I really would like to see such a thread. Probably the most important battle of them all in ww2, so it deserves some attention I think. And until there will be a lot of data and little speculation the thread should be fine.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.....
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.
So why not?I would love to open a thread on Kursk the air battle,
What source material is dodgy? Each side overclaimed a lot and tried to minimize their own losses as well in official reports. Nothing new.but it would degnerate very quickly, because the source material is so dodgy.
They would claim or not, isn't the problem...The important will be the arguments used to sustain claims.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.
I'm not sure to understand, but it's sure that there's very few people from the "east block" on that forum, to make "a balanced" discussion.Which means we are conversing in German at the moment....
There were exactly 100 Spitfire XIIs produced, and they were designed for low-level use, hence the removal of the wingtips.There were less than 100 Spitfire XII produced, it used the single stage Griffon and had poor altitude performance..
957, and 51 were in Squadron service at D-day. The XVIII was expected to follow on, after the XIV, but missed the war by a few weeks.There were only about 900 Spitfire XIV (two stage Griffon produced) and they saw service in small numbers from Jan/Feb 1944.
You consistently denigrate the Spitfire IX, yet any IX pilot (who actually flew the thing, and didn't just talk about it) was adamant that it could cope with any German aircraft, at any height, apart from the jets.It seems it was the American aircraft that outperformed the Me 109/FW 190 particularly the P-47 and P-51.
Since we're discussing Bodenplatte, what point are you trying to make?The Tempest V was in the hands of operational squadrons only by April 1944.
Any armed forces are going to rely on the aircraft best suited for the job, and numbers of aircraft are somewhat academic, if you don't have adequately trained pilots to fly them, or petrol to keep them moving.Britain relied very much on the Spitfire IX. Me 109K4 and Me 109G10 probably outnumbered the Spitfire XIV within two months of their initial production
There were exactly 100 Spitfire XIIs produced, and they were designed for low-level use, hence the removal of the wingtips.
957, and 51 were in Squadron service at D-day. The XVIII was expected to follow on, after the XIV, but missed the war by a few weeks.
You consistently denigrate the Spitfire IX, yet any IX pilot (who actually flew the thing, and didn't just talk about it) was adamant that it could cope with any German aircraft, at any height, apart from the jets..
Any armed forces are going to rely on the aircraft best suited for the job, and numbers of aircraft are somewhat academic, if you don't have adequately trained pilots to fly them, or petrol to keep them moving.
Since we're discussing Bodenplatte, what point are you trying to make?
.
For pity's sake, where do you get this baloney? The XII was developed specifically as a low-level counter to the Baedecker Fw190s; it was never intended for high-level use. If you bother to look at photos, you'll see that the XIV did not have its wingtips removed, in fact it used narrower ailerons (just like the VIII) to ensure the wings did not suffer damage; the F.R.XIV used clipped wings, since (like the XII) it was designed for use at low level, with added work at low-level photography.There wasn't much point having wing tips on the Sptfire Mk XII as its relatively anemic single stage supercharger wouldn't carry the aircraft to a height that they would be of significant use; best to optimise it for low down. In anycase its likely the wings would have had the same tendancy to buckle and boyle as the Mk XIV which had its wing tips removed for this reason.
Wrong; it was designed for use in the Far East.The Mk XVIII missed the war, it was in anycase a backup for the more ambitious Mk 20
Wrong, they used a larger tail area, which did away with the bobweights in the elevator circuit. Only the 24 had spring tabs.Mk 22 series which had a re-engineered wing structure and tried to reduce elevator load though spring balances;
Wrong, the XX never existed; the touchiness of the 21 led to a report saying that the Spitfire should go no further, but a minor alteration to the elevators fixed it within days.The Mk 20 was a failure and nearly lead to the cancellation of the program but was fixed by the Mk 22.
Wrong, it had an entirely new wingspar, which gave it even greater strength than the previous Marks, and Castle Bromwich closed, as an aircraft factory, and returned to vehicle production immediately at the end of the war.The Mk XVIII would not have been produced in the Vickers Castle Browmwich factory but rather than Jobbing shop Supermarine factory and thus also produced in limited quantities: it was essentially an upgraded Mk.XIV.
The XIV first flew in 1943, and was perfectly capable of dealing with what the Germans had to offer at that point of the war. With the Meteor and Vampire soon to be available, the RAF would have managed to overcome their inferiority somehow.The point is that the advanced spitifres such as the Mk XII and XIV were produced in small numbers only and in the case of the Mk xiv quite late in the war and this must be appreciated when comparing the introduction of German aircraft in the same year.
The XIV came out of a desire to use the more powerful Griffon engine, which gave it a service ceiling of 45,000', only equalled by the Mark 21. If you bother to read the XIV Pilot's Notes, you'll find that looping was not banned, or even discouraged, they simply said that 320-350 mph was the best speed at which to perform it. Rolls, climbing rolls, half rolls off a loop were also permitted; only spinning was not permitted, but only when external stores were being carried.This meant Mk IX's for the RAF. Mk XIV's came out of a jobbing shop type opperation at supermarines factories and in ancase had some issues; it couldn't really be looped safely for instance.
You really should read test reports, not Grimm's Fairy Tales. The XIV was listed as 442 at 19,000', same as the XVIII, and the XIX was doing 450 at the same height. The IX was a 1941 design (so 408 mph wasn't a bad speed at that point in the war,) and only viewed as an interim measure, to combat the Fw190, until the arrival of the VIII XIV; by 1943 it was seen as surplus to requirements, and was being "donated" to the Russian war effort. The XVI development of the IX was seen as ideal for low level, and thus ground attack work, which is why it had the .5" Browning instead of the .303" in 1945, plus we had hundreds of surplus-to-requirements Packard Merlins, which were used up on the XVI.I also made the point latter on, that it was US aircraft that were the source of the technical superiority. P-51s' and P-47's were managing around 440 and 437mph by the end of 1943, the P-47 even earlier; moreover these aircraft were available in serious quantities. The Mk IX was good but it was certainly not superior to contemporary Me 109G and FW 190A on balance of performance.
The country was broke, so we had to make do; at least we managed to last long enough to see the back of the Nazis.air ministry should be looking for a way to phase in better aircraft as fast as possible.
For pity's sake, where do you get this baloney? The XII was developed specifically as a low-level counter to the Baedecker Fw190s; it was never intended for high-level use. If you bother to look at photos, you'll see that the XIV did not have its wingtips removed, in fact it used narrower ailerons (just like the VIII) to ensure the wings did not suffer damage; the F.R.XIV used clipped wings, since (like the XII) it was designed for use at low level, with added work at low-level photography.
Wrong; it was designed for use in the Far East.
Wrong, they used a larger tail area, which did away with the bobweights in the elevator circuit. Only the 24 had spring tabs.
Wrong, the XX never existed; the touchiness of the 21 led to a report saying that the Spitfire should go no further, but a minor alteration to the elevators fixed it within days.
Wrong, it had an entirely new wingspar, which gave it even greater strength than the previous Marks, and Castle Bromwich closed, as an aircraft factory, and returned to vehicle production immediately at the end of the war.
The XIV first flew in 1943, and was perfectly capable of dealing with what the Germans had to offer at that point of the war. With the Meteor and Vampire soon to be available, the RAF would have managed to overcome their inferiority somehow.
The XIV came out of a desire to use the more powerful Griffon engine, which gave it a service ceiling of 45,000', only equalled by the Mark 21. If you bother to read the XIV Pilot's Notes, you'll find that looping was not banned, or even discouraged, they simply said that 320-350 mph was the best speed at which to perform it. Rolls, climbing rolls, half rolls off a loop were also permitted; only spinning was not permitted, but only when external stores were being carried.
You really should read test reports, not Grimm's Fairy Tales. The XIV was listed as 442 at 19,000', same as the XVIII, and the XIX was doing 450 at the same height. The IX was a 1941 design (so 408 mph wasn't a bad speed at that point in the war,) and only viewed as an interim measure, to combat the Fw190, until the arrival of the VIII XIV; by 1943 it was seen as surplus to requirements, and was being "donated" to the Russian war effort. The XVI development of the IX was seen as ideal for low level, and thus ground attack work, which is why it had the .5" Browning instead of the .303" in 1945, plus we had hundreds of surplus-to-requirements Packard Merlins, which were used up on the XVI.
The country was broke, so we had to make do; at least we managed to last long enough to see the back of the Nazis.
6 The first Mk IX spitfires didnt fly at 408mph, they had the Merlin 61 engine and even with the Merlin 66 also lower levels of boost, sub 400 mph aircraft.
7 the Mk XIV and Mk VIII never took over from the Mk IX. They were produced in small numbers only around 1000 each, never even got close.
And that's the point, as Galland put it "The best feature of the Mk XIV spitfire was that there was so few of them". There were plenty of P-47 and P-51.
8 The Spitifre xiv had good speed at altitude but it could be outrun at sea level by an Me 109K4 and at altitude by a Ta 152H. All aircraft have their day.
I am, and remain, totally calmDon't loose your temper and remain civil.
.The first Griffon Spitfire flew on 27 November 1941. The Baedecker raids were from April 42. The Griffon only had a single stage supercharger. There was no real choice to make it an high flying aircraft
.The Mk XIV DID have its wing tips removed when the whole wings started buckling and developing boils during manouvers, the wing couldn't quite take the extra weight so there were removed from new production models and some service aircraft
The XVIII had compartments, in the wings, to accomodate emergency equipment for the far east; it's one of the reasons that it only had the E wing. It was definitely not a back-up for the XX, since there was only, ever, one Mark XX, which was DP845, renumbered from the Mk.IV to XX.The Mk XVIII was a backup in case the Mk 20+ failed. It has little about it to enable it to opperate in the far east apart from the standardised secretion of fuel tanks in ways that had already been proven and incorporated somewhat higgely piggely in earlier variants (small wing LE tanks)
The fin (not vertical tail, please, this is a British aircraft you're trying to denigrate) remained the same size through to the XII; it was enlarged on the XIV XVIII, and the rudder got progressively larger, too. The tailplanes remained the same size, right through to the 21, though a small modification was made to the elevators. On the 22 24, the fin was made larger, and so were the tailplanes and elevators (modification 1613.) You obviously don't realise, also, that the pilot uses elevators, when turning, not the rudder, which is why the bobweights were put into the system; Mitchell wanted to keep the controls light for his pilots. You keep rattling on about these "spring balances," but no Spitfire had spring balanced tabs before the 24; the elevator trim tabs were always controlled by a hand wheel on the port wall of the cockpit.All marks of Spitfire had exactly the same horrizontal tail though obviously the elevator was modified in the Mk 21 to incorporate the spring balances. The Vertial tail was increased in some (MK VIII, XIV, XVIII etc) the vertical tail is unlikely to have anything to do with the bob weights for the elevator which is a horizontal mechanism.
More fabrications; the 21 only needed the elevator horns to be rounded, instead of squared, and all of the problems were solved; it did see service before the end of the war, don't forget. There never was any intention to cancel the 21; some test pilots got a little carried away with their own importance, and made sweeping statements, which were not in their remit.Either way the Mk 21 had control issues that nearly lead to its cancellation, the control modifications and wing structural mods were neccesarry to maintain competitiveness as the controls were getting heavy and unresponsive on all axes. The Mk XIV and Mk XVIII would not benefit from these improvments.
Duralumin, actually, and the XVIII spar was manufactured from DTD.273, a higher grade light alloy, not from steel. (Information comes from a lecture by Joe Smith, your source is .................?) You also seem unaware that the XVIII had the "rear-view" fuselage as standard, while most XIVs were the "normal" high-back style.3 The Mk XVIII was a modification of the Mk XIV. All they did was replace a few stringers and the main spar (which you now acknowledge as existing) with ones made out of stainless steel instead of aluminium in an effort to increase strenth withour having to undertake a redesign. The main spar was made as a continiously tappering piece instead of telecoping aluminium sections.
Close, 610 Squadron re-equipped in January, 1944.For whatever reason the Mk XIV only entered service in Feb 1944, thats all that counts on any side,
You'll have to explain that, preferably in words of one syllable; personally I feel that the production of 957 Mk.XIV Spitfires, in under two years, makes it of some importance.However unlike the Mk XIV the Me 109K4 was a hard core mass production item.
Have you ever seen a XIV fly? For your own selfish reasons you seem to be adding a 0 onto the figure; ask a display pilot how much airspace he needs, and I'l bet that he won't say 2 miles. Again, I fail to see what the post-war P51H has to do with this, since it was not produced by Britain.The MK XIV's handling deteriorated considerably, a loop took a tremendous amount of airspace and it was now so large 10000ft of altitude was needed. It was a fast aircraft, that's all. I would expect that the latter P-51H would be superior all round
26-4-42, the Air Fighting Development Unit took a standard Mk.IX, and clocked it at 409mph, in FS gear, at 28,000'The first Mk IX spitfires didnt fly at 408mph, they had the Merlin 61 engine and even with the Merlin 66 also lower levels of boost, sub 400 mph aircraft.
1650 Mk.VIII, 957 XIV, and, as i said, there were far too many IXs, so they were given away to anyone who wanted them:- Russians, Americans, Greeks, Italians.......the Mk XIV and Mk VIII never took over from the Mk IX. They were produced in small numbers only around 1000 each, never even got close.
Which, to a neutral observer, might just mean that he was thankful that there weren't more of them to harry his pilots.And that's the point, as Galland put it "The best feature of the Mk XIV spitfire was that there was so few of them".
Your source for these figures? As far as I know, trials between the aircraft were never carried out. Eric Brown does concur, with regard to the Ta152, of course.The Spitifre xiv had good speed at altitude but it could be outrun at sea level by an Me 109K4 and at altitude by a Ta 152H.
Maybe you should update your data. Look for ex Spitfire Mk IX Performance Trials, the first test there, made in Oct 42
There was no need for more Spit XIVs, Commonwealth troops in ETO were not much bothered by enemy air power, same cannot be said on the German troops fighting against them. Because no nation had unlimited resources, one should concentrate to produce according to needs, and Commonwealth didn't suffer in 44-45 of lack of air superiority fighters, they could have used more CAS and tranport planes
in fact Spit XIV was as fast as 109K-4 with 1,8 ata at sea level, or 578km/h vs 580km/h, so inside variation between individual a/c
Juha
Maybe I should but:
"Standard Mk.Vc (universal) wings were fitted. This wing has the large bulge in its top surface over the 20 m.m. guns. The two remaining 20 m.m. gun stubs in the leading edges were fitted with hemispherical blanks. The leading edge gun ports and the muzzles of the 20 m.m. guns were sealed. The ejection chutes beneath the wing relevant to the guns fitted were open. "
The point I wish to note is that the Me 109G1, which beat the Mk IX into service by a few months was managing 400.5 mph at this time at a lower altitude the aircraft were likely even except in the notches where the gear changes of the spitfire are.
The real point is that there is no major technical superiority of the Spitfire over either the FW 190A5/A6 or Me 109G, though the G deteriorated due to engine issues (1.3 ata restriction not lifted till about October 43) and ever reducing manufacturing tollerances and increase weights.
The test reports suggest a Me 109K4 on 1.98 ata outruns Mk XIV on 100/150 25psi by a few mph, manufacturing tollerances aside the median speed of the K4 at low altitude was still better. Of course the Mk XIV was around throughout 44 while the K4 only from October 44.
Me 109K1 flew in 1943, it could have been produced in early 44 but production was held up in order not to disrupt Me 109G6 production. The K1 had the bulges cleaned up, retractable tail wheel and must have been quite a bit faster; about 12 mph.
So it was more or less combat ready Spit F.IX, the Spit IX used at tactical trials was a bit faster and was fitted for but not equipped with a 30 gal. drop tank as you can see from: Spitfire IX Tactical Trials " ...one Spitfire IX aircraft, AB.505, was delivered from Messrs. Rolls-Royce,Ltd., to this unit on 26th April 1942, for a period of one week, for tactical trials.
In order to bring the weight of the aircraft up to its full war load it was necessary to fit 2 x 20 mm. cannons, full ammunition for all guns, V.H.F., and I.F.F. The aircraft has fittings for a jettisonable fuel tank but this was not available. Without this tank the all-up weight is about 7,400 lbs...The Spitfire IX is a Spitfire VC modified to incorporate a Merlin 61 engine fitted with the latest negative 'G' carburettor... The speed of the Spitfire IX was compared with a Spitfire VC and a Typhoon I at various heights. Its maximum true speed in M.S. gear is developed at a height of 16,300 feet and is approximately 386 m.p.h., and in F.S. gear at 28,000 feet and is approximately 409 m.p.h..."
I agree than 109G-1 - G-4 with 1,3 ata and Spit F.IX with Merlin 61 +15lbs boost were fairly evenly matched in speed but between 5500-8000m, when 109G had advance and above 9000m Spit had advance.
We have argued here several times on how common the use of 1.98 ata was, there is no clear proof of its wide-spread use at least before March 45 and IIRC one main reason for delay in 109K was the lack of service cleared DB605D series engines.
Juha
And your sources are................? Remember that every single Spitfire was flown by a qualified test pilot (e.g. Alex Henshaw, ever heard of him?) If they didn't reach a required standard, a report was made, and the defects ironed out.Re the early spitfire: its high performance is contradicted by latter tests..
The Merlin 61 had a reduction gear of .420, which meant that it could outclimb the Fw190; all other two-stage Merlins had a reduction gear of .477, so I fail to see how standard equipment can give inflated speeds. The Merlin 66 (still with a .477 reduction gearing, was designed for relatively low-level use (L.F.IX.)The use of the two stage merlin, especially with the versions high gear ratios (merlin 61 and 70) meant inflated speeds were possible at high altitudes. However at 20,000ft-25,000ft, or so the advantage is not really there and the Merlin 66 used lower ratios.
You continuously harp on about this K-4, as though it was some mythical beast-come-saviour. By the time that it arrived, German aircraft were the hunted, and fair game, so it was more a case of any 109 having to cope with the enemy, not the other way round.Of course to match a 1.8 ata Me 109K4 the Spitfire Mk XIV needed to be using 100/150 octane fuel and 25psi boost which itself was limited.
And your sources are................? Remember that every single Spitfire was flown by a qualified test pilot (e.g. Alex Henshaw, ever heard of him?) If they didn't reach a required standard, a report was made, and the defects ironed out.
The Merlin 61 had a reduction gear of .420, which meant that it could outclimb the Fw190; all other two-stage Merlins had a reduction gear of .477, so I fail to see how standard equipment can give inflated speeds. The Merlin 66 (still with a .477 reduction gearing, was designed for relatively low-level use (L.F.IX.)
You continuously harp on about this K-4, as though it was some mythical beast-come-saviour. By the time that it arrived, German aircraft were the hunted, and fair game, so it was more a case of any 109 having to cope with the enemy, not the other way round.
Silly comment; he (and all test pilots) used the criteria set by the Air Ministry/Farnborough/A&AEE Boscombe Down/AFDU/other test agencies, after extensive and exhaustive trials.1 All depends on the standard Henshaw used..
You're cherry-picking:-2 "With....Merlin 61 Spitfirer: "Its rate of climb at 20,000 ft. with the 0.42 reduction gear is inferior to the Fw 190 A and the Me109 G, even when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost. "
Wrong on all counts; the 66 was introduced mid-1944, and only the 61 had .42 reduction gearing. All other 60-series and the 70 were .477 plus 18psi rating.It took the Merlin 66, introduced in 1943, to redress the imbalance. The Germans of course also continued to improve their engines
3 the Merlin 66 greater reduction however the Merlin 70 series AFAIKT used lessor reduction, similar to Merlin 61..
So????? Apart from the occasional escort duty, the XII was never used in Europe, and post D-day remained with ADGB, dealing with the revolting V1s.4 FW 190A5 was a fast aircraft. It was faster than even the Spitfire XII at sea level.
High enough to replace all those lost, during Bodenplatte, within 24 hours.The point being that the RAF got its Spitfire XIV in service first but it did so at fairly low production
1 All depends on the standard Henshaw used.
2 "With....Merlin 61 Spitfirer: "Its rate of climb at 20,000 ft. with the 0.42 reduction gear is inferior to the Fw 190 A and the Me109 G, even when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost. " Spitfire Mk IX Performance Trials
It took the Merlin 66, introduced in 1943, to redress the imbalance. The Germans of course also continued to improve their engines.
There is ample evidence of 1.98 ata being finally cleared by Feb 1945 however its also clear that it was fairly widely used in 1944 but withdrawn for a while due to technical or fuel issues with some aircraft being wound back down to 1.9 ata rather than 1.8 ata.
Of course to match a 1.8 ata Me 109K4 the Spitfire Mk XIV needed to be using 100/150 octane fuel and 25psi boost which itself was limited.