The Bf 109 aka ME-109 landing gear myth research thread.

[Mustang nut]

Anyway, the numbers of aircraft involved in this last major daylight attack against England, after the RAF had been given more than a week to recover and had substantially reinforced its badly depleted forces saw 630 RAF defenders pitted against morethan 900 Luftwaffe attackers. And remember, this was basically after the overall battle had been decided. Prior to that the numbers were heavily in favour of the Germans, even in category to category basis

In the two main engagements, the fighter losses had been about equal. The big difference was the bombers losses. Fighter Command had had greater success against the afternoon attack rather than the morning assault, which it out numbered 2:1. The ratio of German fighters to bombers had been 3:1 in the morning but 5:1 in the afternoon, so there were more targets. The more bombers Kesselring sent, the more were lost.

Good point parsifal, what is not said in those ratios is it was almost a maximum effort in the bomber numbers, the LW was having to merge units because bomber losses couldnt be replaced by production.

 

[parsifal]

Tante

How about you post your sorces and we will examine them, rather than reduce this to name calling and emotionalism. Not that this has a lot to do with the topic, but I am willing to give you the opportunity to present your case in the best way you can.

I am aware of your efforts to prove the adequacy of the 109s range, but it just doesnt add up up, and to be honest, remains unsupported argument, and as I said at the time, show documented evidence of the 109 having an effective range of 700km, ie the ability to either intercept out to 700 km, or escort out to the same range, and I will start to believe you. Show verifiable records that the LW was outnumbered as at 15 September 1940 and your argument will start to get traction. Show evidence that LW losses on the whole of the west front in April '41 were limited to less than 58 machines, and you will start to establish credibility with me. Dont rely on unsubstantiated dogma to get you through, it wont work. You have to prove your case, not just stomp your feet, accuse me of bullying or whatever other tricks you want to employ to try and get your point across. none of this works with me. The only thing that will, will be if you can present a well researched dossier of supporting material that will prove the point.

Now, as for being rude or a bully, well, I am truly sorry if that is how you feel. Most do not. Most people that know me, know that I am a hard debater, but I always try to be fair and courteous as can be in situations like this. guess it comes from my part German heritage

 

[Tante Ju]

I dont agree with your figures,and neither do any of the 6 reputable references including Gallands own account. you are using highly selective and biased techniques to try and push a point that is so hopelessly out of step with reality its laughable

You are only capable of insults again.. bravo. I think however the one lost contact reality is you, sorry.. that is why you are so angry and aggressive.

What is more joke, you now say the same source (Price report of servicable Luftwaffe fighters, shown by poster Milosh), which earlier you said how good it was, is now bad source.

Do you feel dizzy from all spinning you do, and your mouth dry from all the forth at other posters if they disagree?

Anyway, the numbers of aircraft involved in this last major daylight attack against England, after the RAF had been given more than a week to recover and had substantially reinforced its badly depleted forces saw 630 RAF defenders pitted against morethan 900 Luftwaffe attackers. And remember, this was basically after the overall battle had been decided.

Yes very interesting, but to tell truth, I have read so many of your post now, and I start believe you do not really read how it was, you simply say it.. how you like it have been. And it is very little connection with reality, even when people tell you in a discussion, how it was, and you can learn, you simply say same again.. like if you think you cannot be wrong ever. So I consider, maybe read what you say is not economical for me in time..

Prior to that the numbers were heavily in favour of the Germans, even in category to category basis

Support your empty talk with figures, thank you... but I think you are simply wrong. Study numbers. Bombers, fighters. From start of battle in August, the number Germans deployed in combat against UK was very same. No great difference.

 

[Tante Ju]

Tante

How about you post your sorces and we will examine them, rather than reduce this to name calling and emotionalism.

That is what you do, sorry... it is funny you accuse others with it.. perhaps you should read post of yours...

I am aware of your efforts to prove the adequacy of the 109s range, but it just doesnt add up up, and to be honest, remains unsupported argument, and as I said at the time, show documented evidence of the 109 having an effective range of 700km, ie the ability to either intercept out to 700 km, or escort out to the same range, and I will start to believe you.

Proof already shown, you ignore.

Show verifiable records that the LW was outnumbered as at 15 September 1940 and your argument will start to get traction.

Proof already shown, you ignore.

Show evidence that LW losses on the whole of the west front in April '41 were limited to less than 58 machines, and you will start to establish credibility with me.

Proof already shown, you ignore.

Dont rely on unsubstantiated dogma to get you through, it wont work. You have to prove your case, not just stomp your feet, accuse me of bullying or whatever other tricks you want to employ to try and get your point across. none of this works with me. The only thing that will, will be if you can present a well researched dossier of supporting material that will prove the point.

Sorry, that is what you do.. and many has shown you numbers, evidence and sources. It is not their fault if you deaf and blind, but always will to insult when they try best to show you the point..

Now, as for being rude or a bully, well, I am truly sorry if that is how you feel. Most do not.

So in this case they must have also asked you so you can tell how THEY feel about you.. I am sorry, you simply do not seem to interest in reason, or cultured discuss...

 

[Mustang nut]

From start of battle in August, the number Germans deployed in combat against UK was very same. No great difference.

The problem is Tante the battle didnt start in August the LW was losing aircraft from the minute it invaded Poland. After the fall of France Goering was shocked at how few planes he had left. By August the battle was reaching its peak, it started long before then.

 

[parsifal]

Pick the issue that you want to prove. post your sources, or tabulate your data, and we will make a start. there is no point in me responding to your last post Tante, because it is just unsubstantiated comment, as is mine at the mome, but I have my ducks lined up and ready my friend

 

[Tante Ju]

Good point parsifal, what is not said in those ratios is it was almost a maximum effort in the bomber numbers,

the LW was having to merge units because bomber losses couldnt be replaced by production.[/QUOTE]

How 25 German bombers in morning attack, 112 German bombers in noon attack become "maximum effort"? German had 1400 bomber (see Murray), I do not know how many operation, or deployed against Britain. Guess - 7-800.

the LW was having to merge units because bomber losses couldnt be replaced by production.

Which units? I read Murray numbers of German bomber force. Steady through battle. So I doubt this is true.

The problem is Tante the battle didnt start in August the LW was losing aircraft from the minute it invaded Poland. After the fall of France Goering was shocked at how few planes he had left. By August the battle was reaching its peak, it started long before then.

I believe real battle started in August. With Day of the Eagle. Yes, before there were air combat, but relative small scale.. its not like land battle, in air there is never stop of fight, but scale is different. But think of it, also in land battle there is no stop.. small patrols, taking "tongue" for information.. like in July 1940, small raids on convoys, few aircraft, few loss on both sides.. much less than in 2nd part August. IMO most intense period was mid-August and mid-end September. That is real battle period.

I agree about France. Luftwaffe losses were very significant in France, if you read Murray, you see you are right!

 

[Mustang nut]

I believe real battle started in August. With Day of the Eagle.

I think that is where the misundersatnding is Tante. As a UK citizen I consider the BoB to start with Churchills speech on June 18

" What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. "
However as a conflict between the RAF and the LW it started with the BEF in Belgium IMO.

 

[parsifal]

Well, I guess i will have to pick an issue. At one point we have discussed losses to the LW in April 1941.
You will need to go to the following to pick up on this http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-air-force-1939-1941-a-28607.html
Your "proof" consisted of unreferenced claims that losses did not exceed 58 machines for the whole western front for the whole month (reference Your post No 66)

My substantive reply to that occurs in my Post 81 in which I posted scanned daily reports that are based on the OKL daily loss sheets. I stopped after I had reached the fourth day of operations (about the 8th April from memory) because the LW losses to that point already exceeded the 58 you had claimed in your post number 66. You never responded to my reply, and after that the thread topic evolved to something else.

And where is your proof that the LW was outnumbered. I dont see it. Have you posted an OB somewhere, other than just what you say it is. What is the documented strength of the Luftwaffe,, the documented strength of the raids mounted, and the documented strength of the British defence. I dont believe I have seen any of that contained in any of your posts

Can you direct to your proof about 109 range, I will look at the source material and reconsider. But from memory alone, you never posted any proof, just opinion. But if not, please direct me to the point that you did prove your position, and I will look at it.

 

[Tante Ju]

Yes, there is many interpretations possible. Churchill speech is one of them. It is a rarer, but typically British definition. I believe Day of Eagle is more proper, because not like previous operations, this was specific about a campaign design for destroy RAF. Previous - no.

But I agree, many interpreation possible. I do not think it is very great importance but - as you say, RAF and Luftwaffe combat before that and after.. no stop, so difficult to pick a start.

 

[Tante Ju]

Parsifal, you keep deny, insult.. funny, you always describe your own post as substantive... I think: when it will become real, when someone else also think of that of your post, too? You have much confidence, certain. Anyone else is "unrefereced claim" etc. always.

I think I did best to support my posts. If you tell I did not, I think this is very dishonest. And because you behave such way, I do not see why I support it AGAIN. I wrote down once. Read. But you ignore. You pretend I did not. You are even too lazy to read it, say I have to search it for you.

Why would I? I do not fear your talk will mislead anyone. Basical, you only talk... use big words, have big and strange opinions, but I do not learn from your posts. That is my opinion. If you want to pick fight with people, why not find somebody else? And why should I waste time? You said many opinion here, but proved none. Others did.

 

[Glider]

Tante
Can I ask you to just tell us how many aircraft do you believe that the Luftwaffe had available at the start of the BOB and the 15th September. Then we have a baseline to start from.

I just want to take the sting out of the postings.

 

[parsifal]

Parsifal, you keep deny, insult.. funny, you always describe your own post as substantive... I think: when it will become real, when someone else also think of that of your post, too? You have much confidence, certain. Anyone else is "unrefereced claim" etc. always.

I think I did best to support my posts. If you tell I did not, I think this is very dishonest. And because you behave such way, I do not see why I support it AGAIN. I wrote down once. Read. But you ignore. You pretend I did not. You are even too lazy to read it, say I have to search it for you.

Why would I? I do not fear your talk will mislead anyone. Basical, you only talk... use big words, have big and strange opinions, but I do not learn from your posts. That is my opinion. If you want to pick fight with people, why not find somebody else? And why should I waste time? You said many opinion here, but proved none. Others did.

Tante I can see that some of this issue is related to a misunderstanding. "Substantive response" does not mean "better response", or "your stuff is ****, and my stuff is perfect" . In the context of my employment of that phrase, it means "my main response" or my "main reply". Its not a put down of what you said or an elevation of what i said, its just contextural (that is putting it into order or sequence). it is simply saying "you said this, and i said that"

And as to insult, I dont think that I did, but if so, I am offering my apologies , publicly, and want to get on with the discussion. I hope you are adult enough to accept that so we can get on with the discussion.

Now, in regard to your posts, I cant find two of them, and am simply asking you to direct me to them. if you dont want to then thats your perogative (oh dear perogative....that means its your right), but then that leaves you saying one thing and me not believing you. Can I just say that its okay to disagree but its not okay to engage in what we have been, which is to attack each other because of those opinions. that is not and was not my intention, but still i maintain my disagreement with the positions you take on various issues

In relation to the one matter that I did find, I do apologise, you did quote a source for that, but in such a way that I cant check it. And I did provide you with a rebuttal (that means counterproof, or alternative), this was my "substantive reply"). It took the form of reproduced records from the OKL war losses. Which is a pretty goosd source. So we have differing sources and vastly differing results. We either live with that, or try to tear each others heads off. I dont want to tear your head off, do I make myself clear.

I dont seek to pick a fight with you my friend, I have offered an apology in public, but I do not agree with your positions. That doesnt mean I disrespect your person, I just dont agree with your opinions or your "facts". I understand that you dont learn from my posts, which is unfortunate I guess, but its not a problem. All that has to happen is that when either of us enters the same discussion, neither of us attacks the other with direct insult. It should be okay to disagree, express different opinions post differnt information, but is not okay, for the posts to say "you are wrong" or "that is not correct". Why? Because it will attract a reply from the other party that perhapss we dont really want to hear

 

[Njaco]

from "The WWII Data Book" by John Ellis..

6 July 1940 S/E fighters: RAF - 644 LW - 750
10 August RAF - 749 LW - 805
7 September RAF - 746 LW - 623

Service rates and location must be factored into the numbers, i.e. while RAF shows 644 a/c for 6 July, how many were stationed in 10,11 and 12 Groups who did most of the fighting in the BoB? Many squadrons were stationed elsewhere which reduces the actual number of a/c operating against the LW.

and I can see tempers and name-calling rising again. This has turned into a good thread. Lets not muck it up.

and lets not forget the bf 110s.

 

[Glider]

Servicable figs for 10th August
■Blenheim - 60
■Spitfire - 245
■Hurricane - 382
■Defiant - 22
■Gladiator - 2
627 Hurricanes and Spits

■Blenheim - 44
■Spitfire - 223
■Hurricane - 398
■Defiant - 20
■Gladiator - 9
■Total - 694 of which 621 Spits and Hurricanes

 

[parsifal]

would it also be necessary to exclude the Blenheims, Defiants and Glads if we were to exclude the Bf 110s. I would prefer to put all fighters into the mix, because thats the way the chips fall, but then again, fighters based in Germany or Scotland are not really in the battle.

What we need as well is the overall aircraft committments for specific days. How many aircraft were committed by either side.

There is a problem that I can agree with Tante on, German raids on the 15th were too numerous and too disjointed to be mutually supportive, whereas the british, operating on interior lines were able to concentrate against individual strikess, and also refuel and ready aircraft because the raids were too widely dispersed in terms of time.

I hear you about the name calling. I have tried to set it right, but I dont know....I will avoid it as best I can

 

[Njaco]

No prob. I'm gonna check my BoB thread and see if I posted any numbers.

 

[Milosh]

parsifal, on the issue serviceable a/c and pilots

Unit Type (A/C) Est. On Str. Serv. (pilots) Est. Pres. Ready Ltd. Duty

I./JG3 Bf 109E 39 37 30 39 24 18

Note the number of pilots 'ready' to the number of 'serviceable' a/c.

Single engine fighters - 28.09.40

 

[parsifal]

I understand, I think. For some formations I note there were more pilots available, and ready than there were a/c ready, other cases it was the reverse. But would this not be similar for the allies, or do they have hundreds of unemployed pilots.....I am not referring to 1940 so much as that later periuod in the war.

My belief is that the allies maintained larger squadron reserves, which probably meant they could use all their pilots more often. Then again, a lost pilot over enemy territory is a lost pilot altogether, a lost pilot over friendly territory is probably on his way back to base already.....

 

[P-40K-5]

Tante Ju,

you can't win my friend. you can post documented facts all day about Luftwaffe strengths in the west, ie: outnumbered, and some just won't
believe it. what some don't realize is that most of the a/c were based in the east. for two reasons. the russians, and the Americans coming
up from Italy. with the russian being considered the much bigger threat.

one can look a the ' big week' Between February 20–25, 1944, in preperation for Operation Overlord, when the allies had to have air supreamacy
at any cost. ANY cost. massive #'s on the allied side. and if anybody thinks the Luftwaffe wasn't outnumbered needs to give there head a shake.

another thing to remember is deployment. not every single Luftwaffe fighter was at a single place at one time. it was spread over 3 fronts, and
for Homeland defence.

with the massive #s on the allied side, it was just a matter of time for the defeat of the Luftwaffe. " one mosquito is annoying, a million will
suck you dry".