to win. Now take a Spit with (Insert your RAF Great Pilot) and put a good pilot in the 109 and chances are the Spit is going to win.

I do however believe the following things as well:

1. The Spitfire was probably more forgiving.
2. The Spitfire was probably easier for a novice pilot than the Bf 109.
3. The Bf 109 was at the end of its evolution. I don't believe you were going to get much more out of the Bf 109. I also believe the Spitfire was at the end of its evolution as well. Having said that the days of the Piston fighter were coming to and end. You were not going to get much more out of "conventional" piston aircraft.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> To me the 109 had had it's day. But things are not black and white or 1st rate fighter vs total pig. The Germans did a very good job of trying to keep the 109 competitive but then they didn't have much choice. The 109 was limited by it's size, this, in some ways was a blessing as it gave high performance for a given amount of power and in other ways a curse as it limited both fuel and weapons load.
> That the 109 was falling behind is shown by it's armament load. 155-171kg for a "G" or "K" depending on if it used a 20mm cannon or 30mm cannon. A Spitfire with 2 X 20mm and 4 X 303 carried 295kg of guns and ammo while a Spitfire with 2 X 20mm and 2 X .50 was could hit 342kg with full ammo. A Mustang "D" would carry 440kg of guns and ammo.
> While the external bomb load of a 109 was first rate in 1940-41 it made zero progress as the war went on. Granted the Germans weren't flying many bomb missions with the 109 in the last year of the war but the air frames capability had pretty well maxed out.
> The small size of the 109 meant there was less room for fuel. Perhaps they could have put small tanks in the wing but there is only so much room in a 173-4sq ft wing. Trying to feed 1800-2000hp engines from the same size tank that feed 1100hp engines is going to mean very limited combat endurance even if the new engines get better specific fuel consumption. The extra tank behind the main is a one trick pony. It is either a fuel tank or NO2 tank or MW-50 tank. not two at once. Which performance aspect is it enhancing on a given mission?
> ...


 
the Bf had a cannon the P-51 didn't .As for range there have been several posts here about Bf vs Spit . The DB engine gave the German plane a significant advantage.I'm not sure what you mean when you say first rank.What aircraft were first rank?


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have always been in the 109 camp, not because I think it is a better fighter, but because of my "emotional" feelings for it.
> 
> My honest belief is to decide which is better (Spit/Bf 109) is not an easy task. It is not black and white. I believe these things:
> 
> ...


 
The Spitfire was the 'woodman's favourite axe' Chris, the name remained the same as we didn't want to say goodbye to the Spitfire. The final version bore little relation to the original. Whereas the 109 was clearly the same machine.
I'm glad that you feel as you do about the ME109, its good to have that attachment.
Its easy to get carried away pointing out the pros and cons of our favourite plane it can end up with the 'my dad's bigger than your dad' syndrome.
I am completely comfortable in the Spitfire camp but, that doesn't stop me admiring other planes.

You could add to your list

4. The Merlin sound is like a hymn in the English sky. Never bettered.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afdOt1Zvmfc_
5. The ME's inverted DB has its own distinctive note. The few that are flying are valued by all aviation buffs.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXi9_o49rsQ_

Cheers
John


----------



## Milosh (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> the Bf had a cannon the P-51 didn't .As for range there have been several posts here about Bf vs Spit . The DB engine gave the German plane a significant advantage.I'm not sure what you mean when you say first rank.What aircraft were first rank?


 
There was a version of the Mustang with *4* 20mm cannons.

There wasn't much difference in the range of the 2 a/c.

The Spitfire was a more adaptable a/c, evolving from the Mk I to the Spiteful while the 109's evolutions, the Me209 and Me309 were duds.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Milosh said:


> There was a version of the Mustang with *4* 20mm cannons.
> 
> There wasn't much difference in the range of the 2 a/c.
> 
> The Spitfire was a more adaptable a/c, evolving from the Mk I to the Spiteful while the 109's evolutions, the Me209 and Me309 were duds.


 
You mean the ground attack version? What does it have to do with fighters? As for the Spit being adaptable ...yeah the seafire was worthy of admiration


----------



## Njaco (Jun 22, 2011)

> ....Whereas the 109 was clearly the same machine.



Readie, I don't know if I would completely agree with this. The 109 did some drastic changes throughout - and while I will concede your point about the Spit, the 109 clearly wasn't the same machine at the end. The 'K' model had a different array of guns, different wing design, canopy design, tail design, engine. I will give you narrow track landing gear but......


----------



## Milosh (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> You mean the ground attack version? What does it have to do with fighters? As for the Spit being adaptable ...yeah the seafire was worthy of admiration



The ground attack version of the Mustang was the A-36 and it only had machine guns.  It managed to shoot down some 84 enemy a/c as a fighter.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

I'm sorry but which fighter version of the P-51B and D had 20mm guns?


----------



## Milosh (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I'm sorry but which fighter version of the P-51B and D had 20mm guns?


 
There was more than just P-51B/C and D/K Mustangs.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 22, 2011)

NA-91 Mustang IA - 4 20mm cannon (93 aircraft supplied by Lend-Lease to RAF

NA-83 Mustag Mk I - with 2 40mm Vickers 'S' cannon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> the Bf had a cannon the P-51 didn't .As for range there have been several posts here about Bf vs Spit . The DB engine gave the German plane a significant advantage.I'm not sure what you mean when you say first rank.What aircraft were first rank?



The P-51 could have been fitted with cannon quite easily if they so desired. With 150 Allison powered P-51s so armed it is obvious that they would fit. It is also obvious that the P-51 had the weight allowance to take the canon. Four 20mm Hispanos with 120rpg each would weigh less than the armament they did carry. The extra drag might have hurt speed a bit. 

Perhaps you could point to this "significant advantage" in range the DB engine gave the 109. or define significant advantage? 5%, 10%, 30% better range as the same speed and altitude on the same fuel? The DB engine may have had better specific fuel consumption but the Spitfire had more room to fit fuel inside and an easier time of carrying fuel outside. It is no great trick at all to get a Spitfire up to 123-125imp gallons inside and 90 Imp gallons outside so actual range or radius on operations isn't going to much different. 
First rank fighters could include the P-51 and P-47, the Late Spitfires and the Tempest. The Fw-190, perhaps the F4U-4. They had the ability or potential to carry a heavy armament a greater than"point defense" distance with sufficient performance so as not to be a a "significant" disadvantage. They also had a secondary ground attack capability 100-200% higher than the 109 in terms of bomb load.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> You mean the ground attack version? What does it have to do with fighters? As for the Spit being adaptable ...yeah the seafire was worthy of admiration



Actually we have had a pretty good discussion about the Seafire limitations, development, and capabilities in a separate thread....Fulmar vs F4F. Maybe you should have a look there first before making statements like that


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The P-51 could have been fitted with cannon quite easily if they so desired. With 150 Allison powered P-51s so armed it is obvious that they would fit. It is also obvious that the P-51 had the weight allowance to take the canon. Four 20mm Hispanos with 120rpg each would weigh less than the armament they did carry. The extra drag might have hurt speed a bit.
> 
> Perhaps you could point to this "significant advantage" in range the DB engine gave the 109. or define significant advantage? 5%, 10%, 30% better range as the same speed and altitude on the same fuel? The DB engine may have had better specific fuel consumption but the Spitfire had more room to fit fuel inside and an easier time of carrying fuel outside. It is no great trick at all to get a Spitfire up to 123-125imp gallons inside and 90 Imp gallons outside so actual range or radius on operations isn't going to much different.
> First rank fighters could include the P-51 and P-47, the Late Spitfires and the Tempest. The Fw-190, perhaps the F4U-4. They had the ability or potential to carry a heavy armament a greater than"point defense" distance with sufficient performance so as not to be a a "significant" disadvantage. They also had a secondary ground attack capability 100-200% higher than the 109 in terms of bomb load.



Sure it could ,it's just that they liked machine guns that's why they never upgraded they wanted to keep things fair to the Germans 

Range? even 20-30% is a big advantage.Several posts have dealt with the difference between the aircraft.

You seem to confuse the meaning of the word first rate.The P-51 had range and performance that satisfied the USAAF.Other forces would not find it a useful aircraft.The P-47 was so good it was retired after the war.Only in very high altitude could it do something.The tempest was a good fighter? The spit first rate? 

I think maybe you mean multirole in which case some of these aircraft were able to dogfight and bomb/strafe.I think the best combination was the Fw but still it was inferior to the Bf as a fighter especially at altitude.

The seafire? Yes another British success story ...


----------



## Njaco (Jun 22, 2011)

Wow, ctrain, I have to disagree on several points:

1.


> The P-51 had range and performance that satisfied the USAAF. Other forces would not find it a useful aircraft.


 Wouldn't find it useful? Ever hear of this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1945)

The RAF had a Squadron of P-51s as cover for the Blenheims. At this late stage - Feb 1945 - why were they using Mustangs instead of Spits? Doesn't make sense based upon your assumption.

2.


> The P-47 was so good it was retired after the war


Possibly because a prop driven airplane couldn't compete with the new jets entering service.

Thos are some very broad generalizations there.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 22, 2011)

Njaco said:


> Wow, ctrain, I have to disagree on several points:
> 
> 1. Wouldn't find it useful? Ever hear of this....
> 
> ...


 
The RAF were using P 51s because they commissioned it and ordered it. Some where in history the Mustang/P51 changed from being a plane ordered by Britain and produced in USA to a solely American product that won the war disowned by the British as inferior to the Spitfire.

IMO it was a fantastic plane and a fantastic product of both countries who should be equally proud and thankful that it ever existed. The Mustang and Spitfire were complimentary and much complimented. One on one I would say the Spitfire would have the edge but it didnt have the range. Who fights one on one anyway?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

so the true colours of the beast emerge......I thought a few posts ago we were saying how silly it was to ridicule great aircraft in the mistaken belief that this somehow enhances the reputation of the pet aircraft that we find attractive. Putting down the opposition of the aircraft we think is the best simply, and in the end, denigrates the aircraft we are trying to elevate......


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Njaco said:


> Wow, ctrain, I have to disagree on several points:
> 
> 1. Wouldn't find it useful? Ever hear of this....
> 
> ...


 
I don't get your point ,the P-51 had range and good performance esp at altitude.Why would the LW need that range when it had airfields everywhere? The USAAF had a strategic bomber fleet to support .The LW and the Soviet Airforce needed agile ,cheap tactical fighters not heavy aircraft loaded with fuel to fight at 30.000ft .The RAF on the other hand did need a plane with long range but unfortunately they were stuck with the Spit.The P-47 had worse performance than the much smaller P-51 ,it didn't offer anything that's why it left the stage.
Generalizations ? How do you think countries produce armaments ? They decide what kind of weapons they need based on what threats they will face and build them .Each may value different things.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I don't get your point ,the P-51 had range and good performance esp at altitude.Why would the LW need that range when it had airfields everywhere? The USAAF had a strategic bomber fleet to support .The LW and the Soviet Airforce needed agile ,cheap tactical fighters not heavy aircraft loaded with fuel to fight at 30.000ft .The RAF on the other hand did need a plane with long range but unfortunately they were stuck with the Spit.The P-47 had worse performance than the much smaller P-51 ,it didn't offer anything that's why it left the stage.
> Generalizations ? How do you think countries produce armaments ? They decide what kind of weapons they need based on what threats they will face and build them .Each may value different things.



I think it would be more true to say the Brits were stuck without the Mustang because escorting daylight bombing raids was more important than tactical reconaissance. The British wanted 500 Mustangs per month but didnt get them because the USAAF naturally took most production for escort work.

The P 47 didnt leave the stage it changed theatre, it was a much better ground attack A/C than the P51 and ground attack was a major part of the Normandy campaign.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> _The P 47 didnt leave the stage it changed theatre, it was a much better ground attack A/C than the P51 and ground attack was a major part of the Normandy campaign_.


 
All the fast aircraft ( FW190 , P-51 ,P-47 ) were not good at ground attack missions .Fast = inaccurate look up *''Air power at the Battlefront''*.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> All the fast aircraft ( FW190 , P-51 ,P-47 ) were not good at ground attack missions .Fast = inaccurate look up *''Air power at the Battlefront''*.


 
The speed of an airplane is the choice of the pilot isnt it? I was refering to armament payload and most importantly its ability to withstand ground fire.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> The speed of an airplane is the choice of the pilot isnt it? I was refering to armament payload and most importantly its ability to withstand ground fire.


 
Speed is also ''built in'' due to the design of the plane.As for withstanding ground fire the p-47 and P-51 were just fighters put into ground attack roles not specialized planes like stuka and Hs 129. Their losses were heavy.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 22, 2011)

The stukas losses were prohibitive against anything that was defended, it was heavy and slow and a dive bomber with a water cooled engine. Dive bombing gives the attaker a point target. Similar for the Hs 129. The P47 had an aircooled engine which is a big plus.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> The Spitfire was the 'woodman's favourite axe' Chris, the name remained the same as we didn't want to say goodbye to the Spitfire. The final version bore little relation to the original. Whereas the 109 was clearly the same machine.



I can agree with that, but my point was that "conventional" piston engined aircraft had reached or were near reaching their pinnicle.

As with Njaco, however I do have to disagree a bit on the 109. It had evolved into a different machine as well.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> The stukas losses were prohibitive against anything that was defended, it was heavy and slow and a dive bomber with a water cooled engine. Dive bombing gives the attaker a point target. Similar for the Hs 129. The P47 had an aircooled engine which is a big plus.


 
If you say it it must be true go read Luftwaffe Colours ''Stuka'' for a very different opinion.By the way the losses of Stuka units in Kursk were low,how about that?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2011)

The 109 was a first rate fighter in 1940. It not only could perform the point defense mission, it could perform the short range bomber escort mission (nobodies single engine fighter in 1940 could do the long range mission) it carried as heavy a weight of armament as any other fighter. It's performance was, everything considered, as good as any other fighter. What it may have lost in one place it gained in another. If equipped with a bomb rack it's bombing ability was as good as any other fighter. If the Germans had simply equipped more 109s with drop tanks and manufactured more drop tanks the British would have had many more problems with in the BoB. 
Please notice that I am separating out the capabilities of the aircraft from the actual usage. 
In 1940 the Germans had no need of a different aircraft or airframe. The "F" version continued the 109s position as one of the best, but with a different tail ( no supporting struts) and a modified wing and forward fuselage/cowl there were some significant changes. For 1941 there is still no other challenger than the Spitfire (except maybe the Zero). At some point in 1942 things start to change. Spitfire weapon load has gotten much heavier starting in 1941, American planes, while not in theater yet are rolling of the lines with heavy armament if not sparkling performance. (P-40E&Fs) Early P-47s. P-38s. FW 190s for the Germans also show the future. Typhoons also show up, badly flawed, but showing the trend. 
By 1943 the 109 is no longer in the front rank as a fighter bomber. It's air to air armament in the early "G"s leaves a lot to be desired. A single 20mm and two 7.9mm mgs is just not world class. It can be fought effectively by good pilots but it is not the armament anybody designing a new fighter would pick. actual speed, climb and air to air combat performance is still very good but range is little better than the 1940 "E". the lower drag and more efficient engine help but with no change in fuel capacity the ability to "project" power is lacking. Withe Luftwaffe going over to the defensive this is less important to the Germans but is another strike against the 109 for considering it world class. 
The G-6 bring the 13mm cowl guns which, while nice, are a day late and dollar short as far as firepower goes. Newer DB 605 engines keep flight performance up which keeps the 109 useful as a point defense interceptor. Provision of the 30mm MK 108 cannon helps firepower at the cost of combat duration. 6 seconds of firing time is rather short. The British have been doing better than that since 1941. The Late "G"s and "K-4" get even more engine power but darn little else. 
They are fast with excellent climb and good agility but lacking in both flight endurance ( again, less important to the Germans but saying the Germans didn't need a little more is making excuses) and combat power, a single 30mm cannon with 60 rounds and two 13 mm pea shooters (the least powerful 12.7-13mm mgs used by anybody). Bombing ability is no better than a Curtiss P-40C. 

Some of these limits are just from the size of the air-frame, there is only so much you can stuff in a pint pot. Or lift with a wing the size of a a Cessna. They did a very good job of keeping it competitive as long as they did but they were trapped by the need to keep production going. Once the 209 (second one) got too far from the 109 to make changing the factories over easy it was dropped.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> If you say it it must be true go read Luftwaffe Colours ''Stuka'' for a very different opinion.By the way the losses of Stuka units in Kursk were low,how about that?


 
Oh yes Kursk, I forgot about Kursk. Please summarise how the stuka helped in that magnificent victory. Are you seriously suggesting that a US pilot in 1944 would be better of flying to North france in a stuka than a P 47. When a stuka drops its bombs it is still a stuka when a P 47 drops its bombs it is a very capable fighter with 8 MGs.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Oh yes Kursk, I forgot about Kursk. Please summarise how the stuka helped in that magnificent victory. Are you seriously suggesting that a US pilot in 1944 would be better of flying to North france in a stuka than a P 47. When a stuka drops its bombs it is still a stuka when a P 47 drops its bombs it is a very capable fighter with 8 MGs.


 
The Stuka had precision and armor to take on ground targets.Of course it couldn't outrun a fighter.A specialized aircraft will always outperform a general one in that particular field.The decision to use fighters in the ground attack role was political ,the USAAF leadership did not want to be subordinate to the army so they never built a ground attack craft.Even today look at the A-10 and all the drama it has generated .....


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> The Stuka had precision and armor to take on ground targets.Of course it couldn't outrun a fighter.A specialized aircraft will always outperform a general one in that particular field.The decision to use fighters in the ground attack role was political ,the USAAF leadership did not want to be subordinate to the army so they never built a ground attack craft.Even today look at the A-10 and all the drama it has generated .....



Actually they did. Please see the 1930s "A" series aircraft and even the A-20. Also the batteries of guns stuffed into/on the sides of B-25 and B-26 bombers. Also see career of the A-36. 
While the Americans may not have fielded specific anti-armor aircraft or quite as much really close support (flying artillery) I too can make excuses and say the US didn't need them as much. US Divisions and Corp generally had more artillery support available,especially ammo supply. 

Dive bombers, by the very method of their attack, give light anti-aircraft defenses an excellent target. Fair warning, and a predictable, steady flight path for a number of seconds well within the range of the guns. Dive bombers work really great if the enemy has no effective fighter defenses and few, if any, automatic AA weapons. Trading dive-bombers for a ship is one thing, trading dive bombers for a crater in a road junction or for a few trucks is another.


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> The Stuka had precision and armor to take on ground targets.Of course it couldn't outrun a fighter.A specialized aircraft will always outperform a general one in that particular field.



The Stuka was a blitzkrieg machine. Its was slaughtered by the RAF and relegated to other duties.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I can agree with that, but my point was that "conventional" piston engined aircraft had reached or were near reaching their pinnicle.
> 
> As with Njaco, however I do have to disagree a bit on the 109. It had evolved into a different machine as well.


 
Did it ? The ME109 looked very similar at the end of its career. I'll have a look and see what you mean Chris.
Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 22, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Actually they did. Please see the 1930s "A" series aircraft and even the A-20. Also the batteries of guns stuffed into/on the sides of B-25 and B-26 bombers. Also see career of the A-36.
> While the Americans may not have fielded specific anti-armor aircraft or quite as much really close support (flying artillery) I too can make excuses and say the US didn't need them as much. US Divisions and Corp generally had more artillery support available,especially ammo supply.
> 
> Dive bombers, by the very method of their attack, give light anti-aircraft defenses an excellent target. Fair warning, and a predictable, steady flight path for a number of seconds well within the range of the guns. Dive bombers work really great if the enemy has no effective fighter defenses and few, if any, automatic AA weapons. Trading dive-bombers for a ship is one thing, trading dive bombers for a crater in a road junction or for a few trucks is another.


 
Actually the problem for the allies is that their ground attack units were decimated by AA AND they didn't hit anything .Stuka units in the East had low loss rates despite being used in contested airspace and unlike their allied counterparts were precision weapons.


----------



## Juha (Jun 22, 2011)

Oh again
Ctrian, buy Jentz’ Panzer Truppen Vol 2 and look for ex p. 197, there is Oberst Schanze’s report, which shows that Jabos hit Panthers, in fact numerous Panthers of PzBrig 112 12-13 Sept 44. 

Juha


----------



## Readie (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Stuka units in the East had low loss rates despite being used in contested airspace and unlike their allied counterparts were precision weapons.




Mon dieu


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 22, 2011)

Readie said:


> Did it ? The ME109 looked very similar at the end of its career. I'll have a look and see what you mean Chris.
> Cheers
> John



Sure it did, from the nose, forward fuselage, wings and tail.


----------



## Juha (Jun 22, 2011)

And “light losses” had different meaning to different people. II./StG 3 lost 31 Ju 87Ds in North Afrika in Nov 42 because of enemy actions, I./StG 1 lost 19 Ju 87Ds in SU in July 43 and 15 in Aug 43 because of enemy actions, for III./StG 1 the figures were 19 and 18 respectively.

Juha


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Actually the problem for the allies is that their ground attack units were decimated by AA AND they didn't hit anything .Stuka units in the East had low loss rates despite being used in contested airspace and unlike their allied counterparts were precision weapons.


 
Yeah, right!  Evidence please? Eg:
"In view of the threat from the air and the bombed roads Bayerlein pointed out the (Panzer Lehr) Division's top speed was 5 mph...."The summer nights in Normandy were short....We had just reached Hill 238 and were bowling along when we saw three fighter-bombers in the dawn sky...in an instant the B.M.W staff car was ablaze....Unless a man has been through these fighter bomber attacks he cannot know what the invasion meant....Ten such attacks in succession are a foretaste of hell"....The battalion suffered its first heavy losses before it had fired a single shot itself. The men in their open personnel carriers were being picked off one by one. _German account of fighter-bomber attacks on Panzer Lehr Div.n approaching Normandy June 1944_ (Paul Carrell D-Day, pp. 115-117)

Yup those Allied aircraft couldn't hit a darn thing, except the odd unfortunate Panzer Division. 8)


----------



## parsifal (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Actually the problem for the allies is that their ground attack units were decimated by AA AND they didn't hit anything .Stuka units in the East had low loss rates despite being used in contested airspace and unlike their allied counterparts were precision weapons.


 
This is just plain wrong. The average ammunition expenditure used by the allies to bring down Axis ground attack aircraft, according to a report by the US Army was between 550 and 1500 rounds per kill. The germans were expending 16000 rounds per kill for high level bombers, and about 3500-5000 rounds per kill for ground attack aircraft. As a proportion of total kills the percentage lost due to ground fire did increase but this was due mainly to the Axis armies not having adequate aircover as the war progressed.

The reason for the stukas great accuracy was its low speed and near vertical attack attitudes. However these very qualities made it vulnerable as well. I dont know where you get this notion that it wasnt vulnerable compared to a P-47, but this is just plain wrong. Will post its operational losses later tonite, but they were always heavy, including the eastern front deployments. That explains why many units on the eastern front resorted to night attacks a nearly useless technique, though safer i admit.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrain, ever hear of the Falaise pocket? or how about reading "To Win the Winter Sky" by Danny Parker. Gives a day by day report on operations - including how the Allies blunted the panzers of the Bulge with air attacks. I'll give you some points on my previous post but the Allies couldn't hit anything?? Where did that come from?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2011)

parsifal said:


> That explains why many units on the eastern front resorted to night attacks a nearly useless technique, though safer i admit.



Also many Stuka units re-equipped with Fw 190Gs &Gs, I wonder why that was????
Shortage of rear gunners???


----------



## davparlr (Jun 22, 2011)

I agree with the post of both DerAdler and Shortround. Both the Spitfire and Bf-109 were designed and built in the mid thirties. As such they were revolutionary in implementation. However they both were designed as short range point defense figthers and, because of limited power available, were quite small and light, especially the Bf. This caused a restricted growth potential for both that hampered their use later in the war. Due to their excellent design, both were modified to keep active with more powerful engines and aero upgrades. The Spitfire was slightly larger an appears to more more successfully upgraded. The last Bf, the K, as reported by Shortround, apparently was very limited in endurance. Of course, this was not critical since the Me-163 was even more limited in endurance. However, I would think loiter and firepower endurance would have been important in bomber intercept. I think this was recognized in Ta-152, which had a good fuel quantity.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 22, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Actually the problem for the allies is that their ground attack units were decimated by AA AND they didn't hit anything .Stuka units in the East had low loss rates despite being used in contested airspace and unlike their allied counterparts were precision weapons.



In case you are not familiar with American slang; jumping the shark means to lose credibility past the point of ever recovering it. It originates from a 1970's television show that after many years of success aired an episode that destroyed the credibility of a main character that led to the cancelation of the program soon after. The phrase has been expanded in common usage to any situation involving a poorly thought out decision or statement that leads to loss of credibility. American fighter bombers were very effective with acceptable loss rates. To claim otherwise is jumping the shark. In regard to this discussion you have jumped the shark.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jun 23, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> In case you are not familiar with American slang; jumping the shark means to lose credibility past the point of ever recovering it. It originates from a 1970's television show that after many years of success aired an episode that destroyed the credibility of a main character that led to the cancelation of the program soon after. The phrase has been expanded in common usage to any situation involving a poorly thought out decision or statement that leads to loss of credibility. American fighter bombers were very effective with acceptable loss rates. To claim otherwise is jumping the shark. In regard to this discussion you have jumped the shark.



Yup, I've put Ctrain on my "ignore" list: what's the point of discussing something with people who have a blind, fixed POV and who cannot present facts to back up their opinions? I've wasted many hours on the internet doing just that and I can't be bothered repeating the exercise in futility.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

So many posts so little reason  I can't answer each individually so I’ll just say again :

Amazon.com: Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45 (Studies in Air Power) (9780714646800): Dr Ian Gooderson: Books

For Stuka unit strength and losses : The Luftwaffe, 1933-45
Losses are connected to sorties so that must also be taken into account,if a unit flies night and day in contested space it will lead to losses.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

well i think Ive seen it all now. Have you even read the refeernces you have posted. ive not read the second, but i have read th first. I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you, because you will only be rude about it and attempt to lower the standard of dialogue to a very low point. But I can say, that the book on allied air power whilst critical of the cost of air support generally, and just happening to concentrate on the allied effort, does not in any way support the claims you are making. Pretty much the opposite in fact. talk about misrepresenting the facts. if you are going to be so loose with the truth, so cockeyed in your view of the facts, and so unable to accommodate alternate views, I agree with NZ, whats the point in talking to you.

Let me say this in conclusion. ive locked horns with some pretty tough germanophiles over the years, which is fine. Without exception, I respected all of them because they knew their stuff, and were not so bald faced in misreprestation of the facts. They were worthy and to adegree honourable opponents. After seeing what I have see today, I cannot say the same about you. You are willing to say anything, do anything, misrepresent anything to get your preconceived notions accepted.

Please, go away and think about your ethical standards before coming back to this place. It really is annoying to have to troll through what are obvious untruths and be insulted the whole time, by someone who i believe does not wish or care for the truth. Its one of those things i will not abide, people who are unable to be honest


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> well i think Ive seen it all now. Have you even read the refeernces you have posted. ive not read the second, but i have read th first. I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you, because you will only be rude about it and attempt to lower the standard of dialogue to a very low point. But I can say, that the book on allied air power whilst critical of the cost of air support generally, and just happening to concentrate on the allied effort, does not in any way support the claims you are making. Pretty much the opposite in fact. talk about misrepresenting the facts. if you are going to be so loose with the truth, so cockeyed in your view of the facts, and so unable to accommodate alternate views, I agree with NZ, whats the point in talking to you.
> 
> Let me say this in conclusion. ive locked horns with some pretty tough germanophiles over the years, which is fine. Without exception, I respected all of them because they knew their stuff, and were not so bald faced in misreprestation of the facts. They were worthy and to adegree honourable opponents. After seeing what I have see today, I cannot say the same about you. You are willing to say anything, do anything, misrepresent anything to get your preconceived notions accepted.
> 
> Please, go away and think about your ethical standards before coming back to this place. It really is annoying to have to troll through what are obvious untruths and be insulted the whole time, by someone who i believe does not wish or care for the truth. Its one of those things i will not abide, people who are unable to be honest


 
About casualties i also have this link : http://web.archive.org/web/20081211084314/http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
Source is given as : O. Gröhler, "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Militärgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336 (1978) 

If you're not feeling well maybe you need some time off.I can recommend some Greek islands.I think Mykonos would be to your liking.


----------



## Readie (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> If you're not feeling well maybe you need some time off.I can recommend some Greek islands.I think Mykonos would be to your liking.


 

haha.. you are entertaining ctrian. I see Mykonos is for sale though.
Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Readie said:


> haha.. you are entertaining ctrian. I see Mykonos is for sale though.
> Cheers
> John




 You're right as always Readie.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> About casualties i also have this link : http://web.archive.org/web/20081211084314/http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
> Source is given as : O. Gröhler, "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Militärgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336 (1978)
> 
> If you're not feeling well maybe you need some time off.I can recommend some Greek islands.I think Mykonos would be to your liking.



As usual your references are dodgy and misleading, The source you give is stated in the article by this les Butler and is in fact the object of his critique. It is not the source of the link you have provided at all. But I guess you already know that.

The link itself is dubious and rubbish basically. Apart from the target of its cabal, it is an unreferenced article, author unkown, and no way to check the veracity of its claims. Cannot find any references to this les Butler.

So my summation. Unsubstantiated rubbish basically because it has shoddy and questionable credentials. if this is the sort of material that you have based your opinions, then no wonder you are out there.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Please notice that I am separating out the capabilities of the aircraft from the actual usage. In 1940 the Germans had no need of a different aircraft or airframe. The "F" version continued the 109s position as one of the best, but with a different tail ( no supporting struts) and a modified wing and forward fuselage/cowl there were some significant changes. For 1941 there is still no other challenger than the Spitfire (except maybe the Zero). At some point in 1942 things start to change. Spitfire weapon load has gotten much heavier starting in 1941, American planes, while not in theater yet are rolling of the lines with heavy armament if not sparkling performance. (P-40E&Fs) Early P-47s. P-38s. FW 190s for the Germans also show the future. Typhoons also show up, badly flawed, but showing the trend.



I agree in 1942 change of things. But in opinion, Allied designs, including Soviet, were very poor in early war with many flaws... all these well known.. negaive G, lack of cannon, too weak engines, poor designs with old fashioned airframes.. no drop tank.. production failures etc. In 1942 designs got better, same class as German or Japanese, flaws eliminated. 

This and earlier you showed weapons got much heavier in P-47, Spitfire. I ask: and? Weight of guns is not measure of weapon effectiveity. Was Type V Hispano worse than Type II? It was lighter.. but fired more. Was Soviet B-20 cannon worse than Swak? It was lighter for certain.. so you comparison analagou would show weapon was bad in comparison because it was, gun and ammo, lighter. 

Sorry to say, this is flaw in logic. Measure of firepower is weight of own shots in enemy plane, not weight of shots and gun in own plane.  Accuracy, concentration fire, shell power, number of shell, ammunition available - these count. Weight of guns - do not help. Less weight, the better. Also trends. Trends were centralised guns - Soviet, French design too - increasing armament - 109G had increased armamanet, three cannons, two machineguns. Surely there was no lack of firepower with 3 MG 151/20. And before you say - decreased manouverabiliy! Why, add weight did not decrease manouverability in Spitfire? Typhoon? FW 190? Add armament, add weight. Decrease manover. All planes. Was new trend plane Typhoon more heavily armed than 5 point Messer? No. Was it more manouverable - no, it was less. Was new trend plane 190 more heavily armed than 5 point Messer? No. Was it more manouverable? Again, no. NIIVVS tests show similar.

I ask: then...?

You also forget why there is more guns in these planes. Because guns in wings. Wings only can have symmetric guns, in each wing. And why in wings.. well... can you put a gun in Merlin - no. Can you put gun a Sabre - no. Can you put in radial engine (any) - no.



> By 1943 the 109 is no longer in the front rank as a fighter bomber. It's air to air armament in the early "G"s leaves a lot to be desired. A single 20mm and two 7.9mm mgs is just not world class. It can be fought effectively by good pilots but it is not the armament anybody designing a new fighter would pick. actual speed, climb and air to air combat performance is still very good but range is little better than the 1940 "E". the lower drag and more efficient engine help but with no change in fuel capacity the ability to "project" power is lacking. Withe Luftwaffe going over to the defensive this is less important to the Germans but is another strike against the 109 for considering it world class.



Soviet considered 109G world class. Very fast, very good climber, 5 pointer Messer heavy hitter too. You forgot 5 pointer - and all 109G can be five pointer.

Regarding range - range was much better than 109E. 109E was very poor. Already 109F - very good. G - same. K - probably same or better. See: http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=33&L=1'

1600 km range, 5 1/4 hours in air. Sufficient for any task. Why add fuel capacity (weight), if not requested by official? If operation not require it? Did German had to escort B-17s from London to Berlin? Fly in Paicific carrier battles? Name task it was insufficent..



> The G-6 bring the 13mm cowl guns which, while nice, are a day late and dollar short as far as firepower goes. Newer DB 605 engines keep flight performance up which keeps the 109 useful as a point defense interceptor. Provision of the 30mm MK 108 cannon helps firepower at the cost of combat duration. 6 seconds of firing time is rather short. The British have been doing better than that since 1941.



I disagree. British armament was technological backward. Look at armament - guns in wings, 4-5 meters apart. Concentration fire - poor. Soviet had Spitfires, considered weapons badly located. All Soviet aircraft had weapons concentrated in nose. Also 109, P-38 etc. All post war aircraft had weapons concentrated in fusealge. Wing armament - simply backward. Very much weight added for much less effective increase in practical firepower. Reason: wing installation less rigid. Less ammunition in wing. Two guns, but two guns rarely hit target at same time. Two guns weight for one guns firepower.

And 7.7 mm machinegun - useless - until 1944. Even in 1945 in many planes. You pick out things and forget complex picture - yes 6 secs fire for MK 108. And? What happens to target after 1 seconds? MK 108 is one hit gun. Fighters literally fall to pieces from hit.. So why did Germans choose to use it in so many fighters - previous had 20 mm with 15 seconds fire (200 round). British had Hispano with 12 seconds fire (120 round). German still saw MK 108 as improvement in big picture.



> The Late "G"s and "K-4" get even more engine power but darn little else.
> They are fast with excellent climb and good agility but lacking in both flight endurance ( again, less important to the Germans but saying the Germans didn't need a little more is making excuses) and combat power, a single 30mm cannon with 60 rounds and two 13 mm pea shooters (the least powerful 12.7-13mm mgs used by anybody). Bombing ability is no better than a Curtiss P-40C.



First part - endurance - you have wrong facts. Late 109G and Konrad had good endurance. For example why need more than 5 hours endurance. British papers above show. 13 mm gun is weak compared to others, yes, agree. Also very light. You forget however concept - 7.62 mm guns were too weak for armor. 13 mm version was only meant to be sufficient against armor. It was. I do not think more was needed. Nor that two more powerful 12.7 mm would be improvement - perhaps soviet UBS. Same weight, improved characteristics. Perhaps synchronized installation not very good - German gun was electric, no loss. But even firepower would be similiar - all 12-13 mm guns are just making little holes. Their advantage is better balistic and reliable penetration of armor compared to 7.62mm gun.

However, I do not see what is major problem. Armament was similiar to major Soviet fighter aircraft, Jakovlev 9 and 3 - actually these carried less ammunition, and range was less. Armament in Western aircraft? Spitfire already noted obsolate arrangement, little ammo, ammo is inferior quality, 7.7mm guns completely obsolate. Typhoon line is heavy, but then again, there is possibility for 5 pointer configuration.. American? P-51 is simply week, at best, equal to 109 with base armament, much inferior with 5 pointer. P-47 is aduquate, but 8 12.7mm guns at weight of 8 cannon is simply stupid. Again, both obsolate arrangement: this means you carry 6 or 8 guns, fire 6 or 8 guns, and hit with maybe 3 or four. Concentrated weapons: you carry 3 guns and hit with 3 guns - and one of three is a cannon. And you have more ammunition for each gun. Actually, only plane that comes close is P-38 fighter. Consider ammo is very similiar, one cannon, four MG with lower cyclical rate. Very much praised by pilots. Concentration firepower. This was future, plane itself is more like interesting concept. Not bad at all, but not economic.

Bombing you are right. 109 is avarage 250-500 kg, like Spitfire. I guess more, like twice possible but there was also 190 (and Typhoon), better suited. So why develop..? Solution is already for problem. Which airframe could save all problem - none I believe.. not possible.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju Obviously english isnt your 1st language so possibly some points didnt come over clearly but still some very good points about concentrated armament. However I dont think anyone could call 4 x 20mm Hispanos weak the Hispano was at the very top of the scale for power in the 20mm league.

Carrying all the armament in the nose of a single engine fighter must bring some trade offs. I dont believe it is as cut and dried as you make out some of the disadvantages I can think of poorer maintenance access for both engine and armament, less room for ammunition, less room for fuel and engine oil and poorer pilot visibility over the humps covering the guns. The disadvantages for wing armament less concentration of fire, heating needed for guns, weight further from the axis of rotation and higher drag though I dont have the knowledge to prove or disprove the drag claim.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> well i think Ive seen it all now. Have you even read the refeernces you have posted. ive not read the second, but i have read th first. I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you, because you will only be rude about it and attempt to lower the standard of dialogue to a very low point. But I can say, that the book on allied air power whilst critical of the cost of air support generally, and just happening to concentrate on the allied effort, does not in any way support the claims you are making. Pretty much the opposite in fact. talk about misrepresenting the facts. if you are going to be so loose with the truth, so cockeyed in your view of the facts, and so unable to accommodate alternate views, I agree with NZ, whats the point in talking to you.
> 
> Let me say this in conclusion. ive locked horns with some pretty tough germanophiles over the years, which is fine. Without exception, I respected all of them because they knew their stuff, and were not so bald faced in misreprestation of the facts. They were worthy and to adegree honourable opponents. After seeing what I have see today, I cannot say the same about you. You are willing to say anything, do anything, misrepresent anything to get your preconceived notions accepted.
> 
> Please, go away and think about your ethical standards before coming back to this place. It really is annoying to have to troll through what are obvious untruths and be insulted the whole time, by someone who i believe does not wish or care for the truth. Its one of those things i will not abide, people who are unable to be honest


 
I find this post very repulsive. General post like this. You tell the other poster everything. He is misrepresenting the facts. He is cockeyed in his. view of the facts. He is a troll. 

No, he has opinion. He has right to express it, as any other. You may disagree. You may NOT insult. Basic rules of netiquette.

Basic - you say he is a liar. You insult him, repeated, and actually say nothing on subject. You insult, smear, attack every poster not agree with you. Not first thread I see this, but this time it is enough. You do not respect opinion of others. If he disagrees - he is germanohile, troll, liar, dishonest, cockeyed, preconceived. Your words - and you use them often and lenghty. Other thread too - you disagreed with his opinion. Obvious you come this thread not to discuss, but have shots at him. Because he was brave to disagree with your infallible opinion..

And then say about "ethical standards". You know not in reality of word. All you accuse him is you doing. It is hypocrite. The troll is you..


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I find this post very repulsive. General post like this. You tell the other poster everything. He is misrepresenting the facts. He is cockeyed in his. view of the facts. He is a troll.
> 
> No, he has opinion. He has right to express it, as any other. You may disagree. You may NOT insult. Basic rules of netiquette.
> 
> ...



Actually if you read all the posts you will see it is ctrian who was very insulting Parsifal does occasionally get a bit angry and he has let that show a bit but ctrian was very rude and has not so far apologised for it.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju

please bear in mind that these aircraft wernt developed in a vacuum. German aircraft had to take down B 17s and B24s while Allied aircraft didnt. The USA for better or worse standardised on 0.5" MGs the British also for better or worse on 20mm cannon both of which were adequate to take down a 109 or 190. Germany throughout its military used a huge range of calibres which caused its own logistical problems. 

Is it possible to syncronise a gun to fire through a contra rotating prop or a 5/6 pladed prop and what is the rate of fire?

Adding guns under wings as on 109 detracts substantially from performance the Typhoon became the Tempest which had 4 cannon in the wings.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I find this post very repulsive. General post like this. You tell the other poster everything. He is misrepresenting the facts. He is cockeyed in his. view of the facts. He is a troll.
> 
> No, he has opinion. He has right to express it, as any other. You may disagree. You may NOT insult. Basic rules of netiquette.
> 
> ...



Im sorry if you feel that way, however I also would point out what led to this. The basic position taken was that the Ju87 was very resistant to damage,and the conversely the allied Fighter bombers were hopelessly innaccurate and very vulnerable to German ground fire. There were some obvious holes in this position, and these were pretty quickly pointed out by a number of people, including me. In reply to that links were posted by Ctrian purporting to support his position on the issue. Unfortunately for him, Ive read one of the books he tries to pass off as supporting his position. 

I dont need to post any information to support my position, becausde it was replying to an original post that also contains no factual data. All I need to do is point out that what is being claimed as a document supporting a particular position does no such thing.

Im not saying he is a liar, but I am exposing his fraud. He has to deal with that, because I bet he hasnt even read the book he has posted.

People will judge me if I am acting as a troll, or attempting to inflame the thread. I'll stand on my record on that one. Frankly I dont give a toss what your opinion is, the mods will pull me up if I overstep the mark. In the meantime its up to Ctrian, or anyone who agrees with him, to post credible supporting evidence as to the notion that allied FBs were inneffective and vulnerable. Its not really up to me to prove anything. Im saying one of his sources are bogus, and I dont see the relevance of the other


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> As usual your references are dodgy and misleading, The source you give is stated in the article by this les Butler and is in fact the object of his critique. It is not the source of the link you have provided at all. But I guess you already know that.
> 
> The link itself is dubious and rubbish basically. Apart from the target of its cabal, it is an unreferenced article, author unkown, and no way to check the veracity of its claims. Cannot find any references to this les Butler.
> 
> So my summation. Unsubstantiated rubbish basically because it has shoddy and questionable credentials. if this is the sort of material that you have based your opinions, then no wonder you are out there.


 
You're starting to foam at the mouth .
*O. Gröhler, "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Militärgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336 *


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

And exactly what are you saying regarding Grohler. I can only repeat, the link you gave, was to an unreferenced site that mentions this very source, and then proceeds to provide an unreferenced critique of it. So, are you agreeing with Butler, or are you agreeing with Grohler. Its impossible to agree with both, because they are disagreeing with each other


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> The basic position taken was that the Ju87 was very resistant to damage,and the conversely the allied Fighter bombers were hopelessly innaccurate and very vulnerable to German ground fire.



You are distort position he makes to extreme to ridicule it. He gave you book - have read it already? You are fast reader then. Even faster typer..

Fighter bomber is just a fighter with bomb on it. Crew is untrained. No armor. Inaccurate they were - not hopeless, that is your own "extra" addition for falsehood.. then prove false falsehood "wrong" eh? Weapons too inaccurate to fight armor, and difficult to hit small targets. But were very useful against trucks, destroyed many. But its wrong to think there was concept.. simply too many fighters, having nothing to do.. so, ground attack role.

Ju 87 or Shturmowik type aircraft is more suited for ground "work" role. They are designed for that. They fly stable at attack speed - low speed it is. Fighter has different requirement - high speed. Handling is optimal for high speed. 87D or shturmo is armored, both very heavy - useful as many (most) times there is no self propelled AA or AA, but there is always hand 7,62 machineguns, rifles etc. Also large airframe, MUCH larger. See Shturmo next to even P-47.. or Stuka. They can take more... stressed for heavy load, heavy built, not like fighter, where a bomb is a after idea. In West, there was no equivalent until A-10. No experience either. No great land battles in West, like GPW. Experience was very quickly learned.. effective used.. ineffective ceased.. price was payed with blood. Makes people quick learners - even from enemy - less space for theory, ideology.

But Sturmo and Il-2 need escort to "work" in calm conditions.. then they are effective.. very.. not only to cut supply, but the help direct fight.. fighter bombers can arrive quickly, depart quickly. Less vulnerable, much less effective.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> And exactly what are you saying regarding Grohler. I can only repeat, the link you gave, was to an unreferenced site that mentions this very source, and then proceeds to provide an unreferenced critique of it. So, are you agreeing with Butler, or are you agreeing with Grohler. Its impossible to agree with both, because they are disagreeing with each other


 
I am simply interested in the LOSSES PER SORTIE i don't CARE about opinions only facts .


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jun 23, 2011)

parsifal said:


> As usual your references are dodgy and misleading, The source you give is stated in the article by this les Butler and is in fact the object of his critique. It is not the source of the link you have provided at all. But I guess you already know that.
> 
> The link itself is dubious and rubbish basically. Apart from the target of its cabal, it is an unreferenced article, author unkown, and no way to check the veracity of its claims. Cannot find any references to this les Butler.
> 
> So my summation. Unsubstantiated rubbish basically because it has shoddy and questionable credentials. if this is the sort of material that you have based your opinions, then no wonder you are out there.


 
A slight misunderstanding here: _Les Butler_ owns the JG 26 website (http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/schlageter.htm) and does much of the graphics and artwork: the site's co-owner is Aviation Historian _Don Caldwell_, (Donald Caldwell: Author and Historian) whose expertise on JG26 is legendary. I presume Don wrote the article critiquing Gröhler's statistics and pointing out where they are questionable. If you read it carefully the article has nothing to do with the nonsense Ctrain is writing.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

I dont know how this argument continues, didnt the germans convert the FW 190 fighter into a fighter bomber because of the Ju87s vulnerability? All ground attack ACs are vulnerable to some extent especially with a radiator. The Ju87s forte was supporting advancing troops when it faced with no opposition. When it didnt have air superiority it was vulnerable and impossible to defend in its dive.

Adding armour decreases payload and speed. Dropping a bomb on a target means flying over the target making the AC a perfect target itself. Dive bombing makes an AC is difficult to miss which is why the allies used so many rockets. The Il 2 was perhaps the most armoured AC in the war and also suffered the heaviest losses of any Soviet marque.

I think Normandy counts as a land battle as did the Battle of the Bulge in both battles allied fighter bombers played a major part.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

Thanks NZ, at last some sanity


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

NZTyphoon said:


> A slight misunderstanding here: _Les Butler_ owns the JG 26 website (http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/schlageter.htm) and does much of the graphics and artwork: the site's co-owner is Aviation Historian _Don Caldwell_, (Donald Caldwell: Author and Historian) whose expertise on JG26 is legendary. I presume Don wrote the article critiquing Gröhler's statistics and pointing out where they are questionable. If you read it carefully the article has nothing to do with the nonsense Ctrain is writing.



 Oh my.... .From the site : 
_It is clear from his text that Groehler's objectives were: (1) to show that the German-Soviet front was the most significant source of the Luftwaffe losses that ultimately led to Allied air supremacy, and (2) that the Luftwaffe could not afford to weaken its forces in the East, even when pushed hard by the USAAF strategic offensive and the Normandy invasion. Groehler did make these claims, to the undoubted pleasure of his Soviet masters, but *his data*, when examined carefully, don't back him up. _

Look there it says *HIS* data .the author criticizes Groehler's explanation not his DATA. You do realize that my point is that the Stuka had low losses in the East? What do you think those stats say? Don't answer now talk to a mathematician first.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> I dont know how this argument continues, didnt the germans convert the FW 190 fighter into a fighter bomber because of the Ju87s vulnerability? .


 
Yes they did but while the Fw was more survivable against fighters it was a much worse ground attack plane due to very low accuracy (same as P-51 and P-47 in ground attack role).


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

_You are distort position he makes to extreme to ridicule it. He gave you book - have read it already? You are fast reader then. Even faster typer.._

Nope, I am not exaggerating his position. The statement that dredged all this up was as follows:

_Actually the problem for the allies is that their ground attack units were decimated by AA AND they didn't hit anything .Stuka units in the East had low loss rates despite being used in contested airspace and unlike their allied counterparts were precision weapons_


As to the book, yes I have read it already. I own a copy. I type at 100 wpm, cant type as quickly as I think. try to keep up if you can


_Fighter bomber is just a fighter with bomb on it. Crew is untrained. No armor. Inaccurate they were - not hopeless, that is your own "extra" addition for falsehood.. then prove false falsehood "wrong" eh? Weapons too inaccurate to fight armor, and difficult to hit small targets. But were very useful against trucks, destroyed many. But its wrong to think there was concept.. simply too many fighters, having nothing to do.. so, ground attack role_.

Ah no, incorrect. British set up a specialist unit, 2 TAF that contained its specialist ground attack units. These guys flew FBs which were adaptions as you say, but they were modified in various ways to maximise their ground attack capabilities. The pilots were specialists and good at their jobs too


_Ju 87 or Shturmowik type aircraft is more suited for ground "work" role. They are designed for that. They fly stable at attack speed - low speed it is. Fighter has different requirement - high speed. Handling is optimal for high speed. 87D or shturmo is armored, both very heavy - useful as many (most) times there is no self propelled AA or AA, but there is always hand 7,62 machineguns, rifles etc. Also large airframe, MUCH larger. See Shturmo next to even P-47.. or Stuka. They can take more... stressed for heavy load, heavy built, not like fighter, where a bomb is a after idea. In West, there was no equivalent until A-10. No experience either. No great land battles in West, like GPW. Experience was very quickly learned.. effective used.. ineffective ceased.. price was payed with blood. Makes people quick learners - even from enemy - less space for theory, ideology_.

So the British expereiences in North Africa count for nothing I see. From what I read, the effects of the specially modified Hurribombers was devastating to efforts of DAK. I can agree that in the field of ground support the germans were ahead of the allies, but that is not the point of contention, the point of contention, and I quote"allied attack units were decimated and they didnt hit anything". Still waiting for evidence to support that

_But Sturmo and Il-2 need escort to "work" in calm conditions.. then they are effective.. very.. not only to cut supply, but the help direct fight.. fighter bombers can arrive quickly, depart quickly. Less vulnerable, much less effective._


As delivery devices, I dont disagree, but again, this is not the point of contention. Please show me the evidence that aircraft like the P-47 was more vulnerable than the Ju87, and couldnt hit anything. They hit lots, and they were far more survivable than the specialist types. Id also like to see where it was a political decision., I think it was a cost and survivability decision.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Yes they did but while the Fw was more survivable against fighters it was a much worse ground attack plane due to very low accuracy (same as P-51 and P-47 in ground attack role).


 
Ctrian you seem to be saying that a Ju 87 is superior because it hits the target while its inability to reach the target or return from it is not important. As soon as Germany lost control of the air the Ju87 had had its day. In a P51 or Typhoon/tempest no escort is absolutely necessary what were the losses of Ju87s AND their escorts on the eastern front?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2011)

Okay everyone. Play nice or don't play at all!

Heated discussions are fine, until they become personally insulting. I feel this thread is on the verge of getting out of hand, don't let that happen!


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Tante Ju
> 
> please bear in mind that these aircraft wernt developed in a vacuum. German aircraft had to take down B 17s and B24s while Allied aircraft didnt. The USA for better or worse standardised on 0.5" MGs the British also for better or worse on 20mm cannon both of which were adequate to take down a 109 or 190. Germany throughout its military used a huge range of calibres which caused its own logistical problems.



Hi Mustang Nut!

I agree requirement was different. Its no criticizm. However I disagreed that weight total gun weight = firepower thesis, this is Shortrund thesis.. my point is that is is not, 4x gun weight is not same as 4x firepower. Armament may be simply inefficient for weight. but inefficient does not mean ineffective - just poorer use of resources. Yes I agree from logistical point, all .50 fighters are simple to service. However I do not believe it is real problem. In given time frame, Germans/Russians/British used typically just two guns on fighters, sometimes three. Not really difficult. Japanese - bad I agree. 



> Is it possible to syncronise a gun to fire through a contra rotating prop or a 5/6 pladed prop and what is the rate of fire?
> Adding guns under wings as on 109 detracts substantially from performance the Typhoon became the Tempest which had 4 cannon in the wings.



I do not know answer to first question.. but this was not standard propeller arrangement in ww2? Second, yes, adding guns decrease 109 performance. But adding guns adds 2 factors, weight and in most built in types, drag. Any aircraft. Typoon for example alraedy had this loss "built in". Due to this, much less agile than light aircraft like 109. Soviet tested 109G with five guns, 190A. They found even gunpods, 109G is no worse manouver, speed or climb than 190A. Same. Firepower - same. Point again? Gun always add weight. In 190, it was already present to show effect.



Mustang nut said:


> I dont know how this argument continues, didnt the germans convert the FW 190 fighter into a fighter bomber because of the Ju87s vulnerability? All ground attack ACs are vulnerable to some extent especially with a radiator. The Ju87s forte was supporting advancing troops when it faced with no opposition. When it didnt have air superiority it was vulnerable and impossible to defend in its dive.



I do not know why exactly 190 was replacing Ju 87. Not completely though. I suspect increasing Red Army superiority. Yes Ju 87 is not possible to effectively operate when enemy has air superiority. But is 190F? In West, 190F had hard time too.

I agree, dive bombers are special. Most bomber stay together, defend each other. More effective than you believe.. Ju 87 too. Problem is that dive scatters formation. Normal bombers keep together even when bombing.. dive bombers scatter, they are alone, become vulnerable until they in formation again. Also dive bomber is easier target during dive to AA - predictable, close. This is why German use Ju 87D no longer as dive bomber, but as ground attack, or shallow bombings. 


> Adding armour decreases payload and speed.



Payload - Yes. Speed - no really. Only little. 
But shooting down also. Very drastic. There is balance due to that. Statistics show best combination.



> The Il 2 was perhaps the most armoured AC in the war and also suffered the heaviest losses of any Soviet marque.



Yes, but is reason? Il2 effective, German know. So in Eastern Front typical Soviet fighters escort Il-2, German fighter primary target is Il-2. Summary of Eastern Front Air war in one sentence.. All attention is to shoot down Il-2. Losses are logical conseqence. Also - Eastern Front was large. 



> I think Normandy counts as a land battle as did the Battle of the Bulge in both battles allied fighter bombers played a major part.


 
Yes. I meant doctrine of FB already formed by that long time before. Doctrine not yet tested, effectiveness not known. Il-2, Stuka effectiveness known on Eastern Front. Plenty of experience.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Ctrian you seem to be saying that a Ju 87 is superior because it hits the target while its inability to reach the target or return from it is not important. As soon as Germany lost control of the air the Ju87 had had its day. In a P51 or Typhoon/tempest no escort is absolutely necessary what were the losses of Ju87s AND their escorts on the eastern front?


 
I showed that in the East they had low losses despite flying a lot.In the West even the Bf and Fw had high losses.Bottom line if the enemy doesn't have crippling air superiority a dedicated ground support aircraft is the way to go .If he has crippling air superiority then ANY kind of aircraft will suffer.What is worse having a fighter that survives the mission but doesn’t hit anything or a Stuka that will destroy a bridge ,depot ,train etc but will not come back? The Fw ground attack also had heavy losses but without the effect on the field.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 23, 2011)

"_In his September 1943 address to his fellow Stuka pilots, Oberstleutnant Ernst Kupfer insisted that Junkers 87 flying units were "on the verge of extermination" at which time he also noted that ground fire accounted for 80% of Stukas lost to enemy action. It follows that Kupfer would endorse the air-cooled Focke-Wulf 190, for its higher speed and manueverability was now essential in the face of intense antiaircraft fire.

Kupfer added that Ju-87 pilots no longer favored vertical dives due to excessive losses from enemy fire during the pull outs. He reasoned that even though vertical bombing was technically more accurate if done properly, better reflex sights could offset the difference. Ground fire or not, the Ju-87 was a sitting duck for the Yaks and Lavochkins. Kupfer dismissed the Stuka and the heavily armored Russian Il-2 as obsolete in concept; only able to operate with substantial fighter escort.

Among his other thoughts, Kupfer advocated that because the individual tank was an elusive target, the pilots should increase attacks on the more vulnerable supply convoys that supported the enemy tanks, because destroying their fuel and spares was just as likely to halt the armored breakthroughs.

Finally, Kupfer used tanks as an analogy, when he stated that "We created the Tiger, the Panther, the Ferdinand with enormous strength, thick plates of armor. But we saw from the air time and again in the slaughters at Kursk, Belgorod, and Orel that even these tanks could be stopped by Flak and by Pak" … expensive high-tech machines knocked out by cheap and easy to replace towed guns._"


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I showed that in the East they had low losses despite flying a lot.In the West even the Bf and Fw had high losses.Bottom line if the enemy doesn't have crippling air superiority a dedicated ground support aircraft is the way to go .If he has crippling air superiority then ANY kind of aircraft will suffer.What is worse having a fighter that survives the mission but doesn’t hit anything or a Stuka that will destroy a bridge ,depot ,train etc but will not come back? The Fw ground attack also had heavy losses but without the effect on the field.



Two different ways of look at the problem I guess. However as air superiority is the crux of the matter I would go with a plane that can help maintain that superiority after attacking a ground target P 51,Typhoon/Tempest and most of all the Corsair were formidable opponents for any German/Japanese fighter. Pilots loved a "stuka party" I dont think anyone loved a "P 51" party.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Milosh said:


> "_In his September 1943 address to his fellow Stuka pilots, Oberstleutnant Ernst Kupfer insisted that Junkers 87 flying units were "on the verge of extermination" at which time he also noted that ground fire accounted for 80% of Stukas lost to enemy action. It follows that Kupfer would endorse the air-cooled Focke-Wulf 190, for its higher speed and manueverability was now essential in the face of intense antiaircraft fire.
> 
> Kupfer added that Ju-87 pilots no longer favored vertical dives due to excessive losses from enemy fire during the pull outs. He reasoned that even though vertical bombing was technically more accurate if done properly, better reflex sights could offset the difference. Ground fire or not, the Ju-87 was a sitting duck for the Yaks and Lavochkins. Kupfer dismissed the Stuka and the heavily armored Russian Il-2 as obsolete in concept; only able to operate with substantial fighter escort.
> 
> ...


 
If you fly all day you will be shot down even if you're flying the Starship Enterprise ,the question is losses in comparison to sorties.


----------



## stona (Jun 23, 2011)

Milosh said:


> "_ Kupfer advocated that because the individual tank was an elusive target, the pilots should increase attacks on the more vulnerable supply convoys that supported the enemy tanks, because destroying their fuel and spares was just as likely to halt the armored breakthroughs._"



He wasn't daft was he. If I was at home I'd dig out the actual figures for armoured vehicles destroyed by allied fighter bombers during the Normandy campaign. That's specifically armoured vehicles. It is very low indeed. Maybe someone else has them to hand.
Steve


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

stona said:


> He wasn't daft was he. If I was at home I'd dig out the actual figures for armoured vehicles destroyed by allied fighter bombers during the Normandy campaign. That's specifically armoured vehicles. It is very low indeed. Maybe someone else has them to hand.
> Steve


 
Steve I think the hit rate was about 4% for tanks but I may be wrong, however the effect on an armoured column was devastating and a tank alone is very vulnerable, fighter pilots knew that hitting a fuel bowser could knock out a squadron of tanks. In a very short period of time after D Day Rommel could only move supplies by night. That is a major handicap for any army.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I agree in 1942 change of things. But in opinion, Allied designs, including Soviet, were very poor in early war with many flaws... all these well known.. negaive G, lack of cannon, too weak engines, poor designs with old fashioned airframes.. no drop tank.. production failures etc. In 1942 designs got better, same class as German or Japanese, flaws eliminated.
> 
> This and earlier you showed weapons got much heavier in P-47, Spitfire. I ask: and? Weight of guns is not measure of weapon effectiveity. Was Type V Hispano worse than Type II? It was lighter.. but fired more. Was Soviet B-20 cannon worse than Swak? It was lighter for certain.. so you comparison analagou would show weapon was bad in comparison because it was, gun and ammo, lighter.
> 
> Sorry to say, this is flaw in logic.



No, it is not. I am trying to evaluate the design of the aircraft. I do not rate the Mustang as being better than the Spitfire because it carried carried six .50s and a lot of ammunition. It was better in this regard because it could carry the weight at the performance levels it did achieve. That the USAAF chose to use this weight for a 2nd class gun installation isn't the point. The airframe designer/manufacturer rarely gets to choose the weapons the airplane will be equipped with. 



Tante Ju said:


> Measure of firepower is weight of own shots in enemy plane, not weight of shots and gun in own plane.  Accuracy, concentration fire, shell power, number of shell, ammunition available - these count. Weight of guns - do not help. Less weight, the better. Also trends. Trends were centralised guns - Soviet, French design too - ...



Trend here is that both countries used the same engine, which had been designed from the start for an engine mounted cannon. Showing commendable foresight in the days when standard armament was a pair of 7.7-8mm mgs. However it was also a 800hp engine in it's early days and simply couldn't power an a plane with more than one cannon and a pair of small mgs. Neither could anybody else at the time. Early gun was not the Hs 404 but a slower firing, less powerful, lighter gun. 



Tante Ju said:


> .....increasing armament - 109G had increased armamanet, three cannons, two machineguns. Surely there was no lack of firepower with 3 MG 151/20. And before you say - decreased manouverabiliy!



I am not saying you are doing it, but I really dislike the morphing 109 with it's 3 guns/5guns. I have gotten into debates before and the 109 proponent wants to argue the fire power of the 5 gun version but wants to argue the performance of the 3 gun version. Pick one and stick with it. 



Tante Ju said:


> .
> Why, add weight did not decrease manouverability in Spitfire? Typhoon? FW 190? Add armament, add weight. Decrease manover. All planes. Was new trend plane Typhoon more heavily armed than 5 point Messer? No. Was it more manouverable - no, it was less. Was new trend plane 190 more heavily armed than 5 point Messer? No. Was it more manouverable? Again, no. NIIVVS tests show similar.



Heavier armament did decrease the maneuverability in the Spitfire. But since the Spitfire A.) was designed to have a heavier weapons load to begin with (around 165kg for the eight .303s) and B.) had that big wing adding the same amount of weight increase degrades performance less. 

Typhoon was planned from the start for 4 cannon. problems with the guns forced the twelve .303 version. No 'decrease' in maneuverability. While a 109 a 7,000lbs is 61.4% of the typhoons 11,400lb weight the 109 also has 63% of the wing area. While wing loading is certainly not the only factor in maneuverability I think it shows that the 109 was getting too small to carry the loads asked of it. 




Tante Ju said:


> Soviet considered 109G world class. Very fast, very good climber, 5 pointer Messer heavy hitter too. You forgot 5 pointer - and all 109G can be five pointer.
> 
> 
> Tante Ju said:
> ...


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Why would the Bf range be an issue in Europe provided that the LW had bases everywhere and the advanced technology of drop tanks was known? The only other option is to build a fighter with lots of weight to store the extra fuel .That's not a good choice for the LW or any airforce not invested in ''Strategic''TM bombing.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Why would the Bf range be an issue in Europe provided that the LW had bases everywhere and the advanced technology of drop tanks was known? The only other option is to build a fighter with lots of weight to store the extra fuel .That's not a good choice for the LW or any airforce not invested in ''Strategic''TM bombing.


You mean a heavy plane like the Ta-152H with 263 gallons of internal fuel? What were they thinking?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2011)

Oh Dav, that is positively wicked


----------



## Kryten (Jun 23, 2011)

would'nt hanging a pair of cannons in pods under the wings of a 109 have a rather detrimental effect on the aircrafts peformance and agility? 
or were the 190 pilots who elected to remove the outer guns of thier aircraft misguided?


----------



## davparlr (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> P-51 is simply week, at best


 
There is no evidence that the P-51 armament was weak for the tasks they were confronted with. At the 1944 joint fighter conference, which included both Army and Naval aviators, there was the combined opinion that there was no need to change the 50 cals for 20 mms. If they had thought the armament was weak, you can bet they would stated that they needed more firepower. This is the opinion from pilots whose life depended on their weapons, not the opinion of internet bloggers. The P-51B only had four 50s in the wings and was a deadly aircraft which some pilots preferred over the six gun P-51D.


----------



## Kryten (Jun 23, 2011)

I seem to recall the 20mm was chosen for the air to air arena for its ability to incapacitate bombers?
20mm should be the more effective weapon in the air to ground role due to he effects but in the air superiority role 6x .50 should have little trouble causing substantial damage to the light airframe of a fighter?

my own experiences with .50M2 are recalled with considerable respect for the damage it did to light armoured vehicles and buildings!


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

davparlr said:


> You mean a heavy plane like the Ta-152H with 263 gallons of internal fuel? What were they thinking?


 
The P-51 was a light aircraft ? The Ta-152H should have been available when? in 1939 ? I don't see a point.The Bf had more than enough performance for all the missions given to it.If you want more range you have to sacrifice something .Not everyone was in love with ''Strategic''TM bombing.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 23, 2011)

The A-10 was mentioned and I think everyone should acknowledge it has never had to operate in highly contested airspace. I suspect if operated under the conditions that J-87 Stukas did it would suffer similar losses. Sure a great deal of the USAF reluctance to specialized ground attack types is due to bias against the type because it takes resources away for more glamourous fighters and bombers, but I have to believe it also is due to an understanding of the types vulnerability in contested airspace. During my service during the Cold War years I recall the general belief that the USSR was somewhat contemptuous of the U.S. Army but had a real fear of the USAF. The capability that created that fear would have definitely been needed to keep the A-10 from earning the same sitting duck reputation the J-87 has here in the West. I would also like to add that while the Sturmovik was a great aircraft the Luftwaffe fighters shot them down in droves, but of course the USSR could afford the losses due to huge amounts of manpower and large production numbers of Il-2s.

Ctrian I respect your right to your opinion but you are near one of the edges of the spectrum. When opinion differs so greatly from the majority, the opinion holder is either near the edge of foolishness or genius. You may be at the edge of genius but perhaps a little introspection is needed to determine if you are near the edge of foolishness.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 23, 2011)

Kryten said:


> I seem to recall the 20mm was chosen for the air to air arena for its ability to incapacitate bombers?
> 20mm should be the more effective weapon in the air to ground role due to he effects but in the air superiority role 6x .50 should have little trouble causing substantial damage to the light airframe of a fighter?
> 
> my own experiences with .50M2 are recalled with considerable respect for the damage it did to light armoured vehicles and buildings!



.... my personal experience also confirms they sure tear up things much more sturdy than WW2 fighters and bombers.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> The A-10 was mentioned and I think everyone should acknowledge it has never had to operate in highly contested airspace. I suspect if operated under the conditions that J-87 Stukas did it would suffer similar losses. Sure a great deal of the USAF reluctance to specialized ground attack types is due to bias against the type because it takes resources away for more glamourous fighters and bombers, but I have to believe it also is due to an understanding of the types vulnerability in contested airspace. During my service during the Cold War years I recall the general belief that the USSR was somewhat contemptuous of the U.S. Army but had a real fear of the USAF. The capability that created that fear would have definitely been needed to keep the A-10 from earning the same sitting duck reputation the J-87 has here in the West. I would also like to add that while the Sturmovik was a great aircraft the Luftwaffe fighters shot them down in droves, but of course the USSR could afford the losses due to huge amounts of manpower and large production numbers of Il-2s.
> 
> Ctrian I respect your right to your opinion but you are near one of the edges of the spectrum. When opinion differs so greatly from the majority, the opinion holder is either near the edge of foolishness or genius. You may be at the edge of genius but perhaps a little introspection is needed to determine if you are near the edge of foolishness.


 
Why don't you look at the development of the A-10 and the constant effort to denigrate it versus it's performance in the field.Take a look at Sprey and what he says abour USAF obsession with fighter-bombers.Aircraft need not only to survive but also to get things done.A surgical strike against a fuel depot ,a bridge or a tank unit may be more important in a war than keeping losses to zero point zerf course i'm not saying to turn craft into kamikazes simply that difficult missions will have heavy losses so you can't over generalize like you did about the Stuka.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Why don't you look at the development of the A-10 and the constant effort to denigrate it versus it's performance in the field.Take a look at Sprey and what he says abour USAF obsession with fighter-bombers.Aircraft need not only to survive but also to get things done.A surgical strike against a fuel depot ,a bridge or a tank unit may be more important in a war than keeping losses to zero point zerf course i'm not saying to turn craft into kamikazes simply that difficult missions will have heavy losses so you can't over generalize like you did about the Stuka.



The Il 2 was not uniquely a dive bomber and frequently missed its target until better bomb sights and training were used. Its losses were huge but there were tolerated because it was operated by the Soviets who accepted losses. As a dive bomber Ju87s were incredibly vulnerable and in level flight they have no advantage over any other plane apart from lack of speed which is hardly an advantage anyway. There is nothing to stop a P 47 attacking at just above stalling speed apart from the pilots will to survive. The lancaster took out the Tirpitz so does it qualify as a fighter bomber?


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> The Il 2 was not uniquely a dive bomber and frequently missed its target until better bomb sights and training were used. Its losses were huge but there were tolerated because it was operated by the Soviets who accepted losses. As a dive bomber Ju87s were incredibly vulnerable and in level flight they have no advantage over any other plane apart from lack of speed which is hardly an advantage anyway. There is nothing to stop a P 47 attacking at just above stalling speed apart from the pilots will to survive. The lancaster took out the Tirpitz so does it qualify as a fighter bomber?



 After how many years did they manage to get it? How many sorties ? How many losses ? What did the tiny Stuka do to RN and Soviet ships ? Which one is the more economical choice?
P-47,P-51 and Fw190 were simply too fast to be effective ground attack aircraft just like A-10 is better in that function compared to F-16,F-15.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> After how many years did they manage to get it? How many sorties ? How many losses ? What did the tiny Stuka do to RN and Soviet ships ? Which one is the more economical choice?
> P-47,P-51 and Fw190 were simply too fast to be effective ground attack aircraft just like A-10 is better in that function compared to F-16,F-15.



They actually got it twice but didnt realise, once it was out of the way a huge part of the RN could be re deployed so definitely worth the effort. Could a Ju87 have sunk the Tirpitz? How on earth can an aircraft be too fast? They all have throttles dont they. The P51 (in A36 variant) was fitted with air brakes and used as a dive bomber but was withdrawn due to heavy losses.

I now throw in the towel on this discussion, it is like discussing whether the earth is round or not.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Why don't you look at the development of the A-10 and the constant effort to denigrate it versus it's performance in the field.Take a look at Sprey and what he says abour USAF obsession with fighter-bombers.Aircraft need not only to survive but also to get things done.A surgical strike against a fuel depot ,a bridge or a tank unit may be more important in a war than keeping losses to zero point zerf course i'm not saying to turn craft into kamikazes simply that difficult missions will have heavy losses so you can't over generalize like you did about the Stuka.



I am fairly familiar with A-10 development from the beginning from my reading about it in Aviation Week when I was a teenager and seeing it perform while in the Army. Many of them are based 90 miles from me. I am also aware of the USAF attempt before the 1990-91 Gulf War to replace it with modified F-16s. Only the A-10s performance in poorly contested airspace (just like the early battles for the Stuka) probably saved all of them from storage at the boneyard about 90 miles southeast of where I am sitting. In addition to the Ju-87 being on the wrong side of history as soon as it faced a credible air defense, the Il-10 in Korea was quickly shown to be a turkey when facing U.N. fighters, and the Su-25 like the A-10 has also never operated in contested airspace.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> The P-51 was a light aircraft ? The Ta-152H should have been available when? in 1939 ? I don't see a point.The Bf had more than enough performance for all the missions given to it.If you want more range you have to sacrifice something .Not everyone was in love with ''Strategic''TM bombing.



Ah, I see, the BoB and the Blitz was all tactical bombing. They were just hitting all those aircraft factories, docks and transportation centers by mistake while trying to take out the British troops that escaped from Dunkirk.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Yep that's the exact feelings of the USAF .Any aircraft tainted with army support is wasted money and will ''obviously'' be blown out of the sky by....someone.I won’t go through the same argument ,if the enemy has crippling air superiority all aircraft will suffer even the fastest most agile fighter.If this isn't the case the Stuka had low losses compared to sorties JUST like the Allied bombers.Never heard that the B-17 ,Lanc and B-24 were blown out of the sky or that they should be replaced though...

@Shortround6:I have no idea what you're trying to say .The LW was not built with ''Strategic''TM bombing in mind.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2011)

ctrian said:


> @Shortround6:I have no idea what you're trying to say .The LW was not built with ''Strategic''TM bombing in mind.



Read it again, it is sarcasm. The Luftwaffe may not have been built with long range strategic bombing in mind, but terror bombing cities like Rotterdam, bombing London docks, mining coastal waters and bombing aircraft factories and cities in England were not tactical bombing. The He 111 was not a tactical bomber. The Ju 52 and the Ju 86 were not tactical bombers although they could be used against a tactical target. Same with the Do 17. a single forward firing 7.9mm mg with a 75 round saddle drum is a pretty pathetic gun armament for a "tactical" aircraft.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

The He-111 and the Ju-88 were good enough provided they had fighter cover.I still don't see what your point is.The LW was always used in conjunction with the army.The one time they tried to go solo they failed for the same reason the allied bomber offensive (and any kind of ''strategic''TM ) failed .


----------



## Readie (Jun 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Read it again, it is sarcasm. The Luftwaffe may not have been built with long range strategic bombing in mind, but terror bombing cities like Rotterdam, bombing London docks, mining coastal waters and bombing aircraft factories and cities in England were not tactical bombing. The He 111 was not a tactical bomber. The Ju 52 and the Ju 86 were not tactical bombers although they could be used against a tactical target. Same with the Do 17. a single forward firing 7.9mm mg with a 75 round saddle drum is a pretty pathetic gun armament for a "tactical" aircraft.



The Stuka was a one trick pony. Quite good at its one trick admittely but, limited to what it can do at the end of the day.
The 'Tatics' the Germans had in the early part of WW2 was 'blitzkreig' as far as I understand it. The aircraft were all designed around that concept.
There was no Lancaster or Flying Fortress.
The only long range weapon that the Germans planned was the U boat.
That weapon alone caused Britain no end of grief and nearly defeated us.
Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Read it again, it is sarcasm. The Luftwaffe may not have been built with long range strategic bombing in mind, but terror bombing cities like Rotterdam, bombing London docks, mining coastal waters and bombing aircraft factories and cities in England were not tactical bombing. The He 111 was not a tactical bomber. The Ju 52 and the Ju 86 were not tactical bombers although they could be used against a tactical target. Same with the Do 17. a single forward firing 7.9mm mg with a 75 round saddle drum is a pretty pathetic gun armament for a "tactical" aircraft.


 
I would like to add that the B-17 and B-24 were essentially "tactical bombers" on occasion in Normandy. In fact the B-17 had as part of its original mission coastal defense bombing, I believe versions through E actually had the capability to carry bombs on the wings.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 23, 2011)

Right ladies, I've pretty much seen enough. So un-twist your knickers and put the handbags away before I bring my hammer to the party. 

People have differing opinions and some are obviously going to be different to yours and some of course will be so absurd as to be unbelievable and the full range have been shown in this thread and varying points. So I don't feel the need to express mine.

Either you share the sandpit like nice young children or the sandpit is taking away, rather simple isn't it...


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2011)

Hello Ctrian
Quote: ” Why would the LW need that range when it had airfields everywhere?”

For ex for attacks against Allied convoys in Med. If there were Allied fighters around unescorted LW bombers tended to suffer losses. LW reply was to try to attack at dusk but when on 26 Nov 43 fighters had loitered around later than usually, they shot down 6 out of 20 attacking He 177s, surely LW would have had use for an effective escort fighter. Saying nothing when they needed to attck North Africa ports, especially after May 43.

Quote:” So many posts so little reason I can't answer each individually so I’ll just say again :”

I have a copy of Gooderson’s book, so what? Maybe you don’t understand that it was much easier for pilots to hit tanks in open spaces of Ukraine than in more closed country. When German tanks were caught in fairly open area as the 112 PzBrig was at Dompaire, fighter bombers could be rather effective against tanks, as all participants of the combat at Dompaire testified. On the other hand during the big battles on Summer 44 in Karelian Isthmus appr 400 Il-2s didn’t succeed to destroy even one Finnish AFV and according to Soviet info but contrary to LW claims and Finnish opinion during these battles the ability of Ju 87s of I./SG 3 or Fw 190s of 1./SG 5 to destroy Soviet AFVs was very limited. The terrain is rather closed there.


Hello Tante Ju
the Finnish experience was that in practice the max flight time of Bf 109G without a drop tank was 1,5 hours and with a 300l drop tank over 2h. Combat sorties were usually 1h long. Reason for that was that at most economic speed sparking plugs began to collect carbon and exhaust gases “flooded” into cockpit. Finns definitely thought that Bf 109G was a rather short range fighter. If Bf 109F’s/G’s range was so good why LW didn’t utilize that in Med but allowed their unescorted bombers took losses and then, because of that, switched to more inaccurate night attacks in Med and in the East, for ex during 43 attacks on Soviet a/c industry. n fact LW really had a need for long range escort fighter, as least a fighter that would have been capable to escort He 111s as far as they could deliver useful bomb loads. 

On Hispano, 4 Hispanos was more than enough against even biggest LW bombers, He177 or Do 217, so RAF had no reason to go to bigger guns. That was shown many times.
I agree with LW armament from 109G-5 onwards, MG 151/20 was a very good gun, personally I liked the armament of 190D-9, 2xMG 131s and 2xMg 151/20s well concentrated.
On P-51 , its armament was clearly enough against fighters, its combat history proves that. And it was perfectly capable to dispatch He 111s or Ju 88s.

On fighter-bombers, in fact pilots of FB units had trained for their trade and according to Finnish tests, even pure good fighter pilots learned very fast to drop their bombs accurately. Il-2 was an another solution to CAS problem, it had its pros and cons, it was more vulnerable to enemy fighters but less vulnerable to AAA and totally invulnerable to rifle calibre weapons.

You might take a little time to think why German offensive in Ardennes in Dec 44 was timed for a long period of bad weather. That would have been illogical if Allied CAS was so ineffective that you and Ctrian seemed to think. 

Juha


----------



## ctrian (Jun 23, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Ctrian
> Quote: ” Why would the LW need that range when it had airfields everywhere?”
> 
> For ex for attacks against Allied convoys in Med. If there were Allied fighters around unescorted LW bombers tended to suffer losses. LW reply was to try to attack at dusk but when on 26 Nov 43 fighters had loitered around later than usually, they shot down 6 out of 20 attacking He 177s, surely LW would have had use for an effective escort fighter. Saying nothing when they needed to attck North Africa ports, especially after May 43.
> ...


 
If they could have everything with no cost obviously they'd ask for unlimited range among other things.However with the same technology if you want to add range you'll have to incur a ''cost'' in weight and performance.The LW fighters could always use drop tanks.Fighters did not make good ground attack aircraft ,they were used in that role however because the RAF and the USAAF would rather lose the war than subordinate themselves to the army.Regarding Ardennes i have ''Hitler's last gamble'' by Dupuy ,Bongard and Anderson.It's the most complete study and air attacks are mentioned as a nuisance not decisive.Artillery was decisive in that battle.By the way noone said that airpower had no effect.


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2011)

Hello Ctrian
artillery was also decisive at eastern front, especially Soviet artillery, IMHO Germans thought so and definitely Finns had higher regard on Soviet artillery than on Il-2s. Also Soviets, at least in Baltic area, thought German artillery effective, but after all Heer's defensive doctrine was based on artillery fire.

Juha


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Tante Ju
> the Finnish experience was that in practice the max flight time of Bf 109G without a drop tank was 1,5 hours and with a 300l drop tank over 2h. Combat sorties were usually 1h long. Reason for that was that at most economic speed sparking plugs began to collect carbon and exhaust gases “flooded” into cockpit. Finns definitely thought that Bf 109G was a rather short range fighter.



To my knowledge ignition retard control was exactly for this reason. Carbonisation of spark plugs using this device was burned off from spark plugs. Manual mentions it has to use. Perhaps Finns did not use proper.

I wonder why Finns thought. What longer range fighter was on Eastern Front?



Juha said:


> If Bf 109F’s/G’s range was so good why LW didn’t utilize that in Med but allowed their unescorted bombers took losses and then, because of that, switched to more inaccurate night attacks in Med and in the East, for ex during 43 attacks on Soviet a/c industry.



You take case and take wrong conclusion. In 1943 October Luftwaffe had only 149 in all Italy. This had to protect German troops against ground attacks, fight heavy bombers of 15 AAF. They were overwhelmed, and morale was as result low. C-in-C Richthofen order morale building re-training of all fighters. Bombers were left on their own. In fact all operation stopped. Fighters were "nursed" in battles where chances were good - or at least, not impossible.

It has nothing to do with range but simply not enough fighters to spare for escort.




Juha said:


> n fact LW really had a need for long range escort fighter, as least a fighter that would have been capable to escort He 111s as far as they could deliver useful bomb loads.



Range of FW 190A, BF 109G was sufficient for this task.



> On Hispano, 4 Hispanos was more than enough against even biggest LW bombers, He177 or Do 217, so RAF had no reason to go to bigger guns. That was shown many times.
> I agree with LW armament from 109G-5 onwards, MG 151/20 was a very good gun, personally I liked the armament of 190D-9, 2xMG 131s and 2xMg 151/20s well concentrated.
> On P-51 , its armament was clearly enough against fighters, its combat history proves that. And it was perfectly capable to dispatch He 111s or Ju 88s.



Agree.



> You might take a little time to think why German offensive in Ardennes in Dec 44 was timed for a long period of bad weather. That would have been illogical if Allied CAS was so ineffective that you and Ctrian seemed to think.
> 
> Juha



I do not think. I do think however if instead 1000 fighter bombers it was 1000 Il-2, it was much more effective even. FB has limited effectiveness. But there were many, over very, very small area (compared to Eastern Front).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2011)

Readie said:


> The 'Tatics' the Germans had in the early part of WW2 was 'blitzkreig' as far as I understand it. The aircraft were all designed around that concept.
> There was no Lancaster or Flying Fortress.
> The only long range weapon that the Germans planned was the U boat.



Even a 1939-40 Flying Fortress was shadow of what it would become. 

The Germans were able to bomb Belfast from bases in France. How much more range did they need in 1940? 

In 1938-39 what part of France couldn't they reach with the bombers they had? 

I am coming to the conclusion that many aircraft have been mischaracterized over the years. 

Just as the Fairey Battle was not designed as a tactical bomber (although used as one) a number of other aircraft have acquired a reputation for being something they were not. 

Take a look at some aircraft's armament and see if it makes sense for the role people try to cast it in.

A P-40 with two cowl .50 cal mgs and no bombs is a ground attack machine?

A Fairey Battle with a single forward firing mg and a bombardier (3rd crew member) in the belly of the plane is a ground attack machine? and for tactical use it had a range of 1000miles why?

The Do 17 has already been mentioned. The Heinkel 111's wing while shorter in span was 12% bigger in sq. ft. than a Wellington. He 111s usually had more power until the MK III's came along. With a single hand aimed mg out the nose, top and bottom (3 total) this hardly sounds like a ground strafer, attack plane. Even the old "E" version (stepped windscreen) could carry 2200lbs of bombs for a 900 mile range. Sounds like a lot of range for a 'tactical' bomber.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> Range of FW 190A, BF 109G was sufficient for this task.



Not really. As the USAAF found out, and just like the Luftwaffe found out. it is not enough to plod along beside the bombers. To be an effective escort the fighters ( at least some of them) have to fly higher than the bombers to keep them from being bounced from above and they have to fly faster than the bombers (weaving back and forth over the bomber flight line) so they have some speed in hand when the interceptors are spotted. Trying to accelerate to combat speed from most economical cruising speed takes too long. and surrenders too much initiative to the enemy. This means the fighters actual "escort radius" was always a smaller fraction of it's book range than the bombers "mission radius" compared to book range. The other limit on fighter escort radius was that the radius was determined not by total fuel carried but the fuel left in the internal tanks after the drop tanks had been dropped and the fighter had engaged in a number of minutes of fuel sucking combat flying. Having 75-60% of internal fuel left would not be uncommon and flight out of the combat area cannot be done at most economical settings either unless you are trying to help the enemy run up his scores.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> No, it is not. I am trying to evaluate the design of the aircraft. I do not rate the Mustang as being better than the Spitfire because it carried carried six .50s and a lot of ammunition. It was better in this regard because it could carry the weight at the performance levels it did achieve. That the USAAF chose to use this weight for a 2nd class gun installation isn't the point. The airframe designer/manufacturer rarely gets to choose the weapons the airplane will be equipped with.



Agree.



> Trend here is that both countries used the same engine, which had been designed from the start for an engine mounted cannon. Showing commendable foresight in the days when standard armament was a pair of 7.7-8mm mgs. However it was also a 800hp engine in it's early days and simply couldn't power an a plane with more than one cannon and a pair of small mgs. Neither could anybody else at the time. Early gun was not the Hs 404 but a slower firing, less powerful, lighter gun.



I think most agree concentration armament is better. Soviets agree. Germans agree. P-38 pilots agree. You disagree? 




> I am not saying you are doing it, but I really dislike the morphing 109 with it's 3 guns/5guns. I have gotten into debates before and the 109 proponent wants to argue the fire power of the 5 gun version but wants to argue the performance of the 3 gun version. Pick one and stick with it.



No morph, but you are right. OK, pick 5 pointer. Tell me of plane which is better in performance than 5 pointer in 1942 and CARRY same armament, weight of fire per sec etc. Then your thesis is proven. But you can find similiar but no better, no matter how big airframe is. Soviet results show 5 pointer and 3 pointer performance very similiar. Even 5 pointer extremely good climber. Say, better most western planes. And Soviet.



> Heavier armament did decrease the maneuverability in the Spitfire. But since the Spitfire A.) was designed to have a heavier weapons load to begin with (around 165kg for the eight .303s) and B.) had that big wing adding the same amount of weight increase degrades performance less.



So, in theory, performance should have been better. But it was not. Performance - same. Range - less. Something wrong with theory.



> Typhoon was planned from the start for 4 cannon. problems with the guns forced the twelve .303 version. No 'decrease' in maneuverability. While a 109 a 7,000lbs is 61.4% of the typhoons 11,400lb weight the 109 also has 63% of the wing area. While wing loading is certainly not the only factor in maneuverability I think it shows that the 109 was getting too small to carry the loads asked of it.



Yes, no decrease in manouverabilty. By adoption of 4 cannon in a 11 400 lbs airframe, manouveribilty already was very bad, much worser than 5 pointer. Fact. Percent wing area - all interesting. But it is fact - 5 pointer 109G runs circles around Typhoon. Only this counts in end count. So why is big airframe better, again? Show me. You say there is advantage. I cannot find. 

Can it fly faster? No. Same.
Has more fire power? No. Bit worse.
Can it manouver better? No. Worse. 
Can it climb to altitude faster? No. Slower.
Even range no better. British say 610/1000 miles. Same as 109G. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/typhoon-ads.jpg

That is theory. It practical experience, 109G, five pointer, is better. So, I do not see your point. Your theory is that when 109 added heavy weaponry, performance was much degraded. It would be better to have heavy aircraft, because more adoptable. This is thesis of you. But, practice (test) shows this untrue. Heavy aircraft, poor design. Sacrifice. Each time.

Basical mistake is you say that same difference on big plane makes less penalty. Correct. Where you are not correct is that big plane starts from same performance - in reality is starts lower already, because of extra weight.



> Tante Ju said:
> 
> 
> > Soviet considered 109G world class. Very fast, very good climber, 5 pointer Messer heavy hitter too. You forgot 5 pointer - and all 109G can be five pointer.
> ...


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

> We have been over that but try this. A DB 605 burns 10.68 litres a minute while using MW-50, say they use it for just 5 minutes. 54 litres. the engine burns 8.03 litres at 'normal' take off power, say this power is used for 10 minutes (USAAF planners called for 15-20minutes) another 80 litres. 266 liters left if the plane was carrying a drop tank and dropped it at at the instant the engine went to full MW50 power or full take off power when at altitude.
> 
> The engine burns 6.43 litres at the short power setting (30 min?) The engine in the "F-4" was good for 1.66litres a minute at that low cruise setting but that speed is useless if there is a chance of enemy planes about. Some old books claim a range of 350 miles at 330mph at 5,800 meters. no drop tank. This may very well be wrong but an endurance of just over an hour with no combat allowance does limit German options. Like fighters based in Wiesbaden-Frankfort can't reach a bomber stream routing through Bremen and return without drop tanks, or landing near Bremen after combat.



1, I do not understand why you model flight at 6,43. This is 30 min rating - military rating in US terms. Did Mustang cruise at military rating? I dont believe. Second thing I believe... this rating means 109K is going at 670 km/h. I understand speed is important.. but perhaps it is too much caution to "cruise" at speeds most aircraft cannot reach in ETO..?

2. 266 liters in main tank means engine can run at most economical range speed of 410 km/h for two hours (130 liter/h) - data for 109F engine, but K was similiar. Means it can get away to about 7-800 km after using after combat. This is from Alps in Souther Germany to Danish border... Say.. 300 liters in drop tank to get from Hamburg to Munchen (600 km).. drop droptnka. Spend there 5 minutes at 2000 horsepower in combat, then disengage at another 10 minutes at what is equivalent to Mustang all out power WEP, and then still have enough fuel to get back to Hamburg. Actually, with minimal allowance, same trick can be done between Vienna and Hamburg (!!!!! - 750 km) with minimal reserves, IF somebody is stupid enough to scramble fighters from Austria to protect against a raid coming in from the North Sea... not to mention it tooks 2 hours to get to the scene.

3 But ok...OK, 410 km/h is SLOW.. I dont believe.. Mustangs cruised slower than that, they were much more of a problem of fuel gauge to watch.. Say plane does this at maximum allowed continous. 109F4 data - 585 km/h at 7 km, 310 liter /h. 266 liters mean you get back to around 500 km. This is: Berlin - Holland, Berlin - France border, Berlin - Vienna, Berlin Warsawa.. meaning fighter taking off Berlin can go to this place at near 600 km/h (all the way long - you have to be quite pessisist to expect enemy fighter over mid-Germany if raid is still plotted on radar over the the sea..), fight there at very high power for 15 mins and disengage, and then 

Fighters taking off from and German base, go to the other corner of Germany at EXTREME speeds, fight there for 15 minutes and get back at extreme speed is not good enough? In practical use - such high power never used for so long.. 
So explain, why need more tankage? 

BTW - how long could Mustang stay over Germany, with same flight plan? Like one you suggest - never going slower than 670 km/h..? This is what 109K does at 30 min rating.. Anything below that speed: "is useless if there is a chance of enemy planes about" - you say yourself..


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Not really. As the USAAF found out, and just like the Luftwaffe found out. it is not enough to plod along beside the bombers. To be an effective escort the fighters ( at least some of them) have to fly higher than the bombers to keep them from being bounced from above and they have to fly faster than the bombers (weaving back and forth over the bomber flight line) so they have some speed in hand when the interceptors are spotted. Trying to accelerate to combat speed from most economical cruising speed takes too long. and surrenders too much initiative to the enemy. This means the fighters actual "escort radius" was always a smaller fraction of it's book range than the bombers "mission radius" compared to book range. The other limit on fighter escort radius was that the radius was determined not by total fuel carried but the fuel left in the internal tanks after the drop tanks had been dropped and the fighter had engaged in a number of minutes of fuel sucking combat flying. Having 75-60% of internal fuel left would not be uncommon and flight out of the combat area cannot be done at most economical settings either unless you are trying to help the enemy run up his scores.


 
OK. Make serious analyse. Set condition - equal to all. Plane has to fly this speed for this long. Then fly at this speed for this long. Then fly to maximum rating for this long.

Use same standard. Then apply to 109, P-47, Spitfire, Mustang, FW 190 etc - you choose. And see what you get.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The Do 17 has already been mentioned. The Heinkel 111's wing while shorter in span was 12% bigger in sq. ft. than a Wellington. He 111s usually had more power until the MK III's came along. With a single hand aimed mg out the nose, top and bottom (3 total) this hardly sounds like a ground strafer, attack plane. Even the old "E" version (stepped windscreen) could carry 2200lbs of bombs for a 900 mile range. Sounds like a lot of range for a 'tactical' bomber.


 
I agree - nobody designs bombers with 2000+ km range for "tactical" bombing.. only Do 17. It had short range with bombload. Obsolate by war start.


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2011)

Hello Tante Ju
Quote:” To my knowledge ignition retard control was exactly for this reason. Carbonisation of spark plugs using this device was burned off from spark plugs. Manual mentions it has to use. Perhaps Finns did not use proper.”

The system was not installed to 109Gs delivered to the FAF (very late G-2s and G-6s), one can see that from a/c papers; mentioned in lists of exceptions from the a/c part and equipment list.

Quote:” I wonder why Finns thought. What longer range fighter was on Eastern Front?”

109G was incapable to escort Blenheims in longer range recon flights for example, Finns had to use Hawk 75As for that job, even if it was really too slow for to be an effective escort to high flying Blenheim.

Quote: “It has nothing to do with range but simply not enough fighters to spare for escort.”

Not even to a couple times escort He 111s in Russia to the most important strategic targets, big a/c and tank factories which were inside He 111 range?

Quote:” Range of FW 190A, BF 109G was sufficient for this task.”

So why for ex KG 55 had to made its strategic attacks nighttime in spite of poorer accuracy and lesser concentration of the night attacks vs daytime raids?

Quote:” I do not think. I do think however if instead 1000 fighter bombers it was 1000 Il-2, it was much more effective even. FB has limited effectiveness. But there were many, over very, very small area (compared to Eastern Front). “
Now have you figures on Il-2’s superior effectiveness? At Dompaire I./PZR 29 lost 34 of its Panthers and after the battle had only 4 operational Panthers left. PzAbt 2112 had only 17 of its original 45 Pz IVs operational. Of the 33 tanks found in Group Massu’s sector, 13 had been knocked out by tank or TD fire, 16 by air attack made by P-47s and 4 had been abandoned intact. French losses were 5 M4A2s, 2 M5A1s, 2 half-tracks and 2 Jeeps. One P-47 was shot down.

Juha


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 23, 2011)

Juha, thank you for answer of Finn speciality. This explains Finn opinion to me. 
Rest of posting - I do not know. I do not know which He 111 bombing was for USSR factory, nor KG 55 nighttime strategic bombing. 
Il-2. I do not know Dompare. I know who entered Berlin.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jun 23, 2011)

stona said:


> He wasn't daft was he. If I was at home I'd dig out the actual figures for armoured vehicles destroyed by allied fighter bombers during the Normandy campaign. That's specifically armoured vehicles. It is very low indeed. Maybe someone else has them to hand.
> Steve


 
Chris Thomas described the "Battle of Mortain" (August 7 1944 '_Typhoon Wings of 2nd TAF 1943-45_' ): 305 Typhoon sorties flown, tank claims:90. After the battle the Army and 2 TAF Operational Research staff found that 7 tanks had been destroyed by rockets, with 14 by cannon and two by bombs. 7 tanks had been abandoned. The other phenomenon noticed was how demoralising the attacks were to the German troops, particularly the rocket fire: Thomas' conclusion was..."'The Day of the Typhoon' - was probably the most decisive tactical air operation of the invasion, and possibly the campaign in northwest Europe, _as it showed the flexibility and economy of the fighter-bomber_, its ease of control and the weight of fire it could quickly bring to bear on any threatened point."(italics added pp. 67-69)

_Second Tactical Air Force Volume Two. Breakout to Bodenplatte, July 1944 to January 1945_ (Christopher Shore and Chris Thomas) states that the rockets overall had a hit rate of 4% (pp 240-250)


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2011)

Hello Tante Ju
the question is, did the LW 109Gs had the ignition retard control in late 43 or 44? Even if Finnish pilots collected the first 16 G-2, new a/c amongst the very last G-2s produced, and next 14 G-2s, fully refurbished 2nd hand, straight from Germany, many of the later G-2s, given as replacement a/c for those lost in service, were collected from Luftpark Pori, which was a big service depot for LFl 5 on western coast of Finland, ie the planes were there as replacement a/c for LFl 5. IIRC it was possible to clear the plugs by using high power for 5min after every half hour at the most effective cruising power. Of course this limited the max range a bit but also simplified the production a bit.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2011)

Hello Tante Ju
Quote:"I know who entered Berlin. "

That was agreed by Stalin, FDR and WC at Jalta. British entered to Lübeck and Americans to Pilzen

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju, try to keep everything to one post, please.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> OK. Make serious analyse. Set condition - equal to all. Plane has to fly this speed for this long. Then fly at this speed for this long. Then fly to maximum rating for this long.
> 
> Use same standard. Then apply to 109, P-47, Spitfire, Mustang, FW 190 etc - you choose. And see what you get.



We have some benchmarks for the USAAF planes. A P-47 with 305 US gallons had a radius of 125 miles. A P-47 with 370 gallons of internal fuel had a radius of 225 miles. 

Conditions are:

1. Warm up and take off equivalent to 5 min at normal rated power.
2. Climb to 25,000ft at normal rated power. distance in climb not counted in radius. 
3. Cruise out at 25,000ft and IAS of 210mph. (315 mph true airspeed?/508kph)
4. drop tanks if carried.
5. 5 minutes war emergency power and 20 minutes at Military power (take-off power).
6. Cruise back at 210IAS. no allowance made for change in fuel consumption by decent.
7. allowance of a reserve at minimum cruise power for 30min. 

A Mustang using just the 184 gallon wing tanks was rated at 150miles. With rear fuselage tank it was 325miles.

It seems to be much easier to find information of the US planes. 

For a P-47 take-off or military power was 2000hp. WEP was 2300-2500 depending on model ( I am not using Ms), normal rated was 1625hp. and cruise at 210 indicated air speed (clean) at 25000ft might need 1200hp. (chart has a blank column) 
Take off or military needed 275 US gallons an hour ( 4.58 GPM), normal rated needed 210 GPH ( 3.5GPM) and the cruise setting might be 105 US GPH ( 1.75GPM) WEP is unknown and min cruising could be as little as 0.92 GPM.

Going by what we do know the P-47 needed 17.5 gallons for warm up and take-off. it could burn around 93-4 gallons climbing to 25,000ft. See: http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-47/47TOCL.gif
Call it 112gallons so far. 5 minutes at WEP? call it 5.725gpm? (25% more than Military?) or 27gallons (rounding up) and 70 gallons for the 20 minute at military portion. 209 gallons so far. 27.6 gallons for the reserve=236.6 gallons.. This gives us 70 gallons left for cruise to and from. Something isn't coming out right I am getting about an 105 mile radius. but I only need another 8 gallons to make it come out right and I have made several assumptions. 


what are the equivalent power settings for the 109 G and with what engine? 

Trying to use what I gave before 6.43l/min for the short power to try to equal the US figures

6.43L X 5 min (warm-up take off) = 31.15L
6.43L X 8 min (climb to 25,000ft ) = 51.44L
10.68L X 5 min (WEP combat)......= 53.4L
8.03L X 15 min (Military power?)...= 120L
1.66L X 20 min (reserve).............= 33L
total.......................................=259L

Fuel for cruise...........................161L
4.77L x 34 min (cruise)................162.4 (close enough)

On a 109F-4 the 4.77 gives 325mph at 16,500ft. a bit faster and lower than the USAAF conditions. But I did cut 10 minutes from the reserve time and 5 minutes from the Military power time. 17 minutes at 325mph (radius) gives 92 miles. 

If somebody has numbers for another type of of aircraft or corrections to the above please post them.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 24, 2011)

Most interesting thread I've seen on this forum in a long time. I'm particularly enjoying Tante Ju's arguments, he makes excellent well thought out points, though I don't agree with all of them. The other fellow reminds me of someone else. 

I'd like to point out that the USAAF and RAF were not hesitant in the least at doing army cooperation work. 2TAF and the 9th Tactical Air force had that job specifically. The success of the Typhoon units in Normandy was in large part due to direction from the ground (Cab rank), and the Typhoon earned a reputation as one of the most effective ground attack planes of WW2. It did pretty good in the Falaise Gap I believe. 

It is silly to surmise that because a plane is capable of high speed it will not be agile or accurate at slower speeds. They do need to take off and land after all, and slow speed handling close to the stall is a design consideration in most fighters. 
The Mosquito was a fast plane, in fact it was the fastest plane in the ETO for quite a little while, and it was the plane of choice for precision bombing missions. Anybody remember the jail break mission? Fast does not equal inaccurate, not in ballistics or aircraft capability. 


Did the Luftwaffe need longer range fighters? You bet they did. Short range tends to limit one to primarily defensive actions . Long range gives you much greater offensive capabilities. Range is the factor that causes knowledgeable folks to give the nod to the P51 in the numerous "which was the best fighter" discussions here and elsewhere. The Luftwaffe in 44/45 was pretty much limited to waiting to intercept bombers over Germany. How much more effective would they have been intercepting minutes after the bombers took off? Can you imagine the damage to 8th AF morale if there had been 109s picking off damaged B17's as they are struggling to land at their home base in England? Strategic bombing doctrine might have been abandoned entirely! 

As for the Stuka, it might be able to deliver a bomb accurately, but it has to survive the trip to the target and the trip home and it was a long slow trip. There were significant losses of Stukas during BoB and those planes were shot down by anemic 7.7mm mgs. (Yeah I agree the .303 was limited in effectiveness by late war, the RAF thought so too, hence the Spitfire XVI and some IXs and XIVs with two .50s and two Hispanos). 

Nobody can argue the effectiveness of the IL2, one of the great planes of WW2. It did require escort though. A common scenario was to send La5s ahead in a fighter sweep, have Yaks doing close escort, and probably some P39's flying at high alt (high being a relative term). That's a lot of fighter support. 

IL2 and Stuka were very good ground attack planes, but you couldn't send them on an intercept mission, or an escort mission. 

Soviet doctrine called for dedicated attack planes and it worked for them. 
Western doctrine used fighters such as the Hurricane, P40, Typhoon, Spit IX, P47 and even the Tempest. This meant that a fighter that had been eclipsed in performance still had a role to play. There were P40's still doing ground attack in Italy very late in the war, and if need be they could and did fly escort missions as well. That's a pretty good use of a resource. I don't know the cost of an IL2 compared to a Typhoon, but if they are anywhere close I'd spend my money on the Typhoon. 

Multi role capability is still a preferred way of doing things, there's a lot of multi-role planes doing work in Libya right now. 

As for wing vs centerlline guns, the sighting systems in use during WWII obviated any advantage one had over the other.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 24, 2011)

I am so glad someone else understands that specialized ground attack aircraft cannot survive in contested airspace without a great amount of fighter escort. Your excellent comments on speed not being a hinderance to accuracy, advantage of multirole aircraft, and gunsight accuracy obviating any advantage of centerline armament are much appreciated.

I have been scratching my head ever since someone posted that centerline armament was the wave of the future. Of course it was as we no longer have engines and propeller in the front of fighters! I actually think in a single-engine WW2 fighter an all wing armament is an advantage in that allows much easier simultaneous servicing of guns and engine, and depending on pilot preferred method of attack more versatility in sighting options.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Ctrian
> artillery was also decisive at eastern front, especially Soviet artillery, IMHO Germans thought so and definitely Finns had higher regard on Soviet artillery than on Il-2s. Also Soviets, at least in Baltic area, thought German artillery effective, but after all Heer's defensive doctrine was based on artillery fire.
> 
> Juha


 
How does that connect to your previous post? Were the allied ground attack planes decisive or not? Were they good at their role ? Did they pay off the investment made in them? Were they more survivable than slow Stuka when faced with german AA?

Regarding range why do people think that all airforces wanted the same things from their aircraft ? If you want speed you buy a ferrari if you want to move stuff you buy a truck if you want something cheap you get a bicycle how hard is that to comprehend...

There was no ''Western doctrine '' for ground support.There was however a battle to the death between RAF and USAAF vs their other services for money and influence.They won and they had their own private ''Strategic''TM war.Of course that meant no specialized aircraft for army support.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

_Were the allied ground attack planes decisive or not? Were they good at their role ? Did they pay off the investment made in them? Were they more survivable than slow Stuka when faced with german AA?_

_There was no ''Western doctrine '' for ground support.There was however a battle to the death between RAF and USAAF vs their other services for money and influence.They won and they had their own private ''Strategic''TM war.Of course that meant no specialized aircraft for army support._

In relation to the first point, german accounts appear to think so. There wer after action reports that know of, and have seen in relation to allied air operations in North Africa and Normandy. Both were pretty unequivocal about the decisive effect of allied airpower on both occasions. Airpower in Italy was generally less effective, it being generally acknowledged that the terrain lessened its effects considerably. 

As to cost effectiveness, I am not sure. The allies seemed to think so. If they had not spent their money on ground attack aircraft what would they spend it on. For Normandy, for example, I think ther were about 4000 aircraft amployed on Ground support operations (thats a guess really, so it might be more, it might be less), Each aircraft needed about 50 men to keep it in the air, that would release about 200000 men for duties elsewhere. So were these men as well employed in the ground support efforts??? My opinion is yes. At staff college we were trained to 5
view air support as a force multiplier. The air power was only responsible for about 5% of enemy casualtiesm, but the application of airpower could lift the effects of an attacking force by as much 50%. If the FPF factor of an Infanfantry battalion was assessed as say 6 without airpower, with airpower it rose to about 9.

The main effect of the airpower, wasnt that it killed so much, more that it acted to interdict the enemy. Suprresive fire, that kind of thing. Ihibit manouvre in particular. Moreover the text that we were given had predecesors that extended all the way back to WWII. In the earlier part of WWII, you have a point about doctrine, but from about 1942 the allies began to develop their doctrine. in this regard your assertion isnt correct. They did have a doctrne. i know this because I was trained using a derived version of that doctrine.

I dont agree that there was no specialized aircraft for support. Certainly the Allied air forces wer more versatile and wide ranging in capability compared to the germans, and certainly they used aircraft that were adapte from other roles...aircraft like the A-20, the Hurricane, Typhoon and mosquito. But these aircraft once selected for ground support were modified in different ways to undertake that mission. Some were more successful than other.

Saying there was a battle to the death between the allied armed services is an overstatement. The allied command structure was always one where there were disagreements, but decisions were always reached about courses of action. By comparison, the divisions between the armed services in the German army were monumental, and never fully resolved. A classic example of that has to be the employment of the Luftwaffe Field Divisions. They were deployed over protests of the Army, and were decimeted as predicted. Even greater divisions existed between the SS and the Army, and the navy, well the navy.....


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 24, 2011)

****... worked 3/4 hours to gather range.. lost it. 

But* I get 422 km or 262 miles radius for 109F-4* with above conditions. Cruise out - more. Say 500+ km. Can't recall. In back route, when fuel is less (used in combat). This is distance it can get back from, after going there, burning lots of fuel in combat (5+20min) and has reserve for 20 min mimum cruise too.


By crusing at 510 kph at 7000 meter and a droptank. With exact conditions shortround pointed out.

Conditions.

400 liter internal, 300 liter in drop tank.

1 - 30 min rating. 372 liter / hour.
2 - same.
3,6. middle cruising. 510 km/h. 210 liters/hour. see http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=22&L=0/
5, 5 minutes 445 liter/h (this is F-4 max. or WEP, 600+ liters is wrong,, correct for 109K), 20 minutes 372 lit/hour (this is F-4) 
0-min)
7, 20 minutes minimum cruise. 130 lit/hour at 410 km/h. Actually I believe even less possible. see. http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=22&L=0/

I only counted cruise in and out, no distance in climb, or during combat power.

Actually, quick re-do. I only need to know what remains after combat, after drop tank jettison.

109F arrives interception point, drops tank, has 400 liter internal.
5 mins at 110% - 1350 HP. 445 lit/h. -37 liter
20 mins at 100% - 1200 HP. 372 lit/h. -124 liter
30 min minimum cruise reserve - 0.65 ata / 1500 rpm. 130 liter/h. 410 km/h. - 65 liter.

37 + 124 + 65 = 226 liter. Leaves 174 liter in tank. For cruise! Note we have still reserves, already calculated in.. 65 liter. Enough for 1/2 hour very economic cruise - + 200 km range. for safety. This is margin of error, manouvers in formation etc.
Cruise back at 510 km/h, 210 liter/h = 0.82 hour cruise = *422 km or 262 miles. This is radius 109F by US standard. also G *- very similiar.
Note: if max. range cruise allowed, plane can still get back to base at 410 kh / 130 lit/h. 

109K may be bit less. Actually, easy to calculate.
_***5 mins at 110% - 2000 HP. 650 lit/h. -54 liter*** revise!!! this is SL consumption. 109K at 7500 m do not produce 2000 HP, so do not consume 2000 HP fuel, either.. possible up to 5 km, so this is low altitude consumption, inappropriate at 75 km.._
5 mins at 110% - 1550 HP (6,8 km) or less. 525 lit/h. - 43 liter
20 mins at 100% - 1285 HP at 6.8km . 425 lit/h. -141 liter
30 min minimum cruise reserve - 0.65 ata / 1500 rpm. 130 liter/h. 410 km/h. - 65 liter. I take this same as 109F/601E.
Revised. 43 + 141 + 65 = 249 liter. Leaves 141 liter in tank. For cruise! Note we have still reserves, already calculated in.. 65 liter. Enough for 1/2 hour very economic cruise - + 200 km range. for safety. This is margin of error, manouvers in formation etc.
*Cruise back at 510 km/h, 210 liter/h = 0.67 hour cruise = 342 km or 212 miles. This is radius 109K by US standard (apprx. Assumes cruise is same as 109F. This is likely assumption. High speed range - given as same by German datasheet for F, G and K. So things even out..)
Note: if max. range cruise allowed, plane can still get back to base at 410 kh / 130 lit/h. In this case it can cover 442 km. But this is not compatible with above us standard, still, a possibility.

However, if rear tank in use 109K (+115 liter), it still has 256 liters in tank. Enough for 1,21 h / 621 km (386 miles) at 316mph/510 km/h, OR 2 h/ 807 km/501 miles at slower most economic cruise 410 km/h.

Cruise out and climb, takeoff, all consumed from droptank.

Translate into real world for demonstration. 

109F in Calais can operate in this conditions up to Leeds or Liverpool by US stanadard.
109K in Calais can operate in this conditions up to bit beyond Birmingham by US stanadard.

In defence,

Frankfurt is in mid-west Germany.
109F in Frankfurst base can just cover out to the Channel in Holland, North Sea shore of Germany Berlin, Prague, Bremen, Hamburg, Amsterdam, and Paris, and out to the Italian border.
109K in Frankfurst base can just cover Bremen, Leipzig, München, Brussel etc.
This by returning to same base it took off from. But realistically - there were dozens of other bases on route to land..

So I do not agree 109F-K range was insufficient for task. You wrote: "A Mustang using just the 184 gallon wing tanks was rated at 150miles. With rear fuselage tank it was 325miles." 109F 262 miles, 109K 212 miles. Compares well for its task. Of course this with droptank - but 109 almost always carried it.*


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

parsifal said:


> _Were the allied ground attack planes decisive or not? Were they good at their role ? Did they pay off the investment made in them? Were they more survivable than slow Stuka when faced with german AA?_
> 
> _There was no ''Western doctrine '' for ground support.There was however a battle to the death between RAF and USAAF vs their other services for money and influence.They won and they had their own private ''Strategic''TM war.Of course that meant no specialized aircraft for army support._
> 
> ...


 
Yep that's why Bomber Command wasted aircraft over Germany while Coastal Command begged for a few long range planes.


----------



## stona (Jun 24, 2011)

There is an advantage to centreline armament. There is no convergence set into the armament. Many P-38 pilots claimed to have had success taking shots at extreme ranges with their armament than would have been possible had the rounds converged and started to diverge again.
Other fans of centreline armament include many Luftwaffe aces ( I remember comments by Rall for example) and,from the wrong end of the weapons, Douglas Bader,to mention a few. Were the men who were there wrong?
Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Yep that's why Bomber Command wasted aircraft over Germany while Coastal Command begged for a few long range planes.



Can you explain to me how that relates to your 1st post? Apart from the obvious that the RAF was wedded to the strategic bombing offensive I guess. You did mention that, but from my perspective your point seemed to be that the allies had no effective ground support arm, and no doctrine. how does not giving aircraft to Coastal Command relate to those issues.

And just to clarify, Bomber Command did eventually give aircraft to CC, after about a three month delay in 1942. this was the VLF debate, it was eventually worked out, though i admit not without loss. But as an example of poor interservice/command co-operation it pales against the Luftwaffes treatment of OKM in its quest to establish a separate naval air arm, dont you think? Relations were so bad there that the navy abandoned construction of its carrier, in large part because they couldnt get aircraft for them on anything like sensible terms.

You will always find command rivalries, thats not a uniquiely allied issue. But that wasnt your main point either, it was more about ground support and doctrine in myopinion


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Can you explain to me how that relates to your 1st post? Apart from the obvious that the RAF was wedded to the strategic bombing offensive I guess. You did mention that, but from my perspective your point seemed to be that the allies had no effective ground support arm, and no doctrine. how does not giving aircraft to Coastal Command relate to those issues.
> 
> And just to clarify, Bomber Command did eventually give aircraft to CC, after about a three month delay in 1942. this was the VLF debate, it was eventually worked out, though i admit not without loss. But as an example of poor interservice/command co-operation it pales against the Luftwaffes treatment of OKM in its quest to establish a separate naval air arm, dont you think? Relations were so bad there that the navy abandoned construction of its carrier, in large part because they couldnt get aircraft for them on anything like sensible terms.
> 
> You will always find command rivalries, thats not a uniquiely allied issue. But that wasnt your main point either, it was more about ground support and doctrine in myopinion


 
You said _''The allied command structure was always one where there were disagreements, but decisions were always reached about courses of action.''_ .This _little_ disagreement needlessly cost them high losses in the most important theater (for Britain ) .As for ground attack both RAF and USAAF had to improvise during the war.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Yep that's why Bomber Command wasted aircraft over Germany while Coastal Command begged for a few long range planes.


 
The objection to providing long range planes to coastal command was that on average it took 7000 flying hours to destroy one submarine and also involved losses which were hard to justify. Without centimetric radar a submarine is a pin in a haystack.

*You said ''The allied command structure was always one where there were disagreements, but decisions were always reached about courses of action.'' .This little disagreement needlessly cost them high losses in the most important theater (for Britain ) .As for ground attack both RAF and USAAF had to improvise during the war. *

I dont think any command structure in history has never made a huge foul up, the allied command certainly made a few but not as many as the opposition in my opinion.


----------



## Readie (Jun 24, 2011)

Gnomey said:


> Right ladies, I've pretty much seen enough. So un-twist your knickers and put the handbags away before I bring my hammer to the party.
> 
> People have differing opinions and some are obviously going to be different to yours and some of course will be so absurd as to be unbelievable and the full range have been shown in this thread and varying points. So I don't feel the need to express mine.
> 
> Either you share the sandpit like nice young children or the sandpit is taking away, rather simple isn't it...


 
Every 'sand pit' has a few grains of truth in it Gnomey . Sometimes we have to dig and throw the sand about a bit to find them all 

I have left, for the moment, as I have got sand in my eyes 

Cheers
John


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> The objection to providing long range planes to coastal command was that on average it took 7000 flying hours to destroy one submarine and also involved losses which were hard to justify. Without centimetric radar a submarine is a pin in a haystack.
> 
> *You said ''The allied command structure was always one where there were disagreements, but decisions were always reached about courses of action.'' .This little disagreement needlessly cost them high losses in the most important theater (for Britain ) .As for ground attack both RAF and USAAF had to improvise during the war. *
> 
> I dont think any command structure in history has never made a huge foul up, the allied command certainly made a few but not as many as the opposition in my opinion.


 
It depends on the meaning of ''foul up'' had they been mildly competent the war would be over much sooner(hint read ''Brute Force'' by John Ellis).The different services run their own war and barely cooperated with each other.This was true for all combatants.In the case of the allied airforces they simply took the lion's share of resources and invested in Strategic bombing without getting their money's worth.Other services suffered because of that especially the ground troops.


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2011)

Hello Ctrian


ctrian said:


> How does that connect to your previous post? .



of course it was the answer to your comment “It's the most complete study and air attacks are mentioned as a nuisance not decisive.Artillery was decisive in that battle.”
We have no argument on that, especially because of the timing of the Ardennes Offensive, extensive period of bad weather on winter time, which in itself means less daytime. And attack area heavily wooded. All these factors lessen the effect of WWII airpower. 
As I wrote, even during mid-summer 44, when there is hardly any nighttime here up north, Finns thought that massive Soviet artillery fire (200 guns, biggest were 12” (305mm) coastal artillery guns, per attack kilometer at the beginning of the breakthrough attack, had more effect than those over 1300 Soviet a/c that supported the attack which at the beginning hit 10km sector of Finnish main defensive line. But as I have wrote, much depended on terrain.

Quote:” Were the allied ground attack planes decisive or not?”

Sometimes they were sometimes not, same goes to LW and VVS CAS, much depended on weather and terrain and also the quality of the defensive troops and nature of the defensive system. Much of the effect of the artillery fire or air support was psychological and that effect was smaller against good quality troops than against less motivated troops. But with enough fire superiority one was capable to break through with good probability. At Dompaire P-47s clearly were very effective, all sides agree on that; north of Vire, during Tiger counter-attack (102nd SS sPzAbt IIRC) against the armoured recon battalion (2nd Northamps Yeomanry IIRC) of UK 11th Armoured Div they were not, partly because of hesitation by the FOO, who first weaved between use of Typhoons on cab rank and use of field artillery on call.

Quote:”Were they more survivable than slow Stuka when faced with german AA?”

First of all being faster and after dropping its offensive load being capable to look after itself FB needed less escort resources than Ju 87 or Il-2 in a similar air situation, so at least on that sense it was more effective. Against AA, if we compare losses of Kampfverband Kuhlmey when it operated over Karelian Istmus 16 June – 5 Aug 44, its I./SG 3’s total losses were 17 Ju 87Ds, of which 4 in Soviet attack on its base Immola while it flew 1199 sorties and dropped appr. 540tons of bombs, 1./SG’s total losses were 8 Fw 190s, of which 2 in Soviet attack on its base Immola, while flying 507 sorties and dropping 232,7 tons of bombs. There was a clear difference in badly dam planes, 11 Ju 87s (3 in Immola) vs 1 Fw 190, which was damaged in Immola. At least almost all air losses were to Soviet AA (all FAF bomber losses over Karelian Isthmus during Summer 44 were to AA)

Quote:"Regarding range why do people think that all airforces wanted the same things from their aircraft ?"

Who thinks that all AFs had same requirements? At least I don’t. But you made a rather silly claim, that LW had no need for longer range fighter than 109F-K. Clearly they had, at least in the East for those strategic attacks on Soviet industry and for those convoy attacks in Med and against Arctic convoys. One can always argued relative merits of different requirements and what would have been optimum solution to them but surely Heer which was overwhelmed by massive artillery and tank attacks supported by swarms of Soviet a/c would not mind if LW strategic bombing against Soviet industry would have been more effective. Of course a longer range LW fighter would have meant fewer 109s and it was common thought that good long range air superiority fighter was impossible but for ex. Zero and P-51 showed that could be achieved.

Allied AFs cordoned Normandy battlefield fairly effectively, slowing the arrival of reinforcements and supply items and so had significant effect on the land war and as happened at Dompaire the Allied FB attacks could be very devastating even against Panthers when the tanks were caught in fairly open terrain. It might well be that Ju 87Gs, Hs 129Bs or Il-2s were not at least much more effective in reality, one must remember that pilots’ claims are only claims. Hs 129B was IMHO too specialicied, of course as twin engine plane the big gun could be centrally mounted but on the other hand the protection of its engines was not good enough to made it almost totally invulnerable against rifle calibre fire, IMHO if one went to armoured plane the Il-2 solution was better, it was almost totally invulnerable against rifle calibre fire, giving good moral boost to its pilots and having depressive impact on enemy infantry. Of course Hs 129B had its pros but IMHO it was not very cost-effective answer to CAS problem.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2011)

Hello Tante Ju


Tante Ju said:


> ****... However,* if rear tank in use 109K (+115 liter)*, it still has 256 liters in tank. Enough for 1,21 h /* 621 km (386 miles) *at 316mph/510 km/h, OR 2 h/ 807 km/501 miles at slower most economic cruise 410 km/h....





on the MW 50 tank in 109K, IMHO pilots would not be very enthusiast to fought when it was used as a fuel tank, it was pure light metal tank with no self sealing, so any hits on it might well produce a flaming end to the plane. 

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2011)

Hello Steve
on the other hand some LW aces had high regard on the wing mounted armament, clearly a matter of taste. For ex. Mölders prefer centrally mounted weapons but Galland thought that at least some wing mounted weapons gave a spread which allowed an average pilot to achieve at least some hits. In essence rifle vs shot gun argument.

Juha


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Ctrian
> of course it was the answer to your comment “It's the most complete study and air attacks are mentioned as a nuisance not decisive.Artillery was decisive in that battle.”
> We have no argument on that, especially because of the timing of the Ardennes Offensive, extensive period of bad weather on winter time, which in itself means less daytime. And attack area heavily wooded. All these factors lessen the effect of WWII airpower.
> As I wrote, even during mid-summer 44, when there is hardly any nighttime here up north, Finns thought that massive Soviet artillery fire (200 guns, biggest were 12” (305mm) coastal artillery guns, per attack kilometer at the beginning of the breakthrough attack, had more effect than those over 1300 Soviet a/c that supported the attack which at the beginning hit 10km sector of Finnish main defensive line. But as I have wrote, much depended on terrain.
> ...


 
I was pointing out that Allied fighter-bombers had very high losses in Italy and Normandy without being as precise as specialized aircraft even though they were ''fast'' and ''agile''.Difficult missions = losses, no need to denigrate a particular aircraft.
I've checked the Kursk losses of German fighter ,bomber and stuka units and they are low (although i don't have the sortie number i suspect it would be high so losses/sortie = very low).
Regarding my second point i think you misunderstood.A long range fighter was not needed by the LW because they had no strategic bomber force to protect.Building a new fighter with the range of P-51 would not make sence economically for the reasons you stated.Considering the use of drop tanks LW fighters were adequate.LW needed much more aircraft not specific long ranged fighters.


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2011)

Hello Ctrian
Quote:"Yep that's why Bomber Command wasted aircraft over Germany while Coastal Command begged for a few long range planes."

And how that differs from KM's demands even a few more long range planes, in fact German naval aviation was even less well equipped than CC most of the war. At the beginning CC was in bad situation because of Beaufort programwas running late because of development problems and both Botha and Lerwick were total failures.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2011)

Hello Ctrian
as the experience of the Kampfverband Kuhlmey shows, against identical AA defence the loss rates of Ju 87Ds and ground attack 190s was more or less same. In fact that results favours Ju 87D because of pilots of 1./SG 5, arriving from Arctic region, were unused of the fairly powerful AA protection of a Soviet main offensive had to learn from bitter experience that repeated low-level attacks on same target were suicidal, their losses per sortie were lower than those of Ju-87s after they had adjusted their tactics to the environment. 

Juha


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Ctrian
> Quote:"Yep that's why Bomber Command wasted aircraft over Germany while Coastal Command begged for a few long range planes."
> 
> And how that differs from KM's demands even a few more long range planes, in fact German naval aviation was even less well equipped than CC most of the war. At the beginning CC was in bad situation because of Beaufort programwas running late because of development problems and both Botha and Lerwick were total failures.
> ...


 
There is a vast difference in scale ,BC got huge funding and manpower during the war and they could easily spare bombers.The LW on the other hand as you very well know had only the FW200 a civilian plane in very short numbers(yes the He177 and Ju290 came later but also in small numbers).It was beyond the terribly overstretched LW to create a large efficient force for the Atlantic battle.

Regarding your second post : ok but what about results? Benefit/Cost...


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2011)

Hello Ctrian
if the range of 109 was enough then from some mystery reason LW wasted its specialist torpedo force in unescorted missions and chose to prefer clearly less accurate night attacks over daytime raids when it at last saw the need stratecig attacks on the Soviet waepon industry. FAF experience was that fairly small escort force was enought in the East. I have difficulties to understand that LW could not spare a couple staffeln to escort He 111s to Gorky for ex if the 109 had the range to do that. 

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2011)

Hello Ctrian
on lack of Fw 200Cs, of course in place of some fewer Hs 129Bs one could have produceda few more 200Cs, all AFs had to make choises like that, even USAAF.

Results of different attack components of the Kampfverband Kuhlmey, IMHO more or less same, bomb loads per sortie more or less same, both were fairly accurate, lack of Soviet info made a exact comprasion impossible, but according to pilots' claims, Finnish observations and recon pictures that was the conclusion. And of course the results of strafing were extra for Fw 190s.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2011)

Oh yeah, the poor Luftwaffe couldn't afford planes or crews to support the U-boats. Pardon me but that is barnyard excrement. Nobody is talking about "a large efficient force for the Atlantic battle" but just a few dozen more aircraft at any given time for more Reconnaissance. Like 2 flights a day instead of 2-3 flights per week. A few squadrons of those long range 109s would have been a good idea for shooting down those Wellingtons and Whitleys operating over the bay of Biscay too.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

On the issue of vulnerability of allied and axis ground attack aircraft. I can only repeat that report I mentioned from the US army in latye '44.....from memory it was 500-1500 rounds of aa ammo per kill for an axis aircraft, compared to 3500-5000 rounds per allied FB. That means that an allied FB was 2-10 times more likley to survive an encounter with an Axis AA gun than an Axis aircraft was to survive an allied AA gun


----------



## ctrian (Jun 24, 2011)

Hmm commenting here is beginning to be a second job .I asked about performance because the Stuka among other things had proved it’s pinpoint performance by sinking RN and Soviet ships on the other hand i don't know about similar exploits for the FW .Just coming fast and ''spraying'' may not be very accurate.Gorky was bombed a few times? That was a strategic offensive ? I have Berngstrom's book and i remember that the losses were very low.
You said : all AFs had to make choises like that ,ehm no they didn’t Western allies clearly built anything they wanted.They had the economic capability plus they didn’t have to fight a ‘’real’’ war like Germany was fighting in the East.
@Shortoround :Yep exactly as you said the LW was stretched like the guy from Fantastic 4 no reserves whatsoever,you can’t waste resources in that kind of situation.By the way they used Ju-88’s as heavy fighters in Bay of Biscay.

@parsifal : how many losses per sorties during ops?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 24, 2011)

errr dont have that information, well at least not in an easily presented form. however I do have a tabulated summary of that report I mentioned. You can find this report at the Hyperwar site.. RPB means Rounds per bird

With regard to German AA rounds per kil, I rely primarily on Professor Edward Westermann Flak - German AA Defences  according to this book, the Germans were expending an average of 2805 RPB (HAA) and 5354 RPB (LAA) over battlefield targets. the total numbers of kills of allied aircraft exceeds that achieved by the allies, but the efficiency was less. It should not be hard to see that the higher gross totals achieved by the germanbs was because of the greater numbers of allied aircraft, not because of superior German AA efficiency

Anyway here is the table.


----------



## stona (Jun 24, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Steve
> on the other hand some LW aces had high regard on the wing mounted armament, clearly a matter of taste.
> Juha



True,yet some had outer wing armament removed.That's another topic though! The lack of convergence gave a distinct advantage to those P-38 pilots due to the long effective range of their weapons. I concede that this is not so useful for a smaller rifle calibre weapon with an effective range around 300m.
Galland would have been better training his pilots better. An inability to estimate range let alone angle off and speed (enabling a correct estimate of deflection) plagued all air forces. A British analysis of combat films in 1943 showed that on average only half the correct allowance was made with inevitable consequences for the estimated deflection. An inability to correctly estimate range meant that some pilots were opening fire at 1500 yards! No wonder most pilots never hit anything. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2011)

Hello Crtion
now during the Crete offensive LW fighter bombers (109Es) sunk at least one already dam RN CL and damaged rather significantly BB Warspite, knocked out part of 6” secondary battery on one side and blow away one of her twin 4” AA mount. When one takes into consideration the small number of 109E FBs available, that was a good result. Somebody might be able to tell what F6Fs and F4Us achieved in Pacific.

Gorky was just a one target, KG 55 bombed also several times Saratov (refineries and bearing factory) for ex. Also at least KG 4 also participated to that strategic night offensive against Soviet war industry.

And even USA had to made choices, for ex Navy gave up its demands for the new Boeing flying boat in order to release capacity to the B-29 production. The USAAF’s part of the deal was to release some Liberator production to Navy use. In fact you contradict yourself in that claim, just because Allied did not have unlimited production capacity CC suffered for lack of LR a/c and for ex it was not possible to land all troops in one go at Arheim in Sept 44, there was not enough transport planes for that

Juha

Addum: The CL hit off Crete by 109E FBs was HMS Fiji (8500tons, 12x6” main armament). Now it was undamaged but out of/very low with AA ammo after beating off numerous Stuka attacks when attacked and crippled by a lone/ a pair of 109E(s), it was later finished off by 109Es, a Ju 88 or a or a few Ju 87(s). Every source seem to give different details of Fiji’s demise apart of the fact that the attack which crippled her was made by (a) 109E(s).


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2011)

Hello Steve
deflection shooting was difficult to vast majority of pilots, that ws Galland point, spread helped to achieve at least some hits. Also some other aces regarded the RAF style armament effective while many others preferred the concentration type armament. And with K14/GM2 sights USAAF and RAF pilots were able to get hits from long distance and from difficult deflection angles late in the war, so wing mounted armament did not make long distance shots impossible, but I agree that for a good shot concentrated armament was preferable.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2011)

On V./KG 40 Ju 88 fighters, they were effective against CC LR patrol planes but when CC got Mosquitos Ju 88s were in trouble.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2011)

Juha please try and use the "Reply with Quote" and edit posts when talking with several different members. It keeps the posts combined.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 24, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I have been scratching my head ever since someone posted that centerline armament was the wave of the future. Of course it was as we no longer have engines and propeller in the front of fighters! I actually think in a single-engine WW2 fighter an all wing armament is an advantage in that allows much easier simultaneous servicing of guns and engine, and depending on pilot preferred method of attack more versatility in sighting options.


 


stona said:


> There is an advantage to centreline armament. There is no convergence set into the armament. Many P-38 pilots claimed to have had success taking shots at extreme ranges with their armament than would have been possible had the rounds converged and started to diverge again.
> Other fans of centreline armament include many Luftwaffe aces ( I remember comments by Rall for example) and,from the wrong end of the weapons, Douglas Bader,to mention a few. Were the men who were there wrong?
> Steve


 


Juha said:


> Hello Steve
> on the other hand some LW aces had high regard on the wing mounted armament, clearly a matter of taste. For ex. Mölders prefer centrally mounted weapons but Galland thought that at least some wing mounted weapons gave a spread which allowed an average pilot to achieve at least some hits. In essence rifle vs shot gun argument.
> 
> Juha


 


stona said:


> True,yet some had outer wing armament removed.That's another topic though! The lack of convergence gave a distinct advantage to those P-38 pilots due to the long effective range of their weapons. I concede that this is not so useful for a smaller rifle calibre weapon with an effective range around 300m.
> Galland would have been better training his pilots better. An inability to estimate range let alone angle off and speed (enabling a correct estimate of deflection) plagued all air forces. A British analysis of combat films in 1943 showed that on average only half the correct allowance was made with inevitable consequences for the estimated deflection. An inability to correctly estimate range meant that some pilots were opening fire at 1500 yards! No wonder most pilots never hit anything.
> Cheers
> Steve



Well I guess I should have also mentioned that the advantage in "single-engined" fighters of a wing only armament was in my opinion not a "huge" advantage just an advantage. I deliberately specified single-engine because the servicing advantage does not apply to fighters such as the P-38. I agree with center line armament having greater pinpoint accuracy at range, but opportunities for long range engagement were rare. A telling point is the Luftwaffe's greatest aces flying an aircraft with usually only center line armament most frequently practiced the "stick your nose in the enemies cockpit" style of attack.

With regard to Galland doing a better job training his pilots; the inherent skills and psychological qualities of the individuals you are training are the limiting factor of training. Studies show that in combat only a small percentage of individuals are cool and deliberate killers. Some individuals will not fire when under or engaged in attack, some will fire but in a random manner, and a small percentage will fire with deliberation and do most of the killing. The more you can depersonalize the act of killing the greater number of individuals who will engage in it. Granted air to air combat is frequently attested to as being impersonal, but still the inherent skills and psychological qualities of the pilots is a factor. Improved fire control equipment making killing more mechanical also is a big factor. Perhaps for the experten like Molders, Galland, and Hartmann, and some amazingly talent Allied Aces a centerline armament offers more advantage than disadvantage. That being said, Richard Bong by his own admission was a terrible shot and was of course using a P-38. While the P-38s guns could be adjusted to create some dispersion, perhaps the inherent dispersion qualities of wing mounted armament aided the many pilots that "flinched" or were just poor shots. Better a few lucky disabling hits than a complete miss of a devastating blow.

Steve

P.S. Apologies for the thread drift if needed.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 24, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Steve
> deflection shooting was difficult to vast majority of pilots, that ws Galland point, spread helped to achieve at least some hits. Also some other aces regarded the RAF style armament effective while many others preferred the concentration type armament. And with K14/GM2 sights USAAF and RAF pilots were able to get hits from long distance and from difficult deflection angles late in the war, so wing mounted armament did not make long distance shots impossible, but I agree that for a good shot concentrated armament was preferable.
> 
> Juha



I am guessing that most frequently with these "long range" shots even with centerline armament natural dispersion from range would result in only a few hits that fortunately hit small critical structures or in the case of the Pacific the lightly constructed and poorly armored japanese aircraft.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 24, 2011)

ctrian said:


> The P-51 was a light aircraft ?


 
Let me see if I can follow this logic. You said,


ctrian said:


> Why would the Bf range be an issue in Europe provided that the LW had bases everywhere and the advanced technology of drop tanks was known? The only other option is to build a fighter with lots of weight to store the extra fuel .That's not a good choice for the LW or any airforce not invested in ''Strategic''TM bombing.


Then I said,


> You mean a heavy plane like the Ta-152H with 263 gallons of internal fuel? What were they thinking?


And then you said?


> The P-51 was a light aircraft ?


I’m still trying to figure out where the P-51 came in this line of discussion.

As a point of interest, the P-51 was indeed lighter than the Ta-152 by 1500 lbs. As a matter of fact, the Ta was closer to the weight of a P-47D than it was to the Bf-109K or even the P-51D.



> I don't see a point.The Bf had more than enough performance for all the missions given to it.If you want more range you have to sacrifice something .Not everyone was in love with ''Strategic''TM bombing.






> A long range fighter was not needed by the LW because they had no strategic bomber force to protect.Building a new fighter with the range of P-51 would not make sence economically for the reasons you stated.Considering the use of drop tanks LW fighters were adequate.LW needed much more aircraft not specific long ranged fighters.



Since the Luftwaffe was investing in the Fw-190D-9 (heavier than the P-51D) and the Ta-152, already pointed out, it seems they did not agree with your assessment in late1944-45. I guess you think they were not very bright. Or maybe they knew something you don’t.

My opinion is that they realized too late that they needed an aircraft with staying power in fuel and ammo to be most effective against hordes of bombers. The Ta could hover at high altitude above fighter escorts and swoop down rapidly and dispatch a bomber or bombers, and then climb up and repeat. The D-9 could protect the airfields longer. Also, I am sure that they realized that longer endurance reduced the landing and taking off frequency, thus lowering exposure to one of the most dangerous segments of flight, especially during the latter months of the war.

High endurance is a good thing. A couple of the most useless things to a pilot are runway behind you and fuel left on the ground.


----------



## stona (Jun 24, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I am guessing that most frequently with these "long range" shots even with centerline armament natural dispersion from range would result in only a few hits that fortunately hit small critical structures or in the case of the Pacific the lightly constructed and poorly armored japanese aircraft.



I'd certainly agree with that,the examples I'm thinking of were operating in the Pacific. One lucky hit could bring down any aircraft,there are a couple of examples of this evidenced by crashed enemy aircraft reports (on Bf109s) from 1940. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 24, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My honest belief is to decide which is better (Spit/Bf 109) is not an easy task. It is not black and white. I believe these things:
> 
> 1. Both aircraft traded "superiority" over each other throughout the war.
> 2. There are just to many factors involved to just go off of "paper stats" (granted most of us have nothing to off of more than that).
> ...


 
My thoughts exactly. Regarding the evolution of piston fighters in general, p-51 and Ta152H would push the limits, but the appearance of jet fighters -and the initial air combats of the Korean war- showed the way to the future..


----------



## ctrian (Jun 25, 2011)

davparlr said:


> Let me see if I can follow this logic. You said,
> 
> Then I said,
> 
> ...




 Why did you cut out the last part of my answer? Never taught you apples and oranges at school? You're comparing a 1945 fighter with one designed in the 30's.Obviously it had superior performance armament and range how could it be otherwise(it was also heavier and had a much more powerful engine).
The P-51 was the premier allied long range fighter but it was also bigger and heavier than the Bf you see nothing in life is free ( provided technology is comparable)
The Bf also increased it's range in later versions plus it could use drop tanks.

I don't understand the rest of your argument late'44-45 fighters had superior performance compared to older ones and that proves that the Germans wanted a long range fighter comparable to allied ones? Then why did they invest so much on jet fighters whose main advantage was speed? 

High endurance is indeed a good thing but ceteris paribus it comes at a cost to other variables ,the Germans and the Brits ( when searching for a long range escort) understood it you don't .
Try to make a more coherent argument next time.


----------



## Kryten (Jun 25, 2011)

both the Spit and Me109 were designed as interceptors rather than escorts or long range fighters?
and both suffered from range issues as a result, to say the me109 had adequate range is contradicted by the complaints of the german pilots over thier inability to loiter over the UK during the BOB, a number of 109's were also lost through running out of fuel over the channel!
and the spitfire had no ability to escort bombers very far into france or undertake longer range fighter sweeps!

both of these aircrtaft were limited by thier range, and to argue that they needed no more is pure folly, you can always short fill a plane with good fuel range, you cannot overfill a plane without it!

and it's the ability of the P51 to do all the same jobs the others could do and fly much further that made it , in my opinion at least, the most accomplished fighter of the war!


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 25, 2011)

1 Spitfire v Bf 109
I think both planes were fairly evenly matched and both should perhaps have been replaced sooner. The question is what with. From the British side the Typhoon should have taken over and for a while it did against Jabos. It took the tempests arrival to substantially improve on the Spitfire and then not in all departments. Replacing the Bf109 with something substantally better would have involved a loss of production which Germany could not accept. 

2 Central gun mounting obviously has some advantages which have been stated by others. I see some disadvantages also. The armament must be part of the original design, changing it must change the design and weight distribution. The synchronization gear must add some weight and is something else to "go wrong". Putting guns and ammunition around the engine must increase the frontal area. Having all guns on one axis may be preferable against some targets but not all. When straffing a column maybe a spread of fire is better.

3 The Mustang P51 benefitted from 2 major advances. The first was the aerodynamics of the wings and cooling system both inlet and outlet but overall the plane was cleaner. NAA paid huge attention to joints fastenings fitting tolerances etc. The second was in the engine. In 1940 the next generation of engines were being developed to produce 2000 BHP I dont think anyone in 1940 thought the Merlin would ever come close to that but it did with the added advantage of a low frontal area.

4 The Mustang wasnt an offensive fighter capable of taking the fight to Berlin. The offense came from the bombers it protected. It couldnt bomb Berlin from the UK, only a fool would suggest staffing the rooftops with 4 or 6 MGs was a good use of a plane and pilot. With extra internal tanks and drop tanks it had a prodigeous range but it had to ensure the rear tank was almost empty before combat and drop the tanks before engaging. The range therefore depends on the opposition as much as the plane itself. If the LW had the planes to fight the bomber formation from when it was first detected to when it left German airspace the results would have been much different. Thankfully they didnt, by the time the the P51D arrived in numbers Germany was also having to fight in Normandy and the east, and had already suffered heavy losses against P47s P38s. Some say that the P51D stole the glory of other marques that did the hard yards which is a bit unfair but they have a point. The chief advantage of the P51D is it looks so damned good even today and it performed as good as it looks. Would it be the same icon if it looked like a Blackburn Skua?

In hindsight which is what all of us use it is obvious what qualities of the P51 were especially with a Merlin engine but it wasnt obvious in 1941 when it first flew, the P41 didnt have a real impact until 1944 it could/should have been appearing in huge numbers from 1942.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 25, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Ctrian
> if the range of 109 was enough then from some mystery reason LW wasted its specialist torpedo force in unescorted missions and chose to prefer clearly less accurate night attacks over daytime raids when it at last saw the need stratecig attacks on the Soviet waepon industry. FAF experience was that fairly small escort force was enought in the East. I have difficulties to understand that LW could not spare a couple staffeln to escort He 111s to Gorky for ex if the 109 had the range to do that.
> 
> Juha



You have been already told the reason. Why you ignore like you do not know?

You repeat that story of " specialist torpedo force". Please give mission particulars. Base of bombers, their target, distance to target. Nearest LW fighter base. We see then if true - reason was lack range.
But I am starting not believe you. You told reason, you ignore reason, say same. I do not like arguing like this. No respect to other - why you ask question, if you do not care of answer..? It took me time find you the reason.


----------



## DonL (Jun 25, 2011)

> 1 Spitfire v Bf 109
> I think both planes were fairly evenly matched and both should perhaps have been replaced sooner. The question is what with. From the British side the Typhoon should have taken over and for a while it did against Jabos. It took the tempests arrival to substantially improve on the Spitfire and then not in all departments. Replacing the Bf109 with something substantally better would have involved a loss of production which Germany could not accept.



The absence of range was one major flaw of the BF 109 at the defending of the Reich. With the Bf 109 you can't concentrate a huge mass of fighter to built a focal point to achieve air supermarcy at the time you attack. That was a major flaw of the Bf 109 besides other.
I disagree that the loss of production is the major factor, the real reason was the slumber of the engine development from 1937 to 1941.
1943 was the realy first production year of the Jumo 213 and DB 603. And at this year you see the first prototypes of the FW 190D and Tank 152. That was much too late because there was no proper engine befor this timeline.

Perhaps a FW 187 could achieve other performances with a DB 605, but I don't want to rise this issue again, it is only an advice.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 25, 2011)

DonL said:


> The absence of range was one major flaw of the BF 109 at the defending of the Reich. With the Bf 109 you can't concentrate a huge mass of fighter to built a focal point to achieve air supermarcy at the time you attack. That was a major flaw of the Bf 109 besides other.
> I disagree that the loss of production is the major factor, the real reason was the slumber of the engine development from 1937 to 1941.
> 1943 was the realy first production year of the Jumo 213 and DB 603. And at this year you see the first prototypes of the FW 190D and Tank 152. That was much too late because there was no proper engine befor this timeline.
> 
> Perhaps a FW 187 could achieve other performances with a DB 605, but I don't want to rise this issue again, it is only an advice.



Thanks Donl, there were of course many sides to the issue. Many have posted that the Bf 109 was an interceptor, I thought it was designed as an air superiority fighter to be used supporting Ju 87 and He111 planes on tactical missions ahead of advancing troops. I may be wrong though.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> 1 Spitfire v Bf 109
> I think both planes were fairly evenly matched and both should perhaps have been replaced sooner. The question is what with. From the British side the Typhoon should have taken over and for a while it did against Jabos. It took the tempests arrival to substantially improve on the Spitfire and then not in all departments. Replacing the Bf109 with something substantally better would have involved a loss of production which Germany could not accept.



First, let me a say a good post. The I will add few comments.

As you say the early planes were fairly evenly matched. There were a few differences that impacted later development (or potential development) that might not have been planned. Both planes were designed to use what , in a few years, would be considered rather small airfields. The Spitfire used a big wing the 109 used a high lift device on a small wing. The Spitfire was designed to use 8 rifle caliber machine guns which could only be mounted in the wing which also helped govern it's size. The 109 was designed to mount either two rifle caliber machine guns (RCMG) OR a cannon through the propeller or _perhaps_ both. The Spitfire was a bit larger from the start, a bit of a penalty if both planes had equal power. Which they almost never did have. who's engine had more power and at what altitude swapped back and forth a number of times. I will get back to this.


Mustang nut said:


> 2 Central gun mounting obviously has some advantages which have been stated by others. I see some disadvantages also. The armament must be part of the original design, changing it must change the design and weight distribution. The synchronization gear must add some weight and is something else to "go wrong". Putting guns and ammunition around the engine must increase the frontal area. Having all guns on one axis may be preferable against some targets but not all. When straffing a column maybe a spread of fire is better.



Most designs stuck with 2 or 3 guns in the fuselage for very good reasons. Guns were almost never put "around" an engine but but behind it with blast tubes extending from the muzzles of the guns to the exit point of a particular aircraft design. For all the hoopla about the frontal area of a V-12 the defining dimension of the height of a fighter fuselage was the pilot. This meant you could get two guns, either over an engine or under it(never really happened) without much trouble and a 3rd through the propshaft with a lot of trouble. Any more guns than that and frontal area would go up and ammo storage was going to be a problem. 2000-2400 rounds of rifle caliber ammo takes up a fair amount of space. The Germans did manage 2000rounds for the 109Es without and engine cannon but may have been a tad excessive for two guns. Ammo has to be at least close to the center of gravity or large trim changes come into play as ammo is used up. 
This means that the armament options start to become self-defining. You can't put 6-8 RCMGs in the fuselage, or 4-6 HMGs. But if you want a heavy weight of fire you need at least one big gun (cannon) and preferably two HMGs for the central mount battery. This also means you need both engines and guns suitable for such use available at the same time. Considering it can take 4-6 years to bring either a new engine or a new gun from drawing board to service use it should be obvious that many times the desired combination did not always happen at at given point in time. As heavier batteries of guns became desirable and suitable guns were not available within the 3 gun 'limit' some countries tried 5 guns ( 3 fuselage and one in/under each wing), Russia and Italy in addition to Germany. With greater or lesser success. once 50% of the batter is out in the wings ( counting a cannon as twice a HMG) is the 5 gun fighter really that much more effective than a 4 cannon fighter with 2 in each wing? 


Mustang nut said:


> 3 The Mustang P51 benefitted from 2 major advances. The first was the aerodynamics of the wings and cooling system both inlet and outlet but overall the plane was cleaner. NAA paid huge attention to joints fastenings fitting tolerances etc. The second was in the engine. In 1940 the next generation of engines were being developed to produce 2000 BHP I dont think anyone in 1940 thought the Merlin would ever come close to that but it did with the added advantage of a low frontal area.



Agree


Mustang nut said:


> 4 The Mustang wasnt an offensive fighter capable of taking the fight to Berlin. The offense came from the bombers it protected. It couldnt bomb Berlin from the UK, only a fool would suggest staffing the rooftops with 4 or 6 MGs was a good use of a plane and pilot. With extra internal tanks and drop tanks it had a prodigeous range but it had to ensure the rear tank was almost empty before combat and drop the tanks before engaging. The range therefore depends on the opposition as much as the plane itself. If the LW had the planes to fight the bomber formation from when it was first detected to when it left German airspace the results would have been much different. Thankfully they didnt, by the time the the P51D arrived in numbers Germany was also having to fight in Normandy and the east, and had already suffered heavy losses against P47s P38s. Some say that the P51D stole the glory of other marques that did the hard yards which is a bit unfair but they have a point. The chief advantage of the P51D is it looks so damned good even today and it performed as good as it looks. Would it be the same icon if it looked like a Blackburn Skua?



Some good points there, except for the Skua 


Mustang nut said:


> In hindsight which is what all of us use it is obvious what qualities of the P51 were especially with a Merlin engine but it wasnt obvious in 1941 when it first flew, the P41 didnt have a real impact until 1944 it could/should have been appearing in huge numbers from 1942.



Not really, large scale production of the two stage Merlin simply didn't start until 1943, in either the US or England.


----------



## DonL (Jun 25, 2011)

@ Mustang nut

You are totally right that the Bf 109 was designed as as an air superiority fighter.

The flaw of range comes direct from the design philosophy of Willy Messerschmidt, because he believes in small and "fragile" fighters like the Spit and the Bf 109.
As he saw a P 47 for the first time, he was saying this plane is crap and looks like a "fliegendes Scheunentor"/ "flying barn door" and can't be a good fighter.

Sometimes reality can be very hard.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 25, 2011)

DonL said:


> @ Mustang nut
> 
> You are totally right that the Bf 109 was designed as as an air superiority fighter.
> 
> ...


 
I disagree. Sorry. Range is coming from order from Air Ministry. Ministry specify what data should new fighter fullfill. If only short or medium range is presribed, fighter will designed for short or medium range. If long range presribed, fighter will designed with long range. Simple.

P-47 bad example. Very bad. P-47 - same role as Spitfire, 109. Interceptor. Range no better than 1939 Spitfire or 109. Later improved, but only by putting extreme amounts of fuel. Still not very long range for task.. Very stupid plane IMHO. But it is not fault of designer... designer was told to design such plane.. it is fault of planner. Why would US need interceptor - like if there were serious bomber threat to US...? In 1939..? No bomber had range.. until post war.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2011)

Well, what you can accomplish with a 650-700hp engine and what you can accomplish with a 2000hp engine are rather different things. While the 109 may have been intended for the DB 600 series from the start, Willy had to win the contract using the Jumo 210 and provide usable fighters for the time (mid 30s) for several years using the Jumo 210. If he HAD designed a larger plane to take better advantage of an improved DB 600 series engine (that won't show up for 4-6 years) he very well could have lost the initial production contract to Heinkel and been out of business regardless of his personnel philosophy of fighter design. 

With the 700-1000hp engines available (or promised near term) in 1935-37 nobody was designing large single engine fighters and all "long range fighters" were twins.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> First, let me a say a good post. The I will add few comments.
> 
> The Spitfire was designed to use 8 rifle caliber machine guns which could only be mounted in the wing which also helped govern it's size.
> 
> Not really, large scale production of the two stage Merlin simply didn't start until 1943, in either the US or England.



Thanks shortround

The spitfire was originally designed for 4 MGs, they managed to shoehorn and extra 4 in but the thickness of the wing created a problem for cannons. Two cannons could be fitted in each wing but the 2 outer cannons couldnt be heated and so were useless for work at altitude.

I agree the two stage Merlin didnt appear until 1943 but with an Allison or earlier Merlin it would have made an impact in N Africa/ the Med across the channel and many other areas compared to a P40, P39 spitfire and others purely for its range/speed not necessarily for escort work.

@ Donl, Shortround made a good point concerning the BHP of engines when the Bf109 was designed. The Bf 109 first flew with a Kestrel engine I believe. For a designer putting the internal load of a Mustang in a 700BHP Bf109 would be folly 100 gallons weighs about 1/2 a ton


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2011)

I think the Mustang showed up about as fast as could be expected. Perhaps a bit more could have been done with an earlier version but considering how long it takes to tool up factories and get planes from the factories and into action I don't hink much more could have been done.

As I pointed out in another thread ALL the Tomahawks that the British used were ordered before lend-lease was started. The First Kittihawks were ordered in April of 1941 but the first to see combat weren't until Jan 1942. And this was from a factory that was already turning out hundreds of aircraft of that basic air frame per month. NA did a fantastic job but getting more air-frames earlier would need both a second source factory coming on line earlier and a re-allocation of engines.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I think the Mustang showed up about as fast as could be expected. Perhaps a bit more could have been done with an earlier version but considering how long it takes to tool up factories and get planes from the factories and into action I don't hink much more could have been done.
> 
> As I pointed out in another thread ALL the Tomahawks that the British used were ordered before lend-lease was started. The First Kittihawks were ordered in April of 1941 but the first to see combat weren't until Jan 1942. And this was from a factory that was already turning out hundreds of aircraft of that basic air frame per month. NA did a fantastic job but getting more air-frames earlier would need both a second source factory coming on line earlier and a re-allocation of engines.



Shortround from the document below
THE P-51 MUSTANG AS AN ESCORT FIGHTER
DEVELOPMENT BEYOND DROP TANKS TO AN
INDEPENDENT AIR FORCE

by

Karen Daneu
Lt Col, USAF

quote
The airframe was ready in just 100 days, but installation of the Allison V-1710-39
engine with 1,150 hp was delayed because all available Allison engines were slated for P-40 production. The aircraft took to the air the first time on 26 October 1941 and the first plane was delivered to the British in November 1941, one month before the attack on Pearl Harbor.
and later

Although it exhibited better performance, had greater range, cost less than other
fighters, and accumulated more air and ground kills than others, the P-51 was almost
overlooked by the U.S. military. General H.H. Arnold frankly admitted this mistake in
his memoirs: “It may be said that we could have had the long range P-51 in Europe rather sooner than we did. That we did not have it sooner was the Air Force’s own fault.”


----------



## davparlr (Jun 25, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> 4 The Mustang wasnt an offensive fighter capable of taking the fight to Berlin. The offense came from the bombers it protected. It couldnt bomb Berlin from the UK, only a fool would suggest staffing the rooftops with 4 or 6 MGs was a good use of a plane and pilot. With extra internal tanks and drop tanks it had a prodigeous range but it had to ensure the rear tank was almost empty before combat and drop the tanks before engaging. The range therefore depends on the opposition as much as the plane itself. If the LW had the planes to fight the bomber formation from when it was first detected to when it left German airspace the results would have been much different. Thankfully they didnt, by the time the the P51D arrived in numbers Germany was also having to fight in Normandy and the east, and had already suffered heavy losses against P47s P38s. Some say that the P51D stole the glory of other marques that did the hard yards which is a bit unfair but they have a point. The chief advantage of the P51D is it looks so damned good even today and it performed as good as it looks. Would it be the same icon if it looked like a Blackburn Skua?


 
Really good post. I do have a bit of a disagreement with item 4. I think one of the strong points of the P-51 was in deep interdiction efforts, especially against airfields. Four and six 50s are powerful weapons against lightly/non armored targets like planes, trains, barges, etc, and their presence had to be very disruptive both physically and morale wise.

Also, what you say about early intercept is certainly true, however the allies had an answer, P-47s. Had it been necessary, they could actually have provided "escort' for the P-51s, staving off fighter intercept of the P-51s/bombers till they crossed into Germany.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> I disagree. Sorry. Range is coming from order from Air Ministry. Ministry specify what data should new fighter fullfill. If only short or medium range is presribed, fighter will designed for short or medium range. If long range presribed, fighter will designed with long range. Simple.



Quite right. Designers seldom told air staffs what to order. they could present an idea and see if the air staff went for it but that was about it. Air staff wasn't going to pay for anything they didn't OK. 


Tante Ju said:


> P-47 bad example. Very bad. P-47 - same role as Spitfire, 109. Interceptor. Range no better than 1939 Spitfire or 109. Later improved, but only by putting extreme amounts of fuel. Still not very long range for task.. Very stupid plane IMHO. But it is not fault of designer... designer was told to design such plane.. it is fault of planner. Why would US need interceptor - like if there were serious bomber threat to US...? In 1939..? No bomber had range.. until post war.



That is easy to see in hindsight. It was not so easy to see at the time. the American spy or intelligence system may have been a little lacking. 
But the US planner//s knew what they were planning. The B-29. They knew what they had built already, the B-15 and B-19 bomber prototypes. They had an idea of what was technically possible even if it turned out not to possible in large scale production. 
Not to build the P-47 was to gamble that the Germans and Japanese could not/would not build long range/ high altitude bombers just like the US was planning to build. The bombers needed more time to bring to operational status than the the single engine fighter but for a number of unforeseen reasons. Granted any large complex aircraft is going to have more problems than a small one but the B-29 seemed to have more than it's share. 
Betting the Germans COULD NOT come up with something would have been seen as irresponsible if they had. 
The British were able to bomb Genoa Italy from England using Whitleys, not the most advanced bomber in the world, in June of 1940. Most Military planners were also vastly over estimating the effectiveness of the size of bomb loads at the time. A bomber that carried 2000-4000lbs of bombs was seen as a very effective threat rather than a large nuisance. 
The P-47 may not have been designed to defend the Continental US. In it's radial engine form it was designed with lessons from the BoB (not 1939). With combat taking place in 1940 at 25,000-30,000ft, at what altitude was combat going to take place in 1942-43 regardless of what airfield/country the plane is flying out of? 

Again it turns out that combat didn't much higher than 25,000-30,000ft but who knew that in 1941-42? Certainly not the Germans who spent time and money on Pressure cabins, NO2 systems, Turbo charged diesel Reconnaissance/bomber planes, and planes with fuselage mounted engines to supercharge the wing mounted engines. 

With eight .303s proving less than desired in the BoB what should they have specified in armament? for fighter to go into service more than two years in the future? 
A single 20mm and two .30cal MGs?? 

They knew they had 2000hp engines, they knew the British had 2000hp engines (3 of them in the works) How were they to know that the Germans would drop the ball and NOT develop a working 2000hp engine by 1942/43?


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 25, 2011)

davparlr said:


> Really good post. I do have a bit of a disagreement with item 4. I think one of the strong points of the P-51 was in deep interdiction efforts, especially against airfields. Four and six 50s are powerful weapons against lightly/non armored targets like planes, trains, barges, etc, and their presence had to be very disruptive both physically and morale wise.
> 
> Also, what you say about early intercept is certainly true, however the allies had an answer, P-47s. Had it been necessary, they could actually have provided "escort' for the P-51s, staving off fighter intercept of the P-51s/bombers till they crossed into Germany.


 
I agree Davparlr but there is a limit to how far you can go on an interdiction mission. Escorting a bomber formation means the Germans have to go for the bombers at altitude. Attacking a train or airfield you must go down to ground level, cruising around the suburbs of Berlin looking for trains is a great way to be bounced. P 51 s did attack airfields on escort missions later in the conflict and suffered losses as any watercooled plane did. The type of mission you describe is precisely what the British wanted the Mustang for except we wanted 4 cannons.

In fact you describe what happened in reality a P51 couldnt actually escort a formation from UK to Berlin and back, the bomber formation was "ferried" by more than one escort formation with rendezvous points arranged beforehand.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Shortround from the document below
> THE P-51 MUSTANG AS AN ESCORT FIGHTER
> DEVELOPMENT BEYOND DROP TANKS TO AN
> INDEPENDENT AIR FORCE
> ...



A few minor mistakes/typos. It was 117 days not 100. First flight was Oct 26, 1940. RAF does not fly the Mustang in England until November 1941. Production of Mustang I peaks in Jan 1942. Mustang flies first combat mission in May 10th 1942, but back on April 16 the order for 500 A-36 dive bomber versions was placed. July 25th 1942 contract is placed with NA to install two stage Merlins in two air frames. Now the USAAF may have been a bit late in recognizing the Mustang but speeding up production by more than a few months doesn't seem likely. 
The Dallas factory that produced the P-51C turned out it's first airplane (an AT-6) in Dec 1940. After the Mustang Prototype first flew and turned hundreds more AT-6s building up a skilled work force before it started working on P-51s. It got it's first order of 1350 P-51Cs in Oct 1942, it is Aug 5th 1943 before the first one flies at Dallas. 2500 additional P-51s are on order from Dallas at this point.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 25, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Now the USAAF may have been a bit late in recognizing the Mustang but speeding up production by more than a few months doesn't seem likely.
> The Dallas factory that produced the P-51C turned out it's first airplane (an AT-6) in Dec 1940. After the Mustang Prototype first flew and turned hundreds more AT-6s building up a skilled work force before it started working on P-51s. It got it's first order of 1350 P-51Cs in Oct 1942, it is Aug 5th 1943 before the first one flies at Dallas. 2500 additional P-51s are on order from Dallas at this point.


 
I agree shortround but only with respect to NAA handling the job. If the USAAF had evaluated the P51 and fully realised its potential it could have been given a priority of national importance much more could have been done. The lack of allison engines at the start is a bit of a scandal for such a promising plane. Having to order fighter bombers because of budget restrictions is a joke in hindsight compared to the budget of the strategic bombing operation as a whole. It is also a tragic waste of 500 planes and pilots. If production was brought forward by 3/4 months that has P51b/cs available for the October raid on Schweinfurt for example


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 25, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> If production was brought forward by 3/4 months that has P51b/cs available for the October raid on Schweinfurt for example



I have a fair bit of experience setting up production lines and speeding things up is not at all easy. You can throw money and men at a problem and get things moving a bit quicker but this often leads to problems of poor quality installation. I worked on a project to set up a packing plant for catering cooking fats we were hassled to get things done quicker corners were cut and a 100 ton batch of fats had to be sent to recycling plant because a vital metal detector had not been tested. There almost certainly wasnt any metal in the fat but it couldnt be sold just on the offchance that someone choked on a metal fragment. 

A conveyor belt that carried the 12.5 kilo boxes from the filling machines to the packing room was never properly tested, we ran tests with a short batch of 10 boxes nobody tested it with 150 boxes on it that it would have when running at 100% capacity. Result when the belt had to turn a tight 90 degree corner 12.5 kilo boxes of hot cooking fat tipped on the corner and made the mother of all messes. I was the one who had to run and turn off the master switch you try running in steel toe cap boots through a half an inch deep lake of congealing fat, I scooted under the coneyor belt like an Olympic bob sleigh rider. I managed to get the fat out of my overalls by boiling them in a bucket of caustic soda mix by running a steam line through it. 

If we had been left to install as planned we would have got that plant running like clockwork on time, by rushing us the plant ended up not getting to full capacity a full 2 weeks after it should have. A disaster all round obviously no one in management had heard the old carpenters saying measure twice cut once.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 25, 2011)

from the same source

Army Air Force indifference to the P-51 was highlighted by the report presented to
General Arnold on “The Future Development of Pursuit Aircraft,” in October 1941.
Included in the discussion were eight production and 18 experimental types, but the P-51 was not even mentioned. The Army overlooked the P-51 in favor of its own fighter development—the turbo-charged high-altitude P-38 and P-47 types, and the Curtiss P-40 successor, the P-60. But with British support, the P-51 finally got noticed by the U.S. Army Air Force.

Two Americans in England recognized the potential of this fighter and urged
Washington to take note of this remarkable aircraft. Major Thomas Hitchcock, Assistant Military Air Attaché, and John C. Winant, U.S. Ambassador to England did much to keep the Mustang in the limelight for potential use by the U.S. military. Major Hitchcock flew the aircraft several times and was an avid proponent. He hosted several Americans during visits to England to see first-hand the Mustang operations and those modifications made by the British.
Boylan, in his work on the “Development of the Longrange Escort Fighter,” quotes Major General Orville Anderson’s reception of the Mustang:

And then it [the plan for the Mustang] came to the Munitions Building at
that time . . . with the request from the British that we build them at least
500 a month of this new airplane, this Mustang. Not having had anything
to do with the design, growth, tests of the P-51, we looked with disfavor
on that airplane. We leaned much more strongly to the P-39, the
Airacobra, and the P-40, two antiquated aircraft in 1941. But because of
the need for compromise, now that this thing had been really built, and
apparently to protect ourselves from sticking our chin out too far, we said,
“Well now maybe there is some use for this airplane. It’s a liquid airplane,
therefore rather vulnerable to frontal fire.” So we assigned it to production
and called it an A-36. And the first 500 airplanes of this new unit, which
was about six months late in its initial assignment, was [sic] made into an
A-36. A dive-bomber with a liquid engine. [Sic] After we had built 500,
we then belatedly recognized that maybe it was good enough that we could
[sic] put it into our fighter echelon. This attitude of mind on the part of
the Air Force policy makers and planners delayed the strategic deployment
of this critical, almost decisive, weapon by well over nine months before it
was actually deployed for combat.

In early 1943, the need to protect bombers on their bombing missions was finally
recognized. The previously quoted memo from General Arnold to Major General Giles
on development of the fighter escort stresses the critical nature of this program. The first options explored were fighter versions of the B-17 and B-24, the XB-40 and XB-41.
These aircraft were heavily armored versions on the same bomber airframes. A dozen of these aircraft were delivered to the European theater in May 1943, but the few missions flown by these slow, cumbersome aircraft showed this option was not the solution. What was needed was fast, long-range, maneuverable, and lethal protection for the bombers to continue their strategy of long range daylight attack of Germany.16

Based upon the capabilities of the long-range P-51 and the heavy losses encountered at Second Schweinfurt in October 1943, General Arnold directed the entire production of P-38s and P-51Bs for the next three months, October, November and December 1943, be sent directly to England. P-51s originally scheduled for tactical use by Ninth Air Force were rerouted to Eighth Air Force for strategic and escort missions. In early 1944 nearly all Eighth Air Force fighter groups were scheduled to convert to P-51s, with the excess P-47s going to Ninth Air Force.17 By late 1944 only one VIII Fighter Command group had P-47s and the P-38s were gone from the inventory by mid summer the same year.18

General Doolittle stacked the deck to ensure enough pilots were on hand by ordering all qualified P-51 pilots in Eighth Air Force, regardless of rank and assignment, to fly on every mission. The results support this astute use of resources. In July 1943 VIII Fighter Command had only 171 aircraft available on average and could escort on shallow penetrations only. By January 1944 the number of aircraft had increased to an average of 707 aircraft available, and deep penetration escorts were possible. P-51Bs assigned to VIII Fighter Command completed their first escort on 13 December 1943.19 By the end of May 1944, using both the assets of VIII Fighter Command and Ninth Air Force for aircraft and pilots, nearly 1,300 fighters of all types engaged targets all over Germany.

end of quote

In another history of the mustang NAA were driven to distraction my the USA military indifference and indecision.


I dont have an axe to grind on this at all I think the Mustang is a great plane, and I am not having a dig at the American military everyone makes mistakes and every designer thinks they have a world beater. I just get a bit irked when people ask/say why were the British so shortsighted continuing with the Spitfire when the Mustang is obviously so much better. The Brits went blue in the face trying to get more of them.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 25, 2011)

ctrian said:


> Why did you cut out the last part of my answer? Never taught you apples and oranges at school?


I must say you are entertaining, but you better watch the attitude or you will disappear from the site. The only thing I left out was the comment


> The Ta-152H should have been available when? in 1939 ?


I thought this was an obvious statement and not pertinent. I am sure the British would have liked to have had a Tempest II in ’39. We weren’t talking about 1939, we were initially talking about Bf-109K vs. Spitfire Mark XIV, which were late war developments. As such, you implied and said that the Bf range was good enough and


> A long range fighter was not needed by the LW because they had no strategic bomber force to protect.Building a new fighter with the range of P-51 would not make sence economically for the reasons you stated.Considering the use of drop tanks LW fighters were adequate.LW needed much more aircraft not specific long ranged fighters.


And my point was that the Luftwaffe seem not to agree with you because they were spending their conventional powered aircraft development money on larger, more armed and longer endurance aircraft like the Ta-152H, which, by the way was the plane they so desperately wanted, a better P-51D. I think they understood how important endurance was to the missions they were faced with.



> I don't understand the rest of your argument late'44-45 fighters had superior performance compared to older ones and that proves that the Germans wanted a long range fighter comparable to allied ones? Then why did they invest so much on jet fighters whose main advantage was speed?


You know very well the answer to this, and that is speed and its associated survivability. The jets were much faster and basically invulnerable, when flown correctly. But their biggest Achilles’ heel was short endurance, which required them to land often, exposing them to high risk landings and take offs. The Germans would have given just about anything to increase their endurance. 



> Try to make a more coherent argument next time.


Snide remarks adds nothing to your argument.


----------



## ctrian (Jun 26, 2011)

davparlr said:


> I must say you are entertaining, but you better watch the attitude or you will disappear from the site. The only thing I left out was the comment
> I thought this was an obvious statement and not pertinent. I am sure the British would have liked to have had a Tempest II in ’39. We weren’t talking about 1939, we were initially talking about Bf-109K vs. Spitfire Mark XIV, which were late war developments. As such, you implied and said that the Bf range was good enough and
> And my point was that the Luftwaffe seem not to agree with you because they were spending their conventional powered aircraft development money on larger, more armed and longer endurance aircraft like the Ta-152H, which, by the way was the plane they so desperately wanted, a better P-51D. I think they understood how important endurance was to the missions they were faced with.
> 
> ...


 
You cut the last part because i asked if they were supposed to have that in '39 ,apples and oranges...
About the P-51 *that's the problem *they never needed or wanted a P-51D ,different combat environments different requirements ( not just for aircraft but also for tanks ,AT guns etc) .Doesnt' mean P-51 is good or bad plane or Bf good or bad plane .Every country wanted different things.


----------



## Juha (Jun 26, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> You have been already told the reason. Why you ignore like you do not know?
> 
> You repeat that story of " specialist torpedo force". Please give mission particulars. Base of bombers, their target, distance to target. Nearest LW fighter base. We see then if true - reason was lack range.
> But I am starting not believe you. You told reason, you ignore reason, say same. I do not like arguing like this. No respect to other - why you ask question, if you do not care of answer..? It took me time find you the reason.


 


Hello Tante Ju

The specialist torpedo force was KG 26, its crews were trained at Italian AF torpedo training school at Grosseto. During the big attacks against Arctic convoys in July and Sept 42 it was based at Bardufoss and Banak in Northern Norway, LFl 5 had 2 Gruppen of 109s at that time in North-eastern Norway and North-eastern Finland at Kirkkoniemi and at Petsamo and one Gruppe in Mid and South Norway. PQ 17 didn’t have CVE support in July but PQ 18 had CVE HMS Avenger among its escorts in Sept 42.

In Med against Pedestal convoy 6./KG 26, together with some 30 Ju 88 bombers, timed its first attack at the dusk on 11 Aug 42. The attack took place some 360km WSW of Sardinia, where according to Smith’s Pedestal The Malta Convoy of August 1942 was a Staffel of 109Fs from I./JG 77 based at Elmas. This attack was without fighter escorts, on next day several escorted attacks were made when the convoy sailed south of Sardinia towards Strait of Sicilia, Stab and II/JG 53 were based on Sicily. Of course it was usually possible to transfer fighters to nearest a/f available, one main advantage of air power was its flexibility. During Med operations KG 26 was based for ex on Sicily, Decimomanu (Sardinia), Montpellier and Salon de Province, optimal fighter base would always have been the nearest to attack area.

I don’t agree with the claim that LW did not have any need for a longer range fighter than Bf 109F-K. I have my doubts on the practicality of the ranges claimed that Bf 109 had because of the experiences the Finns had on it and based on the few long transfer flights on which I have info (both FAF and LW made) also showed that they were made in rather short stages. When one notices that taking off and landing are the most dangerous parts of a flight that doesn’t make sense if 109G was capable to regularly and safely to fly say 1300km stretches during ferry flights. I’d gladly hear info on long range escort missions or over 1200km stages on ferry flightsmade by 109F-K pilots.

Also I have spent time to find facts for my messages, its part of the game.

JUha


----------



## ctrian (Jun 26, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Tante Ju
> 
> The specialist torpedo force was KG 26, its crews were trained at Italian AF torpedo training school at Grosseto. During the big attacks against Arctic convoys in July and Sept 42 it was based at Bardufoss and Banak in Northern Norway, LFl 5 had 2 Gruppen of 109s at that time in North-eastern Norway and North-eastern Finland at Kirkkoniemi and at Petsamo and one Gruppe in Mid and South Norway. PQ 17 didn’t have CVE support in July but PQ 18 had CVE HMS Avenger among its escorts in Sept 42.
> 
> ...


 
You're saying that the German should have spent limited industrial resources for missions that utilized only a tiny part of the whole LW effort?Long range bombing and antishipping missions where what part of the operations? Tiny .Obviously they'd want a plane with large range if they could get it for free but they had specific fighters and they had to work with them.
The allied AF on the other hand had a specific role to play and they needed 4-engine bombers and a fighter to escort them.That's where they spent all their money.The LW needed many many things( more planes ,more fuel etc) before they could worry about long range fighters.


----------



## Juha (Jun 26, 2011)

ctrian said:


> You're saying that the German should have spent limited industrial resources for missions that utilized only a tiny part of the whole LW effort?Long range bombing and antishipping missions where what part of the operations? Tiny .Obviously they'd want a plane with large range if they could get it for free but they had specific fighters and they had to work with them.
> The allied AF on the other hand had a specific role to play and they needed 4-engine bombers and a fighter to escort them.That's where they spent all their money.The LW needed many many things( more planes ,more fuel etc) before they could worry about long range fighters.


 
Hello Crtion
No, I'm saying that LW had need on longer range fighter and longer operational time would have helped LW fighter arm generally, FAF and LW pilots often had to disengage because they were running low on fuel (that's true also for Spitfire pilots). If you read memories or combat reports, you see that. Also LW had understood that, that's why Bf 110 was developed. Limited range of 109 hampered even the defence of the Reich. But really, it was you that made the claim that LW didn't have any use of a fighter with longer range than Bf 109F or Fw 190 and I and others have given examples of different situations in which a longer range would have helped. Of course a fighter design is always a compromise between different conflicting demands, Bf 109 was a good fighter, at times the best in the world but it had also its shortcomings. 

Juha


----------



## stona (Jun 26, 2011)

Juha said:


> I have my doubts on the practicality of the ranges claimed that Bf 109 had because of the experiences the Finns had on it and based on the few long transfer flights on which I have info (both FAF and LW made) also showed that they were made in rather short stages.
> JUha



I haven't looked this up (yet,I can't find the relevant figures) but it is a possibility that the long ferry flights were made in short stages due to a lack of oil as much as a lack of fuel. Just a thought.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Kryten (Jun 26, 2011)

did the LW want or neeed a longer range fighter? you bet your bottom dollar they did, the 109's range was a real handicap during the battle of britain with as little as 5 mins loiter time over the battle!


----------



## ctrian (Jun 26, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello Crtion
> No, I'm saying that LW had need on longer range fighter and longer operational time would have helped LW fighter arm generally, FAF and LW pilots often had to disengage because they were running low on fuel (that's true also for Spitfire pilots). If you read memories or combat reports, you see that. Also LW had understood that, that's why Bf 110 was developed. Limited range of 109 hampered even the defence of the Reich. But really, it was you that made the claim that LW didn't have any use of a fighter with longer range than Bf 109F or Fw 190 and I and others have given examples of different situations in which a longer range would have helped. Of course a fighter design is always a compromise between different conflicting demands, Bf 109 was a good fighter, at times the best in the world but it had also its shortcomings.
> 
> Juha


 
I'm sorry but i never claimed that the Bf could do everything.Obviously it couldn't escort 4-engine bombers or be a good ground attack aircraft (even though some units used it in that role).The Bf and FW had the necessary capability *for the missions that the LW intended them to do*.Germany was in the middle of Europe not an island like UK or a continent like the US.*IF* there was a German strategic bombing force then obviously they would need something close to the P-51.Sadly(for them) they never built one.Like you said the Bf-110 and occasionally the Ju-88 were used in areas were range was needed but these were exceptions.The idea that the P-51 was some sort of gift from heaven and every AF would need it is ridiculous. You can't take weapon systems from one country where they performed well and ''transplant '' them elsewhere. By the same logic the Tiger would not be a good tank for US army.

Kryten i don't think that is correct.In any case they fixed it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tank


----------



## Juha (Jun 26, 2011)

db


----------



## Juha (Jun 26, 2011)

ctrian said:


> I'm sorry but i never claimed that the Bf could do everything.Obviously it couldn't escort 4-engine bombers or be a good ground attack aircraft (even though some units used it in that role).The Bf and FW had the necessary capability *for the missions that the LW intended them to do*.Germany was in the middle of Europe not an island like UK or a continent like the US.*IF* there was a German strategic bombing force then obviously they would need something close to the P-51.Sadly(for them) they never built one.Like you said the Bf-110 and occasionally the Ju-88 were used in areas were range was needed but these were exceptions.The idea that the P-51 was some sort of gift from heaven and every AF would need it is ridiculous. You can't take weapon systems from one country where they performed well and ''transplant '' them elsewhere. By the same logic the Tiger would not be a good tank for US army...


 
Hello Ctrian
OK, I combined Your message #41 and Tante Ju’s message #73 in my mind. 
As I wrote extra tankage would have helped even the defence of Reich, it would allowed to fly certain distance faster, ie allowed interception faster or longer distance at given speed. I agree that P-51/Mustang was very important to USAAF and RAF and LW had no immerse need for such a long range fighter but IMHO LW would have had use of a fighter which would have a range to escort its medium bombers as far as those could carry reasonable loads.

On Bf 109, knowing Finnish experience with it I haven’t ever believed the worst claims in English literature on the problems with 109G. But I don’t see it a super fighter either. IMHO German fighter performance ran into plateau between mid 42 to mid 44, 109G up to G-6/AS meant that the performance stayed in same level or slightly lower than that of the superb 109F-4 while there were airframe and equipment improvements which were necessary but increased weight. Same to 190A series. The problem was that enemy fighters got faster and better during that period so relatively quality wise Germany lost ground during that time. That was fatal because quantity wise LW could not compete with its enemies.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 26, 2011)

Fuel consumption of Bf 109G-2 (DB605A-1) according to Finnish tests at 
T/O and Emergency power 1475hp/2800rpm, not allowed in Finnish Bf 109Gs but in 2 a/c a short time for test purposes and allowed in LW 109Gs from Oct 43 onwards, also very early on and in July-Aug 43, 465 l/h,
Climb and Combat power, 1310hp/2600rpm, max allowed in Finland, max allowed use 30min, 388 l/h
Max continuous 1075 hp/2300rpm 312 l/h
Economic continuous 890 hp/2100rpm at 5,7km, 246 l/h

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2011)

The short range of the "E" was solved in two ways. One was the drop tank, Just a few weeks or months late late to make a big difference. Two was the change to the "F" series fighter, the cleaned up nose, modified radiators, elimination of tailplane struts and other details offered a reduction in drag which not only increased both speed and climb but range as well, fast speed at same power level=more range. 
The range issue starts creeping back in with the "G"s. More weight doesn't mean that much more drag at a given speed but it does mean more fuel burn in a climb to given altitude. As lumps and bumps start to appear on the aircraft drag starts to increase. While the "G" may be able to cruise at very similar power settings to an "F" using the extra power of the 605 engine over the 601 will increase full consumption for the minutes the extra power is used. Any power boosting system (MW-50/GM1) will also significantly increase fuel consumption for the few minutes it is used. The more powerful 605 engines used in the later "G"s used fuel at an even higher rate in combat. With an essentially "fixed" fuel supply something has to give and it's range. The difference between the normal take-off rating (1475Hp?) of the 605AM and it's emergency rating of 1800-2000hp for 5 minutes is the same amount of fuel as it needs for 9-10 minutes of economical cruising flight. 

Much the same thing can be said about the Spitfire. The advantage the Spitfire "design" had was that there was more space for fuel (not taken advantage of anywhere near what it could have been) and the bigger wing/lower wing loading allowed for bigger increases in take-off weight before handling deteriorated too badly. Please note that this may have been a totally unanticipated benefit at the time of the Spitfires design, I mean that increases in take of weight of 30-43% were probably not considered when selecting the wing size. The Spitfire was still a higher drag air frame than the Mustang and would never equal it's range on the same amount of fuel even if you could get it in. The Spitfire may also have a weight issue with large quantities of fuel. An extra 30-50 gallons might not present too many problems but an extra 100 -180 gallons might require a restressing of the air frame. 

On another note, I am talking abut the potential of the airframes, not the aircraft as used as weapons systems in WW II. The fact that the US struggled mightily for 5 years and spends large sums of money on multiple projects and in the end managed to only increase the rate of fire of the Browning .50 cal by 50% and copy a Russian API bullet can only be considered a national embarrassment that should in no way reflect on the aircraft designers.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 26, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> The short range of the "E" was solved in two ways. One was the drop tank, Just a few weeks or months late late to make a big difference. Two was the change to the "F" series fighter, the cleaned up nose, modified radiators, elimination of tailplane struts and other details offered a reduction in drag which not only increased both speed and climb but range as well, fast speed at same power level=more range.



You are right. There was also issue of engine better fuel consumption. 601E better than 601. Less consumption. This plus less drag = 20% more range for 109F. Equal conditions. Droptank added bonus.



> The range issue starts creeping back in with the "G"s. More weight doesn't mean that much more drag at a given speed but it does mean more fuel burn in a climb to given altitude. As lumps and bumps start to appear on the aircraft drag starts to increase. While the "G" may be able to cruise at very similar power settings to an "F" using the extra power of the 605 engine over the 601 will increase full consumption for the minutes the extra power is used. Any power boosting system (MW-50/GM1) will also significantly increase fuel consumption for the few minutes it is used. The more powerful 605 engines used in the later "G"s used fuel at an even higher rate in combat. With an essentially "fixed" fuel supply something has to give and it's range. The difference between the normal take-off rating (1475Hp?) of the 605AM and it's emergency rating of 1800-2000hp for 5 minutes is the same amount of fuel as it needs for 9-10 minutes of economical cruising flight.



Theory is correct, but you much overstate. In practice, 109G range same as 109F. Reason again is 605A is better fuel factor than 601E. Keep reasoning that compression ratio of engines increased.

For example. 605A max. power until almost 1944 - 1310 HP. Fuel consupation - 400 liter. For 601E - 1350 HP, for 445 liter. This is 1942-43. 1944. 605A, 1475 HP - 480 liter. With 605AM, 1800 HP, 560 liter.

This is paper form. Thanks to Juha, we know Finn measured in practice better consumption. This is probably to safety tolerance by manufacturer - statng higher consumption in manual, just in case.

Example needs to as five minutes you say, maximum power allowed, ie. combat. 601E vs..
605A 1942/43 -40 liter consumption per hour for 5/60: + 3,3 liter in tank. So actually G model is better using fuel in combat..
605A 1943/44 +35 liter consumption per hour for 5/60: - 2,9 liter in tank.
605AM 1944 +115 liter consumption per hour for 5/60: - 9,6 liter in tank.

See worst case, 605AM engine. How less range can be due to WEP use? We assume worst condtion for 109G. Meaning, how less range will be, how much less 9,6 liter fuel makes difference in range if best range condition would be used? I will assume same cruising speed/consumption as 601E/109F: 130 liter/410 km/h Note 605A is consuming fuel better probably. 9,6 liter is 7,4% of 130 liter. This is how less time can be spent at best cruise. Ie. 7,4% less time - 4,5 mins less - at 410 km/h cruise allowed - 30 km covered.

Meaning. Difference between 109F range and 109G-14 range (605AM) due to "The more powerful 605 engines used in the later "G"s used fuel at an even higher rate in combat. " - only 30 km..!! 

Very insignificant IMHO. Difference in serial manufacturing will mean more.. this is within scatter error. On other hand, its quite possible that overall better consumption of 605A in cruise more than makes up for this. Germans considered 109G longer ranged than 109F. Power boosting system on overall fuel consumption, range - insignificant. You overstate this in analysis. 

Also, increase tankage on 109 is possible. It was done. 109B to 109C. 109C to 109E. 109G to 109K. Very easy. I am thinking you are wrong in conclusion it was done in Spitfire because it was more room, in 109 no room. On Spitfire it is more difficult - tanks are sandwhiched between cocpit and engine, not possible to increase their size, only if another tank is placed elsewhere. In 109, tank is in rear fuselage, there is space until tail.  It is fact that it was increased. Also in general you may overstate difficulty. For example, Jakovlev 9 series. Range was really short in base variant. But when people wanted - easy to increase. 9D and 9DD variants - very long range. Extra fuel was added. It is no black magic. 
Here's error - Spitfire range went down with later variant, always. So need to increase tankage to keep range. 109 - range always went up. Range went up from 109E to 109F. Same tankage. Range went up from 109F to 109G. Same tankage. 109K - only limited information. Rare plane at war end, much destroyed. But datasheet suggest range went up again, too, in high speed cruising conditions. Same as 109F - cleaner airframe, better engine - higher ratio of compression always increasing. 601A - 6.9. 605A - 7.5. 605D - 8.5. Better effiency. Adding fuel tankage - possible. But why add more fuel, is there need when with same fuel tank and better engines, range actually goes up..? It is not question of lack of possibility, but lack of will. What technical reason do you think exist increasing fuel by say + 25 %? I am cheating - this was done.. MW tank could hold +115 liter.. you say it is impossible, but it was done. General tank can be increased too. I do not see reason why cannot make it bigger, to hold more fuel. Space is there. Weight is there. They considered making K-6 some 500 kg heavier than, do not tell me impossible.. or give good reason why you think why.

We can put big MYTH stamp on it. 109 had no range issues - after 109E of course. Actually, 109E is shortest ranged variant. Lower than Jumo powered versions. Lower than later versions. Unfortunate for Germans this happened variant present when they critically needed range - BOB. But afterwards - range is good, almost triple 109E. Same as Fw 190. Less than Ta 152 of course.


----------



## stona (Jun 26, 2011)

They did manage to up the capacity of the main tank on the Spitfire to 96 gallons. Some variants crammed another 27 gallons into the wing tanks.
Steve


----------



## Milosh (Jun 26, 2011)

You do know Tante Ju that when the rear fuselage tank was added to the Spitfire that there was flight restrictions until the tank was emptied.

The Spit VIII could fly 2000+ miles (3200+km) with drop tank.

I read many time of red light coming on. If the 109 had such good range then why was this light coming on?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 26, 2011)

It signified tank was low on fuel. Yes, iconic in BoB!

@Stona,

I read 85 sometimes 96 gallon. Which is true? I believe latter is Mark VIII Spitfire. Correct if wrong..


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2011)

The early Spitfires had 85 imp gallons (385.4 litres), later ones MK VIII, IX and later could but didn't always have 97 in the front fuselage tank. MK VIIIs also had 27-28 gallons in wing tanks as did some of the Griffon powered planes. Some planes were fitted with 30 gallon rear fuselage tanks and some had up to 74 gallons in rear fuselage but I doubt they were combat capable with anywhere near that load. see: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire9-fuelsystem-lr.jpg

unless you think it is a made up diagram.

I believe procedure for Mustangs was to take off on main fuel tanks to 5000ft then switch to rear fuselage tank until that was down to 30 gallons or so then switch to drop tanks. this was to ensure a combat ready plane if the tanks were dropped as the plane could NOT fight with a full rear tank. 

I would imagine that the Spitfire would have to operate under some sort of similar limit. MK IX Spitfires carried 87.5lbs of ballast in the tail so the weight of a single empty 30 or so gal tank or so shouldn't present a problem. How much fuel it can have and still be able to perform combat maneuvers is the question. The 109 could put about 25IMP gallons in back of it's main tank so if we say the Spitfire could do the same plus the wing tanks plus the bigger lower fuselage it would have been possible for the Spitfire to carry 144 Imp gallons internally. Not exactly a long range fighter but 69% increase in fuel was quite possible if the demand from higher authority had been there.


----------



## Hop (Jun 26, 2011)

The RAF imposed similar restrictions on the Spitfire and Mustang with rear fuselage tanks. From memory, on the Spitfire it was gentle flying only until the rear tank was down to 30 gallons or less.

The fuel options for the Spitfire would be:

96 gallon forward tanks. Fitted to the VIII and late IX/XVI. Could have been fitted to any Merlin Spitfire.

75 gallon rear fuselage tank. Fitted to late IX/XVI and XIV.

28 gallon wing tanks. Fitted to all Spitfire VIII/XIV. Would have need some wing modification to fit to the IX.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 26, 2011)

I just had to comment....



> The idea that the P-51 was some sort of gift from heaven and every AF would need it is ridiculous. You can't take weapon systems from one country where they performed well and ''transplant '' them elsewhere.



Countries that operated the P-51 (besides the US)

The RAF
The Swiss AF
the French Air Force (Armée de l'Air), 
the Swedish Air Force (Flygvapen)
the Italian Air Force (AMI)
Republic of Korea Air Force (RoKAF)
Royal Australian Air Force 
Bolivia
China
Canada
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Indonesia
Philippines
Poland
New Zealand
South African Air Force 
Uruguay

need I say more?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 26, 2011)




----------



## stona (Jun 27, 2011)

stona said:


> They did manage to up the capacity of the main tank on the Spitfire to 96 gallons. Some variants crammed another 27 gallons into the wing tanks.
> Steve


Already clarified by the chaps above. I was just pointing out that the tank capacity of the Spitfire was not as fixed as you had implied. Clever people these engineers!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## claidemore (Jun 27, 2011)

_*Long Range*_, one of those things that definately fits into the category: it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. 

I'd like to point out that the venerable P40 also had restrictions on flying until the rear tank was depleted. You just can't put weight back behind the CoG without consequences. I think it was pointed out in an earlier post that the 109 had space in the rear fusealge clear back to the tail. That space is simply not useable.

Here's a list of Spitfire users: (if we're havin a pi$$in contest!  )
Australia 
Belgium 
Burma 
Canada 
Czechoslovakia 
Denmark 
Egypt 
France 
Germany (captured Spits)
Greece 
Hong Kong 
India 
Indonesia 
Ireland 
Israel 
Italy 
Netherlands 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Pakistan 
Poland 
Portugal 
Southern Rhodesia 
South Africa 
Soviet Union 
Sweden 
Syria 
Thailand 
Turkey 
United Kingdom 
United States 
Yugoslavia


----------



## Marcel (Jun 27, 2011)

Njaco said:


> I just had to comment....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You're forgetting the most important one: The Royal Dutch airforce


----------



## Njaco (Jun 27, 2011)

There ya go Marcel!

And thanks Claide, I think we dispelled the myth!!!


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2011)

Just remeber there is massive difference between ferry range and operational range. Wildcats have a stated range of around 1100 miles, but could not, in reality undertake escort missions beyond 220 miles. I forget the ferry range of the Seafire IIIs, but it was limited until '45, when 90 gallon drop tanks were unofficially fitted. This enabled them at last to undertake offensive missions out to the 195 mile mark. F6F Hellcats could not operate beyond the 250 mile mark.

The Mustang was exceptioonal. Dont have its operational range to hand, but we all know they could fly escort missions all the way to Berlin.

I dont know the operational range of the 109, but it makes sense that the later marks would have their legs increase, given the great didtances in the East. Just the same, I would be surprised if the operational range....the range to travel to a point, undertake qa useful mission, or incorporate some loiter time, would exceed 150 miles. This is expressede as a radius of action incidentally. 

r


----------



## Njaco (Jun 27, 2011)

"Aircraft of WWII" by Jim Winchester gives the following:

P-51D 326 miles on internal tanks - 752 miles with two 108 gallon external tanks. 
Bf 109E-3 410 miles
Spitfire Mk VA 1,135 miles

I dunno. Seems alittle off.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2011)

They are probably correct, but not comparable....a spit probably did have a ferry range of 1300 miles....perhaps with armour and armament removed, stripped dwn and lightened as much as possible, with so much additional fuel as to be barely flyable. The P-51B however is probably much closer to an honest capability.

Ask yourself this....can a Spit v, or an Me 109g fly a combat mission from Templhof to Biggin Hill? Can a Spit V fly from Duxford to say Stettin with combat gear installed. in both cases, the answer is no. Now, can a P-51 dod the same, yes it can.

Zero is another example of this. Many sources state that it had a range of more than 2000 miles, but at that range it could fly from Kwaj to Pearl without difficulty. but it couldnt. In fact the maximum effective range at the beginning of the war was about 450 miles. It could just fly escort from Takao (Formosa) to Clark, with about a 20 min loiter. I think they may have extended this a little in the Solomons, because Zeroes could fly, just, from Rabaul to Guadacanal. but im willing to bet there were lots of Zeroes listed as "failed to return" for those missions

I find the best way to look at effective operational ranges is to look at the distance that they are known to have flown combat missions on, and whether, at those ranges ther were any penalties paid, either in armament, or armour, decreased performance, or restricted times over the target. if you do that, you get a much better idea of the "real" combat range of a given type

My games design group went through this excercise some years ago. We found the following rough ranges applicable. I am not saying they are completely accurate, they were a study leading to a new game design, but they at least give an indication of the real ranges that aircraft could operate from. the ranges are those where there are no serious penalties on the aircraft concerned

Me109e 80 miles
Me 109g 150miles
FW190 140 miles
Spit I/II 110 Miles
Zero A6M2 450 miles
Hellcat 250 Miles
Seafire III 190 Miles
Spit V+ 160 Miles
Mustang 500 miles (from memory) 

From memory, these were based on the longest ranged missions we could find for those and other types, without any penalty. Some could greatly exceed that, but paid some sort of downgraded performance as a result of that increase in range


----------



## DonL (Jun 27, 2011)

@ Parsifal

There are some inconsistency with your datas.

Internal fuel capacity of the Bf 109 E, F, G, K = 400Liter 
Internal fuel capacity of the FW 190A 1-7 = 525 Liter
Internal fuel capacity of the FW 190A 8 = 525 Liter + 115Liter (fuel or MW 50)
Internal fuel capacity of the FW 190D 9 = 525 Liter + 115Liter (fuel or MW 50)


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2011)

DonL said:


> @ Parsifal
> 
> There are some inconsistency with your datas.
> 
> ...



I concede that. I also concede that our figures were not based on theoretical capabilities. they were based on examples of known missions undertaken....sort of amateur operational research if you like

My post is more a question than a statement....what examples of ranges different to those we settled upon exist to disprove the hypothesis. Do you have examples of the FW190 D undertaking missions of comparable type, to say an Me 109G, at greater range. The fuel carried might not be the only issue....it might be aerodynamics, aircraft weight, that kind of thing


----------



## Milosh (Jun 27, 2011)

The manual for the Fw190A-8 gives a flight distance of between 382 and 644 miles in clean condition (ie no external stores). With a drop tank this increased to 569 to 915 miles. There was still 12.5 % fuel still in the tanks.

Combat range of any a/c would be ~ 1/3 of its flight distance. (1/3 going out, 1/3 for combat, 1/3 for return)


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2011)

well 1/3 of 382 miles is 128 miles....maybe 140 miles is not so bad...


----------



## Milosh (Jun 27, 2011)

parsifal said:


> well 1/3 of 382 miles is 128 miles....maybe 140 miles is not so bad...



That would be at 2300rpm and 1,2 ata boost at an altitude of 984ft. At 2000rpm and 1.05ata the range was 572mi.

I believe it is Mike Williams site that has a mission profile for a bomb carrying 109 and 190. Combat range for the 190 was slightly higher for than for the 109. iirc ~145 mi for the 190 and 130mi for the 109. These would be low level missions.


----------



## DonL (Jun 27, 2011)

> Do you have examples of the FW190 D undertaking missions of comparable type, to say an Me 109G, at greater range. The fuel carried might not be the only issue....it might be aerodynamics, aircraft weight, that kind of thing



No I don't have examples!

I could give some advices. And this whole issue is very difficult.

First of all the Jumo 213 was claimed as the best german engine for fuel efficient.

So the FW 190D was a bit lighter then the A8 but heavier then the A1 to A7!
But the FW 190D had the much better aerodynamik then the FW 190A.

The internal fuel capacity of the FW 190D was to my opinion 525 Liters and 115 Liter MW50, because on the Dora MW50 was standard.
On the FW 190A8, MW50 wasn't standard because the BMW 801 wasn't approve to MW50, so the FW 190A8 had internal fuel capacity of 525 + 115 Liter.

THe Bf 109G is very complicated because of the different versions and the external weapons (Cannon Gondeln) for exampel the Bf 109G6 for the defending of the Reich.

But I think in general the FW 190A and D had better range then the Bf 109G.
The Bf 109F would be equal to my opinion with the early FW 190A.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2011)

And that would be consistent with the conclusions we reached in our game design. Its just after lunch here, and I went home and checked the values that we had assigned to the FW 190A and the Me 109G. I was in error in my earlier reports....the 109g was 130 miles "combat radius (could be extended with penalty), whilst the FW was rated at 150miles (with less penalties at greater radius. These were always compromises.....remember it was a game, so it had to be playable and manageable......it worked as a system, but not sufficiently well to have it published, mores the pity....


----------



## Trilisser (Jun 28, 2011)

People, be very careful whether you speak of range or radius! E.g. Milosh statement "Combat range of any a/c would be ~ 1/3 of its flight distance. (1/3 going out, 1/3 for combat, 1/3 for return)" is inaccurate unless the word range is replaced with radius. Another problem with general references is that they often mix. data for maximum air range and the range at maximum continuous speed. One must remember that e.g. at sea level cruising at maximum air range speed a P-38L requires well below 400 hp per engine (1600 rpm/22" Hg, 28" Hg at the same rpm gives 425 hp) while the maximum continuous power at SL is 1100 hp. The latter setting increases TAS from 168 mph to 302 mph while fuel consumption increases from 46 US gph to 245 US gph.So less than doubled speed and over 5 times greater fuel consumption.

BTW, it is regularly laughed that the Me 163's endurance was some 8 minutes or so. Well, check out what endurance modern jets have at sea level if flown at full afterburner...


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 28, 2011)

Trilisser said:


> People, be very careful whether you speak of range or radius! E.g. Milosh statement "Combat range of any a/c would be ~ 1/3 of its flight distance. (1/3 going out, 1/3 for combat, 1/3 for return)" is inaccurate unless the word range is replaced with radius. Another problem with general references is that they often mix. data for maximum air range and the range at maximum continuous speed. One must remember that e.g. at sea level cruising at maximum air range speed a P-38L requires well below 400 hp per engine (1600 rpm/22" Hg, 28" Hg at the same rpm gives 425 hp) while the maximum continuous power at SL is 1100 hp. The latter setting increases TAS from 168 mph to 302 mph while fuel consumption increases from 46 US gph to 245 US gph.So less than doubled speed and over 5 times greater fuel consumption.
> 
> BTW, it is regularly laughed that the Me 163's endurance was some 8 minutes or so. Well, check out what endurance modern jets have at sea level if flown at full afterburner...



Very good point Joakim. These comparisons were surely difficult 70 years ago. I think we are walking in a real minefield of easy confusion and wrong conclusion when discussing comparative ranges. I imagine for a game designer striving for accuracy it must be a very difficult analysis to make.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 28, 2011)

I don't hold those figures as gospel - only as a point in the discussion. But I agree with all regarding trying to define actual distances.


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 28, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe procedure for Mustangs was to take off on main fuel tanks to 5000ft then switch to rear fuselage tank until that was down to 30 gallons or so then switch to drop tanks. this was to ensure a combat ready plane if the tanks were dropped as the plane could NOT fight with a full rear tank.


 
the procedure for mustangs was:

We were ordered to taxi and takeoff using our main (wing) tanks.. After becoming airborne,
switch to fuselage tank and burn down to 35 gals, approx. 50 min. Then go to the drops
and burn alternately for 30 min each, back and forth for stability,always keeping the mains
for reserves, just in case!

Raymond T. Conlin

which i never thought of but is also interesting. most of the time they would be using drop tank until just moments prior to engaging the enemy. so, the majority of their dogfights were with full or very close to full wing tanks.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 28, 2011)

I remember reading Yeager saying the same thing.


----------



## Trilisser (Jun 29, 2011)

If fitted with the fuselage tank, a prudent P-51 pilot starts, takes off and flies at least 15 mins on the Left Main Tank first as the carburettor vapour return line is connected in that tank. Then the fuselage tank is used down to some 40 gallons and only after that are the drop tanks to be used. This is the recommended procedure from the Pilot's Notes.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 29, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> the procedure for mustangs was:
> 
> 
> which i never thought of but is also interesting. most of the time they would be using drop tank until just moments prior to engaging the enemy. so, the majority of their dogfights were with full or very close to full wing tanks.


 
That is maybe why pilots on both sides said they could out turn their opponent the wing tanks when full weighed about a ton.


----------



## Trilisser (Jun 29, 2011)

Hmm, full fuel in P-51's wing tanks weighs some 500 kg...quite a lot less than "about a ton"...


----------



## Mustang nut (Jun 29, 2011)

Trilisser said:


> Hmm, full fuel in P-51's wing tanks weighs some 500 kg...quite a lot less than "about a ton"...


 
I thought they held 180 gallons? 180 gallons @ 10 lb per gallon is 1,800 lb about 
818kg. That is also provided the rear tank is emptied completely.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 29, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> I thought they held 180 gallons? 180 gallons @ 10 lb per gallon is 1,800 lb about
> 818kg. That is also provided the rear tank is emptied completely.



Aviation fuel doesnt weigh 10 pounds per gallon thats water. I think avgas is about 7.5 pounds an imp gallon


----------



## Readie (Jun 29, 2011)

Found this..354th Pioneer Mustang Fighter Group.
P51 D
Self-sealing fuel cells (184 US gallons total capacity) in wings and self-sealing tank (85 US gallons) in fuselage behind pilot. Oil tank (12 US gallons)
Cheers
John


----------



## Hop (Jun 29, 2011)

7.2 lbs per imperial gallon for fuel, 9 lbs per gallon for oil.


----------



## Trilisser (Jun 29, 2011)

Yep, 700 litres (184 US gals is a bit over 696 litres) x 0.72 kg/l=approx. 500 kg.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 29, 2011)

From the Gruenhagen 'Mustang' book:

P-51D/K

2 wing tanks @ 92 gal > 1104lb
fuselage tank @ 85gal > 510lb

75 gal drop tank > 60lb each empty
75 gal drop tank > 1040lb installed and serviced


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 29, 2011)

H2O = 8.34 lbs per gallon and 7.48 gallons per cuft in case anyone is interested.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 29, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> H2O = 8.34 lbs per gallon and 7.48 gallons per cuft in case anyone is interested.


 
I use 6 lbs per US gallon for avgas. America's Hundred Thousand show P-51D at fighter weight with 1080 lbs of fuel.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 29, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> H2O = 8.34 lbs per gallon and 7.48 gallons per cuft in case anyone is interested.



Thats a US gallon though not a proper imperial gallon


----------



## Readie (Jun 29, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Thats a US gallon though not a proper imperial gallon



At least the Canadians have the sense to use our gallons.
I have never heard of the US dry gallon...
Cheers
John

The imperial (UK) gallon was legally defined as 4.54609 L. This definition is used in Commonwealth countries and Ireland, and is based on the volume of 10 pounds of water at 62 °F. (A US liquid gallon of water weighs about 8.33 pounds at the same temperature.) The imperial fluid ounce is defined as 1⁄160 of an imperial gallon. On 1 January 2000, it ceased to be a legal unit of measure within the United Kingdom for economic, health, safety or administrative purposes.[3]
The US liquid gallon is legally defined as 231 cubic inches,[4] and is equal to exactly 3.785411784 litres or about 0.133680555 cubic feet. This is the most common definition of a gallon in the United States. The US fluid ounce is defined as 1⁄128 of a US gallon.
The US dry gallon is one-eighth of a US Winchester bushel of 2150.42 cubic inches, thus it is equal to exactly 268.8025 cubic inches or 4.40488377086 L. The US dry gallon is less commonly used, and is not listed in the relevant statute, which jumps from the dry quart to the peck.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 29, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Thats a US gallon though not a proper imperial gallon


 


Readie said:


> At least the Canadians have the sense to use our gallons.
> I have never heard of the US dry gallon...
> Cheers
> John
> ...


----------



## Readie (Jun 29, 2011)

I'm intrigued....how do you measure a US dry gallon?
What that a prohibition era thing?
Cheers
John


----------



## Airframes (Jun 29, 2011)

Ah, is that the measurement used for powdered water? I'll get me coat ........


----------



## stona (Jun 29, 2011)

Can you still buy a pint of maggots? 

Eight of them would be a dry(ish) gallon.

I'll follow Airframes out.....
Steve


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 29, 2011)

Readie said:


> I'm intrigued....how do you measure a US dry gallon?
> What that a prohibition era thing?
> Cheers
> John


 


Airframes said:


> Ah, is that the measurement used for powdered water? I'll get me coat ........


 


stona said:


> Can you still buy a pint of maggots?
> 
> Eight of them would be a dry(ish) gallon.
> 
> ...



Well guys when I was a kid my friend, Peter, always picked pickled peppers by the peck. I'm a guessing that if Peter picked a gallon of pickled peppers it was not enough to make salsa with so that is why Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers. This must be a Yankee thing.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 29, 2011)

Dry Gallons, Wet Gallons, Imperial Gallons, Rebel Alliance Gallons......Holy Cripes, Liters as a measurement is looking better and better!


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 29, 2011)

vikingBerserker said:


> Dry Gallons, Wet Gallons, Imperial Gallons, Rebel Alliance Gallons......Holy Cripes, Liters as a measurement is looking better and better!


 
There is no way I am going to start calling my 10 gallon cowboy hat a 37.85 liter hat!


----------



## parsifal (Jun 30, 2011)

then ther is always that other american stalwart...the ten gallon hat.

Never leave a proper job to a recalcitrant rebel republic, thats what i say


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 30, 2011)

parsifal said:


> then ther is always that other american stalwart...the ten gallon hat.
> 
> Never leave a proper job to a recalcitrant rebel republic, thats what i say


 
That is true, if you want it done "proper" leave it to a Limey or pass it off to the pugnacious penal colony paroles. If you want it done right and on time the recalcitrant rebel republic reliably renders requested results required.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 30, 2011)

thats funny


----------



## parsifal (Jun 30, 2011)

I wonder if the ten gallon hat is US gallons or real gallons, and, i wonder if it is dry gallons......


----------



## Readie (Jun 30, 2011)

Imperial measurements please, not some ghastly euro litre.
A chap simply does not where he is buying petrol in litres and measuring miles per gallon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 30, 2011)

Is that statute miles or nautical miles?

I think I will head for the door now with my quart of blueberrys


----------



## Readie (Jun 30, 2011)

The US dry gallon is one-eighth of a US Winchester bushel of 2150.42 cubic inches, thus it is equal to exactly 268.8025 cubic inches or 4.40488377086 L. The US dry gallon is less commonly used, and is not listed in the relevant statute, which jumps from the dry quart to the peck.

I have read this very carefully several times and I still don't get it...
See what happens when the British Empire lets the young Americans have a go on their own. Total confusion !! 
Cheers
John


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 30, 2011)

One of the few places I was never stationed was anywhere in England, good thing too, because it would have took a while to figure out their money system. Pounds, shillings, pences, and then the slang, bobs, guineas, and whatever else they could add to confuse it.

I remember when I first got interested in aviation in the early 60's, i'd buy the Royal Air Force Flying Review magazines, 1s. 9d. or .35, a great magazine, I still have some of them today.


----------



## stona (Jun 30, 2011)

You'd probably have been given the correct change anyway. Actually,contrary to the rantings of the tabloid press,you'd probably still get the correct change today. There's a lot of honest people out there for every crooked one.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jun 30, 2011)

Ya, Pounds Sterling sounds strong, dependable, and stable. Euro sounds like what I had for dinner yesterday with humus and ouzo.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 30, 2011)

What I find strange is that Americans use the decimal system for their currency, yet use an antiquated system for weights and measures (almost as bad as the old British currency system).


----------



## Readie (Jun 30, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Ya, Pounds Sterling sounds strong, dependable, and stable. Euro sounds like what I had for dinner yesterday with humus and ouzo.


 
Do you mean that your Greek dinner was a riot?


----------



## Readie (Jun 30, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> One of the few places I was never stationed was anywhere in England, good thing too, because it would have took a while to figure out their money system. Pounds, shillings, pences, and then the slang, bobs, guineas, and whatever else they could add to confuse it.
> 
> I remember when I first got interested in aviation in the early 60's, i'd buy the Royal Air Force Flying Review magazines, 1s. 9d. or .35, a great magazine, I still have some of them today.



Pences ? Wars have started over less. Pence. 
Thruppence, monkeys, Bunse (Nice little earner) abbreviated from Bunsen Burner,ton,30 bob, tanners,quid,oner,wedge,pony...the list is almost endless.
We love American tourists...
Cheers
John


----------



## stona (Jul 1, 2011)

From Wikipedia.
"The guinea is a coin that was minted in the Kingdom of England and later in the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom between 1663 and 1813.[1] It was the first English machine-struck gold coin, originally worth one English Pound sterling, equal to twenty shillings; but rises in the price of gold caused the value of the guinea to increase, at times to as high as thirty shillings; from 1717 till 1816, its value was officially fixed at twenty-one shillings. Following that, Great Britain adopted the gold standard and guinea became a colloquial term."

So that was a coin whose value varied,at least until 1717,not at all confusing. I think horses are still traded in guineas at posh auctions.
Steve


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 1, 2011)

stona said:


> So that was a coin whose value varied,at least until 1717,not at all confusing. I think horses are still traded in guineas at posh auctions.
> Steve



I think the guinea is still used at auctions because the auctioneers mark up is 5%
If you sell for 1000 guineas you receive £1000.

Alan Turing explained to his American colleagues working on Enigma that with the British system based on 12 pennies divided into 4 farthings almost any group of people in a resteraint can divide the bill exactly. Trouble is you need Turings brain to do it.

The factors of 10 are 1,2,5 and 10
The factors of 24 are 1,2,3,4,6,8,12 and 24

Im glad we use metric but who wants a baby born weighing 2.85 kilos


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2011)

Try and get this back on topic guys...


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 1, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Try and get this back on topic guys...


 
Any one have the metric specs on the Spitfire and the english specs on the 109?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 2, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Try and get this back on topic guys...



Look at this way...at least we arent squabbling like little kids any more........


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 2, 2011)

Spitfire Mk V airframe 13,000 man hours
Bf 109G airframe 4,000 man hours

A big plus for the Bf109


----------



## stona (Jul 2, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Spitfire Mk V airframe 13,000 man hours
> Bf 109G airframe 4,000 man hours
> 
> A big plus for the Bf109



Yes,but in that crucial period when Britain "stood alone" she out produced Germany in numbers of single engined fighters. Admittedly that says more about the war footings of the two economies than the aircraft. The Bf109 was better suited to mass production and this was probably a result of the different design philosophies mentioned by someone much earlier in the thread.
I love a Spitfire but what really saved our bacon in 1940 was 20 odd miles of water!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## davparlr (Jul 2, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Spitfire Mk V airframe 13,000 man hours
> Bf 109G airframe 4,000 man hours
> 
> A big plus for the Bf109


 
Is that metric man hours or English man hours?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 2, 2011)

I am always a bit wary when people start quoting man hours and costs. What did those 4,000 or 13,000 hours mean was the 109G airframe a barebones unpainted fuselage, was the Spit V a fully fitted and painted fuselage. Was the 4,000 hours just the time it took on the production line did the 13,000 hours count in the time spent by sub contractors. 

I am not claiming by the way that a Spit was quicker to build than a 109 too many people more expert than me have said the Spit was a more complicated construction job. What I am suspicous of is people who claim that a certain figure is gospel without any background information. The problem with using German costs and man hours figures is the unpleasant fact that German factories operated on different principles to western allied factories.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 2, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> I always a bit wary when people start quoting man hours and costs. What did those 4,000 or 13,000 hours mean was the 109G airframe a barebones unpainted fuselage, was the Spit V a fully fitted and painted fuselage. Was the 4,000 hours just the time it took on the production line did the 13,000 hours count in the time spent by sub contractors.
> 
> I am not claiming by the way that a Spit was quicker to build than a 109 too many people more expert than me have said the Spit was a more complicated construction job. What I am suspicous of is people who claim that a certain figure is gospel without any background information. The problem with using German costs and man hours figures is the unpleasant fact that German factories operated on different principles to western allied factories.



I am always suspicious of statistics from totalitarian governments. The people submitting the statistics know they may be severely punished (shot) if the statistics do not meet the expectations of their masters.

Was the ME-109 really constructed in less than a third of the time of a Spitfire? My BS warning light is blinking red. Could this be another case of lack of impartial critical analysis similar to the controversy about whether one third of ME-109s were lost because of situations that the landing gear design adversely affected?


----------



## Readie (Jul 2, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> That is one of the points raised in my links that started this thread. The low quality and/or sabotage by forced labour to build ME109's etc.
> Cheers
> John


----------



## Readie (Jul 2, 2011)

stona said:


> Yes,but in that crucial period when Britain "stood alone" she out produced Germany in numbers of single engined fighters. Admittedly that says more about the war footings of the two economies than the aircraft. The Bf109 was better suited to mass production and this was probably a result of the different design philosophies mentioned by someone much earlier in the thread.
> I love a Spitfire but what really saved our bacon in 1940 was 20 odd miles of water!
> Cheers
> Steve



Spot on and well said Steve.
Good old English Channel.
There was a 1930's weather report saying that there was fog in the Channel and that the continent was cut off from England...
Sometimes I wish they were.
I have yet to forgive the EU from messing about with the Great British banger.
Well bad
Cheers
John


----------



## Hop (Jul 2, 2011)

A German report estimated the Spitfire would cost less to build than the 109 if built in German factories.

It's not hard to see why, either. People hold up the elliptical wing as complex to build, but it wasn't once the jigs were ready. On the other hand, the 109 had leading edge slats to build and fit, a far more complex flap system, more complex radiator system and was flush riveted throughout, most Spitfires only used flush riveting in high drag areas like the wing.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 2, 2011)

Are those build man/hours for a completed a/c or just for the airframe shell? Or a mix, one is for a completes a/c while the other is for the shell.

Is the engine, and other such like components man/hours include in one and not the other?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 2, 2011)

The spit had a more complex wing, which did cause production problems early on, but these were ironed out pre-war and by the ntime of the battle, were being churned out in great effciciency. 

It is very difficult to make comparisos with those man hours numbers. Partly for the reasons already given though in the context of 1940, there were no or very few slave laboureres employed in Bf 109 production came later. I also suspect that the time frames of these quoted times may also be different. What if we are comparing the build times of a Spit built prewar, when the wing was giving problems to 109 production in 1944, when output by the Germans had been completely optimised. Facts are that both sides got increasingly efficient at builoding aircraft. For the same amount of factory space, and the same amount of workers, outputs doubled or even tripled. This occurred for both sides.

I do know this. In 1940, and assuming prewar exchange rates, Germany was spending roughly twice as much as Britain on aircraft procurement. For this they got 50% less aircraft. Now, these figures are rough, and just posted for illustrative purposes, but they have to be a long way out to try and argue the German aero industry in 1940 was more efficient than the British in 1940. They simply werent, and this is nowhere better reflected in the delivery rates of Me 109s to the LW compared to the delivery rates of Spits to the RAF


----------



## Njaco (Jul 3, 2011)

But are those productions rates fighter to fighter? Germany I would assume was producing more bombers than the UK at the time. Will check my data book but I think Germany's production included a heavy emphasis on bombers as well as fighters which, in my mind would not produce as many fighters.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2011)

Britain was still churning out Battles, Blenheims, Hampdens, Whitleys and tooling up for Sterlings, Halifaxes and at least Manchesters while Wellingtons continued production. Without a direct comparison of numbers it would be hard to tell but the British had over double the number of bomber programs the Germans had in 1940.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 3, 2011)

The figures given by Ellis in his statistical reference for 1940 Britain/Germany are

Fighter: 4283/2746
Gnd Attack: 0/603
Bombers: 3488/2852
Recce: 387/971
Transport: 0/388
Trainers: 6415/1870

Production of SE engined fighters during the BoB for the two protagonists was as follows

Jun: 446/164
Jul: 496/220
Aug: 476/173
Sep: 467/218
Oct: 469/144
Nov: 458/150
Dec: 413/c150

Total: 3195/1519

According to an unrefernced appendix that I photocopied more than 30 years ago, the Germans spent more than 5.08 Billion RM on aircraft procurement in 1940. 

I dont have conclusive figures for the RAF, but it seems pretty clear to me that the British were getting a more efficient return for the investment in aircraft production:

From this site:

http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/fro...r-force-rearmament-programme-1934-1940.html/4


_The priority given to the RAF did not, however, mean the end of financial considerations. On the contrary, successive proposals for revision of the Scheme F of came up for discussion, and all of them were beyond the available financial resources. Even the great rearmament vote and loan of 7th March 1938 fell short of the needs of the RAF. That vote brought the total planned expenditure of the RAF over the next four years to about £500 millions, but the cost of the minimum programmes which the Air Ministry had formulated at the end of 1937 was established as at least £650 millions by 1941.

In March 1938, the negotiations between the Secretary of State for Air and the Cabinet were suddenly overtaken by Hitler’s annexation of Austria, which at once made the dangers in the international situation become more immediate and apparent. There was little time to lose, and for the first time a real mood of urgency crept into the discussions of the air plans at the highest level. Suddenly, finance was no longer considered the worst obstacle. The question was no longer what the country’s finances could afford but what industry could turn out. So when the Cabinet met in the early days of April to decide finally and urgently the scale of the aircraft programme, they were compelled to define it not in terms of finance but in those of industrial capacity.

An entirely new principle entered into the plans. The revised Air Ministry proposals required a whopping 12,000 aircraft in two years. Analysis of the industrial capacity showed that this was also the maximum which the aircraft industry could produce by that date. On 27th April 1938 Cabinet authority was consequently given to the new plans, and Scheme L of 12,000 aircraft in two years came into operation.

The passing of Scheme L was a real turning point. Not only did it reflect the heightened sense of urgency in the Government, but it also signified the end of the purely financial checks on rearmament. The RAF was the first among the Services to enter into what to all intents and purposes were wartime conditions of supply, for from now on expansion in the air was to subject only to industrial limitations: production capacity, raw materials, labour and management.

The scale of the upswing in the overall rearmament programme in 1938-1939 can be illustrated by the following numbers. The annual cost of equipment and stores for the fighting Services rose nearly eightfold from about £37 million in the financial year ending March 1934 to £273 million in the year ending March 1939. During the same time, standard rate of income tax rose from 4s. 6d. in the pound in 1934 to 5s. 6d. in 1936 and 7s. 6d. in 1939. In 1937, the Government launched a five-year rearmament loan of £400 million, but in the spring of 1939 this had to be raised to £800 million._

In point of fact I think the relative efficiency in production of the Brits versus the Germans arose not so much from the "produceability" of given types, as the arrangements made at the factory floor. The prewar Brit military expenditure was all about getting factories and industries ready for the "big push". Setting up aluminium industries, shadow factories skilling up of unskilled labour, that kinda thing. The Germans failed to do this, make the investment in basic infrastructure to maximise production efficiencies later. its one of the choices they made that probably lost them the war. Why did they do this. because the country was being run by supreme gamblers, and they thought it was better to go for the quick victory rather than the long haul. Later, when it was too late, the germans did make their industries efficient, under Speer.....


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 3, 2011)

As early as January 1940 when the first wartime programme embodying the heavy bombers was settled, it was reckoned that ratios of weight to man-hours would, for the principal types, work out as follows:
HyperWar: British War Production [Chapter IV]

Type / Man hours need in 1000 hours:

Spitfire	15,2
Hurricane	10,3
Whirlwind	26,6
Tornado	15,5
Battle 24
Whitley	52
Wellington	38
Manchester	52,1
Halifax	76
Stirling	75

German type / Man hours need in 1000 hours:

109E 7,9 (Q4 39) to 5,4 (Q3 40) at Regensburg
Ju 88A 37 (Q1 40, at JFM


British and German production, 1940.

British:
HyperWar: British War Production [Appendix 4]

Heavy bombers: 41 Manchester, Stirling, Lancaster and Warwick.
Medium bombers: 1,926 Wellington, Hampden, Hereford, Whitley and Albemarle.
Light bombers: 1,521 Blenheim, Battle, Mosquito
Fighters 4,283
General reconnaissance 387
Transports and A.S.R. - 
Naval 476
Trainers and miscellaneous 6,415

German: 
USSBS Aircraft industry Report

Heavy bombers: 38 (36 Fw 200, 2 He 177)
Medium bombers: 3,338 (2184 Ju 88, 15 Do 217, 827 He 111, 7 Hs 129, 315 Do 17)
Light bombers: 611 (Ju 87)
Fighters 1236 2 engine (incl. 5 Me 210) + 1868 1 engine (Bf 109, incl. 2 Fw 190) = 3104
General reconnaissance 
Transports and A.S.R. 763 (incl. 401 Ju 52 
Naval 98 (Ar 196)
Trainers and miscellaneous 1132 trainer, 1275 misc., 455 glider (DFS 230) Total 3005

It seems German produce 1940 more emphasis on heavy aircraft (bigger bombers), British on light units (light bomber, fighter) and trainer. 

Combat aircraft only (Fighter + bomber): 
7091 German (ca. 70% of product) 
7771 British (ca. 50% of product.)


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 3, 2011)

I see we are back to lies, damn lies, and statistics. Does anyone really believe you could build a ME-109 in less than a third or even half of the time you could build a Spitfire?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 3, 2011)

I understand in 1940 production of Spitfire was at Southhampthon Spitfire works. Essentially small manufacture rather than true factory. This may effect. Also Hurricane much faster to produce.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 3, 2011)

When you look at detailed cutaways of the Spitfires and Me-109 you'll see a lot of built up parts on the Spitfire, where the Me will have castings.
Like the motor bearers, magnesium casting on the Me, but a multiple tubing affair on the Spit. The same with landing gear mounts, main spar ect.

It doesn't take a lot like that to make assembly times quite different.


----------



## Juha (Jul 3, 2011)

Hello Tante JU
the figures in the Postan's table seems to be theoretical, because the next sentence after the table in Postan's book is
Quote:" The actual figures, especially those for man-hours, were modified in the course of the subsequent three years, but the basic relations between weight and man-hours remained the same, and the heavier aircraft continued to require much less manpower per pound of weight than the lighter ones."

That is easy to believe because man-hours tended to decrease during the production run, as the Bf 109E example shows.

Juha


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 3, 2011)

What you mean "theoretical"?


----------



## stona (Jul 3, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I see we are back to lies, damn lies, and statistics. Does anyone really believe you could build a ME-109 in less than a third or even half of the time you could build a Spitfire?



Yes. It took three times as many man hours to build a Spitfire but that doesn't reflect the time needed to build the aircraft. We comprehensively out built the German aircraft industry despite this. British factories worked a different shift system,some effectively worked 24hrs a day. The British aircraft industry,its supply chain etc was better organised,bang goes another stereotype.The German aircraft industry in 1940 was not on a comparable war footing. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 3, 2011)

stona said:


> Yes. It took three times as many man hours to build a Spitfire but that doesn't reflect the time needed to build the aircraft. We comprehensively out built the German aircraft industry despite this. British factories worked a different shift system,some effectively worked 24hrs a day. The British aircraft industry,its supply chain etc was better organised,bang goes another stereotype.The German aircraft industry in 1940 was not on a comparable war footing.
> Cheers
> Steve



I was already aware of the difference between the German and British attitude toward production. I have read that some people dispute the superior British commitment and organization. The myth of superior German organizational skills unfortunately still lives in the minds of many.

All of you bring up good reasons why a ME-109 could be built in less man hours but I still doubt they required 66% to 50% less time to make if a balanced analysis was made. Unfortunately, a balanced analysis cannot be made because of the different sources and statistical methods for the statistics being presented. I think the similar requirements of the ME-109 and Spitfire for production are far closer than presented here. I am aware of how similar weapons can be produced in greatly differing amounts of time, i.e., Sten < MP-40, M3 < Thompson. I just don't thing the Spit and 109 were as different as those examples. I will agree the ME-109 could be produced with less man hours but I think common sense indicates the ME-109 took more like 33% to 25% less time. I admit I could be wrong but before admitting error I would have to see a better presentation of facts than what I have seen here.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jul 3, 2011)

on average each of the Bf109 plants were producing four Bf109's/ day. so 4 into 24 is 6hours.
keep in mind this is all averaging. some plants produced more, others less.


----------



## stona (Jul 3, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> on average each of the Bf109 plants were producing four Bf109's/ day. so 4 into 24 is 6hours.
> keep in mind this is all averaging. some plants produced more, others less.


 

We need to be careful here. Assembly and production are not the same thing.
Steve


----------



## Juha (Jul 3, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> What you mean "theoretical"?


 
As I wrote right after the table it is mentioned that actual numbers differ and in the table there is a figure for Tornado, its first prototype was flown Oct 39 and they could not have the actual man-hour figure for production Tornado in early 1940. So probably the figures were theoretical for allocation of labour to different production facilities or for some other use.

Juha


----------



## Hop (Jul 3, 2011)

All figures from Sebastian Ritchie:

1942, Supermarine man hours for Spitfire Vc: 13,000
1941, Castle Bromwich man hours for Spitfire (V, presumably): 10,400

1944, Castle Bromwich man hours for a Spitfire: half the hours Supermarine required in 1944.

Given that man hours reduced throughout the war, Supermarine should have required a lot less than 13,000 man hours, and Castle Bromwich would therefore require less than 6,500. 

Ritchie also points out that in 1941 Britain had far fewer workers in the aircraft industry, used less aluminium, and yet built 20,094 aircraft to Germany's 11,776. In terms of weight British production was 87 million pounds, Germany's 68 million.


----------



## Juha (Jul 3, 2011)

Thank a lot, Hop
I found it difficult to find out man-hours for Spit production, only found out that the price fell
Still Bf 109 was clearly more inexpensive in man-hours, if the British and German figures are comparatively. Bf 109 Messerschmitt's Regensburg factory, 1. quartel of 44 1800 man-hours and IV quartel 1600 man-hours.

Juha

ADDITUM: the Bf 109 times are probably assebly line times, so not necessarily comparable to the British man-hours.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 3, 2011)

Hop said:


> All figures from Sebastian Ritchie:
> 
> 1942, Supermarine man hours for Spitfire Vc: 13,000
> 1941, Castle Bromwich man hours for Spitfire (V, presumably): 10,400
> ...


 

In fact the numbers of workers employed in the aircraft assembly plants was marked. 25000 British workers in 1940, to over 63000 in Germany. German workers were still working standard shifts to British double shifts, and there are unknown numbers of workers in associated industries. One of the main bottlenecks for German industry were the constant bottlenecks that occurred in component supply. There were frequent shortages because of the lack of co-ordination in their production program....a product of poor pre-war organization and prepration. This is what makes the hours per airframe a bit dodgy. I bet those figures dont include all the hours and space occupied by partially completed units as they awaited the arrival of componentry from outside the factory. This is the only way to explain why airframes that in theory might tyake a half or quater the build time, employing 2.5 times the numbers of workers, with approximately two times the floorspace, but turning out 50% of the numbers of fighters, and at roughly twice the cost per unit manufactured can be adequately explained. Either that, or the German workers were building things blindfolded or with one arm tied behind their backs.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jul 3, 2011)

stona said:


> We need to be careful here. Assembly and production are not the same thing.
> Steve


 
Hello Stona,

The British War Economy, Michael Postan, is one of the post war British government publications detailing war industry in Britain.
It gives man hours figures as: 

Hurricane - 10,300 
Spitfire - 15,200 


German air minsitry publications detailing war industry in Germany. It gives man hours figures as:

Bf109 - 4,000 * this was late war 1944-1945


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 3, 2011)

In Germany the hand gesture for the number three is a thumb, forefinger and middle finger; in England it is fore, middle, ring finger. With two cultures have such a fundamental difference in representing a basic numerical concept is it really any surprise that it is near impossible to make comparisons when almost assuredly their statistical methodologies also had great differences. A little more common sense and less number thrashing should indicate that three or even two 109s in the time it takes to make one Spit is very improbable.


----------



## Juha (Jul 3, 2011)

Hello P-40K
Postan's figures might be for resource allocation, see my message #292 and anyway they are early 1940 figures, IVQuartel/1939 figure for Bf 109 at Messerschmitt's Regensburg factory, Durchlaufzeit in Production Stunden, was 7900, for III/40 5400, so anyway early 40 and 44 figures are not comparable.

Juha


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jul 3, 2011)

ahhhh ic, thanks for the correction Sir.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 3, 2011)

It seems data is consistent through war you could build 109 1/3 time of a Spitfire. In 1944 or 1940.. Hawker Hurricane, in 2/3 time. Anyone has figures for Hawker Typhoon or 190? I believe it was more or less meant replacement of Spitfire/109.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 3, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> It seems data is consistent through war you could build 109 1/3 time of a Spitfire. In 1944 or 1940.. Hawker Hurricane, in 2/3 time. Anyone has figures for Hawker Typhoon or 190? I believe it was more or less meant replacement of Spitfire/109.


 
Your data can be consistent and still result in the wrong conclusions. Your conclusions from your data can be accurate but wrong. Garbage in = Garbage out. Any complex issue can be explained by a simple, easy to understand, rational, data supported explanation and be completely wrong. People spent thousands of year using brilliant logic, reason, and flawed data to prove the Sun revolved around the Earth. Check your data very closely to determine methodology of collection before disregarding what common sense is telling you. I don't think you can build a 109 in one third the time of a Spit.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 3, 2011)

It is what data says... it may right, it may wrong. But I will not research if its true or it is misunderstanding.. Most likely it simply say what it says.. reason to doubt it? Why? Serios reason I mean.. anyone guess what number mean, and what it should not mean.. both way. There may be difference in counting, but I do not think it will change much - margin of error is possible not big. Say it was not 1800 h for 109 and not 1600, and not 15 200 hours for Spitfire, but 14 000.. if by same standard. But this error - not significant. So why worry? Go look up how fast Southampton Spit is built, how fast at same time CB Spit is built, how it relates to Erla, Regensburg, Heinkel 109.. preferably in month when day was equally sunny during month, so worker mood was equally good.. etc. "Much ado for nothing". Simple truth for scope of this thread - Spitfire was much more difficult to produce than 109 at same time in British factory. This is internet forum, not 500-page dissertation of doctorate in Unversity of Economics.. that is where people challange data, like aha! You miss 1,5 hour work of cleaning tools after aircraft assembly, including in one 15 200 hour but not in 4700 hour.. 

Remember, people also took lifetime proving wrong Earth revolving around Sun..


----------



## parsifal (Jul 3, 2011)

From Wiki….
“_In February 1936 the director of Vickers-Armstrongs, Sir Robert MacLean, guaranteed production of five aircraft a week, beginning 15 months after an order was placed. On 3 June 1936, the Air Ministry placed an order for 310 aircraft, for a price of £1,395,000.[83] Full-scale production of the Spitfire began at Supermarine's facility in Woolston, Southampton, but it quickly became clear that the order could not be completed in the 15 months promised. Supermarine was a small company, already busy building the Walrus and Stranraer, and its parent company, Vickers, was busy building the Wellington. The initial solution was to subcontract the work out. The first production Spitfire rolled off the assembly line in mid-1938, and was flown on 15 May 1938, almost 24 months after the initial order. 
The final cost of the first 310 aircraft, after delays and increased programme costs, came to £1,870,242 or £1,533 more per aircraft than originally estimated.[4] Production aircraft cost about £9,500. The most expensive components were the hand-fabricated and finished fuselage at approximately £2,500, then the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine at £2,000, followed by the wings at £1,800 a pair, guns and undercarriage, both at £800 each, and the propeller at £350.”_

It seems clear therefore that the figures being quoted for the manhours needed to produce a Spitfire in January 1940 relate to the prewar factory at Woolston. As of may 1940, the prewar shadow factory at Bromwich was yet to turn out even a single Spit. The story of its initial failure and ultimate success is an interesting one. 

From Wiki, the same article

_“Castle Bromwich
In 1935, the Air Ministry approached Morris Motor Company to ask how quickly their Cowley plant could be turned to aircraft production. This informal asking of major manufacturing facilities was turned into a formal plan to boost British aircraft production capacity in 1936, as the Shadow factory plan, under the leadership of Herbert Austin. Austin was briefed to build nine new factories, and further supplement the existing British car manufacturing industry, by either adding to its overall capacity or capability to reorganise to produce aircraft and their engines.
Under the plan, on 12 July 1938, the Air Ministry bought a site consisting of farm fields and a sewage works next to Castle Bromwich Aerodrome in the West Midlands. This shadow factory would supplement Supermarine's original factories in Southampton in building the Spitfire. The Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory ordered the most modern machine tools then available, which were being installed two months after work started on the site. Although Morris Motors under Lord Nuffield (an expert in mass motor-vehicle construction) at first managed and equipped the factory, it was funded by government money. When the project was first mooted it was estimated that the factory would be built for £2,000,000, however, by the beginning of 1939 this cost had doubled to over £4,000,000. The Spitfire's stressed-skin construction required precision engineering skills and techniques outside the experience of the local labour force, which took some time to train. However, even as the first Spitfires were being built in June 1940 the factory was still incomplete, and there were numerous problems with the factory management, which ignored tooling and drawings provided by Supermarine in favour of tools and drawings of its own designs, and with the workforce which, while not completely stopping production, continually threatened strikes or "slow downs" until their demands for higher than average pay rates were met. 
By May 1940, Castle Bromwich had not yet built its first Spitfire, in spite of promises that the factory would be producing 60 per week starting in April. On 17 May Lord Beaverbrook, Minister of Aircraft Production, telephoned Lord Nuffield and manoeuvered him into handing over control of the Castle Bromwich plant to Beaverbook's Ministry. Beaverbrook immediately sent in experienced management staff and experienced workers from Supermarine and gave over control of the factory to Vickers-Armstrong. Although it would take some time to resolve the problems, in June 1940, 10 Mk IIs were built; in 23 July rolled out, 37 in August, and 56 in September.[ By the time production ended at Castle Bromwich in June 1945, a total of 12,129 Spitfires (921 Mk IIs, 4,489 Mk Vs, 5,665 Mk IXs, and 1,054 Mk XVIs[) had been built. Today it is owned by Jaguar Cars, and known as Castle Bromwich Assembly used for final assembly of all current Jaguar vehicles.”_

The details of Spit II production from Bromwich are as follows:

Vickers Armstrong (Castle Bromwich)Ltd Contract no.B981687/39/C.23(c) First order for 1000 Spitfire MKII. Dated 12 April 1939.
Serial allocations-P7280-7329, P7350-7389, P7420-7499, P7490-7509, P7520-7569, P7590-7629, P7661-7699, P7730-7759, PP7770-7789, P7810-7859, P7880-7929, P7960-7999, P8081-8049, P8070-8099, P8130-8149, P8160-8209, P8230-8279, P8310-8349, P8360-8399, P8420-8449, P8460-8479, P8500-8549, P8560-8609, P8640-8679, P8690-8729, P8740-8759, P8790-8799.
Built as MkIIA/IIB/VA/VB between June 1940 and July 1941. First delivered P7280 27 June,1940 last P8799 21 July 1941.

We know from the Wiki article that 126 Spit IIs were built June to September. That means that the remainder (795) were built from Bromwich October 1940 to the end of July 1941, or an average of about 80 per month. These were not the only aircraft produced from Bromwich at this time, but the output was about 3 per day from this factory.

In addition to this the factory was also producing a further 500 Mk is (upgraded to MkVs during construction. This increases the output of this factory at this time to about 4.3 Spits per day in 1940-41, once peak output rates had been achieved

What I can also say is that in 1940, those plants engaged in Bf 109 production were not achieving outputs of 6 per day. There were at least three factories that i know of, with a combined monthly output of about 160-200 Se fighters per month. Thats an average of about 1.8 per day per factory. A long way short of 6 per day inother words, and still a long way short of 4.31 per day which was being achieved by British Industry at this time


----------



## Milosh (Jul 3, 2011)

Is the 109 build time from the start of the building on the production line? 

Is the Spitfire build time including the time required for the 'bits and pieces 'component manufacturing that would be assembled on the production line?

As someone mentioned once the jigs were set up for the fuselage, wings and tail, there shouldn't be much difference in assembly times and certainly not a times 3 or more difference.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 3, 2011)

According to wiki (again), a bf 109g-6 cost RM42900 to construct to the front of the factory.

The Spitfire Is of the initial order cost 9500 pounds per copy, but this reduced to less than 5000 pounds per copy from about 1942.

This is dangerously innaccurate, but i will attempt it. We need to look at exchange rates to try and compare construction costs of the two aircraft. 

Exchange Rates- based on Average NY stock exchange noon-time exchange rates 1938
source (World Almanac and Book of Facts 1940)
RM = 0.40 US Dollars
UK PND = 4.88 US Dollars
Franc = 0.029 US Dollars
Ruble = 0.20 US Dollars (used for internal pricing/ exchange)

On that basis, a G-6 costs about $17160 USD to produce, to the Spit Is cost of $46360 per copy. however, as per one of my previous posts, we are not comparing apples to apples when we compare the initial order for a new type, to that of an established type. If we compare the cost of the post 1942 Spit, to the 1942 Bf109, we get a closer comparability, and not surprisingly, the unit costs are very nearly the same. A midwar spit cost $24400 USD, which given the inherent innaccuracies of this analysis means the two aircraft are the same in terms of cost. 

Now, by mid-1942, German costs were being held in check by the extensive use of slave labour, and an artificially low pegged rate of exchange. Given these artificial crutches that the germans were using to prop up their economy, I would still argue that the British aero industry was much more efficient during the war at producing aircraft than the germans.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 3, 2011)

Tante Ju said:


> It is what data says... it may right, it may wrong. But I will not research if its true or it is misunderstanding.. Most likely it simply say what it says.. reason to doubt it? Why? Serios reason I mean.. anyone guess what number mean, and what it should not mean.. both way. There may be difference in counting, but I do not think it will change much - margin of error is possible not big. Say it was not 1800 h for 109 and not 1600, and not 15 200 hours for Spitfire, but 14 000.. if by same standard. But this error - not significant. So why worry? Go look up how fast Southampton Spit is built, how fast at same time CB Spit is built, how it relates to Erla, Regensburg, Heinkel 109.. preferably in month when day was equally sunny during month, so worker mood was equally good.. etc. "Much ado for nothing". Simple truth for scope of this thread - Spitfire was much more difficult to produce than 109 at same time in British factory. This is internet forum, not 500-page dissertation of doctorate in Unversity of Economics.. that is where people challange data, like aha! You miss 1,5 hour work of cleaning tools after aircraft assembly, including in one 15 200 hour but not in 4700 hour..
> 
> Remember, people also took lifetime proving wrong Earth revolving around Sun..


 

I understand your point about this not being a review of a doctorate thesis but to believe the claim of three 109s built in the time of one Spit is asking for a triumph of credulity over common sense. Admirers of the ME-109 are quick to dismiss claims of landing gear design contributing to accidents and losses greater than comparable aircraft. The shoe is now on the other foot. I am dismissing the claim of Messerschmitt devotees of superior ME-109 cost in man-hours being so substantial that three could be built in the time of one Spitfire. The ball is served to your court ME-109 guys! Use the racquet of truth and reason to deliver a winning return if you can!

Ya, I watched some of Wimbleton.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jul 3, 2011)

three, no. 1 1/2 though absolutley.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 3, 2011)

not sure what you are saying P-40K. Is it 1.5 RM to the dollar???? If so, that would increase the cost of a 109 in USD. You need to clarify a bit please


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jul 3, 2011)

parsifal said:


> not sure what you are saying P-40K. Is it 1.5 RM to the dollar???? If so, that would increase the cost of a 109 in USD. You need to clarify a bit please


 
for every one spitfire built, the Germans made 1 1/2 Bf109's. as opposed to what some say of 3:1


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 3, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> three, no. 1 1/2 though absolutley.


 
That is a much more believable build to build ratio. I am not agreeing it is the absolute truth but that it probably is closer to the truth.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2011)

It has to be the truth, because 33000 109s were built to 20000 (roughly) spits. thats a ratio of 1.5 to 1. The question is at what cost, and the further question is, at what cost earlier in the war. 

This I know. The RLM was spending a much larger amount of money on procurement in 1940 than the RAF. For that greater expenditure it was getting considerably less numbers of aircraft. This is reflected in spades in the aircraft received records for each country. Britain outproduced Germany in 1940-41 by a considerable margin. Germany began to catch up and eventually overtake Britain in 1943-4, but by then it was much too late.

Whilst i am less sure, I reasonably confident that the unit production costs for each type are quite comparable. The issue of the Spitfire being difficult to build only holds true for the early (ie prewar) production runs. The argument that the Spit was built in small innefficient factories is equally only true for the pre-war, and early part of the war.

Truth is, both types ended up being produced more or less as military consumer items, built in great quantities, cheaply, yet still effective pieces of kit for both sides. But the Spit reached this happy state before the 109 did.....due largely to the different approaches made in the prewar planning and general wartime strategies of the two sides 

All i am responding to is these largely fallacious claims that the Spitfire was far more expensive, and/or far difficult to produce than the 109, or that the 109 was this piece of comsummable hardware, whilst the Spit was not. These are all gross distortions of the facts IMO.


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2011)

I don't pretend that to know anything about costs and to be honest, any comparison of cost when you have such different cultures re labour used in construction is probably meaningless.
That said I do know that when the RAF evaluated the the 109 they also evaluated it on ease of production and were clearly very impressed. There were a lot of features mentioned.


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2011)

Have no idea what happened to the order of the photo's but you can work it out from the page numbers


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2011)

Hi Glider

Not sure if im in your sights with your post. The material youve posted is very interesting and relevant (as usual). Just so we are clear, I am not levelling criticism so much at the produceability of the type. But rather the arrangements made for its production were not optimised prewar. The Germans had nothing like the brits prewar in terms of the shadow factory system, and failed to make adequate arrangements for offsite componentry manufacture. The result was that early in the war their unit costs were much higher than they were for the RAF. This is shown in their relatively low outputs overall. You can, moreover cut that any way you like....airframe weight, nos of engines, aircraft delivered. The Brits were ahead in reducing aircraft production to an item of military consummables than the germans. But the germans were not far behind, and from about 43 onward shot past the brits, because of those extraneous matters like forced labour and the like. But in the early years it was all one way traffic. the Brits had the LW pegged at every juncture in terms of production, though in my opinion they were spending less overall. But in terms of the actual designs themselves, apart from the clarification about the Spitfire wing, I have not really said much about the efficiency of the design themselves. this is because in the context of that early war period, the design efficiency was not a critical issue to production.


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2011)

Hi Parsifal
Not my intention to have sights on anyone, just thought that it might be of interest. 
My personal view is that the German production methods were very inefficient but it didn't stop some of the designs such as the 109 as being designed for easy production.
There can be little doubt that Speer made huge inprovements in efficiency but had their organisation/methods been better from the start these changes wouldn't have been needed. Can you imagine what would have happened if Germany had started the attack on Russia with a thousand more aircraft and a thousand more tanks. Scary Stuff


----------



## riacrato (Jul 4, 2011)

I don't think anyone doubts that British pre- and early war economical efforts were much more efficient than the German ones.

The question was however, how easy the Bf 109 and Spitfire were to produce as products themselves.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 4, 2011)

Glider said:


> My personal view is that the German production methods were very inefficient but it didn't stop some of the designs such as the 109 as being designed for easy production.



I think you and parisfal both mix production efficient with production plan. Factory do not work like people work all day and then see in months end how many could they produce... so comparing production number a bit.. stupid.. sorry. 

Factories produce as much as order is for. No more. If there is order for 200 fighter a month, they will produce 200.. even if there capacity for 600, really. USSBS says German aircraft industry was under ultized until 1944. Meaning: lot of spare capacity, they still work in single shift etc. 

If you want to see effiency, it is there in labour hours needed for aircraft. Already posted for 1940.

Spitfire	15 200 hour
Hurricane	10 300 hour
Wellington	38 000 hour

109E 7900 to 5400 hour 
Ju 88A 37 000 

So these are comparable type. You see German fighter factories built fighters more efficient than British.. of course 109 being simpler and result cheaper also to build is bonus, but even compared to Hurricane. 

But for example Wellington requires almost same man hour as Junkers 88.

Simple reason why there were more Hurricane is that British ordered more in aircraft procurement plan. Germans - less. But on other hand, German order more bomber. So they have more resource spent on bomber, so more bomber than British (and heavier - many British bomber are Blenheim, Battle. Really no same thing as say, big at time He 111).

Also parsifal say German spent more on aircraft in 1940, but got less aircraft.. I do not know exact numbers, would like to see... but this is again very simple. Ignores complete what was produced. It is easy to produce many fighters from same money. German produce bombers first, more than British.. and German bomber, like 88, was SIX time expansive than a cheap 109. In RM.. no need to convert. And of course a 109 with big engine probably 2 - 3 times as expansive as simply trainer aircraft, like Bücker.. made of canvas and some small engine, no radio, guns etc.

British produce mostly of fighter and trainer. Of course more from same money.

I agree German could use more. They should seen, world is becoming enemy, and prepear. But I do not think it is because "poor effiency", bad organisation. It is idea raping facts.. shown by labour hour required for aircraft type shown above.

This is because German error we know from back view had too small number aircraft plan to built. Not because industry was poorly organised, or workers work bad. It is because top leaders (Udet) made poor decisions, and did not foresee that much more aircraft required for war.. of course in 1940, future looked bright for German.. still largest/strongest air force in world. I think real error was to wait until 1943 with actual order of lot of aircraft. Until then, Germany was giant with one hand tied behind back.. it should have done late 1941 when invasion of Russia defeated.. they should see it was go to be long war that point. And make much bigger aircraft procurement plans/orders.


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2011)

Tante
I don't think we have mixed these factors up. I do doubt doubt the figures for man hours you mention and there is no denying that Germanys leaders could and should have ordered more aircraft from the start. The man hours needed to build an aircraft are more to do with the design than anything else. The documents I produced show that the 109 was designed from the start with ease of production in mind, even the worlds greatest spitfire fan would ahve to agree that the Spitfire put ease of production way down the list.

However the German production processes were inefficient, Speer made huge improvements in production and at the same time made the production more efficient. It wasn't just man hours that improved he reduced waste in the production process, removed the overheads and organised priorities between conflicting requirements from the different parts of the armed forces and civilian authorities. But those inefficiencies were there in the first place for him to resolve.

I also have some questions re your assertion that the German Air Force built bombers first and fighters second and that the RAF did the reverse. The RAF made a significant number of Wellingtons, Hampdens, Whitleys and Blenheims, probably at least as many as the German He111, Ju88 and Do 17/215/217. But they also made a massive investment into their replacements, Sterling, Lancaster, Halifax, Mosquito and others that didn't get produced in any numbers, an investent that Germany didn't make in anything like the same scale.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2011)

Sorry Tante, but I just cannot agree with your measures of efficiency. I'm not saying you are wrong in the numbers you are producing, although the figures you quote raise more questions than they answer. Significantly for me is the issue of cost, if the 109 was so efficient in terms of manhours to produce, why is its cost comparable to that of a spitfire produced at the same time? I strongly suspect that the manhours you quote for the Spit are for one time period (likely the prewar period) whilst those for the 109 are for another, probably around 1944, when great advances in efficiency had indeed been achieved. But if we compare apples to apples, we need to be sure that the time frames and other issues coincide. What was the most efficient time for production of the Spitfire to the most efficient time for production of the 109. I'll be honest with you, I dont believe your figures are doing that.

Certainly, if we view the German aero industry overall it was not very efficient in 1940. Compared to the British aero Industry, it was employing three times the workforce, yet could only afford to turn out about 2/3 as many aircraft. Its budget in 1940 was clearly much larger than the Britiah procurement budget. If the figures you are suggesting were applicable in 1940, for all types (which you did not claim, but I am trying to illustrate to you why the figures cannot be comparable to each other) then if it takes 1/3 the man hours to build each unit, with three times the work force and twice the budget, then why the hell did the Germans not outproduce the british to hell in 1940???? If your figures were comparable, that would mean the German industry, on a unit by unit basis was only about 1/12 as efficient, which I think is a ridiculous claim to be honest. If they were spending twice as much on procurement, and had three times as many workers, to proce about 2/3 as many aircraft, the production times per aircraft had to be much greater per aircraft. Either that or the German air ministry were simply burning reichmarks to keep warm. As well as the cost per unit. They are facts that simply cannot be swept under the carpet or ignored by quoting unsubstantiated and suspect man hours per airframe figures 

The reason is because in the time frame we are talking about, your figures are not correct. On top of that, there were gross innefficiencies in the German aero industry, as we have alluded to earlier....a lack of forward planning, a shortage of components from subcontractors, and similar. It took time to overcome those problems, once they were, the efficiency in the design insoifar as building is concerned really did shine through. You will not get any argument from me that the 109 was an easy to build aircraft, once its production issues had been worked out, later in the war. But then we would need to compere that efficient production, with the most efficient numbers for the Spitfire, which is not happening at the moment


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 4, 2011)

I dont think you can reasonable compare exact figures but in general I would say the Bf109 was easier to build and repair because it was designed that way. Britain set out from the start to fight an enemy which boasted of its thousands of aircraft. Goering and others didnt realise how many AC they would lose on campaigns like Poland France Britain and Russia and so made little preparation for it until it was too late.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2011)

Ive just been on another forum site that is also discussing this very issue. They quote a book that I have not seen myself: Budraß "Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918-1945"

According to more than one member of that forum, in quoting this source, the following costs are quoted for the Bf 109 pre-war. "Selling prices for Bf 109s in 1939 are given as follows: BFW-per 100 (74,000 RM), 100-200 (72,000 RM), 200-500 (70,000
RM). There is another line in the table for fully equipped 148,000, 135,000 and 130,000 RM respectively, with an engine cost of 47,000 RM."

Unfortunately we have lies damn lies and statistics. There is simply no comparability to unit costs, production times, man hours per aircraft that we can place any faith in, because the terms of reference for each side are simply not on the same playing field. Are we talking 5000 hours just to build the airframe. Does that earlier cost I posted (RM 42900) include its engine armament and other equipment????

I dont think that anything can be assumed to be what it says in is in this issue. We are back to comparing simple outputs. Hours per unit, costs per unit or any of these other fancy measurments arent worth the making comparison, because we dont what we are actually getting for the statistic quoted.......disappointing.......


----------



## Readie (Jul 4, 2011)

The brutal 109 was designed as a cheap easy build, it was just a machine to do a job in a workmanlike Teutonic way, which it did very well.
The elegant and iconic Spitfire was a plane of style, carefully crafted by hand to exacting standards,powered by the Merlin it was a deadly beauty that, in the right hands, would always best a 109.
Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 4, 2011)

Readie said:


> The brutal 109 was designed as a cheap easy build, it was just a machine to do a job in a workmanlike Teutonic way, which it did very well.
> The elegant and iconic Spitfire was a plane of style, carefully crafted by hand to exacting standards,powered by the Merlin it was a deadly beauty that, in the right hands, would always best a 109.
> Cheers
> John


 
Sorry John, but that is more romance than reality.


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jul 4, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Sorry John, but that is more romance than reality.


 
yes, romance indeed. Without America's support protection, ie: lend/lease, convoy protection, eventual "boots on the ground", what would have become of the romantic spitfire england as a whole??

Don't think it would matter one iota on how long it took to produce a Bf109.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 4, 2011)

Readie said:


> The brutal 109 was designed as a cheap easy build, it was just a machine to do a job in a workmanlike Teutonic way, which it did very well.
> The elegant and iconic Spitfire was a plane of style, carefully crafted by hand to exacting standards,powered by the Merlin it was a deadly beauty that, in the right hands, would always best a 109.
> Cheers
> John



I don't ever want to hear you talk about "fans of other aircraft" because you are so high on the Spitfire. 

Sorry, I don't mean any insult out of this, but damn you eat, sleep and **** the Spitfire so much it is really damn funny!

And to be honest here, any aircraft at the right hands will best any aircraft, that goes for a Bf 109 over a Spitfire as well...

...any day.


----------



## Readie (Jul 4, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> yes, romance indeed. Without America's support protection, ie: lend/lease, convoy protection, eventual "boots on the ground", what would have become of the romantic spitfire england as a whole??
> 
> Don't think it would matter one iota on how long it took to produce a Bf109.



PK40,I agree with you that the production time of the 109 is largely irrelevant.

The question of 'lend lease' etc has been more than thoroughly covered in another thread. The simple fact is that Britain had allies, her Commonwealth ( inc your Canada) and the Americans. Take on on one take on all as the Aussies so succinctly put it.
I'm exploring the Spitfire and what it meant and I cordially invite you to read the thread and join in.
There is one fact that you may like to contemplate in the meantime, that the free world we enjoy today was only possible because England had the Spitfire and we were able to rebuff Nazi Germany in 1940. The resultant time that was won gave the allies time to do deals, gather ourselves and plan the defeat of the third reich.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Jul 4, 2011)

Chris, you see right through me 
I'm working on the next generation of Reads by taking my children to Duxford and the Museums...
Blind Faith? maybe...but, as the UK staggers from one crisis, shame and embarrassment to another, the Spitfire seems from a better time.
Its is the epitome of beauty to me.
Cheers
John


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 4, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> yes, romance indeed. Without America's support protection, ie: lend/lease, convoy protection, eventual "boots on the ground", what would have become of the romantic spitfire england as a whole??
> 
> Don't think it would matter one iota on how long it took to produce a Bf109.


 
I also think you should re-visit the Lend-Lease thread. The reality of the situation was far less cut and dry than your post posits.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 4, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> ...but damn you eat, sleep and **** the Spitfire so much it is really damn funny!



Can you imagine the amount of laxatives it takes to make passing one possible!


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 4, 2011)

Readie said:


> Chris, you see right through me
> I'm working on the next generation of Reads by taking my children to Duxford and the Museums...
> Blind Faith? maybe...but, as the UK staggers from one crisis, shame and embarrassment to another, the Spitfire seems from a better time.
> Its is the epitome of beauty to me.
> ...



Took my 3 years and 11months old grand daughter to my local airbase RAF Woodvale yesterday for the 70th anniversary celebrations. She absolutely loved watching the Spit flypast the noise was a bit of a shock to her as the pilot barrelled down the runway at daisycutter height but she clapped and squealed all the time. Think I might have managed to infect another generation with old plane disease.


----------



## Readie (Jul 4, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Took my 3 years and 11months old grand daughter to my local airbase RAF Woodvale yesterday for the 70th anniversary celebrations. She absolutely loved watching the Spit flypast the noise was a bit of a shock to her as the pilot barrelled down the runway at daisycutter height but she clapped and squealed all the time. Think I might have managed to infect another generation with old plane disease.


 
Top man...I'd shake your hand if I could.
To love the Spitfire is genetic...who couldn't adore the sound and majesty?
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Jul 4, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Can you imagine the amount of laxatives it takes to make passing one possible!


 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvDDDKnNhuE_

Like this chap?


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 4, 2011)

Readie said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvDDDKnNhuE_
> 
> Like this chap?




Ya, he probably soiled his shorts with a load as big as a Spitfire!


----------



## Airframes (Jul 4, 2011)

Ah, so that's where the Spit had been to, Woodvale. It passed over my house flying south yesterday afternoon. BTW, I once lived near Woodvale, at Formby.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 4, 2011)

Airframes said:


> Ah, so that's where the Spit had been to, Woodvale. It passed over my house flying south yesterday afternoon. BTW, I once lived near Woodvale, at Formby.



Thats where I live Formby. Flatter than last weeks beer but a nice place to live.


----------



## Readie (Jul 4, 2011)

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXUNXt-RXkPda-wQ78z6NVsNzLENXFtjejCxbNeXbElNQIQUAObQ

Proper beer


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jul 4, 2011)

parsifal said:


> From Wiki….
> “_In February 1936 the director of Vickers-Armstrongs, Sir Robert MacLean, guaranteed production of five aircraft a week, beginning 15 months after an order was placed. On 3 June 1936, the Air Ministry placed an order for 310 aircraft, for a price of £1,395,000.[83] Full-scale production of the Spitfire began at Supermarine's facility in Woolston, Southampton, but it quickly became clear that the order could not be completed in the 15 months promised. Supermarine was a small company, already busy building the Walrus and Stranraer, and its parent company, Vickers, was busy building the Wellington. The initial solution was to subcontract the work out. The first production Spitfire rolled off the assembly line in mid-1938, and was flown on 15 May 1938, almost 24 months after the initial order.
> The final cost of the first 310 aircraft, after delays and increased programme costs, came to £1,870,242 or £1,533 more per aircraft than originally estimated.[4] Production aircraft cost about £9,500. The most expensive components were the hand-fabricated and finished fuselage at approximately £2,500, then the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine at £2,000, followed by the wings at £1,800 a pair, guns and undercarriage, both at £800 each, and the propeller at £350.”_
> 
> ...


 
Ahhh Glory days - I humbly admit I wrote much of this material on the problems and permutations of Spitfire production.  
Fact was that the Spitfire was nearly aborted before the first production aircraft was built - prior to the Spitfire the Supermarine factory was only geared up to fill small orders for flying boats etc: when large orders were suddenly placed for the Spitfire it meant that many components (such as wings) had sub-contracted out: the sub-contractors themselves had real problems adapting to the demanding construction techniques of the Spitfire, such that in 1938 wingless Spitfire airframes were piling up at a time when the Spitfire was supposed to be entering squadron service en masse. 
All of these huge production problems, in turn, meant that a plan was seriously mooted to stop Spitfire production after the first order of 310 had been completed and turn Supermarine over to building Beaufighters or Whirlwinds...it took some persuasion on the part of MacLean and others to persuade the Air Ministry to place further orders for the Spitfire.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> yes, romance indeed. Without America's support protection, ie: lend/lease, convoy protection, eventual "boots on the ground", what would have become of the romantic spitfire england as a whole??
> 
> Don't think it would matter one iota on how long it took to produce a Bf109.




There is a pretty interesting thread about Lend Lease that you should have a look at. There was an effect from the Spit on the war, but it is equally fallacious to argue German defeat even in the BoB was the result of failings in the 109 as it is to try and argue Alied victory, or even the outcome of the war rested on the Spit. Victory and defeat were the opposite sides of the same coin, and each outcome was the product of the whole package

Ive said it so many times, its must be getting tiring for some. Both aircraft were exceptional. Both deserve respect. Both were technological marvels. One was on the the losing side and one was on the winning side. That had to be. They both served their countries exceptionally well . My interest and thirst is know the reasons for that outcome, in an honest way, and make sure those reasons are known to the wider audience not to denigrate one aircraft or the other uneccessarily.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2011)

NZTyphoon said:


> Ahhh Glory days - I humbly admit I wrote much of this material on the problems and permutations of Spitfire production.
> Fact was that the Spitfire was nearly aborted before the first production aircraft was built - prior to the Spitfire the Supermarine factory was only geared up to fill small orders for flying boats etc: when large orders were suddenly placed for the Spitfire it meant that many components (such as wings) had sub-contracted out: the sub-contractors themselves had real problems adapting to the demanding construction techniques of the Spitfire, such that in 1938 wingless Spitfire airframes were piling up at a time when the Spitfire was supposed to be entering squadron service en masse.
> All of these huge production problems, in turn, meant that a plan was seriously mooted to stop Spitfire production after the first order of 310 had been completed and turn Supermarine over to building Beaufighters or Whirlwinds...it took some persuasion on the part of MacLean and others to persuade the Air Ministry to place further orders for the Spitfire.



If you wrote the wiki article, its a very good one IMO. Anyway just serves to illustrate the problems in setting up an efficient production line. Applies to the allies and the germans in equal measure, but the germans until later in the war did not put enough thought or effort into the process


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jul 4, 2011)

the BoB was lost for England, if the FAT MAN would have continued the bombing of RAF radar installations. I read somewhere that the RAF could only hold for a couple more weeks.
then for some reason, the FAT MAN decided to stop sending fighters to England.

besides, the REAL hero for the BoB was the Hurricane.. certainly not the spitfire.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 4, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> besides, the REAL hero for the BoB was the Hurricane.. certainly not the spitfire.



While the Hurricane did do a lot more of the work, there were a lot more of them, the BoB would have been much closer if you replace Spitfires with Hurricanes 1 for 1. Spitfires suffered fewer losses per 100 or 1000 sorties and Spitfires shot down more more German Planes per 100 or 1000 sorties. 
While fewer in number they were more effective than the Hurricane and when you are short of experienced pilots, putting them in a more effective plane that gave them a better chance of survival is the smart move.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2011)

Yep, denying the Spit did not have a significant effect on the battle is just as wrong as saying the defeat of the Germans was the result of the 109s limitations. And, I dont agree that you can put down the defeat of the german air force to one man, or deny that the efforts of the allies was not having an effect.

The pressure the RAF was being placed under in the earlier part of the campaign was serious, it may have forced partial withdrawals from some of the more exposed fields, but I dispute strongly that the germans ever came close to victory using one strategy. Their targetting of airfields was a better bet than city busting, but it would have required a much more targetted rsposnse and far better recon than was actually done. too many raids, too many random targets, too many missed opportunities.

Trying to blame Goring solely for what was obviously a systemic failure in the organization is just as erroneous as all the other "single reasons" offered for defeat. it was a reason, even a big reason (like the man) but it was not the only reason. if he were the only reason, the germans would have found ways to compensate for that problem. they didnt, because the problems were generic to the organization itself 

In the same light trying to attribute Allied victory to one reason, or one man, or one piece of kit is just as wrong, but the flip side of the coin. The reasons for allied victory ar complex, systemic and the result of the success of the organization as a whole.

There is no magic bullet in this debate


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 4, 2011)

Part of the problem on the German side was overconfidence in their intelligence assessments. They believed RAF Fighter Command was on its last legs without strong evidence to support that assertion. The fallacy of their analysis became clear when they sent unescorted bombers from Norway to attack vital targets in Scotland and suffered horrendous losses when engaged by RAF fighters that, according to German statistics, didn't exist.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 4, 2011)

I believe the Brits who are responsable for winning BoB are Ellington, Freeman and Newell they are the ones that got the RDF up and running and ordered the the Spit and the Hurricane the other guys like Dowding etc had the tools thanks to these folks


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 4, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> the BoB was lost for England, if the FAT MAN would have continued the bombing of RAF radar installations. I read somewhere that the RAF could only hold for a couple more weeks.
> then for some reason, the FAT MAN decided to stop sending fighters to England.
> 
> besides, the REAL hero for the BoB was the Hurricane.. certainly not the spitfire.



The Battle of Britain becomes more difficult for the British if the Luftwaffe continues to bomb the radar station and, more particularly, RAF fighter fields. Whether it means a German victory is another question entirely - just a single 11 Group fighter field was shut down during the airfield bombing campaign.

The RAF was certainly never a couple of weeks from defeat during the Battle of Britain. This is one of those myths that have grown up around the Battle. Some elements of Fighter Command believed that another two weeks of Luftwaffe attacks on fighter fields COULD (not would) force the retirement of some 11 Group squadrons from the most exposed airfields to more defensible positions, possibly north of the Thames. This still leaves . 

Withdrawing some of 11 Group does not represent the defeat of the RAF though. 10 Group and 12 Group were relatively unaffected by the attacks on airfields. Apart form the pilot losses, the major problem with 11 Group dispersing to satellite fields was spare parts and servicing. Notably, Park and Dowding refused to canvas withdrawing 11 Group squadrons northward, despite the pressure of the attacks.

In 1940, the Luftwaffe only had the slimmest chance of defeating Fighter Command to its satisfaction (ie air supremacy to allow an seaborne invasion), through a combination of its own mistakes and the British pilot/aircraft replacement rates. Through July and August, RAF fighter and pilot strength increased. It was only in the late August to early September period that rates of attrition at Fighter Command, particularly for pilots, exceeded rates of replacement. 

At the rate of loss between 24-August and 07-September, Fighter Command would have lost around 50% of its pilot strength in 10 weeks and only replaced around 20-30% of these losses. Weakened, yes, but not defeated.

However, on the other side of the Channel, things were even worse, a point that is often ignored. The late August/early September period was proportionally more costly for the Luftwaffe than the RAF. By mid September, Luftwaffe 109E and 110 fighter strengths were lower than in July - a reversal of the RAF position, where Hurricane and Spitfire fighter strength increased.

In terms of the battle of attrition, switching to bombing London was proportionally less costly for the Luftwaffe than it was for the RAF. While it provided relief for RAF pilots, the exchange rate was worse for the RAF in mid September to October than it had been in July and August.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 4, 2011)

Hurricane versus Spitfire in the Battle of Britain.

It is true that the Spitfire had a better sortie kill/loss ratio than the Hurricane, but one of the reason may be seen in the deployment of Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons on July 08:

10 Group: 2 Hurricane, 2 Spitfire
11 Group: 12 Hurricane, 6 Spitfire
12 Group: 5 Hurricane, 5 Spitfire
13 Group: 3 Hurricane, 7 Spitfire

another 8 Hurricane squadrons were forming up.

11 Group bore the brunt of the battle, and fighters there were more likely to be bounced than anywhere else, so naturally this skews the loss rate suffered in favour of the Spitfire, while 10 and 12 Group Spitfires were more likely ( as it seems to me) be be able to get the bounce on Luftwaffe fighters. IIRC, the Hurricane squadrons had a higher availability throughout the battle and could be more easily and quickly repaired. Now I am not saying that the kill/loss ratio would reverse completely if 12 Spit squadrons were based in 11 Group, but I do think they would have evened up. It is also probable that the Hurricanes were deliberately placed in 11 Group because their production numbers were much higher than the Spit and so they could endure a higher loss rate.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 5, 2011)

Churchills quote: "this was their finest hour", ended up being pretty accurate as far as the Hurricane was concerned. There was really not much room for further developement of the Hurri, it was replaced as quickly as possible in front line fighter units by the better performing and 'upgradeable' Spitfire. The Hurri probably does deserve a bit more credit than the Spitfire for winning the Battle, and it did soldier on in other theaters and roles, but it's finest hour was pretty much over.


----------



## stona (Jul 5, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> the REAL hero for the BoB was the Hurricane.. certainly not the spitfire.



Not so. Heroes and heroism are not always a rational fact based selection. People really don't get the emotional attachment of the British to the Spitfire (I've said it before). The Spitfire was elected as the hero of the BoB by the people of these islands,with a bit of help from the propaganda people at various ministries and the BBC. Spitfire funds were set up all over the country,not Hurricane funds. South Pacific islands raised money for Spitfires,not Hurricanes. You can certainly argue that the Hurricane has been overlooked,even got a bit of a bum deal,in all this but that's the way it was.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Readie (Jul 5, 2011)

claidemore said:


> Churchills quote: "this was their finest hour"



With respect you have taken 'finest hour' out of context. Here's more of the famous speech.

...However matters may go in France or with the French Government or with another French Government, we in this island and in the British Empire will never lose our sense of comradeship with the French people. If we are now called upon to endure what they have suffered we shall emulate their courage, and if final victory rewards our toils they shall share the gains, aye. And freedom shall be restored to all. We abate nothing of our just demands—Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, all who have joined their causes to our own shall be restored.
What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.
But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves, that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour.

Our 'finest hour' included everyone in the British Isles, her Empire and her Commonwealth.

Cheers
John


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 5, 2011)

I think the real heros were the boys in the seat and the thousands who helped them do the job.

The poor hurricane did have its thunder stolen a bit but in a straight fight it wasnt a match for a 109 in most conditions. I dont know why they didnt put thinner wings on the hurricane or isnt it a simple job?


----------



## stona (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> I dont know why they didnt put thinner wings on the hurricane or isnt it a simple job?



Sadly not so easy. The Hurricane was at the end of a long line of metal and wood framed,fabric covered (originally including the wings) aircraft. The Spitfire was one of the first of a new generation of all metal,stress skinned,monocoque aircraft. Despite superficial similarities we're talking chalk and cheese.

The Spitfire was more of a symbol of the sort of resistance referred to in Churchill's speech. I think it's fair to say that people rather than machines may be heroes or heroines.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Readie (Jul 5, 2011)

stona said:


> The Spitfire was more of a symbol of the sort of resistance referred to in Churchill's speech. I think it's fair to say that people rather than machines may be heroes or heroines.



Steve, This area is my next post in the 'Spitfire-my journey thread'. Its a complicated area to unravel but, there is something about the sound of a Merlin that will grab most peoples attention. Last year in the Plymouth Airshow there was an early Mustang performing, I watched it and overheard several comments to the tune 'its not a Spitfire'...
I'm not sure how old you are but if you in your mid 50's then you will have had a youth diet of Spitfire analogies ..Dan Dare was the lantern jawed clean cut British ( Spitfire) pilot fighting the devilish Mekons ( Germans) and ( naturally) winning.
So, the Spitfire and all she means to us lives on.
Cheers
John


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 5, 2011)

stona said:


> Sadly not so easy. The Hurricane was at the end of a long line of metal and wood framed,fabric covered (originally including the wings) aircraft. The Spitfire was one of the first of a new generation of all metal,stress skinned,monocoque aircraft. Despite superficial similarities we're talking chalk and cheese.
> 
> Cheers
> Steve


 
I agree Steve but from the time it first flew until 1940 they had time to address it. Sydney Camm was sort of obsessed with thick wings it was a drawback on the Typhoon.

Looking at the layout not the construction of a hurricane, radiator and tanks etc it was closer to a P51 mustang than a spitfire.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2011)

Unfortunately, aerodynamic research was a bit lacking in many countries during the 30s and England was one of them. I don't know of any aircraft company that had it's own wind tunnel in any nation. Wind tunnels (and usually small ones) were at Universities and perhaps at a national research center. Sydney Camm was _NOT_ sort of obsessed with thick wings, that was the type of wing he was told by the "boffins" that would work in his application. They were wrong, Mitchell was told the same thing but He didn't believe them. He had no evidence to back himself up, it was just feeling or intuition. The Spitfire wing was a gamble. 
Without good wind tunnel work or lots of test flying it is hard to pinpoint the wing as the source of the drag problem. Was the Hurricane slower than Spitfire "just" because of the wing or did the fatter fuselage contribute? What about the radiator? look at some of the planes that tried different radiator locations and got some rather different results.
The other consideration was the bottom end of the speed range. ALL of these 1930s aircraft had landing speed requirements and field length requirements that would become a joke within months of the war starting. What many designers in the early 30s KNEW was that thin wings as used in WW I Biplanes often had vicious stall characteristics. And stalls lead to spins. Leading edge slats and slots weren't developed for combat maneuverability. or even for short field performance. They were developed to make the stall gentler and to retain aileron control during the stall and make the airplane safer to fly. Many of these designers could remember the hundreds of student pilots killed in WW I while just learning to fly before they ever got to the front lines. 

As for just sticking a new wing on the Hurricane, look at the changes from the Typhoon to the Tempest. Like the extra 22 in of fuselage needed to house the fuel that used to be in the wing. Not as bad in in Hurricane (less fuel) but everything connected with the wing would have to be redone. or at least re-evaluated.


----------



## stona (Jul 5, 2011)

The Berlin-Adlershof wind tunnel was built in 1930 and many german aircraft of the era were tested there.







It didn't belong to a particular manufacturer but it was part of a national research institute.


If you massively modified a Hurricane as proposed above you'd virtually end up with a Spitfire anyway,a more advanced airplane already in production. What's the point?

Steve


----------



## Kryten (Jul 5, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Unfortunately, aerodynamic research was a bit lacking in many countries during the 30s and England was one of them. I don't know of any aircraft company that had it's own wind tunnel in any nation. Wind tunnels (and usually small ones) were at Universities and perhaps at a national research center. Sydney Camm was _NOT_ sort of obsessed with thick wings, that was the type of wing he was told by the "boffins" that would work in his application. They were wrong, Mitchell was told the same thing but He didn't believe them. He had no evidence to back himself up, it was just feeling or intuition. The Spitfire wing was a gamble.
> Without good wind tunnel work or lots of test flying it is hard to pinpoint the wing as the source of the drag problem. Was the Hurricane slower than Spitfire "just" because of the wing or did the fatter fuselage contribute? What about the radiator? look at some of the planes that tried different radiator locations and got some rather different results.
> The other consideration was the bottom end of the speed range. ALL of these 1930s aircraft had landing speed requirements and field length requirements that would become a joke within months of the war starting. What many designers in the early 30s KNEW was that thin wings as used in WW I Biplanes often had vicious stall characteristics. And stalls lead to spins. Leading edge slats and slots weren't developed for combat maneuverability. or even for short field performance. They were developed to make the stall gentler and to retain aileron control during the stall and make the airplane safer to fly. Many of these designers could remember the hundreds of student pilots killed in WW I while just learning to fly before they ever got to the front lines.
> 
> As for just sticking a new wing on the Hurricane, look at the changes from the Typhoon to the Tempest. Like the extra 22 in of fuselage needed to house the fuel that used to be in the wing. Not as bad in in Hurricane (less fuel) but everything connected with the wing would have to be redone. or at least re-evaluated.



Also bear in mind the increse in operational speeds and altitudes that evolving tactics forced upon the designers, and that meant understanding the properties of different wing profiles in those conditions, Camms less advanced "thick wing" worked well at lower speed and altitude, giving huge lift (typhoon was cleared for 2x 1000lb bombs remember) which was instrumental in it's success as a fighter bomber, it also proved quite handy on both the hurricane and Typhoon at low level in air combat, it was a foolish Me109 pilot that tried to outfight a Hurricane at low level, later profiles made advances at all altitudes and speeds but at the time Camms wing was a risk free "known"!


----------



## Readie (Jul 5, 2011)

The Hurricane was the logical end to 1930's build techniques. It was the epitome of a stable gun platform, robust, easy to repair and it can rest of its noble laurels for a war well fought in many theatres. It did play second fiddle to the Spitfire in the BoB but, that was inevitable.
Bob Stanford Tuck likened it to 'flying a brick' after the Spitfire.
The Spitfire was the first of the new style of fast fighter, revolutionary in so many ways and instantly iconic. But, before I launch off in another round of singing the Spitfires praises, I would say that the Spitfire arrived in the nick of time as the LW had stolen a march on us with the ME109.
The Hurricane Spitfire played a vital role in the BoB and they needed each other to fight as a team, just for one moment in history.
The Hurricane did us proud and I never forget that as you can from from my picture below.
Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2011)

stona said:


> The Berlin-Adlershof wind tunnel was built in 1930 and many german aircraft of the era were tested there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you, And if the this national research institute had told Messerschmidt or Heinkel that a thick wing would do the "job" would they be in any position to argue against it?


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 5, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you, And if the this national research institute had told Messerschmidt or Heinkel that a thick wing would do the "job" would they be in any position to argue against it?


 
Good point, but given the length of time from when they both flew and war broke out I am surprised nobody investigated. A wing doesnt have to have guns and tanks in to experiment.


----------



## Readie (Jul 5, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you, And if the this national research institute had told Messerschmidt or Heinkel that a thick wing would do the "job" would they be in any position to argue against it?


 
It would, but there was a better alternative wing.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 5, 2011)

Readie said:


> It would, but there was a better alternative wing.


 
Readie I dont know that the 109 had that much better wing


----------



## renrich (Jul 5, 2011)

I think that what many of us on this forum lack is a sense of perspective. We tend to look at a certain AC and judge it on the basis of the period of time it was in action, sometimes ignoring when it's design was first initiated. Some thoughts, to me, are necessary when judging how succesful a design might have been. Firstly, in the early thirties, most military fighters were still bi planes and the WW1 experience was still fresh on everyone's minds. Fighters in WW1 mostly had Vmaxs of less than 150 MPH and maneuverablity was considered very important and long range was not that important. Late twenties and early thirties fighters were not that different from those in WW1 in design and performance. When advances in engine powers and manufacturing processes allowed the design of multi engined AC that could be used to haul passengers and bombs took place, the bomber advocates temporarily had the upper hand and especially in Italy, Britain and the US, the notion grew that the "bomber would always get through" mainly because the bombers were faster than the fighters. There was also the idea, mainly because of Billy Mitchell, at least in the US that the bomber was premier and the Army Air Force focused on the heavy bomber with the light attack bomber and fighter playing second fiddle.

In Britain and Germany, the monoplane fighter idea was thought to be the answer to the fast bomber and with the liquid cooled inline engines becoming available with HPs approaching 1000 hp, the 109s, Hurricanes and Spits and Soviet designs began to sprout on the drawing boards. It seems that the main purpose of these designs was to shoot down the bombers and long ranges were secondary to high performance and maneuverability. Also, distances were not as great in Europe as they were in the rest of the world. Until wars began to break out though all of these design ideas could not be truly tested. When those wars did come about, it began to be realised that the bomber would not always get through because the modern monoplane fighter could be deadly against unescorted bombers. However, the Spits, Hurricanes, 109s, etc were not well suited as escorts because of short ranges. Another factor began to assert itself in that fighters could be used in muti roles. That meant that longer ranges and load lifting ability became important.

An interesting point to me is that the Japanese went in a little different direction than Britain, Germany and to an extent the US. It was pretty well accepted that the liquid cooled inline engine was the engine for high performance fighters. A later design for Germany, the FW 190 used an air cooled radial engine only because the DBs in the 109s were in short supply. The Japanese used radials in all of their first and second generation monoplane fighters and they also began to put an emphasis on long range, high speed and maneuverability for their fighters as well as bombers. Another interesting point to me is that Germany, during WW2, essentially only used two fighter designs during the whole war, the 109 and 190. It's Axis partner, Japan, had a good many more designs by a number of different manufacturers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2011)

An interesting post. 

Again from perspective, advances in aerodynamic knowledge were coming so fast that it was often necessary to design a new airplane (even using an old engine) to gain advances in performance in the late 20s/ early 30s. The idea that you would still be producing the same airframe 6-10 years down the road (as opposed to still using an old airplane) would have been almost incomprehensible to them. It would be like still producing a 6-10 year old MP3 player or laptop today with just a few tweaks. 

I think ( for no good reason  ) that the Japanese got trapped into that line of thinking and spent too much time working on new designs rather than developing old ones, they were looking for that next "break though" design like the Zero that would perform better than the initial calculations predicted. 

I also think that a lot of designs that lasted 6-10 years did so because of luck or circumstance rather than good planning on the part of their designers. I mean there was no way to know in 1934-36 that the Griffon engine was coming or that the DB 600 series (not even in flight status when the 109 was designed) would evolve into an 1800hp engine (even short term). the designeres new that 1500-2500hp engines were coming, but they didn't know when, or what shape they would be, let alone dream they could be installed in existing air frames.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 5, 2011)

Renrich,

You're right that the Japanese followed a different design philosophy but it must also be borne in mind that Japanese aero engines were typically less powerful than contemporary designs in the West. Consequently, the only way to achieve the required level of performance was to sacrifice weight, particularly armour plating, to protect the pilot. 

KR
Mark


----------



## Readie (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Readie I dont know that the 109 had that much better wing




haha...Shenstone's masterpiece I mean


----------



## parsifal (Jul 5, 2011)

whats shenstones masterpiece?


----------



## Kryten (Jul 5, 2011)

he designed the Spitfires wing!


----------



## Readie (Jul 5, 2011)

parsifal said:


> whats shenstones masterpiece?


 
Elliptical wing design. 
From wiki, but it sums up the wing design very well.

In 1934, Mitchell and the design staff decided to use a semi-elliptical wing shape to solve two conflicting requirements; the wing needed to be thin, to avoid creating too much drag, while still able to house a retractable undercarriage, plus armament and ammunition. *Beverley Shenstone*, the aerodynamicist on Mitchell's team, explained why that form was chosen:
The elliptical wing was decided upon quite early on. Aerodynamically it was the best for our purpose because the induced drag, that caused in producing lift, was lowest when this shape was used: the ellipse was ... theoretically a perfection ... To reduce drag we wanted the lowest possible thickness-to-chord, consistent with the necessary strength. But near the root the wing had to be thick enough to accommodate the retracted undercarriages and the guns ... Mitchell was an intensely practical man... The ellipse was simply the shape that allowed us the thinnest possible wing with room inside to carry the necessary structure and the things we wanted to cram in. And it looked nice.
Mitchell has sometimes been accused of copying the wing shape of the Heinkel He 70, which first flew in 1932; but as Shenstone explained "Our wing was much thinner and had quite a different section to that of the Heinkel. In any case it would have been simply asking for trouble to have copied a wing shape from an aircraft designed for an entirely different purpose."
The wing section used was from the NACA 2200 series, which had been adapted to create a thickness-to-chord ratio of 13% at the root, reducing to 9.4% at the tip.[48] A dihedral of six degrees was adopted to give increased lateral stability.
A feature of the wing which contributed greatly to its success was an innovative spar boom design, made up of five square tubes which fitted into each other. As the wing thinned out along its span the tubes were progressively cut away in a similar fashion to a leaf spring; two of these booms were linked together by an alloy web, creating a lightweight and very strong main spar.The undercarriage legs were attached to pivot points built into the inner, rear section of the main spar and retracted outwards and slightly backwards into wells in the non-load-carrying wing structure. The resultant narrow undercarriage track was considered to be an acceptable compromise as this reduced the bending loads on the main-spar during landing.
Ahead of the spar, the thick-skinned leading edge of the wing formed a strong and rigid D-shaped box, which took most of the wing loads. At the time the wing was designed, this D-shaped leading edge was intended to house steam condensers for the evaporative cooling system intended for the PV-XII. Constant problems with the evaporative system in the Goshawk led to the adoption of a cooling system which used 100% glycol. The radiators were housed in a new radiator-duct designed by Fredrick Meredith of the RAE at Farnborough; this used the cooling air to generate thrust, greatly reducing the net drag produced by the radiators. In turn, the leading-edge structure lost its function as a condenser, but it was later to be adapted to house integral fuel tanks of various sizes.
Another feature of the wing was its washout. The trailing edge of the wing twisted slightly upward along its span, the angle of incidence decreasing from +2° at its root to -½° at its tip. This caused the wing roots to stall before the tips, reducing tip-stall that could otherwise have resulted in a spin. As the wing roots started to stall, the aircraft vibrated, warning the pilot, and hence allowing even relatively inexperienced pilots to fly the aircraft to the limits of its performance[. This washout was first featured in the wing of the Type 224 and became a consistent feature in subsequent designs leading to the Spitfire. The complexity of the wing design, especially the precision required to manufacture the vital spar and leading-edge structures, at first caused some major hold-ups in the production of the Spitfire. The problems increased when the work was put out to subcontractors, most of whom had never dealt with metal-structured, high-speed aircraft. By June 1939, most of these problems had been resolved, and Spitfire production was no longer held up by a lack of wings.
All of the main flight controls were originally metal structures with fabric covering.Designers and pilots felt that having ailerons which were too heavy to move at high speed would avoid possible aileron reversal, stopping pilots throwing the aircraft around and pulling the wings off. It was also felt that air combat would take place at relatively low speed and that high-speed manoeuvring would be physically impossible. During the Battle of Britain, pilots found the ailerons of the Spitfire were far too heavy at high speeds, severely restricting lateral manoeuvres such as rolls and high speed turns, which were still a feature of air-to-air combat. Flight tests showed the fabric covering of the ailerons "ballooned" at high speeds, adversely affecting the aerodynamics. Replacing the fabric covering with light alloy dramatically improved the ailerons at high speed.

Only the best was good enough for the Spitfire.
Cheers
John


----------



## Kryten (Jul 5, 2011)

I read once about Douglas Bader having the first set of alloy skinned ailerons in the Wing on his spit and Cocky Dundas apparently having serious trouble keeping up with Bader in a battle saying "steady on Dogsbody, we havent all got metal ailerons"
they must have made quite a difference?


----------



## Readie (Jul 5, 2011)

Kryten said:


> I read once about Douglas Bader having the first set of alloy skinned ailerons in the Wing on his spit and Cocky Dundas apparently having serious trouble keeping up with Bader in a battle saying "steady on Dogsbody, we havent all got metal ailerons"
> they must have made quite a difference?



They did plus, Bader could pull more 'G's than a legged man as his blood stayed in his torso.
The Canadian squadron he took over could not believe his aerobatic skill.
Cheers
John
John


----------



## Kryten (Jul 5, 2011)

well that should have been obvious to me, but I never once considered his lack of legs affecting the amount of G he could cope with!
learn something new each day!


----------



## Readie (Jul 5, 2011)

In January 1940, Bader was posted to No. 19 Squadron based at RAF Duxford near Cambridge, where, at 29, he was considerably older than his fellow pilots. Squadron Leader Geoffrey Stephenson, a close friend from his Cranwell days, was the commanding officer, and it was here that Bader got his first glimpse of a Spitfire. It was thought that Bader's success as a fighter pilot was partly due to having no legs; pilots pulling high "g-forces" in combat turns often "blacked out" as the flow of blood from the brain drained to other parts of the body, usually the legs. As Bader had no legs he could remain conscious longer, and thus had an advantage over more able-bodied opponents.

I'm no doctor, so whether this is actually true I don't know. But Bader's 'G' resistance is legendary.
Cheers
John


----------



## parsifal (Jul 5, 2011)

thanks guys, shows my limited knowledge.


----------



## Readie (Jul 5, 2011)

parsifal said:


> thanks guys, shows my limited knowledge.


 
If your knowledge is limited mate, I hate to think what mine is 
Cheers
John


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 5, 2011)

Come on guys you make it sound like Bader could walk on water and like those Canadians had never seen aerobatics before , he couldn't have been that good at aerobatics he lost 2 legs to pilot error


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 5, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Come on guys you make it sound like Bader could walk on water and like those Canadians had never seen aerobatics before , he couldn't have been that good at aerobatics he lost 2 legs to pilot error


 
I don't think you should underestimate the positive effect of not having blood pool in the legs during aerobatics. Besides of course those Canadians were amazed; everyone knows all that maple syrup you Canadians eat spikes blood sugar levels ruining your sense of balance. Seriously, Bader had to have amazing abilities to do what he did after losing his legs. He would not be the first older and more experienced pilot to humble fledglings.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 5, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I don't think you should underestimate the positive effect of not having blood pool in the legs during aerobatics. Besides of course those Canadians were amazed; everyone knows all that maple syrup you Canadians eat spikes blood sugar levels ruining your sense of balance. Seriously, Bader had to have amazing abilities to do what he did after losing his legs. He would not be the first older and more experienced pilot to humble fledglings.


242 Sqn were not fledglings they were put together from RAF guys that were Canadian serving in the UK , most were pre war. The Squadron was designated canadian much like 71 Sqn was desinated American as a propaganda thing for us Maple syrup swilling oafs.Please remember that Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis were considered `black troops`by the RAF not suitable for command and ill disciplined


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jul 5, 2011)

' _everyone knows all that maple syrup you Canadians eat spikes blood sugar levels ruining your sense of balance _' 

no worries, we have an awesome FREE healthcare system... how's that obamacare coming along by the way? LOL.


----------



## RCAFson (Jul 5, 2011)

OTOH, the RCAF was quick to appreciate Baders advantages and after no pilots volunteered for surgery...:



> _The first workable anti-gravity suit or flight suit, was developed by a Canadian team led by Doctor Wilbur Franks in 1941. However, G-suits for non-aviation purposes have been around since 1906, when Doctor George Crile invented a G-suit to treat shock. The Franks Flying Suit Mark II (FFS Mk II) was the world's first "G" (gravity) suit used in combat. This flight suit was invented by Canadian Wilbur Franks in 1941 to prevent pilot blackout from high acceleration and G-force.
> 
> Wilbur Franks also co-invented the RCAF Human Centrifuge which was used to stimulate G-forces at high speeds, to train pilots in maneuvering combat aircraft under G-force pressure. _



Flight Suits - Wilbur Franks


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 5, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> 242 Sqn were not fledglings they were put together from RAF guys that were Canadian serving in the UK , most were pre war. The Squadron was designated canadian much like 71 Sqn was desinated American as a propaganda thing for us Maple syrup swilling oafs.Please remember that Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis were considered `black troops`by the RAF not suitable for command and ill disciplined



Fledglings as in younger. "Maple syrup swilling oafs" that is almost as good as Parsifal telling me I am from a "recalcitrant rebel republic". Can I quote you on that descriptive term for my northern neighbors? 



P-40K-5 said:


> ' _everyone knows all that maple syrup you Canadians eat spikes blood sugar levels ruining your sense of balance _'
> 
> no worries, we have an awesome FREE healthcare system... how's that obamacare coming along by the way? LOL.



I am one American who envies the Canadian Healthcare System. Are daily doses of antioxidant rich maple syrup a factor in its success?



RCAFson said:


> OTOH, the RCAF was quick to appreciate Baders advantages and after no pilots volunteered for surgery...:
> 
> 
> Flight Suits - Wilbur Franks



I was going to state that 3 out of 4 Canadian pilots immediately volunteered to have their legs amputated, but obviously knew I couldn't put one over on you healthy Canucks because no one would believe anybody but Australians are crazy enough to do that. Right Parsifal?

Are there any Canadians still living in Canada? They all seem to be living in Arizona from what I can discern from all the license plates and property owners. Tell the truth guys, you are all posting from your homes in Scottsdale.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 6, 2011)

Dont suck me into this. This looks like one of those strange North American Intiation ceremonies that I have heard of occasionally


----------



## Readie (Jul 6, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Dont suck me into this. This looks like one of those strange North American Intiation ceremonies that I have heard of occasionally


 
I dread to think....

However, at least the Canadians had the wisdom to follow our lead with free national health care.
Being in the Commonwealth and supporters of our Royal family has obviously been a good thing.

If the American had not been so anxious to leave the embrace of her Britannic Majesty you would have had a free health care system too and a Queen.

Cheers
John


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2011)

Re ailerons on the Spitfire and Bf109. Both became virtually immovable at high speed. The British thought the Bf109 had a greater problem than the Spitfire but on running comparisons discovered that the force required to move the ailerons at various (high) speeds was comparable. The only advantage the Spitfire pilot had was the ability to exert more force on the control system due to the differing design of the two cockpits. Essentially the Spitfire pilot had slightly more room and his seating position enabled him to apply more muscle to his control column,or in his case the spade grip.
Distortion of fabric covered control surfaces was a problem common to all such systems.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Readie (Jul 6, 2011)

stona said:


> Re ailerons on the Spitfire and Bf109. Both became virtually immovable at high speed. The British thought the Bf109 had a greater problem than the Spitfire but on running comparisons discovered that the force required to move the ailerons at various (high) speeds was comparable. The only advantage the Spitfire pilot had was the ability to exert more force on the control system due to the differing design of the two cockpits. Essentially the Spitfire pilot had slightly more room and his seating position enabled him to apply more muscle to his control column,or in his case the spade grip.
> Distortion of fabric covered control surfaces was a problem common to all such systems.
> Cheers
> Steve


 
A problem sorted early in the Spitfire's career though Steve.
The Spitfire would always turn harder than a ME109 due to its wing design and strenght.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Jul 6, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> 242 Sqn were not fledglings they were put together from RAF guys that were Canadian serving in the UK , most were pre war. The Squadron was designated canadian much like 71 Sqn was desinated American as a propaganda thing for us Maple syrup swilling oafs.Please remember that Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis were considered `black troops`by the RAF not suitable for command and ill disciplined


 
I'll answer your post tonight when I can refer to my sources.
From memory Bader was put in charge of a battered and demoralised Canadian Squadron who disrepected his rank. Baders way was to demonstrate his skills with a blistering low level display. He won the Canadians around and the rest is history.

Cheers
John


----------



## Njaco (Jul 6, 2011)

Readie said:


> I dread to think....
> 
> However, at least the Canadians had the wisdom to follow our lead with free national health care.
> Being in the Commonwealth and supporters of our Royal family has obviously been a good thing.
> ...


 
Please don't quote Richard Harris on the advantages of having a Queen!


----------



## Readie (Jul 6, 2011)

Njaco said:


> Please don't quote Richard Harris on the advantages of having a Queen!





You could have had a succession of Kings and Queens.
As your history has unfolded I bet that deep inside your rebel hearts you wish you had stayed true to the British Monarchy and remained in our Empire.

The Australians, despite all the talk of a Republic,have stayed loyal to the Crown.

Cheers
John


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2011)

Readie said:


> A problem sorted early in the Spitfire's career though Steve.
> The Spitfire would always turn harder than a ME109 due to its wing design and strenght.
> Cheers
> John



Turning tighter depends on a lot of things and this isn't the thread for that! A Spitfire couldn't "always turn tighter". In the same tests it didn't,except when flown by pilots who would push it to it's limit,that,in front line squadrons would be a small minority. 
These results were a bit of a surprise to the R.A.E. who appear to have had some preconceptions about the Messerschmitt fighter hastily dispelled. 

How did they fix the high forces needed to operate the ailerons? All metal ailerons helped but still took some shifting. Removing the wing tips also helped but had a negative effect on other performance features,notably rate of climb. I'm not a Spitfire expert but I think this was an inherent design problem in the Spitfire and many of its contemporaries.

As a "by the way" I'm right in the Dan Dare time slot. Eagle was my comic of choice. Beano and the like were a guilty pleasure!
The Spitfire does of course have a resonance with my generation,I do love to see a Spitfire, but my rational side refuses to buy the myth. It was one of several superb aircraft of its era. Noone had a monopoly on good design or clever innovation. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2011)

Readie said:


> I dread to think....
> 
> However, at least the Canadians had the wisdom to follow our lead with free national health care.
> Being in the Commonwealth and supporters of our Royal family has obviously been a good thing.
> ...



1. Yeah and the free handouts only brings out the lazy in people. 

2. The discussion of healthcare has nothing to do with this topic, lets get back on topic. 

3. Our forum has a no politics policy. Lets keep it that way. There is a reason for this.

4. I recommend everyone reads the thread about forum rules.


----------



## Kryten (Jul 6, 2011)

stona said:


> Re ailerons on the Spitfire and Bf109. Both became virtually immovable at high speed. The British thought the Bf109 had a greater problem than the Spitfire but on running comparisons discovered that the force required to move the ailerons at various (high) speeds was comparable. The only advantage the Spitfire pilot had was the ability to exert more force on the control system due to the differing design of the two cockpits. Essentially the Spitfire pilot had slightly more room and his seating position enabled him to apply more muscle to his control column,or in his case the spade grip.
> Distortion of fabric covered control surfaces was a problem common to all such systems.
> Cheers
> Steve



Bear in mind that report was mentioning the difference when less experienced pilots in the Spit who did not have the confidence to push the spit could not shake off the test pilots in the Me109, pilots of equal ability had no problem shaking off the 109 and that in itself could start a whole new thread, it graphically demonstrates the most importand part of any aircraft is the guy flying it!


----------



## Readie (Jul 6, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 1. Yeah and the free handouts only brings out the lazy in people.



Can't believe that you really mean that Chris.
As for your other 3 points...you're the boss.
Cheers
John


----------



## claidemore (Jul 6, 2011)

Twas my intent to use the quote out of context. 


Readie said:


> With respect you have taken 'finest hour' out of context. Here's more of the famous speech.
> 
> ...However matters may go in France or with the French Government or with another French Government, we in this island and in the British Empire will never lose our sense of comradeship with the French people. If we are now called upon to endure what they have suffered we shall emulate their courage, and if final victory rewards our toils they shall share the gains, aye. And freedom shall be restored to all. We abate nothing of our just demands—Czechs, Poles, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, all who have joined their causes to our own shall be restored.
> What General Weygand has called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be freed and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.
> ...


----------



## Lighthunmust (Jul 6, 2011)

Njaco said:


> Please don't quote Richard Harris on the advantages of having a Queen!


 
As English Bob from "Unforgiven" I assume.


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2011)

Kryten said:


> Bear in mind that report was mentioning the difference when less experienced pilots in the Spit who did not have the confidence to push the spit could not shake off the test pilots in the Me109, pilots of equal ability had no problem shaking off the 109 and that in itself could start a whole new thread, it graphically demonstrates the most importand part of any aircraft is the guy flying it!



Exactly so. Most pilots on the squadrons in 1940/41 did not have the ability or confidence to push the Spitfire anywhere near its limits and my point was that this negated the much vaunted superior turning circle of the Spitfire in the real world. 
Douglas Bader was very keen to get his hands on the Bf109F that Pingel kindly delivered to the British as he reckoned a few hours flying by a few experienced combat pilots would be far more useful in quickly devising tactics to counter the new model than the weeks and months of testing and assessments that would be done by the R.A.E. at Farnborough. He wrote a typically undiplomatic letter to the headquarters of 11 Group suggesting exactly what the R.A.E. should ascertain and pass on to Fighter Command and that "Wing Commanders, Flying", that is himself,be given the opportunity to fly the aircraft. He needed to know where the Spitfire was superior (if anywhere) in order to exploit that superiority in combat. Combat pilots knew how marginal these things were.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Readie (Jul 6, 2011)

stona said:


> Exactly so. Most pilots on the squadrons in 1940/41 did not have the ability or confidence to push the Spitfire anywhere near its limits and my point was that this negated the much vaunted superior turning circle of the Spitfire in the real world.
> Douglas Bader was very keen to get his hands on the Bf109F that Pingel kindly delivered to the British as he reckoned a few hours flying by a few experienced combat pilots would be far more useful in quickly devising tactics to counter the new model than the weeks and months of testing and assessments that would be done by the R.A.E. at Farnborough. He wrote a typically undiplomatic letter to the headquarters of 11 Group suggesting exactly what the R.A.E. should ascertain and pass on to Fighter Command and that "Wing Commanders, Flying", that is himself,be given the opportunity to fly the aircraft. He needed to know where the Spitfire was superior (if anywhere) in order to exploit that superiority in combat. Combat pilots knew how marginal these things were.
> Cheers
> Steve


 
Stanford Tuck flew a captured 109 and provided vital feedback on its strenghts abnd weaknesses


----------



## claidemore (Jul 6, 2011)

Roll rate was improved on the Spitfire by reducing aileron span in the Spit VIII (and subsequent models). Removing wing tips on any Mark Spit gave it a much better roll rate, approaching the ability of the FW190. 
With regards to roll rate of Spit I vs Me109E, the Spit had advantage at lower speeds, about equal @300mph, but slightly better @350+. (as per this chart: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bank45.gif )

I believe the F and G series 109s had changes in their wing which improved their roll rate.


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 6, 2011)

stona said:


> Douglas Bader was very keen to get his hands on the Bf109F that Pingel kindly delivered to the British as he reckoned a few hours flying by a few experienced combat pilots would be far more useful in quickly devising tactics to counter the new model than the weeks and months of testing and assessments that would be done by the R.A.E. at Farnborough. He wrote a typically undiplomatic letter to the headquarters of 11 Group suggesting exactly what the R.A.E. should ascertain and pass on to Fighter Command and that "Wing Commanders, Flying", that is himself,be given the opportunity to fly the aircraft. He needed to know where the Spitfire was superior (if anywhere) in order to exploit that superiority in combat. Combat pilots knew how marginal these things were.
> Cheers
> Steve


 Bader was a strange old fish, he wanted to know how to beat the 109 in combat, but also wanted to fly about in groups of 50 in tight formation. That is how not to beat a 109 as flown by the LW.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 6, 2011)

I would have thought it more as the case of how to overcommit the RAF, win the battle, but lose the campaign.....Being outnumbered has its problems, but it avoids the critical issue of over-commitment


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Bader was a strange old fish, he wanted to know how to beat the 109 in combat, but also wanted to fly about in groups of 50 in tight formation. That is how not to beat a 109 as flown by the LW.


Bull.... if he was that serious he would have changed formations from the Vic to the finger four before mar 41


----------



## Readie (Jul 6, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Bull.... if he was that serious he would have changed formations from the Vic to the finger four before mar 41


 
A lot of wing co's did. But, this adoption was on a ad hoc basis. The finger four was so much superior to the vic, it beggars belief that the RAF could not see it.
Cheers
John


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> Bader was a strange old fish, he wanted to know how to beat the 109 in combat, but also wanted to fly about in groups of 50 in tight formation. That is how not to beat a 109 as flown by the LW.



The new Bf109F had only recently entered service and what he wanted was a quick assessment by combat pilots of its capabilities. R.A.E. farnborough had tested a Bf109E (kindly supplied by the French IIRC) for months before producing a set of figures for it. What they did was test the aircraft,flown by their test pilots,as they would a British aircraft. These figures,whilst correct, are not what front line pilots wanted. The figures Bader was interested in,as evidenced in his letter, were:

1 Ceiling
2 Rate of climb,particularly between 20-30000 feet
3 Maximum speeds at heights between 10-30000 feet
4 Manoeuverability and ease of handling,particularly when pulling out of a steep dive from say 440mph. We know it will pull out from 420mph.

The last one looks a bit dodgy for the test pilot! Bader,and others in the RAF were convinced that Luftwaffe pilots were reluctant to pull hard out of high speed dives ("a bit porky on the joystick" are his actual words) because they believed that they would pull the wings off their aircraft. True or not it is what he believed at the time.
It was Bader's opinion that this information could be obtained by an "experienced pilot in one or two hours flying on the first fine day,with sufficient accuracy for our requirements".
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Kryten (Jul 6, 2011)

I wonder if the fact a number of 109's were seen to dive straight into the ground had a bearing on that?

its well known now that the 109 controlls stiffened with speed but at that time it was probably conjecture?


----------



## stona (Jul 6, 2011)

Kryten said:


> I wonder if the fact a number of 109's were seen to dive straight into the ground had a bearing on that?
> 
> its well known now that the 109 controlls stiffened with speed but at that time it was probably conjecture?



I'm sure it did.
Also intelligence reports from interrogations containing the sort of thing below would have reinforced this idea.







Cheers
Steve


----------



## renrich (Jul 6, 2011)

Thank you, Chris. I appreciate you stepping in!


----------



## Glider (Jul 6, 2011)

stona said:


> Exactly so. Most pilots on the squadrons in 1940/41 did not have the ability or confidence to push the Spitfire anywhere near its limits and my point was that this negated the much vaunted superior turning circle of the Spitfire in the real world.
> Douglas Bader was very keen to get his hands on the Bf109F that Pingel kindly delivered to the British as he reckoned a few hours flying by a few experienced combat pilots would be far more useful in quickly devising tactics to counter the new model than the weeks and months of testing and assessments that would be done by the R.A.E. at Farnborough. He wrote a typically undiplomatic letter to the headquarters of 11 Group suggesting exactly what the R.A.E. should ascertain and pass on to Fighter Command and that "Wing Commanders, Flying", that is himself,be given the opportunity to fly the aircraft. He needed to know where the Spitfire was superior (if anywhere) in order to exploit that superiority in combat. Combat pilots knew how marginal these things were.
> Cheers
> Steve


 
The attached might be of interest, its the original letter from D Bader, which was written in a firm but diplomatic manner. The captured 109F was in a poor state and the operational RAF didn't get a chance to fly it. However this idea was taken on board with other captured german aircraft. IIRC each wing was asked to supply a pilot who had the opportunity to fly in and against the German aircraft in mock combat.

There were some inconsistancies in the Pringle report. The one that stuck in my mind was his comment that the pilots didn't have any objections to the reduced weapons. Which sounds fine until you remember that it was an Me109F2 which normally had a 15mm cannon, so why if everybody liked the reduced weapons, did he have his fitted with a 20mm cannon?


----------



## Readie (Jul 7, 2011)

renrich said:


> Thank you, Chris. I appreciate you stepping in!


 
stepping in what...


----------



## Readie (Jul 7, 2011)

Glider said:


> The attached might be of interest, its the original letter from D Bader, which was written in a firm but diplomatic manner. The captured 109F was in a poor state and the operational RAF didn't get a chance to fly it. However this idea was taken on board with other captured german aircraft. IIRC each wing was asked to supply a pilot who had the opportunity to fly in and against the German aircraft in mock combat.
> 
> There were some inconsistancies in the Pringle report. The one that stuck in my mind was his comment that the pilots didn't have any objections to the reduced weapons. Which sounds fine until you remember that it was an Me109F2 which normally had a 15mm cannon, so why if everybody liked the reduced weapons, did he have his fitted with a 20mm cannon?


 
The German cannon was slow firing and not really that effective compared to 8 .303 Browning vectored in together I believe.
Cheers
John


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 7, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Bull.... if he was that serious he would have changed formations from the Vic to the finger four before mar 41


 
I dont know why you say "bull" you are making the same point. It wasnt clear to anyone especially Bader that the big wing and Vic formation didnt work. Many pilots copied the Schwarm formation or something similar almost from the start. Somehow Bader is credited with inventing or developing the finger four formation. Taking over a year to copy your opponent isnt a great achievement IMHO.



stona said:


> The new Bf109F had only recently entered service and what he wanted was a quick assessment by combat pilots of its capabilities. R.A.E. farnborough had tested a Bf109E (kindly supplied by the French IIRC) for months before producing a set of figures for it. What they did was test the aircraft,flown by their test pilots,as they would a British aircraft. These figures,whilst correct, are not what front line pilots wanted. The figures Bader was interested in,as evidenced in his letter, were:
> 
> 1 Ceiling
> 2 Rate of climb,particularly between 20-30000 feet
> ...


 I agree steve, the point I was making was that the LW were always looking for a bounce, flying in a big wing increases the chances of being bounced and when they were bounced they were so close it was difficult to manouver.

The Rhubarb missions suffered in the same way as the German raids on London with the added disadvantage that they wern't bombing Germany. The LW could pick and choose when to attack and obviously chose the most advantaggeous time for themselves.


----------



## stona (Jul 7, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> I
> The Rhubarb missions suffered in the same way as the German raids on London with the added disadvantage that they wern't bombing Germany. The LW could pick and choose when to attack and obviously chose the most advantaggeous time for themselves.



Yes indeed. They used high altitude reconnaissance aircraft to observe a raid crossing the continental coast and would only engage a formation with bombers and then only if it suited them. The idea was mooted at the air ministry of bombers accompanying fighter sweeps only as far as the French coast. The bombers would turn back and the fighters would carry on in the hope of engaging Luftwaffe formations sent to intercept the now absent bombers. I bet that worked..
Steve


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jul 7, 2011)

Readie said:


> The German cannon was slow firing and not really that effective compared to 8 .303 Browning vectored in together I believe.
> Cheers
> John


 
20mm firing 11 rounds per second is slow? compared to what? a virgin that keeps saying no?
if 303's where that great, then why did the USAAF switch to 50cals in most aircraft??
2 50's did the same job as 8 303's, without the added weight mind you.

a few hits with a 20mm shell, (nevermind a 30mm shell) was more then enough to dispatch
a e/a.


----------



## Readie (Jul 7, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> 20mm firing 11 rounds per second is slow? compared to what? a virgin that keeps saying no?
> if 303's where that great, then why did the USAAF switch to 50cals in most aircraft??
> 2 50's did the same job as 8 303's, without the added weight mind you.
> 
> ...



The Supermarine Spifire in combat - an essay.
Please read this cut and paste..

ARMAMENT

The Spitfire had eight Browning machine-guns spread out along the wing. These each had 300 rounds of normal bullets, tracer, incendiary or armour-piercing (the last type only effective against the thinnest of armour). The guns were configured so that the bullets converged on a single point some distance in front of the aircraft. At first this distance was over 400 yards, however pilots soon found that the best results were obtained if they made it 250 or 200 yards instead. The use of eight machine-guns meant that even the novice fighter-pilots thrown into the battle by the British had a chance of hitting something if they could get into firing position. On the other hand the 109`s armament favoured the marksman. The 109 had two machine guns of similar performance to the British Brownings, but mounted in the nose and synchronised to fire through the propeller. These had magazines of 1,000 rounds each, which meant the German could keep his finger on the trigger over three times longer than his British counterpart, but after that time he would have still expended 400 less rounds than the Spitfire pilot. *The Messerschmitt was also equipped with two 20mm cannon, but they had a low velocity, poor rate of fire and only 60 rounds per gun****. Against British bombers they were devastating, but the manoeuvrable and swift Spitfires and Hurricanes were a difficult target.*

The incendiary bullets used by the British in the Battle of Britain gave the RAF a great advantage. They could cause the fuel-tank of a target aircraft to explode and the flash of light they gave off showed the British pilot his bullets were striking home. The incendiary bullet had been developed in secret at Woolwich Arsenal and was only just ready in time for the Battle of Britain. Named "de Wilde" ammunition by the British this was a ruse to make the Germans think it was based on the work of a Mr de Wilde in Switzerland. In fact it had been found that "proper" de Wilde bullets could only be made by hand, whereas the British design could be mass-produced. The British "de Wilde" bullets were the invention of C. Aubrey Dixon, a Captain in the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment (he retired with the rank of Brigadier), one of the unsung heroes of the Battle of Britain.

Spitfire armament progressed throughout the war. First two 20mm cannon replaced four of the wing mounted machine guns. Then the remaining rifle calibre machine guns were replaced with a pair of large calibre machine guns with longer range. Finally, like all British single seat fighters at the end of the war, the Spitfire had a total of four 20 mm cannon.


Cheers
John


----------



## stona (Jul 7, 2011)

As John has said the 8x.303 machine guns worked fairly well in 1940 albeit some Luftwaffe bombers made it back to France with literally hundreds of holes in them. We can argue the desireability of fitting .50 calibre weapons at this time but where were they,or the ammunition for them,going to come from. I don't know the figures but I'll wager that Britain had millions of rounds of .303 calibre ammunition available.
We should also remember that the effective range of a weapon is often ordained by the effectiveness of the gun sight rather than any theoretical maximum range.
Steve


----------



## Kryten (Jul 7, 2011)

well the 8x.303 spewing out 1150 rounds per minute per gun was effective against a lightly built fighter, but it proved inadequate against a much larger, heavily built and armoured bomber, hence the need for cannons!

Bader and others preffered the machine guns against a fighter but I have never seen anyone claim they were even adequate against a bomber?


----------



## Readie (Jul 7, 2011)

stona said:


> As John has said the 8x.303 machine guns worked fairly well in 1940 albeit some Luftwaffe bombers made it back to France with literally hundreds of holes in them. We can argue the desireability of fitting .50 calibre weapons at this time but where were they,or the ammunition for them,going to come from. I don't know the figures but I'll wager that Britain had millions of rounds of .303 calibre ammunition available.
> We should also remember that the effective range of a weapon is often ordained by the effectiveness of the gun sight rather than any theoretical maximum range.
> Steve




In 1937 Milch came to visit Dowding and the Gladiator pilots of 65 Squadron,Hornchurch where he was particularly keen to see the new RAF fighter gun sight, with Dowding kindly explained to him over the shoulder of a young Stanford Tuck....

Cheers
John


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jul 7, 2011)

' The Messerschmitt was also equipped with two 20mm cannon, but they had a low velocity, poor rate of fire and only *60 rounds *per gun****. '

I'd check your facts again. 750rpm 82 round capacity. nose mounted. if installed in gondollas under the wing it was increased to 120 rounds per gun.


----------



## Readie (Jul 7, 2011)

P-40K-5 said:


> ' The Messerschmitt was also equipped with two 20mm cannon, but they had a low velocity, poor rate of fire and only *60 rounds *per gun****. '
> 
> I'd check your facts again. 750rpm 82 round capacity. nose mounted. if installed in gondollas under the wing it was increased to 120 rounds per gun.


 
I have, from 2 sources and they say the same thing.
Cheers
John


----------



## Kryten (Jul 7, 2011)

I think readie is reffering to the Me109E with the wing mounted weapons?


----------



## P-40K-5 (Jul 7, 2011)

haha whoops! my humble apologies!


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2011)

The German 20mm guns were the FF and the 151 and they were very different animals.

ROF FF 8 rds/sec, 151 12 rds/sec
MV FF 585 m/sec, 151 720 m/sec

The 109E as we know had the FF and the F4 the 151, what the 109F2 had when it was upgunned I do not know.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2011)

stona said:


> We can argue the desireability of fitting .50 calibre weapons at this time but where were they,or the ammunition for them,going to come from.
> Steve


 
It is also well to remember that it was only at some point * IN 1940* that the US Browning went from 600rpm unsynchronized to 800rpm unsynchronized. Depending on which month and how fast they could get them to England it might be a question of four 600rpm guns vs eight 1150-1200rpm guns. In 1941 with the 800rpm guns there is little doubt which would have been better but by 1941 the Hispano was coming along rather well.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 7, 2011)

Glider said:


> The German 20mm guns were the FF and the 151 and they were very different animals.
> 
> ROF FF 8 rds/sec, 151 12 rds/sec
> MV FF 585 m/sec, 151 720 m/sec
> ...



Also the ballistics of the FF round were pretty appalling at anything much more than point blank it had a trajectory like a rainbow. Fine for its intended use against bombers but less good for hitting a manouvering fighter.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jul 7, 2011)

Mustang nut said:


> I dont know why you say "bull" you are making the same point. It wasnt clear to anyone especially Bader that the big wing and Vic formation didnt work. Many pilots copied the Schwarm formation or something similar almost from the start. Somehow Bader is credited with inventing or developing the finger four formation. Taking over a year to copy your opponent isnt a great achievement IMHO.
> 
> 
> I agree steve, the point I was making was that the LW were always looking for a bounce, flying in a big wing increases the chances of being bounced and when they were bounced they were so close it was difficult to manouver.
> ...


 
Just to clarify: Are you thinking of "_Circuses_"? - these were the missions when a squadron of usually Blenheims (later Bostons or even Stirlings) protected by several wings of fighters attacked targets in France or the low countries. Usually very unproductive because, as you say the LW could pick and choose when to attack. "_Rhubarbs_" were low level sweeps using pairs of fighters, generally when there was low-level cloud around.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jul 7, 2011)

Glider said:


> The German 20mm guns were the FF and the 151 and they were very different animals.
> 
> ROF FF 8 rds/sec, 151 12 rds/sec
> MV FF 585 m/sec, 151 720 m/sec
> ...


 
According to Prien and Rodeike _Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G K series _Amazon.com: Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, and K Series: An Illustrated Study (9780887404245): Jochen Prien, Peter Rodeike, David Johnston: Books the F-2 used the MG 151/15, the original 15mm version of the MG 151 (p. 16) The F-1 used the MG FF/M firing between the cylinder banks, while the F-4 used the MG 151/20 (pp. 16, 21, 27.)


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2011)

NZTyphoon said:


> According to Prien and Rodeike _Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G K series _Amazon.com: Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, and K Series: An Illustrated Study (9780887404245): Jochen Prien, Peter Rodeike, David Johnston: Books the F-2 used the MG 151/15, the original 15mm calibre version of the MG 151 (p. 16) The F-1 used the MG FF/M firing between the cylinder banks, while the F-4 used the MG 151/20 (pp. 16, 21, 27.)


 
I agree with this, but the plane captured by the RAF was an F2 not an F4 or an F1, an F2 which had been upgunned with a 20mm, which 20mm I do not know.

Re the effectiveness of the FF (or Japanese Type 1 which had similar stats) they may not have been as effective as the 20mm 151 or the Hispano II but they shot a lot of fighters down. At the sort of ranges common in fighter combat 2-300 yards they were effective enough. 
Its a bit like the 0.5 M2 vs 20mm saga, the 0.5 might not be as effective in theory but they did the job. 

What is interesting is that in the interigation of the German 109F pilots they mention that the Sterling was a difficult plane to shoot down. For all its faults the Sterling was agile for its size, had radial engines and were quite well protected. A standard F2 with a 15mm and 2 LMG's would no doubt find it a tough nut to crack.

*Note *I have looked at my records and the 20mm in the captured F2 was a 20mm Mg 151 not an FF cannon, apologies one and all for the error.


----------



## NZTyphoon (Jul 7, 2011)

Glider said:


> What is interesting is that in the interigation of the German 109F pilots they mention that the Sterling was a difficult plane to shoot down. For all its faults the Sterling was agile for its size, had radial engines and were quite well protected. A standard F2 with a 15mm and 2 LMG's would no doubt find it a tough nut to crack.
> 
> *Note *I have looked at my records and the 20mm in the captured F2 was a 20mm Mg 151 not an FF cannon, apologies one and all for the error.


 
The F-2 captured by the British was that of I./JG 26's Major Rolf Pingl who was shot down by a Stirling that he had chased across the channel; Pingl damaged the Stirling's tail unit but caught some bullets in his engine, forcing him to belly land in a wheat field. His F may have been one of the first to be fitted with the MG 151/20


----------



## claidemore (Jul 7, 2011)

Hmmmm, I know we have had plenty of threads which evolved into lengthy discussions of various armaments. But I was wondering if we ever had a dedicated in depth thread/discussion comparing the various 20mm cannons used in WWII? A quick search did not find any, so.....I will start a thread.


----------



## Glider (Jul 8, 2011)

NZTyphoon said:


> The F-2 captured by the British was that of I./JG 26's Major Rolf Pingl who was shot down by a Stirling that he had chased across the channel; Pingl damaged the Stirling's tail unit but caught some bullets in his engine, forcing him to belly land in a wheat field. His F may have been one of the first to be fitted with the MG 151/20


 
I am sure that it was one of the first. It was fitted at his request not as part of a standard issue


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 8, 2011)

Very interesting! Thought sometimes possible, but now I know too it was done. Thank you.

MG 151 and MG 151/20 almost same, easy to change on into other. Even Cartridge is of same size - 20 mm is bottled out - so ammo paths should be similiar. Which is more problem than changing gun itself I believe.


----------



## Altea (Jul 9, 2011)

ctrian said:


> By the way the losses of Stuka units in Kursk were low,how about that?



The III/StG2 lost 26 planes over 35 in july 1943 only. The total for the StG2; 81 on that month, the StG 77; 64. Considering german data survival/transmission problems from units to qvetermeister difficult to garantee they are barely complete...

And this under full Luft air superiority. So next time you'd rather give us some *valuable *and *interesting* losses data, and keep your opinion for yourself.
I swear we are all enough big boys to make *our own opinions* without any help of yours.



> Juha
> Country And “light losses” had different meaning to different people.


 Thank you Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2011)

Complete german air superiority over Kursk? How so?

They probably controlled the skies over their own troops, but even that was under challenge. Kursk was never German controlled, and control over Soviet troops was never seriously challenged...

Or is this just a minor error. Just was looking for a clarification really


----------



## Altea (Jul 9, 2011)

parsifal said:


> Complete german air superiority over Kursk? How so?



Yes from Batailles Aériennes 45 and 48

Store 4 War - Conflits Stratégie - Batailles Aériennes n° 45

But mainly on the beginning of the battle. Later (end of july), lufts were more severly opposed and challenged.



> They probably controlled the skies over their own troops, but even that was under challenge.


More than that: for instance the 5th july non-stop heavy bombings over the 148th division/15 infantry corps/13th Army (by ju-88 of II/KG-51, then by He-111 from II/KG-4 and I and III/53, then by Ju-87 from StG-1, then by bombers again etc.) founded virtually no air opposition. Small soviet fighter patrols failed to approach german bombers-stuka protected waves by jagwaffe. Later the entire 6 IAK scrambled, faught back but at heavy losses (45 planes) and poor results. On the first day, the 16 air army lost 98 planes, mainly fighters. On north face more than 1500 tons of bombs were dropped on soviet troops, 12 (!!) times more than by opposite side.

Sometimes there were so much german bombers/stukas over soviet lines on the same times that they were just turning around, making awaiting towers the time for previous waves to get away, like jetliners owerdays on holidays rushes over airports!




> Kursk was never German controlled, and control over Soviet troops was never seriously challenged...


Might by at the rear, in the depth defence lines. In most occasions soviet fighters clashed with "molders" 10 kilometers inside their own lines, rarely succeeding in bombers interception over front line, and even that...Some 10 Yak-9 of the 347th IAP attacked large formations of He-111 and Ju-87; so one He -111 was claimed destroyed and one "twin engined fighter" damaged at the coast of 5 Yaks lost, one other suffering extensive damage...


----------



## Mustang nut (Jul 9, 2011)

NZTyphoon said:


> Just to clarify: Are you thinking of "_Circuses_"? - these were the missions when a squadron of usually Blenheims (later Bostons or even Stirlings) protected by several wings of fighters attacked targets in France or the low countries. Usually very unproductive because, as you say the LW could pick and choose when to attack. "_Rhubarbs_" were low level sweeps using pairs of fighters, generally when there was low-level cloud around.


 
Thnks NZT

I meant basically raids over France, even at Dieppe the RAF were sending over large formations which were easy to "bounce" The problem with a formation of fighters is that all the guns and eyes point the same way.

Mallory during the BoB stated that Germans should be attacked by groups of three squadrons or more and basically stuck with that idea. Grouping squadrons in close formation throws away most of a fighters advantages in rate of climb and manouverability. It also increases claims, from the start the bigg wings made massive overclaims probably not dishonestly but the more eyes there are the more people think they shot something down. 
For a long time the RAF was losing at ratios between 2 and 4 to 1 but thought it was the other way around. This must have been wishful thinking, even during the BoB where the big wing attacked mainly over land they didnt make a real attempt to count the crashes.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2011)

well Im glad you have so much confidence in your source material. You do understand that many of the claims and losses for many accounts are based on highly questionable sources.

I dont believe there are any credible sources. Please understand that is my position. But just to show that the figures are hot;y contested, I will rely on sources that paint a completely differnt picture. Principally Hardesty ("Rise Of the Phoenix - Soviet Airpower on the Eastern Front"), and Brian Moynahan ("Claws Of the Bear - The rise of the Soviet Armed Forces in WWII").

Hardesty does confirm that over 120 Soviet aircraft were lost in the preemptive strike over Kharkov on the 5 July. He also confirms that this temporarily gave air superiority over the front lines of the southern sector. However, Hardesty also point out that whilst this debacle was occurring, other German airfields were being hit on the southern sector by over 417 Soviet A/c. According to Hardesty, over 50 LW aircraft were lost in these parrallel strikes lines. However these strikes dide fail to blunt the Germans own preemptive strikes launched on the 5th July.

So, substantially, I guess Hardesty is in agreement that for the 5th July, on the southern sector, the Germans held the advantage, but this is far from enjoying complete air supremacy. They had an advantager, but that advantage was not complete as is suggested in your account. At least not according to Hardesty. As Hardesty notes "The opening four days of Citadel saw intense air activity as the two sides engaged in combat over the breakthrough corridors". This suggests to me that the disputed airspace was over the german lines, not the Soviet, and this was fundamentally different to the previous offensives by the germans. Moreover as the following account shows, Soviet activity was more extensive, a sort of aerial equivalent of the broad front strategy so favoured by the Soviets, wheras the Germans tended to concentrate on their two principal breakthgrough points only. The germans for some time over these breakthroughs appear to have been more effective, but this came at the cost of ignoring the other sectors of the front. this is hardly a situation of enjoying air superiority. Its a situation of exploiting tactical and quklaitative advantages only. 

Hardesty states that the LW in those first four days claimed over 400 Soviet aircraft downed. He further states that this allowed the germans to mount sustained ground support operations with Stukas and HS129s in the vicinity of the breakthroughs. This supports your notion of the germans holding air superiority. However, at the same time he elsewhere states "Nevertheless the VVS remained very active and effective in both sectors and on their flanks. VVS fighter activities frustrated German ground support activities". A further 110 Soviet aircraft were lost over the Central Sector. German air presence at this time over the central sector amounted to about 300 bombers and 100 fighters, a substantial force, but they were opposed by over 1232 Soviet aircraft of the 16th Air Army. According to Hardesty the Germans lost a further 106 aircraft in 76 group sized engagements. Hardesty says these 106 claimed by the Soviets "have been confirmed in german accounts"

Hardesty acknowledges the confusion and less than stellar performance of the VVS on the first day, but it is far from complete air supeiority in the terms that the Eastern Front had seen up to the time of Kursk. He goes on to described in considerable detail the operations of the succeeding days. On the second day, Soviet 2nd and 6th Guards Air Armies hit German 9th Army with over 450 aircraft to inhibit assault onto the Ol'khovatchkta ridge. Similar attacks in similar size were mounted on the southern flanks as well, by 2nd and 17 Gds air armies. Hardesty further states that Soviet Long Range Aviation continued to hit the german rear areas, compelling the germans to pull their fighters out of the offensive support to a purely air defence role. This is hardly the mark of an air force holding air superiority.

Hardesty states "Unable to sustain the level of the opening day's air operations, the Luftwaffe began to decline sharply in tems of effectiveness, reflected in the numbers of aircraft ready for operations". On July 5th they had flown 4286, on July 6th it was down to just over 2000.

By July 10 the situation has reversed, Germans were on the defensive, and the airspace was dominarted by the VVS....

I do not think that this account supports the notion that the germans enjoyed complete superiority over Kursk. In fact they enjoyed a tactical superiority on Day1, thereafter they progressively lost control of the skies, and with that, their ability to influence the ground battle.


----------



## Altea (Jul 9, 2011)

Dear Parsifal



parsifal said:


> well Im glad you have so much confidence in your source material. You do understand that many of the claims and losses for many accounts are based on highly questionable sources.


Saying i'm glad is too much, i'm just sharing my sources.
The losses and sorties are taken by Khazanov from 16 VA, 2 VA, 17 VA war diaries.
Krivosheiev losses are lighter because compilated but balanced on account method. There aren't same planes and pilots lost on different places (double, or triple) on several times anymore, like sometimes in daily reports. So why *definite losses* are lower.





> I dont believe there are any credible sources. Please understand that is my position. But just to show that the figures are hot;y contested, I will rely on sources that paint a completely differnt picture. Principally Hardesty ("Rise Of the Phoenix - Soviet Airpower on the Eastern Front"), and Brian Moynahan ("Claws Of the Bear - The rise of the Soviet Armed Forces in WWII").


No problem that's your choice. 



> Hardesty does confirm that over 120 Soviet aircraft were lost in the preemptive strike over Kharkov on the 5 July. He also confirms that this temporarily gave air superiority over the front lines of the southern sector. However, Hardesty also point out that whilst this debacle was occurring, other German airfields were being hit on the southern sector by over 417 Soviet A/c. According to Hardesty, over 50 LW aircraft were lost in these parrallel strikes lines. However these strikes dide fail to blunt the Germans own preemptive strikes launched on the 5th July.


417 it's from the soviet order on the 4th.
120 it's from Plocher (german claims, rather usual overclaims). 

Detailed reports show that no more than 250 stormoviks and fighters participated to the attack, the 5th on morning. The 2th VA lost 20 planes and the 17th about 15 in the morning assaults. And some few fighters on the way back home.



> So, substantially, I guess Hardesty is in agreement that for the 5th July, on the southern sector, the Germans held the advantage, but this is far from enjoying complete air supremacy.


Anyway from my sources germans performed on north from the 5th to the 11th july 8917 day and 295 night missions.

This number was 6299 day and 1164 night missions for the 16th VA, and 778 missions for long range bombers on the same period.

I will look for south face later, but even there the 4th Luftlotte outperformed both 2 and 17 th VA by day: 15114 missions over 9804 and 2793. From the 5th to the 18th july.

Well don't have much time now, see you later to continue the thread at another place cause it's off-top.

Regards


----------



## Glider (Jul 9, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> Also the ballistics of the FF round were pretty appalling at anything much more than point blank it had a trajectory like a rainbow. Fine for its intended use against bombers but less good for hitting a manouvering fighter.


 
I don't really disagree with what you say but the evidence says that the FF whilst not the most stellar performer, did shoot down a lot of fighters. Certainly when looking at the Intel reports of the RAF never made any negative comments about the FF cannon. So to sum up, not the best but good enough.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2011)

The problem with using terms like "point blank" is that they have different meanings to different people, and in fact to be technically accurate each gun has a different point blank range.

Point blank range can also change depending on the target. 

Point blank is the distance at which, using the same aiming point or angle of departure, the projectile will neither rise above or fall below the intended target. 

Obviously point blank for a 6-8 foot thick bomber fuselage is a longer range than a 3 1/2-5ft thick fighter fuselage. 

A more important consideration for air to air combat is the time of flight. A 300mph plane is doing 440ft/sec. a difference of 1/10th of second in time of flight means the target aircraft has moved either 44 ft more or 44 ft less. Perhaps a hit on the bomber, a guaranteed miss on the fighter. 

Very few weapons (if any) were 100% guaranteed killers just like next to no weapon was guaranteed useless, even a Lewis gun from an Avro Anson claimed at least one German plane. 

The Germans figured the maximum effective range of the MG/FF was 400 meters against bombers.
Since the British decided that the .303 guns worked better when harmonized for 225 meters it doesn't seem like there was that much to chose between the effective range of the two weapons set-ups.


----------



## Readie (Jul 9, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Since the British decided that the .303 guns worked better when harmonized for 225 meters



'point blank' is a figure of speech SR. I would describe point blank as very close. Would you agree?
Some British pilots harmonised for 225 feet ( metres in 1941? ha), Others preferred the traditional set up.
Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2011)

Readie said:


> 'point blank' is a figure of speech SR. I would describe point blank as very close. Would you agree?
> Some British pilots harmonised for 225 feet ( metres in 1941? ha), Others preferred the traditional set up.
> Cheers
> John



No, I would not agree. Point blank has a very definite definition in ballistic terms. Turning it into a generalization only confuses the issue. 

All projectiles fall at the same speed. They all fall 16 ft in the first second of flight and they all all fall 48ft in the second second of flight. Point blank is how big the target is and what the time of flight is so that the "drop" is the height of the target (with a little upward aim).
Say the size of our target allows for 3/10s of a second of flight. A US .50cal will have point blank range of just under 250 meters, a mg 151/20 with mine shell will have a point blank range of 200meters and the MK 108 will have a point Blalnk range of under 150 meters. 

225 meters is 250 yds or close enough.

edit> I am not criticizing any war time pilots, most of the time they were not gun experts. The problem comes in trying to read combat reports and relate them to aircraft/gun performance. Many pilots weren't very good judges of distance and what was "point blank" range to one pilot might be medium range to another pilot. It really tells the historian next to nothing as to what the actual distance was and so does nothing to tell us what the effective ranges of various weapons were.


----------



## claidemore (Jul 9, 2011)

My understanding of the Kursk air battle (biggest air battle of WWII by the way), is that the Luftwaffe had local air superiority for a short while (where they were concentrating their initial attacks), but lost it over the course of the battle. it was also my understanding that the VVS achieved local air superiority where they were concentrating attacks, and indeed continued with that tactic all the way to Berlin. 

IMO the Luftwaffe lost _*total *_air superiority during the winter of 42/43. It was up for grabs at Kursk, it was a hard fought battle, but from that point on Germany and the Luftwaffe were retreating in the East. I don't think there's any question who had air superiority after Kursk. 

Gotta agree with parsifal on this one.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2011)

I would love to open a thread on Kursk the air battle, but it would degnerate very quickly because the source material is so dodgy. There would be people who would claim the Germans never lost air supremacy, they achieved all they set out to do, and just redeployed elsewhere. Which means we are conversing in German at the moment.....


----------



## marshall (Jul 9, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I would love to open a thread on Kursk the air battle, but it would degnerate very quickly because the source material is so dodgy. There would be people who would claim the Germans never lost air supremacy, they achieved all they set out to do, and just redeployed elsewhere. Which means we are conversing in German at the moment.....


 
I really would like to see such a thread. Probably the most important battle of them all in ww2, so it deserves some attention I think. And until there will be a lot of data and little speculation the thread should be fine.


----------



## Readie (Jul 10, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> No, I would not agree. Point blank has a very definite definition in ballistic terms. Turning it into a generalization only confuses the issue.
> 
> All projectiles fall at the same speed. They all fall 16 ft in the first second of flight and they all all fall 48ft in the second second of flight. Point blank is how big the target is and what the time of flight is so that the "drop" is the height of the target (with a little upward aim).
> Say the size of our target allows for 3/10s of a second of flight. A US .50cal will have point blank range of just under 250 meters, a mg 151/20 with mine shell will have a point blank range of 200meters and the MK 108 will have a point Blalnk range of under 150 meters.
> ...


 
Glad of the edit SR,
I realise that ballistically you right. 
However' in the spirit of my original comment 'point blank' means:-

adjective
So close to a target that a weapon may be aimed directly at it ie 'point-blank range'.
Close enough so that missing the target is unlikely or impossible: a 'point-blank shot'.

adverb
With a straight aim; directly: fired point-blank at the intruder.

Cheers
John


----------



## Altea (Jul 19, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I would love to open a thread on Kursk the air battle,


So why not?



> but it would degnerate very quickly, because the source material is so dodgy.


What source material is dodgy? Each side overclaimed a lot and tried to minimize their own losses as well in official reports. Nothing new.




> There would be people who would *claim* the Germans never lost air supremacy, they achieved all they set out to do, and just redeployed elsewhere.


They would claim or not, isn't the problem...The important will be the arguments used to sustain claims.





> Which means we are conversing in German at the moment....


I'm not sure to understand, but it's sure that there's very few people from the "east block" on that forum, to make "a balanced" discussion.

Regards


----------



## parsifal (Jul 19, 2011)

well okay, but should we just deal with the battle, or look at the events from say February through to october....from the point where the germans still held the initiative in the air in the East, to the point they had lost it.....


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 17, 2011)

There were less than 100 Spitfire XII produced, it used the single stage Griffon and had poor altitude performance. There were only about 900 Spitfire XIV (two stage Griffon produced) and they saw service in small numbers from Jan/Feb 1944. It seems it was the American aircraft that outperformed the Me 109/FW 190 particularly the P-47 and P-51. The Tempest V was in the hands of operational squadrons only by April 1944. Britain relied very much on the Spitfire IX. Me 109K4 and Me 109G10 probably outnumbered the Spitfire XIV within two months of their initial production.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Dec 18, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> There were less than 100 Spitfire XII produced, it used the single stage Griffon and had poor altitude performance..


There were exactly 100 Spitfire XIIs produced, and they were designed for low-level use, hence the removal of the wingtips.


> There were only about 900 Spitfire XIV (two stage Griffon produced) and they saw service in small numbers from Jan/Feb 1944.


957, and 51 were in Squadron service at D-day. The XVIII was expected to follow on, after the XIV, but missed the war by a few weeks.


> It seems it was the American aircraft that outperformed the Me 109/FW 190 particularly the P-47 and P-51.


You consistently denigrate the Spitfire IX, yet any IX pilot (who actually flew the thing, and didn't just talk about it) was adamant that it could cope with any German aircraft, at any height, apart from the jets.


> The Tempest V was in the hands of operational squadrons only by April 1944.


 Since we're discussing Bodenplatte, what point are you trying to make?


> Britain relied very much on the Spitfire IX. Me 109K4 and Me 109G10 probably outnumbered the Spitfire XIV within two months of their initial production


 Any armed forces are going to rely on the aircraft best suited for the job, and numbers of aircraft are somewhat academic, if you don't have adequately trained pilots to fly them, or petrol to keep them moving.


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 18, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> There were exactly 100 Spitfire XIIs produced, and they were designed for low-level use, hence the removal of the wingtips.
> 
> 957, and 51 were in Squadron service at D-day. The XVIII was expected to follow on, after the XIV, but missed the war by a few weeks.
> 
> You consistently denigrate the Spitfire IX, yet any IX pilot (who actually flew the thing, and didn't just talk about it) was adamant that it could cope with any German aircraft, at any height, apart from the jets..



There wasn't much point having wing tips on the Sptfire Mk XII as its relatively anemic single stage supercharger wouldn't carry the aircraft to a height that they would be of significant use; best to optimise it for low down. In anycase its likely the wings would have had the same tendancy to buckle and boyle as the Mk XIV which had its wing tips removed for this reason.

The Mk XVIII missed the war, it was in anycase a backup for the more ambitious Mk 20 or rather Mk 22 series which had a re-engineered wing structure and tried to reduce elevator load though spring balances; the Mk 20 was a failure and nearly lead to the cancellation of the program but was fixed by the Mk 22. The Mk XVIII would not have been produced in the Vickers Castle Browmwich factory but rather than Jobbing shop Supermarine factory and thus also produced in limited quantities: it was essentially an upgraded Mk.XIV.

The point is that the advanced spitifres such as the Mk XII and XIV were produced in small numbers only and in the case of the Mk xiv quite late in the war and this must be appreciated when comparing the introduction of German aircraft in the same year.




Edgar Brooks said:


> Any armed forces are going to rely on the aircraft best suited for the job, and numbers of aircraft are somewhat academic, if you don't have adequately trained pilots to fly them, or petrol to keep them moving.



Airforces don't rely on the aircraft best suited to the job they rely on what they can get. This meant Mk IX's for the RAF. Mk XIV's came out of a jobbing shop type opperation at supermarines factories and in ancase had some issues; it couldn't really be looped safely for instance.



Edgar Brooks said:


> Since we're discussing Bodenplatte, what point are you trying to make?
> .





Well, if you read the thread; I made the point that for the Luftwaffe to have succeded in Boddenplatte it need to introduce its upgraded aircraft 6-9 months earlier. I also made the point latter on, that it was US aircraft that were the source of the technical superiority. P-51s' and P-47's were managing around 440 and 437mph by the end of 1943, the P-47 even earlier; moreover these aircraft were available in serious quantities. The Mk IX was good but it was certainly not superior to contemporary Me 109G and FW 190A on balance of performance. Pilots opinions are just that: opinions, they are worth respecting but are still just opinions.

All aircraft eventually are supersceded. By 1945 the Spitifire's days were numbered in usefulleness and the air ministry should be looking for a way to phase in better aircraft as fast as possible. I would not be able to intercept jets, or even aircraft such as the Do 335


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Dec 18, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> There wasn't much point having wing tips on the Sptfire Mk XII as its relatively anemic single stage supercharger wouldn't carry the aircraft to a height that they would be of significant use; best to optimise it for low down. In anycase its likely the wings would have had the same tendancy to buckle and boyle as the Mk XIV which had its wing tips removed for this reason.


For pity's sake, where do you get this baloney? The XII was developed specifically as a low-level counter to the Baedecker Fw190s; it was never intended for high-level use. If you bother to look at photos, you'll see that the XIV did not have its wingtips removed, in fact it used narrower ailerons (just like the VIII) to ensure the wings did not suffer damage; the F.R.XIV used clipped wings, since (like the XII) it was designed for use at low level, with added work at low-level photography.


> The Mk XVIII missed the war, it was in anycase a backup for the more ambitious Mk 20


Wrong; it was designed for use in the Far East.


> Mk 22 series which had a re-engineered wing structure and tried to reduce elevator load though spring balances;


Wrong, they used a larger tail area, which did away with the bobweights in the elevator circuit. Only the 24 had spring tabs.


> The Mk 20 was a failure and nearly lead to the cancellation of the program but was fixed by the Mk 22.


Wrong, the XX never existed; the touchiness of the 21 led to a report saying that the Spitfire should go no further, but a minor alteration to the elevators fixed it within days.


> The Mk XVIII would not have been produced in the Vickers Castle Browmwich factory but rather than Jobbing shop Supermarine factory and thus also produced in limited quantities: it was essentially an upgraded Mk.XIV.


Wrong, it had an entirely new wingspar, which gave it even greater strength than the previous Marks, and Castle Bromwich closed, as an aircraft factory, and returned to vehicle production immediately at the end of the war.


> The point is that the advanced spitifres such as the Mk XII and XIV were produced in small numbers only and in the case of the Mk xiv quite late in the war and this must be appreciated when comparing the introduction of German aircraft in the same year.


The XIV first flew in 1943, and was perfectly capable of dealing with what the Germans had to offer at that point of the war. With the Meteor and Vampire soon to be available, the RAF would have managed to overcome their inferiority somehow.


> This meant Mk IX's for the RAF. Mk XIV's came out of a jobbing shop type opperation at supermarines factories and in ancase had some issues; it couldn't really be looped safely for instance.


The XIV came out of a desire to use the more powerful Griffon engine, which gave it a service ceiling of 45,000', only equalled by the Mark 21. If you bother to read the XIV Pilot's Notes, you'll find that looping was not banned, or even discouraged, they simply said that 320-350 mph was the best speed at which to perform it. Rolls, climbing rolls, half rolls off a loop were also permitted; only spinning was not permitted, but only when external stores were being carried.


> I also made the point latter on, that it was US aircraft that were the source of the technical superiority. P-51s' and P-47's were managing around 440 and 437mph by the end of 1943, the P-47 even earlier; moreover these aircraft were available in serious quantities. The Mk IX was good but it was certainly not superior to contemporary Me 109G and FW 190A on balance of performance.


You really should read test reports, not Grimm's Fairy Tales. The XIV was listed as 442 at 19,000', same as the XVIII, and the XIX was doing 450 at the same height. The IX was a 1941 design (so 408 mph wasn't a bad speed at that point in the war,) and only viewed as an interim measure, to combat the Fw190, until the arrival of the VIII XIV; by 1943 it was seen as surplus to requirements, and was being "donated" to the Russian war effort. The XVI development of the IX was seen as ideal for low level, and thus ground attack work, which is why it had the .5" Browning instead of the .303" in 1945, plus we had hundreds of surplus-to-requirements Packard Merlins, which were used up on the XVI.


> air ministry should be looking for a way to phase in better aircraft as fast as possible.


The country was broke, so we had to make do; at least we managed to last long enough to see the back of the Nazis.


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 18, 2011)

Edgar Brooks said:


> For pity's sake, where do you get this baloney? The XII was developed specifically as a low-level counter to the Baedecker Fw190s; it was never intended for high-level use. If you bother to look at photos, you'll see that the XIV did not have its wingtips removed, in fact it used narrower ailerons (just like the VIII) to ensure the wings did not suffer damage; the F.R.XIV used clipped wings, since (like the XII) it was designed for use at low level, with added work at low-level photography.
> 
> Wrong; it was designed for use in the Far East.
> 
> ...




Don't loose your temper and remain civil

1 The first Griffon Spitfire flew on 27 November 1941. The Baedecker raids were from April 42. The Griffon only had a single stage supercharger. There was no real choice to make it an high flying aircraft.

The Mk XIV DID have its wing tips removed when the whole wings started buckling and developing boils during manouvers, the wing couldn't quite take the extra weight so there were removed from new production models and some service aircraft.

2 The Mk XVIII was a backup in case the Mk 20+ failed. It has little about it to enable it to opperate in the far east apart from the standardised secretion of fuel tanks in ways that had already been proven and incorporated somewhat higgely piggely in earlier variants (small wing LE tanks)

All marks of Spitfire had *exactly* the same horrizontal tail though obviously the elevator was modified in the Mk 21 to incorporate the spring balances. The Vertial tail was increased in some (MK VIII, XIV, XVIII etc) the vertical tail is unlikely to have anything to do with the bob weights for the elevator which is a horizontal mechanism.

Either way the Mk 21 had control issues that nearly lead to its cancellation, the control modifications and wing structural mods were neccesarry to maintain competitiveness as the controls were getting heavy and unresponsive on all axes. The Mk XIV and Mk XVIII would not benefit from these improvments.

3 The Mk XVIII was a modification of the Mk XIV. All they did was replace a few stringers and the main spar (which you now acknowledge as existing) with ones made out of stainless steel instead of aluminium in an effort to increase strenth withour having to undertake a redesign. The main spar was made as a continiously tappering piece instead of telecoping aluminium sections.

4 For whatever reason the Mk XIV only entered service in Feb 1944, thats all that counts on any side, the Me 109K1 first flew in 1943 as well but the actual Me 109K (as the K4 only entered servide in Octover 1944. However unlike the Mk XIV the Me 109K4 was a hard core mass production item.

5 The MK XIV's handling deteriorated considerably, a loop took a tremendous amount of airspace and it was now so large 10000ft of altitude was needed. It was a fast aircraft, that's all. I would expect that the latter P-51H would be superior all round

6 The first Mk IX spitfires didnt fly at 408mph, they had the Merlin 61 engine and even with the Merlin 66 also lower levels of boost, sub 400 mph aircraft. 

7 the Mk XIV and Mk VIII never took over from the Mk IX. They were produced in small numbers only around 1000 each, never even got close.

And that's the point, as Galland put it "The best feature of the Mk XIV spitfire was that there was so few of them". There were plenty of P-47 and P-51.

8 The Spitifre xiv had good speed at altitude but it could be outrun at sea level by an Me 109K4 and at altitude by a Ta 152H. All aircraft have their day.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2011)

The clipped wing for the Spit was there to improve Roll Rates. It may have had a minuscule negative effect by increasing induced drag. The problem for the Spit V, somewhat improved by the IX and improved by the XIV was that the ailerons were only 30% effective at 400 Mph and the aircraft would tend to reverse ~540+mph. In contrast the P-47C's aileron effectiveness was ~60% at 400. The Mustang wing/aileron 'stiffness' was superior to both (and the Fw 190A series) from about 370mph and up - in roll. 

The Mk XIV would out perform the P-51B/C/D in many altitude envelopes - and definitely all versions of the Fw 190 until the 190D (parity in speed and high/medium speed roll) and also the 109K except for possibly top speed in different altitudes. The 109K and Spit XIV were very close in climb. 

It was one helluva airplane in a knife fight.


----------



## Juha (Dec 18, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> 6 The first Mk IX spitfires didnt fly at 408mph, they had the Merlin 61 engine and even with the Merlin 66 also lower levels of boost, sub 400 mph aircraft.



Maybe you should update your data. Look for ex Spitfire Mk IX Performance Trials, the first test there, made in Oct 42





Siegfried said:


> 7 the Mk XIV and Mk VIII never took over from the Mk IX. They were produced in small numbers only around 1000 each, never even got close.
> 
> And that's the point, as Galland put it "The best feature of the Mk XIV spitfire was that there was so few of them". There were plenty of P-47 and P-51.



There was no need for more Spit XIVs, Commonwealth troops in ETO were not much bothered by enemy air power, same cannot be said on the German troops fighting against them. Because no nation had unlimited resources, one should concentrate to produce according to needs, and Commonwealth didn't suffer in 44-45 of lack of air superiority fighters, they could have used more CAS and tranport planes.




Siegfried said:


> 8 The Spitifre xiv had good speed at altitude but it could be outrun at sea level by an Me 109K4 and at altitude by a Ta 152H. All aircraft have their day.



in fact Spit XIV was as fast as 109K-4 with 1,8 ata at sea level, or 578km/h vs 580km/h, so inside variation between individual a/c

Juha


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Dec 18, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> Don't loose your temper and remain civil.


I am, and remain, totally calm
1


> The first Griffon Spitfire flew on 27 November 1941. The Baedecker raids were from April 42. The Griffon only had a single stage supercharger. There was no real choice to make it an high flying aircraft


.
DP845 was the Mk.III, converted to take the Griffon IIB, which was not the engine earmarked for the XII (Griffon III IV,) and definitely not the engine planned for the XIV. The choice, as I've said, was to design it for low-level.


> The Mk XIV DID have its wing tips removed when the whole wings started buckling and developing boils during manouvers, the wing couldn't quite take the extra weight so there were removed from new production models and some service aircraft


.
Modification 1609 "To introduce clipped wingtips on Spitfire XIV" was not introduced until 8th/25th June 1945, and that information comes straight from the Vickers Spitfire Modifications ledger, held in the library of the RAF Museum; your source is.........?
2


> The Mk XVIII was a backup in case the Mk 20+ failed. It has little about it to enable it to opperate in the far east apart from the standardised secretion of fuel tanks in ways that had already been proven and incorporated somewhat higgely piggely in earlier variants (small wing LE tanks)


The XVIII had compartments, in the wings, to accomodate emergency equipment for the far east; it's one of the reasons that it only had the E wing. It was definitely not a back-up for the XX, since there was only, ever, one Mark XX, which was DP845, renumbered from the Mk.IV to XX.


> All marks of Spitfire had *exactly* the same horrizontal tail though obviously the elevator was modified in the Mk 21 to incorporate the spring balances. The Vertial tail was increased in some (MK VIII, XIV, XVIII etc) the vertical tail is unlikely to have anything to do with the bob weights for the elevator which is a horizontal mechanism.


The fin (not vertical tail, please, this is a British aircraft you're trying to denigrate) remained the same size through to the XII; it was enlarged on the XIV XVIII, and the rudder got progressively larger, too. The tailplanes remained the same size, right through to the 21, though a small modification was made to the elevators. On the 22 24, the fin was made larger, and so were the tailplanes and elevators (modification 1613.) You obviously don't realise, also, that the pilot uses elevators, when turning, not the rudder, which is why the bobweights were put into the system; Mitchell wanted to keep the controls light for his pilots. You keep rattling on about these "spring balances," but no Spitfire had spring balanced tabs before the 24; the elevator trim tabs were always controlled by a hand wheel on the port wall of the cockpit.


> Either way the Mk 21 had control issues that nearly lead to its cancellation, the control modifications and wing structural mods were neccesarry to maintain competitiveness as the controls were getting heavy and unresponsive on all axes. The Mk XIV and Mk XVIII would not benefit from these improvments.


More fabrications; the 21 only needed the elevator horns to be rounded, instead of squared, and all of the problems were solved; it did see service before the end of the war, don't forget. There never was any intention to cancel the 21; some test pilots got a little carried away with their own importance, and made sweeping statements, which were not in their remit.


> 3 The Mk XVIII was a modification of the Mk XIV. All they did was replace a few stringers and the main spar (which you now acknowledge as existing) with ones made out of stainless steel instead of aluminium in an effort to increase strenth withour having to undertake a redesign. The main spar was made as a continiously tappering piece instead of telecoping aluminium sections.


Duralumin, actually, and the XVIII spar was manufactured from DTD.273, a higher grade light alloy, not from steel. (Information comes from a lecture by Joe Smith, your source is .................?) You also seem unaware that the XVIII had the "rear-view" fuselage as standard, while most XIVs were the "normal" high-back style.
4


> For whatever reason the Mk XIV only entered service in Feb 1944, thats all that counts on any side,


Close, 610 Squadron re-equipped in January, 1944. 


> However unlike the Mk XIV the Me 109K4 was a hard core mass production item.


You'll have to explain that, preferably in words of one syllable; personally I feel that the production of 957 Mk.XIV Spitfires, in under two years, makes it of some importance.
5


> The MK XIV's handling deteriorated considerably, a loop took a tremendous amount of airspace and it was now so large 10000ft of altitude was needed. It was a fast aircraft, that's all. I would expect that the latter P-51H would be superior all round


Have you ever seen a XIV fly? For your own selfish reasons you seem to be adding a 0 onto the figure; ask a display pilot how much airspace he needs, and I'l bet that he won't say 2 miles. Again, I fail to see what the post-war P51H has to do with this, since it was not produced by Britain.
6


> The first Mk IX spitfires didnt fly at 408mph, they had the Merlin 61 engine and even with the Merlin 66 also lower levels of boost, sub 400 mph aircraft.


26-4-42, the Air Fighting Development Unit took a standard Mk.IX, and clocked it at 409mph, in FS gear, at 28,000' 
7


> the Mk XIV and Mk VIII never took over from the Mk IX. They were produced in small numbers only around 1000 each, never even got close.


 1650 Mk.VIII, 957 XIV, and, as i said, there were far too many IXs, so they were given away to anyone who wanted them:- Russians, Americans, Greeks, Italians.......


> And that's the point, as Galland put it "The best feature of the Mk XIV spitfire was that there was so few of them".


Which, to a neutral observer, might just mean that he was thankful that there weren't more of them to harry his pilots.
8


> The Spitifre xiv had good speed at altitude but it could be outrun at sea level by an Me 109K4 and at altitude by a Ta 152H.


 Your source for these figures? As far as I know, trials between the aircraft were never carried out. Eric Brown does concur, with regard to the Ta152, of course.


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 18, 2011)

Juha said:


> Maybe you should update your data. Look for ex Spitfire Mk IX Performance Trials, the first test there, made in Oct 42
> 
> There was no need for more Spit XIVs, Commonwealth troops in ETO were not much bothered by enemy air power, same cannot be said on the German troops fighting against them. Because no nation had unlimited resources, one should concentrate to produce according to needs, and Commonwealth didn't suffer in 44-45 of lack of air superiority fighters, they could have used more CAS and tranport planes
> 
> ...



Maybe I should but:

"Standard Mk.Vc (universal) wings were fitted. This wing has the large bulge in its top surface over the 20 m.m. guns. The two remaining 20 m.m. gun stubs in the leading edges were fitted with hemispherical blanks. The leading edge gun ports and the muzzles of the 20 m.m. guns were sealed. The ejection chutes beneath the wing relevant to the guns fitted were open. "

I'd say the bomb racks were also absent when tested without the tank. So specs that I've seen stating speeds of around 398mph are plausible for the Merlin 61 version which was in production from late 42 to early 43.

The point I wish to note is that the Me 109G1, which beat the Mk IX into service by a few months was managing 400.5 mph at this time at a lower altitude the aircraft were likely even except in the notches where the gear changes of the spitfire are.

The real point is that there is no major technical superiority of the Spitfire over either the FW 190A5/A6 or Me 109G, though the G deteriorated due to engine issues (1.3 ata restriction not lifted till about October 43) and ever reducing manufacturing tollerances and increase weights.

Hence I still assert that it was US aircraft, the P-47 and P-51 which achieved BOTH a qualitative and quantitative advantage over the German fighters. A Mk XIV is better than even the Me 109G14ASM let alone a G6 however in terms of numerical impact it was not around in numbers. P-47 and P-51 were. The P-47D was available in quantity from Feb 1943 and the C from late 1942. These aircraft had speeds of over 433 mph, some 33-40mph faster than the Me 109

The test reports suggest a Me 109K4 on 1.98 ata outruns Mk XIV on 100/150 25psi by a few mph, manufacturing tollerances aside the median speed of the K4 at low altitude was still better. Of course the Mk XIV was around throughout 44 while the K4 only from October 44.

Me 109K1 flew in 1943, it could have been produced in early 44 but production was held up in order not to disrupt Me 109G6 production. The K1 had the bulges cleaned up, retractable tail wheel and must have been quite a bit faster; about 12 mph. 

The technology and manufacturing tollerances of the P-51 were simply without peer, the Me 109K4 made up only through a more powerfull engine.


----------



## Juha (Dec 19, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> Maybe I should but:
> 
> "Standard Mk.Vc (universal) wings were fitted. This wing has the large bulge in its top surface over the 20 m.m. guns. The two remaining 20 m.m. gun stubs in the leading edges were fitted with hemispherical blanks. The leading edge gun ports and the muzzles of the 20 m.m. guns were sealed. The ejection chutes beneath the wing relevant to the guns fitted were open. "



So it was more or less combat ready Spit F.IX, the Spit IX used at tactical trials was a bit faster and was fitted for but not equipped with a 30 gal. drop tank as you can see from: Spitfire IX Tactical Trials " ...one Spitfire IX aircraft, AB.505, was delivered from Messrs. Rolls-Royce,Ltd., to this unit on 26th April 1942, for a period of one week, for tactical trials. 
In order to bring the weight of the aircraft up to its full war load it was necessary to fit 2 x 20 mm. cannons, full ammunition for all guns, V.H.F., and I.F.F. The aircraft has fittings for a jettisonable fuel tank but this was not available. Without this tank the all-up weight is about 7,400 lbs...The Spitfire IX is a Spitfire VC modified to incorporate a Merlin 61 engine fitted with the latest negative 'G' carburettor... The speed of the Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC and a Typhoon I at various heights. Its maximum true speed in M.S. gear is developed at a height of 16,300 feet and is approximately 386 m.p.h., and in F.S. gear at 28,000 feet and is approximately 409 m.p.h..." 




Siegfried said:


> The point I wish to note is that the Me 109G1, which beat the Mk IX into service by a few months was managing 400.5 mph at this time at a lower altitude the aircraft were likely even except in the notches where the gear changes of the spitfire are.
> 
> The real point is that there is no major technical superiority of the Spitfire over either the FW 190A5/A6 or Me 109G, though the G deteriorated due to engine issues (1.3 ata restriction not lifted till about October 43) and ever reducing manufacturing tollerances and increase weights.



I agree than 109G-1 - G-4 with 1,3 ata and Spit F.IX with Merlin 61 +15lbs boost were fairly evenly matched in speed but between 5500-8000m, when 109G had advance and above 9000m Spit had advance. 



Siegfried said:


> The test reports suggest a Me 109K4 on 1.98 ata outruns Mk XIV on 100/150 25psi by a few mph, manufacturing tollerances aside the median speed of the K4 at low altitude was still better. Of course the Mk XIV was around throughout 44 while the K4 only from October 44.
> 
> Me 109K1 flew in 1943, it could have been produced in early 44 but production was held up in order not to disrupt Me 109G6 production. The K1 had the bulges cleaned up, retractable tail wheel and must have been quite a bit faster; about 12 mph.



We have argued here several times on how common the use of 1.98 ata was, there is no clear proof of its wide-spread use at least before March 45 and IIRC one main reason for delay in 109K was the lack of service cleared DB605D series engines.

Juha


----------



## Siegfried (Dec 27, 2011)

Juha said:


> So it was more or less combat ready Spit F.IX, the Spit IX used at tactical trials was a bit faster and was fitted for but not equipped with a 30 gal. drop tank as you can see from: Spitfire IX Tactical Trials " ...one Spitfire IX aircraft, AB.505, was delivered from Messrs. Rolls-Royce,Ltd., to this unit on 26th April 1942, for a period of one week, for tactical trials.
> In order to bring the weight of the aircraft up to its full war load it was necessary to fit 2 x 20 mm. cannons, full ammunition for all guns, V.H.F., and I.F.F. The aircraft has fittings for a jettisonable fuel tank but this was not available. Without this tank the all-up weight is about 7,400 lbs...The Spitfire IX is a Spitfire VC modified to incorporate a Merlin 61 engine fitted with the latest negative 'G' carburettor... The speed of the Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC and a Typhoon I at various heights. Its maximum true speed in M.S. gear is developed at a height of 16,300 feet and is approximately 386 m.p.h., and in F.S. gear at 28,000 feet and is approximately 409 m.p.h..."
> 
> I agree than 109G-1 - G-4 with 1,3 ata and Spit F.IX with Merlin 61 +15lbs boost were fairly evenly matched in speed but between 5500-8000m, when 109G had advance and above 9000m Spit had advance.
> ...




Re the early spitfire: its high performance is contradicted by latter tests. The use of the two stage merlin, especially with the versions high gear ratios (merlin 61 and 70) meant inflated speeds were possible at high altitudes. However at 20,000ft-25,000ft, or so the advantage is not really there and the Merlin 66 used lower ratios.

There is ample evidence of 1.98 ata being finally cleared by Feb 1945 however its also clear that it was fairly widely used in 1944 but withdrawn for a while due to technical or fuel issues with some aircraft being wound back down to 1.9 ata rather than 1.8 ata.

Of course to match a 1.8 ata Me 109K4 the Spitfire Mk XIV needed to be using 100/150 octane fuel and 25psi boost which itself was limited.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Dec 29, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> Re the early spitfire: its high performance is contradicted by latter tests..


And your sources are................? Remember that every single Spitfire was flown by a qualified test pilot (e.g. Alex Henshaw, ever heard of him?) If they didn't reach a required standard, a report was made, and the defects ironed out.


> The use of the two stage merlin, especially with the versions high gear ratios (merlin 61 and 70) meant inflated speeds were possible at high altitudes. However at 20,000ft-25,000ft, or so the advantage is not really there and the Merlin 66 used lower ratios.


The Merlin 61 had a reduction gear of .420, which meant that it could outclimb the Fw190; all other two-stage Merlins had a reduction gear of .477, so I fail to see how standard equipment can give inflated speeds. The Merlin 66 (still with a .477 reduction gearing, was designed for relatively low-level use (L.F.IX.)


> Of course to match a 1.8 ata Me 109K4 the Spitfire Mk XIV needed to be using 100/150 octane fuel and 25psi boost which itself was limited.


You continuously harp on about this K-4, as though it was some mythical beast-come-saviour. By the time that it arrived, German aircraft were the hunted, and fair game, so it was more a case of any 109 having to cope with the enemy, not the other way round.


----------



## Siegfried (Jan 2, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> And your sources are................? Remember that every single Spitfire was flown by a qualified test pilot (e.g. Alex Henshaw, ever heard of him?) If they didn't reach a required standard, a report was made, and the defects ironed out.
> 
> The Merlin 61 had a reduction gear of .420, which meant that it could outclimb the Fw190; all other two-stage Merlins had a reduction gear of .477, so I fail to see how standard equipment can give inflated speeds. The Merlin 66 (still with a .477 reduction gearing, was designed for relatively low-level use (L.F.IX.)
> 
> You continuously harp on about this K-4, as though it was some mythical beast-come-saviour. By the time that it arrived, German aircraft were the hunted, and fair game, so it was more a case of any 109 having to cope with the enemy, not the other way round.



1 All depends on the standard Henshaw used.
2 "With....Merlin 61 Spitfirer: "Its rate of climb at 20,000 ft. with the 0.42 reduction gear is inferior to the Fw 190 A and the Me109 G, even when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost. " Spitfire Mk IX Performance Trials

It took the Merlin 66, introduced in 1943, to redress the imbalance. The Germans of course also continued to improve their engines.

3 the Merlin 66 greater reduction however the Merlin 70 series AFAIKT used lessor reduction, similar to Merlin 61.
4 FW 190A5 was a fast aircraft. It was faster than even the Spitfire XII at sea level.

5 When comparing Me 109 performance in the 1943 period it should be noted that the 1.3 ata rating was increased to 1.42 between june/october 43. This lead to a big increase in climb and a higher speed by 11 mph. In the 1942-1943 period most Me 109 were G2 or G4 which were lighter and faster than G-6's despite the general 1.3 ata rating. The G6 came out in march 43 and the the 1.42 ata came in between June or October 43.

6 The G6AM and ASM took over in Production about Feb 1944 with deliveries about 1 month latter with the G14AM and ASM taking over production by May/June 1944. These aircraft had significantly higher boost level of 1.7 ata and were thus much faster.

7 The Me 109K4 started operations in october 1944, about 7 months after the spitfire XIV. However the Spitfire IX remained the main production type whereas the Me 109 production had switched over completely to Me 109G6AM/ASM, G14AM/ASM and finally G10/K4

The point being that the RAF got its Spitfire XIV in service first but it did so at fairly low production.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 2, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> 1 All depends on the standard Henshaw used..


Silly comment; he (and all test pilots) used the criteria set by the Air Ministry/Farnborough/A&AEE Boscombe Down/AFDU/other test agencies, after extensive and exhaustive trials.


> 2 "With....Merlin 61 Spitfirer: "Its rate of climb at 20,000 ft. with the 0.42 reduction gear is inferior to the Fw 190 A and the Me109 G, even when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost. "


You're cherry-picking:-
..................The Spitfire IX at 28,000 to 30,000 ft. is superior in speed to the Me 109 G and the Fw 190 A. 

..................Its rate of climb at 20,000 ft. with the 0.42 reduction gear is inferior to the Fw 190 A and the Me109 G, even when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost. 
..................When fitted with the 0.477 reduction gear and at +15 lb. per sq. inch boost the Spitfire is equal in rate of climb to the Me 109 G-2; when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost it is superior to all German fighters at present in service. 
..................The ceiling of the Spitfire IX is considerably higher than that of the Me 109 G or the Fw 190 A at present in service. 
Taken from the same report that you quoted


> It took the Merlin 66, introduced in 1943, to redress the imbalance. The Germans of course also continued to improve their engines
> 3 the Merlin 66 greater reduction however the Merlin 70 series AFAIKT used lessor reduction, similar to Merlin 61..


Wrong on all counts; the 66 was introduced mid-1944, and only the 61 had .42 reduction gearing. All other 60-series and the 70 were .477 plus 18psi rating.


> 4 FW 190A5 was a fast aircraft. It was faster than even the Spitfire XII at sea level.


So????? Apart from the occasional escort duty, the XII was never used in Europe, and post D-day remained with ADGB, dealing with the revolting V1s.


> The point being that the RAF got its Spitfire XIV in service first but it did so at fairly low production


High enough to replace all those lost, during Bodenplatte, within 24 hours.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 2, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> 1 All depends on the standard Henshaw used.
> 2 "With....Merlin 61 Spitfirer: "Its rate of climb at 20,000 ft. with the 0.42 reduction gear is inferior to the Fw 190 A and the Me109 G, even when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost. " Spitfire Mk IX Performance Trials
> 
> It took the Merlin 66, introduced in 1943, to redress the imbalance. The Germans of course also continued to improve their engines.


 
German documentation on the 190A3 has it at 2100-2200 ft/min at 20,000 ft - depending on the aircraft tested - while the RAE's test of the Faber 190A3 has it at 2800 ft/min at 20000 ft. German 109A5 testing has that aircraft at 2100-2300 ft/min at 20,000 ft.

German documentation has the Me 109G-2 at 2540-2800 ft/min at 20000 ft, while the 109G-6 (DB 605 AS) is at 2350-2450 ft/min.

Spitfire F Mk IX was tested at 2540 ft/min at 20,000 ft. LF Mk IX was tested as at 3450-3720 ft/min at 20,000 ft. HF Mk IX was tested as at 3200-3500 ft/min

When assessing climb performance, I'd say that the F Mk IX was slightly superior to the early 190As above 20,000 ft and slightly inferior to the 109G-2 until about 25,000 ft. The late LF and HK Mk IXs were definitively superior to both 190A3/A5 and the 190G2 and early G6 aircraft.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 2, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> There is ample evidence of 1.98 ata being finally cleared by Feb 1945 however its also clear that it was fairly widely used in 1944 but withdrawn for a while due to technical or fuel issues with some aircraft being wound back down to 1.9 ata rather than 1.8 ata.
> 
> Of course to match a 1.8 ata Me 109K4 the Spitfire Mk XIV needed to be using 100/150 octane fuel and 25psi boost which itself was limited.



You have documented proof that 1.98ata was in wide spread use in 1944.

That would be 21lb boost, not 25lb boost.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 2, 2012)

nt


----------



## RCAFson (Jan 2, 2012)

Jabberwocky said:


> German documentation on the 190A3 has it at 2100-2200 ft/min at 20,000 ft - depending on the aircraft tested - while the RAE's test of the Faber 190A3 has it at 2800 ft/min at 20000 ft. German 109A5 testing has that aircraft at 2100-2300 ft/min at 20,000 ft.
> 
> German documentation has the Me 109G-2 at 2540-2800 ft/min at 20000 ft, while the 109G-6 (DB 605 AS) is at 2350-2450 ft/min.
> 
> ...



the climb numbers you quote for the F MK IX are at the normal rating but then you quote the combat climb rating for the others. The combat climb rating, at 20K ft, for the F Mk IX (Merlin 61) was about 2930fpm:

Spitfire F Mk IX BF274 Test


----------



## Hop (Jan 3, 2012)

> The problem for the Spit V, somewhat improved by the IX and improved by the XIV was that the ailerons were only 30% effective at 400 Mph and the aircraft would tend to reverse ~540+mph. In contrast the P-47C's aileron effectiveness was ~60% at 400.



The 30% elevator effectiveness figure is for the Spitfire I with canvas ailerons and a reversal speed of 470 mph. Metal ailerons were fitted on nearly all Spitfire Vs (and all later models), and the wings were progressively strengthened with the Spitfire Vb and Vc.



> and tried to reduce elevator load



Why on earth would anyone want to _reduce_ elevator load on the Spitfire? They had very light elevators. That's why bob weights were fitted to _increase_ the load on the elevator by 5 lbs or so.



> The point is that the advanced spitifres such as the Mk XII and XIV were produced in small numbers only and in the case of the Mk xiv quite late in the war and this must be appreciated when comparing the introduction of German aircraft in the same year.



The RAF didn't really need more fighters. Orders for de Havilland Vampires were held back so that more Mosquito bombers could be produced, for example. Of course in Germany the complete opposite was true, with orders for almost everything but fighters getting canceled. Germany was desperate for fighters, not the RAF.

It's interesting reading about the situation over Europe in late 1944 and 1945. RAF _squadrons_ would fly more sorties than German _groups_. RAF squadrons rarely encountered the Luftwaffe, the Luftwaffe almost always encountered the RAF when they did fly. And in those encounters RAF Spitfire IXs made short work of German 109Ks and 190Ds. 

The truth was the Luftwaffe was short of fuel, ammunition and skilled pilots. They desperately needed better aircraft to try to compete. The RAF had a surplus of everything, more aircraft, pilots and fuel than it knew what to do with. And the quality of German opposition was so low they didn't need higher performing aircraft.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 3, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> So????? Apart from the occasional escort duty, the XII was never used in Europe, and post D-day remained with ADGB, dealing with the revolting V1s.
> 
> High enough to replace all those lost, during Bodenplatte, within 24 hours.



the XII was used also for fighter bomber mission over europe, if RAF can not replace the lost of a single attack was a very bad shape and this is not the case at time, is out of dubt that XIV were few within the RAF fighters


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 3, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> is out of dubt that XIV were few within the RAF fighters; the XII was used also for fighter bomber mission over europe


Supermarine produced 957 Spitfire XIVs, hardly few.
The XII was never converted to carry bombs under the wings, and always had to carry a slipper tank under the fuselage, so fighter-bomber sorties were out.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 3, 2012)

read here, Sqn Histories 41-45_P under history of 41st squadron

957 are few the XIV stay in production for long time

edit they was delivered from october 43 to december 45 (only 20 delivered in '43)


----------



## Kryten (Jan 3, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> the XII was used also for fighter bomber mission over europe, if RAF can not replace the lost of a single attack was a very bad shape and this is not the case at time, is out of dubt that XIV were few within the RAF fighters



Thats a bit misleading as the MkXIV was used almost exclusively as an air superiority fighter, whereas most other marks were more and more switching to the ground attack role due to the lack of opposition from the Luftwaffe!


----------



## Kryten (Jan 3, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Supermarine produced 957 Spitfire XIVs, hardly few.
> The XII was never converted to carry bombs under the wings, and always had to carry a slipper tank under the fuselage, so fighter-bomber sorties were out.



all info I have sees the MKXII originally deployed to counter the tip and run attacks on the South coast by low level FW and ME fighter bombers, the aircraft was optomised to fight low down, later it was used over the channel and French coast as an Intruder, mentioned by Johnny Johnson due to thier unusual tactics, but I also can find no mention of the MkXII being used in the ground attack role?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 3, 2012)

ctrian said:


> Fighters did not make good ground attack aircraft ,they were used in that role however because the RAF and the USAAF would rather lose the war than subordinate themselves to the army.Regarding Ardennes i have ''Hitler's last gamble'' by Dupuy ,Bongard and Anderson.It's the most complete study and air attacks are mentioned as a nuisance not decisive.Artillery was decisive in that battle.By the way noone said that airpower had no effect.



Ctrian - I know you have departed the thread but I read enough of these comments to finally throw a BS flag. First, Arnold, Eaker, Spaatz were truly the US Army Strategic Airpower mafia in USAAF but they had very little to say (effectively) when asked/tasked for CAS - when and where needed. The USAAF 'mafia' would not and did not act as you implied 'would rather lose the war rather than subordinate themselves to the Army". THEY Were Army and Arnold reported directly to US Army Chief of Staff General George C Marshall (as did SHAEF Commander Dwight Eisenhower who also oversaw all RAF and USAAF through Air Marshal Portal).

In summary, when disagreements occurred Marshall was the last court of appeal in ETO (and PTO and evrrywhere else a dispute may occur between Army Ground and Army Air Power) if Eisenhower and Portal (or MacArthur and Kennedy, for example) disagreed. AFAIK, no dispute in ETO or PTO ever went to Marshall for resolution).

Arnold was not a factor in what Spaatz could or could not do with respect to directing 8th and 9th FC re:CAS.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 3, 2012)

On Nov 6 1943 W/O Blummer and F/S Fairbairn attacked a train and a flak site near Gremonville.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Jan 3, 2012)

Right, I've done some checking, and 41 Squadron converted their own aircraft, in April, 1944, to carry bombs (fuselage only,) and spent May, 1944 on ground attack work, presumably on the lead-up to Overlord. In June they went back to straight interception work, attacking the V1s. Any attacks carried out in 1943 would have been cannon only.
The amount of damage dealt out by Hurricane IICs IIDs, in the desert, makes a nonsense of the claim that fighters did not make good ground attack platforms; also there was never a chance that the RAF feared that it would have to "subordinate itself to the Army." The RAF was a separate Command, answerable only to the Air Ministry, and above that the Government/Ministry for War. The difference was that the hierarchy of the Army and RAF (largely) managed to work together, something the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht singularly failed to do.
The Hurricane production line was due to end mid-1941, but was continued on because of the aircraft's usefulness for ground attack in the desert and Far East.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 3, 2012)

parsifal said:


> They are probably correct, but not comparable....a spit probably did have a ferry range of 1300 miles....perhaps with armour and armament removed, stripped dwn and lightened as much as possible, with so much additional fuel as to be barely flyable. The P-51B however is probably much closer to an honest capability.
> 
> 
> Me109e 80 miles
> ...



On May 13, 1944 the 355th FG flew a long range record for ETO of 1450 miles round trip to Posnan with several combats over Poland and east Germany. On Frantic VII the 355th flew the escort over Warsaw, fought JG 51 around Warsaw and proceeded to Piryatin.. One way ~ 2200 miles via the dog leg to Stettin, Se over Warsaw and ese to Piryatin. Dad's logbook had 8 hours and he was first up. 

The Posnan mission was all P-51B/C's. Had to be 108s but they only came into service in mid May 1944.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 3, 2012)

davparlr said:


> I use 6 lbs per US gallon for avgas. America's Hundred Thousand show P-51D at fighter weight with 1080 lbs of fuel.



6 is good, 5.87 pounds (US) per gallon is what is referenced in my Pratt and Whitney Aero Handbook..


----------



## Glider (Jan 3, 2012)

Official UK figures for Still Air Range are

Spit IX with 62 gallon rear tank and 45 gallon drop tank 1,160 miles

Spit IX with 62 gallon rear tank (no drop tanks) 900 miles

Tempest with 2 x 45 gallon Drop Tank 1,190 miles

P51 mk III with 2 x 62 gallon drop tank 1,445 miles

The range normally quoted for the Spit IX is without the rear tank which gave a range of 434 miles which is a lot less than the later versions. I must emphasise that no one is pretending that it was a match for the P51, but the rear tank gave it quite a good range for the period.


----------

