Is Spitfire relly superior to FW-190?

"Clean" refers to clean wing, it always has and it always will. Modern day "Clean" wing would be removal missiles, gun-pods and fuel tanks. Your mentioning of removing gun-pods is exactly what would be done to make it "clean". As well as any rockets and bombs.

Removing armour and fuel tanks would make it a different variant of the Fw-190. For example; if you took a Fw-190A-8/R8 and removed all that made it a R8 - it's not a R8 anymore, is it? It's not going to be a "clean" R8.

The R11/12 was simply an all weather fighter, in which you base your entire argument of the A-8 being a superior dogfighter to the A-4.

If you read what I said properly, I stated they would not alter a bomber-destroyer to fighter if a fighter version was present. It's a waste of time and resources.

I fail to see the point in mentioning the empty weights of the R11/12 to the A-8 as a whole. If you wanted to base your entire argument on the R11/12 being a superior dogfighter to the A-4 then it'd have been much more sensible from the start.

And since this started out with me stating the Spitfire XIV could easily out-climb the A-4 at all speeds and altitudes, which would mean it was probably better against the A-8 since the A-8 had an increase in weight. It still stands that with the vast majority of A-8 variants, the Spitfire XIV would be able to gain advantage quicker than it did against the A-4. The only variant of the A-8 that would be better than the A-4 in a dogfight, would be the R11/12.

Removing standard armor would not be making it clean. Removing extra armour would yes. As Plan_D said it is wings with no stores underneath.

Putting specifications aside, I do not think any of the Spitfires -whatever the version- could deal with their contemporary Fw190.

Battle records substantiate this assertion.

The Spitfire took disastrous losses at the hands of both the Fw190s and Bf 109s of JG 2 and JG 26 over the Channel and over France throughout the entire years of 1941, 1942 and early 1943.

It was until 1943, when the 8th AF began assemblying in numbers that the Spitifre showed a slight improvement in its performance against the Luftwaffe.

Without the overwhelming numbers achieved by both RAF and USAAF together to conduct the fight against Luftwaffe, the Spitfire seemed uncapable of achieving anything substantial against the German fighters.

It is proven, the German fighter pilots had generous banquets with the Spitfires.

Udet said:

It is proven, the German fighter pilots had generous banquets with the Spitfires.

Click to expand...

Udet - you have a way with words!

Statistics aside? Sorry, no. The statisics prove that a Spitfire was more than a match for the Fw-190.

In those years you mentioned, the Spitfires were flying over the Channel - to their range extent. It was the same situation as the Bf-109s flying over England, and suffering heavily at the hands of Hurricanes and Spitfires.

JG 2 and JG 26 were the elité Luftwaffe formations - that hardly says anything against Green RAF pilots. The Fw-190A gained a large advantage against the Spitfire V in late (July 1941) - it was then matched by the Spitfire IX and taken over by the Spitfire XIV.

The numbers prove nothing if taken on their own.

You do have an unhealthy infatuation with the Luftwaffe aircraft. Take a look at the facts of the past discussion - the Spitfire was a match and then some for the Fw-190.

What next, Udet? "I've seen loads of gun-cam of Spitfires being shot up..."

Plan_D,

"Clean" refers 'no extra equipment', simple as that. It has nothing to do with the wing. Gun-pods and bomb-racks were removed, as-well as any other "Extra" equipment. As for the armour; Only the 'extra' armour of the bomber-interceptor or fighter-bomber configuration was removed, as-well as the 'extra' internal fuel-tank.

Plan_D, they 'would' alter A-8's with the bomber-interceptor or fighter-bomber configuration (The Converstion kits) into clean configuration if the need was there.(Which it often was)

So as an example a R8 could become a fighter interceptor in a flash if the need was there, aswell as a R11 could become a fighter-bomber, but they would still retain their original engines. And yes this convertion would slightly alter their original designations.

Now all this put aside we do agree Plan_D that the Spit XIV 'was' superior to the Fw 190A-8, however less so than against the A-4, as the A-8 could bolster an extra 400 hp and was only a tiny bit heavier.

In those years you mentioned, the Spitfires were flying over the Channel - to their range extent. It was the same situation as the Bf-109s flying over England, and suffering heavily at the hands of Hurricanes and Spitfires.

Click to expand...

First of all let me make it clear that the Spitfire was an excellent fighter, one of the very best of WW2, however no better than the 109 or 190.

During BoB 99% of the RAF's losses were sustained in dogfights with the Bf-109 ! Now take an extra look at stats, and they'll tell you just 'how' well the 109's actually performed considdering their range and offensive situation !

Remember that the vast majority of LW a/c shot down during the BoB were bombers.

Moving on, during 41-43 the Spitfires once again met the Bf-109's over the channel, only this time the Spitfire's didnt do very well and were being battered quite severely.

Now what does this tell us ? That Bf-109 and Fw-190 were more than a match for the Spitfire.

You're just repeating your old argument for the first part, so I'll leave that.

During BoB 99% of the RAF's losses were sustained in dogfights with the Bf-109 !

Click to expand...

Did the Luftwaffe have anything else anywhere near comparable in a dogfight to a Hurricane or Spitfire? Answer: No. Did the Luftwaffe use any other fighter as extensively as the Bf-109 during the BoB? Answer: No. Was the only other fighter the Luftwaffe used during the BoB, the Bf-110? Answer: Yes. Does the quote above show anything of significance? Answer: No.

Now take an extra look at stats, and they'll tell you just 'how' well the 109's actually performed considdering their range and offensive situation !

Click to expand...

I'd advise you to take a look at the states, Soren. First off, the Hurricane was the most numerous fighter in the RAF - therefore the majority of losses suffered by the RAF were Hurricanes. The Luftwaffe also out-numbered the RAF in every encounter - high losses are expected on the RAF side. Your point here of the Bf-109 achieving good success against the RAF is no more a point for the P-51 being great because it achieved success in numbers.

Moving on, during 41-43 the Spitfires once again met the Bf-109's over the channel, only this time the Spitfire's didnt do very well and were being battered quite severely.

Click to expand...

They didn't meet over the Channel, they met in France. The Spitfire was an interceptor - it was going to it's combat radius extent when flying over to France to tempt the Luftwaffe to attack them. Again, not all losses were Spitfires since these fighter sweeps would often include bombers - to tempt the Luftwaffe.

Now what does this tell us ? That Bf-109 and Fw-190 were more than a match for the Spitfire

Click to expand...

It tells us that the Spitfire was out there, with green pilots flying against experienced Luftwaffe pilots of JG 2 and JG 26 - and still being able to hold their own - outside of their own environment.

More than a match would mean better - the Bf-109 and Fw-190 were a match, at best.

Plan_D:

Soren is very correct.

The Bf 109, E-3 in this particular case, fared much much better over England in 1940 (BoB) than all Spitfire versions that followed the MkI did over the Channel and France during 1941, 1942 and the first half of 1943.
There, over England, the E-3 operated reaching the limits of its range too.

Right, the Richtofen and Schlageter Geschwadern were superb units, but their orders were to remain in France after the Battle of Britain, while the bulk of the jagdgeschwadern were sent east to feast with the VVS in Barbarossa.

Now, you say "green RAF pilots" there.
Such comment would add support to my overall view of the Battle of Britain. German losses were high during some days, but always remained within the acceptable mode; RAF losses were likewise high.

The Luftwaffe did not cancel the massive operations over England by late 1940 due to "horrendous losses", it was rather Hitler´s decision to switch east that finished operations.

I am convinced the losses endured by the RAF during the Battle of Britain have not been assessed in all due dimension. I am sure the aftermath of the BoB was way more disastrous for the RAF than previously acknowledged.

I have stated this before: the performance of the RAF after the BoB is not one of a victorious air force, since they had a terrible time taking horrible losses at the hands of the newer F version of the Bf 109 and the first series of the Butcher Bird.

Have no doubt on this, the Channel and France were very secondary theathers for the Luftwaffe during 1941 and 1942 when the main effort of the Heer was placed in the soviet union.

The home RAF had therefore a sufficient time to rest, refit and to bring the new pilots on since the Luftwaffe would not appear in British skies the way it did during 1940.

When they attempted moving ahead to tempt the Luftwaffe they took a rough and very harsh treatment.

No Plan_D, I am not going to bring the guncamera issue up
I can certainly quote two clear examples of how the Bf 109 F and the Fw190A proved to surpass the contemporary Spitfire: the Dieppe Raid and the Channel Dash, when the RAF absolutely failed to achieve anything; not just that, their losses were terrible.

hey, none of that changes the fact that we won the battle of britian against far superiour numbers

There's one vital aspect that you're missing in your entire frame of thought: numbers.

The RAF began the Battle of Britain with 704 aircraft of all types - the Luftwaffe entered the battle with numbers ranging from 2,600 - 3,700 (I've seen both numbers). The Luftwaffe was far in an advantage in the number game, the RAF intercepted Luftwaffe formations sometimes 10 times bigger than their own.

With an obvious advantage in numbers the Luftwaffe could provide serious blows to any RAF formation coming in to intercept them. The RAF aircraft would have to split between the bombers and the fighters - and already out-numbered it could mean that four Spitfires would be dogfighting anything up to and including 10 or 20 Bf-109s.

Even with that obvious, and massive, disadvantage the RAF managed to achieve a greater kill to loss ratio than the Luftwaffe.

There is no doubt that the Bf-109 was an equal to the Spitfire in combat - not a superior machine. It did not sweep the RAF from the skies though despite the fact that they out-numbered the RAF - such a disadvantage in the sky has never been over-come before or since.

When the RAF finished up the BoB - they had been battered. The losses suffered by the RAF are not hidden - in fact they are shown in all historical references to show the people the defiance of the British people. No matter the loss - Britain fought on.

They took to the offensive with a battered RAF - and these sorties were never large. They were nuisance raids against France - often only including four bombers with six fighter escort. The Luftwaffe could choose to engage or not - and often they did not engage because the numbers were unfavourable. During the BoB the RAF didn't have that luxury.

It is true that the Luftwaffe shifted east but the RAF was not a large force - and never attacked in large numbers, giving the JG 2 and JG 26 an equal playing field. This is nothing against the Spitfire which was a marvel of a machine and anyone who tries to downplay it's excellence should sit down and rethink.

The Channel Dash was extremely lucky for the Germans - they played off on an extremely high risk and it payed off for them. Which is credit to them - but certainly no discredit to the RAF.

The Bf-109F was an equal to the Spitfire V - it never proved a massive threat to the design of the Spitfire. The Fw-190A on the other hand, did. You'll never find me denying that the Fw-190A was a superior plane to the Spitfire V.

Credit where credit is due.

The Fw-190A on the other hand, did. You'll never find me denying that the Fw-190A was a superior plane to the Spitfire V.

Credit where credit is due.

Click to expand...

Write this date down... This is the date that pD said something NICE about a Luftwaffe aircraft.....

New Thread folks