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

[Crumpp]

Angus,

I know you are farmer.  If you have not been in the Military then you have not been in the military.  Your experience is different, not diminished.

You have common sense, sure.  So when someone with experience says, "This is how this works..." what do you usually do?

Your absolutely right in your assumption of "too much of a good thing can be bad".  If the enemy discovers his C3 is compromised he will change his codes.

However, it would not have been Dowding's decision.  He would have been fed exactly what was needed to keep the country safe from German invasion.

ULTRA decrypts would have been very useful for winning the battle and keeping the strategic focus.  For knowing things like Order of Battle, disposition of enemy forces, and the main effort.

Good example is the Battle of the Atlantic.  To keep the Germans from knowing we had broken their codes very few submarines were sunk using ULTRA decrypts of their locations.

Most we simply routed our ships around them.  The result was the same and the submarine threat was neutralized.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Many of the best at Bletchley park were....not in the military.
I think you are overestimating the hour-to-hour value of Ultra.
Oh and an hour does matter!
But in the Battle of the Atlantic it was invaluable. Very much in big general decisions as well.
Read Gilbert, he dug into that quite well. I'll fish some nice bits out for ya as well.

Oh edit:
Did you know that one of the first Enigma's was caught in the summer of 1940 very close to where I live! A single RAF aircraft managed to subdue a submarine!

[Crumpp]

I think you are overestimating the hour-to-hour value of Ultra.

It had little value tactically.  The RAF had radar though.

Do not underestimate the value of the information ULTRA could provide.  Especially it's ability to keep strategic focus.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Hehe, Crumpp:
"Especially it's ability to keep strategic focus."

ABSOLUTELY

[Crumpp]

OK,

AIR 20/2307 arrived today.  

After looking it over, I very much have to agree with the USAAF Logistics’ command article.

The Germans simply did not have the strength to take on the RAF.  Combined with the British production and wastage replacement programs make it very unlikely the Luftwaffe could have won the BoB.

The figures for 7th July show the RAF having:

On hand ready to fight in RAF service squadrons:

Spitfires - 349
Hurricanes - 546

Ready for issue that day to the RAF :

Hurricanes - 224
Spitfires - 113

Ready for issue within 4 days:

Hurricanes - 64
Spitfires - 20

Under preparation as of 7 Jul 40:

Hurricanes - 55
Spitfires - 25

Aircraft in CRO undergoing repair :

Hurricanes - 135
Spitfires - 100

It is also clear the RAF increased the size of their squadrons.  On the 14 Jul 40 they had 6 Spitfire Squadrons at 22 P/A and 13 Spitfire Squadrons at 18 P/A out of a total of 19 Spitfire Squadrons.  All 33 Hurricane squadrons were at 22 P/A when the report begins on 7 Jul 40.

So an RAF squadron was about 2/3rd's or more as large as a Gruppe.  For example, in JG26 during the month of June, the Gruppes averaged 16-25 A/C on hand.

I would post the document but picture hanger is down.  Anyone have hosting space?

It has quite a bit of very interesting information on losses, production, and wastage recovery.

Certainly the “outnumbered 2:1 in single engine fighters” line is complete BS.

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Still have your problem Crumpp. You still can not get it into your head that while the greater proportion of the LW's s/e fighters were in combat over southern England, all the RAF s/e fighters were not all engaged in combat over southern England with the LW's s/e fighters. Those RAF s/e fighters that were in combat also had to engage LW bombers, while the LW s/e fighters only had to engage RAF s/e fighters.


The figures for 7th July show the RAF having:

On hand ready to fight in RAF service squadrons:

Spitfires - 349
Hurricanes - 546

That is 18 Spitfires/squadron and 16 Hurricanes/squadron. That gives an average of 2 extra pilots for the Spitfire squadrons and 6 extra pilots for the Hurricane squadrons.

11 Group

16 Hurricane squadrons > 255 a/c
6 Spitfire squadrons > 108 a/c

for 363 s/e fighters.

13 Group had 4 squadrons of Spitfires(72 a/c) and 9 squadrons of Hurricanes(144 a/c) which could not and did not participate in the air battle over southern England. (216 s/e fighters)

Not all of the 12 and 10 Group s/e fighters participated in the air battle over southern England either.


On Aug 10 1940, Jafü2, 'on hand':

Stab, I/JG 26 Audembert - 42  
II/JG 26 Marquise-Ost - 39
III/JG 26 Caffiers - 40

Stab/JG 3 Wierre au Bois - 3  
I/JG 3 Grandvilliers - 33  
II/JG 3 Samer - 29
III/JG 3 Desvres, Le Touquet - 29

Stab/JG 51 Wissant - 4  
I/JG 51 Pihen bei Calais - 32  
II/JG 51 Marquise-West - 33  
III/JG 51 St. Omer-Clairmarais - 32

 Stab, I/JG 52 Coquelles - 42
II/JG 52 Peuplingues - 39
III/JG 52 Zerbst - 31
 
Stab, I/JG 54 Campagne-les-Guines - 38
II/JG 54 Hermelingen - 36
III/JG 54 Guines-en-Calais - 42

total - 546

Jafü 3, will post anyways, had 'on hand':
 
Stab, I, II/JG 2 Beaumont-le-Roger - 73
III/JG 2 Le Havre - 32
 
Stab/JG 27 Cherbourg-West - 5  
I/JG 27 Plumett - 37
II/JG 27 Crèpon - 40
III/JG 27 Arcques - 39

Stab/JG 53 Cherbourg - 6  
I/JG 53 Rennes, Guernsey - 39
II/JG 53 Dinan, Guernsey - 38
III/JG 53 Brest, Sempy - 38

total - 305

I. Fliegerkorps had 313 bombers.
II. Fliegerkorps had 395 bombers.
9. Fliegerdivision had 178 bombers.

total - 886

bombers = Ju88, He111, Do17, Ju 87

With 62% of the LW strength of Luftflotte 2 being bombers, then the RAF s/e fighters of 11 Group would split in a simular proportion. That leaves 136 s/e fighters of 11 Group to take on the 546 s/e LW fighters of Jafü2. That is a ratio of 4.0:1.


What does June 1940 LW numbers have to do with BoB?

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by Karnak
Flying boats may be added at some point, but the H8K2 is iffy to say the least.  The amount of 3D modeling required for it's cavernous and complex interior would make it very, very time consuming to make.  Given how few were built on top of that and even though it would be a useful aircraft in the MA it probably won't be added.

ahhhh nooo! my dream is gone!

[Tails]

Originally posted by FDutchmn
ahhhh nooo! my dream is gone!

Dont cry. The 'too few' arguement has been bested before. Look at the C.202/205 for example.

[Crumpp]

13 Group had 4 squadrons of Spitfires(72 a/c) and 9 squadrons of Hurricanes(144 a/c) which could not and did not participate in the air battle over southern England. (216 s/e fighters)

Actually Milo, the RAF rotated squadrons quite frequently.  

Do you have some documentation on your numbers?

These numbers are correct and reflect exactly what the RAF had in the battle according to there own strength reports:

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

Your numbers for Jafü 2 show the aircraft "on hand" not the serviceable numbers.  The serviceable aircraft is about half of the "on hand".  

This is one on the major differences between the RAF and Luftwaffe.  The RAF squadrons were not burdenend with their own major repairs.

This is a problem the RAF squadrons do not have to deal with in their reporting system either.  Damaged aircraft are written off and signed over to the C.R.O..  Civilian Repair Organization issues a new aircraft that day and proceeds to repair the damage one which is issued to a new squadron upon completion of the repairs.  The RAF squadron stays up to strength and can focus on the daily maintenance needed to fight.

Your RAF Squadron maintenance was divided into three sections:

This was altered to a three-flight arrangement under which two flights undertook day-to-day maintenance and the third flight all major inspections and repair.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_4_24/ai_74582443/pg_2

One flight was swapping out aircraft, making repairs which could be completed by the next duty day, and inspecting aircraft.  The others where keeping up the day to day maintenance of the squadron.

The Luftwaffe Geschwaders were for the most part fixed it themsleves or they lost an aircraft until it could be repaired in Germany.

Day-to-day maintenance was the responsibility of mechanics attached to each staffel. [29] In the field, major repairs and overhauls (such as routine replacement of the Bf 109 Daimler-Benz 601 engine after just 100 hours flying time) fell to the workshop section attached to the group headquarters company. Work expected to take longer than 2 days was transferred, where possible, to regional workshops based at major airfields, which were established to undertake major repairs or modifications. At this stage of the war, however, these workshops were all located in Germany.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_4_24/ai_74582443/pg_2

Your Squadron strengths are off.  An RAF squadron during the Battle of Britain had 22 planes and pilots according to the RAF.  Some had 18 A/C but most had 22.

16 Hurricane Squadrons = 352

6 Spitfire Squadrons = 132

That is 484 planes just for 11 Group.

Not all of the 12 and 10 Group s/e fighters participated in the air battle over southern England either.

Sure but some of them did without a doubt.  They only needed 3 squadrons to reinforce 11 Group to achieve numerical parity with Jafü 2 at full strength.  Of course we know that the servicable numbers run around half the full strength allocations in the Luftwaffe.

The RAF had 32 Hurricane squadrons and 19 Spitfire squadrons available at the beginning of the battle.

The RAF easily had numerical parity with the Luftwaffe in single engine fighters from the beginning of the battle.  Combined with a production output almost 4 times the German aircraft industry and a more streamlined logistical system it is easy to see that the Luftwaffe stood very little chance of achieving it's goals.

Your conclusions Milo are just not supported by the facts.

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Actually Milo, the RAF rotated squadrons quite frequently.

Do you know what rotates means? One squadron left and was replaced by another. So when a squadron from 13 Group went south, a squadron from the south went north. The number of squadrons in each Group stayed the same. You do have a comprehension difficulty.

See one of the links already posted for the squadrons in each Group.

Did you forget what you have posted Crumpp?

"The figures for 7th July show the RAF having:

On hand ready to fight in RAF service squadrons:

Spitfires - 349
Hurricanes - 546"

So, 895 s/e fighters spread all over the UK.

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

Your the one that gave number for RAF s/e fighters 'on hand' ready to fight in RAF service squadrons.

349/19 = 18.4 Spitfires/squadron
546/32 = 17.1 Hurricanes/squadron

Your numbers for Jafü 2 show the aircraft "on hand" not the serviceable numbers. The serviceable aircraft is about half of the "on hand".

471(servicable)/546(on hand) x 100 = 86.3% When did 86.3% become a half?

The RAF easily had numerical parity with the Luftwaffe in single engine fighters from the beginning of the battle.

Still have that problem Crumpp. It is not about parity BUT about the numbers that met in combat over southern England. RAF s/e fighters had to deal with LW bombers which decreased the number of RAF s/e fighters that would have met the LW s/e fighters in combat.

Combined with a production output almost 4 times the German aircraft industry and a more streamlined logistical system it is easy to see that the Luftwaffe stood very little chance of achieving it's goals.

The discussion is not about the LW's goals.

[Crumpp]

Your the one that gave number for RAF s/e fighters 'on hand' ready to fight in RAF service squadrons.

Is it beyond your comprehension to understand the difference in acountability procedures between the two forces?

I should not be surprised as the exact same thing threw off the Allies on more than one occasion.  Look at the Dieppe raid.  The RAF announced a big victory after Ultra intercepts broke out the evening status report for the Luftwaffe.

On hand ready to fight in RAF service squadrons:

Milo, I have AIR 20/2307 in my hand.  I told you what the RAF says it had in combat!  You keep disputing it because it does not fit your argument.

In fact there is a handwritten note dated 18-2-46 that states "figures in column (b) and (g) are authentic for historical purposes."

The document was declassified in Sep 1970.

So the note was written and included in the report when the document was still classified.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

It is not about parity BUT about the numbers that met in combat over southern England.

The whole discussion stems from your ridiculus statement about the RAF fighters being outnumbered 2:1 by Bf-109's.

However you seem to suggest the English were idiots and did not apply their combat power.  According to you they just left it in Scotland not placing it when and where it was needed.

From the RAF's own reports though we know your assumption is completely wrong.

Milo Says:
The 109s did pretty good? Not with 51.5% of the LW casualities being 109s and out numbering the Spits and Hurries of 11 Group by at least 2:1. (11 Group being the main combat area)

Then when you saw your mistake you modified your claim to include the bombers.  Little mitigation so you could have some shred of truth to hang onto and not look like a complete idiot in your fandom.

Milo Says:
It is not a gross exageration that 11 Group was outnumbered 2:1 especially when there was LW bombers that also had the attention of RAF fighters.

The RAF clearly had numerical parity in single engine fighters at the begining of the Battle of Britain.  Due to their increased production and some good Logistical planning they got stronger as the battle progressed not weaker.

You keep coming back to the bombers, Milo.  That has never been in dispute that the Luftwaffe had more aircraft than the RAF.  However a bomber could not win air superiority no matter how many the Luftwaffe flew over England.

As the USAF Logistical Journal article points out:

the analysis focuses primarily on the single-seat fighters deployed by the respective air forces. It was in this arena that the Luftwaffe needed to prevail if it were to achieve air superiority over southern England and, in so doing, defeat the Royal Air Force.

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

Something the Luftwaffe High Command never recognized until too late in 1944.

They, like you, incorrectly focused on bombers.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Fill pages and pages and pages it yet does not change the fact that the brunt of the BoB was a fight between 2 Luftflotten and 1 1/2 - 2 RAF groups. That's also why only 1 group scored more than all the others put together.
Logical isn't it.

[MiloMorai]

So you are disputing what you told us?

"The figures for 7th July show the RAF having:

On hand ready to fight in RAF service squadrons:

Spitfires - 349
Hurricanes - 546"

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

That the RAF could replace its losses in a/c I am not disputing. Those other numbers you gave were not 'on hand' ready to fight in squadron service .

It is not me that has a comprehension problem.

The whole discussion stems from your ridiculus statement about the RAF fighters being outnumbered 2:1 by Bf-109's.

And this is where you lack of comprehension shows.

The 109s did pretty good? Not with 51.5% of the LW casualities being 109s and out numbering the Spits and Hurries of 11 Group by at least 2:1. (11 Group being the main combat area)

11 Group is not all of the RAF's FC. Why do you have such a hard time understanding?

However you seem to suggest the English were idiots and did not apply their combat power. According to you they just left it in Scotland not placing it when and where it was needed.

What is so hard to undestand that the fighters in 13 Group did not participate in the air battles over southern England, on the same day, at the same time, that the fighters of 11 Group were in combat with the LW?

You keep coming back to the bombers, Milo. That has never been in dispute that the Luftwaffe had more aircraft than the RAF. However a bomber could not win air superiority no matter how many the Luftwaffe flew over England.

You just can't comprehend that the RAF FC had to deal with the LW bombers as well as the LW's fighters. The greater threat was the LW's bombers, NOT the LW's fighters. Were the Brits to be idiots to let the LW bombers roam over southern England unmolested? You are saying that the Brits were idiots.

Then when you saw your mistake you modified your claim to include the bombers. Little mitigation so you could have some shred of truth to hang onto and not look like a complete idiot in your fandom.

No mistake for you are being clueless. For the umpteenth time. While the whole of the LW's fighters could take on the RAF fighters, the RAF fighters also had to deal with the LW bombers. It is not me that is looking like a complete idiot. As can be seen, your 'problem' rises again.

Fandom? Not me but, be sure, you.

The LW fanboys always add in the 8th AF bombers when 'talking' about the airwar over Germany. So for LW fanboy Crummp, the same does not apply during BoB.

by Angus

Fill pages and pages and pages it yet does not change the fact that the brunt of the BoB was a fight between 2 Luftflotten and 1 1/2 - 2 RAF groups.

All because of a paper pushing numbers cruncher has a problem. He can twist and manipute numbers til the sun turns blue but it 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.

[Angus]

Tomorrow I am going to Scotland. Remind me to ask the locals if their fighter squadrons flew south to fight the Huns