How The Spitfire Mk XIV Compared to the K4 and Other Questions

[Kryten]

Reading a lot of posts on a lot of threads here, much is made of which aircraft would win in a one on one. I have an idea in mind that in many cases the performance a pilot wanted was that to get him into a good position, speed and climb. After that the performance is what will keep him alive. With two equally matched planes and pilots it is very difficult to maneuver into a kill situation. Spitfires were armed with canon (admittedly they didnt work too well) in the BoB. Since most kills are made when the target doesnt see the victor the Spitfire didnt really become more lethal during the war. Its ability to get into position and escape did change a lot though.

The which is best arguments nearly always revolve around personal favourites and having everyone agree your favourite is best, bit childish really, warfare is never fought on the basis of one or ten from each side lining up and shouting go!

Tactical situation and pilot skill are the absolute deciding factors, no one would look at the statistics for the Typhoon for instance , compare it to the Fw190 and say , aaah the Typhoons the best, yet during 42-43 the Typhoon claimed many fw190 on the tip and run raids and the ranger operations, why? simply because in those circumstances the tactical situation favoured the Typhoon pilots, the 190's were often running for home after making their attacks when they were run down by the Typhoons.

During the Battle of Britain 109's shot down more Spits than they lost, why? because the tactical situation was in their favour as the priority for the RAF was to stop the bombers, yet the fans of the 109 always use that statistic to claim the superiority of their favourite, basically it's all tosh unless you have a vast performance difference between airframes or pilots.

As far as I can see the war went through phases, at the start the Luftwaffe with all the lessons they learned in Spain (and remember they were the first to fly a high performance monoplane in combat) had a tactical and pilot experience advantage, Fighter command expanded massively after the Battle of Britain again resulting in many inexperienced pilots being sent across the channel, by 1944 the pendulum is swinging the other way, most of the skilled Luftwaffe pilots have been killed and it's now they that fields inexperienced pilots against veterans,so by the wars end the boots totally on the other foot!

Subtle differences between airframes don't really make much of a difference in this scenario, 109's bounced by Hurricanes still went down despite the apparent statistical inferiority.

 

[pbehn]

All I can say is you don't start off on a full-race motorcycle ... you work up to it, somewhat gradually due to the price of the things. Pbehn is right, rookies on a track don't brake or corner well, and aren't smart enough to get out of the way. But we ALL had to start somewhere. A couple of times I went to a rookie and talked him into following me for a few laps to learn the track. It was an attempt to make is safer for me! It worked. The rookie wasn't a threat in the race, but WAS fast enough not to get in the way. I still didn't win, but did OK.

As for trials, it is easily the most fun I ever had on a motorcycle. Here is 10-time World Champion Toni Bou riding a staged indoor event. Hope you like it.

I am nowhere NEAR his class, but did OK in local Arizona events out in the desert rocks.

Damn! This should have gone in the off-topic forum. Maybe Adler or Joe can move it there ... or else not. I won't post more motorsports other than aircraft in here, so maybe leave it ... your call. Slap me, please.

I had one friend who won a lot of road (tarmac) races and did trials. He said trials were the most exhausting thing he ever did, watching the top guys like in the video they rarely make a mistake. At the lower level he was at you are always wrestling the machine back up right and re starting it, a few times he just had to stop from exhaustion even though he was a very fit 21 yr old and quite good at it. I will have a think and start a thread, if you have any ideas PM me.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Now that there's been a decent interval, with other aircraft, racing cars, etc., getting an airing, perhaps we can return to the subject at hand, even if it is a British aircraft, and therefore of minimal interest.

During the Battle of Britain 109's shot down more Spits than they lost, .

I'm not sure how they managed that (unless the Luftwaffe's mathematicians helped,) since 502 109s were shot down during the Battle, against 276 Spitfires and 406 Hurricanes.
It was Goebbels who said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes a truth, and this seems to be a typical example.
We now come to this claim that the A.F.D.U. falsified reports (though no evidence is ever forthcoming,) and the obvious question is why? If they talked up German aircrafts' abilities, it would make RAF pilots fearful of meeting them, and, if they talked them down, they would go into combat with a false sense of superiority.
For the A.F.D.U. to have behaved in that way, the whole unit would have been utterly corrupt, since each aircraft was flown by several pilots, and the resultant tests compared. There was also the small matter of being accused (when found out, as they would have been) of falsifying reports, which, at the very least, means imprisonment, or, if the accusation was sabotage of the war effort, an early morning meeting with a hangman's noose.
Goebbels at it again, it would seem.

 

[Vincenzo]

Time ago in this forum were writed that 109 losses to Spitfire were 180 and Spitfire losses to 109 were 219

 

[pbehn]

How does anyone ascribe losses to a particular aircraft in the BoB? Total losses may be known for each type but there were also Bf110s taking some RAF planes and return fire from bombers. I am sure a good few friendly fire incidents too.

 

[parsifal]

I think its the maths based on claims, cleaned up a bit by postwar research. Edgars approach is better, because its based on own loss admissions, though the FC losses seem a bit light on at first glance. Maybe Edgar is trying to allow for losses to bombers and other types.

 

[GregP]

When I look up the Battle of Britain, I find a LOT of writing, but almost no summary of losses by type except for a few day or weeks. I can find absoutely NO lists that show losses by type of victor (that is Bf 109 losses to, say ..., Spitfires),

But I DID read Edgar's post in another thread and he recommended two books. I bought one of them and it is now here. So ... when I get the time to DO it, it might be possible to generate a list of victories by those pilots who later went on to become aces and scored at least 5 victories ... but the book is 3 inches thick, so, it won't be anytime soon ... that much is for sure. Meanwhile, I can't argue the question of BOB numbers either way.

 

[thedab]

what I got for 109 pilot's made POW from July to October 1940 is 264,and for killed is 197, I don't know if that's any help

also what I got for Spitfire pilot's killed is 148 Hurricane pilot's killed is 214

and for Bf110 crew is 229 POW and killed is 184

 

[Edgar Brooks]

When I look up the Battle of Britain, I find a LOT of writing, but almost no summary of losses by type except for a few day or weeks. I can find absoutely NO lists that show losses by type of victor (that is Bf 109 losses to, say ..., Spitfires),.

Try "How the Spitfire Won the Battle of Britain," by Dilip Sarkar, who also refers to research, published in 1996, by John Alcorn; one thing they are at pains to point out is that, with the available information (which is unlikely to change,) it is utterly impossible to state, with total accuracy, which aircraft shot down which. The book shows comprehensive monthly figures, from mid-July to the end of October, including claims, which make entertaining reading.

 

[dedalos]

Try "How the Spitfire Won the Battle of Britain," by Dilip Sarkar, who also refers to research, published in 1996, by John Alcorn; one thing they are at pains to point out is that, with the available information (which is unlikely to change,) it is utterly impossible to state, with total accuracy, which aircraft shot down which. The book shows comprehensive monthly figures, from mid-July to the end of October, including claims, which make entertaining reading.

Frome the title ,this dook appears very objactive and NOT AT ALL biased

 

[GregP]

Thanks again, Edgar. I appreciate it a lot.

The thing is, when the war was going on, why the basic infornmation was not recorded escapes me. They HAD the people assigned and debriefed every flight, or almost every flight, at least in the USAAF. Why they didn't record the victor and vivtom as standa rd information is perplexing.

Say YOU were paying for Spitfires and Hurricanes ... wouldn't YOU want to know which one was shooting down more per sortie? Or how many of what>

It makes me steamning angry that basic data are in dispute ... but I can't change it, so it is what it is.

 

[stona]

there were also Bf110s taking some RAF planes

And they would have a very poor balance sheet. Well over 200 (223 is a generally accepted figure) of those Bf 110s were lost, mostly shot down by Spitfires or Hurricanes. That's 90% of the strength they started the campaign with.

On 15th August alone 30 were lost (7 from Epro.Gr.210, 22 from ZG 76 which effectively destroyed the Gruppe as an operational unit in a single afternoon. The other loss was 1 from ZG 2).

I have seen it argued that the Bf 110 was a success in the BoB, but I very much doubt that the men of the zerstorer units who suffered such heavy casualties would agree.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Greyman]

The thing is, when the war was going on, why the basic infornmation was not recorded escapes me.

I'm sure it was all recorded.

Thing is with a lot of these encounters, for example:

- a squadron of Spitfires and a squadron of Hurricanes are in the same scrap with 200+ LW planes
- each squadron claims 6 destroyed and 3 probables
- detailed post-war research shows 5 LW planes were lost

What now?

Without a time machine and secretly installing GoPros on everyone's plane ... we're out of luck. The fights in the Battle of Britain were just too chaotic.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

It also bears considering how often a pilot was taken by complete surprise, baled out, or struggled back to an airfield, without ever seeing the attacker who downed him.

 

[stona]

The biggest cause of over claiming was several attackers engaging the same aircraft and then all claiming it. I can think of one occasion when the same Luftwaffe aircraft was claimed by no less than 9 RAF pilots and many examples when they were claimed by 2 or 3. It was such a frequent occurrence that I'd describe it as normal. It's not difficult to see how 183 claims can be confirmed for 56 losses as on September 15th when more than 250 RAF fighters had engaged the Luftwaffe in a period of less than two hours. I think to describe the situation in the air for individual pilots as confusing would be an understatement. Over claiming at a ratio of 3 or 4 to 1 was about par for most air forces at this time. 183 for 56 is actually not that bad!

What is less difficult to explain is the lame excuse advanced for the lack of crashed aircraft found, that the vast majority must have gone down in the sea. That amounts to optimism at the very least.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Vincenzo]

the source for 180 to 219 would be this
Spitfire Special: E. R. Hooton, Michael Roffe: 9780711002937: Amazon.com: Books

 

[pbehn]

And they would have a very poor balance sheet. Well over 200 (223 is a generally accepted figure) of those Bf 110s were lost, mostly shot down by Spitfires or Hurricanes. That's 90% of the strength they started the campaign with.

On 15th August alone 30 were lost (7 from Epro.Gr.210, 22 from ZG 76 which effectively destroyed the Gruppe as an operational unit in a single afternoon. The other loss was 1 from ZG 2).

I have seen it argued that the Bf 110 was a success in the BoB, but I very much doubt that the men of the zerstorer units who suffered such heavy casualties would agree.

Cheers

Steve

I agree, but even losing at 10:1 it gives 20 kills to the 109.

 

[stona]

I agree, but even losing at 10:1 it gives 20 kills to the 109.

I know you meant Bf 110. I'd have to look to find how many RAF Spitfire or Hurricane losses went to the Bf 110 and I really don't have the will or the time at the moment A quick look at the RAF's losses and the causes given by it (which for obvious reasons don't always give the enemy type involved) would indicate that far more fighters were lost to return fire from various bombers than to Bf 110s.

Return fire from bombers is a surprisingly frequent cause of RAF fighter losses and should be factored in to the overall losses. By no means all RAF fighters were shot down by Luftwaffe fighters.

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

I agree, but even losing at 10:1 it gives 20 kills to the 109.

I know you meant Bf 110. I'd have to look to find how many RAF Spitfire or Hurricane losses went to the Bf 110 and I really don't have the will or the time at the moment A quick look at the RAF's losses and the causes given by it (which for obvious reasons don't always give the enemy type involved) would indicate that far more fighters were lost to return fire from various bombers than to Bf 110s.

Return fire from bombers is a surprisingly frequent cause of RAF fighter losses and should be factored in to the overall losses. By no means all RAF fighters were shot down by Luftwaffe fighters.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Juha]

Frome the title ,this dook appears very objactive and NOT AT ALL biased

I'd not mind too much the title, many times the publisher gives a more "selling" title than the author would have liked. I'm more concer on Sarkar's source, Alcorn used out of date sources and his method was for significant part "dice casting". After heavy criticism Alcorn rerun his research using more up to date sources and got somewhat different results. The new results were published in Aeroplane July 2000.