Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
I agree. But propaganda aside, was there ever any doubt about RAF ability to maintain aerial superiority over England?
From Brewster B339-C-/D/-23, Dutch Profiles: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.
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.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.
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.
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.British probably didn't have exact strength reports on Germans forces
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.
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.
Several reasons: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.
Plus Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete and RAF Bomber Command.
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.
Plus Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, North Africa, Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete and RAF Bomber Command.
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.There was a transition to several new plane types and restructuring of the LW force in general (esp. nightfighters).
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.