Best Fighter III

[syscom3]

Exactly but if you put a Spit up against a P-51D in a dogfight the Spit will win almost every time. The only advantage the P-51D had over the Spit and most aircraft as a matter of fact was its range.

Range is very important. If you cant fly to where the fight is, then you might as well stay at home.

The P51 still had a fast speed, decent ceiling and adequate handling.

 

[syscom3]

In late 1943, if the Spit indeed had those range figures, why did they always stay over Belgium and Holland and not help out over the rest of Germany?

 

[Hop]

For exacty the same reason the P-47s did. The big drop tanks were being produced in very small numbers, and the extra internal tanks weren't commonly fitted, because until late 1943 the USAAF had firmly believed the bombers didn't need escorts.

The long range Spitfires, the Spitfire VIIIs, were all sent overseas, where the RAF had need for the extra range. None operated from Britain.

The RAF had other priorities.

There were a few very easy ways of giving the Spitfire IX a moderate range extension.

Firstly, as standard the Spitfire IX had two tanks in the forward fuselage, and nothing else. The top tank was 48 gallons, the bottom 37 gallons, for a total of 85 gallons. However, Spitfire VIIIs had a larger bottom tank, of 47 gallons, for 95 gallons total. There was room for the larger bottom tank from the very first Spitfire I, but the RAF specification called for 85 gallons, and they didn't really feel the need for more.

Towards the end of Spitfire IX production, the larger forward tank was fitted as standard.

The second way was wing tanks. Small wing tanks, in the inboard leading edge, were fitted on the Spitfire VII and VIII and XIV. Again, they could have been fitted early on, some sources say they were fitted to late prouction Spitfire IXs. They added about 28 gallons.

Thirdly, a 30 gallon tank was fitted under the pilot's seat on some recce Spits, and some Spitfire Vs.

Add those 3 together, which would have been very easy, and you just about double the Spitfire IX range. Add on a 90 gallon drop tank, and instead of the basic load of 85 gallons, you have 243 gallons, which will tripple range.

More difficult to implement was the 75 gallon rear tank, which like the Mustang's, reduced stabiltiy greatly when full.

But all these things are a matter of demand, not technical difficulty (once engines are powerful enough to lift the weight).

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Range is very important. If you cant fly to where the fight is, then you might as well stay at home.

The P51 still had a fast speed, decent ceiling and adequate handling.

Yes but for instance Luftwaffe aircraft by that time did not need the range of the P-51D. They were allready fighting over there own homeland. So an aircraft with less range could still be better than the overated P-51D.

An aircraft is not good because of the nationality that built it.

 

[kiwimac]

Thats certainly true. Was the Spit better than the P-51? Surely that's comparing apples and oranges. The Spit was an interceptor, the P-51 a bomber escort. They each had their roles and they each excelled there. Is that not enough?

Kiwimac

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

seemingly not......

In late 1943, if the Spit indeed had those range figures, why did they always stay over Belgium and Holland and not help out over the rest of Germany?

Because the americans were boasting about how great they were doing besides our war over Germany was at night........

 

[syscom3]

Yes but for instance Luftwaffe aircraft by that time did not need the range of the P-51D. They were allready fighting over there own homeland. So an aircraft with less range could still be better than the overated P-51D.

An aircraft is not good because of the nationality that built it.

The German fighters were good, but not magnitudes better than the allied fighters. If the Luftwaffe had to fight a defensive battle over their own territiry, they were bound to loose.

If they had the range and capability to bring the fight over Britain for extended times, then they could fight on the offense. Perhaps even regain control of the air.

And that also goes for the Spitfire.

If you look at all the performace charachteristics of all the fighters, there were only two parameters that counted. Range and high altitude performace. The bombers are at high altitude, so thats where the Luftwaffe has to go up to. Here the US fighters excelled.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The German fighters were good, but not magnitudes better than the allied fighters.

Agreed and I never said they were, but the same goes in reverse. The Best Allied fighters were not magnitudes better than the best Luftwaffe aircraft, as you seem to think.

If the Luftwaffe had to fight a defensive battle over their own territiry, they were bound to loose.

And you tell that to the thousands of allied pilots that did not return. The reason they were bound to lose is because of the numerical superiority. It was sometimes 20 to 1 in favor of the allies. You think you can win with those odds? I am sure you are going to say you can....

If they had the range and capability to bring the fight over Britain for extended times, then they could fight on the offense. Perhaps even regain control of the air.

No argument there. But that was not going to happen after 1943 anyhow. Besides we are comparing 2 aircraft fighting against each other and your beloved P-51D 1 on 1 vs a Fw-190D or Bf-109G-6 is about an equal fight. Now you thrown in the 20 other P-51D's...

And that also goes for the Spitfire.

1 on 1 Spitfire vs. P-51D and the Spitfire will out roll, out turn, and outfly the P-51D.

 

[Gnomey]

1 on 1 Spitfire vs. P-51D and the Spitfire will out roll, out turn, and outfly the P-51D.

Agreed, as would a Dora and the other German aircraft on par with a Spitfire.

 

[plan_D]

"If they had the range and capability to bring the fight over Britain for extended times, then they could fight on the offense. Perhaps even regain control of the air."

A foolish comment, syscom. Britain won the battle for it's own airspace because it let the Luftwaffe come to the RAF. This allowed 'home advantage' and more loiter time in the battle area. As well as forcing the Luftwaffe to lose it's pilots when the planes were shot down. Crews are much harder to replace than the planes, and the RAF knew this.
In situations that the RAF faced, and Luftwaffe faced later on a defensive battle was the best option. Forcing your opponent to fight over your land, and lose his pilots to you. If the Luftwaffe had attempted a prolonged offensive against the RAF in early 1942, the air would have been much shorter. The Luftwaffe would have been losing pilots far faster than in the Battle of Britain.

The best option was to let the enemy come to them, and exhaust their resources. The RAF let the Luftwaffe bang their heads against a brick wall until the skull caved in. And the Luftwaffe hoped to do the same, and they were succeeding until the introduction of the escort doctrine and the P-51D.

 

[syscom3]

Agreed and I never said they were, but the same goes in reverse. The Best Allied fighters were not magnitudes better than the best Luftwaffe aircraft, as you seem to think.

Ive always said that all of the aircraft were fairly equal, all things considered, with the exception of range.

And you tell that to the thousands of allied pilots that did not return. The reason they were bound to lose is because of the numerical superiority. It was sometimes 20 to 1 in favor of the allies. You think you can win with those odds? I am sure you are going to say you can....

All wars are of attrition. And the best way to "attrite" your enemy is to hunt them down and destroy them.

No argument there. But that was not going to happen after 1943 anyhow. Besides we are comparing 2 aircraft fighting against each other and your beloved P-51D 1 on 1 vs a Fw-190D or Bf-109G-6 is about an equal fight. Now you thrown in the 20 other P-51D's...

Lots of P51's engaged and shotdown -109's and -190's. Same with -38's and -47's.

Dont know if the Spitfire and Mustang ever engaged in a dogfight though.

1 on 1 Spitfire vs. P-51D and the Spitfire will out roll, out turn, and outfly the P-51D.

And what if the -51 pilot just wants to out wait his opponant untill he runs low on fuel?

 

[syscom3]

A foolish comment, syscom. Britain won the battle for it's own airspace because it let the Luftwaffe come to the RAF. This allowed 'home advantage' and more loiter time in the battle area. As well as forcing the Luftwaffe to lose it's pilots when the planes were shot down. Crews are much harder to replace than the planes, and the RAF knew this.

The RAF won the battle because the -109's had notoriously short range. Imagine if the 109's could loiter for an hour or two over England.

In situations that the RAF faced, and Luftwaffe faced later on a defensive battle was the best option. Forcing your opponent to fight over your land, and lose his pilots to you. If the Luftwaffe had attempted a prolonged offensive against the RAF in early 1942, the air would have been much shorter. The Luftwaffe would have been losing pilots far faster than in the Battle of Britain.

And the RAF would also be on the defensive, not sweeping the occupied countries within range, and the Luftwaffe would have been able to attack the bomber bases and disrupt them.

The best option was to let the enemy come to them, and exhaust their resources. The RAF let the Luftwaffe bang their heads against a brick wall until the skull caved in. And the Luftwaffe hoped to do the same, and they were succeeding until the introduction of the escort doctrine and the P-51D.

Noone ever won a war by remaining on the defense. It was the P38's and P51's rangin deep into Germany that broke the back of the Luftwaffe. It was not Spitfires flying over Britain that did it.

 

[plan_D]

The RAF won the battle for many reasons, syscom. You should know that, or maybe you haven't been willing to learn from the people on this site. On of the main reasons the RAF won is because the Luftwaffe were losing their pilots, without fail. Because they were either dying or being captured, with no chance of escape.
In any case, the Bf-109 had 20 minute loiter time over London. Many RAF bases were much further south than London. As much as some Americans might believe, London isn't on the south coast.

At the rate the Luftwaffe were losing planes to the RAF, they wouldn't have been able to continue the offensive. Great Britain was out-producing Germany in planes, and shooting down more than they were losing. The Luftwaffe would have been trying to attack the bomber bases, and failing. Losing many planes, and good pilots in the process.

Russia won the war of 1812 against Napoleon, and they didn't attack anyone. In any case, the defensive war was one both the RAF and Luftwaffe had to play at their times. Bringing the enemy to them to lose pilots. If you're honestly in the mindset that the RAF should have attacked the continent during the Battle of Britain, or that the Luftwaffe should have taken Britain and France in 1944 ... you're an idiot.

 

[Hop]

The RAF won the battle because the -109's had notoriously short range. Imagine if the 109's could loiter for an hour or two over England.

Even more of them would get shot down.

The Luftwaffe lost the BoB because they couldn't shoot don enough RAF fighters, and they lost too many of their own fighters. Nothing to do with range.

In fact, if you look at the first phase of the BoB, the air fighting over the channel itself, the Luftwaffe lost that rather handsomely too. And that's when the fighting was only a few miles from their bases.

London is less than 100 miles from the Luftwaffe fighter bases in France. Most of the BoB was fought SE of London, closer to the Luftwaffe fighter bases.

Just to take a few days as examples.

15th August, heaviest days losses for the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe claims list shows they claimed victories at:

Folkestone - 13 claims, 24 miles from French coast
Calais - 1 claim. In France
Dover - 14 claims, 21 miles from French coast
Swanage - 2 claims, 65 miles from French coast
Clacton - 3 claims, 65 miles from French coast

There are scattered claims over Kent and the Channel, and some with no location listed. The only other major combats were over Portland, but they were by Bf 110s.

These aren't great distances, and the fact that the Luftwaffe was losing at this stage of the battle shows that it wasn't range that was their problem, it was the funamental fact that they weren't winning enough combats.

And the RAF would also be on the defensive, not sweeping the occupied countries within range, and the Luftwaffe would have been able to attack the bomber bases and disrupt them.

That didn't work out too well for them in 1940, and every year after that the odds tipped more heavily against them.

Noone ever won a war by remaining on the defense.

Tactically, the defensive is better, because you lose less. That's true in the air as well as on land. Strategically, of course, you have to go on the offensive to win, but the Germans simply didn't have the resources to do so (not even in 1940, although they didn't realise it)

It was the P38's and P51's rangin deep into Germany that broke the back of the Luftwaffe. It was not Spitfires flying over Britain that did it.

Well, as Williamson Murray points out in Strategy for Defeat, by the end of 1941 the Luftwaffe had already lost 2 complete air forces. He points out that that meant they had to hurry untrained pilots to the front. By the begining of 1942, only 60% of the Luftwaffe fighter pilots were operational, the rest didn't have the necessary training. Of the 107 German aces who scored more than 100 victories, only 8 went to the front line after mid 1942.

Murray goes on to point out that in May 1940, just before the invasion of France, the Luftwaffe had 1,369 fighters and 1,758 bombers. In Jan 1944 they had 1,561 fighters and 1,604 bombers. They faced, by 1944, a much larger RAF, and the addition of the USAAF and VVS.

As Murray sums it up:

"Further exacerbating this situation was the fact that the
Germans were forced to lower their standards for a fully operational pilot as the war
continued . There was, one must note, no decisive moment in this decline in
expertise. Rather as Winston Churchill has suggested in another context, the
Luftwaffe had entered the descent from 1940 "incontinently, fecklessly. . . . It is a
fine broad stairway at the beginning but after a bit the carpet ends . A little further
on, there are only flagstones ; and a little further on, these break beneath your
feet . "

The Luftwaffe began declining in strength relative to the opposition during the BoB. They never really recovered, and ended 1941 in a worse position than 1940, 1942 was worse than 1941, and so on.

 

[Henk]

No, I would say that if the Bf-109 had greater range and was not used as a fighter bomber it would have broken the back of the RAF and if they bombed more RAF bases.

 

[Gnomey]

I would disagree Henk. As Hop as pointed out the Germans were planes close to their bases where range wasn't too much of a problem. A longer range for the 109 would mean more time over the danger area and more time to get shot down. As the RAF were shooting down more with the 109's short range they would of shot down more if the longer range had given them more opportunity to shoot them down. Attacking the bases with 109's in the fighter bomber role would cause substantional losses (as occured when the Allied fighters strafed German airfields in 1944/45). Most of the time after the Germans bombed RAF bases they where up and running again in a few hours (or used near by airfields), there were only a few times when a base was out of action for more than 24 hours (I think a few of the main bases were (Biggin Hill, Kenley, Manston) after particularly heavy raids but they were only knocked out for more than 24 hours once or twice in the course of the Battle of Britain. Whatever way you look at the Germans couldn't sustain the losses they were suffering at the hands of the RAF and longer ranged fighters would not of made much of a difference.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

All wars are of attrition. And the best way to "attrite" your enemy is to hunt them down and destroy them.

Agreed, no argument. However we are comparing one plane against another not 20 against one. You take 19 of those P-51D's away and it comes down to pilot skill, and in the cases of some aircraft luck for the P-51D because we all know it was not the best turn fighter or had the best maneuverability.

Lots of P51's engaged and shotdown -109's and -190's. Same with -38's and -47's.

And lots of P-51s, P-38s, and P-47s were shot down by 109s and 190s. What is your point. That is no point!

And what if the -51 pilot just wants to out wait his opponant untill he runs low on fuel?

The Spitfire decides to stop toying around with the P-51 and outmanuever it and shoot the ****er down!

The Luftwaffe lost the BoB because they couldn't shoot don enough RAF fighters, and they lost too many of their own fighters. Nothing to do with range.

The Luftwaffe was shooting down plenty of Spitfires and Hurricanes. The Luftwaffe lost the BoB because of a change in strategy from bombing strategic sites such as airfields and factories to bombing cities such as London. If they had continued to take out the aircraft factories instead of apartments they could have damaged the British aircraft industry and put the British on there knees which is where they almost had them.

 

[red admiral]

The Luftwaffe was shooting down plenty of Spitfires and Hurricanes. The Luftwaffe lost the BoB because of a change in strategy from bombing strategic sites such as airfields and factories to bombing cities such as London. If they had continued to take out the aircraft factories instead of apartments they could have damaged the British aircraft industry and put the British on there knees which is where they almost had them.

The problem for the RAF was the number of pilots, not the number of aircraft. By the stage of the Luftwaffe switching to London, Ministry of Aircraft Production had things nicely in order. Aircraft were ordered in the morning and delivered by the afternoon.

The way for the Luftwaffe to win the BoB is either more aircraft or better aircraft. Longer range means worse aircraft so more get shot down, and more losses from ack-ack and other combat area problems. Given twice as many aircraft or Fw190s in 1940 and there would be more of a fight.

 

[Henk]

Ok I see what you mean Gnomey, but like Adler said if the Germans kept on bombing the aircraft factory's and airfields would forced the RAF on there knees.

 

[syscom3]

Longer range for the German fighters would have meant they could have loitered around waiting the the RAF to get to the bombers and then fight them without having to go home early.

Same with the Spit.... Longer range means you can engage the bombers from further out.