Hellcat vs Spitfire - which would you take?

[parsifal]

You would have to read one of the day by day, blow by blow accounts. The best books i have on this are the series put out by John Foreman. There are others, perhaps even better than his, but if you do read them, you will see his squadron by squadron tallies give about a 60/40 kill ratio, split between the hurricanes and Spits in the RAF. The Middle East is a little more opaque, and i expect a higher percentage of kills will go to Lend Lease and the like, but given the heavy losses suffered by the LW in that time frame, i dont think it at all excessive to claim 4500 kills by Spitfires.

 

[cimmex]

I doubt that there are even 4500 German planes within the range of Spitfires.
cimmex

 

[Milosh]

For the Luftwaffe, the spring of 1941 offered the last easy campaign. Nevertheless, even before "Barbarossa," aircraft losses were rising ominously. Operations in the Balkans, as well as an increased effort against British cities to disguise the redeployment to the east, pushed the loss rate (all aircraft) from 2.6 percent (written off) in January 1941 to 7.2 percent in April, and to 7.5 percent in May.49 The loss rate for bombers (written off) climbed in the same period from 4.8 percent in January, to 5.5 percent in February, to 8.6 percent in March, to 10.6 percent in April, and to 12 percent in May.

Strategy for Defeat: The <i>Luftwaffe</i> 1933-1945

 

[cimmex]

Mylosh, that all may be right but Parsifal is talking about 4500 losses to Spitfires within 16 month and this is what I don't believe.
cimmex

 

[DonL]

The numbers from Parsifal are not correct to my sources.
The building numbers are much less.

Numbers new built 1940:

combat aircrafts: 7730

Junkers Ju 87 603; Messerschmitt Bf 109 1693; Junkers Ju 52 388; Fieseler Fi 156 170; Junkers Ju 88 2208;
Heinkel He 111 756, Dornier Do 17 275; Dornier Do 215 92; Dornier Do 217 20; Focke-Wulf Fw 200 36;
Henschel Hs 126 368; Focke-Wulf Fw 189 38; Messerschmitt Bf 110 1083

Seaplanes: 269
Trainers: 1870
Gliders: 378

Numbers new built 1941

combat aircrafts: 9636

Junkers Ju 87 500; Henschel Hs 129 7; Messerschmitt Bf 109 2764; Focke-Wulf Fw 190 228; Junkers Ju 52 502
Fieseler Fi 156 431; Junkers Ju 88 2780; Heinkel He 111 950; Dornier Do 215 6; Dornier Do 217 277;
Focke-Wulf Fw 200 58; Henschel Hs 126 5; Focke-Wulf Fw 189 250; Messerschmitt Bf 110 784;
Messerschmitt Me 210 94;

Seaplanes: 183
Trainers: 1121
Gliders: 1461

This numbers include all aircrafts, also aircrafts of foreign manufacture, trainers and gliders

I have very serious doubts, that the LW lost 20000 a/c's to all causes at 1940 and 1941, because the numbers didn't fit with the production and strenghts of the LW.

Also I have very serious doubts to parsifals data's because of an other post in an other thread.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...lous-spitfire-claims-38811-2.html#post1068136

Here parsifal claimed that the LW lost 150000 a/c's to all causes.

From several german sources this is unpossible, because the LW only got from September 1939 -Mai 1945

combat aircrafts: 98322
Traines, gliders and Seaplane: 15277
New buit: 113609
Aircrats before September 1939: 10000

In summary 123609
This numbers include all aircrafts, also aircrafts of foreign manufacture, trainers and gliders

To several german sources the losses to all causes were between 100500 and 104000, therefrom 92.000 combat aircrafts

If the numbers of 20000 lost LW a/c's to all causes 1940/1941 came from the same sources as the 150000 lost LW a/c's to all causes the whole war, they are simply wrong and totaly exaggerated.
Also the claim of 4000 LW losses to the Spitfire at 1940/41 is to my opinion totaly exaggerated.

My sources:

LuftArchiv.de - Das Archiv der Deutschen Luftwaffe
then Luftfahrtindustrie, then Produktion III

Groehler ("Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der dtn Luftwaffen im 2.Wk")
Uziel "Arming the Luftwaffe"

Edit:

Note: several thousands aircrafts were also in repair every year and they didn't count to the given strenghts, because they were out of service, also a/c's which were reconstructed.

combat aircrafts:

Numbers of Repair 1940: 2459
Numbers of Repair 1941: 3376

trainers, gliders, seaplanes

Numbers of Repair 1940: 2964 ( 2900 trainers)
Numbers of Repair 1941: 2768 ( 2651 trainers)

 

[parsifal]

Mylosh, that all may be right but Parsifal is talking about 4500 losses to Spitfires within 16 month and this is what I don't believe.
cimmex

How did the LW manage to lose 22000 aircrafdt in in two years? And to whom? We think it was mostly the allies, and the allies say that the spit was a major element of its inventory. if it wasnt the Spit, and fighters were doing the lions shar of the kiling, which aircraft then?
The averge life expectancy of a given airframe was about 10 months for the USAAC. German attrition was always a bit higher than that, even though its sortie rate was fairly low in comparison. Why were they losing aircraft at that rate.

You need to read a bit more. I cant produce the minutaue of losses in countless actions on all fronts, but its there if you look for it. As I said, have a look at some of the better daily front wide accounts such as Foreman and you will get the brakdown you are looking for.

Of course, you could always produce evidence of your own to refute the claim, but ive never seen you do anything like that in all our various discussions over the years.

 

[DonL]

How did the LW manage to lose 22000 aircrafdt in in two years? And to whom? We think it was mostly the allies, and the allies say that the spit was a major element of its inventory. if it wasnt the Spit, and fighters were doing the lions shar of the kiling, which aircraft then?
The averge life expectancy of a given airframe was about 10 months for the USAAC. German attrition was always a bit higher than that, even though its sortie rate was fairly low in comparison. Why were they losing aircraft at that rate.

You need to read a bit more. I cant produce the minutaue of losses in countless actions on all fronts, but its there if you look for it. As I said, have a look at some of the better daily front wide accounts such as Foreman and you will get the brakdown you are looking for.

Of course, you could always produce evidence of your own to refute the claim, but ive never seen you do anything like that in all our various discussions over the years.

I very seriously doubt this, it doesn't fit the production, repair and given strenghts numbers of the LW, far from it.
To me it is obvious that Murray count the repair and recronstruction numbers as losses, but you can't loose an a/c two times.
The repair a/c's were out of service and didn't count to any statistic, till the point they come back.

After my sources the General Quartiermeister disposes 120030 combat aircrafts from 01.09.1939 to May 1945, built 98322, reconstruction 1988, repair 30817, as you can see disposes numbers differs majorly from built numbers.

And I'm convinced that the major mistake of Murray is to count disposes numbers compare to given strenght, instead of real losses of built a/c's.

After this the LW lost 1940/1941 roundabout 12000-15000 a/c's to all causes, more 12000 through the repair numbers.

 

[parsifal]

Most of what you are saying i disagree with, but then this is a very old argument. I would just point out that from the outset, my figures were never intended to be completely accurate....not that they are significantly different to yours.

This is the point that i based my statements on. Firstly that the production figures were approximate. Secondly, that the loss numbers were based on claims, not actual numbers.

The same can be said about the Hellcat numbers. The japanese records indicate a total of between 40-45000 a/c lost with most analyses being toward the lower figure. The Japanese records show that 17000 a/c were lost to attritional causes....noncombat losses. The USAAC claims around 10000 (an approximation, please none of this petty nitpicking), the USN claims 19000 aircraft destroyed, of which about 6000 were attributed to the hellcat. Of course these claimed losses dont add up, as i have said many times, claims are merely an indicator of air activity, not a true record of actual losses. that is a universal truth that applies to all claims tallies.

So, in your zeal to attack the british records, the reputationof the spitfire, me, and all things british, because they prevented your country from completing its deadly intent, and the claims and loss figures so as to defend your beloved Luftwaffe, just bear in mind the context and preposition of this conversation. the figures are approximate, and they are based on claims. If you are going to be particulalr about the Spitfire and the RAF, how about applying the same level of scrutiny to the hellcat.

 

[DonL]

What is this for an argumentation?

You claimed in an other thread the LW lost the whole war 150000 a/c's to all causes (also that the RAF destroyed 60000 LW a/c's), I have presented in my post 645, numbers of german built aircrafts in summary 123609 a/c's the whole war from different sources. Also you can look here, which post confirmed my numbers.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/aircraft-production-1939-45-a-4218.html

In this thread you claimed a loss of roundabout 22000 a/c's to all causes of the LW at 1940/41, also here I presented numbers of built a/c's and repair numbers and I have related your datas from this thread to the 150000 claim, because I think they are from the same sources.

But this source is wrong, because the LW couldn't have lost 150000 a/c's to all causes, if only 123600 were ever built and roundabout 20000-25000 a/c's were found by the allieds.
And it is a very big difference if 150000 a/c's were lost or only roundabout 100000 a/c's. 50000 a/c's are a very big difference.

German statistic isn't this easy with built numbers, repair numbers and disposal numbers, because an a/c could be deposed several times through repair.

This has nothing to do with "my beloved LW" or to attack the spitfire, I have only presented given numbers from different sources and that it is my opinion that your claimed numbers, are heavily exaggerated through different reasons and mainly your sources.

 

[wuzak]

In this thread you claimed a loss of roundabout 22000 a/c's to all causes of the LW at 1940/41, also here I presented numbers of built a/c's and repair numbers and I have related your datas from this thread to to the 150000 claim, because I think they are from the same sources.

I believe he is using numbers of claims of aircraft destroyed (ie by fighter pilots), rather than the number of losses recorded by the Luftwaffe.

 

[DonL]

According to Murray (Luftwaffe Attrition) the Luftwaffe had lost 20000 A/c to all causes between 1939 and the end of 1941. About 70% of those were lost to combat causes, and a lot less than 50% of the 1941 totals were suffered on the eastern Front. According to Caldwell, in 1943, about 14% of Luftwaffe combat losses were suffereed on the Eastern Front. Even if it was double that in 1941 (which in itself is unlikely, given the poor showing of the VVS in 1941), at least 70% of LW losses were suffered on either the western or southern fronts.

To my understanding such a post isn't only a claim of pilots or RAF reports more a claim of a fact through a source.
And through my presented numbers I have very serious doubts about this source and claims.

 

[parsifal]

I believe he is using numbers of claims of aircraft destroyed (ie by fighter pilots), rather than the number of losses recorded by the Luftwaffe.

Exactly, because the other sid3e of the ledger is the hellcat claims. You cannot compare apples to oranges. if you want to get to the actual losses its a lot mor work, and you have to claim hellcat actual victories to Spitfire actual victories.

DonL has an altogether different agenda, and involves me and a long history with him. im not buying into it at all....there are too many black marks on both our names and too many totally trashed threads because of it

 

[DonL]

Actually I have posted in this thread several times, that for me the Spitfire is the better a/c then the Hellcat through different reasons.

Mostly the Spitfire was in service from the beginning of the war till the end and was confronted to my opinion with equal enemy aircrafts most of the time and showed great performance the whole war.
I rate all german aircrafts (mainly Bf 109 and FW 190) higher then the Zero or any other japanese airplane. The Hellcat was comming to service, as the japanese were very long over their best performance and the Zero and other japanese a/c's were simply outdated from performance.
The Hellcat was a good aircraft, but to my opinion the Spitfire was better and proved this through it's performance against better enemy a/c's as the japanes a/c's the whole war.

Here I have only responded through your claimed numbers in this thread and also I was irritated of your claimed numbers in the other thread and we had no chance to discuss this issue, because the other thread was closed and it was an opportunity to come back to this issue.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I give it 3 more posts before cheap shots are taken...

 

[silence]

I'll see your three and raise you one.

 

[parsifal]

I give it 3 more posts before cheap shots are taken...

Nope...because im not bying into this silly argument any further. time to take my hands off the wheel for a while.

 

[CobberKane]

How did the LW manage to lose 22000 aircrafdt in in two years?

Maybe they had a delivery contract with Australia Post.

 

[cimmex]

Well, it's dangerous making a statement like
"by that roiugh estimate Spits in 16 months were responsible for about 4500 German aircaft losses" and then trying to back up that claim by throwing in more doubtful overall numbers. IMO this does not help to raise the credibility of a forum.
cimmex

 

[Njaco]

... but you can't loose an a/c two times.....

Yes, you can. I've read reports where a/c were heavily damaged, even with a dead pilot, and still repaired to fly again.

 

[Milosh]

Didn't they find 3 WNr during restoration of the Smithsonian Fw190A-8?