It's official...

[Squire]

If your talking Spit IX/XVI/XIV with 2nd TAF, their opposition was just as commonly Bf 109s. The clipped wings were used for fighter-bomber ops and med-low alt work.  

They were not clipped to oppose Fw190s specifically. They didnt need to be. On top of that the LW fighters they ran into were from many different units, so it would have been impossible to "guess" what their opposition might be on any given day. In many air combats post Normandy they also ran into mixed groups.

The 1943-44 Spit IXs in England did not generally clip their wings, as they were often used for sweeps and escorts from 30K-20k. They were not used as fighter-bombers very often. That was mainly for the Typhoons.

The Spit LF Vs often did use the clipped wings because their engines were low alt rated 55Ms, and they were at their best below 15k. So it made sense.

Also, some pilots liked the clipped wings, and some didnt, so some pilots flew with them clipped, and some didnt. The tips could be fitted or removed at Sqn level.

As Guppy said, they were generally used when low alt work was going to be done over an extended period, but thats a generisation, because they often went with standard tips too.

If your looking for  black and white reason or circumstance, there isn't one.

[Crumpp]

They didnt need to be.

Yeah.  We obviously are not looking at the same information or documents.   You should probably re-read what the Spitfire pilots wrote:

http://img121.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=275e4_pilotopinions.jpg

A normal wing Spitfire has NO CHANCE of following an FW-190 in an aileron turn.  It's called agility.  The FW-190 has estabilished a turn long before the Spitfire even begins.  Every document printed by all sides agrees on this point.  Some with comments like "would rip the wings off a Spitfire".

It is not just Spit V's that the RAE concluded on their own aircraft:

http://img120.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=cfd2f_Effect_of_clipping_Spitfire_Wings.jpg

http://img130.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=b2870_715_1094128429_rolltestonspit5_9_12_conclusions.jpg

Clipping the wings came at a real price.  The science and engineering of aerodynamics say it is so.  The fans may not like it but the fact remains.

The RAF was certainly concerned with the FW-190 the entire war.  If you get the documents and trace the history of the RAF's involvement with the Focke Wulf, familiarity did not breed contempt.   The Focke Wulf was considered a much more dangerous opponent AFTER the tactical trials than it was before them.  In 1942-43 they paid a heavy price from a realitively few Focke Wulfs too.  

I think Guppy will agree that the major driving factor behind Spitfire development was the Luftwaffe's low level superiority over the allied fighters.  If you examine the chart I posted, in 1943 there was not a fighter in the allied inventory that did not have a tough time catching a Focke Wulf at tree top level.  The majority could not do it and certainly no Spitfire in the 1943 inventory was capable of catching one.  England was bombed almost daily by FW-190's from SKG 10 and other bomber units and they needed something to stop it.  

If your looking for black and white reason or circumstance, there isn't one.

See above.  It is called a desire to win the war and gain an edge over your enemy.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Squire]

Well lets see Kurfurst, KG51 deployed a single staffel of Me262s to France in July of 1944. 4 got there and flew a few missions.

As for the # of Spit IXs there were 56 Squadrons of them in England by D-Day.

How does that compare?

Where in the world do you get your sources from anyways? Can't be from books. In any case this is the 3rd thread in which you have made a completely baseless claim, with no sources provided, and have been corrected. Again.

Its getting old.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah.  We obviously are not looking at the same information or documents.   You should probably re-read what the Spitfire pilots wrote:

http://img121.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=275e4_pilotopinions.jpg

A normal wing Spitfire has NO CHANCE of following an FW-190 in an aileron turn.  It's called agility.  The FW-190 has estabilished a turn long before the Spitfire even begins.  Every document printed by all sides agrees on this point.  Some with comments like "would rip the wings off a Spitfire".

It is not just Spit V's that the RAE concluded on their own aircraft:

http://img120.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=cfd2f_Effect_of_clipping_Spitfire_Wings.jpg

http://img130.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=b2870_715_1094128429_rolltestonspit5_9_12_conclusions.jpg

Clipping the wings came at a real price.  The science and engineering of aerodynamics say it is so.  The fans may not like it but the fact remains.

The RAF was certainly concerned with the FW-190 the entire war.  If you get the documents and trace the history of the RAF's involvement with the Focke Wulf, familiarity did not breed contempt.   The Focke Wulf was considered a much more dangerous opponent AFTER the tactical trials than it was before them.  In 1942-43 they paid a heavy price from a realitively few Focke Wulfs too.  

I think Guppy will agree that the major driving factor behind Spitfire development was the Luftwaffe's low level superiority over the allied fighters.  If you examine the chart I posted, in 1943 there was not a fighter in the allied inventory that did not have a tough time catching a Focke Wulf at tree top level.  The majority could not do it and certainly no Spitfire in the 1943 inventory was capable of catching one.  England was bombed almost daily by FW-190's from SKG 10 and other bomber units and they needed something to stop it.  

 

See above.  It is called a desire to win the war and gain an edge over your enemy.

All the best,

Crumpp

Certainly the XII was a response to those low alt 190s.  And in the end they did the job.

I quoted Jeff Quill from his book in another thread where he talks about how at a certain point both sides recognized that moving the air war down was a better way to go.

I'd suggest that more then just the 190 played into it.  The Medium bombers of 2 Group and the USAAF were flying at lower altitudes to targets in France and the LW also if they chose to oppose those flights had to play at those lower altitudes.  The airwar of 30K that took place in 41-42 over France went away in 43.

You keep talking about the price paid for clipping the wings.  Had that airwar stayed high that price would have been larger.  As it was, the price paid down lower was not great as the benefit of the improved roll rate, was greater then the loss in turning circle as it just wasn't that great down low.

We had this discussion in another thread when Kurfie was on the rampage.  Here's what I posted then quoting the RAF report on comparitive trials between a clipped and standard Spit, as well as what Jeff Quill had said.

Regarding the clipped wings again and hopefully to put to rest this BS about loss of performance. From the RAF trials of a clipped Spit vs a Standard wing Spit.

"At all heights to 25,000 feet the rate of roll is considerably improved by the removal of the wingtips. The response to aileron movements is very quick and very crisp. Four dog-fights were carried out starting with the standard Spitfire on the tail of the clipped wing Spitfire. On two occasions the clipped wing Spitfire evaded so rapidly in the rolling plane that it was able to lose the standard Spitfire and reverse the positions in about 20 seconds. On the third occasion the clipped wing Spitfire was able to lose the standard Spitfire. The fourth occasion was at 25,000 feet and the standard Spitfire was able to keep the clipped wing Spitfire in sight.

The minimum turning circle of the clipped wing Spitfire at 20,000 feet has been increased by 55 feet . This slight increase does not detract in any way from the fighting qualities of the aeroplane..."

Quoting Jeffrey Quill, Supermarine Chief Test pilot on the clipped wing and Merlin 66 LFIX.

"Then at some in definate time in 1942, there seemed to be a change in the tactical philosophy on both sides. It was rather as if, by some sort of mutual tacit consent between enemies, it was realized that the band between 30,000 an 40,000 feet was a silly place in which to have an air battle, and the fighting tended to drop down into the more practical regions roughly between 15,000 and 25,000 feet. I remember how, at the time, this trend interested me very much indeed. It WAS CLEARLY REFLECTED in the LF MK IX(Merlin 66) with engine performance adjusted to the reduced height band.

IT WAS ALSO REFLECTED in the fact that, by removing the wingtips of the Spitfire, an improvement in lateral control could be achieved, but because it increased the wing loading and the span loading of the wing, an aerodynamic penalty was incurred at HIGH ALTITUDE. Such a proposition was unthinkable in 40/41 but in 1942/3 the idea was ENTHUSIASTICALLY adopted by squadrons in 11 group and the "clipped wing" Spitfire became a common sight in the sky."


Note Jeffrey Quill's words about the addition of the clipped wings and the reaction from Spit pilots.  Seems like he'd know.

Note the emphasis on the penalty at high alt.  Not down low.

[Squire]

The Fw190 had a faster roll rate than the Yak-3, LA-5, P-51, and  P-47 as well, but that didnt prevent them from being shot down.

You seem to think that its evasive roll tactic was a magic force field that made it bulletproof to attack. At least thats how you write it.

No single ability made any fighter invulnerable, for all the obvious reasons I won't labor on again.

Most Spits 44-45 did not have clipped wings. If it was so imperative that they have them just to shoot down a Fw190 then they would have all been standardised that way from 1943 to war's end.

[Karnak]

In AH2 I cannot follow an Fw190 in the roll when flying a Spit VIII, but there are other tactics I can use besides just rolling  and trying to catch up to it's turn in a new direction.  That would be true even if the Fw190s in AH had better turning capabilities (and I think they should from what I've read).

[Angus]

In AHII the 190 outrolls everything, but there are indeed countermeasures.
Rolling isn't enough, and if you have an aircraft close in speed, you can counter it by cutting the corners instead,,,,indeed.
Chasing a 190 in a Spit VIII is quite a challenge and loads of fun.
That said, I'm off to AH II

[Charge]

"You seem to think that its evasive roll tactic was a magic force field that made it bulletproof to attack. At least thats how you write it.
No single ability made any fighter invulnerable, for all the obvious reasons I won't labor on again."

I'm not sure who you are talking about but you are right. No single ability made any fighter invulnerable. And if you would have read every thread about 190 maneuverability and flown the kite in AH you would know that even if it rolls faster than anything else in the game now it does not prevent it from being shot down. In fact I consider the rolling to be a quite useless defence because the 190 lacks so much in other maneuverability that it is simply a waste of energy to try to roll and break away from the enemy.


***

"Chasing a 190 in a Spit VIII is quite a challenge and loads of fun."

Sure, and trying to evade VIII in A8 is frustrating as hell, but I'm glad somebody has fun...

-C+

[Kurfürst]

Compilation of Spitfire IX Squadrons in service from Guppy's scanned list of Mk IX units :

June 1943

RAF : No. 32,64,66,81,152,222,241,249,611,682. Total : 10 Squadrons.

In addition underlined by : "...In June 1943, in the RAF Fighter Command] there were 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, nine of these in the north, but, more importantly, 10 units were operational with the Spitfire IX, two with the Spitfire XII, and one each with the high altitude VI and VII."

Source:  Fighter Command War Diaries July 1943-June 1944 by John Foreman, Page 11.

Allied : No. 315,317,340,341,
Commonwealth : No. 403, 416, 421
RAAF : No. 453
RNZAF : No. 501
Total : 9

Grandtotal : 19 Squadrons of MkIX. x 12 planes = 228



September 1943

Mk IX[/b]
RAF : No.19,32,43,64,65,66,72,74,92,111,131,132,152,222,241,249,682. Total 17 Squadrons.

Allied :No. 306,310,312,315,317,340,341,
Commonwealth : No. 421,
RAAF : No. 453, 457.
RNZAF : No. 485, 501
Total: 12 Squadrons.

Grandtotal : 29 Squadrons of MkIX. x 12 planes = 348


MkV :
Compiled from Mushroom Model/Yellow Series - Supermarine Spitfire MkV by Wojtek Matusiak.

Home based Squadrons
RAF : No. 64,66,118,130,131,132,165,288,
Allied : No. 302,306,308,310,312,315,316,317,322,340,349,350,
RCAF : 401,402,411,412,416,
RAAF : 453,
Other Sqn : 501,504,602,610,611,897.
Excluded : various OTU and aux. units/flights.
Total 34 Sqn of Home-based MkV Squadrons.


Mediterranean Squadrons
RAF : No. 32,43,72,73,74,80,81,87,92,93,94,111,123,126,127,145,152,154,185,225,229,232,238,242,243,249,253. Total 27 Squadrons.
RCAF : No. 417
RAAF : No. 451
Total 29 MkV Squadrons in the Mediterranean.

Squadrons in Australia
RAF and RAAF : No. 54,452,457. Total 3 MkV Squadrons.

Squadrons in South-East Asia
RAF : No. 607, 615. Total 2 MkV Squadrons.


Grandtotal : 68 Squadrons of Mk V x 12 planes = 816




December 1943
Mk IXs:[/u]

RAF : No. 19,32,43,64,65,66,72,74,93,111,131,132,152,165,222,237,241,249,602,682. Total : 21 Squadrons.

Allied : No. 302,306,308,310,312,315,326,341,350
Commonwealth : No. 401, 411, 412, 421,
RAAF : No. 451, 453, 457.
RNZAF : No. 485, 501. Total : 18 Squadrons.

Grandtotal : 39 Sqn x 12 = 468

PS : That's nowhere near of that 56 Squadrons Guppy claims in service at a time. Of course, as Squadrons arriving to the frontline inherited the equipment of those leaving for some R&R, and this would boost the number of Squadrons that used it for some time, but there was quite unit flow back and forth.




(BTW, what's the matter with these Squadron numbers, what's the idea ?
No 19 till No 290 seems to be reserved for british RAF units, the 300s are foreigners, the 400s seems to be various commonwealth units, and the 500s and 600s are again British? 700 is the fleet, 800 again is...?)

NOTES :

Uncertain, precise date missing, not added to possible MkIXsqn :
122? - flew MkV Apr-Aug 1943
129? - flew MkV up to June 1943
229? - flew MkV Aug42 - Apr 1944
232? - flew MkV Apr42 - Nov 1942
238?
316?
331?
332?
521?

What's 1435 Sqd ? Some sort of special unit? Was not included. Seems to operate MkV  Aug42-Nov43 and May-Sept1944. Another mixed squadron....?

Curiously, many of the "MkIX Squadron"s are also listed amongst MkV Squadrons (ie. No 64, No 66, No 131 etc.), which probably means they run mixed types, so the actual number of MkIXs in service was even less than the pure Sqn listing would suggest.


CONCLUSION :[/u]

Even after a full year after it's introduction, the MkIX was a secondary type compared to the numbers the older MkV was present :

In June 1943, the RAF Fighter based in Britiain command possessed 10 MkIX Squadrons, but 34 Squadrons of Spitfire Vs, plus a Squadron of the similiar Spitfire VI. A ratio of 3.5 : 1.

In September 1943, with all Spitfire Squadrons being inspected, shows there were 17 Squadrons of MkIXs in the RAF, further 12 in other allied and commonwealth units, a total of 29 Squadrons.

At the same time, there were 35 Squadrons of MkVs in the RAF, further 28 in in other allied and commonwealth units, a total of 63 MkV Squadrons in Europe : 34 Home based and 29 in the Mediterranean. Further 5 were in SE-Asia and Australia.

That's 68 MkV Spitfire Squadrons vs. 29 MkIXs Spitfire Squadrons in service in September 1943; a ratio of 2.35 : 1 in favour of the MkV. Time to bow before the facts.

...And to get back the to the original point, even the G-6 could cruise as fast as the MkV would manage on all-out power.

Thus ends the sermon.

EDIT : edited for UBB code and layout etc.

[Guppy35]

Sorry Kurfurst.  You said 10 squadrons of Spit IXs til Mid 44.   I said  56 Squadrons operated IXs in 42-43.  Don't go changing what I said.

[Crumpp]

In fact I consider the rolling to be a quite useless defence because the 190 lacks so much in other maneuverability that it is simply a waste of energy to try to roll and break away from the enemy.

Oh absolutely.  The FW-190 in AH could roll 3 times as fast as it does and it would make no difference.

People must not read the original reports.  They all say the exact same thing.

The FW-190 was very manuverable.  More manuverable than any of the allied fighters tested.  They also say an outstanding feature of the aeroplane was it's roll and it was capable of performing ailerons turns which would rip the wings off a Spitfire.

Not one single report says the ONLY feature of this aircraft is it's roll.

One problem is that Aces High models all the FW-190's as if they were the FW-190A3/A4 series flown by an RAE pilot with only a few hours experience in the aircraft.

The Medium bombers of 2 Group and the USAAF were flying at lower altitudes to targets in France and the LW also if they chose to oppose those flights had to play at those lower altitudes.

So your saying Spitifires needed increased low altitude performance because of Luftwaffe fighters??  Isn't that exactly what I said?  

Most Spits 44-45 did not have clipped wings. If it was so imperative that they have them just to shoot down a Fw190 then they would have all been standardised that way from 1943 to war's end.

So now your saying it was NOT imperative that Spiftfires have some ability to shootdown Luftwaffe fighters in a dogfight?  Let's see, both German fighters were faster, one was more manuverable and the other could equal the turn ability for a time.

They were not standardized Squire because just as the reports states, they did not represent a quantum leap in performance.

 

On top of that the LW fighters they ran into were from many different units, so it would have been impossible to "guess" what their opposition might be on any given day. In many air combats post Normandy they also ran into mixed groups.

Luftwaffe only had two types of single engine fighters Squire.  Allied intelligence was well aware that the FW-190 was the most numerous type on the Western Front.  That is not including the Reichsverteidigund but Spitfires were removed from that battle and never could penetrate far enough to be a factor.

With 70% of the Gruppes of the Kanalgeschwaders flying FW-190's it only makes sense to plan for your most likely opponent.

As it was, the price paid down lower was not great as the benefit of the improved roll rate,

Oh most certainly.

The minimum turning circle of the clipped wing Spitfire at 20,000 feet has been increased by 55 feet .

I have a hard time with this statement as it does not make sense.  A 55ft circumference increase would be unnoticable from the cockpit.  Yet all the Spitfire pilots note the exact same thing, an perceiable increase in turn.   It is not even a .5 second difference.

You sure he did not mean the radius was increased 55 feet?

I wonder if the clipped wing Spitfires ran into aileron flutter problems similar to the FW-190 with out of adjustment ailerons, then if Quills statement about circumference is correct.  The report I posted earlier on the aerodynamic qualities of the Spitfires ailerons mentions this quality appearing in some normal wing Spitfires.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Guppy35
Sorry Kurfurst.  You said 10 squadrons of Spit IXs til Mid 44.   I said  56 Squadrons operated IXs in 42-43.  Don't go changing what I said.

I didn't say there were only 10 Squads of IX til mid-1944.  I said there were 35-odd MkV and 10 MkIX squadrons, I should have added its for the Figher command (see John Foreman) in June 1943, but the ratio beween MkV and IX was correct even then.

Though this small diffo between 56 Sqns operating the type at one time  or another, and the absolute max. of 39 Squadron operating the type at one time by the end of 1943 didn't bothered you until I pointed out the correct facts..

Moral of story, the IX was not the mainstay Spitfire until 1944, period. MkVs must have had a bad time vs. 109Gs.

[Angus]

The equal number was produced if not more of the IX.
Funny how many survived.

And Crumpp, - you couldn't rip the wing of a Spitfire with an aeleron turn,- you're stuck with "would" again.

The quick pitch of the Spitfire as you hopefully remember could also not easily be followed,- no wonder, - it had to be calibrated down so it would not break the aircraft.

Pitch vs roll ?

[Kev367th]

Actually Angus your mistaken -

Vb # produced - 3993
Vc # produced - 2447
IX # produced - 5665 (approx 3700+ were LF's, rest F, FR, HF)

So there were slightly more V's produced overal.
Unless you count the XVI as a IX -

XVI # produced - 1054

That would give total V's = 6440
total IX + XVI = 6714


Kurfy -
Luckily as most informed people know, speed alone isn't the be all and end all of air combat.
No the Spit wasn't the fastest, best turning, or best climbing of any WW2 aircraft, BUT it did all three collectively better than almost all WW2 aircraft, and was a dam sight easier to fly (up to the Griffons anyway).

[Kurfürst]

A large number of MkIX were just converted MkV airframes. And, looking on the numbers it seems the production of the MkIX did not run up until 1944.

In 1942 only the Merlin 61 one was producted, Hop/Nashwan claims that w/o a source as only 350, inc. some 1943 production.

Say, 300 MkIXs produced in 1942.

And looking how slowly the new Squadrons emerged, well...

June 1943 - 19 Squadrons
Sept 1943 - 29 Squadrons
Dec  1943 - 39 Squadrons of MkIX.

It took them a steady 3 months to equip 10 new squadrons, with 12+8=20 planes each. That's 300 planes if we assume reserves and losses, or 100 MkIX produced a month and I am being very generous here.


That's a very small scale, but given what we were shown about the MkXIV production, and the fact that the mkV was still produced in 1943, I am not surprised. Perhaps there was shortage of proper engines. Most seem to have been produced in 1944, which is when coincidently the IX finally replaced the V with most units.