Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by MiloMorai

You compare an a/c produced in late 1942 to the production of 109s after the production of the a/c had changed to another engine.

[/B]

That is because the RAF was still relying on old, obsolate 1942 a/c even in 1945. As you say, my comparision is not 'fair', but so unfair was life, too, MkIXs had to struggle against K-4s which outclassed them greatly.

Yet Barbi dares to say this:

That`s nice, but I don`t see how the bulk of MkIXs/VIIIs/XVIs produced in 44/45 would do anything with 1942/43.

So his numbers add up to 6600 109s, yet Merlin powered Spitfire production (after the Mk V) was 8470 a/c. To that Spit number must be added the Mk XIIs and Mk XIVs.

[/B]

I doubt anyone understands what you trouble is, poor Milo. Maybe you need a girlfriend. Or boyfriend. Or just a friend at last.

More number manipulation by Barbi. Facing the Allies in NW Europe there was only 666 109s 'onhand' of which only 463 were servicable.

No manipulation involved on my part, poor Milo, I just showed how many 109s were in the LW in 1945.

Facing the LW in NW Europe was the 2nd TAF, made up by 30 Squadrons of MKIX/XVI, and 5 MKXIVs. These had maximum 420 planes on hand, +180 in reserve.

75% of the Bf 109s were of the newest type, with superior altitude performance.
85% of the Spitfires were of old types.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Oh, oh, at it again.
I won't quote servicability numbers, there are others that have them much more handy than I.
But 2 aircraft over the beaches of Normandy on D-day, 3 waves over Arnhem, only a slight interception in the last one, etc etc shows how thin the once mighty LW had become at the fall of 1944.

[/B]

Appearantly the above monologe only show Angus can`t see the forest from a tree. You claim the LW was non existent, this being based on nothing else than your own belief.

I showed, based directly on 1945 strenght reports of the LW, that they had over 8000 planes, twice as many as in 1940.

Then to turning circles.
Most of both allied and axis pilots agree on the same, - the Spitfire outturns the 109. 109 May win the game if loadouts and pilot skill are in its favour. Simple as that.

[/B]

Dreaming is always simple.

And for your info, I AM compiling the list. It will however be in XLS format, and I'll perhaps gladly mail it to everybody EXCEPT Izzy, heheheheheheheeheh

(Well, since it's already decided there will be no list)

[/B]

Well Angie, what loss would it be not seeing a list that does not exist, probably never will be (see your previous promises), and which you will hide from me because it will just prove you wrong anyway?

So,finally, aside, what was the ceiling of the G10 and Kurfurst?
And the 109F and G2-G6?

ca.42 500 ft (without GM-1).

And one question for you, Angie. Over 20 000 Spitfires were produced. Yet in the end of 1944 we see only 35 Squadrons of the 2nd TAF... that`s a maximum of 700 planes.

What happened to those 19 300 Spitfires during 6 years? Ended up as tailmarks on 109s?

[Guppy35]

You just don't get it  Izzy.

You going to forget the 1600 or so VIIIs produced too?  The parent company at Supermarine was focused solely on VIII production by June of 43 and had phased out IX production there.  VIII were going to the Med, Far East and Australia as they were tropicalized.

You want to throw all these numbers around but you don't really want to listen as you've decided that somehow all that the RAF was flying well into 44 was the Spit V.

Somehow the numbers are all you focus on not how the Spits were used.

The premiere Spit Wings flying out of England in late 42 into 43 were flying Spit IXs.  Tangmere had the XIIs, Kenley, Biggen Hill, Hornchurch, etc all were operating IX Wings.

These were the guys seeking out the LW over France.

Since you are so big on numbers, lets go back to that November 11,1943 raid where I detailed the operation.

They were not intercepted at all.  None of the flights.


Where were all these thousands of 109s that day?  Where were they that entire month?  190s tried to intercept a raid on the 25th.  That's it.  2 TAF didn't see LW fighters at all outside of the 1 time in November.

I go through the logbooks of these Spit pilots from 43 and they rarely see enemy aircraft?  Why is that if there are all these 1000s of 109s lurking about?

I have the logbook of a RCAF Spit driver who started Ops in December 41 and finished in August 44.  He saw enemy planes exactly 7 times in 289 combat sorties.  Only five of these times were they fighters and they only engaged 1 time.

Where were all those 109s?

Dan/Slack

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kurfürst


That is because the RAF was still relying on old, obsolate 1942 a/c even in 1945. As you say, my comparision is not 'fair', but so unfair was life, too, MkIXs had to struggle against K-4s which outclassed them greatly.

 [/B]

I doubt anyone understands what you trouble is, poor Milo. Maybe you need a girlfriend. Or boyfriend. Or just a friend at last.


 

No manipulation involved on my part, poor Milo, I just showed how many 109s were in the LW in 1945.

Facing the LW in NW Europe was the 2nd TAF, made up by 30 Squadrons of MKIX/XVI, and 5 MKXIVs. These had maximum 420 planes on hand, +180 in reserve.

75% of the Bf 109s were of the newest type, with superior altitude performance.
85% of the Spitfires were of old types. [/B]

LOL no manipulation.  That's why the IXs and XVI pilots were flying ground attack to hide from the 109s.  No Tempests, Typhoons, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings involved of course.

And here I thought it's because they couldn't find any 109s to fight with.

You are absolutely blinded by your 109 obsession.  

Dan/Slack

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Guppy35
You just don't get it  Izzy.
You going to forget the 1600 or so VIIIs produced too?  The parent company at Supermarine was focused solely on VIII production by June of 43 and had phased out IX production there.  VIII were going to the Med, Far East and Australia as they were tropicalized.

[/B]

So what, 1600 planes, 90% going to 5000 mile away from europe?

Guppy, if you like numbers, why don`t you post here how many Vs and IXs were produced?

6500 Mk Vs vs.  5600 Mk IXs as I recall ? What does this shows to you?

You want to throw all these numbers around but you don't really want to listen as you've decided that somehow all that the RAF was flying well into 44 was the Spit V.

Nope, I say all that the RAF was flying most of the time well into 43 the Spit V. Disagree?

Somehow the numbers are all you focus on not how the Spits were used.[/B]

And that would, extremely short ranged nuisance raids over France, targetting nothing important, the LW doesn`t even needs to be bothered about them, not being their land, not being anything important there that would worth even the avgas spent ?

You are right, if we look on how Spits were used, the whole discussion about how rare the Spits is irrevelant. They didn`t even existed as a threat for LW planners.

The premiere Spit Wings flying out of England in late 42 into 43 were flying Spit IXs.  Tangmere had the XIIs, Kenley, Biggen Hill, Hornchurch, etc all were operating IX Wings.[/B]

Again, how about the big picture ?

These were the guys seeking out the LW over France.[/B]

Why did they seek the LW in a place they knew it doesn`t needs to fight for? If they really wanted to find them, wouldn`t it be more logical to seek, say over Germany?

Since you are so big on numbers, lets go back to that November 11,1943 raid where I detailed the operation.
They were not intercepted at all.  None of the flights.[/B]

Guppy tell me why would they needed to be intercepted.

Where were all these thousands of 109s that day?  Where were they that entire month?  190s tried to intercept a raid on the 25th.  That's it.  2 TAF didn't see LW fighters at all outside of the 1 time in November.[/B]

I guess they were on the airfields, the crew drinking beer and playing cards. They probably laughed about the silly tommies  bombing the sand on the beaches again. Churchill is crazy, they said.

I go through the logbooks of these Spit pilots from 43 and they rarely see enemy aircraft?  Why is that if there are all these 1000s of 109s lurking about?
[/B]

Well those 1000 109s were there, regardless if you like it or not. Facts are such, objective things.

One thing I cannot understand, Guppy. 109s found Spits, because we know they shot them down. Spits didn`t find the 109s, how is that?

I have the logbook of a RCAF Spit driver who started Ops in December 41 and finished in August 44.  He saw enemy planes exactly 7 times in 289 combat sorties.  Only five of these times were they fighters and they only engaged 1 time.

Where were all those 109s?
 [/B]

Well where did this Spitty pilot was looking for those 109s? Over scotland? The Channel? France? England? Bottom of a mug?

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Guppy35
LOL no manipulation.  That's why the IXs and XVI pilots were flying ground attack to hide from the 109s.  

[/B]

109s found IXs, IXs did not found 109s, how is that?
Well the IXs pilot`s could not tell about it !!

And here I thought it's because they couldn't find any 109s to fight with.[/B]

If you don`t really look for the oppunity, you won`t find any.
The RAF looked for 109s where they knew they won`t find any. Very wise decision for survival.

The USAAF had no problem finding those 109s, Guppy. They were more willing it seems.

[MiloMorai]

You really are something else Barbi. You want to include all 109s ('42 onwards) but sluff off other Spit Mks besides the IX.

Luftwaffe Orders of Battle
 31 December 1943, for the JGs

note: these are 'onhand' not servicable numbers

G-6 - 875
G-5 - 57
G-4 - 20
G-3 - 6
G-2 - 83
G-1 - 3
F-4 - 3

total - 1047

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW43.html



One can only conclude the 109 pilots in the West were afraid to take on the Spitfire, for JG26 and JG2 flying Fw190s sure did. Must be because their 109s were not up to the task, eh Barbi.

Then there is the question asked by the German soldier of where was the LW as Spitfires and other Allied a/c pounded their positions unopposed by any 109s.

[Karnak]

Barbi,

Not one of your claims is backed up by anything other than your assumptions of what the numbers mean, and you accuse us of lacking proof?

You ignore squadron postings.  You ignore pilot logs.  You ignore the historical outcome.

Why?

Because it doesn't paint your pet side in the best possible light?  I don't know, but there is some serious issues in your "logic" and something that blocks you from being able to step back and look at what you are claiming.

You are making claims that are blatantly wrong, as shown by the historical records, and  in some cases even contradictory.  You do all of this in order, apparently, to denigrate the Allies, in particularly the British.

You have no records backing up your claims and yet you persist in taking an absolutist stance on the subject.

You are utterly hopeless.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Karnak
Barbi,

You have no records backing up your claims and yet you persist in taking an absolutist stance on the subject.

You are utterly hopeless.

Concur.  There is no logic to be found in Izzy's argument, only blind adherence to a set of conclusions.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Karnak
Barbi,

Not one of your claims is backed up by anything other than your assumptions of what the numbers mean, and you accuse us of lacking proof?  

Name those claims I did not back up. Oh you can`t....

What you do here is barking at the moon, and repeating the same stupid mantra of lies


"You are making claims that are blatantly wrong, as shown by the historical records, and  in some cases even contradictory. "

"You have no records backing up your claims and yet you persist in taking an absolutist stance on the subject."

"Not one of your claims is backed up by anything other than your assumptions of what the numbers mean"

"You ignore squadron postings.  You ignore pilot logs.  You ignore the historical outcome."



Is that all that you can do, bark and repeat, bark and repeat,
bark and repeat?

Your post lack any kind factuality, either it is about the historical events, or about my posts.

Kinda pathetic, like Milo, you probably come from the same stock of idiots.


And where did Guppy suddenly go, after I asked for the same list for the MkV squadrons?

Maybe the list would show there were 2-3 times as many squadrons flying the old MkVs in 1943 than Mk IXs, eh?
Suddenly obtaining this information from the same source become something impossibly hard to do !!!

Tells the whole story, isn`t it? Nashwan suddenly can`t tell how many MkIXs were produced in 1943, Guppy suddenly can`t tell how many squadrons were operating MkVs in 1943, and both went missing!

Like Spits can`t find 109s, but 109s finding the Spits... curious!

[Karnak]

Barbi,

Who cares how many Mk V squads there were?  It is irrelevant.

11 Group was chock full of Mk IX squads.  That 10 Group and 12 Group, as well as the Med. and Far East had vastly more Mk Vs doesn't alter the fact that large numbers of 11 Group Mk IXs were being employed over the continent.

You are making up data and claiming it as fact simply becuase the number of Mk Vs still in service was greater than the number of Mk IXs.  Just because that was true, and it was, does not mean that the RAF blindly assigned squads to duties without considering which aircraft they were equipped with.

It is you who are insisting that 12 Group and 10 Group must have had an even dispersion of Mk IXs as 11 Group did.  It is you who are insisting that the RAF held back it's frontline squads in 11 Group so they could use the abundant Mk Vs instead.  It is you who are insisting that Guppy's list of Mk IX squads is an exageration because some of them "probably" re-equipped with other fighters, though what they'd re-equip with in your mind, given that you are arguing that the RAF lacked any concurrent fighters to speak of, is beyond me.

You are making absolutely senseless claims.

[Guppy35]

Guppy was running errands and away from his computer if you really want to know Izzy.

I don't recall saying the Spit V was no longer in use.  I don't have a list of Spit V users in 43.  There were all of 4 that flew combat ops in England in the summer of 44.  234, 345, 350 and 501.  These were of course LFVs that operated at lower alts and could compete with the 109G and 190 in that environment.  The Spit Vs were gone by July 44.  501 as an example converted to Tempests.  The last Spit V kill was a 501 Spit V that shot down a 109G and damaged another on June 8, 1944

Must have been an older model 109G no doubt

You still miss the essential point.  Now you imply the RAF was avoiding combat with their Spits.  When you make comments like that, it's clear there is no talking to you.

With that in mind a couple of questions you might answer.

Since the 109 is clearly the greatest propeller driven fighter ever built why did the LW build the 190?

Since the Spits were hiding and the LW was dominant, why did the Allies win the war?

Based on your conclusions,  I should assume that the Spitfire, or any Allied fighter for that matter, was a design abortion that should never have flown and clearly was utterly outclassed by the 109.

Isn't that it in a nutshell?


No need to reply btw.  I know you are a last word kind of person.  I don't expect a rational response and at this point I'll be joining the ranks of those who ignore you.


Dan/Slack

[MANDO]

Let me write my point of view.

Since the 109 is clearly the greatest propeller driven fighter ever built why did the LW build the 190?

Because Fw190 was a far far better design than any 109.

Since the Spits were hiding and the LW was dominant, why did the Allies win the war?

The aportation of spits compared with the combination of B-bombers and P-fighters was really small. It is very clear why the aerial war was lost in the West front.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
No manipulation involved on my part, poor Milo, I just showed how many 109s were in the LW in 1945.

Facing the LW in NW Europe was the 2nd TAF, made up by 30 Squadrons of MKIX/XVI, and 5 MKXIVs. These had maximum 420 planes on hand, +180 in reserve.

 

Yes Barbi manipulation on your part to further your agenda of the superiority of Nazi Germany. You are comparing all the 109s in the LW to just the number of Spitfires the Western Allies had in NW Europe.

The number of 109s for 3 dates:

- 17 May 43 OoB of Luftflotte 3 (France and the Low Countries) there was only 42 109s versus 326 190s. (109 numbers being equally split between G-3/4 and G-6)

- May 31 1944, the LW had in Luftflotte Reich 269 190s and 356 109s (total fighters 634 of which only 330 were servicable). Most of these Luftflotte Reich a/c would be facing the USAAF's 8th AF with P-38s, P-47s and P-51s. In Luftflotte 3, there was 118 190s and 50 109s (total fighters 168 of which only 115 were servicable).

-  OoB Battle 10 January 1945 has 666 109s 'onhand' of which only 463 were servicable. (425 in Luftwaffe 3 (now forced back into Germany) of which 317 were servicable)

As all can see, the number of 109s in Luftwaffe 3 barely increased in quantity from 43 to 44.  The better a/c, the 190, was used instead, due the only conclussion that can be reached, is that the 109 was not capable of dealing with any Mk number of Spitfire.

Now Barbi, a Spit IX of the RCAF shot down a Me262 in Oct 1944. You see, being fast does not help you.


Dan, don't leave and let Barbi pollute the board with his Nazi Germany supremicy garbage. There are those out there that will believe his dillusional rantings.

[Angus]

Most in here have better figures of numbers of the LW than I. I miss the precence of Crumpp, he has a very good library. Guppy and Milo also.
But I havemost of the raw data of the RAF, and compiling it into as good XLS doc will take some days. It's after all the base info for more than 600 squadrons.
Guppy & Milo, I will keep my word and mail it to you if you like.
For Izzy I will post it, oh yes.

Now, to Izzy.......

Where were the thousands of 109's in September of 1944 when the allies launced thousands of c47's and tugs with gliders into the Netherlands, 100 miles long was the convoy, cruising at mere 150 mph. WHERE WERE THEY???????????
Where were the same thousands when the allied landed at 5 beaches in Normandy, outsidethe coast there were 500 vessels or more?
Oh, 2 aircraft made a pass, I think they may have been 190's....

Could you answer this?
Would you like to compare this with the RAF interceptions of V-1's in that same autumn?

Do respond and not twist this one ye avacado!