Best fighter in the world in 1940? Spitfire, 109, Zero, or something else

[davebender]

RAF Bomber Command and RAF Coastal Command appear to have been forgotten also.

It's my understanding that Britain lost more bomber aircrew then fighter pilots during the BoB time frame. So Britain was obviously bombing Germany at the same time Germany was bombing England. In fact Germany formed their first night fighter Gruppe at the beginning of 1940 (IV/N JG2). Several day fighter units were also periodically employed against RAF Bomber Command during 1940. The first night Geschwader was established 22 June 1940, which had the unfortunate side effect of absorbing the cream of the Me-110 force just when they were needed most for bomber escort and fighter sweeps over England. German night fighter expansion was continuous throughout the BoB period and they had 16 staffeln (i.e. squadrons) by January 1941.

 

[Milosh]

Is Germany south east England?

 

[parsifal]

There you go looking the total strength of RAF FC. How many times does it have to be said that not all of RAF FC was in south east England?

Then there is the German bombers which are conveniently forgotten about. It was RAF FC of mostly 11 Group vs Lw fighters AND Lw bombers. This RAF fighters vs Lw fighters is a convenient argument for those making excuses why the Lw failed in their mission to defeat the RAF.

One only has look at the combat reports to see that RAF FC was outnumbered in the air over south east England.

hi Milosh

I hardly see the point in trying to reason with this dill, when he genuinely believes the germans won the battle, or at least did not lose it. I still have not stopped laughing after he told me this......

 

[fastmongrel]

Numbers can be argued forever (and probably will be) but the RAF succeeded by existing at the end of the Battle. That I believe was Dowdings aim he didnt care about the numbers game.

 

[davebender]

I agree. But propaganda aside, was there ever any doubt about RAF ability to maintain aerial superiority over England?

 

[Shortround6]

I agree. But propaganda aside, was there ever any doubt about RAF ability to maintain aerial superiority over England?

Yep, at the time.

Even with Ultra the British probably didn't have exact strength reports on Germans forces or production. And having just suffered losses in Aeriel battles over France and Norway and with daylight bombing already looking rather hopeless it would take a lot of faith to guarantee a certain victory for the British in the first few weeks of the Blitz.

 

[Marcel]

Hmm, "America´s 100,000" says she had a G-5E: 1,200hp at TO and 4,200ft, 1,000hp at 6,900ft and 14,200ft, 900hp at 15,200ft. The G-105A was 100hp weaker at TO, the other ratings are not for the same altitudes. And 3,100 ft/min would be a very good climb rate, the F4F-3 made 3,300, the F4F-4 just 2,500.

From Brewster B339-C-/D/-23, Dutch Profiles:

Finally an additional 20 Brewster B339-23 were obtained. These were different a version similar to the last F2A-3 version.... Also there were problems with the delivery of the engines, which in this instance were solved through the purchase of 22 Cyclone R-1820-G2 engines that had been traded in by the KLM. These engines were modified by the factory to a G5B configuration which delivered only 1000 hp, ie 200 hp less than the earlier Brewster B339's, in a heavier aircraft.

So it might have been the intention to install the G5E engines, but due to lack of engines on the market, the G5B was installed and thus delivered with the B339-23.

 

[Nikademus]

Again you seem to fail to grasp my actual position - or you distort it proposefully.

Fighter Command survived the Luftwaffe's attacks, but I fear that is all that can be said about it.

Given that the Luftwaffe's objective was to acheive air superiority....isn't that the equivilent of saying the British won the Battle?

 

[davebender]

British probably didn't have exact strength reports on Germans forces

Of course not. But you can take a pretty good guess based on how many German aircraft participated in the invasion of France only a couple months earlier.

 

[Hop]

Both the British and US intelligence services greatly overestimated the strength of the Luftwaffe. This is from a chiefs of staff report to the war cabinet, 4 September 1940:

US estimates were even higher, iirc.

 

[Kurfürst]

Both the British and US intelligence services greatly overestimated the strength of the Luftwaffe. This is from a chiefs of staff report to the war cabinet, 4 September 1940:

US estimates were even higher, iirc.

They weren't that far off actually, as the actual strenght was 5298 aircraft on 11 April 1940. On 4 May 1940 they reported 5349 aircraft. The next date I have is for 21 June 1941, when they had 5599.

In may 1940 German single engined fighters were 1369, twin engined ones amounted 367, a total of 1736. The British estimate of 1700 was actually very good.

They do seem to overestimate the number of bombers though - on 4th May 1940, bombers: 1758, dive bombers 417, ie. 2175, though the British may have included the sizeable Ju 52 fleet (531 aircraft) as such, as they were used earlier as aux. bombers in Spain and Poland. The British may also have included the German long range recce forces (which were, after all, the same bomber types as found in the 'ordinary' KGs), which had 321 aircraft in May. If they included all that, that would 3027 bomber type aircraft. The Brits estimated 3300.

 

[Hop]

That was the estimate for early September.

In may 1940 German single engined fighters were 1369, twin engined ones amounted 367, a total of 1736. The British estimate of 1700 was actually very good.

The figures would have been accurate if they'd been for 10 May, but the Luftwaffe had declined a lot since then.

Figures for the Luftwaffe on 7 September, on hand/serviceable figures:

JG - 831/658
ZG - 206/112

KG - 1,291/798
StG - 174/133

 

[Glider]

Can I ask where everyone is getting their figures for the German Order of Battle as I am unable to find any two that are even close to each other.

That aside, I find the figures very interesting. Taking Kurfurst's figures if on the 11th April Germany had 5298 aircraft but on 21st June 1941 they only had 5599. What on earth happened to the approx 14 months production. To only increase your airforce by 300 aircraft when the only battle fought was the BOB in which the heavy fighting was over by the end of October and you have had six months to rebuild your numbers is a pretty poor performance by any standard.

 

[Hop]

I agree. The RAF managed to increase their strength by a large amount even during the heavy fighting of 1940.

The strength of the metropolitan raf in the 6 main operational types, Hurricane, Spitfire, Blenheim, Whitley, Wellington and Hampden:

10 May
serviceable - 1665
unserviceable - 1544

14 December
serviceable - 2970
unserviceable - 1405

That despite 400 aircraft of these types being sent abroad during the same period.

I'll dig out the sources I've been using later.

 

[davebender]

Plus Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete and RAF Bomber Command.

 

[riacrato]

That aside, I find the figures very interesting. Taking Kurfurst's figures if on the 11th April Germany had 5298 aircraft but on 21st June 1941 they only had 5599. What on earth happened to the approx 14 months production. To only increase your airforce by 300 aircraft when the only battle fought was the BOB in which the heavy fighting was over by the end of October and you have had six months to rebuild your numbers is a pretty poor performance by any standard.

Several reasons:
There was no significant increase in LW strength overall so why increase the number of planes you don't have pilots for and which will be obsolete within a timeframe measured in months.
There was a transition to several new plane types and restructuring of the LW force in general (esp. nightfighters).
Most of all: Germany was still in peacetime production and remained so for many months. Output was more or less fixed except for learning curve effects.

 

[Marcel]

Plus Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete and RAF Bomber Command.

Yes, about 400 a/c in the Netherlands alone drains it

 

[claidemore]

Most of all: Germany was still in peacetime production and remained so for many months. Output was more or less fixed except for learning curve effects.

I've seen this statement about Germany being in 'peacetime' production during the first year or so of the war a few times and consider it completely misleading. One might even go so far as to label it historical revisionism.

Yes, later in the war production was stepped up to greater levels, BUT....this does not make the earlier level of production 'PEACETIME'! The war didn't happen by accident, it was planned, and production of materiel was part of those plans.
If they didn't produced enough, then it was poor planning, but it darn sure wasn't peacetime production.

 

[Glider]

Plus Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete and RAF Bomber Command.

Fair point I admit but the losses in these actions were light compared to expectations and as far as the single engined fighters were concerned the Me109D played a fair part in the battles of Netherlands, Belgium and France. Norway was more or less a battle fought by the twin engined fighters.

The losses incured in the other battles were small compared to the BOB. I was just didn't expect the Luftwaffe to grow by such an almost insignificant amount over such a vital 12 month period. To start the Battle for Russia with an airforce of similar size to that which started the BOB was almost criminal negligence. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Luftwaffe had an extra 1000 front line aircraft at the start of the battle for Russia? After all the Me109E may not be as good as an Me109F but would still be very effective against the Russian Airforce.

Hop
Thanks for looking into the Sources its appreciated.

Riacrato

There was a transition to several new plane types and restructuring of the LW force in general (esp. nightfighters).

True but so was the RAF. Spit II had more or less replaced the Spit Ia and the Spit V was entering service from February 1941. The Hurricane II was replacing the MkI and the changes to the nightfighters were probably more extensive in the RAF with the Beaufighter being introduced. The Short Sterling entered service in the first half of 1941, I could go on. The point is that there was no excuse for the Luftwaffe to be so poorly prepared.

 

[riacrato]

I've seen this statement about Germany being in 'peacetime' production during the first year or so of the war a few times and consider it completely misleading. One might even go so far as to label it historical revisionism.

Yes, later in the war production was stepped up to greater levels, BUT....this does not make the earlier level of production 'PEACETIME'! The war didn't happen by accident, it was planned, and production of materiel was part of those plans.
If they didn't produced enough, then it was poor planning, but it darn sure wasn't peacetime production.

I don't really care what kind of nazi-conspiracy-theory you see in this statement. It is a matter of fact. German workers worked under normal PEACETIME shifts. Women were not conscripted into factory labour force, as a matter of fact they were not even allowed to work there voluntarily. Factories producing goods irrelevant for war continued to do so. Nutrition, services and essential materials were not rationalized. Working shifts were not dictated by government authorities but individual companies... the fact that war goods were produced has little to do with PEACETIME production.

Most of these measures were in place in Britain long before. But hey it's all nazi revisionism, right?