Author Topic: Spitfire IX overmodeled??  (Read 39761 times)

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #330 on: February 02, 2004, 05:14:28 PM »
Crumpp,
Well, I don't smoke. Please read your own source.

gripen
« Last Edit: February 02, 2004, 05:17:35 PM by gripen »

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #331 on: February 02, 2004, 05:21:28 PM »
I've read it through three times and don't see anything like your claims.  

Crumpp

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #332 on: February 02, 2004, 05:54:20 PM »
Crumpp, I wouldn't put too much faith in that.

For example, the figures he gives are way off, and frequently contradictory.

Quote
On 1 August RAF Fighter Command
strength stood at 570 Hurricanes and
Spitfires (two- thirds of these were
Hurricanes), and of the total only 367 were
operational.


page 15

From the RAF's  own BoB site:

Fighter Command Serviceable Aircraft as at 0900 hours, 1 August 1940

Spitfire - 245
Hurricane - 341

For the 18th of August he gives the following:

Quote
By the 18th, Luftwaffe
losses from all causes stood at 350 versus
171 for Fighter Command. Fighter
Command’s ability to generate defensive
sorties remained essentially unchanged. An
intelligence report on the 18th "estimated that
the British had lost 770 fighters in the period
from 1st July to 16th August and that only
300 were still operational, whereas in reality
214 had been destroyed and seventy-one
damaged in combat, and more than 600 were
still operational.


Then he gives the following loss figures:

Quote
The highest total losses of the battle
occurred on the 18th; 68 British and 69
German.


RAF losses on the 18th were 22.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/august18.html


On page 19 he makes the following ridiculous assertion:

Quote
The resultant war of attrition
was one that Fighter Command could not
hope to win. The higher concentration of
fighters in the German raids reduced the edge
that Fighter Command had previously
enjoyed: the Germans could afford to trade
Me109s, one for one, with Spitfires and
Hurricanes!


The RAF was producing more fighters than the Luftwaffe, by a factor of more than 2 to 1. RAF pilots also frequently escaped, whereas 109 pilots were usually captured if they bailed out. And yet he thinks the Luftwaffe can trade fighters 1 for 1?

Again on page 19:

Quote
Between 8 August and 6
September, 657 fighters had been lost. By
using replacement aircraft (from repairs and
storage) Fighter Command managed, until 1
September, to keep frontline strength at
about the same levels as were available at
the end of July. But, those reserves had
dwindled from 518 Spitfires and Hurricanes
(in maintenance and storage) on 6 July, to
only 292 by 7 September.

British production figures were no
more encouraging. In the last week of
August, for example, only 91 Spitfire and
Hurricanes were produced while losses
reached 137 destroyed and 11 seriously
damaged. With losses at these rates,
Fighter Command estimated that reserves
would be exhausted in three weeks followed
by steady depletion of the frontline
squadrons.


So by the 7th of Sept, at the end of the period of pressure, he admits reserves still contained nearly 300 Spits and Hurris. And in the last week of August, around 140 were lost, whilst 91 were built, a net loss of 50 in a week. At that rate, the reserves would last 6 weeks from Sept 7th, ie until mid - late October. Presumably fighter command would at least be getting some respite from the wether by then.

Quote
In phase one of the
campaign (8 to 18 August), the RAF lost
154 pilots (killed, seriously wounded or
missing). Only 63 new fighter pilots were
available from the training schools for the
same period. During phase two, 24 August
to 1 September, the figures were even
worse as losses reached 231 pilots, or
about 20 percent of the total combat
strength of the command! Combat strength
in the month of August decreased by
almost one-third, from 1,434 to 1,023. The
squadron average fell from 26 to 16
operational pilots.


Replacement pilots, by his reckoning, were about 180 in August. Most sources give 260 - 300. By his reckoning, strength fell by 411 in August, with 180 new pilots, that means pilot losses in August of at least 600, 700 if you use other sources replacement rates. Actual losses were 1000 killed and injured in July, August, Sept and Oct.

Also page 20:

Quote

Therefore, the Luftwaffe ended
Phase two with a capability to field 623
operational Me109s against a force of only 350
RAF fighters.


Phase 2 ended on the 7th Sept. By his own admission, the RAF still had 292 Spits and Hurris in storage at this point.

Fighter Command Serviceable Aircraft as at 0900 hours, 7th September 1940

Spitfire - 223
Hurricane - 398
Total = 621 (and this doesn't include the reserves)

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/september7.html

He seems to have based his entire thesis on the RAF only having 350 Spits and Hurris operational at one time, when in actual fact the figure was almost double that.

The RAF had 44 Spit and Hurri squadrons operational on the 14th July. By the 1st of Sept that had risen to 51 (which in part explains the shortage of pilots, 7 extra squadrons require a lot more pilots)

There were 53 operational Spit and Hurri squadrons by the end of September.

51 squadrons, with a serviceable strength of 350 planes, would be less than 7 per squadron. Why keep reserves when your front line is so under strength?

Truth is, serviceability hovered between 600 - 650, which is approx 12 planes per squadron, the normal strength a squadron is expected to put into combat.

Try reading some of the squadron diaries at http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/briefing.html

They're full of 12 aircraft patrols and scrambles, 610 squadron even sending 14 aircraft on 1 occasion

303 (Polish) squadron's makes good reading, spending almost all of August on training, before being sent into action for the first time on 30th August.

Online Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20388
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #333 on: February 02, 2004, 05:55:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by gripen
Guppy35,
If you need something measurable, count USAAF losses to enemy fighters after March 1944.

Question is not if they could turn bombers back, I have not made such argument. Questions is when the allies won air superiority over Germany? And based on statistics it can be clearly seen that certainly not in March and in May the USSTAF still claimed that it was not yet reached (see Crumpp's' source).

gripen


That's what I'm counting  vs sorties flown gripen.  It's a tiny number when you compare losses to sorties.  It wasn't having an impact in any sort of numbers sense.  Were people still dying? Yes and it was tragic to see those lives lost on both sides. But in a ledger of wartime, the losses to LW fighters was miniscule compared to the sorties flown

Dan/Slack
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #334 on: February 02, 2004, 07:10:12 PM »
What a funny thread. Crumpp, Nash, Gripen, and Isengrim.
Well, Isengrim seems to be living in fantasy, so I aim at him yet again. Here is a cookie for you ISENGRIM:
First:
"The Brits were "too strong"? Too strong for what ? Too strong to be bombed at will between July 1940 till May 1941, until the bombers were sent against Russia? Face it, Angus-Bangus, the Brits could simply couldn`t stop it happen. And they were not even recognised as a threat big enough to bother about."

The tables turned from heavy raids on Britain into even heavyer raids on Germany in just above a year. Looks like the Germans did their maths wrong.


Second:
 "Face the facts, even if they are unpleasant. The whole bombing of the Reich, wasting 60 000 Englishman in the process, was due to the fact that the UK had absolutely no chance at all to challange the Germans on the continent, and they knew it."

So I presume those nearly MILLION TONS of bombs dropped on the Reich was a proof of Britains lack of compitence?


Third: "Pityful sadism on civillians all that remained for them."

Well, now eat yer hat. The Germans themselves practically invented terror-bombing, and exercized it from the beginning of WW2, starting with undefended polish towns crowded with people. They did Warshaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, London, etc,  with the incendiary method, sometimes successful, sometimes not. The method undoubtedly worked though, since they came close to buckling the British backbone in 1940 as you have already pointed out.
However, the Brits kept dropping leaflets for the first months of the war, then reverted to raids on isolated targets, preferrably industrian, then into bigger and bigger raids. in 1940 the German population lost more people in car accidents than in air-raids, and the casualties amongst the raiding british airmen were also higher, - high indeed as you have also pointed out. A rather funny campaign from the English side from a practical point of view, - it would have been so much easier to just dump incentiaries all over the easiest targets,  - however there was still some humanism left at the controls. That was to change as history goes, and yet again to remind the ignorant, the British showered the Reich with bombs, the USAF topped that up. Major German cities were destroyed up to 95%, the bodycount was close to a million, the industries were in ruins, there was hunger, disease, lack of shelter, any horror available to the civilian of the reich as their own former method turned against them. No laughing matter, but a very effective way of winning a war.

Then the final:
" In their desperation they tried those senseless terror raids which cost them dearly and made them totally bancrupt for no gain (unless you count they were allowed to sign a piece of paper just like the French). I doubt this really worth loosing practically all their overseas belongings, food rationinig up to the `50s, and being indepted with billions towards the USA."

Yumm, silly Englishmen. They should have surrendered and gone hand in hand with Hitler, right?
Well, for your info, I belive that the world should be grateful for the British staying in their boots. They recognized the "beast" ahead of all others, and they turned out to be correct about it.
They did go bankrupt, already in 1940. They may still be paying to the US and the food rationing was there at least into the 50's all right. Also in my country, which was not a warring nation (Iceland), but alas, I do not know about Hungary.
Anyway, that line of yours is out of bounds, so just stuff it lad
:mad:
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #335 on: February 02, 2004, 07:23:39 PM »
No, no Angus, the Germans started in Spain during the Civil War. Remember Guernica where the Germans claimed they were after the stone bridge. Problem was the bridge was untouched but the town was well danmaged. Iirc there was also bombings of other cities as well.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #336 on: February 02, 2004, 07:25:08 PM »
Here I will post that source again to you can more easily access it and point out my mistake......

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj94/mccrabb2.html

Crumpp

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #337 on: February 02, 2004, 11:30:41 PM »
Guppy35,
The 8th AF lost over 1000 heavy bombers to enemy fighters in jan-may period 1944, over half of them in April and May. These are heavy losses despite  loss rate per sortie was tolerable and decreased (in May) due to increased number of bombers and better escort fighters. Note also that USBBS and BBSU seems to count loss rate per sortie differently beacause they claim 3,5% for April. Note also that kill claims as well as losses are absolute numbers so absolute comparison is fully valid.

Crumpp,
Well, it all depends on definition of the air superiority,  there was no such thing in that period if we use USAF definition.

gripen

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #338 on: February 03, 2004, 12:25:08 AM »
"No doubt the Luftwaffe could have won the BoB"

Oh here we go again, get your pom poms on everybody!

Could have, would have, if they only...

Crecy, Waterloo, Gettysburg, The Marne, Midway, El Alemain, Kursk...

Proving what exactly?

You LW cheerleaders spend all your time trying to get over the fact they were unable to defeat the RAF in 1940.

Listen, I hate to break this to you, but battles have a chance of a winner and a loser, so please stop acting like you are discovering something new here.

Its also interesting to note that despite a 2 1/2 year bombing campaign by the Allies, the LW was still able to field fighters, even though the Germans produced less a/c, and trained fewer pilots. Why would the RAF be unable to hold out in a continued air campaign? Even Japan still possessed fighters for home defence in 1945. If your all so big on history, maybe heed some of its lessons.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2004, 12:57:47 AM by Squire »
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #339 on: February 03, 2004, 02:53:20 AM »
True Squire.
You know, what puzzles me is why the British started so late to bomb large urban areas, while they had that done to themselves as early as 1940. Given the poor accuracy in the beginning of their bombing campaign, it would have been so much easier. And the Eye for an Eye motto as well,  - with London burning so ferociously, that once the fire brigades pumped the Thames down to mud!
Instead they attempted accurate bombing on strategic/industrial targets.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Red Tail 444

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2497
      • http://www.redtail.org
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #340 on: February 03, 2004, 10:25:18 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Do you have a problem with a 1945 F4U-4C(4 M3 20MIL) or a 1944 F4U-1A(430MPH at 20K)?


I don't!!! Great Pic.
Gainsie

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #341 on: February 03, 2004, 11:54:20 AM »
Squire since you came late to the discussion and didn't read the thread I will fill you in.

Some folks are claiming that the RAF didn't have to put up much of a fight in the BoB.  Basically there was NO way the LW could have won it.  WE both know that's wrong.  The LW in fact could have and almost did win the BoB.  They changed their strategy though and lost the fight.

Secondly some folks claim that just because the LW could send up fighters that the Allies did not control the skies over Europe after Mar - Apr timeframe '44.  Again absolutely wrong.

They could have won in '41 and there was NO WAY they could have stopped the Allied onslaught by '44.  The tide had turned irrevocably against them.

Crumpp

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #342 on: February 03, 2004, 12:34:03 PM »
BoB was in '40 Crumpp.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #343 on: February 03, 2004, 12:39:47 PM »
Quote
Some folks are claiming that the RAF didn't have to put up much of a fight in the BoB.


Crumpp, I hope you don't mean me. That's not what I'm saying at all.

If the didn't put up a fight they would be bombed into oblivion. If they sent all their aircraft up in big titanic battles their attrition would be too high.

What the RAF had to do was constantly battle large German formations with small ones of their own, whilst keeping their own losses to an acceptable level. They did so.

Quote
WE both know that's wrong. The LW in fact could have and almost did win the BoB. They changed their strategy though and lost the fight.


The Luftwaffe could have won the battle by shooting down more RAF fighters and losing fewer aircraft themselves. They didn't.

The whole crux of my argument is it doesn't matter what strategy theLuftwaffe tried, they simply weren't shooting down enough RAF aircraft. By September, when they were trying yet another strategy, the RAF had been building up it's strength for months, and it was simply too late for the Luftwaffe to win. They were now the smaller force (in fighters at least)

The whole thing is simply another what if question. What if the Luftwaffe had 1,000 Me262s in 1942? Fact is, they couldn't. what if the Luftwaffe had continued attacking RAF airfields? By the begining of September the Luftwaffe had less fighter pilots that the RAF, less fighters, was replacing both the fighters and pilots at a slower rate, and the pilots were having to fly long missions every day.

To beat the RAF the Luftwaffe would have had to sustain the same pressure they applied in late August throughout September. I've never seen any objective analysis of the Luftwaffe that says they were remotely capable of that.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #344 on: February 03, 2004, 01:46:32 PM »
That's funny, cause the analysis was just posted a few days ago FROM the LW point of view.  It certainly did say they could sustain it without difficulty.

Crumpp