Author Topic: Spitfire IX overmodeled??  (Read 38810 times)

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #105 on: January 24, 2004, 12:20:19 PM »
Quote
Lies, damned lies, statistics as they say... numbers don`t show everything, especially if selectively qouted. First, your numbers include British pilot reserves but ignore the German reserves - why?


Because the Luftwaffe had no pilot reserves.  Even the RAF didn't have "reserves", as such.

An RAF squadron had an established strength of 20 pilots (this changesd at various times), and approx 18 - 20 aircraft. Established strength is not actual strength. The squadron would not fly 18 - 20 aircraft. Some aircraft are always in repair, or maintenance, pilots on leave, etc.

By early September, pilot strength had fallen and their were only around 16 per squadron (the number of squadrons had been expanded during the battle, diluting pilot strength), but a squadron is not supposed to fly more than 12 at a time anyway.

As to Luftwaffe reserves, if they had them where were they? Pilot strength had fallen to 200 or more below established strength, and operational pilots were 450 or so below established strength.

Quote
Second, in air combat, and this was proven hundreds of times, it was pilot quality that mattered. The British could only keep up with their pilot`s losses if they drastically reduced their training.


No. The RAF had the luxury of keeping a large part of their strength away from the battle. Pongo summed it up nicely:

"The Germans gave it everything they had in the Battle of Britain. And the Brits stoped them with half of what they had."

The RAF had around 53 operational Spit and Hurricane squadrons for most of the battle.

11 group, which bore the brunt of the battle, averaged 20 squadrons.

12 group, which was involved on occasion, had 12 squadrons.

10 group, which was again involved on occasion, had 9 squadrons.

13 group, which became involved only on 1 day, had 11 squadrons.

The RAF could afford to keep a large proportion of it's strength out of the battle at any one time, and new pilots were frequently posted to squadrons in quiet areas to gain experience.

Quote
However by early September, over 50% of British fighter pilots had only really marginal training 5-10 flying hours on their combat types, sometimes not even that much, vs. many hundred hours of their LW adversaries.


The problem with that claim is that a new pilot can only have 5  - 10 hours for a short time, before they begin to gain experience. Say a week before they get enough flight hours in. That means, according to your figures, the RAF was replacing it's force every two weeks. Around 700 pilots trained per week.

We know 500 or so RAF pilots were killed, and another 500 or so injured, so in the 4 months of the BoB they would have gained around 10,000 pilots, and lost 1,000 (assuming no injured pilots returned). Strangely, I've never heard such figures before (like most of your claims)

Quote
Wonders do not happen in war, the British were able to raise so many new pilots because they cut back on training.


That's the point, they did not raise so many new pilots. Total output of the training schools rose to 320 pilots per month, during the battle.

Quote
Given that both parties are of equal quality, the more numorous should of course. But this wasn`t the case, it was quality vs. quantity again. 1000+ fighters, yes, but only 1/3 of them were equal to the 109s.


Strangely they still managed to win.  :rofl

Quote
The Luftwaffe were pressuring the RAF with a very high sortie rate and attacks on airfields. They began those tactics in the last week of August, when they flew nearly 4000 fighter sorties. But they couldn't sustain it, flying only 3200 sorties in the first week of September, then dropping to only 1400 in the second week of September.

... and similiarly, the RAF`s fighter sorties also dropped? Why?



They didn't. The RAF flew 5000 sorties the last week of August,  4900 the first week of September.

Quote
Well, the weather:

7th September 1940 : Fair with some haze.
8th September 1940 : Fair early morning and evening, cloudy for the remainder of the day
9th September 1940 : Scattered showers, thundery in the east. Channel fair.
10th September 1940 : Generally cloudy, some rain.
11th September 1940 : Mainly fine with some local showers. Cloud in the Channel and Thames Estuary.
12th September 1940 : Unsettled, rain in most districts
13th September 1940 : Unsettled.
14th September 1940 : Showers and local thunder. Cloud in the Straits, Channel and Thames Estuary


Trust me, that's good for a British summer. It also only covers the second week of Sept, not the first week, when the sortie rate was already dropping.

Quote
It`s more like a simple case that the Automn was coming, and the weather turned bad, making flying impossible.


But not for the RAF, apparently.

Quote
As the British themselves admit, ie. on 16th September :

16th September 1940 :

Weather largely hindered fighter action.


Isegrim, that's the 16th, the third week of September. Find a similar comment for the second week, when the sorties dropped. Let alone the first week of September, wjem they were down from the last week of August.  You know, the weeks we are discussing.

Quote
No, that`s wrong. If Britain actually though the German front line strenght was 5800 planes, then it was quite correct. The actual German numbers for 11th April 1940 was 5298 planes, including 1356 s-e fighters, 1711 bombers and 414 dive bombers and others.


Those are the three plane types the RAF were refering to as frontline strength. The rest, the transports, recce aircraft etc were not considered front line strength. The RAF actually believed the Luftwaffe possesed 14,000 including transports, training aircraft etc.

Quote
As sidenote, to the "Jagdwaffe was breaking in September" fanatics, it`s interesting to note that the German fighter strenght was increasing in Septmber, ie. the 7th state was 831 single engined fighters (increased to 920 by the 28th Sept), of which 658 was servicable (increased to 712 by the 28th). The RAF had 621 fighters servicable on the 7th of September, which fell slightly, to 604 servicable fighters on the 28th.


Source? I think it's possible, however, because the Luftwaffe was suffering more from pilot shortages.  Overy gives the following figures for Luftwaffe 109 pilots ready for duty:

1st june 906
1st aug 869
1st sept 735
1st nov 673

Without the pilots available, the mechanics had more time to work on getting planes serviceable.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2004, 05:28:32 PM by Nashwan »

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #106 on: January 24, 2004, 12:48:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
Very well and eloquently said Crumpp.  For those of you who may not know, Crumpp is currently active service in the US Army Infantry and was for some time the "point of America's spear" in Afganistan This is no mrblack here.


If silly.
Somone who sees the victory of the US of the Taliban tribesmen of one of gathering the will to walk up hills and not the overwhelming rediculous disparity of the two forces.
Soldiers are indoctrinated, some to believe they are the master race, some to believe the sun never sets on thier empire, some to belive they are the soldiers of god. Some to belive that killing talliban will save buildings in NYC from Saudis flying US aircraft. What ever the indoctrination it helps but the real issue comes down to cold steel. And there is no better example of that then the US military.
Anyway. in regards to the Battle of britain to say that the loss of will to fight on the side of the LW was an issue is just silly. Look at record that the LW wrote for the following 3 years.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #107 on: January 24, 2004, 01:43:51 PM »
Pongo..Sounds like you must live in the fantasy world of coffee shop liberalism or you are not an american. French perhaps...

I know the good I've done.  I am justifiably proud.

Taliban is not a tribe = they were a government.

The Taliban were harbouring Al Qaeda.  A terrorist group composed primarily of Saudi's, other arabs, and Chechens.
 

Get your facts right bud.
Crumpp

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #108 on: January 24, 2004, 01:47:21 PM »
Canadian!  Pongo!  Alright....

Some of your governments Soldiers bled right alone side of us, literally.  Great group of guys who know exactly what I'm talking about.  I keep them in my prayers.

Crumpp

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #109 on: January 24, 2004, 03:39:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Canadian!  Pongo!  Alright....

Some of your governments Soldiers bled right alone side of us, literally.  Great group of guys who know exactly what I'm talking about.  I keep them in my prayers.

Crumpp


Yup that is correct because of some gung-ho John Wayne type friendly forces.:( Won't mention where the drugged friendly forces were from.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #110 on: January 24, 2004, 05:19:20 PM »
Well Milo,

     Soldiering is a dangerous profession.  Those men on the ground knew the risks just as those pilots did.  It happens.  If it was easy and safe, everyone would do it.
What a tradgedy for all involved.   Imagine having to live with that mistake for the rest of your life.  Imagine having a family member or friend killed because of it.

What is your point in bringing it up?  You must know the pilots were found innocent?

You might do well to remember the words of Teddy Roosevelt:


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Crumpp

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #111 on: January 24, 2004, 05:45:35 PM »
Nashwan: you're a good man. Your BoB summary was very good.
And Isengrim: You've just been spanked. :D
The BoB was an amazing occurrance. I must say that I agree with HoHun quite a bit, - it was perhaps not that an obvious British victory, things could have gone different, - but, might I add, in both directions.
The Germans made many tactical mistakes, such as their close escorts etc, but however the Brits made some mistakes also, typically scrambling or getting bounced at airfields so close to the front. That was however a political issue as well.
EVERY source I have seen (apart from Isengrim) gives the RAF a kill rate of approx 1.5 vs 1, at least. With the LW having the initiative, heavy escorts (in September the escorts were up to 4 for each bomber at times), good equipment, and very seasoned pilots, the outcome is amazing, - LW got spanked by the RAF.
The BoB, not being such a huge battle compared to many other events later in the war was quite a thing. The mighty LW suffered quite a bit, and in the follow up, the force of the RAF grew bigger.
Just a year or so after the BoB the RAF was executing 1000 bomber raids on Germany, - a remarkable feat, fot that ment cruising over observed enemy territory for HUNDREDS of miles, while the once mighty LW lost their upper hand raiding targets only an hours cruise from friendly territory.
Outcome: Decisive RAF victory. After the BoB, the LW was never again in any condition to show such an aggression to British airspace. And the little HTC overmodelled/favoured-by-HTC Spitty was giving the little undermodelled/unfavoured-by-HTC 109 a very tough time in territories of Europe that were well beyond its endurance
:D
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 gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #112 on: January 24, 2004, 06:01:27 PM »
Crumpp,
When the invasion started June 1944, the strategic air war between 8th AF and LW was still unfinished business despite losses of the heavies started to decrease in May (mostly due to increased numbers of escort fighters). Activity in the air increased that time in all fronts, therefore we can't certainly say what would have been the outcome without combined pressure on all fronts (Normandy, East, Italy etc.).

Anyway, the 8th AF certainly damaged Luftwaffe badly during spring 1944 despite their own losses were also very high. The 8th AF could simply sustain losses better than LW during that period.

gripen

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #113 on: January 24, 2004, 06:31:57 PM »
Gripen,

According to Don Caldwell in "JG26 War Diaries: Vol II"

JG26 was able to get a grand total of TWO FW-190's to the beachhead. Pips Priller and his wingman made ONE strafing run at high speed.  

5th Jagddivision (JG 26 and JG 2) flew 121 sorties on June 6th 1944 against the Beachheads.  FleigerKorp II reported 51 sorties all made by SG 4.  

The 8th AF and the AEAF flew 14,000 sorties that day with the 56th Fighter Group flying an unprecedented eleven combat missions.

I would say the Jagdwaffe was depleted.  
Crumpp

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #114 on: January 24, 2004, 06:39:14 PM »
That one strafing run, wasn't that featured in the old movie: "The longest day" ?
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 Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #115 on: January 24, 2004, 07:05:16 PM »
Ya crump. I come from that silly leftist pinko crowd that thinks that the LW was just beat in the Battle of Britain not that their warriors spirit failed.  And thinks that the US (and my old unit 3PPCLI) won in Afganistan not because they had the supperior warriors spirit but because they totaly out classed thier opponents. You are the first person that I have ever heared state otherwise.
Its not the B52s and the A10s and the regiments of heavy arty and the spy satalites and the night visions gogles and the attack helicopters and the body armour and the 2km range sniper rifles and supperior coms and training. Its our warriors spirit that won.

For crist sake be proud of yourself. You fought for your country and you should be proud. But its got nothing to do with your warriors spirt bud. Thats crazy talk. However that got in your head you should re assess it. And then transposing it to the battle of britain. Really. Its the Hitler doctrin of war fighting.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #116 on: January 24, 2004, 07:07:25 PM »
Really it's your spelling....

Crumpp

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #117 on: January 24, 2004, 07:46:29 PM »
No Pongo,
   You come from the Supersized Fries gotta have it now fast food culture of N. America who thinks everything that isn't easy and quick must be bad.  

Gosh if it's so easy why aren't you out there defending Canada?  Oh yeah they didn't attack Canada so it's not your fight, huh?

Read some History.  The Soviets had a major technological advantage over the Mujahaddeen.  So why did they lose?  If you ask the Mujahaddeen they will tell you.  The Soviets never left the roads and with the exception of a few Spetnaz units never went into the hills or caves.  Not only did the Soviets bomb the crap out of them which isn't very effective in the natural bunker systems of Afghanistan but they had massive Armour assets.  We used Hummers with MG's/Mk-19's.  After one ambush, my vehicle had 38 bullet holes in it.  The M2 .50 I was shooting had two through the lower reciever.  8 guys on that vehicle with me, not one got hit! But the ones we didn't kill on the ambush line we were able to hop off and chase into the hills.  The Soviets shot anyone who came close to them.  We helped the afghans where ever we could.  We played soccer with their children, took care of their sick, and brought in school supplies and aid.  We respected their culture, religion, and country. Of the 40 nation coalition, the US is the ONLY country to have paid the money it pledged to rebuild Afghanistan.

Why don't you say that it's just Technology that won it. Here check out  Anthony...

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/soldierstories/noflash/story.php?story_id_key=5340

 
Nothing comes about from anyone's effort.  It all just is meant to be huh?  

Crumpp

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself" -- John Stuart Mill

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9504
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #118 on: January 24, 2004, 09:03:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
Apologize? to you!!! for having an opinion?? take some spelling lessons you tard.  I quit your game. I pay to be here. kiss my ass.

You two geezers are a great example for the youngsters in here, aren't you.

Now I don't care who started it.  I want it to stop.  Both of you.

Geez.  Kids these days.

- oldman

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Spitfire IX overmodeled??
« Reply #119 on: January 25, 2004, 12:31:07 AM »
Nashwan, I got Tony Wood's (and Bill Gunston's) book "Hitler's Luftwaffe", and it states that:

"By comparison with RAF claims of 755 German aircraft destroyed, the Luftwaffe actually lost 403 with a further 127 damaged throughout this period, and if somewhat less than was claimed, these figures were nevertheless extremely serious. But RAF Fighter Command's casualties were equally grievous with 94 pilots killed or missing and 60 wounded between 8-19 August and the losses in aircraft amounting to 54 Spitfires and 121 Hurricanes."


"Combined losses of Luftflotten 2, 3 and 5 (Norway) from 10 July until 31 October 1940, amounted to 1,733 aircraft destroyed compared with 915 aircraft lost (415 pilots killed or missing) by the RAF."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."