Spiteful

[Hop]

This is false. A huge lie, possibly the fattest of all lies i´ve heard so far, ever. Keep playing your game of self-embarrassment. It´d appear you are experiencing some sort of mental collapse and delusional process: thanks for sharing it Hop.

Caldwell and Butler list JG 26 pilot losses. AFAIK, the aircraft losses are unknown. However, we can extrapolate aircraft losses, which are usually more than double the number of pilots killed (by definition, if a pilot is killed the aircraft is almost certainly lost, but if the aircraft is lost, the pilot still has a good chance of survival (as long as he has a parachute))

With 95+ pilots killed and seriously injured by Spitfires (I can provide the names, if you like), you are looking at at least 150 aircraft lost to Spitfires.

Now, if you look at Jim Perry's Luftwaffe claims files http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

You will see JG 26 claimed 168 Spitfires in 1943. That means they claimed a ratio of approx 1:1.

However, as is normal, pilot claims far exceed enemy losses. The Luftwaffe as a whole, excluding nearly all the flak units, claimed 902 Spitfires on the Western Front in 1943.

ER Hooton, Eagle in Flames, says the RAF lost 590 fighters and fighter bombers on operations on the Western Front in 1943, to all causes (out of just over 80,000 sorties). Many of those were Typhoons, and a great many of the losses were to flak.

To sum up, JG 26 claimed 168 Spitfires, but probably got around half that, whilst losing around 150 fighters themselves.

Now, what makes you believe the Luftwaffe was doing so well against Spitfires in 1943? (Apart from the inflated claims, of course)

 

[Kurfürst]

Spitfire The History.

Boscombe Down 10 October 1942. BF274. Fuel consumption trials. At auw 7,100 lb in MS gear @ 174mph 6.76 air miles per gal; range 450 miles; endurance 1.95 hours at 20,000ft. FS gear @ 160 mph 6.03 air miles per gallon; range 375 miles; endurance 1.0 hr at 37,500ft. These results allow for climb to height.

Now, Spitfire the History notes that BF274 was converted from a Spitfire V to IX in August 1942, with the fitting of a Merlin 61 engine. The fuel consumption trials took place on 10th October, on 22nd October performance trials took place: Spitfire F Mk IX Test BF274

Again fitted with Merlin 61. And are you suggesting the Merlin 66 was in use in early October 1942?

Oh, finally some useful contribution from you, and one of the red letter days when you can actually back up what you claim. I wish all days would be such.

So, it`s a F Mk IX w. a Merlin 61. It is given with a range of 450 miles on 85 gallons, and 6.76 mpg at the most economical cruise speed.

The RAF gives the range of the LF Mk IX w. a Merlin 66, with 85 gallons as 434 miles. It would appear that any difference caused by the different carb of the M66, it made it even more fuel hungry.

Based on the Merlin 61, though. I can't find any RAF range trials with the Merlin 66. Can you?

It says Spitfire IX LF, Merlin 66 (just under the range paper attachment). Based on the Merlin 61, according to whom? So now you claim you know the IXLF`s range better than the RAF itself, right?

The Merlin 66 Mk IX LF datasheet says 434 miles at most economic range.

This other British paper shows 420 miles range for the Merlin 66 IX LF

Then again, another British paper from 1945 - Spit XVI (same as the Mk IX, just with US built Merlin 66-licence engine, the Merlin 266) - 434 miles range again. Also of interest is MkXIV, with it`s greatly increased fuel capacity with wingtanks - it was only enough to make up for the greater consumption of the engine.

The other trials, which you claim to have been performed with the 'older engine Merlin 61', actually resulted in higher range, 450 miles.

Take note it`s actually for 7100 lbs (possibly avarage flight weight), not the

It`s pretty well established I think that the Mk IX could cover 434-450 miles range on it`s internal 85 gallon capacity under the most favourable conditions (economic slow speed cruise etc.). In other words, it could not get back to it`s base from any larger distance than ca 450 miles from it`s base, much less under practical circumstances.

I know of only one test of the Merlin 66 range figures, as is usual you dismiss it because it doesn't say what you want it to say, and use instead figures for a different engine.

As shown above, you hold onto a single test which conflicts the results of half a dozen of other range data.

No, quite the opposite. If you look at the Australian tests, they are consistent. The Mustang has much better range at any speed above it's most economical speed. The Spitfire, being lighter, quite naturally has a lower most economical speed.

You are aware that as weight goes up, so does most economical cruise speed, aren't you? And that fuel consumption rises with it, and range decreases (unless the extra weight is fuel, of course)

It has nothing to do with weight. The Mustang is much cleaner aircraft than the Spitfire, so using the same amount of power, using the same amount of fuel, it can reach higher cruise speeds. Naturally, this makes it`s range much better.

The Mustang`s mileage was something like 8 mpg in the Australian test, and one would believe the Spitfire with the same engine would have much less - which is the case as the Spitfire fuel economy trials returned a milage of 6.76, consistent with the range charts etc.

Again the SU carb, again not a Merlin 66.

Let me clarify then : You claim that the SU carburrator of the Merlin 66 was so much more efficient, that it improved fuel economy by no less than 50% , from 6.76 mpg to 10 mpg? It`s amusing given that not even swapping carburrators to direct fuel injection achieved such unbelievable results.

It`s quite simply hogwash. Funny though the RAF firmly believe the Merlin 66, Merlin 266 Spits have the same (as a matter of fact, a bit less, ie. 434 miles vs. 450 miles) range as Merlin 61 Spits.

There is a test of the Merlin 66, Kurfurst. Why is it you reject a test of the actual engine, and instead try comparisons with other, older engines?

Well if a single test claims 50% better fuel economy, and all the other tests and range tables give the same range, it`s logical to conlclude that single test was simply abberant, the results were poorly recorded or such.

What, you mean mixture could make a difference? Getting the mixture leaner would increase range? Duh.

That`s why aircraft have engine controls like 'auto-lean' and 'auto-rich' mixture settings (at least Western Allied aircraft, LW fighter aircraft had it set fully automatic and did not need the attention of the pilot at all).

What do you think the carburettor does, Kurfurst?

Oh I am sure you know such matters much better than any of us. Tell us about the technical advanced that allow one carburrator to be 50% more fuel economic than another.

I wunder why everybody went with fuel injection in the end, and even that didn`t gave such incredibly fuel savings.

As to the mantra about 85 gallon internal fuel tanks, that's all the Spitfire was fitted with, until the RAF wanted more range. When they did, they started fitting wing tanks, a larger lower forward fuselage tank, rear fuselage tanks, and bigger drop tanks.

Sure. Yet 95% of the Spitfires in service at the end of the war still had just 85 gallon internal fuel tank. The only ones that had wing tanks were the Mk VII/IIIs, and there were very few of these around compared to Mk Vs and IXs (the latter two making up more than half of all Spitfire production IIRC, the Mk VIII less than 10%).

Well, the most numerous perhaps, but certainly not the "main" fighter. For example, a quick glance through the claims and losses lists for December 1943 shows 2 operations by Spitfire Vs, 5 by the much more capable at low altitude LF vs, and 19 by Spitfire IXs.

And please don't encourage Kurfurst on this. Last time he got into an argument on these lines, he got banned from a forum. It really wasn't nice.

Cherry picking a single operation only prevents you seeing the forest from a tree.

As for the LF V, performance was hardly inspring for 1943. It was about comparable to the Mk IX or Bf 109G close to the ground level (2-3-4000 feet), above that it`s performance fell off so badly it was inferior even compared to the Mk I. It was a desperate measure, an 'ersatz' Mk IX, due to the lack of Mk IXs.

Neil Stirling from WW2aircraftperformance.org posted the following numbers :

As of 18th May 1944.

Spitfires with Sqn's

MkV 531
MKVII 62
MK VIII 209
MK IX 996
Mk XII 22
MK XIV 61.
----------
Total 1881

Note that in the entire RAF, even by mid-1944, Mk IX amounted still just under a thousend, there were still more than five hundred old and outfashioned MkVs still used. The Mk VII/VIII was even less numerous, half as many of them being around than Mk Vs. And we're talking about mid-1944 here.

'Of the 47 Spitfire Squadrons available at the beginning of 1943, only 10 were equipped with the MkIX. Owing to the difficulties producing enough engines, and demands for the aircraft from other battlefronts, it remained in short supply. This situation did not markedly improve until the second half of the year. As a result, the vast majority of home Spitfire units had to soldier on with the Mk V, even though this aircraft in most respects were totally outclassed by the opposition.'

Source : Ian Carter - Fighter Command, Chaper 5, '1943', pg 92.
They decided to switch to night bombing at the end of 1939.

In June 1943, the RAF Fighter based in Britiain command possessed 10 MkIX Squadrons, but 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, plus a Squadron of the similiar Spitfire VI. Many Squadrons operated the Typhoon, in fact the two mainstay fighters were the Spitfire Mk V and the Typhoon by far.

This is via John Foreman, author of many volumes dealing with of Fighter command, 2nd TAF etc. histories.

 

[Kurfürst]

With 95+ pilots killed and seriously injured by Spitfires (I can provide the names, if you like), you are looking at at least 150 aircraft lost to Spitfires.

That`s purely speculation on your part. You`re simply beefing up the enemy losses.

Now, if you look at Jim Perry's Luftwaffe claims files http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

You will see JG 26 claimed 168 Spitfires in 1943. That means they claimed a ratio of approx 1:1.

Nope, they claimed 180. They, at least according to you, lost 95 pilots in return, which would include of course accidents and wounded.

To sum up, JG 26 claimed 168 Spitfires, but probably got around half that, whilst losing around 150 fighters themselves.

The 150 fighters lost to Spitfires is a made up figure.

Well the correct facts, via Caldwell and Tony Wood, plus the LW`s Quartermesiter equipment movement reports are that JG 26 claimed 480 enemy planes shot down during 1943, of these 180 being Spitfires, 181 B-17s (this includes a lot of HSS), 8 B-24s, 16 Typhoons and 49 P-47s plus 3 P-38s.

Comparison with the RAF records of Spitfire losses (Cat E, ie. completely destroyed and/or missing).

RAF records of losses on operational missions show a total of 403 Spitfires being lost (Cat E, but typically Em ie. total loss).

They attribute the cause of loss to the following specific causes in 294 main (not neccesarily correct, and of course, the causes are far from complete ) :
- 161 attributed to FW 190s
- 37 attributed to Bf 109s
- 46 attributed to Flak
- Specifically, not included in either 190/109 loss causes, 26 and 24 are attributed to JG 2 and 26.

78 Spitfires were declared Cat. B damage during 1943's operations.


Quite clearly, 1943 was about fighting the USAAF`s heavy bomber formations. When Spitfires got in the way, they shot down those first. Considering the odds, their loss-ratio is outstanding.

Against that, JG 26 lost 316 fighters planes to enemy action (all sorts, not just air combat, ie. strafing, bombing etc.) during the course of 1943.

 

[Hop]

Oh, finally some useful contribution from you, and one of the red letter days when you can actually back up what you claim. I wish all days would be such.

I wish you'd stop misrepresenting things you know to be wrong.

We've been over this several times in the past, each time I prove to you the test you are quoting is of a Merlin 61. Yet you continue to post it and claim it's a Merlin 66.

Here's an example:

Spitfire The History gives the following under trials conducted on the Spit IX:

Boscombe Down 22 October 1942. BF274 Fuel Consumption Trials. 6.76 ampg range 450 miles, endurance 1.95 hours at 20,000ft. 6.03 ampg, range 375 miles, endurance 1 hour at 37,500 ft.

Look familiar? Look exactly the same as the figures in the doc you posted?

Aces High BB - Bf 109 G range and endurance

The RAF gives the range of the LF Mk IX w. a Merlin 66, with 85 gallons as 434 miles. It would appear that any difference caused by the different carb of the M66, it made it even more fuel hungry.

No. One is a test result, the other a published figure, which usually includes reserves.

The other trials, which you claim to have been performed with the 'older engine Merlin 61', actually resulted in higher range, 450 miles.

A test result vs a published figure. You don't want pilots actually trying to fly as far as the absolute range, which is what reserves are for.

As shown above, you hold onto a single test which conflicts the results of half a dozen of other range data.

No. I hold on to the only test of the Merlin 66 I have seen. You use tests of different engines to try to refute it

It has nothing to do with weight. The Mustang is much cleaner aircraft than the Spitfire, so using the same amount of power, using the same amount of fuel, it can reach higher cruise speeds. Naturally, this makes it`s range much better.

You are saying range has nothing to do with weight? You have heard of induced drag, right?

The Mustang`s mileage was something like 8 mpg in the Australian test, and one would believe the Spitfire with the same engine would have much less

Unless it's lighter, so can fly slower. Flying slower reduces parasitic drag, increases induced drag. The lighter plane, even if it suffers from higher parasitic drag, can thus have lower overall drag at low speeds. The Mustang has about 8% better speed, but on these tests weighed nearly 16% more.

Let me clarify then : You claim that the SU carburrator of the Merlin 66 was so much more efficient, that it improved fuel economy by no less than 50% , from 6.76 mpg to 10 mpg?

Quite possibly, yes. Don't forget, when the SU carbs were designed for the Merlin, the idea of a fighter was to take off, climb to high altitude, intercept the enemy and return to base. Power was the requirement, not range.

Large gains at extremely lean mixture are entirely possible.

Sure. Yet 95% of the Spitfires in service at the end of the war still had just 85 gallon internal fuel tank.

Yet another made up fact.

Lets see. All the Spitfire XVIs had rear fuselage tanks, all the Spitfire VIIIs had wing tanks and enlarged forward tanks, all the Spitfire XIVs had wing tanks, all the PR Spitfires had extra tanks. I'd be very surprised if even half of Spitfires in service at the end of the war (either when Germany gave up, or when Japan finally surrendered) had only 85 gallons. 95% is just another of your silly made up figures.

Edit: The 2nd TAF OOB I have for May 1945 lists 6 squadrons of Spitfire XIVs (all of which have wing tanks), 6 squadrons of Spitfire IXs, 13 squadrons of Spitfire XVIs (all of which had rear tanks).

That means at least 19 of the 25 squadrons definitely had more than 85 gallons, and the remaining 6 squadrons may have had more.

Cherry picking a single operation only prevents you seeing the forest from a tree.

Which is why I didn't pick a single operation. If you read what I said, rather than what you wanted to see:

For example, a quick glance through the claims and losses lists for December 1943 shows 2 operations by Spitfire Vs, 5 by the much more capable at low altitude LF vs, and 19 by Spitfire IXs.

It wasn't a single operation, it was an entire month's operations.

That`s purely speculation on your part. You`re simply beefing up the enemy losses.

Of course it's speculation. The Germans burnt most of their records in panic at the end of the war. But the numbers of pilots killed and seriously injured is known, although there are probably even some of those not recorded. That would push the loss figures up, though.

Nope, they claimed 180.

Yes, you are right. I was going by Henning's analysis, and I suspect he's missed a few. He missed a few of the total Luftwaffe claims as well, though, so the overclaiming is actually worse.

They, at least according to you, lost 95 pilots in return, which would include of course accidents and wounded.

No. They lost 95 pilots killed and seriously injured to Spitfires. The cause of loss is listed.

The 150 fighters lost to Spitfires is a made up figure.

Based on the 95 pilots killed and seriously injured by Spitfires.

Well the correct facts, via Caldwell and Tony Wood, plus the LW`s Quartermesiter equipment movement reports are that JG 26 claimed 480 enemy planes shot down during 1943, of these 180 being Spitfires, 181 B-17s (this includes a lot of HSS), 8 B-24s, 16 Typhoons and 49 P-47s plus 3 P-38s.

Right

Comparison with the RAF records of Spitfire losses (Cat E, ie. completely destroyed and/or missing).

RAF records of losses on operational missions show a total of 403 Spitfires being lost (Cat E, but typically Em ie. total loss).

They attribute the cause of loss to the following specific causes in 294 main (not neccesarily correct, and of course, the causes are far from complete ) :
- 161 attributed to FW 190s
- 37 attributed to Bf 109s
- 46 attributed to Flak
- Specifically, not included in either 190/109 loss causes, 26 and 24 are attributed to JG 2 and 26.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. They attributed 24 losses to JG 26? That's lower than even I thought.

The overall figures are the RAF lost 590 fighters on operations in the west in 1943. The Luftwaffe claimed 927 Spitfires (Henning missed some of those, too). The Luftwaffe claims do not include flak, or only a handful of flak claims. The RAF losses of course include flak, and accidents. (and the JG 26 loss figures do not)

If you take only the 46 losses attributed to flak from the total, and assume all the other losses were caused by the luftwaffe (which is nonsense, of course) then 357 Spitfires were lost to the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe claimed 927. That means they claimed a minimum of 2.6 Spitfires for every 1 they actually shot down.

That would make JG 26s 180 claimed Spitfires less than 69 in reality. And they suffered 95 pilots killed or seriously injured by Spitfires.

Quite clearly, 1943 was about fighting the USAAF`s heavy bomber formations. When Spitfires got in the way, they shot down those first. Considering the odds, their loss-ratio is outstanding.

What, 2 losses to Spitfires for every kill of a Spitfire? Sounds pretty bad to me. Even if you look at their total claims for the year, 630, that was in reality (assuming the same rate of overclaims) 234 or less, and you say losses were 316 aircraft. Doesn't really sound like they were doing well, does it?

 

[Kurfürst]

I wish you'd stop misrepresenting things you know to be wrong.
Here's an example:

Aces High BB - Bf 109 G range and endurance

Oh, a thread from 3 years ago, sorry I forgot that. I have a life, you know.

No. One is a test result, the other a published figure, which usually includes reserves.

Your claims vs. RAF data.

A test result vs a published figure. You don't want pilots actually trying to fly as far as the absolute range, which is what reserves are for.

Again, your odd theories vs. RAF datasheets.

No. I hold on to the only test of the Merlin 66 I have seen. You use tests of different engines to try to refute it

Well, RAF tested the Merlin 61 Spit, they found the still air range was 450 miles. They gave 434 miles for the Merlin 66 Spit.

You are saying range has nothing to do with weight? You have heard of induced drag, right?

Well, that explains why the 109 had about 50% better range on the same fuel load, as given by British range comparisons. It was much lighter than the Spitfire. So the Spit had 10 mpg you say? How much the 109 and Mustang would be then, 15 mpg ?

We know both of these aircraft are listed with greater range on the same fuel load. This would be impossible without better mileage.

Unless it's lighter, so can fly slower. Flying slower reduces parasitic drag, increases induced drag. The lighter plane, even if it suffers from higher parasitic drag, can thus have lower overall drag at low speeds. The Mustang has about 8% better speed, but on these tests weighed nearly 16% more.

Stil, the British list the Mustang with more range than the Spit IXLF with the same fuel. Why is that Hop?

Quite possibly, yes. Don't forget, when the SU carbs were designed for the Merlin, the idea of a fighter was to take off, climb to high altitude, intercept the enemy and return to base. Power was the requirement, not range.

Well, the RAF gives the following ranges for Spitfire IX :

Merlin 61 : 450 miles
Merlin 66 : 434 mies

It seems the RAF is convinced the Merlin 66 was less fuel efficient.

Large gains at extremely lean mixture are entirely possible.

And the moon is made of blue cheese.

Lets see. All the Spitfire XVIs had rear fuselage tanks,

Source?

all the Spitfire VIIIs had wing tanks and enlarged forward tanks,

All the 1,654 Mk VIIIs were built at slow pace between 1943-1945, out of 20 000 Spitfires.

As of 18th May 1944.

Spitfires with Sqn's

MkV 531
MKVII 62
MK VIII 209
MK IX 996
Mk XII 22
MK XIV 61.
----------
Total 1881

Out of 1881 Spitfires, 209+62= 271 or 14% are MkVIIIs (counting the rare pressurized VIIs as well).

all the Spitfire XIVs had wing tanks,

... and for what, it had the same ~460 mile range. Fuel economy must have been awful. In May 1944, only 3 out of 100 Spitfires are XIV.

all the PR Spitfires had extra tanks.

At the price of disposing all armament and armor, being an unarmed photo recce.. It would make an excellent escort, no doubt.

I'd be very surprised if even half of Spitfires in service at the end of the war (either when Germany gave up, or when Japan finally surrendered) had only 85 gallons. 95% is just another of your silly made up figures.

Edit: The 2nd TAF OOB I have for May 1945 lists 6 squadrons of Spitfire XIVs (all of which have wing tanks), 6 squadrons of Spitfire IXs, 13 squadrons of Spitfire XVIs (all of which had rear tanks).That means at least 19 of the 25 squadrons definitely had more than 85 gallons, and the remaining 6 squadrons may have had more.

Obviously a made up number.

So the ones that have more than 85 gallons are the MkXIV, but these being fuel hogs, their wing tanks can just make up for their apetite for fuel, the range being the same as the 85 gallon Mk IXs anyway. The point being the Spitfire was so short ranged it needed extra fuel tanks.

SUVs have pretty big fuel tanks as well, you know why? They really need that help to reach the gas station.

The mere 5 Squadrons of Mk XVIs have the same 85 gallon tank as the Mk IXs, some may or may not be fitted with a 75 gallon rear tank, which makes the aircraft behave like a pregnant duck anyway. The Spitfire manual notes the XVIs with the cut-down fuselage are completely useless in this condition.

Which is why I didn't pick a single operation. If you read what I said, rather than what you wanted to see: It wasn't a single operation, it was an entire month's operations.

Yep, for December 1943. Noone says the IX didn`t become more widespread by 1944. For most if not all of 1943 however, there was simply not enough of them, as Foreman, Carter etc notes :

'Of the 47 Spitfire Squadrons available at the beginning of 1943, only 10 were equipped with the MkIX. Owing to the difficulties producing enough engines, and demands for the aircraft from other battlefronts, it remained in short supply. This situation did not markedly improve until the second half of the year. As a result, the vast majority of home Spitfire units had to soldier on with the Mk V, even though this aircraft in most respects were totally outclassed by the opposition.'

Source : Ian Carter - Fighter Command, Chaper 5, '1943', pg 92.
They decided to switch to night bombing at the end of 1939..

Imagine those MkVs vs. 109Gs. Tough, I say!

 

[Kurfürst]

Of course it's speculation. The Germans burnt most of their records in panic at the end of the war.

That`s speculation on top of speculation; the German losses in 1943 are well known in any case, already posted in the thread, you speculate they were burned only to allow even more room for wishful thinking and exaggrevating loss figures.

But those loss figures and readily available, unfortunately, so no room for manipulation.

But the numbers of pilots killed and seriously injured is known, although there are probably even some of those not recorded. That would push the loss figures up, though.

Well with enough wishful thinking, anything is possible, but I doubt by this point anyone takes your claims seriously.

Yes, you are right. I was going by Henning's analysis, and I suspect he's missed a few. He missed a few of the total Luftwaffe claims as well, though, so the overclaiming is actually worse.

Oh, yes, I forgot this another Hop-mantra, the Luftwaffe overclaimed, all German claims were automatically awarded yada-yada-yada...

No. They lost 95 pilots killed and seriously injured to Spitfires. The cause of loss is listed.

Oh yes, go on, go on...

Based on the 95 pilots killed and seriously injured by Spitfires.

It`s awfully funny when somebody refuses to acknowladge known loss figures, and then he makes up a random number for pilot losses, and based on that made up number he mades up another number of fighters lost to Spitfires, and expects to be taken seriously.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. They attributed 24 losses to JG 26? That's lower than even I thought.

Well, most never knew what hit them, so mostly they just noted Johhny fell to a 190, not that Johhny fell to a 190 of JG 26.

The overall figures are the RAF lost 590 fighters on operations in the west in 1943.

Nope, that`s Fighter Command only, not the RAF. It does not include the losses sustained by Coastal Command, which lost 279 aircraft, and losses of the 2nd Tactical Air Force which lost 177 aircraft, it does not include Army cooperation command with 70 aircraft or BC bombers wondering in the daylight.

Your '590' losses of the RAF is much more like 1100+ lost aircraft not counting BC losses in the daylight, not counting American units that may flown British aircraft.

The Luftwaffe claimed 927 Spitfires (Henning missed some of those, too).The Luftwaffe claims do not include flak, or only a handful of flak claims.

That's bullocks, they claimed 431 Spits in 1943.

The RAF losses of course include flak, and accidents. (and the JG 26 loss figures do not)

No, the JG 26 figures include all enemy related losses, that's losses to fighters, flaks, strafed, bombed on the ground and so on.

No, the 'RAF losses' are in fact not what you call them, only the losses of Fighter Command, without the losses of the 2nd TAF, Coastal Command and so on.

If you take only the 46 losses attributed to flak from the total, and assume all the other losses were caused by the luftwaffe (which is nonsense, of course) then 357 Spitfires were lost to the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe claimed 927. That means they claimed a minimum of 2.6 Spitfires for every 1 they actually shot down.

That's bullocks again , the LW claimed 431 Spits. Of that, they awarded only 191.

The RAF FC alone admitted the loss 403 Spits (another 78 were heavily damaged), and of that. They attributed 198 Spits shot down by Bf 109s and FW 190s, which is obviously an understatement.

As a matter of fact, the LW awarded less Sptifre victories than the RAF knew it shot down, and most of the 431 claims vs. 481 lost and damaged aircraft was fairly reasonable as well, showing just how rigid the claiming procedure was, especially if we consider there were plenty of plane type mis-identifications. Many 'Spitfires' were just Mustangs, Typhoons etc.

The RAF in contrast claimed 1400+ of FW 190s alone in 1943.
I don`t even dare to look up their Me 109 and Me 209, FW 190D claims.

That would make JG 26s 180 claimed Spitfires less than 69 in reality. And they suffered 95 pilots killed or seriously injured by Spitfires.

No, that would make the 180 claims about 180 claims in reality. Against the loss of 95 pilots. 1:2 loss rate, despite outnumbered. Impressive. Actually, I only realise now how bad even 1943 was for the RAF

In their defense, they still flew mostly Spit Vs and the not-so-successfull Typhoon against uprated FW 190s and Bf 109Gs.

What, 2 losses to Spitfires for every kill of a Spitfire? Sounds pretty bad to me. Even if you look at their total claims for the year, 630, that was in reality (assuming the same rate of overclaims) 234 or less, and you say losses were 316 aircraft. Doesn't really sound like they were doing well, does it?

And how about you, are you doing well?

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
"That's bullocks again , the LW claimed 431 Spits. Of that, they awarded only 191"

what is Your source to that?

I went fast through Tony Wood's claimlist for Jan and May 43 and none of the claims in those 2 months were marked as Abgelehnt = denied or VNE= destruction not yet proven.

Of the Jan 43 claims counted 26 Spitfire claims (not counting the one PRU Spitfire claim), of which 19 had Confirmation Certificate Number, 2 were marked as Anerk: Nr._ which I take as meaning that Confirmation Certification has not found or was not given ie we don't know if the claim was confirmed or not, 2 were marked as ASM ie confirmation to be decided later, 3 had taken from supplementary sources, from JG 1 List or from JG 26 List
There were also 7 Mustangs, 3 had Confirmation Certificate Number, 1 was marked as ASM and 3 had taken from supplementary sources, from JG 1 List.

Of May 43 claims 43 were Spitfires, of which 12 had Confirmation Certificate Number, 14 had Anerk: Nr._, of which 2 were claimed by ZG 1, 4 were marked as ASM and 13 were from supplementary sources.
There were also 12 P-47s, 4 with Confirmation Certificate Number, 3 were marked as Anerk: Nr._ and 5 were from supplementary sources.
And 10 Typhoons, one Mustang and 1 P-38, all of which had Anerk: Nr._

So none of the claims against fighters from those 2 months were clearly marked as denied but in May 43 some 40 % of claims were those of which IMHO we don't know for sure were they accepted or not. According to You only 44% of LW's Spitfire claims were accepted, do You mean that 56% were denied or what?

 

[Kurfürst]

I will return to that, try TW's claim lists in excell, this is how I sorted it out for the whole year.
I was going by Anerk. Nr. s btw, where the approval was clearly given (AnerkNr + number of claim present)

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
thanks for answering. I had a little time yesterday, my analyze was only on single-seat fighter claims.
Still in a hurry, so only a short comment. IMHO we cannot say based on Tony Wood list how many of the fighter claims were awarded, we simply don't know that. Or if we accept You position we must downgrade rather drastically the numbers of personal victories of many LW aces because a hurried check seemed to show that also those without Anerk. Nr. are included in their personal scores in normal score lists we see nowadays.

Juha

 

[Kurfürst]

Well, those are the ones confirmed by the LW for the pilots. I believe publication s are generally listing their total number of claims, but I see nothing wrong with that since they do the same for Russian, Japanese, USAAF, RAF pilots - it's always the claims being listed appearantly. There's nothing wrong with that either, as it`s probably a pretty close number to the actual number of aerial victories (ie. a triumph over the foe in battle, not necceserily ending up in destruction - say he claimed it as shot down, but the enemy aircraft limped back to base heavily damaged, probably written down. Now even though he did not technically shoot it down, he ensured the enemy plance failed it`s mission and would probably cause the enemy a - permanent or temporary- loss of an aircaft anyway). Note the Germans use the term Luftsieg (aerial victory), and not destruction or something like that. The problem is imho not with the system itself, but people today who do not understand how it worked.

In any case, I recall some talk between Goring and some famous ace. It went like that :

Goring : And how many victories do you have so far?
Pilot : I have 82.
Goring : All of those confirmed?
Pilot : Yes.
Goring : And what would be an honest number, I was a pilot myself, it`s sometimes very confusing up there, in air battle.
Pilot : Honestly... hmm, it would be about 100.

8)

 

[Juha]

Hello
Yes, the personal scores are OK as long as we remember that they only gives a number of claims, Luftsieg, kills, ilmavoitto (the term Finns used, straight translation of Luftsieg or of an aerial victory) and we don't use they as synonyms of destroyed enemy aircraft. IMHO they cannot even be used as sure indications of any ranking list of pilots of an airforce because the accuracy of claims, at least those of LW and Finnish AF, seemed to vary significantly from person to person, only as a rough guide. So from Your story, which well can be true, we can probably say without careful checking of the pilot's claims only that the pilot have probably shot down between 25 - 85 enemy a/c. And after a careful check of the claims maybe that he seemed to have shot down at least 40 and possibly even 66 plus some of which it is no more possible to get a proof.

 

[Soren]

You do know however that the Luftwaffe had the strictest confirmation system of any nation in WW2.

 

[Morai_Milo]

You do know however that the Luftwaffe had the strictest confirmation system of any nation in WW2.

You do know that the system was breaking down late war.

You do know that a staffel in North Africa in 1942-43 was making false claims and having them approved.

 

[Udet]

"You do know that the system was breaking down late war."

And...? What has that got to do with the fact the Luftwaffe had the strictest set of rules to confirm victories?

Would you like to compare the German method, say, with the utterly naive soviet system of involving barely literate vodka/ilya ehrenburg infested partisans in the procedure to confirm victories of those so-called "guards" air regiments?

Or what about the British claims, all those happily posted by Mr. Hop in this thread...i wonder where all those British aces who shot down "huge" numbers of Fw 190s and Bf 109s of JG 2 and JG 26 are to be found. Possibly there are none or not too many, and also possibly a large number of them ended their lives in the bottom of the channel or littering the french coastline.

Or possibly with the USAAF system of confirming 1/2s, 1/3s, 1/4s of enemy planes shot down? A USAAF pilot who was awarded 1/2 an enemy plane destroyed means the "confirmed" half was indeed destroyed while the other half most likely made it back to base.

Finally, your evidence to substantiate your last assertion is...?

 

[Soren]

You do know that the system was breaking down late war.

In 1945, yeah it was getting abit sketchy at this point, confirmations being not always possible - therefore many possible kills were never confirmed..

You do know that a staffel in North Africa in 1942-43 was making false claims and having them approved.

You do know this was nothing compared to what the Allies were claiming ??

 

[Morai_Milo]

You do know this was nothing compared to what the Allies were claiming ??

There is a difference between deliberatly falsifying claims and honest mistakes. The staffel's claims were deliberate.


Udet, nice racist comments. Be careful or people will think you are something more than just a person who thinks Germany made the best war machines. Nice rant btw.

You want to read 'Fw190 in North Afica' for that is where the cheating staffel was based.

 

[Udet]

NO. Do not divert the discussion.

"You do know that the system was breaking down late war."

What has that got to do with the fact Germans had the strictest system to confirm kills?

So it is either you answer this or keep your silly remarks for yourself.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Actually Udet is is a proven fact that late war German claims were obscure. We will never know what is real and what is not because by 1945 the system was no longer in use.

Second Udet, he did not say anything to warrant an attitude from you, so calm down. He was only responding to what you said in your thread which frankly was as usual very confrontational.

You allways jump into a convo with an attitude if you do not agree with someone. Quit that. I have told you before and I am getting tired of it.

 

[Kurfürst]

Udet, nice racist comments. Be careful or people will think you are something more than just a person who thinks Germany made the best war machines. Nice rant btw.

Moderator,

I think this forum should not tolerate one member accusing the other with Nazism and racism just because they disagree with each other. It's a very serious accusation, on what basis..? That Udet likes LW planes?!!

If such precedent is tolerated, it may set path to a dangerous routine of branding the other each time with the Nazi remark as an ultimate arguement. I've seen it enough times from Milo and I hope he is not allowed to proceed on with that custom here.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

This thread is closed now...

I have told everyone in here to calm down and quit this ****. No body listens. This thread is closed.