Author Topic: Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design  (Read 31309 times)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #165 on: December 03, 2004, 11:37:21 AM »
Tell me Barbi how those He111s, Ju88s, Do17s and Ju87s were lost. Divine intervention?

The LW flew over TWICE the sorties the RAF flew and JUST barely shot down more a/c. German efficency at its best. :D

As I said your typical data manipulatiing for your German is uber crud.

See your buddy MW's site and ask him where the Spit data came from.

Confused Barbi?

Spit

@ 18,500' cruising weak > 1.88 hr


Me109E

@ 16404', max economy > 1.50 hr, range 413mi

@ 19865', max economy > 1.40 hr, range 395mi

The Spit could stay in the 23 to 29 minutes longer than the 109.

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #166 on: December 03, 2004, 11:51:07 AM »
The Spits were over Berlin in 1945, the 109s were not over London in 45.

Ah, long time no see !!! The Ultima Ratio. It proves nothing, expect you can`t prove anything.

I do wonder about one thing.

How much credit was due to the 109 in 1940 for being over London, having single handedly clearling the skies over Poland, Norwar, the Benelux, France, Dunkirk, the Channel all up to way to London, kicking a Spit butt in front of itself, and and how credit would it be there for the Spits for being over Berlin - if they were there at all, which I doubt, range, range, range! - following the USAAF in the great shadow it projected, and pounding the chest after all the others made victory a reality. Claiming the victory for yourself that others achieved is a sure sign of hybris.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #167 on: December 03, 2004, 12:10:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Spits were over Berlin in 1945, the 109s were not over London in 45.

Ah, long time no see !!! The Ultima Ratio. It proves nothing, expect you can`t prove anything.

I do wonder about one thing.

How much credit was due to the 109 in 1940 for being over London, having single handedly clearling the skies over Poland, Norwar, the Benelux, France, Dunkirk, the Channel all up to way to London, kicking a Spit butt in front of itself, and and how credit would it be there for the Spits for being over Berlin - if they were there at all, which I doubt, range, range, range! - following the USAAF in the great shadow it projected, and pounding the chest after all the others made victory a reality. Claiming the victory for yourself that others achieved is a sure sign of hybris.


So much for you having a civil discussion with Dan, Barbi. Another one of your babbling obnoxious rants. Take some of your pills.

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #168 on: December 03, 2004, 12:23:52 PM »
I guess there`s at least one thing in that I, Angus, Guppy or other can agree is that you can`t be taken seriously, Milo.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #169 on: December 03, 2004, 12:28:13 PM »
Ohhhh dear, Barbi, you're floating on a brown cloud again.
First: The BoB.
The BoB was LW's first and only go at an organized airforce, close to their own skills. They outnumbered the RAF at 2 to 1 roughly. The distance was very short, protected by the channel, - down to 30 KM.
Their high command expected this to be over in less than a week, which had been the norm on their victorious campaign throughout Europe.
But that was not to be it. After months of fighting, the LW's losses were quite serious, yet the last 50 RAF fighters always seemed to have a number of some same hundreds as in the beginning.
Eventually, the LW reverted to night Bombing, for which at the time there was hardly any defensive measure.
The Brits also, going the LONG LEG, bombed Berlin at night.
(500 km over enemy territory,,,or was that miles?)
London was after autumn 1940 hardly ever bombed in daylight.
Almost all German capital cities were, a few years later, bombed around the clock.
The result of the BoB was basically a massive LW defeat. The first time they met an organized enemy, they lost at a ratio roughly 1.5 vs 1, half of it being twin engined multy-crew aircraft.
Preparing Britain for an invasion failed.
Cracking Britain into submission by terror bombing, which had succeeded both in Poland and Holland also failed.

Then onto LW losses spring 1940. In the back of my head I remembered it being a more tough time for the LW than most people know. Even their losses in Poland were quite some!
So, off it goes:
From Ultra messages, i.e. the original source is the LW itself!
Losses in may and june 1940: 1100 aircraft, + 145 damaged.
Another 246 in various accidents.
235 Bf 109E
106 Bf 110
113 Ju87
492 Twin bombers, all types.
These total 946 aircraft.
the rest, - other types.

That's it for now.
I have 2 more german-ace evaluation of the Spit, - 1 flew them, 1 fought them. 1 is in German, the other in English.
Will post that into this brewpot soon.....
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: 6864
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #170 on: December 03, 2004, 12:59:42 PM »
If I am not taken seriously Barbi then where does that place you? Well below seriously.:) Laughing stock would be an appropriate description.


On March 5, 1942, the ORB for 1PRU states that Pilot Officer Gunn took off from Wick a/f at 08.07 hrs, flying Spitfire PR Mk IV AA810 his objective being Trondheim but failed to return. Shot down by a 109.

That is a one way distance of over 500mi.

Unarmed PR Spits routinely flew over Berlin and did so with relative impunity.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #171 on: December 03, 2004, 01:05:14 PM »
Quote
Quite badly informed and factually wrong.


No,  An AVERAGE of 200 in 1944 is correct when you count ONLY the aircraft that could fly and not the numbers in service.   This is only for the Western Front/Defense of the Reich.

Crumpp

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #172 on: December 03, 2004, 01:12:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Spits were over Berlin in 1945, the 109s were not over London in 45.

Ah, long time no see !!! The Ultima Ratio. It proves nothing, expect you can`t prove anything.

I do wonder about one thing.

How much credit was due to the 109 in 1940 for being over London, having single handedly clearling the skies over Poland, Norwar, the Benelux, France, Dunkirk, the Channel all up to way to London, kicking a Spit butt in front of itself, and and how credit would it be there for the Spits for being over Berlin - if they were there at all, which I doubt, range, range, range! - following the USAAF in the great shadow it projected, and pounding the chest after all the others made victory a reality. Claiming the victory for yourself that others achieved is a sure sign of hybris.


You are missing the point.  This always seems to come down to you believing the Spitfire was a disaster and the 109 was a wonder weapon.

I'm of the belief that both were great airplanes.

Based on how you project things Izzy, it's amazing the Spitfire ever flew at all.

And despite what you say, who won makes all the difference.

Dan/Slack
Trying to be civil, but sometimes this gets ludicrous.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #173 on: December 03, 2004, 01:24:36 PM »
Angie, thank you for sharing with us your usual revisionist cr@p about allaged "terror bombings", the glory-glory not-so-funnyy stories, how the RAF single handedly won the Battle of France against all evidence we know, and the vivid description of how the Fighter Command crushed the LW over London while it was really the Luftwaffe who was struglling desperately for it`s very existance in 1940. Thank you again, you shared a lot, we learned a lot.

Now, If you have satisfied your needs for the surreal, can you now answer the questions I put to you, list your sources which you utterly failed to do until now, and finally, stop cowardly fleeing and changing subject as soon as you are cornered by the weight and amount evidence I posted?

Thank you Angie.


@Milo, while not underestimating the weight of your problems with your identity, and how it burdens you when replying, may I ask you to tell me what do unarmed PR-Spitfires have to do with that miserable range the fighter-type Spitfires could achieve? I am sure Mr. Gunn would be pleased to have Spitfire escorts - but as those could hope to return from more than 400 miles distance... Is there any evidence of fighter Spitfires ever over Berlin, BTW ?
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #174 on: December 03, 2004, 01:36:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Guppy35
You are missing the point.  This always seems to come down to you believing the Spitfire was a disaster and the 109 was a wonder weapon.


It`s certainly no surprise to me if you perceive things this way. Perception gets distorted if emotions are involved. Any rightful and correct criticism, even DISCUSSION of the faults of the Spitfire is taken as a personal attack by you, and you start seeing things black and white.

You work yourself up when it is not displayed as it was longer ranged than anything (but esp. compared to the 109), wasn`t 100% perfect in handling, absolutely no problem with it`s roll rate, and above that, all the rest of it`s qualities were just 100% perrrffect. And if combat records are mentioned, and they don`t show 1000 to 0 kill rates for the Spitfire`s favour, you start pulling out the Ultima Ratio. Well, this thread was opened so to keep the other threads clean from such silly arguments.


Quote

And despite what you say, who won makes all the difference.
[/B]


Yep. Brazil won WW2. :cool:
« Last Edit: December 03, 2004, 01:39:38 PM by Kurfürst »
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #175 on: December 03, 2004, 02:04:22 PM »
LOL, more rants by Barbi. The only one with a problem is you. Even though you thought you were describing Dan, it was you, describing yourself.


The Mighty LW, with its superior 109 :rolleyes:, could not stop UNARMED Spitfires from flying over Berlin.

From bases in Holland, Belin was very reachable by ARMED Spitfires.

The point being the Spit was capable of reaching Berlin but because it was part of 2TAF, it was to busy clearing LW a/c from the air in the area assigned to the 2TAF. When I find that an armed Spit was over Berlin you will be the first to know.

Now go take another pill.

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #176 on: December 03, 2004, 02:06:50 PM »
Great contribution, Milo, we are all thankful.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #177 on: December 03, 2004, 02:18:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Great contribution, Milo, we are all thankful.


Sure is better than your latest series ranting and raving posts Barbi.:)

Have those pills kicked in yet?

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #178 on: December 03, 2004, 02:29:29 PM »
Oh, dear Izzie.
Revisionist? me?
Paranoid revisionist=you.
Firstly, what questions are you referring to? save me some work of reading through your bull.
Secondly, when did I say anything about the RAF winning the battle of France? They bloody well didn't, to make that clear, and I think I have their loss number at grabs (well in 4 hrs I will), - they were appalling. However I may have stepped on a nerve when I promoted you with the LW losses in that campaign. That however includes the lowlands and interceptions against the Belgians, Dutch, French, RAF and ground support.
Most losses occured over Dunkirk though.
It was just more than you thought.......
Thirdly: I have been listing my sources, and that touches your nerves again. Oh, gooodness, forgot the ISBN for the German losses in may and june 1940,- want it?
Where are your sources?
That one's source from you:
"Spitfire vs. Bf 109 : 219 to 180 lost.
Hurricane vs. Bf 109 : 272 to 153 lost. "
What source? Author, page ISBN, Website?
Fourthly: COWARDLY FLEEING????
Be merry that you're thousands of KM's away from me you avacado!
I'd give you a course in LEVERAGE!
I can not see myself fleeing from a subject, I am staying with you.
So be more specific.
Then on to terror bombing.
What do you call sending up to 1000 bombers, night after night, dropping incendiaries over a city with 6 million inhabitants?
The fires that raged in London in the autumn of 1940 were so fierce, that at a point the fire Brigades EMPTIED THE THAMES!
The interesting part is how low the losses were, but since the Brits expected something like this to come (Learning from Warshaw, learning from Europe) they had actually put a whooping amount of citizens out to the countryside, out of harms way. Then of course, the London Underground...
Want some ISBN numbers on books about it? Would be a healthy read for you.
Anyway, as you yourself have so often stated, London got bombed for months, and there was nothing the RAF could do about it.
My addition to this is: AT NIGHT.
Already in 1940, only a 100 miles flight, London was too costly for daylight bombing.
Semi final. The Stick length and leverage.
I think it's quite obvious that Izzy never dipped his hand into cold water. That means, no sense of physical application.
Ifa shorter stick means better leverage, why bother with a stick at all? A knob would do.
Why do you have a longer shaft for increased leverage?
Seriously Izzy, you are making a confrontation on none less tham Arcimedes himself! I vote for Arcimedes.

Then finally, yet another bone for you all.
Hans-Schmoller-Haldy, 109 Pilot after a ride in a Spitty:
"I was able to fly a captured Spitfire at Jever. My first impression was that it had a beautiful engine. It purred. The engine of the Messerchmitt 109 was very loud. Also, the Spitfire was easier to fly and land, than the Me 109. The 109 was unforgiving of any inattention. I felt familiar from the Spitfire from the very start. That was my first and lasting impression."
Source is from Alfred Price, no less.
Now, why would that 109 pilot have said a thing like that.......
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 Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #179 on: December 03, 2004, 02:36:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
It`s certainly no surprise to me if you perceive things this way. Perception gets distorted if emotions are involved. Any rightful and correct criticism, even DISCUSSION of the faults of the Spitfire is taken as a personal attack by you, and you start seeing things black and white.

You work yourself up when it is not displayed as it was longer ranged than anything (but esp. compared to the 109), wasn`t 100% perfect in handling, absolutely no problem with it`s roll rate, and above that, all the rest of it`s qualities were just 100% perrrffect. And if combat records are mentioned, and they don`t show 1000 to 0 kill rates for the Spitfire`s favour, you start pulling out the Ultima Ratio. Well, this thread was opened so to keep the other threads clean from such silly arguments.




Yep. Brazil won WW2. :cool:


Funny part is you always miss the point.  I don't think the Spit was the greatest fighter ever. Nor do I think the 109 was the greatest fighter ever.  I think they were both great airplanes that did their jobs.

If the Spit was as bad as you like to present it, they'd have stopped production right way.  If the 109 was as great as you make it out to be, they'd never have seen a need for the 190.

Funny I suppose that I was reading 109 stuff for fun last night as I have a fairly decent section of my home library filled with it.  It is possible to like both planes.

Dan/Slack
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters