Author Topic: Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?  (Read 9121 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #150 on: November 01, 2005, 05:13:50 AM »
Reading Galland now. Stumbled across this:
"Als am Nachmittag des 7. September sich die Deutchen Gescwader uber der Kanalkuste versammelten, Bomber, Stukas, Jager und Zerstörer, insgesamt weit uber 1000 Flugzeuge."

Quickly, that means: "on the afternoon on September the 7th the German Wings assembled over the channel coast, Bombers, Stukas, Fighters and Destroyers, totallyng well over 1000 aircraft"

And here:
"Zu beginn dieser vierten Phase der Schlact betrug unsere angrifsstarke etwa 400-500 bomber und 200 Stukas. Den begleitschutz flogen rundt 500 Jager und 200 Zerstörer. Ihnen standen nach damaliger deutscher shatzung nicht wesentlich mehr als 200 einsatzbereite britische Jager gegenuber"
Meaning roughly:
"In the beginninng of the 4th phase of the battle, our offensive strength included some 400-500 bombers and 200 Stukas. The escorts flew around 500 fighters (109) and 200 destroyers (110). Opposing them, according to our estimate, were not much more than 200 available british fighters"

He includes a sweet little map where Luftflotte III bombers and fighters are seen pointed to London.
He counts the major daylight raids on London as 38,- hardly an exception.

I'll post some more later.
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 Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #151 on: November 02, 2005, 06:51:41 PM »
You need to check the times and OOB for the incoming raids, Angus.

Only one raid on 7 Sep 1940 did the BF-109's outnumber the intercepting RAF single engine fighters.  On that raid, the Luftwaffe took no casualites and successfully fended off the RAF fighters.

The other two raids came in at earlier and later times.  In both raids the incoming 109's were outnumbered by the intercepting RAF single engine squadrons.  In those the Luftwaffe took losses.

Quote
"In the beginninng of the 4th phase of the battle, our offensive strength included some 400-500 bombers and 200 Stukas. The escorts flew around 500 fighters (109) and 200 destroyers (110). Opposing them, according to our estimate, were not much more than 200 available british fighters"


Well the RAF strength reports say differently.  I have no doubt General Rall was told that less than 200 RAF fighters were available according to LW intelligence.  The facts though are very different.

All the best,

Crumpp
« Last Edit: November 02, 2005, 06:54:12 PM by Crumpp »

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #152 on: November 03, 2005, 01:25:29 AM »
Crumpp: 11th Group is not RAF. The defenders were 11th group, 2 squadrons of 10th group, and 3 from 12th group. The attackers were every available 109 from both Luftflotte II and III as escorts, as well as the 110's
That BoB website although rather good, needs to be looked at with some knowledge. Such as the claims department,- those are unconfirmed claims. The claims I have summed up from Shores are confirmed claims, and those from Alcorn are quite well verified.

The Quote is from Galland, not Rall. Rall's squadron was pulled out after a week in the channel fight due to severe losses.

And yes, the LW did belive that 11th group was the bulk of the RAF. It was a shock to them to find out that the NE area was well defended when they probed it with luftflotte V. Even N-Ireland and N-Scotland had Hurris and/or Spitfires.

BTW, all Single engined fighters include Defiants and Gladiators. In big reports there might be more types included. I am however looking into Spits and Hurrys only.

And additionally there were Blenheims. Mostly for night ops. But one Blenheim squadron of the Coastal command also made some action and had some 14 kills.
In the eyes of the LW it all looked pretty much the same be it this or that group or coastal command. So it sticks out rather nicely how the RAF seemed to be getting bigger while the LW was bleeding,- while that is not so far away from the truth ;)
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
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #153 on: November 03, 2005, 04:49:44 AM »
A little more.....
From Reach for the Sky Brickhill's work on Bader.
"It was 11 group battle and 12th group was held back to cover Englands industrial heart north of London. Burning for the fight, Bader rang Leigh-Mallory and pleaded to be embroiled but Leigh-Mallory told him: "We can't put all our eggs in one basket Bader. You've got to hang on and wait""

This applies in August 1940.

On we go.
"The lull ended on 24th of August. That evening 110 German fighters and bombers moved towards London, but were intercepted over Maidstone and fled. Next day they were bombing Portsmouth and Southampton, savagely attacked by defending fighters. Then it was Dover, Folkstone, The Thames Estuary and Kent. Time and again the great formations ploughed steadily across the channel and clashed bloodily with the spearheads of 11 group. But 11 group losses were heavy too; they fought in squadrons, twelve aircraft against fifty or a hundred or two hundred because there were not enough squadrons and some had to be held in reserve. Air vice marshal Park, the A.O.C. never knew where the next attack was coming from or when. The plot of a hundred plus on the board might be a feint, to draw all his fighters up so that when they had to land to refuel and re-arm the main attack could sweep in unimposed"

So, you see, the 12th group lads were indeed held back.

The Duxford wing first makes a successful engagement on the 30th of August. Bader went on to press on using more squadrons at one, describing as this:
"One squadron against a formation of a hundred or more is pretty sticky"
The Duxford wing makes it's first big hit on the famous 7th September. With inferior altiude the attacked escorted bombers (109's and 110's). Bader got hit by a 109 that day, and also saw some feathers of the Luftwaffe falling. Must be a kill if the enemy slams into the ground.

So, you see, the LW did loose aircraft on the 7th, they also had 109's over the target. As for this website on the day:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/september7.html
It does not match any of my books! Nothing at all.
Here comes Shores:
"It was afternoon on 7 September before the first attack came in on London - and so vast was the formation that only London could be the target. A total of 348 bombers from KG1, 2, 3, 26, and 76, escorted by 617 fighters - nearly 1000 aircraft - headed for the east London docks, which were brutally bombed. 19 and 41 Squadrons (Spitfires), 111 and 249 squadrons (Hurricanes) intercepted first, but the inexperienced pilots of 249 were hard hit by the escorts, losing six aircraft, although only one pilot was killed. More squadrons joined the running battle, including elements of the Duxford wing from No 12 group. Seventy one victories were claimed by 17 squadrons, but actual losses amounted to 34, 12 of them bombers and seven Bf 110's................................With dusk 318 Heinkels and Dorniers returned to stoke the fires started during the day; London's ordeal had begun."
And that's from the RAF site, - it doesn't match:
"First wave totalling some 100 aircraft crossed the coast but activities were confined to Kent. A second wave commenced to cross the Coast at 1718 hours, some 250 aircraft being plotted in five raids, the activity spread to an area from East of Kenley covering the Thames Estuary to as far North as Duxford. No 12 Group provided 5 Squadrons to assist No 11 Group during this engagement"
Looks to me as in INCOMPLETE compilation. Or maybe Shores, Johnny, Galland and the rest are all dead wrong?
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 Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #154 on: November 03, 2005, 07:11:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Reading Galland now. Stumbled across this:
"Als am Nachmittag des 7. September sich die Deutchen Gescwader uber der Kanalkuste versammelten, Bomber, Stukas, Jager und Zerstörer, insgesamt weit uber 1000 Flugzeuge."


Errr, if you refer to Galland's 'the firsts and the lasts', it's isn't quite reliable everywhere when it goes to numbers - he wrote the book in 1953, and most likely lacked decent sources or those were still classified, and he worked from memory.

To illustrate, he writes on the commence of the Battle of Britian:

"The German Luftwaffe back then had apprx. 2500 combat-ready warplanes, as opposed to 3600 warplanes available to the British. The numerical disadvantage could have been, to some extent, evened out with our technological superiority, but this, especially in the case of fighters, was not merited to prudent planning. True, that back then the Me 109 was the world's finest fighter and between 1935 and 1940 it was superior to all enemy types." etc.

You see there are some troubles with the numbers, but what is certain, the LW did not have any numerical advantage over the RAF in the Battle of Britain in fighters, in fact there was a slight numerical disadvantage for them, not to say the other factors like radar, home turf etc. Despite that, they gave a bad beating to the RAF over Dunkirk and fought very favourably during BoB, causing more losses than they suffered themselves, and succeeding in forcing the RAF to evacuate to most southern airfields and concentrate around London, at the edge of the 109's range, depleting British pilot reserves badly.

"Rall's squadron was pulled out after a week in the channel fight due to severe losses."

Hmm, that puts your sig about Ralls 'experience' with Spitfires into context. He had, basically, spent a week over the Channel, I am not sure if he met Spits at all, and the next time he met them was over the Russian front in 1943, shooting down a few MkVs. ;)
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #155 on: November 03, 2005, 07:33:50 AM »
Hello Kuffie. Nice having you back.
Well.....
Firstly Galland was in the middle of the pool, and his numbers tend to fit rather well with other sources. I have it here listed down to Staffels what the LW had on the S-SE front, and it is obvious what part of the RAF was facing them. The fighter stock of the RAF equalled the LW, but they could not all be there. Other stuff to look after you see.
Actually, at the time of the BoB the RAF had aircraft scattered all around the world, so it must be taken carefully what stock numbers say. They even had squadrons up here, - in Iceland! (Submarine hunting and intruder interceptions).
As for Rall I'll Type it in later. It were indeed Spitfires on some occasions (not that it matters), and those shot down one squadron leader after the other untill he was on the top ;)   Oh Galland's quote on the Spitfire vs the 109: "Erheblich Wendiger" :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 Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #156 on: November 03, 2005, 07:57:16 AM »
Angus,

I never said the Luftwaffe did not take casualties on 07 Sep 40..

The one raid in which the Luftwaffe did have numerical superiority, they took no casualties and prevented the RAF from attacking the bombers.

Big difference.

You cannot change the fact the RAF generally had numerical parity or superiority in single engine fighters for most of the Battle of Britain.

No amount of wishing or pilot anecdotes will alter that.


Quote
The figures for Fighter Command are somewhat higher than those quoted in other sources but have been taken directly from PRO AIR 20/2307.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_4_24/ai_74582443/pg_5

Even the RAF says over 500 RAF single engine fighters participated on 7 Sep 40.

Quote
Spitfire - 223
Hurricane - 398


http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/september7.html

Due to the amount of overclaiming, it is ridiculus to even attempt to hold up either sides "claims" as proof of any damage done.

All the best,

Crumpp

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #157 on: November 03, 2005, 08:06:36 AM »
Crumpp:
I am working with confirmed kills not the ones from the Website. Well actually, I haven't been working with anything from the website at all!
I just happen to have some metres of books, and they all seem to be in harmony, be it something written in 1953 or 2000.
As for this one:
"You cannot change the fact the RAF generally had numerical parity or superiority in single engine fighters for most of the Battle of Britain."

I AM NOT CHALLENGING THAT! THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY TRUE STATEMENT!

But, - while the LW applied the most of their force, the RAF was fencing them with some half of theirs. So, that is my point.

You can roll about as much as you want in the stock department I am looking into the numbers in engagements the numbers in squadron service, the numbers that clashed in the air.

Anyway, off I must go, gotta bake a cake =;)
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
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #158 on: November 03, 2005, 08:14:52 AM »
Oh, dear, saw a flaw, so have to post. Cake will wait. Crumpp: I am serious you need to learn a tad more reading.
Here are your words, and you are quoting the same link as I posted, the same as I had posted as well:
"Even the RAF says over 500 RAF single engine fighters participated on 7 Sep 40.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spitfire - 223
Hurricane - 398"


And here is the text from the link:
"Fighter Command Serviceable Aircraft as at 0900 hours, 7th September 1940
Blenheim - 44
Spitfire - 223
Hurricane - 398
Defiant - 20
Gladiator - 9
Total - 694 "

So, you mixed up available aircraft with participating aircraft. You bad!

As well as this: I don't see (on a swift notice) any reference other than internet from you.
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 Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #159 on: November 03, 2005, 08:16:05 AM »
Quote
I am working with confirmed kills


Over claiming resulted in each side having several hundred erroneous "confirmed" kills.

Quote
So, you mixed up available aircraft with participating aircraft. You bad!


No I listed the aircraft the RAF says were available for the fight.

Angus you have not listed any sources, just typed!

All the best,

Crumpp

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #160 on: November 03, 2005, 08:41:42 AM »
Angus,

did you not know that BoB was a 'fighter vs fighter' battle? :eek: The LW bombers were just a mirage.

"But, - while the LW applied the most of their force, the RAF was fencing them with some half of theirs. So, that is my point."

The LW fanbois just can't comprehend that, can they?



So if you listed the available a/c Crumpp, why did you say paticipate? Angus caught you. :D

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #161 on: November 03, 2005, 09:21:36 AM »
Wonder why the RAF does not list the number of Model 022A Fords being driven in London in September 1940?

That information would be just as relative then wouldn't it?

Do we need to discuss the definition of available again?

All the best,

Crumpp

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #162 on: November 03, 2005, 10:19:11 AM »
Jeeez Crumpp, let the straw go!


"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am working with confirmed kills
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Over claiming resulted in each side having several hundred erroneous "confirmed" kills.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, you mixed up available aircraft with participating aircraft. You bad!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No I listed the aircraft the RAF says were available for the fight.

Angus you have not listed any sources, just typed!

All the best,

Crumpp"

To answer this:
1. I am working with confirmed confirmed and confirmed kills, verified kills, where you need either a wreck, a POW,  or a LW loss report. NOT the claims on the RAF site you qoute.
2. You did mix up AVAILABLE and PARTICIPATING, this again applies to all of the RAF groups, - including Scotland and so on.
3. I have listed my sources, just not pages and ISBN and so on at all times. Clutch that one if you like. Please cut and paste some text and ask me for the page and ISBN and I'll be happy to reply :D
4. That Ford model relativeness is out in the blue. What are you thinking?
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 Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #163 on: November 03, 2005, 12:19:52 PM »
Yeah Angus Prague was nice, and made more sense throughly checking the bottom of beer kegs than to argue so much about past events. ;)

Anyway, for 7th September. I don't get why so much debate must be there... hell, just read the RAF's site you are all qouting:

Patrols:
Own
During the night of 6th/7th September - 34 patrols involving 44 sorties.
During the day of 7th September - 143 patrols involving 817 sorties.

Enemy
It is estimated that about 120 enemy aircraft operated over Great Britain during the night 6th/7th September and 700 during the day of 7th September.

So, the RAF was putting up some 871 fighter (sorties), the LW was putting up much less than that, ie. those ~700 estimated by the RAF (and they would tend to overestimate) was figthers and bombers alike.
Obviously, 7th September wasn't a particularly busy day for the LW, but it hurt the RAF more than usual, with 27 of their aircraft with 14 pilots killed or missing.

BTW Angus, you correctly note that obviously not the entire RAF was put up in the air - for the same reasons why do you assume the LW would always putting up the entire strenght, it would be just as silly on their part, it's basic military doctrine to always keep some reserve, let some units rest/refit for a day etc.

RAF ingle groups fighters however would fly more than just one sortie per day, just getting up, shooting, than landing for a quick refuel and rearm and go back). The LW sorties would take longer time escorting the bombers over england and back, and they'd wait longer for the bombers to refit for a 2nd sortie, if there was such. It's quite obvious they'd do less fighter sorties, but spend more time in the air.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?
« Reply #164 on: November 03, 2005, 01:12:32 PM »
Quote
Obviously, 7th September wasn't a particularly busy day for the LW, but it hurt the RAF more than usual, with 27 of their aircraft with 14 pilots killed or missing.

Yet the RAF claimed 74 LW a/c as destroyed. Note I said claimed.

21 Me109 - 21 aircrew
22 Me110 - 44 aircrew
4 Do17 - 12 aircrew
18 Do215 - 72 aircrew
6 He111 - 24 aircrew

So just in the above, a total of 173 aircrew (using 4 aircrew in a bomber). That does not include those in 'probable' and 'damaged' a/c. If half of these were killed, it is still 6 times more than the aircrew the RAF had KIA/MIA.

RAF day sorties - 817 for an a/c loss rate of 3.3%.
LW day sorties - 700 for an a/c loss rate of 10.6%.

The RAF averaged ~6 a/c per patrol.

How about the LW fanbois producing some LW sortie numbers instead of using the Brit numbers?