Bf-109 vs P-40

Stig1207 · Oct 12, 2019

Schweik said:
To the MOD - I'm responding politely to the issues raised directly at me.

I posted what I thought was relevant to the discussion - which at that time was about MC.202s. I thought the number of Bf 109s was also relevant.

After transcribing the Luftwaffe TO&E, once you brought it up I certainly did acknowledge that I left that information out of that post on the subject, and I explained why:

I do not think that the number of Me 110s was relevant,

I had already mentioned those same 110s a couple of times previously and

I don't think Me 110s or Do 17s were flying day-time fighter missions in August 1942.

I wasn't making any kind of point about Luftwaffe serviceability rates at that time, we were talking about the MC.202 and the Regia Aeronautica.

Yes this was intentional, no I was not hiding anything, I am well aware that many other people have that same book which is why I give page references and / or dates when I quote data from it so you can look it up for yourselves. In some cases I have also taken photos and uploaded them so people who don't have it can see I'm not making anything up.
Very similarly, when I partially transcribed excerpts about the Italian fighter strength in the MTO, I did not transcribe anything about the SM.79 or SM.82 or Ca 314 strength. I did include CR.42 numbers to be thorough, eventually I left those off too because they were relegated to flying bomber missions and were phased out at some point in 1942.

Leaving out the Me 110 contingent from that list was quite intentional. Very much like the Osprey book which I transcribed in post 796 above - the Osprey author only showed the Bf 109 strength because that is what that book is about. Whatever I'm going to transcribe from a book in the midst of a conversation is going to be relevant to that conversation - I'm not going to transcribe the whole book.

You may think there is something sinister in leaving out what I believe were night fighters / maritime patrol aircraft - the Me 110 and Do 17 units stationed on Crete, in the discussion about fighters faced by P-40s in North Africa and the MTO, but I don't agree. Just because you are certain that you are correct doesn't mean that I see it the same way.

We all have the right to have and share our own opinions.
We do not have the right to force anyone else to agree with our opinions.
Sometimes people look at the same data and draw radically different conclusions.

For example that British Fw 190 test that Ivan linked. We each drew quite different conclusions from the same report.
I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on it and we both just have to live with that. Others can draw their own conclusions.
I believe the same applies here.

The only way that Me 110's and Do 17's are relevant to the discussion is that they make up some of the total number of the fighter forces, per Shores:

112 Bf 109's, 46 Me 110's and 7 Do 17's for a total strength of 165, of which 97 were serviceable.

There was nothing wrong or sinister in you leaving out the twin engine fighters in your post; but you did write that of the 112 Bf 109's on strength, 97 were serviceable. Shores does not give any numbers for how many of each the above types were serviceable, just that altogether their were 97 serviceable Bf 109's , Me 110's and Do 17's.

Whether it was intentional or not, you implied that there were more Bf 109's available than there actually, were according to Shores.

You did acknowledge that you left out Me 110's and Do 17's, but the reasons you give above just aren't relevant to the issue which is that you gave an incorrect number for serviceable Bf 109's.

It is pretty straight forward, there is nothing for you to misunderstand, so why is it that you keep on responding with posts with probably 90 % irrelevant content?

Btw, the Do 17's were in North Africa and the Me 110's and the 3 Bf 109's of Jagdkommando 27 were on Crete; but as you know this is also irrelevant to our discussion.

Schweik · Oct 12, 2019

Stig1207 said:
The only way that Me 110's and Do 17's are relevant to the discussion is that they make up some of the total number of the fighter forces, per Shores:

112 Bf 109's, 46 Me 110's and 7 Do 17's for a total strength of 165, of which 97 were serviceable.

There was nothing wrong or sinister in you leaving out the twin engine fighters in your post; but you did write that of the 112 Bf 109's on strength, 97 were serviceable. Shores does not give any numbers for how many of each the above types were serviceable, just that altogether their were 97 serviceable Bf 109's , Me 110's and Do 17's.

Whether it was intentional or not, you implied that there were more Bf 109's available than there actually, were according to Shores.

You did acknowledge that you left out Me 110's and Do 17's, but the reasons you give above just aren't relevant to the issue which is that you gave an incorrect number for serviceable Bf 109's.

It is pretty straight forward, there is nothing for you to misunderstand, so why is it that you keep on responding with posts with probably 90 % irrelevant content?

Btw, the Do 17's were in North Africa and the Me 110's and the 3 Bf 109's of Jagdkommando 27 were on Crete; but as you know this is also irrelevant to our discussion.

See here is the thing - I understand what you are getting at, it is just irrelevant to me, like most of my posts apparently are to you. We don't actually know the number of serviceable Bf 109s available on Aug 19 because Shores only gives us a grand total. Right? Why debate endlessly about what percentage were Do 17 and Me 110 when on the basis of that data, if there is no way to determine it based on what Shores gave us on that page?

Remember, until you complained about it, I was not aware there was anything to debate period, about the German fighter strength. To me the only rational answer, given your strenuous and repeated objections, is to find more data. Which I did.

In your response here, you are ignoring the fact that I found another source which DOES give us the total number of Bf 109s available for action for that time (one day later than the post were endlessly debating, on August 20) and also for four other time periods, showing the pattern of waxing and waning, but overall, steadily built up fighter strength up until well into 1944. Serviceability of course can vary widely day by day. A new shipment of oil filters and spark plugs arrive and 20 more fighters are ready to go.

This post here:

Bf-109 vs P-40

Provides that data, and sources are provided complete with photos of the pages in question for those who want to double check. Also summarized by myself for those who can't be bothered. And yet you had zero comment on that.

So what are we actually debating here?

(by the way based on that (Osprey) source there were actually more Bf 109 fighters available than Shores listed, 125 vs some number less than 97, the difference is probably based on which of the Island based fighters were involved in the fighting vs. which were not.)

michael rauls · Oct 12, 2019

Stig1207 said:
The only way that Me 110's and Do 17's are relevant to the discussion is that they make up some of the total number of the fighter forces, per Shores:

112 Bf 109's, 46 Me 110's and 7 Do 17's for a total strength of 165, of which 97 were serviceable.

There was nothing wrong or sinister in you leaving out the twin engine fighters in your post; but you did write that of the 112 Bf 109's on strength, 97 were serviceable. Shores does not give any numbers for how many of each the above types were serviceable, just that altogether their were 97 serviceable Bf 109's , Me 110's and Do 17's.

Whether it was intentional or not, you implied that there were more Bf 109's available than there actually, were according to Shores.

You did acknowledge that you left out Me 110's and Do 17's, but the reasons you give above just aren't relevant to the issue which is that you gave an incorrect number for serviceable Bf 109's.

It is pretty straight forward, there is nothing for you to misunderstand, so why is it that you keep on responding with posts with probably 90 % irrelevant content?

Btw, the Do 17's were in North Africa and the Me 110's and the 3 Bf 109's of Jagdkommando 27 were on Crete; but as you know this is also irrelevant to our discussion.

Let me take another stab at this because as someone once said I may have made a hash out of my explanation the first time.
In a discussion about the QUALITY of the oposition faced by p40s why would a 10, 20, or whatever percentage dip in serviceability rate that would affect the QUANTITY of aircraft available but not the QUALITY be relevant.
Not trying to be argumentative but it just seems there's a misunderstanding of some sort here.

Schweik · Oct 12, 2019

Yeah I think the only relevant part would be the ratio of 1st line to 2nd line fighters not the daily or weekly fluctuation in serviceability rates. If the Me 110 had consistently a 99% serviceability rate and the Bf 109 only a 10% rate then it might be relevant, but there is no evidence of that.

Similarly it's abundantly clear that the majority of the fighters on hand for the Italians in 1942 and 43 were in fact the MC.202 (and later 205) types.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Oct 12, 2019

FLYBOYJ said:
Folks - if the immature bickering doesn't stop I'm going to shut this thread down and start sending folks into cyberspace!!!! It's an interesting thread and I really don't want to make it disappear but stop with the BS!!! My last warning!!!!

I second this. It's getting really tiresome. It's like a Kindergarten.

fubar57 · Oct 12, 2019

I never went to Kindergarten. It appears that was a good thing

Snautzer01 · Oct 13, 2019

fubar57 said:
I never went to Kindergarten. It appears that was a good thing

But you ended up here. Now tell me again missing kindergarten was a good thing ...

Ohh and taking 1 book as a kind of total infailable truth is a big mistake.

Snautzer01 · Oct 13, 2019

Try some 1 st hand sources like

Stig1207 · Oct 13, 2019

I agree that this particular discussion has gone on for to long, but I will ask a rhetorical question.

Someone posts information from a specific source.
Someone else responds that the information posted is not actually correctly reproduced.
Is it not customery, for the original poster to ackowledge that the provided information wasn't correct and then correct it?
After all, what is the point of even giving the source of anything that is posted if it's not faithfully reproduced?

Whether the source of the information is correct or not or whether their are other sources that disagree, that is a whole other matter.

So Schweik could easily have owned up to that what he transcribed from MAW II was reproduced incorrectly, giving a misleading impression of Bf 109 strength ,edited his post; and that would have been the end of it.

Instead he has tried to blur the issue, create confusion about what it's actually about, and succeeding soundly, at least with one particular forum member

For one last time, hopefully, it's not that he omitted the Me 110's and Do 17's, but that he included the 97 serviceable aircraft without mentioning that this number not just Bf 109's, but also includes some (unknown) number of me 110's and Do 17's.

fubar57 · Oct 13, 2019

Glider · Oct 13, 2019

Can I suggest this should be issued to all Mods to help them with their task of keeping the forum safe.

Looking at the label I like the bit about political speaches,

FLYBOYJ · Oct 13, 2019

Agree - this is done!

And boys and girls - please don't contact me pleading your case, I will ban you permanently on the spot!!!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Oct 13, 2019

People just cannot drop it.

A perfectly good discussion and thread closed because someone always has to try and have the last word.

Bf-109 vs P-40

P-40 vs Bf 109

Curtiss P-40 Warhawk

Messerschmitt Bf 109

More options

Stig1207

Senior Airman

Schweik

Banned

michael rauls

Tech Sergeant

Schweik

Banned

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

fubar57

General

Snautzer01

Honourably banned

Snautzer01

Honourably banned

Attachments

Stig1207

Senior Airman

fubar57

General

Glider

Captain

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads