Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Big G
At the end of the day, the Spit shot down more 109's than the other way round, the spit prevented the Germans from having air superiority over the Uk, No matter how people will try and explain this, the fact remains, The Spit beat the 109 when it mattered -Period

Unfurtunately that is just wishful thinking, and there`s practically overwhelming evidence on the losses sustained, and these, sadly, in each and every case favoured the 109 over the Spit. Whenever these two met, it was always more Spitfires lost than 109s.. Dunkerque, BoB, Dieppe, North Africa... one can go into rhetorics about that fact, but it won`t change.

[Big G]

Well guys, if that's the case then why did the RAF put the Luftwaffe back where they came from ? And If I remember correctly, the Germans also outnumbered the RAF on occasion, more pilots, more planes more "kills" And they were pushed back long before the Americans jumped in and Georing/ Hitler got delusions about russia. That's just my take, the RAF beat the Germans when it mattered, over their own patch, outnumbered but never outgunned.
I know we can dress up stats all day long, but the one fact remains, Spits won when it mattered !
Cheers
Big G

[GScholz]

The Spit didn't "win" the RAF did. The BoB was won and lost in the war rooms of the RAF and LW. If the Germans flew Spits and the RAF 109's the end result would have been the same.

Surely you don't think the Spit was superior to the Me262? Why not? After all, the Germans lost the war.

Your reasoning is called a fallacy.

[Big G]

My reasoning is based on this: Stats are stats, It's what happens on the day that matters, how many of those 109 kills came from Vulching easy prey like newbie Soviet pilots etc?, It came down to man v man and machine v machine and the RAF won with the spits playing a major part, So was the Spit better than the 109 ? I think so- yes

[GScholz]

Yes stats are stats: The 109's shot down more Spits than they lost to the Spit in the BoB. What does that tell you?

[Big G]

Tells me that there was more 109's in the air than spits and they still got beat, even with more numbers.
 so an outnumbered Air force beats the best that Germans had in an inferior aircraft ? doesn't stack up, still, we will never know unless we were flying these things over Dover!

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Big G
Tells me that there was more 109's in the air than spits and they still got beat, even with more numbers.
 so an outnumbered Air force beats the best that Germans had in an inferior aircraft ? doesn't stack up, still, we will never know unless we were flying these things over Dover!

This tells me you're completely biased and unable to admit you're wrong. By your reasoning the US lost the Vietnam War because the US soldier and equipment was inferior to the NVA. Clearly a fallacy.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Big G
And If I remember correctly, the Germans also outnumbered the RAF on occasion, more pilots, more planes more "kills"

Again the other way around. The RAF had more fighters in the BoB than the LW. It`s in the strenght reports of the two sides.
And YET the RAF lost more fighters, more Hurricanes, more Spitfires than the LW. Much more.

As said, stats are stats. You don`t have to like them, but that`s what the orders of battles, the strenght and loss reports tell us.

[Big G]

Originally posted by GScholz
This tells me you're completely biased and unable to admit you're wrong. By your reasoning the US lost the Vietnam War because the US soldier and equipment was inferior to the NVA. Clearly a fallacy.

Easy Scholz, I'm only throwing my hat into the ring here, I don't want to offend anyone on here and I don't expect to be offended by other people either.
I call it as I see it, If that is bias or anything else then I do not apoligize for that.
Think I'll leave you boys alone to argue for a while.....

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Again the other way around. The RAF had more fighters in the BoB than the LW. It`s in the strenght reports of the two sides.
And YET the RAF lost more fighters, more Hurricanes, more Spitfires than the LW. Much more.

As said, stats are stats. You don`t have to like them, but that`s what the orders of battles, the strenght and loss reports tell us.

YET, the LW lost more a/c than the RAF. Why is it the Luftluvers always forget that the bombers were the main objective of the RAF's fighters and never mention the bomber losses?

LW OoB - fighters

Aug 13 1940
26 Jagdgruppen - 976 - 109s
9 Zerstrergruppen - 244 - 110s

Sept 1940
27 Jagdgruppen - 831 - 109s
8 Zerstörergruppen - 206 - 110s

RAF OoB - fighters

Aug 9 1940
19 Sqn - 328 - Spitfires
27 Sqn - 568 - Hurricanes

Sept 6 1940
19 Sqns - 304 - Spitfires
32 Sqns - 512 - Hurricanes

Oct 4 1940
 19 Sqns - 304 - Spitfires
32 Sqns - 512 - Hurricanes

The RAF could also replaced its losses easly while the LW could, and did not.

[DaddyAck]

In my opinion the air war over Britian was a bit stigmated by the fact that Hitler resorted to bombing the populus of London and not her indusrty and air fields.  Couple to that the fact that while Hitler had the condor 4 engined bobmer he opted for the medium 2 engineed ones like he-111s and ju-88s which simply put did not have the endurance for deep penetration (same effect when USSR moved her production east of the Ural mountians).  In my opinion the out come od the air war over Enfland would have been vastly different if more time was spent bombing the cities and more effort paid to the airfields, factories, and fuel dumps. Furturmore, as an aside.  I do believe if the Fatherland launched it's opperation sealion as planed before turning to USSR England would have fallen. USSR posed minimal threat due to the non agresion pact sighned earlier.  Hitler could have focused his attentions tword Brittian.  Lastly, If Germany would have actually compleated her only carrier I believe it would have had a crucial role in Germany's bid for naval power in the atlantic, contributeing to the decline of the American suplyline to Brittian which in turn would hinder severely the ability to manufacture and maintain their Spitfire fleet.

[Angus]

The RAF was down to 50 planes yes

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by DaddyAck
I do believe if the Fatherland launched it's opperation sealion as planed before turning to USSR England would have fallen.

Ain't no way they were getting across the Channel and staying there, RAF or no RAF.

- oldman

[agent 009]

Getting there was the problem, staying not as big a problem.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
The RAF was down to 50 planes yes

It was said the RAF Fighter Command has only 50 planes in reserve, and that was pretty much the case by 7th September, when the FC`s leaders cried out that they 'need a miracle' to survive that hammering. Had the battle continue, the RAF would simply run out of pilots, Dowding had to call in the classes before they finished the fighter schools, which was already drastically shortened in the summer.... he used up everything, throwing untrained pilots for the Germans as cannon fodder to gain some time.. he had no replacement for a long fight, but the idea was that if they can hold out until the automn comes, the Germans had to cancel their plans anyway because of the worsening weather. Waging a continous air war or crossing the channel on makeshift boats is not possible in storms.