Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3

[Kurfürst]

One of the documents Neil got from the NA shows deliveries of aircraft to the RAF, up to 3rd September each year.

From 4th September 1943 to 3rd September 1944, 202 Spitfire XIVs.
In the next year, again up to 3rd September, 726, which means a total of 928 by early September 1945.

Your figures are about 50 short by the start of September 1944, and about 37 short by September 1945.[/QUOTE]

I don`t think 'my figures' (not really, I have given due credit for them) are short. The figures Neil claims are not for the same date and are probably counted according to a different standard.

In any case, it doesn`t change much in the big picture - after all wheter the British managed to build 150 or 200 XIVs in span of a year is rather immaterial to inevitable concusion that the monthly production of the XIV was marginal, and the British simply didn`t have enough of it.

Well, looking at the Luftwaffe claims list, scores 02/01/1945 until the end of the war against Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests:

JG26 - 46
JG27 - 28
JG54 - 4
JG53 - 3
JG7 - 3
JG301 - 2
JG1 - 1
JG3 - 1
JG11 - 1
JG4 - 1
JG51 - 1
JG77 - 1
EJG2 - 1

Before commenting on the figures you are posting, I`d like to see the source first, as the figures you claim appear to be absurd - JG 11, JG 77 etc. downing a single RAF aircraft? C`mon. Even you can`t seriously claim that.

EDIT : It appears that Hop`s claims are based on the 'Victory Claims in 1945' on the luftwaffe.cz site. The claims list appear to have been compiled from several book available to the compilators of the list; as a result, they are most likely incomplete due to the inavailability of all primary materials, all books on the subject, not to say the documentation quite sloppy in this period.

Victory Claims in 1945

In any case, there`s a huge difference between stating as a fact that JG 3 etc. only scored one single claim against British aircraft in all of 1945 and that compilators of this list could only find this and this and this amount of claims in the secondary sources available to them.

The difference is of course, that the compilators at luftwaffe.cz certainly do not claim their list is complete; Hop OTOH does, rather dishonestly.

So 93 in total, 74 of them by JG 26 and JG 28. That's 80% by those 2 geschwader, 20% by the rest of the Luftwaffe. So the effective stregth of the Luftwaffe day fighters against the RAF was 25% larger than JG 26 and JG 27 combined.

That is a very bizarre set of logic. What is this 'effective strenght' you introduce now? Define it please.

Don`t get me wrong, if you want to be want to dismiss the strenght reports issued by the JGs, because you don`t like them, you want to ignore certain units, just be frank about it and do it with pride. There is no need to introduce silly new terms nobody heard about yet or to build up cover stories for it.

Apart from that, I seriously doubt the RAF could muster more then 100 Tempests and Mk XIV Spitfires for operational sorties at all, there were simply not enough in Squadrons for more, and the reason for that was that they simply could not produce more, for whatever reason.

Hardly. On the 26th April 1945 the RAF had 500 Spitfire XIVs in the UK and Europe, 62 in India (or en route)

On the same date they had 426 Tempest Vs, 32 Tempest IIs.

Now now, there are two possibilities. One is that you don`t quite get the meaning of my sentences, which I highlighted so that it would be even clearer - I am talking about operational Spitfires and Tempests in operational Squadrons. You are talking about Spitfires and Tempests both in storage and Squadrons. You again quote that little list we have discussed already on another board, which is not a listing of operational strenghts by type/Mark in operationally fit squadrons, rather its a combined value of both the aircraft in storage, and in Squadrons, which you also admitted on the other board earlier.

Most of those aircraft in your figures (well over the half) are in storage, being under fitting to make ready for issue, or are reserves in store.

For example you claim 458 Tempests of all Marks 'in the RAF'. Most readers would believe - this was aim wasn`t it - that the RAF had these 458 Tempest in Squadrons and they would fly daily sorties..

But another paper from the same series (I wonder why you didn`t post those figures..), but which list the actual RAF strenght of operational Tempests in Squadrons, 113 (86 servicable, and 60 or less ready for operations) with the 2nd TAF on the Continent, and 18 (13 servicable, 12 ready for operations) with the Fighter Command in the UK.

Ie. only 131 out of the 458 you claimed were in operational fighter Squadrons.

 

[Hop]

EDIT : It appears that Hop`s claims are based on the 'Victory Claims in 1945' on the luftwaffe.cz site. The claims list appear to have been compiled from several book available to the compilators of the list; as a result, they are most likely incomplete due to the inavailability of all primary materials, all books on the subject, not to say the documentation quite sloppy in this period.

No, I used Jim Perry's list: http://www.lesbutler.ip3.co.uk/tony/tonywood.htm

As to how complete it is, it runs to 771 claims for April 1945. Checking against known USAAF losses:

USAAF report 72 heavy bombers lost in April to enemy aircraft, 59 to other causes, excluding flak losses. The claims list shows claims for 117 B-17s and B-24s, and another 107 "Abschuß"

as the figures you claim appear to be absurd - JG 11, JG 77 etc. downing a single RAF aircraft?

I don't see much absurd about it. They are on the list, for example JG 11 has 186 claims, only 1 is for a Spitfire. They seem to have been mostly occupied dealing with the Soviets, claiming 64 Yak 3 and 9s, 18 IL2s, 11 PE-2s etc.

JG 77 have 154 claims, again only 1 Spitfire, again mostly Soviet aircraft. They claimed 38 IL2s, 23 Yaks, 24 La 5 and 7s, 14 Pe-2s.

Whilst you don't want to admit it, the truth is there wasn't enough of the Luftwaffe to go around.

The difference is of course, that the compilators at luftwaffe.cz certainly do not claim their list is complete; Hop OTOH does, rather dishonestly.

Where do I say it was complete? The point isn't how many claims are on the list, although actually there are rather a lot, it's which units were facing the RAF, as opposed to the Soviets or Americans.

That is a very bizarre set of logic. What is this 'effective strenght' you introduce now? Define it please.

It's rather simple. If 80% of the Luftwaffe claims against RAF fighters were by 2 units, then they made up 80% of the effective strength employed against the RAF fighters. That's not something you can conclude from a single battle, of course, but this is a 4 month average.

Don`t get me wrong, if you want to be want to dismiss the strenght reports issued by the JGs, because you don`t like them,

Nobody is dismissing them. It's just a bit silly to point to all the 109K4s manufactured and claim the Spitfire XIV was outnumbered by them, when in fact the Luftwaffe was so stretched it could only deploy a fraction of them against the RAF.

Now now, there are two possibilities. One is that you don`t quite get the meaning of my sentences, which I highlighted so that it would be even clearer - I am talking about operational Spitfires and Tempests in operational Squadrons. You are talking about Spitfires and Tempests both in storage and Squadrons.

No, I am responding to your claim:

Apart from that, I seriously doubt the RAF could muster more then 100 Tempests and Mk XIV Spitfires for operational sorties at all, there were simply not enough in Squadrons for more, and the reason for that was that they simply could not produce more, for whatever reason.

Now if there were 500 in the RAF in late April 1945, and a squadron requires 20, then they certainly had enough to equip more than 5 squadrons. It couldn't be the case that they couldn't produce enough to maintain more than 5 squadrons, as you claimed, because they already had produced enough to have 500 available

Most of those aircraft in your figures (well over the half) are in storage, being under fitting to make ready for issue, or are reserves in store.

Certainly. But how can you claim they couldn't produce enough to have 100 available when they had hundreds in store? That's just silly.

The truth is the RAF kept most of them in store because they didn't have any desperate need for them.

For example you claim 458 Tempests of all Marks 'in the RAF'. Most readers would believe - this was aim wasn`t it - that the RAF had these 458 Tempest in Squadrons and they would fly daily sorties..

No, the aim was to point out how stupid your claim was, that "they simply could not produce more". To prove how wrong that was I pointed out that they had produced more, that the RAF actually had 458 Tempests.

Ie. only 131 out of the 458 you claimed were in operational fighter Squadrons.

Where did I say they were in operational squadrons? Why do you keep making up straw men?

You claimed the British couldn't produce enough to have more than 100 in service:

there were simply not enough in Squadrons for more, and the reason for that was that they simply could not produce more, for whatever reason.

and I pointed out they had plenty available, so that couldn't be the reason:

Hardly. On the 26th April 1945 the RAF had 500 Spitfire XIVs in the UK and Europe, 62 in India (or en route)

On the same date they had 426 Tempest Vs, 32 Tempest IIs.

The difference is of course, that the compilators at luftwaffe.cz certainly do not claim their list is complete; Hop OTOH does, rather dishonestly.

Ie. only 131 out of the 458 you claimed were in operational fighter Squadrons.

How about an apology for twice accusing me of lying, when in fact you have just misrepresented what I wrote?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No, the aim was to point out how stupid your claim was

Hey chill the **** out! Why does everyone have to automaticaly resort to flaming. I am getting tired of it, and I don't care who is doing it!

 

[Hop]

My apologies. I meant to say "silly", which is less hostile.

I would like an apology from Kurfurst for yet again accusing me of dishonesty, based on a false representation of what I wrote.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You two can take it up in a PM allright!

 

[claidemore]

Gotta agree with Hop on this one.
BCATP had already been shut down in the closing months of the war because RAF had more than enough pilots. There were guys with one tour on ops who couldn't get another one and were pissed about it.

Biggest complaint of Spitfire pilots during the late war period was that they couldn't find enough 109s and 190s to fight. Very few Spitfire pilots from that period were able to run up much of a score, there just weren't any targets. Those guys flew a LOT of missions without seeing any enemy planes.

Production of Spitfires was not a problem, in fact production was already being scaled back on many different war planes, factory workers were already being laid off, (the beginnings of unrest and unemployment and the eventual fall of Churchill from power). There simply was not a pressing need for more Spitfire and Tempest squadrons. Cripes, you only gotta read a few combat reports to see accounts of pilots who were getting into position for an attack on some 109s or 190s only to have another squadron bounce them first.

Everyone who has done any reading on the wars closing months knows that the biggest concern for Germany was the Soviets, and they put the lions share of their resources onto the eastern front, including 109K4s. Anywhere from 50 to 70% of their fighter strength, depending on which source you are looking at. The balance was being put up against 8th Airforce bombing raids, there just weren't many missions being flown against 2TAF or 9TAF.

It would have been a poor use of resources to build an extra 1000 MkXIV Spitfires that weren't needed.

Besides, if production is the final determinant, Mityas plane, the La7 is the winner, with something like 5700 produced, and Yak 3 is second with 4800 produced. 109K4 and Spit XIV numbers were paltry by comparison.

BTW, good argument in favor of the La7 Mitya.

 

[claidemore]

Just did a brief comparison of speeds of La7 and Spitfire XIV.
Sea level, La7 is 370 mph, XIV is 360, 10 mph advantage for La7.
3000 meters (10,000 ft), La7 is 396 mph, XIV is 405 mph, Spitfire is 9 mph faster already. At 20,000 ft the La7 is doing 418 mph, the Spitfire 424 mph, not much difference there. Above that the La7 gets slower the Spit gets faster.

Up to 3000m the La7 and 109K4 (1.8ata) seem to be nearly identical in speed, above that the K4 pulls ahead.

The Tempest on the other hand, was 376 mph @ sealevel, 409 @ 10,000 ft and 431 at 20,000 ft (early variants with 9 lbs boost, 11 lb boost Tempest was 398mph @ sealevel). It's faster than either the La7 or Spit below 20,000 ft and loses to the Spit above that.


Double post, but what the heck, been several hours since the last one! lol

 

[Soren]

I'd much rather be in a Bf-109 K-4 than an La-7, that's for sure!

First of all the Bf-109K-4 climbs and turns better, but perhaps most crucially you can dive a heck of alot faster in the 109 as the max dive speed limit for the La-7 all soviet fighters actually was low by comparison. Top that of with superior speed at nearly all altitudes and the La-7 is definitely at a disadvantage.

I prefer the 109's automatic prop pitch as-well, cuts off the workload.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

The La-7 was a good reliable bird, could certainly be a match for a Bf 109 in the hands of a skilled pilot.

 

[Soren]

Well yes, a good pilot in a closely matched fighter is always a dangerous foe.

 

[Kurfürst]

Well I did some quick checking of the list Hop is using as a basis against the claim figures Hop has given for some units.

For example, JG 53. Hop claims they faced the RAF very little, claiming a mere 3 RAF aircraft in 1945 (RAF aircraft is of course limited to Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests).

I checked it and it turns out JG 53 took a much greater toll than that, 22 aircraft identified as RAF types in total, mostly Austers, which were the favourites of JG 53`s dish in April 1945.

JG 7. Again Hop claims a mere 3 RAF planes (as above limited to just three fighter types) were lost to it in 1945.

The claims list actually lists 28, almost all of them Lancester caught in the daylight.

And so on.

It's rather simple. If 80% of the Luftwaffe claims against RAF fighters were by 2 units, then they made up 80% of the effective strength employed against the RAF fighters. That's not something you can conclude from a single battle, of course, but this is a 4 month average.

The fact that your base data that you`re basing your arguements is wrong is pointed out above. In any case, the whole thing is IMHO rather silly. Following your line of thinking, the air war in 1945 consisted of nothing more than a hundred or so German fighters furballing a hundred or so British fighters in NW Europe..

It's just a bit silly to point to all the 109K4s manufactured and claim the Spitfire XIV was outnumbered by them,

Well in you`re being the only one here claiming that...

Also its not just the 109K. Its also the G-10, G-14/AS by that time, which had roughly similiar performance as the 109K.

In any case, its a simple historical fact that the LW by 1945 had completely re-armed to its latest types, for example something like 65% of their frontline 109 inventory was made up by G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4.Another 30% was methanol boosted medium altitude G-14s, and only a couple of G-6s being still around in more remote places.

By comparison, the % of XIV Squadrons compared to the RAF`s Spitfire force was insignificant, something like 5 Squadrons out of the 40 Spitfire Squadrons of the 2nd TAF in NW Europe, and they were not present in any other theatre.

In 1945, the most likely opposition a RAF pilot would face in NW Europe was a 109K-4 or G-10, or a FW 190D-9.

In contrast, the most likely opposition a LW fighter pilot would face there was a Typhoon I or a Spitfire IX, the same opposition he would face in 1943.

Now if there were 500 in the RAF in late April 1945, and a squadron requires 20, then they certainly had enough to equip more than 5 squadrons. It couldn't be the case that they couldn't produce enough to maintain more than 5 squadrons, as you claimed, because they already had produced enough to have 500 available.

.. by late April 1945. A bit late for the party isn`t it..? Of course there`s no arguement that in late April 1945 there was little need to rush them into service. The point being made is that for the most part in 1944/45, there simply wasn`t enough available of them.

Lets look at the numbers instead.

For example, on 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.

When we look at the production of the XIV (see a couple pages back), we see that by the end of May 1944, a mere 68 were delivered (a mere 12 in that month). 61 of those were in Squadrons. The RAF was certainly rushing the type into service as fast as they could, so fast that they had no reserves at all to replenish losses. They just couldn`t do it faster.

As of 14 December 1944, they had 120, in operationally fit sqns, and 127 in A.S.U as reserves, or roughly 50% in frontline units, roughly 50% in reserves, following the same practice as all other air forces.

Now if there were 500 in the RAF in late April 1945, and a squadron requires 20, then they certainly had enough to equip more than 5 squadrons. It couldn't be the case that they couldn't produce enough to maintain more than 5 squadrons, as you claimed, because they already had produced enough to have 500 available.

Certainly not.

Of course they could rush all into service, but that would mean that several Squadrons would need to be pulled off active duty for weeks or perhaps months to rearm and retrain, until spare parts are available, mechanics are familiar with the Griffon etc.

There would be no reserves to issue replacements from, either.

Following the similiar example, the LW had received 1192 Bf 109Ks by end of January 1945. 314 of these were found in frontline units, leaving 878 in storage, of course minus the number lost in the meantime or under repairs. Say they had 500 in store, and around 900 in store and with squadrons.

By your logic, the truth is the LW kept most of them in store because they didn't have any desperate need for them.

In reality, just like in the RAF`s case, using them to re-equip most units would take a lot of time and with deny them of reserves.

Where did I say they were in operational squadrons? Why do you keep making up straw men?

Well I was talking about planes ready for operations in operationally ready Squadrons.

In your reply you denied that, and begun talking about 500 Spitfire XIVs.
You were replying to the number of aircraft in Squadrons, and the number of sorties they could make. Without of course revealing the true nature of your figures, which referred to something completely different (planes is storage..).

Obviously you hoped that people would be led to believe you`re talking about the number of planes in operationally ready Squadrons, when actually you started talking about something completely different. Thats a very dishonest trick IMO.

How about an apology for twice accusing me of lying, when in fact you have just misrepresented what I wrote?

Nobody misrepresented anything, its very clear what you`re doing here.. misrepresenting the set of data you are using as fuel for your arguements.

In any case, the number of aircraft in storage has little relevance to this thread. What matters is that there were very very few Mk XIVs ready for operations in the RAF in 1945, mostly likely no more than 50.

 

[ponsford]

I can recommend Caldwell's JG 26 War Diary Vol. 2 and Shores Thomas' 2nd Tactical Air Force Vol. 3 for anyone interested in the combatants in 2nd TAF's sector during 1945. Those are interesting figures Hop. They are in pretty good agreement with the information presented in these books. Worth noting is that III./JG 54 was attached to JG 26 in December 44 and then was dissolved and officially became part of JG 26 as its Fourth Gruppe in February, following which IV./JG 26 disbanded on 17 April. III./JG 26 had disbanded on 25 March. It should be mentioned that there were some jets and credit should be given to USAAF Mustangs which had some big days against JG 26 JG 27 within 2nd TAF's sector in 1945.

 

[bada]

Note: FR MkXIV stands for Fighter/Recon, main role is fighter, secondary role is recon. Planes whose primary role was recon started with a PR prefix (Photo Recon), eg PR Mk XI.

Also, the Griffon engine development was started in 1939, there was plenty of time to gear up for production, and in some ways was simpler to produce than the Merlin, for example oil lines/galleries as part of the castings, rather than external lines which could leak as in the Merlin.

At high alt the Mk XIV would be completely dominant over the 109K4. For example, at 32,800 ft (10k) Mk XIV (18lb boost) with much higher climb rate 2200ft/min compared to 1476 ft/min (1.8ata), higher top speed 440 compared to 428, and of course lower wingloading, not to mention the 5 blade prop. Mk XIV had a higher ceiling as well.

you're right about the pr-fr, i mis-matched the worlds "photo" and "foto", not always easy whan using 4 languages in the same day

When i talk high alt, i talk above 8000m (+/-26000ft) what will the spit ,with it's shorts wings do there? what maneuvrability will it have there? And please don't forget the planes DOES NOT fly at maximum power continusly!
Especially not above ennemy territory! So the max speeds and other max performances for a max 5minutes time period can't be applied8)

Anyway, i made the stats for the others 3 marks-14 (Mk-14E+FR-14+FR-14E)

here are the results:

it is only the numbers of planes ASSIGNED to squadrons,what doesn't mean operationnal!

from dec43 to dec44:

from jan45 to 10th may45

So, hop, i think your 500number should be reconsidered

 

[Waynos]

I'm in danger of getting way out of my depth here but I can say that the XIV does not necessarily have the clipped wing you are referring to, it was fitted with either type.

 

[claidemore]

Wow, where does one start?

Kurfurst: Seriously, Austers? Hop gives you the number of "fighters" shot down by these units, and you throw in the number of unarmed spotter planes they shot down?

So in May 44 they used 61 of 68 Mk XIVs to convert two squadrons to the type. New type, very fast, lots of interest in them, makes sense to get them out there and see what they can do. You interpret this as "rushing them into service". Fair enough, but 6 months later they had half the Mk XIVs in reserve. What happened to "rushing them into service"?

The really intersting thing is that only 314 of the K4's made up till January 45 were with frontline units? You maintain that the Spitfire Mk XIV was rare, not a presence, of little importance, in few numbers,(not quoting, just summarizing) yet you tell us that only 1/4 of the K4's were in combat? You aren't seriously suggesting that we believe that a desperate nation surrounded by millions of advancing hostile troops, bombed practically back to the stone age, it's armies pushed out of France, Italy, North Africa, Russia, etc, etc, with Soviet troops poised to cross the Oder, was keeping 3/4s of its best and latest fighters in reserve?

I would think lack of pilots, lack of fuel, lack of bases to operate from, and a severe attrition rate would have more to do with it. Particularly the attrition rate.

Bada:

Most MkXIVs had either the normal span wing, or the extended wing tip wing. Even with clipped wings, wing loading was still less than any 109 in service. Short wing, maybe, but it was wide as well.
BTW, the Mk XIV reached its top speed at 8000 meters, the K4 reached its top speed at around 7000 meters.

 

[kool kitty89]

Don't want to get into this again, but lower wingloading doesn't necessarily give an advantage. ie if the higher wingloading a/c (ie 109) had a significantly higher CL (coeficient of lift), this would mean no lift loading advantage. (which the 109 did by Soren's figures; due to the higher lift airfoil and LE slats, 1.7 compared to the Spit's 1.34 iirc)

Of course power loading (particularly), and aerodynamic cleanliness (and other aerodynamic featurs, or faults) come into play as well.

Kfurst do you have figures for the 109's CLmax? Particularly to compare to the 1.7 figure.

 

[Soren]

Kurfurst has the same figures as I, the reason being it's the original figure from German windtunnel test flight data.

Bf-109 F G Clmax Cd0:

 

[Mitya]

...
Sea level, La7 is 370 mph...

REALY!!!?
LOL!!!
ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ!!!

 

[Kurfürst]

Hi Mitya,

Do you have information on La 7 and Yak 3 montly production, how many was issued to frontline fighter regiments etc ?

Thanks in advance,

KF

 

[FLYBOYJ]

REALY!!!?
LOL!!!
ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ!!!

Actually that's what it is unless my sources did not translate the Russian properly. At SEA LEVEL the maximum speed is considerable LESS than what it advertised at altitude. I've seen references that give the La7 a top speed of 420 mph at 20,000 feet (or something close).