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

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


Also the ballistics of the FF round were pretty appalling at anything much more than point blank it had a trajectory like a rainbow. Fine for its intended use against bombers but less good for hitting a manouvering fighter.
 

Just to clarify: Are you thinking of "Circuses"? - these were the missions when a squadron of usually Blenheims (later Bostons or even Stirlings) protected by several wings of fighters attacked targets in France or the low countries. Usually very unproductive because, as you say the LW could pick and choose when to attack. "Rhubarbs" were low level sweeps using pairs of fighters, generally when there was low-level cloud around.
 

According to Prien and Rodeike Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G K series Amazon.com: Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, and K Series: An Illustrated Study (9780887404245): Jochen Prien, Peter Rodeike, David Johnston: Books the F-2 used the MG 151/15, the original 15mm version of the MG 151 (p. 16) The F-1 used the MG FF/M firing between the cylinder banks, while the F-4 used the MG 151/20 (pp. 16, 21, 27.)
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

I agree with this, but the plane captured by the RAF was an F2 not an F4 or an F1, an F2 which had been upgunned with a 20mm, which 20mm I do not know.

Re the effectiveness of the FF (or Japanese Type 1 which had similar stats) they may not have been as effective as the 20mm 151 or the Hispano II but they shot a lot of fighters down. At the sort of ranges common in fighter combat 2-300 yards they were effective enough.
Its a bit like the 0.5 M2 vs 20mm saga, the 0.5 might not be as effective in theory but they did the job.

What is interesting is that in the interigation of the German 109F pilots they mention that the Sterling was a difficult plane to shoot down. For all its faults the Sterling was agile for its size, had radial engines and were quite well protected. A standard F2 with a 15mm and 2 LMG's would no doubt find it a tough nut to crack.

Note I have looked at my records and the 20mm in the captured F2 was a 20mm Mg 151 not an FF cannon, apologies one and all for the error.
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

The F-2 captured by the British was that of I./JG 26's Major Rolf Pingl who was shot down by a Stirling that he had chased across the channel; Pingl damaged the Stirling's tail unit but caught some bullets in his engine, forcing him to belly land in a wheat field. His F may have been one of the first to be fitted with the MG 151/20
 
Hmmmm, I know we have had plenty of threads which evolved into lengthy discussions of various armaments. But I was wondering if we ever had a dedicated in depth thread/discussion comparing the various 20mm cannons used in WWII? A quick search did not find any, so.....I will start a thread.
 

I am sure that it was one of the first. It was fitted at his request not as part of a standard issue
 
Very interesting! Thought sometimes possible, but now I know too it was done. Thank you.

MG 151 and MG 151/20 almost same, easy to change on into other. Even Cartridge is of same size - 20 mm is bottled out - so ammo paths should be similiar. Which is more problem than changing gun itself I believe.
 
ctrian said:
By the way the losses of Stuka units in Kursk were low,how about that?
Click to expand...

The III/StG2 lost 26 planes over 35 in july 1943 only. The total for the StG2; 81 on that month, the StG 77; 64. Considering german data survival/transmission problems from units to qvetermeister difficult to garantee they are barely complete...

And this under full Luft air superiority. So next time you'd rather give us some valuable and interesting losses data, and keep your opinion for yourself.
I swear we are all enough big boys to make our own opinions without any help of yours.

Juha
Country And "light losses" had different meaning to different people.
Click to expand...
Thank you Juha
 
Last edited:
Complete german air superiority over Kursk? How so?

They probably controlled the skies over their own troops, but even that was under challenge. Kursk was never German controlled, and control over Soviet troops was never seriously challenged...

Or is this just a minor error. Just was looking for a clarification really
 
parsifal said:
Complete german air superiority over Kursk? How so?
Click to expand...

Yes from Batailles Aériennes 45 and 48

Store 4 War - Conflits Stratégie - Batailles Aériennes n° 45

But mainly on the beginning of the battle. Later (end of july), lufts were more severly opposed and challenged.

They probably controlled the skies over their own troops, but even that was under challenge.
Click to expand...
More than that: for instance the 5th july non-stop heavy bombings over the 148th division/15 infantry corps/13th Army (by ju-88 of II/KG-51, then by He-111 from II/KG-4 and I and III/53, then by Ju-87 from StG-1, then by bombers again etc.) founded virtually no air opposition. Small soviet fighter patrols failed to approach german bombers-stuka protected waves by jagwaffe. Later the entire 6 IAK scrambled, faught back but at heavy losses (45 planes) and poor results. On the first day, the 16 air army lost 98 planes, mainly fighters. On north face more than 1500 tons of bombs were dropped on soviet troops, 12 (!!) times more than by opposite side.

Sometimes there were so much german bombers/stukas over soviet lines on the same times that they were just turning around, making awaiting towers the time for previous waves to get away, like jetliners owerdays on holidays rushes over airports!


Kursk was never German controlled, and control over Soviet troops was never seriously challenged...
Click to expand...
Might by at the rear, in the depth defence lines. In most occasions soviet fighters clashed with "molders" 10 kilometers inside their own lines, rarely succeeding in bombers interception over front line, and even that...Some 10 Yak-9 of the 347th IAP attacked large formations of He-111 and Ju-87; so one He -111 was claimed destroyed and one "twin engined fighter" damaged at the coast of 5 Yaks lost, one other suffering extensive damage...
 
Last edited:

Thnks NZT

I meant basically raids over France, even at Dieppe the RAF were sending over large formations which were easy to "bounce" The problem with a formation of fighters is that all the guns and eyes point the same way.

Mallory during the BoB stated that Germans should be attacked by groups of three squadrons or more and basically stuck with that idea. Grouping squadrons in close formation throws away most of a fighters advantages in rate of climb and manouverability. It also increases claims, from the start the bigg wings made massive overclaims probably not dishonestly but the more eyes there are the more people think they shot something down.
For a long time the RAF was losing at ratios between 2 and 4 to 1 but thought it was the other way around. This must have been wishful thinking, even during the BoB where the big wing attacked mainly over land they didnt make a real attempt to count the crashes.
 
well Im glad you have so much confidence in your source material. You do understand that many of the claims and losses for many accounts are based on highly questionable sources.

I dont believe there are any credible sources. Please understand that is my position. But just to show that the figures are hot;y contested, I will rely on sources that paint a completely differnt picture. Principally Hardesty ("Rise Of the Phoenix - Soviet Airpower on the Eastern Front"), and Brian Moynahan ("Claws Of the Bear - The rise of the Soviet Armed Forces in WWII").

Hardesty does confirm that over 120 Soviet aircraft were lost in the preemptive strike over Kharkov on the 5 July. He also confirms that this temporarily gave air superiority over the front lines of the southern sector. However, Hardesty also point out that whilst this debacle was occurring, other German airfields were being hit on the southern sector by over 417 Soviet A/c. According to Hardesty, over 50 LW aircraft were lost in these parrallel strikes lines. However these strikes dide fail to blunt the Germans own preemptive strikes launched on the 5th July.

So, substantially, I guess Hardesty is in agreement that for the 5th July, on the southern sector, the Germans held the advantage, but this is far from enjoying complete air supremacy. They had an advantager, but that advantage was not complete as is suggested in your account. At least not according to Hardesty. As Hardesty notes "The opening four days of Citadel saw intense air activity as the two sides engaged in combat over the breakthrough corridors". This suggests to me that the disputed airspace was over the german lines, not the Soviet, and this was fundamentally different to the previous offensives by the germans. Moreover as the following account shows, Soviet activity was more extensive, a sort of aerial equivalent of the broad front strategy so favoured by the Soviets, wheras the Germans tended to concentrate on their two principal breakthgrough points only. The germans for some time over these breakthroughs appear to have been more effective, but this came at the cost of ignoring the other sectors of the front. this is hardly a situation of enjoying air superiority. Its a situation of exploiting tactical and quklaitative advantages only.

Hardesty states that the LW in those first four days claimed over 400 Soviet aircraft downed. He further states that this allowed the germans to mount sustained ground support operations with Stukas and HS129s in the vicinity of the breakthroughs. This supports your notion of the germans holding air superiority. However, at the same time he elsewhere states "Nevertheless the VVS remained very active and effective in both sectors and on their flanks. VVS fighter activities frustrated German ground support activities". A further 110 Soviet aircraft were lost over the Central Sector. German air presence at this time over the central sector amounted to about 300 bombers and 100 fighters, a substantial force, but they were opposed by over 1232 Soviet aircraft of the 16th Air Army. According to Hardesty the Germans lost a further 106 aircraft in 76 group sized engagements. Hardesty says these 106 claimed by the Soviets "have been confirmed in german accounts"

Hardesty acknowledges the confusion and less than stellar performance of the VVS on the first day, but it is far from complete air supeiority in the terms that the Eastern Front had seen up to the time of Kursk. He goes on to described in considerable detail the operations of the succeeding days. On the second day, Soviet 2nd and 6th Guards Air Armies hit German 9th Army with over 450 aircraft to inhibit assault onto the Ol'khovatchkta ridge. Similar attacks in similar size were mounted on the southern flanks as well, by 2nd and 17 Gds air armies. Hardesty further states that Soviet Long Range Aviation continued to hit the german rear areas, compelling the germans to pull their fighters out of the offensive support to a purely air defence role. This is hardly the mark of an air force holding air superiority.

Hardesty states "Unable to sustain the level of the opening day's air operations, the Luftwaffe began to decline sharply in tems of effectiveness, reflected in the numbers of aircraft ready for operations". On July 5th they had flown 4286, on July 6th it was down to just over 2000.

By July 10 the situation has reversed, Germans were on the defensive, and the airspace was dominarted by the VVS....

I do not think that this account supports the notion that the germans enjoyed complete superiority over Kursk. In fact they enjoyed a tactical superiority on Day1, thereafter they progressively lost control of the skies, and with that, their ability to influence the ground battle.
 
Dear Parsifal

parsifal said:
well Im glad you have so much confidence in your source material. You do understand that many of the claims and losses for many accounts are based on highly questionable sources.
Click to expand...
Saying i'm glad is too much, i'm just sharing my sources.
The losses and sorties are taken by Khazanov from 16 VA, 2 VA, 17 VA war diaries.
Krivosheiev losses are lighter because compilated but balanced on account method. There aren't same planes and pilots lost on different places (double, or triple) on several times anymore, like sometimes in daily reports. So why definite losses are lower.



No problem that's your choice.

417 it's from the soviet order on the 4th.
120 it's from Plocher (german claims, rather usual overclaims).

Detailed reports show that no more than 250 stormoviks and fighters participated to the attack, the 5th on morning. The 2th VA lost 20 planes and the 17th about 15 in the morning assaults. And some few fighters on the way back home.

So, substantially, I guess Hardesty is in agreement that for the 5th July, on the southern sector, the Germans held the advantage, but this is far from enjoying complete air supremacy.
Click to expand...
Anyway from my sources germans performed on north from the 5th to the 11th july 8917 day and 295 night missions.

This number was 6299 day and 1164 night missions for the 16th VA, and 778 missions for long range bombers on the same period.

I will look for south face later, but even there the 4th Luftlotte outperformed both 2 and 17 th VA by day: 15114 missions over 9804 and 2793. From the 5th to the 18th july.

Well don't have much time now, see you later to continue the thread at another place cause it's off-top.

Regards
 
Last edited:
fastmongrel said:
Also the ballistics of the FF round were pretty appalling at anything much more than point blank it had a trajectory like a rainbow. Fine for its intended use against bombers but less good for hitting a manouvering fighter.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with what you say but the evidence says that the FF whilst not the most stellar performer, did shoot down a lot of fighters. Certainly when looking at the Intel reports of the RAF never made any negative comments about the FF cannon. So to sum up, not the best but good enough.
 
The problem with using terms like "point blank" is that they have different meanings to different people, and in fact to be technically accurate each gun has a different point blank range.

Point blank range can also change depending on the target.

Point blank is the distance at which, using the same aiming point or angle of departure, the projectile will neither rise above or fall below the intended target.

Obviously point blank for a 6-8 foot thick bomber fuselage is a longer range than a 3 1/2-5ft thick fighter fuselage.

A more important consideration for air to air combat is the time of flight. A 300mph plane is doing 440ft/sec. a difference of 1/10th of second in time of flight means the target aircraft has moved either 44 ft more or 44 ft less. Perhaps a hit on the bomber, a guaranteed miss on the fighter.

Very few weapons (if any) were 100% guaranteed killers just like next to no weapon was guaranteed useless, even a Lewis gun from an Avro Anson claimed at least one German plane.

The Germans figured the maximum effective range of the MG/FF was 400 meters against bombers.
Since the British decided that the .303 guns worked better when harmonized for 225 meters it doesn't seem like there was that much to chose between the effective range of the two weapons set-ups.
 
Shortround6 said:
Since the British decided that the .303 guns worked better when harmonized for 225 meters
Click to expand...

'point blank' is a figure of speech SR. I would describe point blank as very close. Would you agree?
Some British pilots harmonised for 225 feet ( metres in 1941? ha), Others preferred the traditional set up.
Cheers
John
 
Readie said:
'point blank' is a figure of speech SR. I would describe point blank as very close. Would you agree?
Some British pilots harmonised for 225 feet ( metres in 1941? ha), Others preferred the traditional set up.
Cheers
John
Click to expand...

No, I would not agree. Point blank has a very definite definition in ballistic terms. Turning it into a generalization only confuses the issue.

All projectiles fall at the same speed. They all fall 16 ft in the first second of flight and they all all fall 48ft in the second second of flight. Point blank is how big the target is and what the time of flight is so that the "drop" is the height of the target (with a little upward aim).
Say the size of our target allows for 3/10s of a second of flight. A US .50cal will have point blank range of just under 250 meters, a mg 151/20 with mine shell will have a point blank range of 200meters and the MK 108 will have a point Blalnk range of under 150 meters.

225 meters is 250 yds or close enough.

edit> I am not criticizing any war time pilots, most of the time they were not gun experts. The problem comes in trying to read combat reports and relate them to aircraft/gun performance. Many pilots weren't very good judges of distance and what was "point blank" range to one pilot might be medium range to another pilot. It really tells the historian next to nothing as to what the actual distance was and so does nothing to tell us what the effective ranges of various weapons were.
 
Last edited:
My understanding of the Kursk air battle (biggest air battle of WWII by the way), is that the Luftwaffe had local air superiority for a short while (where they were concentrating their initial attacks), but lost it over the course of the battle. it was also my understanding that the VVS achieved local air superiority where they were concentrating attacks, and indeed continued with that tactic all the way to Berlin.

IMO the Luftwaffe lost total air superiority during the winter of 42/43. It was up for grabs at Kursk, it was a hard fought battle, but from that point on Germany and the Luftwaffe were retreating in the East. I don't think there's any question who had air superiority after Kursk.

Gotta agree with parsifal on this one.
 
I would love to open a thread on Kursk the air battle, but it would degnerate very quickly because the source material is so dodgy. There would be people who would claim the Germans never lost air supremacy, they achieved all they set out to do, and just redeployed elsewhere. Which means we are conversing in German at the moment.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Biplanes for ww2: where could've these still mattered?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
2K
The Stannum Liberator
M
So The Germans Really Did Have Flying Saucers in WW2
Replies
15
Views
2K
GregP
Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
S
Design and properties of the Spitfire Mk. 21+ wing
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
Jabberwocky
J
Menu
Log in
Register