Not the point. It is still a combat air patrol. The continent was still a combat zone.
Ditto, I bet those pilots were still logging combat time.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
flying over naples in april '45 it's no the way for find enemy
Its not but if hostilities were still in effect and naples was considered part of a "theater of operations" (which it was) that was a combat mission...
Sorry, but I can't see the relevance of that; standard operating height, for fighter sweeps, was 20,000'+, and no European mountain comes within 4,000' of that, so all fighters found the need to climb at some stage (just after crossing the enemy coast, in 1941-4, in the RAF's case.) No fighter Squadron is going to go in at low level, unless they're on a strafing/bombing run, and they would expect to have high top cover, somewhere above.
BTW the second document shows the Spits having both shorter range and less endurance than the Bf 109G. Even with a larger drop tank they have less range.
"Northwest Europe, the channel Front and low countries," were what the poster quoted; as far as I'm aware, they were not on the Eastern Front.On the Eastern Front, which was very important to Germany, much of the air fighting happened lower level than in the West
And yet when you take off at München, Bavaria and fly any direction other than north, you'll have to make 12000 in about 12000 from the airfield. Mountains kind of go up sharply. Airfields among them. It's like that from Bavaria to the Black Sea. Know why they called Poland's Pripet Marshes unpassable? Because south is all mountain, swamps in the middle, you have to go north along the Baltic.Sorry, but I can't see the relevance of that; standard operating height, for fighter sweeps, was 20,000'+, and no European mountain comes within 4,000' of that, so all fighters found the need to climb at some stage (just after crossing the enemy coast, in 1941-4, in the RAF's case.) No fighter Squadron is going to go in at low level, unless they're on a strafing/bombing run, and they would expect to have high top cover, somewhere above.
Do you know why combat on the Eastern Front was at such low alt? Aside from the guts of the battlefronts being across all the swamps and fields, it was the proximity of the airfields to each other. They just plain didn't have the space to climb very high before meeting the enemy, and staging over the airfield for climb and formation meant your troops were being attacked with IL2s while you were scared of russian fighters, and vice versa. It went with the territory, and was a similar air war in some respects to North Africa.
Hello Siegfried
On 17pdr APDS ammo
Penetration ability against sloped plate, in this case 17pdr against the 80mm thick glacis plate of a Panther: From US 12th Army report on the tests at Isigny
...
Juha
And when you'r crossing the enemy coast you have to make 20-30,000' immediately or get shot down by the light flakAnd yet when you take off at München, Bavaria and fly any direction other than north, you'll have to make 12000 in about 12000 from the airfield. Mountains kind of go up sharply. Airfields among them. It's like that from Bavaria to the Black Sea. Know why they called Poland's Pripet Marshes unpassable? Because south is all mountain, swamps in the middle, you have to go north along the Baltic..
I suggest you speak to European politicians about that, mate, and "somewhere" is 26 miles, which an athlete can cover in 90 minutes, a Spitfire in 6.England isn't Europe mate, it's off in the north sea somewhere.
Don't tell me what I see. Some of us have had a fairly comprehensive education, in fact we no longer think that Australia is peopled only by convicts.I told you that you guys only see the low countries when you look at europe.
Relevance? The Spitfire never indulged in pole racing.Think Czechsolovakia, Hungary, North Italy. Remember those interwar Swiss Alp races? The whole point of them is that they thoroughly tested an airplane's mettle for militaries, rather than the popular pole racing which is at 100 feet. And lots of planes failed, the 109 Udet flew in that race broke its engine over those mountains.
And, as I said, when crossing the ChannelYou'll find yank fighter group reports in north Italy in 45 talking about having to climb near the airfield before going anywhere, I know that without even looking it up, test me on it. The relevance is that it burns fuel. You have to do this in the Balkans, you have to do this around southern Romania, you have to do this in Bavaria, in northwest Czechsolovakia, in southern Poland, in Hungary, etc.
Twaddle; the Spitfire climbed at over 4000'/minute at full throttle, so could reach 20,000' in less than 10 minutesAnd remember we're talking about planes which have much closer performance to a modern civvy job than they do a modern jet fighter. They don't exactly climb spritely, takes like half an hour for combat height from brakes off as opposed to 2-3min.
I have no interest in the Eastern Front; the discussion concerns (or it did, until you started shifting the emphasis) the petrol consumption over Northern Europe. My contention is that, since the participating aircraft had to reach (at least) 20,000', the land topography has no bearing on the conversation.Do you know why combat on the Eastern Front was at such low alt? Aside from the guts of the battlefronts being across all the swamps and fields, it was the proximity of the airfields to each other. They just plain didn't have the space to climb very high before meeting the enemy, and staging over the airfield for climb and formation meant your troops were being attacked with IL2s while you were scared of russian fighters, and vice versa. It went with the territory, and was a similar air war in some respects to North Africa.
I'm doing no such thing; you're the one twisting my words. What I said was that Spitfires had to climb to the same height as the German fighters, at the same rate, so saying that their petrol consumption was less critical is a complete fabrication.And you're using this as an example of Messers not having to worry about altitude in assessing general service ranges.
Were the aircraft involved in the Stalingrad airlift ever provided with fighter escort...... I do know that the VVS chewed into unescorted transports mercilessly.
May be but they still have less range than the most often as "short-ranged" claimed Bf 109.If you do the maths you'll see the Spitfires in that document are cruising at higher speeds, in some cases much higher.
Were the aircraft involved in the Stalingrad airlift ever provided with fighter escort. If so, where were those fighters based and how far were they flying in those missions?
I will try and confirm this stuff tonite.
They both have very little range, but its very common knowledge that the brakes on the 109 were better but the Spitfire was more comfortable , however the the defogger on the Spit was inferior to the 109 but that being said the landing light was better on the 109 but the Spit had a far superior nav lights . Then we move to fit and finish the Dzus fasteners on the Spit were better but that may be because they were made in the States . However the Spit had more legroom but that may be because it had to fit North Americans and Australians rather then just the dwarfish EuropeansMay be but they still have less range than the most often as "short-ranged" claimed Bf 109.
yeah, you got to keep those Fins on a short leash or they will get all carried away.at the time which in the finish got out of hand.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe I remember reading that story in Martin Caiden's book Flying Forts. So he may be the one who started that rumor.Thats the one I was talking about! A Captain Rossi!!!
May be but they still have less range than the most often as "short-ranged" claimed Bf 109.