Spitfire IX overmodeled??

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Arlo
Thread ... slowing .... down. People ... not ... posting ... not ... arguing .... to ... the ... death ... anymore. Must .... post ... something. Keep .... thread ... alive ....

Luftwaffe sucked.

SPITFIRE!!!!!!  

Dan/Slack

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Your conclusion that the LW had no chance of winning the BoB is complete and utter fiction.  Revisionist History and nothing more.

Crumpp

They lost any chance they had at winning the battle when Hitler ordered the bombing of London.  Gave the Brits a much needed respite for their fighters.  

The LW might have been good pilots with good tactical sense but their strategic thinking was down in the toilet.  Heck, the strategic thinking for the entire German high command was in the crapper.  They might have been able to win a lot of battles but with short sighted strategic thinking, no way in hell they could have won the war.  So I guess the Allies' victory could be attributed not only to the bellybutton kicking we gave them but also to incompetent German high command strategic planning.


Ack-Ack

[-MZ-]

If the Nazis had been smart, they wouldn't have started WW2 in the first place.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by -MZ-
If the Nazis had been smart, they wouldn't have started WW2 in the first place.

Careful MZ,

 "Poland had WMD and was an imminent threat" comment can't be far behind

Dan/Slack ->running for the hills, arms flailing

[Crumpp]

It's a site that sells WWII memorabilia, Gripen....


You need to post some crediable sources that draw the same conclusions you do.  Not data YOU or some knucklehead on the BB manipulate to present YOUR view.

Post a museum, University, Air Power Doctrine Study, Air Force, or Published Historian that draws the same conclusion as you.  Quote their conclusion and leave a link.

These are the sources I've used and quoted their conclusions along with the links.


Crumpp

[Angus]

Crumpp: No good keeping that ranting on forever. The thread is so long, the links are so many, yet I fail to see (oh, silly me ) more than a bit of an opinion between you and Gripen.
I do see another difference, though, you are straightout rude and Gripen is not. A second point for your "dinner"  is, that I have seen Gripen provide some outstanding data on these threads throughout the AH BB for a long while, mostly technical stuff. From your side I do not know yet.
So what is the thread-hijacking debate about? Could the LW possibly/easily/not have won the BoB. That's really all there is, and no dignity in your dim-witted vocabulary being mucked over those who do not completely agree with you. So please try to define your argument into a THESIS and stuff it into a sentence or two and keep with it, otherwise shut up, or....prepare for a very creative vocabulary of other readers of this thread, such as "Crumpp: you XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX"!

[Crumpp]

Angus,
Want to know what it's about then read it, til then.....How about a nice cup Of Shut the F--k Up.  

I didn't Hijack the thread, it was dead on the spit topic long ago.  Face it, Nobody gives a crap that the spit is overmodeled.  It's one of the most popular planes in the game.  That question was answered about 5 replys into this thread.  It is overmodeled, however, it's not even a real spit.  It's a hybrid AH version.  Do you know AH2 in the works? Did not HTC say they were concentrating on that and not on AH?

With that said.  Gripen, Nashwan posted the link but it's obvious he did not examine the numbers because the CONCLUSION the RAF comes too about the battle is COMPLETELY different from the one you and him are trying to push.  The BoB was a hard fought campaign that the LW could have won Air superiority over Southern England.  Changing to a bad strategy and a really determined defense prevented them from being successful.  You want to say that they had no chance at all.  That is just not true.

Crumpp

[palef]

Originally posted by Crumpp


(snip)
Face it, Nobody gives a crap that the spit is overmodeled.  It's one of the most popular planes in the game.  That question was answered about 5 replys into this thread.  It is overmodeled, however, it's not even a real spit.  It's a hybrid AH version.  Do you know AH2 in the works? Did not HTC say they were concentrating on that and not on AH?

(snip).

Crumpp

No, no, no you misunderstand - it's undermodeled in every area except endurance and possibly overmodeled in gross weight.

Just trying to do my bit Arlo.

palef

[Arlo]

Right on, Palef.

And Goering wore lady's underthings.

[gripen]

Crumpp,
The facts are clear; the LW was running out of resources faster rate than RAF in the 2nd phase. The Fighter command could keep front line strenght quite constant through out 2nd phase while the strenght of the LW decreased. Actually your source admits this despite uses wrong strenght data on the Fighter command. From the RAF site I can easily see that the Fighter command had around 600 fighters or more ready all the time during critical period. And even your own source admits that the RAF had still reserves left and the LW could keep just 80% in the fighter units and they had pilots for just 97% of them. Shortly, even continuation of the 2nd phase would not have changed outcome of the BoB because the RAF had more resources.

Generally Dowding and Park avoided big air battles because they wanted to save resources and this was the reason why the LW was forced to change strategy; only way the LW could get the Fighter command up and fight was to bomb London.

So far you have posted nothing relevant which supports your claims on the supposed  LW reserves. But you have posted many unsupported claims and actually invalidated your own sources with your own statements.

gripen

[Slash27]

Yeah, but he's consistant:D

[Crumpp]

Again you have thrown up YOUR opinion unsupported by any facts.  Just Quote some crediable sources and post the links.


Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Here Gripen,


Just like this.  As Agent Friday used to say, "Just the facts".


Even the Imperial War Museaum says the LW almost won in September.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/online/battle...in/overview.htm

"The crucial period of the battle was between 24 August and 15 September. Fighter Command came closest to losing when its vital sector airfields around London were attacked. The decisive turning point came on 7 September when the Luftwaffe switched its attention to the capital. This tactical blunder allowed Fighter Command to recover its strength rapidly to inflict, on 15 September, losses significant enough to show the Germans the battle could not be won."

Notice the wording: "Came closest to losing..."

No lets look at Lund's conclusions about the BoB found on page 26 of the his document and pg 31 under adobe thumbnails:

"In the final analysis, perhaps the Germans
could have won. Perhaps, if they had
aggressively pursued either campaign
strategy they could have won, but that will
always remain conjecture."

Gosh that is exactly what I have been saying.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ww2/batlbrit.pdf


A site that deals in WWII artifacts:

"The Battle of Britain raged over the skies of southern England throughout that late summer of 1940 - the Luftwaffe lost a total of 1,733 aircraft from July to October, the RAF 915. Had he but known it, Göering was only 24 hours from victory at one point according to British Flight Command. All our reserves were spent and our pilots were exhausted. Incredibly, Göering decided that the Luftwaffe were taking too much of a punishment from the British fighters and he ordered his planes to switch their attention away from the British airfields and towards the British cities. Whilst this was bad news for the civilian populations of the industrial cities, this gave the R.A.F. and the aviation industry a reprieve and a crucial breather to re-arm and re-stock. It also meant that a German invasion of Britain had to be postponed and that Germany was soon to turn its attention eastwards - a decision which was arguably to cost them the war."


http://www.retrosellers.com/features61.htm

Notice it says "All our reserves were spent"


And Finally the Royal Air Force:


"Heavy fighter losses in France saw Dowding warn the War Cabinet of the dire consequences should the present wastage rates continue, and a letter dated 16 May 1940 is one of the great documents of history. After covering the evacuation from Dunkirk, he had just enough aircraft to fight the Luftwaffe in the one place they could be effectively used - within the comprehensive air defence system he had built in the UK. Even so, he admitted that the situation was "critical in the extreme" and while it is true that the immortal "Few" - his 'chicks' as Churchill christened them - won the Battle using the organisation he had created, the Luftwaffe lost it through bad leadership, faulty tactics and mistaken target selection."  


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

Well that is straight from the horses mouth.  Let see your sources without YOUR opinion placed on them.  Just quote them without making an argument.  

No amount of "data manipulation" to advance YOUR own view will change the facts of history.

End of Story

Crumpp

[Angus]

Crumpp: you are far better at  supplying links than making anything logical out of them
Maybe it would be suitable to define a LW victory. I define a LW victory  with RAF buckling and being unable to intercept bombers, - that would have had to happen no less than mid-september.
RAF has a different view, they seem to estimate that disbanding squadrons and possibly evacuating some airfields due to LW's strength would equal defeat.
Fighter commands inner resources were practically depleated, and as you have pointed out, LW did have gruppen that did not participate in the battle. However, the Brits had 13th group almost sitting by idly. That, dear fellow, was quite a force. More accurately: 13th group 14 SQUADRONS before Adlertag, and I am not counting those who were moved northwards after the battle begun.
Looking better into this all, I am actually shifting to the opinion that the LW could not have won  

[gripen]

Crumpp,
You can check RAF strenght  from linked sited as noted several times.

IWM: Basicly this all is allready known, during the 2nd phase amount of reserves decreased but the RAF still had reserves  for weeks at same rate. There is nothing which supports your arguments on LW strenght and reserves.

Lund: As noted several times, his conclusions are based on false numbers on the RAF strenght (possibly on purpose).

Retrosellers: This is actually a shopping site with no value as a source. Desperate attempt IMHO.

RAF site: Just check numbers on daily reports during 2nd phase from the very same site; the Fighter command could keep strenght through 2nd phase. And note that also LW lost large amount of planes during BoF.

Overall nothing new. Please show us numbers on the LW reserves.

gripen