Spit or ME ?? Rumors revealed and busted !

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

RG:

Remember the Luftwaffe was expecting more from the speed and manouverability of their bombers and from the heavy fighter Bf 110 Zerstörer to gain air superiority over England. Both things proved failures.

I do not think "slaughtered" is an adequate term to describe the casualties of German bombers at the hands of British interceptors over the island in 1940. Yes, losses were high, but never as high -in proportion- to those suffered by the 8th air force over the continent.

The Bf 109´s role for the Battle of Britain was not precisely the main event of the presentation.

I agree the short range of the Emils would eventually arise as a dfundamental issue for the Germans to not win that battle.

I am convinced though, had the Bf109 had a greater range I see the Luftwaffe destroying the RAF over England for good. The Hurricane was clearly surpassed by the Bf109, and the great MkI, while being a formidable machine -praised by many German pilots themselves- was slightly inferior in my opinion to the Bf 109 E.
 
The 109s were doing OK in BOB until they were ordered to fly close escort to the bombers.

Udet, not all RAF fighters squadrons were engaged in BOB. Only 11 Group squadrons were really engaged with some support from squadrons from 10 and 12 Groups bordering 11 Group. 13 Group was too far north.

LW bomber losses were high enough to force the LW to abandon daylight attacks and go to night attacks. The USSAF never abandoned daylight attacks.

A link worth looking at, http://www.altus.af.mil/History/historycombat.htm

Ignore the claims.
 

The same thing was true of the 109 and most other liquid cooled designs. A single hit to the coolant system could bring the plane down within 5 minutes or less. Later 109's were able to shut off one radiator side if it was hit to retain engine function (at reduced power limits), and later P-51's had semi-self sealing cooling system elements (of limited value).

This is why, in general, I think radial designs were superior to liquid cooled designs.

=S=

Lunatic
 

Sure, but that was only two 7.9 mm guns - pretty weak firepower. And the Spitfires could land, rearm and refuel, and be back in the fight quickly, the 109's had to go all the way back to France. An escort fighter needs a larger ammo supply than an interceptor.

=S=

Lunatic
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
if anything the .303s weren't exactly the ideal weapon for taking out bombers............
Click to expand...

Ideal? Certainly not. They weren't "ideal" for fighter combat against WWII class opponents either. But, eight .303's were sufficent to destroy German bombers, which were not that resiliant, even if the were not "ideal".

=S=

Lunatic
 

Offcourse, however in other places such as in Africa there wasnt these range problems !
 
Udet said:
RG:

Remember the Luftwaffe was expecting more from the speed and manouverability of their bombers and from the heavy fighter Bf 110 Zerstörer to gain air superiority over England. Both things proved failures.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But so what? Such mistakes are not a meaningful excuse if that is what you are implying.


On Aug. 18 something like 30% of the Stuka's that attacked Britain did not return. 20% Stuka losses were common, and it was withdrawn from the battle as a result. In August 1940 German losses were excessive and they realized the Battle of Britian was unsustainable (admittedly the RAF was on the ropes but the German's had counted them out earlier only to find they were wrong and they could not continue based upon the available data).

I will assume your comparison to the 8th airforce losses relates to the early part of the air-war, when losses of 20+ % occured on a few occassions. But, that is not really an appopriate comparision because the B-17's were flying much much futher than the Germans. Attacks against targets in France within range of fighter escort never suffered the kind of losses the Luftwaffe' suffered over Britain.


But increasing the range of the 109E would have necessarily diminished its performance right?

=S=

Lunatic
 
While the Luftwaffe was obviously chuffed with the Bf-109 from it's action in the Spanish Civil War, then the over-running of Europe, nothing engendered the moral-boost to the people of the British Empire like the Spitfire did....

The 'Spitfire Fund' reached all corners of the Empire, and brought-out that 'back-to the-wall' fighting spirit, that although numerically inferior, the Empire's pilots fought in the Battle of Britain with a desperation that was un-paralleled....

I recall that during the BoB, Goering asked his fighter-pilots in France if there was anything they needed....the reply was 'a squadron of Spitfires'...
 

Attachments

  • raf_487__nz__sqn._-_on_the_hunt..._640.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 785
It depends how you define the BoB, because 13 Group squadrons did see action across the north sea, usually small raids of individual bombers/reconaissance aircraft. Largely from Norway, but the Luftwaffe stopped that almost totally when the London bombings began.

Also, nearly every operational squadron was rotated into the line of battle at some point, so 13 Group squadrons would have seen action that way as well.
 
Hurricanes went to work on the bombers while the Spitfires dealt with the escorts, that was how it developed....even the Defiant had initial success against the bombers, probably they were confused with the Hurricane or Spitfire, and by coming along side could let-strip....[shame they never put forward-firing guns in them....and a Griffon...].......
 

Krazi:

You are correct. I did not suggest the Bf 109s were performing poorly though; the RAF took a good mauling as well during that battle. And as I said, I see the Bf109 E slightly superior to the Spitfire MkI.



RG:

"Agreed. But so what? Such mistakes are not a meaningful excuse if that is what you are implying".

I was not implying such a thing. It was rather you who suggested the Bf 109 E was a flawed fighter for the Battle of Britain.

I do not know if you believe the Germans were idiots; do you think they did not know what the range of the Bf109E was and the distances between their bases in France and southern England??

(i) That is why the Bf 110 had many expectations placed upon it: it would clear the path for the bombers deep into England, providing adequate escort so they used to think.

Still, and again, the Bf 110 has been defamed as well. If indeed inferior in manouverability to the single engine RAF fighters, the difference was not that abysmal. There were Zerstörer pilots scoring victories in dogfights over England.

It appears like they want to create an image of the Bf110 vs Spitfire MkI similar to that of the Bf109s against the soviets I-16s and I-153s, who were clearly outclassed and outpowered by the German counterpart.

Again, and please get my point, the Bf 110 had an awful time facing the British fighters, but the difference was not as dramatic as it has been told.

(ii) Again! The Germans also had good expectations on the speed and manouverability of their bombers! Just like the case of the Bf110, they were proved wrong.
The Ju88 and Do17 were everything but easy targets once they had delivered their bombload. Of course not superior in manouverability to the Spitfire or Hurricane, but they made tricky targets, and a good number of British interceptors went down while attacking German bombers.

The Ju88 which saw action over England had a maximun speed of about 480km/hr while the top speed of the Hurricane MkI was 540 km/hr: not a very dramatic difference in speed.

Have you seen footage of the Ju88 bomber of 1940? The handling and manouverability were amazing.

"But increasing the range of the 109E would have necessarily diminished its performance right? "

I do not know...maybe, but maybe not.


Guys, all this to tell you that while the Battle of Britain was a British victory (any reasonable doubts on that?), the story is frequently told -of course- in accordance with the remarks of the victor.

Victory? Yes. The point is rather, how was the victory achieved?
The Battle of Britan has got its doses of fairy tale as well. The British radar system, depicted as a perfect flawless system that took their fighter squadrons to intercept the German bomber formations to the right place everytime. "We were watching them since the very moment of their take off at their french bases". I ve been told by British veterans that a very high percentage of times RAF fighters following radar instructions simply found nothing.
 
Udet,

I think the German high command were indeed largely idiots, especially Georing. They expected their bombers to be able to outrun the British fighters on their way to the targets - they could not even outrun them on the way from the targets. They expected their bombers to be more effective in defending themselves - but their armament was pitifully weak and ineffective.

The high command expected the 109's to be able to provide effective close fighter escort even knowing the range limitations, they could not. The high command refused to recognize this, further confirming they were idiots. The fact is "close escort" simply didn't work. It didn't work for the Axis and it didn't work for the Allies. Escorts must find and destroy the enemy fighters before they reach the bombers, not as they reach the bombers! Failure to recognize this fact is the sign of an inflexible command structure. Goering was an idiot and the Luftwaffe' paid heavily for this at several points during WWII.

As for the 110, I've seen pleanty of footage of the 110 trying to engage Spitfires which easily turned away so quickly the 110 had no chance to hit it. The 110's were an unqualified failure as an escort fighter, and in fact needed 109 escorts themselves!

And of course increasing the range of the 109 had to cost performance. Added weight for fuel tanks, fuel pumps, and fuel all reduce performance. Is this not obvious?

=S=

Lunatic
 
Adding extra fuel to the P-51 made it a dog, as well. Performance of later E models that carried a dt did not degrade its performance.

The 109s did fly Frei Jagd with the bombers. It was only when the bombers complained did the order come to fly 'close escort'.

One does not have to shoot an a/c down to stop it from attacking the bombers. If the a/c is avoiding an attack by 110s it is not getting any bomber kills. That is why P-51s flew, eventually, ahead of the B-17s and B-24s.

The 110s needed escorts because they were not used in their intended role, as Udet described.
 
 
The Bf-110 just wasn't compatable against single-engined fighters, that's what was learned from the BoB.....Their best role was probably as a Nightfighter or Night Intruder, but progression to Bf-210 and the Bf-410 was pretty dismal too...they were too heavy, under-powered and had poor manoevrability....not one of 'Willi's' success stories......
 
One clarification.

The Me 410 is in my opinon, an aircraft that has not received thorough assessment.

Putting aside the flunked Me 210, the Me 410 was everything but dismal.

In terms of handling it was far superior to the Bf 110, and the design of the nose allowed the Me 410 to carry weapons capable of unleashing a real hurricane of fire. It had a fearsome punch.

The crews praised the speed and manouverability of the plane; furthermore, it brought the Luftwaffe back over England in kind of significant numbers in 1944.

I am convinced the Me 410 came to life in an era of very powerful single engine allied fighters though and its chances against them were little.

It would have been better for the Luftwaffe to devote the resources for producing the rough 1,200 Me410s to produce more Fw190s, Ta152s or even for the Me262.
 
Soren said:
The British aeronautical press told them that the wings came off the 109 in a dive or in tight turns, untrue but based on some early wing failures in the 109`s predecessor the Bf108.
Click to expand...

Wait a sec.. wasn't the 108 a GA aircraft??

Also, where does the turning radius and low speed handling information come from? The 109 had a higher wing loading than the Spitfire and just about everything I've read says the Spitfire could outturn the 109. The Spitfire was also supposedly pretty docile at low speeds as a result of the low wing loading, no tendency to stall or spin during landing approaches. When the RAF deployed the Typhoon they lost a number of pilots who were used to the docile handling of the Spitfire. The 109 was supposedly a bear to land (partly due to the undercarriage).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Me 109 mediocre roll rate at speed
Replies
10
Views
562
spicmart
S
Warm up or not warm up?
Replies
19
Views
3K
bobbysocks
US or Canadian bases ?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Maxrobot1
S
Need info on 18th FG or other Guadalcanal P-40 units
Replies
12
Views
727
Steamed_Banana
S
Would a Spitfire with the same wing area as on the Bf 109 have been a good idea or not?
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
5K
Reluctant Poster
R
Menu
Log in
Register