FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
-BIG HUG-
Bf-109F-4 and a bleak time for RAF
- Thread starter Chingachgook
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I bare some of the blame as-well Chinny, my frequent "Straight to the point" statements are sometimes pretty much encouraging a heated argument, and funny enough I know this, its just a bad habbit of mine.
So lets bury the hatchet and continue this debate in a proper and respectful manner.
So lets bury the hatchet and continue this debate in a proper and respectful manner.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
You are right, I think we're all sorry, me included.. I seem to mistook him for another person who makes fun about attacking me, 'cos I had no idea where this 'banned from boards' thing came from. Obviously I am mistaken.
In any case, the offer is still open, if he or anybody else finds traces of inaccuracies or bias on my site, just please point it out and discuss it, if it's a fair critique it's just good as it helps me to imporve my site for reliable information. So that we can all learn. That's the idea, isn't it?
I just don't like to be accused without base, that's all. No bad blood on my part! 8)
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
We can all hold hands and sing kumbaya now
mkloby
Senior Master Sergeant
Very nice - I have always wanted to drool over one up close. I shall wait...
- Thread starter
- #167
Chingachgook
Banned
- 214
- Nov 20, 2006
X
- Thread starter
- #168
Chingachgook
Banned
- 214
- Nov 20, 2006
X
I need to find the website in my favorites that has all the info on German aircraft being restored.
- Thread starter
- #171
Chingachgook
Banned
- 214
- Nov 20, 2006
X
Chinchanchook:
All rigtht, you did type this:
"I was NOT saying one plane was better than the other - Udet and others have been so defensive about this - crap".
Well, i would not say i was being defensive about any sort of crap here...rather, i simply stepped in and threw in some comments to affirm battle records of 1941, 1942 and first half of 1943 make a clear indication the Spitfires where going nowhere against German fighters.
From the second half of 1943 to the very end of the war the performance of the Spitfires is as noticeable as head lice taking a sunbath on the back of a tick in your garden (as you might watch them from the roof of your home).
Sorry if you were the one saying the F´s kept the upper hand but i simply failed to read that particular part of your comments.
What i clearly detected was your attitude of objecting most of Soren´s comments regarding the technical scope of the issue (which plane turned better), i thought it was convenient to say what i did. Simple.
I will not take that active part in techincal debating as it is not my specialty, but on the other hand, if battle records is the topic i will be glad to be part of the discussion.
Cheers!
All rigtht, you did type this:
"I was NOT saying one plane was better than the other - Udet and others have been so defensive about this - crap".
Well, i would not say i was being defensive about any sort of crap here...rather, i simply stepped in and threw in some comments to affirm battle records of 1941, 1942 and first half of 1943 make a clear indication the Spitfires where going nowhere against German fighters.
From the second half of 1943 to the very end of the war the performance of the Spitfires is as noticeable as head lice taking a sunbath on the back of a tick in your garden (as you might watch them from the roof of your home).
Sorry if you were the one saying the F´s kept the upper hand but i simply failed to read that particular part of your comments.
What i clearly detected was your attitude of objecting most of Soren´s comments regarding the technical scope of the issue (which plane turned better), i thought it was convenient to say what i did. Simple.
I will not take that active part in techincal debating as it is not my specialty, but on the other hand, if battle records is the topic i will be glad to be part of the discussion.
Cheers!
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
Well, imho if we search for the reason why the RAF had such a poor record against those mere 2-3 Jagdgeschwaders in France, imho we shouldn't look for that reason in the turn department. That was pretty close in any case and the individual's pilot's skill to push his aircraft to the limit was more important than the aircraft's limits themselves.
The reason is quite simple : availability. The RAF was stuck with the Spitfire MkV in 1941, 1942 and 1943, and aircraft that could do somewhere between 580 and 600 km/h according to the tests.
As opposed, the Luftwaffe in France was much better equipped with modern stuff.
In 1941 they had 109F-2 and F-4 with 615 - 635 km/h top speed.
In 1942 they had the 109F-4 uprated for 670 km/h, introduced the Bf 109G with similiar speed, and for high altitudes GM-1 that boosted the speed to around 700 km/h there. For 1942 the mainstay was the FW 190 with around 650-660 kph max speed. In 1943 the 109G become more used in the West to boost high altitude capabilities against the USAAF.
During all that time the RAF had still to do with the MkV, which was simply hopelessly slow to fight German fighters. The MkIX could have been an equalizer, had it been available in more than just pennypocket numbers. It's quite telling that even as late as June 1943, by which time the only 109Fs you'd find in 2nd line OTUs, with the 109G having replaced them on the frontline by the end of 1942, the RAF Fighter Command in Britiain had still around 30 Squadrons of frontline MkVs but just 10 Squadrons of MkIXs.
The reason is quite simple : availability. The RAF was stuck with the Spitfire MkV in 1941, 1942 and 1943, and aircraft that could do somewhere between 580 and 600 km/h according to the tests.
As opposed, the Luftwaffe in France was much better equipped with modern stuff.
In 1941 they had 109F-2 and F-4 with 615 - 635 km/h top speed.
In 1942 they had the 109F-4 uprated for 670 km/h, introduced the Bf 109G with similiar speed, and for high altitudes GM-1 that boosted the speed to around 700 km/h there. For 1942 the mainstay was the FW 190 with around 650-660 kph max speed. In 1943 the 109G become more used in the West to boost high altitude capabilities against the USAAF.
During all that time the RAF had still to do with the MkV, which was simply hopelessly slow to fight German fighters. The MkIX could have been an equalizer, had it been available in more than just pennypocket numbers. It's quite telling that even as late as June 1943, by which time the only 109Fs you'd find in 2nd line OTUs, with the 109G having replaced them on the frontline by the end of 1942, the RAF Fighter Command in Britiain had still around 30 Squadrons of frontline MkVs but just 10 Squadrons of MkIXs.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Now, now Udet, a little exaggeration there - while I agree the 109F was clearly superior to the Spit V and during this period (1942-43) the Luftwaffe was slowing mauling fighter command, the later Spits from the Spitfire XIVe to the 22/ 24 were performance monsters all with top speeds well over 440 mph. Once again, range was the issue still with these aircraft but never the less their performance was definitely on par with at least later Bf 109s.
BTW, I know one flew to 50,000 feet several years after the war.
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
I'd say the problem was that while Spitfire development certainly went head-to-head with 109 development, the Spit deployment was always one phase behind 109 deployment.
So, that while the Emil and MkI, Gustav and MkIX, Kurfürst and MkXIV were certainly contemporaries, the actual planes facing each other in the everyday air battles were more likely a Hurricane vs. an Emil, a Gustav vs. a MkV, and late Gustav/Kurfürst vs. a Mk IX because of the slowish production rate of the new Spitfire models.
So, that while the Emil and MkI, Gustav and MkIX, Kurfürst and MkXIV were certainly contemporaries, the actual planes facing each other in the everyday air battles were more likely a Hurricane vs. an Emil, a Gustav vs. a MkV, and late Gustav/Kurfürst vs. a Mk IX because of the slowish production rate of the new Spitfire models.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Agree!
Glider
Captain
Can I modify this to a degree and bring in other factors which would show why the replacement of earlier versions of Spitfires by newer models was slower compared to the German Airforce.
Emil would face Hurricanes and Spit I/II in roughly equal numbers.
F would face Spit V
Early G would normally face Spit V
Later G would face Spit IX
Re the reasons for the RAF suffering large losses with the V against the F, I posted what I saw the reasons for this earler in the thread and no one seemed to disagree with them. Comments always welcome.
Does anyone seriously think that the F would score 1 to 1, let alone 2 to 1 if they were attacking the UK, escorting slow bombers, using outdated tactics?
Reasons for the slower replacement of older versions of Spitfires compared to 109's.
The German Airforce sufferred massive losses in fighters, in fact the entire German airforce only grew by around 15% at the end of the war compared to the beginning of the war. In other words the massive production effort was mainly taken up with replacing losses. If your current fighters are being effectively wiped out, then the new ones will replace them rapidly in the existing squadrons.
The RAF was growing with many more squadrons in existance. As a lower proportion of Spitfires were being destroyed, this enabling new squadrons to be formed. The newer versions i.e. Mk IX would take longer to replace the Mk V because there were so many more planes to replace.
It should be noted that the number of Spitfire Squadons in Europe more than doubled between Jan 41 and May 43. In addition the 1940 Hurricane squadrons were normally transferred overseas or were re-equiped with Typhoons, plus of course Spitfire V started to be sent overseas in decent numbers. Hurricanes didn't normally get replaced with Spitfires, it happened of course, but not normally.
Some figures to support this
Jan to Jun 1941 Germany Air Force lost 40% of its authorised strength
Jul to Dec 1941 lost 60%
Jan to Jun 1942 lost 55%
Jul to Dec 1942 lost 70%
In respect of fighters
Jan to Jun 1941 50%
Jul to Dec 1941 60%
Jan to Jun 1942 55%
Jul to Dec 1942 100%
In other words, in the second half of 1942, German Production had to replace the entire complement of German fighters. No wonder new versions were implemented, the older versions were basically being destroyed.
In terms of pilot losses in 1941 JG26 lost 64 pilots killed and in 1942 69 killed. I don't know how many were wounded but these are not light casualties, neither do I know how many pilots a unit should have in this period. If anyone can help, I would appreciate it.
Figures from The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 Strategy for Defeat. I know some of you have this book and will be able to check the figures mentioned.
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Despite the mauling the Mk Vs recieved over Europe, the tropicalised versions over Malta had a superior kill-loss ratio over the 109F4s and 109G-2s (trops or not, I don't know) they faced in 1942, all while operating significantly outnumbered.
So, it appears that SITUATION is at least as important as airframe performance in determining how well/poorly a fighter performed.
So, it appears that SITUATION is at least as important as airframe performance in determining how well/poorly a fighter performed.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Very true - Pilot Training, tactics? Perhaps knowing that you're fighting with your back against the wall...
Superflyboyj, hello!
Please note i am not objecting any of the technical specifications of the Spitfires; what i am simply stating is what the outcome of the aerial battles in the west indicate.
Four versions were the workhorse of the Spitfire fighter plane during the war; production numbers are as follows:
~1,600 Mk. I
~1,000 Mk. II
~6,600 Mk. V (a,b,c)
~5,700 Mk. IX (HF,F, LF)
_____________
~14,900 fighters.
In all ~22,500 Spitfires of all versions were produced (not forgetting a good number of planes were produced after the end of the war). So, about 66% of all Spitfires produced -including those produced after the war, planes that are of no value whatsoever in this discussion- were from those main 4 versions.
Now, none of those versions could claim to surpass any of the contemporary German opponents. Quite the contrary, the most produced version of the Spitfire, the Mk. V, proved critically inferior the 109 and the 190 A in the west.
I believe technical charts and data sheets might indicate a close match, but, again, battle records show the Germans were better pilots.
As for the rest of Spitfire versions it was a mess and chaos of experiments, sub-experiments
, types, sub-types and versions that in some cases saw little combat action if any. The overhyped Mk. XIV was not a very common plane.
That is why i affirm what i do flyboyj: no 8th USAAF assembling in force by the end of 1943 (and later 15th AF) and the Spitfires would still be trying to figure out the situation in western europe against any version of the 109s or 190s-
Now it is time to listen to some music.
Cheers!
Please note i am not objecting any of the technical specifications of the Spitfires; what i am simply stating is what the outcome of the aerial battles in the west indicate.
Four versions were the workhorse of the Spitfire fighter plane during the war; production numbers are as follows:
~1,600 Mk. I
~1,000 Mk. II
~6,600 Mk. V (a,b,c)
~5,700 Mk. IX (HF,F, LF)
_____________
~14,900 fighters.
In all ~22,500 Spitfires of all versions were produced (not forgetting a good number of planes were produced after the end of the war). So, about 66% of all Spitfires produced -including those produced after the war, planes that are of no value whatsoever in this discussion- were from those main 4 versions.
Now, none of those versions could claim to surpass any of the contemporary German opponents. Quite the contrary, the most produced version of the Spitfire, the Mk. V, proved critically inferior the 109 and the 190 A in the west.
I believe technical charts and data sheets might indicate a close match, but, again, battle records show the Germans were better pilots.
As for the rest of Spitfire versions it was a mess and chaos of experiments, sub-experiments
, types, sub-types and versions that in some cases saw little combat action if any. The overhyped Mk. XIV was not a very common plane.That is why i affirm what i do flyboyj: no 8th USAAF assembling in force by the end of 1943 (and later 15th AF) and the Spitfires would still be trying to figure out the situation in western europe against any version of the 109s or 190s-
Now it is time to listen to some music.
Cheers!
