RAF 150 octane

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Swoop
Kurfarce,

face it, no matter how much you argue.....Germany already lost the war.

Fabulus information, really. Thanks for stepping by.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Guppy35
When did we establish that the Spit LFIXe/XVIe was obsolete?  Last I checked it was considered by many RAF pilots the best of the Spits for combat.

[/B]

That may be their opinion, that it was the best balanced type, but last I checked it was a wee bit slow and lacking altitude performance of true 44/45 planes. The 109F, regardless of it`s qualities of nicely balanced flight characteristics, would be obsolate as well in an air combat that called for PERFORMANCE.

Let`s consider the fact the 109K cruised faster at altitude than the MkIX at all-out full power, quite telling of the performance gap.

Originally posted by Guppy35
So just to defend against the American Air Forces attacking Germany, the average LW pilot was flying into a 6 vs 1 situation.  Throw in the RAF sorties and you are probably talking about a 8-1 disadvantage at least.  No wonder those Spit drivers weren't finding much action.

[/B]

I`d really like to see some actual data for the 2nd TAF, instead of guessing. As for the USAAF, the vast numerical superioty is well known - oddly it`s usually denied by USAAF fans, who don`t like the main cause for success - ie 8 on 1 'dogfights' .

And how many of those 10K LW sorties were offensive sorties?  How many were attacking those bombers that were hitting Germany from the south and the west almost daily?

[/B]

Why don`t you tell us?

So yeah I'd say that those 10K fighter sorties were a handful in comparison to what was being flown against them..

[/B]

True, but it was a whole different scale than the number of IX sorties in 1942, or XIV sorties in 1944, which we were talking about.

And I still don't see the point of all this?  Jets were on the horizon for the future.  Not much point in over producing prop planes when they were going to be obsolete to the jets.  The end of the war was in sight and the supply of aircraft was exceeding demand as was the supply of pilots for the Allies.  They had dominance in the air from pre-D-Day on.  They must have been doing something right.

[/B]

Sure, the evergreen Allies won the war, so they did everything better arguement. Bit boring, really. Come up with something a wee bit more original.

And the Spits were rarely fighting the 109Ks and 190D9s.  And consider their numbers as well.  Not staggering by any means, the D9 in particular.[/B]

Last I checked, there were about 400 D9/K4 around in December 1944, and I am quite sure there were at least 600 by January. Just between you and me, that`s alone about as much IXs the whole 2nd TAF had, and about 10 times of the number of XIVs/Tempest.

The Spits were by that time flying ground attack for lack of any air combat to be found. [/B]

Another evergreen... claim, but no factuality. Guess what, Bf 109Ks flew a lot of ground attack sorties in April 1945. By your logic, the Allies were nowhere. Silly, isn`t it?

[LRRP22]

Originally posted by Kurf�rst

I`d really like to see some actual data for the 2nd TAF, instead of guessing. As for the USAAF, the vast numerical superioty is well known - oddly it`s usually denied by USAAF fans, who don`t like the main cause for success - ie 8 on 1 'dogfights' .

It's denied because the ' 8 vs 1' dogfight was far from the norm.  As you know, those vast numbers of USAAF fighters were spread over equally as vast areas.   No doubt that the Allies greatly outnumbered the JG's in the last year of the war, but air battles between elements of similar size were far more common than you would like to admit.  Almost invariably, the better-trained Allied pilots came out on top during those engagements.

The Luftwaffe, on the other hand, had no choice but attempt to concentrate its meager forces at certain points since it had long before ceded general air superiority to the Allies.  The fact is that Luftwaffe Jagdflieger was very likely to meet enemy aircraft during each sortie, while USAAF fighter groups could go weeks without spotting a single airborne Luftwaffe prop fighter.

.

[Guppy35]

So the point again is?  The Spit IX wasn't flying lots of ops from England in 1942.  Since they didn't really get into action until the latter part of 42, that makes sense.  And since the main focus of the war at that point wasn't France, that makes some sense as well.  Seems to me North Africa, Russia etc was where the bigger battles were taking place.  RAF Ops were basically to fly across with Medium bombers with fighter escort and try and get the LW to come up.  

The Spit XIV wasn't used in great numbers.  Yep.  This is true.  Can't say that it's counter part, the 190D9 that didn't get into action until the Fall of 44 did a whole lot more

Your opinion again on the combat capability of the Spit LFIX.  I'll take the word of the guys who flew it in combat over that of someone who wasn't there and who clearly has convinced himself that the Spitfire was a waste of time.

You mention 400-600 109K4s.  I'd love to hear about who operated them, where and how often.  I don't recall the bombers over Germany seeing that many fighters in the air.  From the Fall of 44 the 8th was seeing LW fighters only in small numbers ,save a couple of days where the LW had apparently marshalled all the planes it could to try and make an impact.  Even then it was only 150-200 aircraft estimated seen and you know how those Allied crews over estimated numbers.

I was thinking about it, and this is how the discussions go here every time.

Your typical Axis vs Allied argument

It occurred to me today after reading more of the threads in the aircraft and vehicles forum that the discussions are a lot like your typical sports fan.


Axis:  My team had better players.
Allied: That’s your opinion, and my team won

Axis:  We were kicking your butt all over the field in the first part of the game.
Allied:  That’s true, but we had to play the entire game to determine the winner and in the end we won.

Axis:  My team had much better equipment then yours!
Allied:  That may be true to some extent too.  But then again we didn’t even want to play the game.  You were planning for the game before we even knew we were going to play.  We seemed to have caught up though and in the end we won.

Axis:  But I have statistics to show you how much better my players were then yours.  My best players scored a lot more goals then your best!
Allied:  Yep.  You’ve got the guys with the best numbers.  But then again your players had to play the entire game without a rest.  I could rest the players on my team.  And you know what?  We won.

Axis:  That’s because you had more players on your team!
Allied:  Well, we didn’t want to play the game to begin with, and we didn’t make up the rules.   So we used all the players we were allowed to.  We can’t help it you didn’t have as many players.

Axis:  If our coach had made better decisions, we’d have won for sure!  
Allied:  Not my problem your coach was an idiot.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  We still won.

Axis:  But we had the best players and equipment on the field at the end!
Allied:  Probably true, but our players and equipment were pretty good too and we had the better team so we won.

Axis:  Quit saying that!  Just because you won doesn’t mean we weren’t better!
Allied:  Last I checked, all that mattered was who won.

Axis fan last seen running away screaming about statistics, what might have beens and coulda shoulda wouldas.

[Squire]

Well, lets be clear on intro dates, by October 1944 the LW was made up of 190As and 109G-6s and 109G-14s. Thats it, for prop types.

Tempest, Spit XIV are already operating on the Continent in strength from September 1944, as are the Mustang IIIs. The remainder are Spit LF IXs and Typhoons.

From Oct-Dec 1944 the LW starts getting 190Ds and 109K/109G-10s. They gradually come into service, but never fully replace the 109G-14 or the 190A in the last 6 months of the war.

Just as the Tempest and Spit XIV never fully replace the Spit LF IX and Mustang III.
The established strength of an RAF Sqn was 20 a/c in 44-45, not 12.  12 was what they kept in the air, just as JGs did not sortie 100 percent of their strengths, nor did the USAAF (or anybody else). Pilot avialability and maintenance schedules made that impossible.

...Lastly, just to set the record straight on the Tempest and Spit XIV, their main reason for being deployed to Holland had nothing to do with 190s or 109s. They were deployed there as the # of Me262 fighter-bomber sorties increased (from KG51), and the allies needed their fastest fighters to counter that.

Read "Invasions Without Tears", about 126 Wing RCAF, they had no Temps or XIVs, and didnt need them, either:

http://www.valourandhorror.com/BOOKS/berger.php

[Kurfürst]

You know I still wonder why is it hard to meet with an avarage of 350 enemy fighter flying all over the front every day.

As for superior Allied pilots winning combats on equal numbers invariably, Japo gives the following figures for the Western Front, Decemer 1944 for LW daylight fighters :

Sorties flown : 11 053
Victories : 552
Losses : 527

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Guppy35
You mention 400-600 109K4s.  I'd love to hear about who operated them, where and how often.

[/B]

I said K-4s and D-9s. There were 314 Bf 109K-4s listed with 1st line LW units on 31 Jan 1945.

Bf 109K was operated by the following units. Each Roman number designates a LW JagdGruppe, or Fighter Wing.

In comparision, there were only 1 MkXIV Fighter wing during the war in the RAF.

III. / JG 1
II. / JG 2
Stab / JG 3 "Udet"
I. / JG 3 "Udet"
II. / JG 3 "Udet"
III. / JG 3 "Udet"
I. / JG 4
III. / JG 4
IV. / JG 4
Stab / JG 6
II. / JG 11
III. / JG 26
I. / JG 27
II. / JG 27
III. / JG 27
Stab / JG 51
III. / JG 51
IV. / JG 51
Stab / JG 52
I. / JG 52
II. / JG 52
III. / JG 52
II. / JG 53
III. / JG 53
IV. / JG 53
Stab / JG 77
I. / JG 77
II. / JG 77
III. / JG 77
III. / EJG 1
II. / KG(J) 6
II. / KG(J) 27
II. / KG(J) 55
I. / NJG 11

Italian units

I. Gr. C.
II. Gr. C.

Hungarian units - based on the telling of Tobak Tibor, 101st veteran
101. Honi Vadászezred (101st Home Fighter Regiment)

[Squire]

One thing I think we can agree on which I think has been often overlooked by "army" military historians ,is the fact that the air campaign in France and the Low Countries from June-September 1944, was a hard fought one amongst the "tactical air arms" of the LW and the RAF/USAAF. Authors seem to almost completely dismiss it, I dont know why.

They focus almost solely on the 8th AF efforts vs the LW, and just ignore everything else as "background". Its just as important of a campaign, if not more so, being that the armies decided the fate of the western front, and the air arms covering them were directly engaged in the struggle.

As for large air combats, there were many, read any good book on the campaign, this business of "Priller and his wingman strafe Juno-Sword beach and go home" < and thats it... is a myth started by Cornelius Ryans "The Longest Day", a rather average telling of the D-Day fighting...

[Guppy35]

Just a glimpse of 2 TAF sorties based on a Canadian Tiffie Wing 143 Wing comprised of 438, 439 & 440 Squadrons.

First Operational Flight March 20, 1944, last Operational Flight May 5, 1945.  

In a little over 13 months they flew 12, 926 operational sorties, so not quite 1000 a month.

2 TAF on D-Day was 80 Squadrons.  Can't find a number for December 44 but it's no doubt similar if not more.

Do the math.  Figure that 143 Wing was typical and it adds up to about 24000 sorties a month with all those squadrons.

[Scherf]

Have a look at Chris Shores' 3-Volume "2nd TAF". Covers the larger strategic situation, snapshots of tactical requirements, and a daily review of all 2nd TAF operations, night and day.

Has Orders of Battle at various points, airfield assignements, daily losses and claims. I don't believe there is a daily total of sorties flown.

[LRRP22]

Originally posted by Kurf�rst
You know I still wonder why is it hard to meet with an avarage of 350 enemy fighter flying all over the front every day.

You can wonder all you like, but the fact is that by 1945, VIII Fighter Command saw absolutley zero aerial opposition on the vast majority of its missions.

BTW, 552 'Claims' Isegrim, not 'Victories'.  If you want to measure air-to-air claims vs. losses, then your average USAAF fighter group had many times that kill:loss ratio.

.

[Kurfürst]

Considering most Typhoon sorties, ie. in Normandy barely lasted more than 15-30mins with just flying a few miles to the frontline and back, it`s not hard to add up many quick sorties this way.

Ie, how do you compare that to 5-6 hour escort sorties of the USAAF, or 1-2 hour interception sorties of the Reichsverteidigung? Apples and oranges.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by LRRP22
552 'Claims' Isegrim, not 'Victories'.  If you want to measure air-to-air claims vs. losses, then your average USAAF fighter group had many times that kill:loss ratio.

JAPO uses the word 'Victories'.
And of course we all know how much reality was there behind USAAF figther claims. If half of those were true, the LW would cease to exist in 1943 already.

[Squire]

I have Vol I and Vol II of "2nd TAF" by Chistopher Shores, im wating for Vol 3 to become available. Probably the best source on that air force, and very detailed.

As far as all this stuff about 8:1 and 10:1 and 20:1, its mostly mythology. Local air combats took place between small units usually. "On paper" OOBs does not indicate the ratio of friend to foe in most air combats in WW2.

Im going to paraphrase some from "2nd TAF" Vol II.:

"411 Sqn met 12 Bf 109s"

"403 Sqn encountered 40 Bf 109s"

"401 Sqn undertook a sweep, met 40 190s"

I wont bother going through the entire book, but rest assured there are many reports like that. Did it always happen that way? of course not. I am illustrating that BOTH sides fighter units would run across equal or larger enemy forces on many occasions, because that was just "the fortunes of war", the side to see the other 1st and attack, usually did better.

It made no difference to a Typhoon sqn that ran across 3 Staffels of 109s that "on paper" the allies outnumbered the Germans by X ammount, thats hardly going to help them in the next 10 minutes, is it?

[LRRP22]

Originally posted by Kurf�rst
JAPO uses the word 'Victories'.
And of course we all know how much reality was there behind USAAF figther claims. If half of those were true, the LW would cease to exist in 1943 already.

My point exactly.  Even the officially awarded victories were well above the actuall losses suffered by the opposition- and that applies to the Luftwaffe claims system as much as it does to that of the Allies.  The myth that the Luftwaffe system was vastly more accurate than that of the Allies simply isn't born-out.  Reading works such as Urbanke's 'Green Hearts' and Caldwell's JG26 works indicate that overclaiming by a factor of two to four was common amongst those units.  And before you say that they were just claims, how do you explain the fact that the pilots from those various units, as well as the units themselves, are credited with virtually all those claims to this day?   After all, Hartmann's 352 victories include claims that were made on the last day of the war, how could those have possibley been 'officially' confirmed?  Didn't the Luftwaffe claims system's supposedly stringent process require months to 'officially' confirm a victory?  Didn't it break down completley in the last months of the war?

.