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

[parsifal]

Actually the problem for the allies is that their ground attack units were decimated by AA AND they didn't hit anything .Stuka units in the East had low loss rates despite being used in contested airspace and unlike their allied counterparts were precision weapons.

This is just plain wrong. The average ammunition expenditure used by the allies to bring down Axis ground attack aircraft, according to a report by the US Army was between 550 and 1500 rounds per kill. The germans were expending 16000 rounds per kill for high level bombers, and about 3500-5000 rounds per kill for ground attack aircraft. As a proportion of total kills the percentage lost due to ground fire did increase but this was due mainly to the Axis armies not having adequate aircover as the war progressed.

The reason for the stukas great accuracy was its low speed and near vertical attack attitudes. However these very qualities made it vulnerable as well. I dont know where you get this notion that it wasnt vulnerable compared to a P-47, but this is just plain wrong. Will post its operational losses later tonite, but they were always heavy, including the eastern front deployments. That explains why many units on the eastern front resorted to night attacks a nearly useless technique, though safer i admit.

 

[Njaco]

ctrain, ever hear of the Falaise pocket? or how about reading "To Win the Winter Sky" by Danny Parker. Gives a day by day report on operations - including how the Allies blunted the panzers of the Bulge with air attacks. I'll give you some points on my previous post but the Allies couldn't hit anything?? Where did that come from?

 

[Shortround6]

That explains why many units on the eastern front resorted to night attacks a nearly useless technique, though safer i admit.

Also many Stuka units re-equipped with Fw 190Gs &Gs, I wonder why that was????
Shortage of rear gunners???

 

[davparlr]

I agree with the post of both DerAdler and Shortround. Both the Spitfire and Bf-109 were designed and built in the mid thirties. As such they were revolutionary in implementation. However they both were designed as short range point defense figthers and, because of limited power available, were quite small and light, especially the Bf. This caused a restricted growth potential for both that hampered their use later in the war. Due to their excellent design, both were modified to keep active with more powerful engines and aero upgrades. The Spitfire was slightly larger an appears to more more successfully upgraded. The last Bf, the K, as reported by Shortround, apparently was very limited in endurance. Of course, this was not critical since the Me-163 was even more limited in endurance. However, I would think loiter and firepower endurance would have been important in bomber intercept. I think this was recognized in Ta-152, which had a good fuel quantity.

 

[Lighthunmust]

Actually the problem for the allies is that their ground attack units were decimated by AA AND they didn't hit anything .Stuka units in the East had low loss rates despite being used in contested airspace and unlike their allied counterparts were precision weapons.

In case you are not familiar with American slang; jumping the shark means to lose credibility past the point of ever recovering it. It originates from a 1970's television show that after many years of success aired an episode that destroyed the credibility of a main character that led to the cancelation of the program soon after. The phrase has been expanded in common usage to any situation involving a poorly thought out decision or statement that leads to loss of credibility. American fighter bombers were very effective with acceptable loss rates. To claim otherwise is jumping the shark. In regard to this discussion you have jumped the shark.

 

[NZTyphoon]

In case you are not familiar with American slang; jumping the shark means to lose credibility past the point of ever recovering it. It originates from a 1970's television show that after many years of success aired an episode that destroyed the credibility of a main character that led to the cancelation of the program soon after. The phrase has been expanded in common usage to any situation involving a poorly thought out decision or statement that leads to loss of credibility. American fighter bombers were very effective with acceptable loss rates. To claim otherwise is jumping the shark. In regard to this discussion you have jumped the shark.

Yup, I've put Ctrain on my "ignore" list: what's the point of discussing something with people who have a blind, fixed POV and who cannot present facts to back up their opinions? I've wasted many hours on the internet doing just that and I can't be bothered repeating the exercise in futility.

 

[ctrian]

So many posts so little reason I can't answer each individually so I'll just say again :

Amazon.com: Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45 (Studies in Air Power) (9780714646800): Dr Ian Gooderson: Books

For Stuka unit strength and losses : The Luftwaffe, 1933-45
Losses are connected to sorties so that must also be taken into account,if a unit flies night and day in contested space it will lead to losses.

 

[parsifal]

well i think Ive seen it all now. Have you even read the refeernces you have posted. ive not read the second, but i have read th first. I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you, because you will only be rude about it and attempt to lower the standard of dialogue to a very low point. But I can say, that the book on allied air power whilst critical of the cost of air support generally, and just happening to concentrate on the allied effort, does not in any way support the claims you are making. Pretty much the opposite in fact. talk about misrepresenting the facts. if you are going to be so loose with the truth, so cockeyed in your view of the facts, and so unable to accommodate alternate views, I agree with NZ, whats the point in talking to you.

Let me say this in conclusion. ive locked horns with some pretty tough germanophiles over the years, which is fine. Without exception, I respected all of them because they knew their stuff, and were not so bald faced in misreprestation of the facts. They were worthy and to adegree honourable opponents. After seeing what I have see today, I cannot say the same about you. You are willing to say anything, do anything, misrepresent anything to get your preconceived notions accepted.

Please, go away and think about your ethical standards before coming back to this place. It really is annoying to have to troll through what are obvious untruths and be insulted the whole time, by someone who i believe does not wish or care for the truth. Its one of those things i will not abide, people who are unable to be honest

 

[ctrian]

well i think Ive seen it all now. Have you even read the refeernces you have posted. ive not read the second, but i have read th first. I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you, because you will only be rude about it and attempt to lower the standard of dialogue to a very low point. But I can say, that the book on allied air power whilst critical of the cost of air support generally, and just happening to concentrate on the allied effort, does not in any way support the claims you are making. Pretty much the opposite in fact. talk about misrepresenting the facts. if you are going to be so loose with the truth, so cockeyed in your view of the facts, and so unable to accommodate alternate views, I agree with NZ, whats the point in talking to you.

Let me say this in conclusion. ive locked horns with some pretty tough germanophiles over the years, which is fine. Without exception, I respected all of them because they knew their stuff, and were not so bald faced in misreprestation of the facts. They were worthy and to adegree honourable opponents. After seeing what I have see today, I cannot say the same about you. You are willing to say anything, do anything, misrepresent anything to get your preconceived notions accepted.

Please, go away and think about your ethical standards before coming back to this place. It really is annoying to have to troll through what are obvious untruths and be insulted the whole time, by someone who i believe does not wish or care for the truth. Its one of those things i will not abide, people who are unable to be honest

About casualties i also have this link : http://web.archive.org/web/20081211084314/http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
Source is given as : O. Gröhler, "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Militärgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336 (1978)

If you're not feeling well maybe you need some time off.I can recommend some Greek islands.I think Mykonos would be to your liking.

 

[Readie]

If you're not feeling well maybe you need some time off.I can recommend some Greek islands.I think Mykonos would be to your liking.

haha.. you are entertaining ctrian. I see Mykonos is for sale though.
Cheers
John

 

[ctrian]

haha.. you are entertaining ctrian. I see Mykonos is for sale though.
Cheers
John

You're right as always Readie.

 

[parsifal]

About casualties i also have this link : http://web.archive.org/web/20081211084314/http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/jg26/thtrlosses.htm
Source is given as : O. Gröhler, "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Militärgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336 (1978)

If you're not feeling well maybe you need some time off.I can recommend some Greek islands.I think Mykonos would be to your liking.

As usual your references are dodgy and misleading, The source you give is stated in the article by this les Butler and is in fact the object of his critique. It is not the source of the link you have provided at all. But I guess you already know that.

The link itself is dubious and rubbish basically. Apart from the target of its cabal, it is an unreferenced article, author unkown, and no way to check the veracity of its claims. Cannot find any references to this les Butler.

So my summation. Unsubstantiated rubbish basically because it has shoddy and questionable credentials. if this is the sort of material that you have based your opinions, then no wonder you are out there.

 

[Tante Ju]

Please notice that I am separating out the capabilities of the aircraft from the actual usage. In 1940 the Germans had no need of a different aircraft or airframe. The "F" version continued the 109s position as one of the best, but with a different tail ( no supporting struts) and a modified wing and forward fuselage/cowl there were some significant changes. For 1941 there is still no other challenger than the Spitfire (except maybe the Zero). At some point in 1942 things start to change. Spitfire weapon load has gotten much heavier starting in 1941, American planes, while not in theater yet are rolling of the lines with heavy armament if not sparkling performance. (P-40E&Fs) Early P-47s. P-38s. FW 190s for the Germans also show the future. Typhoons also show up, badly flawed, but showing the trend.

I agree in 1942 change of things. But in opinion, Allied designs, including Soviet, were very poor in early war with many flaws... all these well known.. negaive G, lack of cannon, too weak engines, poor designs with old fashioned airframes.. no drop tank.. production failures etc. In 1942 designs got better, same class as German or Japanese, flaws eliminated.

This and earlier you showed weapons got much heavier in P-47, Spitfire. I ask: and? Weight of guns is not measure of weapon effectiveity. Was Type V Hispano worse than Type II? It was lighter.. but fired more. Was Soviet B-20 cannon worse than Swak? It was lighter for certain.. so you comparison analagou would show weapon was bad in comparison because it was, gun and ammo, lighter.

Sorry to say, this is flaw in logic. Measure of firepower is weight of own shots in enemy plane, not weight of shots and gun in own plane. Accuracy, concentration fire, shell power, number of shell, ammunition available - these count. Weight of guns - do not help. Less weight, the better. Also trends. Trends were centralised guns - Soviet, French design too - increasing armament - 109G had increased armamanet, three cannons, two machineguns. Surely there was no lack of firepower with 3 MG 151/20. And before you say - decreased manouverabiliy! Why, add weight did not decrease manouverability in Spitfire? Typhoon? FW 190? Add armament, add weight. Decrease manover. All planes. Was new trend plane Typhoon more heavily armed than 5 point Messer? No. Was it more manouverable - no, it was less. Was new trend plane 190 more heavily armed than 5 point Messer? No. Was it more manouverable? Again, no. NIIVVS tests show similar.

I ask: then...?

You also forget why there is more guns in these planes. Because guns in wings. Wings only can have symmetric guns, in each wing. And why in wings.. well... can you put a gun in Merlin - no. Can you put gun a Sabre - no. Can you put in radial engine (any) - no.

By 1943 the 109 is no longer in the front rank as a fighter bomber. It's air to air armament in the early "G"s leaves a lot to be desired. A single 20mm and two 7.9mm mgs is just not world class. It can be fought effectively by good pilots but it is not the armament anybody designing a new fighter would pick. actual speed, climb and air to air combat performance is still very good but range is little better than the 1940 "E". the lower drag and more efficient engine help but with no change in fuel capacity the ability to "project" power is lacking. Withe Luftwaffe going over to the defensive this is less important to the Germans but is another strike against the 109 for considering it world class.

Soviet considered 109G world class. Very fast, very good climber, 5 pointer Messer heavy hitter too. You forgot 5 pointer - and all 109G can be five pointer.

Regarding range - range was much better than 109E. 109E was very poor. Already 109F - very good. G - same. K - probably same or better. See: http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=33&L=1'

1600 km range, 5 1/4 hours in air. Sufficient for any task. Why add fuel capacity (weight), if not requested by official? If operation not require it? Did German had to escort B-17s from London to Berlin? Fly in Paicific carrier battles? Name task it was insufficent..

The G-6 bring the 13mm cowl guns which, while nice, are a day late and dollar short as far as firepower goes. Newer DB 605 engines keep flight performance up which keeps the 109 useful as a point defense interceptor. Provision of the 30mm MK 108 cannon helps firepower at the cost of combat duration. 6 seconds of firing time is rather short. The British have been doing better than that since 1941.

I disagree. British armament was technological backward. Look at armament - guns in wings, 4-5 meters apart. Concentration fire - poor. Soviet had Spitfires, considered weapons badly located. All Soviet aircraft had weapons concentrated in nose. Also 109, P-38 etc. All post war aircraft had weapons concentrated in fusealge. Wing armament - simply backward. Very much weight added for much less effective increase in practical firepower. Reason: wing installation less rigid. Less ammunition in wing. Two guns, but two guns rarely hit target at same time. Two guns weight for one guns firepower.

And 7.7 mm machinegun - useless - until 1944. Even in 1945 in many planes. You pick out things and forget complex picture - yes 6 secs fire for MK 108. And? What happens to target after 1 seconds? MK 108 is one hit gun. Fighters literally fall to pieces from hit.. So why did Germans choose to use it in so many fighters - previous had 20 mm with 15 seconds fire (200 round). British had Hispano with 12 seconds fire (120 round). German still saw MK 108 as improvement in big picture.

The Late "G"s and "K-4" get even more engine power but darn little else.
They are fast with excellent climb and good agility but lacking in both flight endurance ( again, less important to the Germans but saying the Germans didn't need a little more is making excuses) and combat power, a single 30mm cannon with 60 rounds and two 13 mm pea shooters (the least powerful 12.7-13mm mgs used by anybody). Bombing ability is no better than a Curtiss P-40C.

First part - endurance - you have wrong facts. Late 109G and Konrad had good endurance. For example why need more than 5 hours endurance. British papers above show. 13 mm gun is weak compared to others, yes, agree. Also very light. You forget however concept - 7.62 mm guns were too weak for armor. 13 mm version was only meant to be sufficient against armor. It was. I do not think more was needed. Nor that two more powerful 12.7 mm would be improvement - perhaps soviet UBS. Same weight, improved characteristics. Perhaps synchronized installation not very good - German gun was electric, no loss. But even firepower would be similiar - all 12-13 mm guns are just making little holes. Their advantage is better balistic and reliable penetration of armor compared to 7.62mm gun.

However, I do not see what is major problem. Armament was similiar to major Soviet fighter aircraft, Jakovlev 9 and 3 - actually these carried less ammunition, and range was less. Armament in Western aircraft? Spitfire already noted obsolate arrangement, little ammo, ammo is inferior quality, 7.7mm guns completely obsolate. Typhoon line is heavy, but then again, there is possibility for 5 pointer configuration.. American? P-51 is simply week, at best, equal to 109 with base armament, much inferior with 5 pointer. P-47 is aduquate, but 8 12.7mm guns at weight of 8 cannon is simply stupid. Again, both obsolate arrangement: this means you carry 6 or 8 guns, fire 6 or 8 guns, and hit with maybe 3 or four. Concentrated weapons: you carry 3 guns and hit with 3 guns - and one of three is a cannon. And you have more ammunition for each gun. Actually, only plane that comes close is P-38 fighter. Consider ammo is very similiar, one cannon, four MG with lower cyclical rate. Very much praised by pilots. Concentration firepower. This was future, plane itself is more like interesting concept. Not bad at all, but not economic.

Bombing you are right. 109 is avarage 250-500 kg, like Spitfire. I guess more, like twice possible but there was also 190 (and Typhoon), better suited. So why develop..? Solution is already for problem. Which airframe could save all problem - none I believe.. not possible.

 

[fastmongrel]

Tante Ju Obviously english isnt your 1st language so possibly some points didnt come over clearly but still some very good points about concentrated armament. However I dont think anyone could call 4 x 20mm Hispanos weak the Hispano was at the very top of the scale for power in the 20mm league.

Carrying all the armament in the nose of a single engine fighter must bring some trade offs. I dont believe it is as cut and dried as you make out some of the disadvantages I can think of poorer maintenance access for both engine and armament, less room for ammunition, less room for fuel and engine oil and poorer pilot visibility over the humps covering the guns. The disadvantages for wing armament less concentration of fire, heating needed for guns, weight further from the axis of rotation and higher drag though I dont have the knowledge to prove or disprove the drag claim.

 

[Tante Ju]

well i think Ive seen it all now. Have you even read the refeernces you have posted. ive not read the second, but i have read th first. I'm not going to waste my time trying to educate you, because you will only be rude about it and attempt to lower the standard of dialogue to a very low point. But I can say, that the book on allied air power whilst critical of the cost of air support generally, and just happening to concentrate on the allied effort, does not in any way support the claims you are making. Pretty much the opposite in fact. talk about misrepresenting the facts. if you are going to be so loose with the truth, so cockeyed in your view of the facts, and so unable to accommodate alternate views, I agree with NZ, whats the point in talking to you.

Let me say this in conclusion. ive locked horns with some pretty tough germanophiles over the years, which is fine. Without exception, I respected all of them because they knew their stuff, and were not so bald faced in misreprestation of the facts. They were worthy and to adegree honourable opponents. After seeing what I have see today, I cannot say the same about you. You are willing to say anything, do anything, misrepresent anything to get your preconceived notions accepted.

Please, go away and think about your ethical standards before coming back to this place. It really is annoying to have to troll through what are obvious untruths and be insulted the whole time, by someone who i believe does not wish or care for the truth. Its one of those things i will not abide, people who are unable to be honest

I find this post very repulsive. General post like this. You tell the other poster everything. He is misrepresenting the facts. He is cockeyed in his. view of the facts. He is a troll.

No, he has opinion. He has right to express it, as any other. You may disagree. You may NOT insult. Basic rules of netiquette.

Basic - you say he is a liar. You insult him, repeated, and actually say nothing on subject. You insult, smear, attack every poster not agree with you. Not first thread I see this, but this time it is enough. You do not respect opinion of others. If he disagrees - he is germanohile, troll, liar, dishonest, cockeyed, preconceived. Your words - and you use them often and lenghty. Other thread too - you disagreed with his opinion. Obvious you come this thread not to discuss, but have shots at him. Because he was brave to disagree with your infallible opinion..

And then say about "ethical standards". You know not in reality of word. All you accuse him is you doing. It is hypocrite. The troll is you..

 

[fastmongrel]

I find this post very repulsive. General post like this. You tell the other poster everything. He is misrepresenting the facts. He is cockeyed in his. view of the facts. He is a troll.

No, he has opinion. He has right to express it, as any other. You may disagree. You may NOT insult. Basic rules of netiquette.

Basic - you say he is a liar. You insult him, repeated, and actually say nothing on subject. You insult, smear, attack every poster not agree with you. Not first thread I see this, but this time it is enough. You do not respect opinion of others. If he disagrees - he is germanohile, troll, liar, dishonest, cockeyed, preconceived. Your words - and you use them often and lenghty. Other thread too - you disagreed with his opinion. Obvious you come this thread not to discuss, but have shots at him. Because he was brave to disagree with your infallible opinion..

And then say about "ethical standards". You know not in reality of word. All you accuse him is you doing. It is hypocrite. The troll is you..

Actually if you read all the posts you will see it is ctrian who was very insulting Parsifal does occasionally get a bit angry and he has let that show a bit but ctrian was very rude and has not so far apologised for it.

 

[Mustang nut]

Tante Ju

please bear in mind that these aircraft wernt developed in a vacuum. German aircraft had to take down B 17s and B24s while Allied aircraft didnt. The USA for better or worse standardised on 0.5" MGs the British also for better or worse on 20mm cannon both of which were adequate to take down a 109 or 190. Germany throughout its military used a huge range of calibres which caused its own logistical problems.

Is it possible to syncronise a gun to fire through a contra rotating prop or a 5/6 pladed prop and what is the rate of fire?

Adding guns under wings as on 109 detracts substantially from performance the Typhoon became the Tempest which had 4 cannon in the wings.

 

[parsifal]

I find this post very repulsive. General post like this. You tell the other poster everything. He is misrepresenting the facts. He is cockeyed in his. view of the facts. He is a troll.

No, he has opinion. He has right to express it, as any other. You may disagree. You may NOT insult. Basic rules of netiquette.

Basic - you say he is a liar. You insult him, repeated, and actually say nothing on subject. You insult, smear, attack every poster not agree with you. Not first thread I see this, but this time it is enough. You do not respect opinion of others. If he disagrees - he is germanohile, troll, liar, dishonest, cockeyed, preconceived. Your words - and you use them often and lenghty. Other thread too - you disagreed with his opinion. Obvious you come this thread not to discuss, but have shots at him. Because he was brave to disagree with your infallible opinion..

And then say about "ethical standards". You know not in reality of word. All you accuse him is you doing. It is hypocrite. The troll is you..

Im sorry if you feel that way, however I also would point out what led to this. The basic position taken was that the Ju87 was very resistant to damage,and the conversely the allied Fighter bombers were hopelessly innaccurate and very vulnerable to German ground fire. There were some obvious holes in this position, and these were pretty quickly pointed out by a number of people, including me. In reply to that links were posted by Ctrian purporting to support his position on the issue. Unfortunately for him, Ive read one of the books he tries to pass off as supporting his position.

I dont need to post any information to support my position, becausde it was replying to an original post that also contains no factual data. All I need to do is point out that what is being claimed as a document supporting a particular position does no such thing.

Im not saying he is a liar, but I am exposing his fraud. He has to deal with that, because I bet he hasnt even read the book he has posted.

People will judge me if I am acting as a troll, or attempting to inflame the thread. I'll stand on my record on that one. Frankly I dont give a toss what your opinion is, the mods will pull me up if I overstep the mark. In the meantime its up to Ctrian, or anyone who agrees with him, to post credible supporting evidence as to the notion that allied FBs were inneffective and vulnerable. Its not really up to me to prove anything. Im saying one of his sources are bogus, and I dont see the relevance of the other

 

[ctrian]

As usual your references are dodgy and misleading, The source you give is stated in the article by this les Butler and is in fact the object of his critique. It is not the source of the link you have provided at all. But I guess you already know that.

The link itself is dubious and rubbish basically. Apart from the target of its cabal, it is an unreferenced article, author unkown, and no way to check the veracity of its claims. Cannot find any references to this les Butler.

So my summation. Unsubstantiated rubbish basically because it has shoddy and questionable credentials. if this is the sort of material that you have based your opinions, then no wonder you are out there.

You're starting to foam at the mouth .
O. Gröhler, "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg", Militärgeschichte 17, pp. 316-336

 

[parsifal]

And exactly what are you saying regarding Grohler. I can only repeat, the link you gave, was to an unreferenced site that mentions this very source, and then proceeds to provide an unreferenced critique of it. So, are you agreeing with Butler, or are you agreeing with Grohler. Its impossible to agree with both, because they are disagreeing with each other