Author Topic: Spitfire IX overmodeled?? (Read 39696 times)

GScholz · « **Reply #225 on:** January 27, 2004, 06:33:17 PM »

It's the definition of the USAF.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/air.htm

GScholz · « **Reply #226 on:** January 27, 2004, 06:37:22 PM »

Air superiority and air supremacy are not synonymous. It is obviously a common mistake, just look at this thread.

Crumpp · « **Reply #227 on:** January 27, 2004, 06:42:29 PM »

Here let me repost this AND let me once again say it. The Allies had Air Superiority from Mar ' 44 til the End of the War in Europe. In Only a few instances though did they have Air Supremacy. Normandy was one of those times. Right after Bodenplatte may have been another. The last few months of the war where another.

Here then lets examine the definition of Air Supremacy we both agree on.

In Normandy:

"Air supremacy is defined as the condition when the enemy air force is in-capable of effective interference."

This was definately the case in Normandy.

"Under the condition of air supremacy, the air commander employs all of his aircraft at will."

This was also the case for the Allies.

"Through the complete destruction of the enemy air forces, this condition is the ultimate goal of an air campaign. "

This is arguable but I contend that while the LW still had planes and pilots it did not have a force that could do any damage to the allies in Normandy. Therefore the LW destruction as an effective fighting force was complete.

"It may occur however, through the establishment of a diplomatic “no-fly zone”."

The Normandy landings may not have been a Diplomatic "No-Fly" zone but they were unarguably a LW "No-Fly" zone.

Three out of four conditions unarguable and one that you can debate depending on your whether you take a tatical view or strategic. In my book it meets the definition.

Crumpp

Squire · « **Reply #228 on:** January 27, 2004, 07:29:02 PM »

For starters the term "Air Superiority" and "Air Supremacy" when used by authors of books on WW2 history, is interchangeable. What some post war USAF manual says is quite off topic, so you guys can end that arguement. English as a language is no that rigid.

Cherry picking one air campaign from 1944 as the "real end" to the LW is a flawed concept imho, there were too many pressures on the LW from many sources to pick one as the main cause. If I had to pick a "LW cannot win" date, I would pick December 1943, after that they were not going to have the #s of pilots and a/c to effectively repel a bombing offensive, or an invasion of France.

The LW continued to have impressive # of ac "on the roster"....but that was not the same as operational examples. My #s:

Luftlotte Reich as of June 1st 1944: 788 single engined day fighters of which 472 were operational. 203 twin engined day fighters of which 83 were operational. 991 day fighters of which 555 were ready for action. They continued to get deliveries of new ac in quantity, no doubt, but the bases, air crews, supplies and other infrastructure to sustain them was the problem.

Ah the Spitfire. Yes indeed. Its essentially a Spitfire F. IX with a merlin 61, and its #s match as close as other AH fighters. It has an upgraded E wing which was available either new or as a modification in 1944.

mosca · « **Reply #229 on:** January 27, 2004, 08:50:12 PM »

LOL, GScholz, your defense reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python & the Holy Grail!

King Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: Look.
Black Knight: Just a flesh wound.

LOL! Wait while I get more popcorn!

Mosca

gripen · « **Reply #230 on:** January 27, 2004, 11:39:53 PM »

Well, it can be argued forever if the Allies had the full air superiority over Normandy. The LW could still launch quite large number of sorties there with questionable effect, some of them certainly got through. Otherwise the allies were then still quite far from overall air superiority in europe despite what ever definition we want to use, the LW could still cause large losses to allies.

gripen

Guppy35 · « **Reply #231 on:** January 28, 2004, 12:03:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by gripen
Well, it can be argued forever if the Allies had the full air superiority over Normandy. The LW could still launch quite large number of sorties there with questionable effect, some of them certainly got through. Otherwise the allies were then still quite far from overall air superiority in europe despite what ever definition we want to use, the LW could still cause large losses to allies.

gripen

What large losses are those? Compared to the sorties being flown, I can't find much more then a 1% loss rate for the Allies and that includes flak losses.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda, didn't. What might have been, doesn't really count does it?

Once again, the Allied Air Forces dictated the targets, the timing, the place etc of the attacks. Allied armies moved freely in daylight. German armies did not.

Talking about what the Luftwaffe could have done is pointless, cause they didn't do it.

Dan/Slack

gripen · « **Reply #232 on:** January 28, 2004, 04:09:27 AM »

Guppy35,
There are several cases during summer 1944 where the LW could put up strong resistance and cause large losses if they really needed (like Ploesti). Anyway, these cases disapear to statistics due to scale of the air war. If we use as strict definition for air superiority as USAF appear to use, then the allies could reach only local superiority during summer.

My response was actually about Crumpp's statement that the allies had allready won air superiority over europe in March. This statement is not supported by statistics (absolute and relative, sources USAAF statistical digest and BBSU) because losses of the heavies (by enemy fighters) actually increased in April. The loss rate was then about 3,5% per sortie (about 75% of them by enemy fighters).

gripen

GScholz · « **Reply #233 on:** January 28, 2004, 05:31:08 AM »

Gripen, what's the point? It's like arguing with children. Just let it go buddy.

Angus · « **Reply #234 on:** January 28, 2004, 06:25:01 AM »

The LW did often launch large gaggles of fighters (on many occations both 109's and 190's) in the summer of 1944. My great uncle was flying a P51 at the time, and once he wound up in a situation with 12 Mustangs facing about 50 German planes.
Now where is the supremacy in that condition?
Anyway, this debate is really haggling about pennies....

Crumpp · « **Reply #235 on:** January 28, 2004, 07:20:53 AM »

Here Gripen,

Not only is my conclusion backed up by the facts IT is the Popular historical view.

Here is site from the USAF and one from a History Professor AND another Historian.

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

http://www.cebudanderson.com/europe.htm

http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrlosses.htm

Enjoy, but make sure you have a nice soothing cup of tea when you read it!

Crumpp

Furball · « **Reply #236 on:** January 28, 2004, 08:56:36 AM »

if the allies had air supremacy so early why didnt they just go drop paratroops on the reichstag in 1943?

Guppy35 · « **Reply #237 on:** January 28, 2004, 09:40:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Gripen, what's the point? It's like arguing with children. Just let it go buddy.

Since we don't agree with you, that makes us children? LOL a priceless response on your part.

I'll be sure and pass it on to my kids.

Expressing your supremacy again are you?

Dan/Slack

gripen · « **Reply #238 on:** January 28, 2004, 10:19:28 AM »

Crumpp,
Statistics do not support your sources, nor USSBS, nor BBSU.

gripen

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #239 on:** January 28, 2004, 02:32:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
Hmmm my reference books states

A6M5 1194 miles
wow

Only in friendly airspace:lol