Spitfire Vb: Did it carry 120 rnds OR 240 rnds of Cannons?

[Crumpp]

Those other numbers you gave were not 'on hand'  ready to fight in squadron service .

According to the documents they are the numbers in the fight.  

still does not change the fact that the RAF's FC fighters were out numbered, in combat, by the LW's fighters in southern England because the RAF fighters also had to deal with the LW bombers.

Not according to the facts, Milo.

The RAF's numbers line up with the most probable course of action and the most common sense reason the RAF won the Battle of Britian.

They were able to apply the correct amount of combat power at the right moment.

Certainly not the aircraft performance miracle you want us to believe.

From a strategic view what make more sense?

1.  PRO 20/2307 strength numbers as listed by the RAF are correct.  With the RAF's numerical parity in Single Engined fighters, good intelligence, and use of Radar Ground Controllers they had the capability to apply combat power on the battlefield where they could achieve superiority.....

OR YOUR VERSION

2.  The Spitfire and Hurricanes fought grossly outnumbered by the 109's.  Through super performance where able to take older or contemprary fighter designs and fly rings around the Germans who were just plain idiots inspite of the superior fighter tactics employed by the Luftwaffe.  Tactics universally adopted by all combatants by the end of WWII and still used today.

Version 2 sounds good for drumming up a little national pride.  For a military strategy though it is rather stupid.

Divide that by the numbers of squadrons (51) and the average number of s/e fighters in a RAF squadron is 17.5.

I misread the column.  On 07 July 1940 all RAF squadrons stood at 18 aircraft and pilots.  They increased the size of the squadrons from there.

Hardly matters Milo as it has nothing to do with the original contention.  Clearly the RAF had numerical parity in singl engined fighters.  The total number of aircraft does not change and the overall conclusion remains the same.  Nice attempt at a strawman argument though.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

the RAF fighters also had to deal with the LW bombers.

Sure Milo,

The argument is not whether the Luftwaffe had more aircraft.  Yes the RAF had to deal with Luftwaffe bombers.

However your forget that the Luftwaffe had to protect those bombers.  Unlike your silly assumption that:

While the whole of the LW's fighters could take on the RAF fighters,

The men leading those formations did not have the benefit of real time intelligence or hindsight.  They could not commit their entire force against a few incoming fighters.  Why?  There mission was to protect the bombers.  Without the use of Radar Ground Controllers the Luftwaffe Flight leaders would not have known if their were more RAF fighters inbound.  This left holes in the escort screen open for incoming RAF squadrons to attack the bombers before the other Luftwaffe escorts could respond.

In short, the escort would be stripped away in proportion to the attacking force.  

Given you past flights of fancy, I am not surprised I have to point this out.

This is why the Luftwaffe lost.  With numerical parity, the majority of the time in a perfect engagement the Luftwaffe could only match RAF fighter stength.  On a rare occasion they did grossly outnumber the RAF defenders.  When that happenend, the RAF took proportional casualties.  On the rare occasion the RAF grossly outnumbered the Luftwaffe single engine fighters.  When this happenend, the Luftwaffe took proportional casualties.

In 1944 when the situation was reversed, the allied fighters had enough numerical superiority that they could outnumber the attackers in the air to air fight on average and maintain an escort screen.

War of attrition is all about the averages.

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

It is not me with the reading problem Crumpp.

The figures for 7th July show the RAF having:

On hand ready to fight in RAF service squadrons:

Spitfires - 349
Hurricanes - 546

These are the a/c the RAF in the squadrons that could meet the LW fighters and bombers in combat. Not all were able to meet the LW bombers and fighters in combat as they were not all based in southern England.

Excluded from the 895 number would be those in 13 Group and, for arguement sake, say 60% of those in 10 and 12 Groups.

Ready for issue that day to the RAF :

Hurricanes - 224
Spitfires - 113

These are that a/c the RAF in reserve and did not meet the LW fighters and bombers in combat. These were used to replace any RAF fighters that were lost or went U/S.

Must be getting desperate because of your problem to start making up idiotic stories. That is to be expected when you can't comprehend that at any particular time the LW had more fighters in air in combat than the RAF did.

You can keep posting total numbers for each side but that is not what happened in reality.

I misread the column. On 07 July 1940 all RAF squadrons stood at 18 aircraft and pilots. They increased the size of the squadrons from there.

Yes you do that all the time, mis-read and then the multi page threads start.

[Crumpp]

These are the a/c the RAF in the squadrons that could meet the LW fighters and bombers in combat. Not all were able to meet the LW bombers and fighters in combat as they were not all based in southern England.

Not all the Luftwaffe flew out either Milo.

Luftflotte II bore the brunt.

Excluded from the 895 number would be those in 13 Group and, for arguement sake, say 60% of those in 10 and 12 Groups.

Ready for issue that day to the RAF :

Hurricanes - 224
Spitfires - 113

Specualtion on your part and nothing more.  Not worthy of serious discussion.  The RAF has printed the numbers and you continually manipulate purely speculative statistics to meet your requirements.

These are that a/c the RAF in reserve and did not meet the LW fighters and bombers in combat. These were used to replace any RAF fighters that were lost or went U/S.

Not a story Milo.  It is what happenend.  You can read about in JG26 War diaries, JG53 "Pik As", or any of the decent Luftwaffe Geschwader histories.

As opposed to your laughable " the entire Luftwaffe fighter force fought against a few RAF fighters".

These are that a/c the RAF in reserve and did not meet the LW fighters and bombers in combat. These were used to replace any RAF fighters that were lost or went U/S.

BS.  Those numbers are Hurricanes and Spitfires the RAF had in service squadrons.

The reserve numbers come out of the A.S.U. listings Milo.  That stands for "aircraft storage units" and those held the RAF fighter reserves.  

Certainly, the RAF rested a few squadrons.  They also had the capability since the fight was over their home turf, to reinforce or rotate units on very short notice.

However to think they put themselves at an insurmountable numerical disparity to rest 40% of their forces is just plain silly.  They distributed their strength to meet the enemy where they thought he was the strongest.

Good strategy and preparation won the BoB.  

Not your theory of Tie Fighters and the Force.

Read the article put out by one of the worlds most professional Air Forces today:

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

Please point out to us the part about "Magic Planes and Fairy dust winning the battle for the RAF".

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

You must have sniffed some of that fairy dust Crumpp, because what you said here:
"to think they put themselves at an insurmountable numerical disparity to rest 40% of their forces is just plain silly. They distributed their strength to meet the enemy where they thought he was the strongest"

Is exactly where you are falling. They actually DID HAVE roughly half of their force out of the action. Rotations occured of course, - BEGINNING with squadrons being moved out of the battle BEFORE new ones were brought back. Some squadrons got formed during the battle, - notably the polish ones.
You can find numbers of aircraft in production, or post your link another 12 times, - you can complain about no source of the heaps of data as well as anecdotes brought in, but you have brought very little meat on yer bones yet. What you are claming (if that can be put together as a thesis) is actually something I have never seen anywhere before, and since I have already seen you make obvious mistakes already in this thread without being able to swallow even a correction, I tend to put my penny on the analysiz of a group of historians which were already looking at your declassified documents years ago.

So, again, please find some data where RAF fighters generally or repeaditly swamped LW fighters.
Go to the 7th of September and then the 15th. Those are the dates when the RAF managed to get the most of THEIR fighters into successful engagements. Yet you had the spine to try and revert it!

JEEZ  

[Crumpp]

They actually DID HAVE roughly half of their force out of the action. Rotations occured of course, - BEGINNING with squadrons being moved out of the battle BEFORE new ones were brought back. Some squadrons got formed during the battle, - notably the polish ones.

Not according to the RAF website or their own strength/loss reports.

So, again, please find some data where RAF fighters generally or repeaditly swamped LW fighters.

Please find where I claimed this, Angus?  Once more you are fighting ghost's which do not exist.

Study the battle.  The RAF did not win by opposing the Luftwaffe where they were strongest.  They won by concentrating on the smaller raids and winning the war of averages.

Here is what I said:

With numerical parity, the majority of the time in a perfect engagement the Luftwaffe could only match RAF fighter stength. On a rare occasion they did grossly outnumber the RAF defenders. When that happenend, the RAF took proportional casualties. On the rare occasion the RAF grossly outnumbered the Luftwaffe single engine fighters. When this happenend, the Luftwaffe took proportional casualties.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

I can go cut&paste in this thread to find a lot of things where you'r asumptions were wrong.
The main fuel for the fire was about how the odds were in the engagements remember?

[Crumpp]

I can go cut&paste in this thread to find a lot of things where you'r asumptions were wrong.

Please feel free to point them out, Angus.

The main fuel for the fire was about how the odds were in the engagements remember?

Exactly and 2:1 in the Luftwaffe's favor is hardly representative of the average engagement.

1:1 is much more realistic.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

It fills me with dismay to have to pick out the boulderdash, but alas, I may well do so when I return from 13th group area after the weekend.
This is the main issue though:
"Exactly and 2:1 in the Luftwaffe's favor is hardly representative of the average engagement.

1:1 is much more realistic"

And that is where I tend to disagree.

[Pieper]

This is pure and simple BS......Why throw the MKV back to 41?........If we are going to fight a 41 war then lots of plans should dissapear instead of being added......Goodbye to lots of 109s and the 51-D. and Many many others.

Simple Question.......Why revert the SpitV and IX to early 41 versions and add crappy high speed later versions?

Did someone whine about the Spits we had until management gave in?

[1K3]

Originally posted by Pieper
This is pure and simple BS......Why throw the MKV back to 41?........If we are going to fight a 41 war then lots of plans should dissapear instead of being added......Goodbye to lots of 109s and the 51-D. and Many many others.

Simple Question.......Why revert the SpitV and IX to early 41 versions and add crappy high speed later versions?

Did someone whine about the Spits we had until management gave in?

The Old spitfire 5 (with +16 boost) was reverted back to 1941 specifications (+12 boost) because the old spitfire 5 from last version uses 1942 specifications...  In short,, previous spit 5 version was placed to mid-war plane category and now it is placed back to early-war category (and thats where it should be!)

By the way sooo many people lobbied for Suggested, complete Spitfire lineup for Aces High and here's how they brreak it down...

1940:
Spitfire Mk Ia

1941
Spitfire Mk Vb

1942
Spitfire Mk. IX

1943
Spitfire LF Mk. VIII

1944-1945
Spitfire F.Mk XIV
Spitfire LF.Mk XVI

now that's the complete spitfire lineup

[Angus]

Wake up thread. I have BoB data inbound. Or should I make a new thread?

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by 1K3
The Old spitfire 5 (with +16 boost) was reverted back to 1941 specifications (+12 boost) because the old spitfire 5 from last version uses 1942 specifications...  In short,, previous spit 5 version was placed to mid-war plane category and now it is placed back to early-war category (and thats where it should be!)

By the way sooo many people lobbied for Suggested, complete Spitfire lineup for Aces High and here's how they brreak it down...

1940:
Spitfire Mk Ia

1941
Spitfire Mk Vb

1942
Spitfire Mk. IX

1943
Spitfire LF Mk. VIII

1944-1945
Spitfire F.Mk XIV
Spitfire LF.Mk XVI

now that's the complete spitfire lineup

Please stop saying XIV and XVI are 1944/45, they are BOTH 1944.
Even giving the XVI and the XIV max boost would still put them in 1944.
1st use 25lbs boost LF IX (same XVI) May 1944.
1st use 21lbs boost F XIV mid/late 44.

In relaity the XVI at 18lbs is no better than 1943 LF IX at 18lbs, so really its only 1943.

Thats like saying the spit V was 1944 because some were still used then.

The only 1945 Spit would be the F.21

The XVI and XIV will cover 1944/45 because we haven't got the F.21 (prob never will).


Yes new thread for extra data please

[Angus]

Will have to take some quotes from this one as well, or just put it up into main points. Those are where basically I was disagreeing with Crumpp.
1. Number of aircraft clashing in the air, - RAF & LW
2. Usage of the different groups. and Luftflotten
3. Range of which RAF groups were vectored for interception.
4. Usage of Enigma to RAF high command (group leaders and Dowding)

And to some,,,,the outcome.

1. Claim by groups
2. Post war confirmed kills as compared to LW losses.
3. Blaims and theory, why Dowding and Park were demoted.

I have very much of this data, and am still reading through the newest volumes in my "archive", but looking at the thread, I can see that I was very very very right, and that I gave a promise to line that up.

[Iceman24]

RAF - 1,547 aircraft

Luftwaffe - 1,887 aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

I would say the 109 held it's own pretty good:


Read a good book about LW pilots and one of the LW pilots is quoted as saying something along the lines of this, "The only reason we lost BOB was because every time we got shot down we were imprisoned or killed, when we shot down an RAF they just parachuted to the ground and got in another plane" I'm not sure which pilot it was, its in a book called "LW Aces" Been about a year or so since I have read it so I don't remember which LW ace said it