190A5 vs 190A8

[mtnman]

They weren't able to freely engage Spits & Hurris for the most part. As the bombers took unexpected high losses, the fighters were ordered to fly close escort, robbing them much if the initiative. And this lead to increasing frustration which led to that famous comment, because Galland (and others) felt they were not using their weapon to it's best capabilities

As escorts, weren't they supposed to engage the British fighters, and kill them or draw them away from the bombers?  It's not like they were supposed to sit back and watch.  They were there to kill the Brits, who were supposed to be trying to kill the bombers.  Add to that the fact that while the Germans knew where they planned to attack, while the Brits had to do their best to figure it out...

If your fighter is equal or superior to your opponent, you have superior numbers, and he (the enemy) is trying to kill a bomber, I guess I'd expect you to prevail.  Honestly, I can see why Goering was irked.

I'm having a hard time believing that the 109/190 models are porked due to "Allied infatuation".  Prior to this long, drawn-out discussion, I'd have thought it to be an interesting possibility.  After all, the Allies did win, so get to write the books, right?  But, as more information is brought to light, my doubts that this is the case are really increasing. 

The American's also won the fight against the Native Americans, but we don't see the books stating "The American's won due to the inferior fighting ability's of the NA's".  On the contrary, it's common knowledge that the fight was won through killing the women and children and destroying the food sources and homes of the NA's.  It wasn't a "glorious" victory, but it was effective.

In a "glory" sense, it would make more sense to pork the Allied planes, and "beef up" the Axis planes.  That way the "bragging rights" would be better.  As in, "We won the fight, even with inferior equipment". 

[Lusche]

Sure, Goering was being foolish, but did he really have that much control over his pilots?  That they wouldn't try to be above their bombers?

He would have had quite a lot control. Bomber crews were filing reports. Actually it were those bomber crews reports, complaining about the perceived absence of LW fighters, that lead to those strict orders.

And regardless, trying to irk Goering or not, why would he (Galland) ask for spitfires?  Because he felt they were "inferior" to the German planes?  Would it really irk Goering that his pilots wanted "inferior" planes?  Did Galland really think his pilots would do better in Spitfires?  If he was arguing about the tactics Goering demanded, why didn't he say something sarcastic like "Maybe we should escort our bombers from below, so we're between them and the British airfields"?  Why make his quote in reference to a machine, when the problem was (supposedly) the tactical use of their own machines?

It almost seems to me as if you haven't read Gallands memoirs on that matter? He pretty much explained why he did that "request" - He WAS being sarcastic, it was born out of frustration, frustration coming from the fact that the fighters were put on a tight leash.

[mtnman]

It almost seems to me as if you haven't read Gallands memoirs on that matter? He pretty much explained why he did that "request" - He WAS being sarcastic, it was born out of frustration, frustration coming from the fact that the fighters were put on a tight leash.

Nope, I've never read his memoirs.  I'm probably missing some pertinent information.  I'm probably not going to "get it" in relation to his frame of mind, either, unless I do read them.  It still seems like a flat-out odd way to argue a point.  Would his pilots have done better, tight leash and all, if they had different planes?

Why bring plane-type to the table at all, if the tactics were at fault?

I find the bomber crews misconceptions to be interesting, actually.  The same seems to be true for the British, who seemed to feel that they weren't getting adequate protection from the bombers.

[Lusche]

Nope, I've never read his memoirs.  I'm probably missing some pertinent information.

Allow me to quote, but forgive me the sucky translation

Referring to  that famous meeting with Mölders & Göring:
"The topic 'escort' was being discusserd for the umpteenth time. Göring was clearly taking  the bomber's point of view and demanded close ("unmittelbar") escort. The bombers are being more important than our kill tally. I tried to explain to him that the 109, being a superior plane while attacking, and a verifiable successful fighter plane, would be less suited for such a purely defensive task, than the slower, but significantly more maneuverable Spitfire."

(...)

After the famous request:
"Once I had spoken these words, I was myself shocked by them. Because I did not really mean it that way. Of course I preferred our Me 109 over the Spitfire. But I was incredibly angry at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness of our leadership, who gave us tasks (...) that we could fulfill only inadequatly, if at all."


(quoted from: Galland, Adolf: Die Ersten und die Letzten. 15. Auflage, München 1983, p.96-97)

[E25280]

Nope, I've never read his memoirs.  I'm probably missing some pertinent information.  I'm probably not going to "get it" in relation to his frame of mind, either, unless I do read them.  It still seems like a flat-out odd way to argue a point.  Would his pilots have done better, tight leash and all, if they had different planes?

Why bring plane-type to the table at all, if the tactics were at fault?

Because the 109's strength vs. the Spitfire was speed.  Force the 109s to give up that advantage, and the Spit's turning ability dominates.

If you want slow planes to stay with the bombers, Spits or Hurricanes are more up to that task than 109s.  So if they won't allow you to change your tactics (which they wouldn't), you ask for a plane that is more up to the task you are given.

Seems pretty clear to me.




Yeah, like Lusche said. 

[Glasses]

From what I've read, the German fighter pilots often flew at least 4-5000 ft above their bombers, regardless of Goering's wishes/orders.  They did that because they knew it to be a more effective means to protect the bombers.

Sure, Goering was being foolish, but did he really have that much control over his pilots?  That they wouldn't try to be above their bombers?

Even so, it looks like you're arguing that "even terms" puts the German fighter pilots at a disadvantage?  Even with superior numbers?  I guess I'm envisioning the Brits trying to climb up to the bombers, since they didn't really have loads of time to climb well above them, did they?  As it was, didn't they generally arrive too late anyway, AFTER the bombers had dropped their bombs?

And regardless, trying to irk Goering or not, why would he (Galland) ask for spitfires?  Because he felt they were "inferior" to the German planes?  Would it really irk Goering that his pilots wanted "inferior" planes?  Did Galland really think his pilots would do better in Spitfires?  If he was arguing about the tactics Goering demanded, why didn't he say something sarcastic like "Maybe we should escort our bombers from below, so we're between them and the British airfields"?  Why make his quote in reference to a machine, when the problem was (supposedly) the tactical use of their own machines?

When it comes to "and if you take the quote out of context it will support the argument you're trying to make"...  isn't dismissing the quote as you've done count as a way to "support the argument you're trying to make"?

During the BoB in raw numbers the Germans outnumbered  the Brits  2:1 if we take into account the bomber stream and not just the fighters that confronted the RAF's fighter arm. But when you take both the defensive and offensive force of both sides they were about even. That and of course the Brits had Radar that they could pinpoint where the bomber stream was headed so they could save fuel and pilots. That combined with the fact that the Brits were fighting on their home turf. When a German got shot down and would be able to bail out he would be lost to the German war effort. Compared to the Brits if he wasn't killed or severely injured could go back to his squad the same day.

He intended to make Goering realize the tactics he was asking for in relation to the up close and personal escort of the bombers that he ,Galland felt  it would be better suited for Spitfires, not because he thought the spitfires were superior or better suited. This has been misinterpreted through out these boards time and time again  when the full quote and context of why he said this is put forth they still deny it even  straight from the horse's mouth.

If you're misquoting without the purpose or why he said it at the time  it would support the argument that  at least Galland wanted Spits because he thought it was superior, not the full discussion which made him retort with that particular remark. That going  by the accounts of the pilots present made Goering visibly upset, not only asking for the enemy's machine but by the insubordination of a lower ranking officer.  

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/misc/myths1.htm

"Adolf Galland rated the Spitfire so highly he told Goering 'Give me a squadron of Spitfires'." - Here's a quote from his book The First And The Last:

"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more maneuverable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."

http://www.books-on-line.com/bol/book/files/priestpl.pdf <---on Luftwaffe's war of attrition.

[mtnman]

That makes sense...  I guess it makes Skip look like he doesn't know what he's talking about...

It also reminds me eerily of the AH 109 vs Spit.

[Stoney]

BTW each time you use  the Luftwhine(r) remark I get 5 cents xD.

The only reason people call you that is that you guys proclaim performance that you cannot prove mathmatically/aerodynamically.  Much like Thorsim digging his heels in on some bastardized interpretation of some test flight report he read, and inferring that it proves his point.  There's so much selectivity bias in your arguments its laughable.  And, of course, when challenged on the performance of the 109/190, after exhausting the arguments that cling to anecdotes, you guys always go back and attack the Allied aircraft saying they are so much easier to fly in-game than they were in real life.

It gets tiring--truly.  I recommend you guys create your own forum where you can pat each other on the back about how wrong the rest of us "unwashed" are.  You do that, and I'll make a deal.  I won't come on your forum and extol the virtues of Allied aircraft ad nauseum if you guys will stay out of here with your conspiracy theories.

[Guppy35]

Compared to the Early Models of AH's Flight Model I think so. Where aircraft would swing out of the runway violently  if you slammed on the throttle wide open and you had to use a considerable amount of  opposite rudder to keep the aircraft aligned.

A plane like the P-38, which was in Europe particularly, cannon fodder and  many  Luftwaffe pilots salivated when they saw it,  blasting it to pieces. Get a really benign flight characteristic being able to easily out turn smaller lighter planes with larger power outputs in relation to their weight.  Then again as numbers began to rise and the odds began to turn . Stacks of P-38s P-51s and P-47s met the Luftwaffe on "one to one engagements"  that left them trapped. Yet in AH the P-38 and P47 historically not the most maneuverable aircraft below 10k ft here with a few degrees of flaps you can turn tighter  than any "nimbler" lighter  plane of the LW . So I have my questions.  Still I fly them ,make kills enjoy the whines when I do shoot down someone who thinks the 109s should be neutered even worse. The fact that the Ta 152 has the flight characteristics of a pigeon with mercury poisoning heck you never know.  oh and BTW The wing tanks on the Ta 152 were not used unless it was for long haul flights they were not self sealing . The primary tanks were the Front and AFT tanks just like the 190A and D and should be filled first  before the wing tanks. That might certainly contribute to the instability and low speed handling. Either the German pilots were superhuman (which I don't believe contrary to what most try to make assumptions that I've said or implied this) or the planes were that good and the pilots well trained enough that they could make and deliver the victories under near equal terms not 5:1 in the West and 8:1  in the East.

IN b4 Ban.  

P.S. oh and Ht F-86 and MiG 15 plox.

Do I need to post that 38J-10 with the 500 pounders still attached out turning the 109G on the deck dogfight again?  Glasses you haven't changed in years.  Same old song and dance I remember from the MA and 200.  You of course have no bias at all, but everyone else does.

It's classic Luftwhine

[Glasses]

Do I need to post that 38J-10 with the 500 pounders still attached out turning the 109G on the deck dogfight again?  Glasses you haven't changed in years.  Same old song and dance I remember from the MA and 200.  You of course have no bias at all, but everyone else does.

It's classic Luftwhine

Of course the only way to recreate that against green pilots is to be generous in performance. It's ok nothing will change  in that regard. Essentially like night and day after ending a sortie in a 190 and coming back to a P-47 I  can get kills in my sleep.

That's my advice to anyone even when figures are given  along with pilot anecdotes. They are disregarded and thrown to the side.  Of course you're so impartial xD.

[Guppy35]

Of course the only way to recreate that against green pilots is to be generous in performance. It's ok nothing will change  in that regard. Essentially like night and day after ending a sortie in a 190 and coming back to a P-47 I  can get kills in my sleep.

That's my advice to anyone even when figures are given  along with pilot anecdotes. They are disregarded and thrown to the side.  Of course you're so impartial xD.

You prove my point.  You have a vision of how it's supposed to work and have found the 'evidence' you need to be convinced of it.  You've got guys here going above and beyond to explain this stuff, but it doesn't matter as the classic Luftwhiner believes that there is no way the German stuff can be beaten without an unfair advantage.  So it must be an Allied bias by the game designer.

Your post I replied to starts with the comment about the LW guys salivating at the thought of fighting the 38.  Now your response to my talking about that on the deck fight where the 38 driver downs the 109 driver in a turn fight while carrying 500 pounders, is talk about green pilots. 

The guys trying to be rational about this are throwing out the pilot talk as each pilot's experience is different.   I can give you pilot stories of 38s eating up 109s.  You talk about LW pilots drooling over 38s.  Who cares.  In the end the math doesn't lie.

[pervert]

You prove my point.  You have a vision of how it's supposed to work and have found the 'evidence' you need to be convinced of it.  You've got guys here going above and beyond to explain this stuff, but it doesn't matter as the classic Luftwhiner believes that there is no way the German stuff can be beaten without an unfair advantage.  So it must be an Allied bias by the game designer.

Your post I replied to starts with the comment about the LW guys salivating at the thought of fighting the 38.  Now your response to my talking about that on the deck fight where the 38 driver downs the 109 driver in a turn fight while carrying 500 pounders, is talk about green pilots. 

The guys trying to be rational about this are throwing out the pilot talk as each pilot's experience is different.   I can give you pilot stories of 38s eating up 109s.  You talk about LW pilots drooling over 38s.  Who cares.  In the end the math doesn't lie.

The hilarious thing is used correctly the german stuff can wipe the floor with the allied stuff, the whiners just haven't put the time into properly learning or experimenting with the planes to see what works and what doesn't. They see a fight as who's plane turns the best and then blame that on their failure to learn their chosen plane properly.

If they spent as much time practising as they did looking up anecdotes they wouldn't have this problem.

[Karnak]

The Spitfire Mk Ia was faster than the Bf109E-4 during the Battle of Britain due to 100 octane fuel.  I have read accounts from both sides to this effect.  It is odd that Galland would make that statement about the Spitfire when it fits the Hurricane much better.

Then again, the British tended to significantly underestimate the performance of German aircraft, so it is entirely possible that the Germans did the same regarding British aircraft.

[FLS]

Of course the only way to recreate that against green pilots is to be generous in performance. It's ok nothing will change  in that regard. Essentially like night and day after ending a sortie in a 190 and coming back to a P-47 I  can get kills in my sleep.

That's my advice to anyone even when figures are given  along with pilot anecdotes. They are disregarded and thrown to the side.  Of course you're so impartial xD.

What figures have you posted? Your only evidence in this thread was a clip about WW2OL where the pilots said nothing to contradict the AH flight models. You offer nothing new. You add nothing to this discussion. You have no argument.

[PJ_Godzilla]

The hilarious thing is used correctly the german stuff can wipe the floor with the allied stuff, the whiners just haven't put the time into properly learning or experimenting with the planes to see what works and what doesn't. They see a fight as who's plane turns the best and then blame that on their failure to learn their chosen plane properly.

If they spent as much time practising as they did looking up anecdotes they wouldn't have this problem.

Indeed.  I remember my first FSO. My squad flew Seafires. I've come to know the Seafire as a sweet, if a bit slow, dogfighter. Nonetheless, we got caught by a significant group of 190A-5s as we came in for refueling and got beaten up - badly.

If we're going to talk about the shakiness of anecdotal evidence, I'd like to put a good word in for the anecdotal evidence that says that AH Luftwaffe a/c are inherently inferior - since, last I recall, the d-9 (for example) earns an overall late war k/d of something like 1.3. I doubt the 109k-4 fares much worse. With a year's experience under my belt, Ill also say that my favorite rides tend to be Luftwaffe - though I'll occasionallly jump into the Spit VIII and Seafire II (I'd like a Seafire III, por favor). I'm just not a fan of the Jug, Corsair, or Pony, though I find the latter to be a credible (ha) machine - if you don't much likes the fightins'.

38's a good machine but has terrible compressibility.