Spitfire V ME109. I have found these links on the net.

Mustang nut said:

Bader was a strange old fish, he wanted to know how to beat the 109 in combat, but also wanted to fly about in groups of 50 in tight formation. That is how not to beat a 109 as flown by the LW.

Click to expand...

The new Bf109F had only recently entered service and what he wanted was a quick assessment by combat pilots of its capabilities. R.A.E. farnborough had tested a Bf109E (kindly supplied by the French IIRC) for months before producing a set of figures for it. What they did was test the aircraft,flown by their test pilots,as they would a British aircraft. These figures,whilst correct, are not what front line pilots wanted. The figures Bader was interested in,as evidenced in his letter, were:

1 Ceiling
2 Rate of climb,particularly between 20-30000 feet
3 Maximum speeds at heights between 10-30000 feet
4 Manoeuverability and ease of handling,particularly when pulling out of a steep dive from say 440mph. We know it will pull out from 420mph.

The last one looks a bit dodgy for the test pilot! Bader,and others in the RAF were convinced that Luftwaffe pilots were reluctant to pull hard out of high speed dives ("a bit porky on the joystick" are his actual words) because they believed that they would pull the wings off their aircraft. True or not it is what he believed at the time.
It was Bader's opinion that this information could be obtained by an "experienced pilot in one or two hours flying on the first fine day,with sufficient accuracy for our requirements".
Cheers
Steve

I wonder if the fact a number of 109's were seen to dive straight into the ground had a bearing on that?

its well known now that the 109 controlls stiffened with speed but at that time it was probably conjecture?

Kryten said:

I wonder if the fact a number of 109's were seen to dive straight into the ground had a bearing on that?

its well known now that the 109 controlls stiffened with speed but at that time it was probably conjecture?

Click to expand...

I'm sure it did.
Also intelligence reports from interrogations containing the sort of thing below would have reinforced this idea.



Cheers
Steve

Thank you, Chris. I appreciate you stepping in!

stona said:

Exactly so. Most pilots on the squadrons in 1940/41 did not have the ability or confidence to push the Spitfire anywhere near its limits and my point was that this negated the much vaunted superior turning circle of the Spitfire in the real world.
Douglas Bader was very keen to get his hands on the Bf109F that Pingel kindly delivered to the British as he reckoned a few hours flying by a few experienced combat pilots would be far more useful in quickly devising tactics to counter the new model than the weeks and months of testing and assessments that would be done by the R.A.E. at Farnborough. He wrote a typically undiplomatic letter to the headquarters of 11 Group suggesting exactly what the R.A.E. should ascertain and pass on to Fighter Command and that "Wing Commanders, Flying", that is himself,be given the opportunity to fly the aircraft. He needed to know where the Spitfire was superior (if anywhere) in order to exploit that superiority in combat. Combat pilots knew how marginal these things were.
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

The attached might be of interest, its the original letter from D Bader, which was written in a firm but diplomatic manner. The captured 109F was in a poor state and the operational RAF didn't get a chance to fly it. However this idea was taken on board with other captured german aircraft. IIRC each wing was asked to supply a pilot who had the opportunity to fly in and against the German aircraft in mock combat.

There were some inconsistancies in the Pringle report. The one that stuck in my mind was his comment that the pilots didn't have any objections to the reduced weapons. Which sounds fine until you remember that it was an Me109F2 which normally had a 15mm cannon, so why if everybody liked the reduced weapons, did he have his fitted with a 20mm cannon?

renrich said:

Thank you, Chris. I appreciate you stepping in!

Click to expand...

stepping in what...

Glider said:

The attached might be of interest, its the original letter from D Bader, which was written in a firm but diplomatic manner. The captured 109F was in a poor state and the operational RAF didn't get a chance to fly it. However this idea was taken on board with other captured german aircraft. IIRC each wing was asked to supply a pilot who had the opportunity to fly in and against the German aircraft in mock combat.

There were some inconsistancies in the Pringle report. The one that stuck in my mind was his comment that the pilots didn't have any objections to the reduced weapons. Which sounds fine until you remember that it was an Me109F2 which normally had a 15mm cannon, so why if everybody liked the reduced weapons, did he have his fitted with a 20mm cannon?

Click to expand...

The German cannon was slow firing and not really that effective compared to 8 .303 Browning vectored in together I believe.
Cheers
John

pbfoot said:

Bull.... if he was that serious he would have changed formations from the Vic to the finger four before mar 41

Click to expand...

I dont know why you say "bull" you are making the same point. It wasnt clear to anyone especially Bader that the big wing and Vic formation didnt work. Many pilots copied the Schwarm formation or something similar almost from the start. Somehow Bader is credited with inventing or developing the finger four formation. Taking over a year to copy your opponent isnt a great achievement IMHO.

stona said:

The new Bf109F had only recently entered service and what he wanted was a quick assessment by combat pilots of its capabilities. R.A.E. farnborough had tested a Bf109E (kindly supplied by the French IIRC) for months before producing a set of figures for it. What they did was test the aircraft,flown by their test pilots,as they would a British aircraft. These figures,whilst correct, are not what front line pilots wanted. The figures Bader was interested in,as evidenced in his letter, were:

1 Ceiling
2 Rate of climb,particularly between 20-30000 feet
3 Maximum speeds at heights between 10-30000 feet
4 Manoeuverability and ease of handling,particularly when pulling out of a steep dive from say 440mph. We know it will pull out from 420mph.

The last one looks a bit dodgy for the test pilot! Bader,and others in the RAF were convinced that Luftwaffe pilots were reluctant to pull hard out of high speed dives ("a bit porky on the joystick" are his actual words) because they believed that they would pull the wings off their aircraft. True or not it is what he believed at the time.
It was Bader's opinion that this information could be obtained by an "experienced pilot in one or two hours flying on the first fine day,with sufficient accuracy for our requirements".
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

I agree steve, the point I was making was that the LW were always looking for a bounce, flying in a big wing increases the chances of being bounced and when they were bounced they were so close it was difficult to manouver.

The Rhubarb missions suffered in the same way as the German raids on London with the added disadvantage that they wern't bombing Germany. The LW could pick and choose when to attack and obviously chose the most advantaggeous time for themselves.

Mustang nut said:

I
The Rhubarb missions suffered in the same way as the German raids on London with the added disadvantage that they wern't bombing Germany. The LW could pick and choose when to attack and obviously chose the most advantaggeous time for themselves.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed. They used high altitude reconnaissance aircraft to observe a raid crossing the continental coast and would only engage a formation with bombers and then only if it suited them. The idea was mooted at the air ministry of bombers accompanying fighter sweeps only as far as the French coast. The bombers would turn back and the fighters would carry on in the hope of engaging Luftwaffe formations sent to intercept the now absent bombers. I bet that worked..
Steve

Readie said:

The German cannon was slow firing and not really that effective compared to 8 .303 Browning vectored in together I believe.
Cheers
John

Click to expand...

20mm firing 11 rounds per second is slow? compared to what? a virgin that keeps saying no?
if 303's where that great, then why did the USAAF switch to 50cals in most aircraft??
2 50's did the same job as 8 303's, without the added weight mind you.

a few hits with a 20mm shell, (nevermind a 30mm shell) was more then enough to dispatch
a e/a.

P-40K-5 said:

20mm firing 11 rounds per second is slow? compared to what? a virgin that keeps saying no?
if 303's where that great, then why did the USAAF switch to 50cals in most aircraft??
2 50's did the same job as 8 303's, without the added weight mind you.

a few hits with a 20mm shell, (nevermind a 30mm shell) was more then enough to dispatch
a e/a.

Click to expand...

The Supermarine Spifire in combat - an essay.
Please read this cut and paste..

ARMAMENT

The Spitfire had eight Browning machine-guns spread out along the wing. These each had 300 rounds of normal bullets, tracer, incendiary or armour-piercing (the last type only effective against the thinnest of armour). The guns were configured so that the bullets converged on a single point some distance in front of the aircraft. At first this distance was over 400 yards, however pilots soon found that the best results were obtained if they made it 250 or 200 yards instead. The use of eight machine-guns meant that even the novice fighter-pilots thrown into the battle by the British had a chance of hitting something if they could get into firing position. On the other hand the 109`s armament favoured the marksman. The 109 had two machine guns of similar performance to the British Brownings, but mounted in the nose and synchronised to fire through the propeller. These had magazines of 1,000 rounds each, which meant the German could keep his finger on the trigger over three times longer than his British counterpart, but after that time he would have still expended 400 less rounds than the Spitfire pilot. The Messerschmitt was also equipped with two 20mm cannon, but they had a low velocity, poor rate of fire and only 60 rounds per gun****. Against British bombers they were devastating, but the manoeuvrable and swift Spitfires and Hurricanes were a difficult target.

The incendiary bullets used by the British in the Battle of Britain gave the RAF a great advantage. They could cause the fuel-tank of a target aircraft to explode and the flash of light they gave off showed the British pilot his bullets were striking home. The incendiary bullet had been developed in secret at Woolwich Arsenal and was only just ready in time for the Battle of Britain. Named "de Wilde" ammunition by the British this was a ruse to make the Germans think it was based on the work of a Mr de Wilde in Switzerland. In fact it had been found that "proper" de Wilde bullets could only be made by hand, whereas the British design could be mass-produced. The British "de Wilde" bullets were the invention of C. Aubrey Dixon, a Captain in the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Regiment (he retired with the rank of Brigadier), one of the unsung heroes of the Battle of Britain.

Spitfire armament progressed throughout the war. First two 20mm cannon replaced four of the wing mounted machine guns. Then the remaining rifle calibre machine guns were replaced with a pair of large calibre machine guns with longer range. Finally, like all British single seat fighters at the end of the war, the Spitfire had a total of four 20 mm cannon.


Cheers
John

As John has said the 8x.303 machine guns worked fairly well in 1940 albeit some Luftwaffe bombers made it back to France with literally hundreds of holes in them. We can argue the desireability of fitting .50 calibre weapons at this time but where were they,or the ammunition for them,going to come from. I don't know the figures but I'll wager that Britain had millions of rounds of .303 calibre ammunition available.
We should also remember that the effective range of a weapon is often ordained by the effectiveness of the gun sight rather than any theoretical maximum range.
Steve

well the 8x.303 spewing out 1150 rounds per minute per gun was effective against a lightly built fighter, but it proved inadequate against a much larger, heavily built and armoured bomber, hence the need for cannons!

Bader and others preffered the machine guns against a fighter but I have never seen anyone claim they were even adequate against a bomber?

stona said:

As John has said the 8x.303 machine guns worked fairly well in 1940 albeit some Luftwaffe bombers made it back to France with literally hundreds of holes in them. We can argue the desireability of fitting .50 calibre weapons at this time but where were they,or the ammunition for them,going to come from. I don't know the figures but I'll wager that Britain had millions of rounds of .303 calibre ammunition available.
We should also remember that the effective range of a weapon is often ordained by the effectiveness of the gun sight rather than any theoretical maximum range.
Steve

Click to expand...

In 1937 Milch came to visit Dowding and the Gladiator pilots of 65 Squadron,Hornchurch where he was particularly keen to see the new RAF fighter gun sight, with Dowding kindly explained to him over the shoulder of a young Stanford Tuck....

Cheers
John

' The Messerschmitt was also equipped with two 20mm cannon, but they had a low velocity, poor rate of fire and only 60 rounds per gun****. '

I'd check your facts again. 750rpm 82 round capacity. nose mounted. if installed in gondollas under the wing it was increased to 120 rounds per gun.

P-40K-5 said:

' The Messerschmitt was also equipped with two 20mm cannon, but they had a low velocity, poor rate of fire and only 60 rounds per gun****. '

I'd check your facts again. 750rpm 82 round capacity. nose mounted. if installed in gondollas under the wing it was increased to 120 rounds per gun.

Click to expand...

I have, from 2 sources and they say the same thing.
Cheers
John

I think readie is reffering to the Me109E with the wing mounted weapons?

haha whoops! my humble apologies!

The German 20mm guns were the FF and the 151 and they were very different animals.

ROF FF 8 rds/sec, 151 12 rds/sec
MV FF 585 m/sec, 151 720 m/sec

The 109E as we know had the FF and the F4 the 151, what the 109F2 had when it was upgunned I do not know.

stona said:

We can argue the desireability of fitting .50 calibre weapons at this time but where were they,or the ammunition for them,going to come from.
Steve

Click to expand...

It is also well to remember that it was only at some point IN 1940 that the US Browning went from 600rpm unsynchronized to 800rpm unsynchronized. Depending on which month and how fast they could get them to England it might be a question of four 600rpm guns vs eight 1150-1200rpm guns. In 1941 with the 800rpm guns there is little doubt which would have been better but by 1941 the Hispano was coming along rather well.