Author Topic: Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design  (Read 30043 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #675 on: May 01, 2005, 03:40:54 PM »
I was referring to "the last 50 Spitfires".
Seems that the LW had to back off before though, since losses were increasing when the autumn came.
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 Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #676 on: May 01, 2005, 04:38:31 PM »
Quote
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,


Quote
I've been looking at these casualty figures, and I've come to the conclusion that at our present rate of losses we can just afford it. And I'm damn certain that the Boche can't.


Keith Park to Lord Willoughby de Broke, Chief Controller 11 Group, morning of 7th September 1940, just before the Luftwaffe turned to attacking London.

FC held a meeting on the 7th September to discuss the situation. Douglass Evill, Dowding's deputy, prepared lists of losses and replacements. He found 348 fighter pilots had been lost or injured in the previous 4 weeks, 280 replacements had been turned out by the training units.

At the meeting Dowding outlined plans to increase output to 320 pilots a month.

On the 6th Sept, the RAF had 950 Spit and Hurricane pilots ready for duty.

In contrast, the Germans had become seriously under strength.

Milch toured the airfields in France between 20th and 25th August, and again between 27th August and 4st Sept.

He found problems on his first tour, which got worse by the second.

On his second tour he found serviceability at 75% for 109s, 70% for bombers, 65% for 110s.

All units were well below establishment,  with bomber gruppe averaging 20 aircraft, 109 gruppe averaging 18, and 110 units even less.

Quote
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..


From Milch's comments on his first inspection tour, 20 - 25th August:

Inadequate experience of new pilots, who were of "very variable" quality.

Fighter geschwader complaining replacements had only done 10 landings in 109s, and had never fired a cannon in training.
(Perhaps this explains the 109 landing accidents issue?)

Quote
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.


No. Dowding, at the Sept 7th meeting, outlined plans to:

"meet wastage greater than any incurred so far" (This was the creation of "C" squadrons in quiet parts of the country, which would take newly trained pilots and give them operational training away from the battle) (This wasn't an ption for the Germans as they had committed almost all their fighter units to the BoB)

And as to it being a long fight, on the 7th Sept Park said he did not believe the fight could last longer than another 3 weeks, Dowding said he was planning on it going on "very much longer" than that.

Quote
Waging a continous air war or crossing the channel on makeshift boats is not possible in storms.


Neither was possible for the Germans whatever the weather.

Their "continuous campaign" had seen the RAF increase by about 200 pilots and 150 fighters between early July and 7th September, whilst the Luftwaffe strength had declined quite sharply. (See Milch's figures above)

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #677 on: May 02, 2005, 05:11:23 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nashwan
Keith Park to Lord Willoughby de Broke, Chief Controller 11 Group, morning of 7th September 1940, just before the Luftwaffe turned to attacking London.

FC held a meeting on the 7th September to discuss the situation. Douglass Evill, Dowding's deputy, prepared lists of losses and replacements. He found 348 fighter pilots had been lost or injured in the previous 4 weeks, 280 replacements had been turned out by the training units.

At the meeting Dowding outlined plans to increase output to 320 pilots a month.

On the 6th Sept, the RAF had 950 Spit and Hurricane pilots ready for duty.
[/B]

They made great cannon fodder for the Germans. What the British were doing was throwing young lifes at the well trained German fighters to buy some time. Out of those 950 pilots, 75% of them had only 7-8 hours flown in a Spitfire or Hurricane. In contrast, even the poorly trained rookies of the 44/45 Luftwaffe had at least 30 hours flown in their operational type before entering combat... Many if not all British pilots had not even fired the guns or had shooting practice, *Fighters* mentions that the case of one RAF trainee who was very surprised when his guns turned silent after 1 second of firing. That was the amount issued for *training*... they had shortage of everything, not to mention most of the training time was spent with stupid things like flying in a nice parade formations, like what the Germans called *idiots column*, while air combat manouvers were totally neglected.
That training was good enough for them to take off, and let themselves killed by Experten like Moelders and Galland, who score skyrocketed towards the end of the Battle, just like British losses. It was not rare for an Experte to shoot down half a dozen British fighters in a single day by October.

The RAF lost 348 pilots and received only 280 replacements in month before September, whos *traininig* was already drastically shortened to just 6 weeks. Even with the shortened training the schools could not cope with the losses...
So Dowding had to make a cruel decision to take the pilots from flight schools BEFORE they even completed that 6 week session... In contrast, German fighter training did not give up quality training, giving more and more edge for the Germans as time passed in single engagements. *Fighters* notes that a number of British pilots simply run off when they spotted 109s.. they called this the 109 panic.


Quote

In contrast, the Germans had become seriously under strength.
[/B]

In contrast of your claims, the German strenght was pretty much the same during the whole battle, and quality did not decline as happened on the RAF side.


Quote

On his second tour he found serviceability at 75% for 109s, 70% for bombers, 65% for 110s.
[/B]

Thats interesting before just before the Battle the bombers had 67% servicibility rate, fighters were at 77%. It seems that British efforts were insignificant enough to let the Germans even INCREASE their servicibilty rates or keep them up. 70-75% was otherwise quite typical for their units during the whole duration of the war. British Squadrons on the other hand were way down in servicibilty, with 8-hour cannon fodder to fly those planes.. no wonder that morale was so low.


Quote

Fighter geschwader complaining replacements had only done 10 landings in 109s, and had never fired a cannon in training.
(Perhaps this explains the 109 landing accidents issue?)[/B]


Nice rhetorics again as firing training was done with MGs and not cannons... but then I guess, a German rookie was better off with the hard training he received with MGs than an RAF one who typically never fired a shot until he first met the enemy.
Also nice rhetorics on the *109 landing accident issue*. There was no such special *issue*. Landing accidents happen to all planes, especially if rookies fly them. Spitfires were notorious for landing accidents, thats why rookies preferred the Hurricane over the Spitfire, it was much easier to handle for them.

Quote
No. Dowding, at the Sept 7th meeting, outlined plans to:
"meet wastage greater than any incurred so far" (This was the creation of "C" squadrons in quiet parts of the country, which would take newly trained pilots and give them operational training away from the battle) (This wasn't an ption for the Germans as they had committed almost all their fighter units to the BoB)
[/B]

Hmmm, those C squadrons were created in despratation because it was realized that RAF fighter training was so poor at the time that those pilots, even for Dowding, were totally unfit for combat... Naswhan is of course wrong that the Germans committed *all* their fighter units to combat, in fact only about 70-80% which was circulated. During the whole war, German empolyed similiar 2nd line *Erganzungs* units, in which the rookie pilots got through familirization with their type from veteran trainers before sent to 1st line units, where they received further training under the wings of an experienced pilot. Training revolved around simulated air combat, air gunnery and practicing combat formations and the Moelders formation until it become a second nature, in contrast to RAF practice that trained pilots to fly in neat by useless close formations for airshows..
What was happening that the RAF was putting fresh meat into the meatgrinder, and the LW was happy to turn the handle.



Quote

And as to it being a long fight, on the 7th Sept Park said he did not believe the fight could last longer than another 3 weeks, Dowding said he was planning on it going on "very much longer" than that.
[/B]

Park had a realistic view on the events to come. After Dowding took the pilots from the classes before they finished their training, they could expect a gap in the replacement pilot classes in just 3 weeks. They would simply run out of pilots and no replacemts would come. It was a bluff from Dowding, and a rather cruel one. But the British military never seemed to worry about crew losses, just look at the Bomber Command.


Quote

Their "continuous campaign" had seen the RAF increase by about 200 pilots and 150 fighters between early July and 7th September, whilst the Luftwaffe strength had declined quite sharply. (See Milch's figures above) [/B]


Unfurtunately your rhetorics dont hide away the reality. The RAF was seriously lacking quality as early as August, over 50% of their pilots received less than  hours of training, whereas a German trainee came with over 250 hours to his unit. Fact. Fact also is that the RAF lacked modern fighters, most of its fighters were not up par with German 109s. By August RAF formations lost most of their Wing Commanders and Flight Leaders, which was (there was squadron which lost 3 of its commanders within a week). In short, the RAF was trying to make up quality with quantity. Or at least buy some time by sacrificing a few hundred pilots.  Dowding couldnt care less about them.


Finally, the RAF losses amounted 1960 fighters in total, which does not compare well to the ca 500 Bf 109s they managed to bring down in return, including the ones shot down by AAA. By September, the RAF was at a countdown, either it was they run out of the rookie cannon fodder under the LWs hammering, or the worsening wheater saves them, if they could not save themselves.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #678 on: May 02, 2005, 05:22:28 AM »
Oh, dear.
Ok, some facts of the BoB:
"In contrast of your claims, the German strenght was pretty much the same during the whole battle, and quality did not decline as happened on the RAF side. "
Nope. Never seen anything supporting that.
then
1. The LW withdrew from daylight ops because of high losses.
2. The RAF was showing up in impressive numbers more than a month after Eagle day.
3. The LW lost 50% more aircraft than the RAF
4. The LW pilot quality as an average declined throughout WW2.
5. Losing some 1500 aircraft or so in the BoB was a heavy loss in Pilots, while the RAF lost some,,,,450?
6. The LW lost some 2500 Engines in the process
7. Engine deliveries to the Italian airforce was troublesome in the aftermath.
8. Crew losses were of course higher than the aircraft losses since the bulk of aircraft shot down had 2-4 as an average.
9. Escort was troublesome because of the 109's limited range, but mostly becase of wrong tactics. It did occur that 109's from the Calais area had to return before reaching London, a mere 100 miles away.

DING.
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 #679 on: May 02, 2005, 06:29:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
In contrast of your claims, the German strenght was pretty much the same during the whole battle, and quality did not decline as happened on the RAF side.  

Thats interesting before just before the Battle the bombers had 67% servicibility rate, fighters were at 77%. It seems that British efforts were insignificant enough to let the Germans even INCREASE their servicibilty rates or keep them up.


LW OoB - fighters

Aug 13 1940
26 Jagdgruppen - 976 - 109s (853 servicable)

9 Zerstrergruppen - 244 - 110s (189 servicable)

9 Stukagruppen - 365 (286 servicable)

42 1/3   Kampfgruppen   1482 (1008 servicable)


Sept 7 1940
27 Jagdgruppen - 831 - 109s (658 servicable)

8 Zerstörergruppen - 206 - 110s (112 servicable)

4 Stukagruppen - 174 (133servicable)

43 Kampfgruppen   1291 (798 servicable)

In 3 weeks of combat, the LW could not replace the  145 109s,  38 110s, 191 stukas  and 191 bombers shortage to bring up their compliment to that of 3 weeks before. Yet the RAF fighter squadrons still had their full compliment.

The ability to keep a/c in service definately decreased:

109s - 853 to 658 > 87% to 79%
110s - 189 to 112 > 77% to 54%
stukas - 286 to 133 > 78% to 74%
bombers - 1008 to 798 > 68% to 62%

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LW_OBs.html
« Last Edit: May 02, 2005, 06:53:30 AM by MiloMorai »

Offline thrila

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3190
      • The Few Squadron
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #680 on: May 02, 2005, 06:55:59 AM »
Quote
Dowding couldnt care less about them.


It's clear you have read very little or nothing about Dowding or you would know that not to be true.

Kurfurst the RAF and LW were face to face, the LW blinked.
"Willy's gone and made another,
Something like it's elder brother-
Wing tips rounded, spinner's bigger.
Unbraced tailplane ends it's figure.
One-O-nine F is it's name-
F is for futile, not for fame."

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #681 on: May 02, 2005, 07:06:21 AM »
Dowding referred to the RAF pilots as "His boys"
I wonder how Göring cared about his boys.....
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 Naudet

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #682 on: May 02, 2005, 07:51:27 AM »
If i remember right he called em "Cowards!" and tied the fighters to the bombers and restricted there tatical freedom.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #683 on: May 03, 2005, 04:36:33 PM »
Correct!
IMHO, the LW could have easily won the BoB, had they done several mistakes, such as this one.
Same goes with the RAF, - they did several big mistakes on pair with the LW ones.
Put it this way.
LW does no mistakes, RAF all, LW wins by some margin
RAF makes it right, LW makes it wrong, RAF wins a crushing defeat.

Anyway, in RL it was a RAF victory by a margin, the debate goes about how wide that margin was, and all of us agree upon that I belive, - except perhaps one :D
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 Big G

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 183
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #684 on: May 03, 2005, 06:09:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Correct!
IMHO, the LW could have easily won the BoB, had they done several mistakes, such as this one.
Same goes with the RAF, - they did several big mistakes on pair with the LW ones.
Put it this way.
LW does no mistakes, RAF all, LW wins by some margin
RAF makes it right, LW makes it wrong, RAF wins a crushing defeat.

Anyway, in RL it was a RAF victory by a margin, the debate goes about how wide that margin was, and all of us agree upon that I belive, - except perhaps one :D

Like I said earlier, when the chips were down the Spit won and the 109 lost:D

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9485
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #685 on: May 03, 2005, 08:18:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Big G
Like I said earlier, when the chips were down the Spit won and the 109 lost:D

(ahem)  When the chips were down, the Hurricane won and the Luftwaffe lost.

- oldman

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #686 on: May 03, 2005, 08:21:18 PM »
And plane vs plane 109 won.

Offline Big G

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 183
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #687 on: May 03, 2005, 08:23:47 PM »
Ahem all you like mate, we are not talking about Hurricanes or Typhoons etc, we are talking about Spits and 109's.
I could go on for ever about why the Lw lost, why the Mustang was developed, why Galland wore red socks on Tuesdays, but the fact reamins, we are talking about Spit V 109, BOB or not, the Spit beat the 109 when it mattered.
If I remember corerctly, while this was going on the Americans supplied the petrol...

Offline agent 009

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #688 on: May 03, 2005, 08:26:36 PM »
when you compare losses in bob, I believe 109 comes out on top vs Spit & hurri.

Offline sniper68

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 476
Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design
« Reply #689 on: May 04, 2005, 01:01:01 AM »
i dunno about that agent any one have any hard facts about who lost more planes?  in the air i mean not talking about LW straffin any RAF planes 0n the ground