Luftwaffe focused in the East

[Milosh]

Total losses of aircraft in the Battle of Britain

Month RAF Luftwaffe
July (from10th) 90 165
August 399 612
September 416 554
October 182 321
Total 1087 1652

Total losses by type of aircraft
in the Battle of Britain

Royal Air Force

Type Losses
Hurricane 601
Spitfire 357
Blenheim 53
Other 76
Total 1087

Luftwaffe

Type Losses
Junkers Ju 87 74
Junkers Ju 88 281
Dornier Do 17 171
Dornier Do 215 6
Heinkel He 56 31
Heinkel He 111 246
Heinkel He 115 28
Henschel Hs 126 7
Messerschmitt Bf 109 533
Messerschmitt Bf 110 229
Total 1562

 

[DonL]

Which source?

I have seen other sources for example Christer Bergstroms Book Battle of Britain (2007).

Also from official german documents there were not more then 196-197 Bf 110 lost at BoB!

But what has this to do with the Bf 109E and the Hurricane and my claim that the Hurricane was outclassed by the Bf 109E?

 

[stona]

But what has this to do with the Bf 109E and the Hurricane and my claim that the Hurricane was outclassed by the Bf 109E?

It wasn't outclassed because it could and did,successfully fight the Bf 109E.
In certain areas of performance it was in fact superior to the Messerschmitt,particularly with the improved propeller/CSU with which it was fitted by the BoB. In others the Messerschmitt was superior. The Messerschmitt was faster ( but only slightly,the margin was much finer than is generally remembered) but at high speeds very unmanoueverable.

The Hurricane looks a little old fashioned in 1940 but it was the end of the line of a certain type of design and manufacturing system. The Bf109 (and Spitfire) were the first of a new system. You could describe it as a transitional design but to say it was "clearly outclassed" by the Bf 109 E is simply not true.

There's no point in degenerating into an argument about which fighter was the best. The Bf 109, Bf 110,Hurricane and Spitfire all had their strengths and weaknesses but they were all competitive.

Cheers
Steve

 

[rank amateur]

Total losses of aircraft in the Battle of Britain

Month RAF Luftwaffe
July (from10th) 90 165
August 399 612
September 416 554
October 182 321
Total 1087 1652

Total losses by type of aircraft
in the Battle of Britain

Royal Air Force

Type Losses
Hurricane 601
Spitfire 357
Blenheim 53
Other 76
Total 1087

Luftwaffe

Type Losses
Junkers Ju 87 74
Junkers Ju 88 281
Dornier Do 17 171
Dornier Do 215 6
Heinkel He 56 31
Heinkel He 111 246
Heinkel He 115 28
Henschel Hs 126 7
Messerschmitt Bf 109 533
Messerschmitt Bf 110 229
Total 1562

Judging from the number one might get the impression that a bf 109 was the unhealthiest plane to fly on the German side

What was it? Liars, damn liars and....?

Chrzzzz

 

[DonL]

There's no point in degenerating into an argument about which fighter was the best. The Bf 109, Bf 110,Hurricane and Spitfire all had their strengths and weaknesses but they were all competitive.

I totaly agree!

In certain areas of performance it was in fact superior to the Messerschmitt,particularly with the improved propeller/CSU with which it was fitted by the BoB.

I hadn't this information.

Last but least I have still the opinion that the Bf 109E was a better or slightly better fighter then the Hurricane and this whole issue was poped up through the comparison of the Bf 109E and Polikarpow I-16, because Altea suggest the I-16 could match with the Bf 109E.
I have argumentetd with the Hurricane because to my opinion the I-16 is clearly inferior to the Hurricane and to me as I stated the Hurricane is slightly inferior to the Bf 109E (to my opinion from the data's of BoF and BoB).
Actually I don't want a dicussion about the Hurricane and the Bf 109E, I only wanted to argument that the I-16 is clearly inferior to the Bf 109E!

 

[stona]

Actually I don't want a dicussion about the Hurricane and the Bf 109E, I only wanted to argument that the I-16 is clearly inferior to the Bf 109E!

Well,I'll let you carry on that debate without me as I know absolutely nothing about Soviet aircraft

Cheers

Steve

 

[Juha]

After my informations are this the losses from air to air combat with fighters!

The RAF had lost about 1200 a/c's at BoB and the kill ratio of the german bombers were near nil!

Of course near nil is a bit vague term but for ex. on 15 Sept 40, Price in his BoB Day writes that out of 28 British fighters shot down on that day 13 were shot down by LW fighters, 6 by LW bombers and 9 were lost to unknown reasons. Also on 29 Sept over the Irish Sea 9 He 111s shot down 3 Hurricanes out of the first 6 to attack. That is the best result of German air-gunners I can recall but LW air-gunners did often good job. So I'd say that LW air gunners did better than what for ex Christer Bergström claims.

Juha

 

[Milosh]

Judging from the number one might get the impression that a bf 109 was the unhealthiest plane to fly on the German side

What was it? Liars, damn liars and....?

Chrzzzz

Not only that it did a lousy job of protecting the bombers.

 

[Vincenzo]

it's true that we have not a work as "the BoF then and now" for the BoB but see the results of Hurricane in France and MTO vs 109, with the historical crews, the Hurry is inferior, as fighter, to 109, obviously this is only my opinion.

 

[Juha]

it's true that we have not a work as "the BoF then and now" for the BoB but see the results of Hurricane in France and MTO vs 109, with the historical crews, the Hurry is inferior, as fighter, to 109, obviously this is only my opinion.

What is wrong with "The BoB Then and Now Mark V"? The main authors are same. OK the BoBT&N is older but still.

Juha

 

[stona]

Not only that it did a lousy job of protecting the bombers.

Bad tactics.

it's true that we have not a work as "the BoF then and now" for the BoB but see the results of Hurricane in France and MTO vs 109, with the historical crews, the Hurry is inferior, as fighter, to 109, obviously this is only my opinion.

The Hurricanes flying in the BoB were not the same as those flying in the BoF.
I've already mentioned the CSU,there was also 100 Octane fuel available,doubling the allowable supercharger boost pressure to 12 lbs.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Altea]

OK but that tendency implies that the I-16 probably wouldn't make a very good gun platform.

What are the conditions to be a good gun platform?

I'm no pilot and I have never flown any plane.

I do not blame you for anything, but men that wrote books about I-16 as Keith Dexter, Green, Swanborough etc...and recieved money for that and supposingly being qualified specs ignored or even never understood the difference, yet evident between unstability, and lack of stability.

i have to do with the statements from men who did (do, since here are some convincing reissues). Golodnikov claims that the 1-16 ''was a complicated aircraft, demanding in piloting technique. It could fall into a spin at the slightest "overhandling'. He says he liked that. I can imagine pilots who wouldn't.

The I-16 was at least no novice aircraft, It was overly sensitive to control mouvements and the inertia moments around all three axes was extremely small. The CG coincided with the centre of pressure so longitidinal stability was marginal.

What to say, high class pilots made an asset from this default, avoiding with ease bursts from foe firebursts, bad pilots were in mortal danger themselves, well before any clash with the ennemy.


Just to call cat, a cat...

Well actually that is not false. The I-180 was not taken in production which is all that i claimed. According to wiki a couple of testpilots lost their lives and another prefered to bail out in stead of landing. Either don't make for a good reputation. Besides that I won't dispute there were political reasons aswell. But if the production of the I-180 did not get of the ground in real history there is no reason why it should in our altered scenario.

What is not false, is that I-180 was ordened for serial production at the end of 1939 despite accidents in zavod 21, since state accident comission neither attributed crashes to bad aircraft design.

The factory however preferred to give the priority
- to the production plan, 2207 I-16 were achieved in 1940, but there were lacking some other 300, so director and his team was in jeopardy fot that failure, and chose to do not attribute much means to Yangel, the Polikarpov's OKB deputy, the later famous soviet rockets builder, that was a young engeneer that time with no experience and no relationships.

- to their own design department leaded by M. Pashinin.

Anyway, constant Yangel's complaints led to a state comission from NKAP and VVS reprensentatives managed by the assistant of the state comissar to the industry V.P. Balandin. The comission obliged zavod 21 to give 10 I-16 in february, 20 on march, plus one I-180sh type.

It would be to long to tell the full story, but only 10 planes were on assembly within 7-8 mounth in march, and only 3 achieved in april after another big anger/scandal from VVS-fighter command representatives. The analysis (of this secund pressure group) led altogether with factory specialists revealed that the production rate in case of the swith to the I-180, would be the same that for the I-16.

In case of war in 1940? It's the most difficult decision to replace an existing model by a more modern one. The trade-off between loss of production and the advantages of the new product is difficult to asset and depends of the state of the war at that time.

It's easy to be critical with the benefit of hindsight, but I-18 was rather a chance to SU. Why?
1) feasability: I-18 had a lot of common with I-16, and was easily digestible for soviet industry unlike LaGG, and Yaks using another technology. It was the sole fighter in spring of 1940 advanced enough to reach production status.
2) performance: As experience showed the I-180-3 (assembled in Polikarpov's workshop) demonstrated 575 km/hin may of 1940, without canopy, wrecked fuselage and unadapted propeller. So 600 km/h and were considered as virtually reached, once those shortcomings resolved.

In the meantime first three serial I-180s (from zavod 21) were ready in april of 1940. They reached 585 km/h despite criticism to their lack of finish.

3) agility: Due to small size, light wing loading and high power to weight ratio, the plane was virtualy as nimble as the I-16. That could't be said for MiG-3, LaGG-3, not even Yak.

4) handling It's CG went to 24% of the M.C. instead of 28-31. That mean stability improvement, easier handling.

But in 1940, the inexperienced NKAP leadership, to much rejenuvated by Stalin's purges was underestimating radial engines, and paved the way to fighters with liquid-cooled ones.

In case of war and urgency, they won't had the opportunity to afford themselves to be influenced only by fashion of the time and other subjective reasons!

 

[stona]

What are the conditions to be a good gun platform?

Well harmonised controls,but most importantly good longditudinal stability. Slipping or skidding make accurate aiming virtually impossible.

Steve

 

[Vincenzo]

What is wrong with "The BoB Then and Now Mark V"? The main authors are same. OK the BoBT&N is older but still.

Juha

nothing, simply i don't know it

 

[Vincenzo]

The Hurricanes flying in the BoB were not the same as those flying in the BoF.
I've already mentioned the CSU,there was also 100 Octane fuel available,doubling the allowable supercharger boost pressure to 12 lbs.

in mto they flying also most "advanced" hurry and the combat results are bad.

 

[stona]

in mto they flying also most "advanced" hurry and the combat results are bad.

It struggled to compete with the "Friedrich",but that's not what it was up against in the summer/autumn of 1940.


The F series of 109s were a significant improvement on the E series both aerodynamically and in engine power. The Hurricane,coming at the end of a developmental line,was not capable of such development. In the last months of 1940 and into 1941 it was at a disadvantage against the new Bf 109 F,a point I agreed to several posts back.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Vincenzo]

It struggled to compete with the "Friedrich",but that's not what it was up against in the summer/autumn of 1940.


The F series of 109s were a significant improvement on the E series both aerodynamically and in engine power. The Hurricane,coming at the end of a developmental line,was not capable of such development. In the last months of 1940 and into 1941 it was at a disadvantage against the new Bf 109 F,a point I agreed to several posts back.

the Emils were the first 109 sent in MTO, february '41, (7/26 and stay with Emil until september; the I/27 used Emils until late '41) the first Friederichs were came in september (II/27). The Emils of 7/26 over Malta get very superiour result vs Hurricane.

JoeB, in a old thread quoting "Spitfire Special", report 153 to 272 109 vs Hurricane loss in BoB

 

[stona]

Be careful not to judge by Luftwaffe claims (particularly JG 27). RAF losses are a better indicator. This is way off topic and I don't have time to look all this stuff up at the moment.

Didn't I./JG 27 transition from the E to F between May and September 1941?

Cheers

Steve

 

[Vincenzo]

i've judicated the 7/26 from raf losses almost 30 hurricanes for 0 emil (malta early operations) (joeb count from Hurricanes over Malta)
the transition started after the II/27 came operational in NA so from september with a staffel per time sent to reequip in Germany so probably until late october

 

[stona]

I./JG 27 moved to Ain-el-Gazala from 21/April/41 and had some Fs on the books at that time.
I accept that they were not fully converted until much later in the year.
Steve