« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 49   Go Down

Author Topic: Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design  (Read 29939 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #60 on: November 22, 2004, 07:06:22 PM »
Very nice.
"This proved to be the only time the USAAF bombers ever turned back before reaching their target. "

Very interesting.

Wonder about LW in the BoB. I've seen it claimed that they never jettisoned and ran,- after all in September 1940 you'd have 3x109 for each bomber. Then one fine day, I ran across accounds of a formation being broken up, jettisoning and running.
And silly me, I didn't write it down, and now I can't find it. Ahh, the penalty of reading 10 books at a time :eek:
Logged
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 #61 on: November 22, 2004, 07:18:51 PM »
from the American side

MONDAY, 8 MARCH 1943

"EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force)

  VIII Bomber Command Mission No. 41: 67 B-17's of the 1st Bombardment Wing
and 16 B-24's of the 2d Bombardment Wing are dispatched against the
marshalling yard at Rouen, France. Thirteen B-24's drop 39 tons of bombs on
the target at 1402-1403 hours local; we claim 14 aircraft destroyed, 3
probably destroyed and 3 damaged; we lose 2 B-24's, 1 is damaged beyond
repair and 3 others are damaged; casualties are 5 KIA, 3 WIA and 17 MIA.
54 B-17's hit the target at 1430 hours dropping 134.75 tons of bombs; they
claim 14 enemy aircraft destroyed, 1 probably destroyed and 5 damaged; we
lose 2 B-17's, 1 is damaged beyond repair and 9 others are damaged;
casualties are 8 WIA and 20 MIA. The bomb run over Rouen is considerably
disrupted by the well-executed attack of fighters which down 2 bombers
including the lead aircraft. This action is preceded by an earlier wave of
German fighters which occupy the fighter escort while the second wave
attacks the bombers

from http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/

Another site worth looking at, http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml
Logged

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #62 on: November 22, 2004, 08:04:34 PM »
Quote
EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force)
VIII Bomber Command Mission No. 41: 67 B-17's of the 1st Bombardment Wing and 16 B-24's of the 2d Bombardment Wing are dispatched against the  marshalling yard at Rouen, France. Thirteen B-24's drop 39 tons of bombs on the target at 1402-1403 hours local; we claim 14 aircraft destroyed, 3 probably destroyed and 3 damaged; we lose 2 B-24's, 1 is damaged beyond repair and 3 others are damaged; casualties are 5 KIA, 3 WIA and 17 MIA.  54 B-17's hit the target at 1430 hours dropping 134.75 tons of bombs; they claim 14 enemy aircraft destroyed, 1 probably destroyed and 5 damaged; we lose 2 B-17's, 1 is damaged beyond repair and 9 others are damaged; casualties are 8 WIA and 20 MIA. The bomb run over Rouen is considerably disrupted by the well-executed attack of fighters which down 2 bombers including the lead aircraft. This action is preceded by an earlier wave of German fighters which occupy the fighter escort while the second wave attacks the bombers


This comes from original OPSUM as Milo posted.  Interesting to compare the differences between the Allied accounts and the Luftwaffe.  The Luftwaffe reports clearly state no B 24's dropped on the rail yard.  

I have to wonder if perhaps:

a.  The B24's in formation believed they were over the target when the lead ship (navigating) was so suddenly destroyed and they saw other ships dropping their bombs.

OR

b.  Some of the B24's continued on and in the confusion were able to drop on target.

Either one is entirely possible.  I will say from the Jafu reports I understood the B17's to be a completely separate target and mission.  The B24's were a diversionary raid and they list no damage to the railway.  

As usual both sides over claim a bit.

Crumpp
« Last Edit: November 22, 2004, 08:20:17 PM by Crumpp »
Logged

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #63 on: November 22, 2004, 08:10:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
The 190 was more flexible to roles than the 109. Better interceptor, better attacker and definately equal in the role of air superiority.


Crumpp's account, at least on that day, says so. ;)


"the FW-190's claimed 2 Spitfires for no losses. Priller and Glunz claimed the Spitfires. 12/JG2 (Me-109) lost two aircraft and 3/JG27 (Me-109) lost one pilot and aircraft."
Logged

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #64 on: November 22, 2004, 08:18:58 PM »
Quote
"the FW-190's claimed 2 Spitfires for no losses. Priller and Glunz claimed the Spitfires. 12/JG2 (Me-109) lost two aircraft and 3/JG27 (Me-109) lost one pilot and aircraft."


While the claims can be called into question, it is hard to argue with the stated losses.

If the Luftwaffe says it lost X number of planes and the USAAF lost X number of planes you can believe them.

When they say X number of ENEMY planes were destroyed then take it with a grain of salt.

Crumpp
Logged

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #65 on: November 22, 2004, 08:31:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
While the claims can be called into question, it is hard to argue with the stated losses.

If the Luftwaffe says it lost X number of planes and the USAAF lost X number of planes you can believe them.

When they say X number of ENEMY planes were destroyed then take it with a grain of salt.

Crumpp


No one is questioning the claims Crumpp. On that day, the 190 was the better a/c of the 2 German fighters. :) :)

It would be intersting to see what percentage of losses/claims of 190s and 109s participating in combat on other days were in specific theatres.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2004, 08:37:12 PM by MiloMorai »
Logged

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #66 on: November 22, 2004, 09:39:10 PM »
Quote
No one is questioning the claims Crumpp. On that day, the 190 was the better a/c of the 2 German fighters.  


I realize that.  Sorry my post was confusing. Just pointing out that the reports clearly state on the German side the railway was not bombed.  I think there exist's a strong possibility the bombers hit the wrong target in the confusion.  Looks like they might have dropped on the countryside thinking they were over the target.

Quote
It would be intersting to see what percentage of losses/claims of 190s and 109s participating in combat on other days were in specific theatres.


Yes it would. If you come across any info please post it.  On the Western Front, depending on the time period, the FW-190 was the predominant fighter used by the Luftwaffe.  In fact the theater had priority for FW-190 fighter variant allocation.

Examining the losses on both sides might be useful.  

Crumpp
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #67 on: November 23, 2004, 04:49:44 AM »
Losses  on both sides is tough work, we all tried that a bit.
I have the Fighter command losses 1942-1943 if that helps.
I ran some study of LW claims vs RAF losses in a timeframe, the LW claims were actually quite accurate. A bit over at times, but sometimes 100%.
This meant a painful job of hairing out losses due to other causes than combat, which luckily the book had listed nicely.

In almost all cases where the LW claimed a kill, at least a RAF aircraft was hit.
Logged
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 #68 on: November 23, 2004, 07:48:13 AM »
To get the ball rolling on the 109 and 190 comparison,

from 6 Months to Oblivion

fighter losses, Nov 2 1944

Me109G-10, 14, K-4

I./JG 3 - 4
II./JG3 - 11

III./JG4 - 3
IV./JG4 - 5

I./JG27 - 11
II./JG27 - 1
III./JG27 - 5
IV./JG27 - 10

total - 50

Fw190A-8

IV./JG3 - 11

II./JG4 - 6

total - 17

What I don't know is how many 109s and 190s took off that day. Nor, if there was any losses in the other JGs (ie. JG26, 2, ...) in the West. A 'loss to participation' percentage comparison for the 109 and 190 can't be made until that is known. Need the claims as well.
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #69 on: November 23, 2004, 11:01:23 AM »
Do you know who claimed those?

Must have been an active day. In the autumn of 1944, 17th September I think it was, the allies sent over some 2500 aircraft and gliders for Arnhem. Some German generals witnessed this bus-speed convoy droning over their heads in what seemed to be an endless row. One remarked:
"As usually our airforce was not there"

I think the only losses were to flak and accidents.
Logged
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 #70 on: November 23, 2004, 01:22:51 PM »
Angus, would say 8th AF for the locales are all in Germany. (Aschersleben, Dessau, Halle, Kothen, Zerbst, Kothen,  Leune, Leipzig, Merseburg, Bitterfeld, Eisleeben)

Refer to the link provided previously for the 8th AF on that day.

Not to worried about the claims as it is the performance, or lack of performance, of the 109 and 190 that is of importance.
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #71 on: November 23, 2004, 02:17:53 PM »
Ah, well, the topic was Spit vs messer design.
I am about to get some insider's view of the 109, I'll ask any question, if there is something you'd like to know, post a question and I'll see about it.
There is also a view on those by Theo Ostercamp, who was a WW1 vet and a high rank LW personell as well as participant in the BoB. I'll try to get around entering it on this thread tonight. But it's in German. I know Crumpp is a German speaker, how about Milo? I can try to swing it over to English if needed.

Anyway, When it comes to turn and climb pr. Hp, practically everything I have seen comes into the Spittys favour, however the Speed comes in the 109's favour. Rolls? Similarly inferior to the 190, hehe  :D
I'll stop here now, it's enough.....  

Regards

AngUS :rolleyes:
Logged
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 #72 on: November 23, 2004, 02:57:11 PM »
Well the thread has gone a wee bit off track.;) The lack of appearance of a certain 109 luver.:p So until his re-appearance might as well compare the 109 to the 190.
Logged

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #73 on: November 23, 2004, 03:41:45 PM »
On 2 November I/JG26 and II/JG26 conducted a JaboJagd to the Wesel-Lingen area behind german lines.

They encountered Typhoons and moved to attack.  Before they could get into position they in turn were bounced by Spitfires from 442 (RCAF) which shot down one FW-190A8.

A big swirling dogfight developed with no further losses on either side.

The FW-190's returned to base.  Five were damaged.  Two from combat, two with engines trouble, and one with damage from German Flak.

Quote
What I don't know is how many 109s and 190s took off that day. Nor, if there was any losses in the other JGs (ie. JG26, 2, ...) in the West.


JG 300, JG 301, and JG 302 were pulled off the line and where conducting conversion training to the FW-190.  They have some interesting comments about two aircraft.  I will post them later.

IV./JG3 - 11

II./JG4 - 6

Are both Sturmjager units.  They took horrendous casualties.  IV/JG3 (Sturm) took over 500 percent casualties during it's existence.  The highest rate of any Luftwaffe unit during the war.  Each man was a volunteer and swore an oath to bring to down a bomber each time he took off.  Even if it meant ramming.  The tactics they used was a line abreast formation from the rear.  They would close to within 50 meters and open fire.

Crumpp
« Last Edit: November 23, 2004, 05:59:59 PM by Crumpp »
Logged

Offline Meyer

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 156
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #74 on: November 23, 2004, 08:32:20 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by MiloMorai
To get the ball rolling on the 109 and 190 comparison,

from 6 Months to Oblivion

fighter losses, Nov 2 1944

Me109G-10, 14, K-4

I./JG 3 - 4
II./JG3 - 11

III./JG4 - 3
IV./JG4 - 5

I./JG27 - 11
II./JG27 - 1
III./JG27 - 5
IV./JG27 - 10

total - 50

Fw190A-8

IV./JG3 - 11

II./JG4 - 6

total - 17

What I don't know is how many 109s and 190s took off that day. Nor, if there was any losses in the other JGs (ie. JG26, 2, ...) in the West. A 'loss to participation' percentage comparison for the 109 and 190 can't be made until that is known. Need the claims as well.


That's 6.25 losses/Gruppe for the 109, and 8.5 losses/Gruppe for the 190 :p
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 49   Go Up
« previous next »