Author Topic: The enigma of the Bf-109  (Read 10934 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #165 on: February 21, 2005, 01:54:59 PM »
So Nine Squadrons in a typical JG right?
A little less, for a complete RAF squadron would run around with 12 servicable aircraft if possible, - which was absolutely not always.
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 HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #166 on: February 21, 2005, 02:39:41 PM »
Hi Grendel,

>In France Luftwaffe had two squadrons of fighters opposing teh whole RAF and USAAF. What kind of force projection those might be able to do? The two squadrons were "holding the front", and were fighting with a positivive 3-1 - 5-1 kill ratio.

To stay focused on the question of the quality of the aircraft, just ask yourself: "What would the outcome have been with RAF using Luftwaffe aircraft and vice versa?"

This is a technique I discovered in the books of Mike Spick, and it's great to separate strategic and operative questions from tactical performance.

Historically, using the Me 109F the Luftwaffe was able to take on the Spitfire "beehives" with inferior numbers, striking from an advantagous position and withdrawing after the strike.

That the Me 109F-4 had a speed advantage of roughly 50 km/h at operational altitudes undoubtly was a tactical advantage in such a situation:

http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me109F4vsSpitfireVc.gif

Now what about the reversed situation with the Luftwaffe flying Spitfire Vc and the RAF Me 109F-4?

With no advantage but turn rate, any engagement would either have to be hit and run (for which the Me 109 is better suited), or a turning fight against vastly superior numbers (Johnny Johnson, veteran of numerous Circus operations: "Turning doesn't win battles").

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #167 on: February 21, 2005, 03:35:13 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Grendel,

>In France Luftwaffe had two squadrons of fighters opposing teh whole RAF and USAAF. What kind of force projection those might be able to do? The two squadrons were "holding the front", and were fighting with a positivive 3-1 - 5-1 kill ratio.

To stay focused on the question of the quality of the aircraft, just ask yourself: "What would the outcome have been with RAF using Luftwaffe aircraft and vice versa?"

This is a technique I discovered in the books of Mike Spick, and it's great to separate strategic and operative questions from tactical performance.

Historically, using the Me 109F the Luftwaffe was able to take on the Spitfire "beehives" with inferior numbers, striking from an advantagous position and withdrawing after the strike.

That the Me 109F-4 had a speed advantage of roughly 50 km/h at operational altitudes undoubtly was a tactical advantage in such a situation:

http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Me109F4vsSpitfireVc.gif

Now what about the reversed situation with the Luftwaffe flying Spitfire Vc and the RAF Me 109F-4?

With no advantage but turn rate, any engagement would either have to be hit and run (for which the Me 109 is better suited), or a turning fight against vastly superior numbers (Johnny Johnson, veteran of numerous Circus operations: "Turning doesn't win battles").

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


Here the luftwaffe had total control of the battlefield. It's intersting to note that the luftwaffe generally refused fighter to fighter combat and only engaged "circuses" when a clear advantage could be obtained. In part this was due to the shift of many units east....but it also was a result of the hit and run tactics forced on the germans by the limited combat envelope of the 109F vs the spitVB. In effect it was a one pass and out system of attack. In this case the raw numbers did favor the germans for a variety of reasons...but the luftwaffes inability to control its "own" airspace was established.

Think I said about exactly what you did.....

Now...

1st the #'s were not as disparent as you said....spick gives as high as 3-1...the only hard numbers given are 48 german to 80 british from June 14 to july 4 1941...just under 2 to 1. He also notes that the germans paid a high price in expertain while the british were rotating a high percentage of new pilots into action.

Lets compare this to BoB where spick notes that only 4 pilots from III/JG52 even survived...he indicated a very high lose rate for most units involved.

Your question regarding what if was answered in BoB...the german attempts to project airpower were trounced...on the other hand the british never ceased air operations over europe. Further when stategic bombing started in earnest the germans never even attempted to attack the bases directly...they were incapable of a forward projection of airpower.

Historically, using the Me 109F the Luftwaffe was able to take on the Spitfire "beehives" with inferior numbers, striking from an advantagous position and withdrawing after the strike

This illustrates the problem in your thinking....the germans didnt take on anything....they made a B&Z pass and ran....and yes the expertain often scored and rarely did the british get a chance to respond...but when the germans tried to stay and fight they normally died...

Now....

in the 1st ever major engagement 8 P-39s took on 30 109's and shot down 13 for a loss of 3 of there own

That represents a unit with inferior #'s taking on an enemy and beating them into submission. There is a big big difference.

The british STOPPED the germans in the BoB and inflicted terrible loses....the german didnt stop fighter command over europe and they never inflicted casualties sever enough to force a stoppage on a tactical level.

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline Skuzzy

  • Support Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31462
      • HiTech Creations Home Page
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #168 on: February 21, 2005, 03:50:25 PM »
You can have a discussion without resorting to name calling.  There is absolutely no justification anyone can use which makes it allright to abuse other members of this board.

That goes for the lot of you.

Now, get back to the discussion, it is interesting.
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
support@hitechcreations.com

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #169 on: February 21, 2005, 04:11:21 PM »
You do mean claimed 13 for a loss of 3 right?  

I'd divide 13 by at least 2.5 to try to arrive at a more accurate number.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #170 on: February 21, 2005, 05:31:56 PM »
Just dug up some analysis of the BoB.
It had pretty good numbers of claims of the RAF squads vs the book-keeping of the LW.
Seems like the RAF pilots overclaimed quite a bit, actual LW MIA and KIA's due to enemy a/c were close to 45% of the claims.
The period in question is July to october, but the LW AFAIK suffered rather nastily in November (take it with a grain of salt, have still to find that darned source)
Anyway, BRB with some nice numbers and the source, gimme 10 mins or so.
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 Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #171 on: February 21, 2005, 06:12:07 PM »
Ok, here we go, the BoB.
Analysis from the souvenir issue of aeroplane, July 2000.
John Alcorn's Top Guns article.
His sources are many, including Shores, Price, and the LW losses listed by FRancis K. Mason (Battle over Britain).
So, to the Guns of RAF fighters in those months in questions, there fell 1194 aircraft with little doubt, another 34 may be added, unknown alltogether 102, with various others (landing accidents NOT included) which all are BoB related, the sum is 1.609 aircraft.
Often have 1.700 been mentioned, and I actually belived it was then for the period ca 10th of June to Christmas or so. But that may not be it since the number would then be higher.
Anyway, the author mentions losses of batle engaged units whose fate could not be traced, as well as some other uncertain losses not listed by the quartermaster's records.
RAF losses are less detailed, but his number is 830, not broken down at all. It is the highest I have heard so far, but not by far.
I belive the RAF lost like 400 crew.
THe top scoring RAF squad is 603 with 57 kills, there off are 47 109's.
The wicked 610 who had given JG52 some bad time has only 24 109's to their credit.
One Hurricane squadron performed nicely, 501 sqn has 40 in the bag, there off 30 109's.
Top 109 killers: Brian Carbury 15, Lock 13, Lacey 13, Gray 11, etc.

LW lost a lot of 110's apparently, 208, thereoff 80 to Spits, 128 to Hurry's.
As a comparison, the Spits bagged some 282 109's while Hurris did 222.


Anyway, the BoB boils down to many results, such as  it being the first time the LW met a properly organized airforce which in the following they failed utterly to subdue.
Or, the bad days they had, making 10% of their bomber force shot down or unusable in a day.

AFAIK the LW lost more aircraft from June to Dec 1940 than on the eastern front in 1944, now that's rather interesting wouldn't you say?
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 humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #172 on: February 21, 2005, 06:24:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Urchin
You do mean claimed 13 for a loss of 3 right?  

I'd divide 13 by at least 2.5 to try to arrive at a more accurate number.


No they shot down 13...all were accounted for. The russians were actually much better than anyone else in that regard. They actually had both plane and engine #'s from most of their awarded kills. Most occurred over the front and were recovered....as a general rule russians didnt even claim kills on german side of the lines. The battle of Kuban is pretty well documented. Germans were just mauled by VVS air regiments....

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #173 on: February 21, 2005, 06:25:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You can have a discussion without resorting to name calling.  There is absolutely no justification anyone can use which makes it allright to abuse other members of this board.

That goes for the lot of you.

Now, get back to the discussion, it is interesting.


Probably my fault more than anyones....my apologies to all for nay rocks I may have chucked:o

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #174 on: February 21, 2005, 06:35:04 PM »
From Humble
"No they shot down 13...all were accounted for. The russians were actually much better than anyone else in that regard"

I'd take their total claims with a wee salt.

You see, when the commisar comes around and demands results, sometimes they must be somehow provided :D

Oops, may have started a flamefest
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 Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9494
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #175 on: February 21, 2005, 06:35:45 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by humble
The british STOPPED the germans in the BoB and inflicted terrible loses....the german didnt stop fighter command over europe and they never inflicted casualties sever enough to force a stoppage on a tactical level.

So far as I can tell, the Battle of Britain was the only time in the war when the aerial defense prevailed over a determined aerial offense.

- oldman

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #176 on: February 21, 2005, 06:37:58 PM »
Anyway, the BoB boils down to many results, such as it being the first time the LW met a properly organized airforce which in the following they failed utterly to subdue

If you look thru some of the various analysis from different milatary think tanks the general take is that the luftwaffe didnt really "win" the original campaigns either. totally losses for the initial campaigns in the west were 36% of total forces fielded. The airwar really stopped due to the airfileds being overrun....not thru the use of airpower itself. Thats one reason so many "free" so snd so units were able to be formed for the BoB and after. There is strong speculation that the luftwaffe would not have been able to achieve and maintain air superiority had the ground war in europe dragged out. The germans lost over 1100 aircraft in two months over the kuban bridge head. This battle mimicked the BoB in many ways. The germans were unable to gain local air superiority and their tactical bomber and fighter forces were mauled. Whats interesting is that we had 109 G6/190 A4/5 vs Laag 3, yak-1, P-40 and P-39 D-2's. My understanding is that overall numbers were almost dead even (at least in the beginning:))......

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline humble

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6434
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #177 on: February 21, 2005, 06:39:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Oldman731
So far as I can tell, the Battle of Britain was the only time in the war when the aerial defense prevailed over a determined aerial offense.

- oldman


Look up the Kuban bridgehead in april 1943....made custer look like an even fight....

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."-Pres. Thomas Jefferson

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #178 on: February 21, 2005, 06:41:33 PM »
OOps, guess what I found, cortesy of Google.
LW losses by theater 1944

"1944 - All Combat Types
 Total West
 Eastern Front
 West/East
 
Sorties
 182,004
 342,483
 0.53
 
Losses
 9768
 2406
 4.06
 
Losses/Sortie
 0.0537
 0.00703
 7.66 "

Wish I had 1942 and 1943, will definately look different, but I guess I was not far off.
1944 was probably the "biggest" year of them all, and I remember some anecdotes from old German aces that the West was a worse sky to stay in.
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 Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
The enigma of the Bf-109
« Reply #179 on: February 21, 2005, 06:43:02 PM »
Incredible, all the posts edited by Skuzzy for personal attacks and no one banned!!  :D
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.