Originally posted by Angus[/B]
Good Gripen, good.
I have to have a potshot at Izzy though, forgive me please ;)
Firstly:
"The Spit had nice big bulges for the cannons through it`s service, THANK YOU desingers who designed a thin wing so much unsuited for bigger weapons"
So, it would actually have been better in your your opinion to have the wing much thicker?
[/B]
Firstly, in 1940 the Spitfire MkI had roughly the same Hp on 87 oct, and somewhat more on 100 oct.
[/B]
The Spitfire had less power at high alt, where max speeds were obtained.
[/B]
Once fitted with a rotol 3-blade airscrew it outclimbed the 109 while being heavier, it was however a tad slower.
[/B]
Once up to 100 oct the Spit I outclimbed and outran the 109E.
[/B]
In 1944 you had Spit XIV swarming around. I have not seen data of a 109 being 40 mph faster. So please promote this.
[/B]
Then here:
"THANK YOU weapon developers in Britain who couldn`t came up with a cannon of their own, and forced the designers to put an large French cannon designed for rigid engine mounts and not flexible wings which cause them to jam. "
You may have a problem here, for the Hispanos were very good weapons indeed. I have not stumbled across any tales of horrible jammings yet. Please promote som.
Very good ballistics, good ROF, and high velocity.
In 1941 perhaps the finest aircraft cannon in the world?
[/B]
You must have forgotten take your pills....
The radiator needs air to function, it always causes parasite drag.
Put it in the "shade" and you'll need it to be bigger.
[/B]
Now, the boundary layer around the fuselage is not as important as say on the top of the wings. Do you know what a boundary layer is? A couple of days ago you did not know what a washout is.
[/B]
You may of course have a problem with the Mustang, for on the same power as a 109 it was faster, with very much more range.
[/B]
Quite some headache for a brownie-trousers bubchen. But so be it, a German had his hand in on the design so it stays as a so-so.
Frankly I'd like to know what the heck is wrong with you. The only explanation I can think off is complete 1930's German religion, or a brownskirt reincarnation.
[/B]
I mean, pointing at brilliant design features of objects like the 109, 262 etc is very fine. But you seem so obsessed with hatred on anything WW2 allied sided that it is just stunning. Be it tanks, armies, aircraft, campaigns, victories, political figures, the total outcome or whatever. Anything German just must be better.
Can you tell me why?
All ears?
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Swarming around? Maybe in the pinky-binky Raffanatic`s fantasies,.....
No Angie-bamgie, its YOU who id having a problem. You are so obsessed with this Spitfire Supreme thingie within your thick skull that you suffer from tunnel vision all the time.
Actually the only headache I have here is my futile attempt to bring some light into the thick skull of a half literate serf, who had his head stuck and frozen into his hairy butthole, and I cant pull it out if he wishes to live in the comfort of darkness.
Angie, pull your had out of your butt, and maybe you see things differently, not this sorry lame-ass black-and-white, awfully primitive way of projecting things into everything you dont like, as you currently do.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
What kind of civil discussion can be had with Barbi, aka Kurfurst, Izzy, Isegrim making his usual derogatory babbling rants?
Originally posted by Karnak
I would be surprised, however, if they only built 70-80 Mk XIV's from November, 1943 through December, 1944.
BTW, all 957 Mk XIV's had engines. How many of those 1,400 Me262s had engines again? Wasn't it about 200 or 300 by the end of the war? [/B]
Personally I think counting engineless airframes in the production total is a bit disingengous. [/B]
Originally posted by Guppy35
Seems like I recall reading somewhere that the most 262s ever up at one time was 26.
Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but it seems like that was against the bombers in April 45.
Dan/Slack
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Milo, go and hang yourself on a tree. It will be good for everyone, even for you. This thread was started because you attempted to incite another little flamefest in the other thread with provocative posts, which would have ruined it. As for the civil discussion, I don`t think you have even a remote idea of the meaning that word. Never seen you do that, just this hysterical flaming all the time. Maybe that`s the reason you are getting your ban on every board sooner or later.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
What I found in Groehler, the larger Me262 operations :
Data / Number of 262s sent into action in 1945:
18th March : 36
4th April : 49
10th April : 62
24th April : 16
25th April 13
He mentions Messerscmitt started production in March 1944 (nullseries). In April only 3, in May 7 were produced, largely because of delays of the Jumo engine production and development. Then they froze the development of the engine and concentrated on production. IIRC the experimental unit was set up in June 1944, and . Up to end of October, 265 planes were completed. As per Alfred Price, 91 of them in September.
Originally posted by Angus
Ohhh, what a lovely post.
Finally in the open, a slug-out thread between my-humble-self and the swastika-tattooed-arse-side-barbi-doll.
Oh, what a lovely war.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Not much of an intelligence showing up on your side, Angiebangie. Is it frozen pinguin*****(no penguins around Iceland, Barbi) that you carry inside your skull, or just every single head-in-his-butt icelandic serf of your undoubtfully in-bred family had born this way?
IMHO, constant replies to a thread - with the purpose to discuss design aspects seperately to leave other threads clean - like :
"Anyway, this thread has already taken another course, trying to prove that Germany possibly may have lost WW2. Oh my goodness"
means that we have a problem on your side, a big&permanent problem. But it pleases me to see that you fled from an open competion so miserably. Of course you can`t prove your point if you have none...
We have two retards here, one who is spending his life flaming and keeping some sort of register on my nicks, the other spends his life inside the nice&warn&dark cavity of his butt, periodically emitting his thoughts to the outside about brown guys, Spitfires and conspiracies, but the rest of the world only percieves the smell. :D
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Ok, here`s a thread to end all other threads in this subject. Angie can mess here when he feels so, and leave the other threads clean.
Hear, Angie? If that Spitfire Supreme thing of yours comes up next time, urinate here, not in other threads.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
the confidence an aircraft instills in the pilot when he is going into combat is what matters.
Maybe that`s why the all-time top 3 fighter pilots of the world all 109 pilots : Hartman, Barkhorn and Rall. :D Spitty pilots? Somewhere at the bottom of that list...
Funny these references to quotes from never-named pilots.. Funny I have never seen any actual 109 pilot criticize the 109 as a fighter. Werner Moelders believed the Spitfire was miserable as a fighter, only one class better than the Hurricane, and from what RAF pilots said, well, hmm, Johnson said they were close, sometimes one gaining the advantage then the other, Godwin, another Spitty pilot didn`t go as far, but admitted it was 'almost as good' as his own ride. Combine what they say and you got it about right. Moelders flew all three, and knocked down 25 Spits himself. Perhaps Johnson also flew the 109, and maybe knocked down a dozen, I don`t know how many.
That`s so far about pilot opinions. The combat record is different. Many 109 pilots shot down more of just Spitfires in a few months than the combined score of the best Spitty pilots, containing very plane type. If you look at the Spitty`s combat record vs. the 109 over Dunkirk, England, and Africa, it doesn`t shine either. Makes you understand why it is right to refer to the 109 as a 'Jaeger' ('Hunter').
Yep paper performance is one thing, combat record is another.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Yep paper performance is one thing, combat record is another.
Originally posted by Furball
Johnnie Johnson shot down 38 single engined fighters, not sure how that breaks up 109/190 though.
Originally posted by Furball[/B]
Its hard to get victories when the airforce you are supposed to be fighting is nowhere to be seen. Allied pilots could go through entire combat tours and see German aircraft 2 or 3 times.
[/B]
How many 109's were made? how many were lost?
[/B]
How many pilots did the 109 kill?
How many 109's failed due to sabotage on the production line due to forced labour?
Originally posted by Kurfürst
naziangie wrote :
.
.
.
.
Why angiebangie, if he flew a that inferior plane like the 109?
.
.
.
.
How pathethic is that, naziangie, you don`t even understand the words of people you are quoting, and now you came up with fabricated stories... yes this is a good thread, it shows us how low you can get in the mud.
Originally posted by Arlo
Seems he's a might confused, yes it do.
[Kurfoist]Don't tell me the Spitfire's better than my 109 you Nazi bastage![/Kurfoist]
lol
Do mental wards in Europe actually give unlimited access to the internet to their patients? :lol
Originally posted by Kurfürst
"Is not calling someone a Nazi, as Barbi has just done, not a reason for banning? Will be second from the AH site. "
Appearantly not, since then Angus and Karnak would have been long banned from here, as they did that continously in the past and at least Angus continoues to do so.
Originally posted by Karnak
I think you are a misguided idealist like our American Confederate nuts who are convinced of the rightousness of their heroes.
Originally posted by Karnak
That is where we differ.
I think The Spitfire was a great and classic warplane. You think it was utter crap.
I think the Bf109 was a great and classic warplane. You think it was a divinely inspired engineering miracle.
And it goes that way across the whole spectrum of Allied and German equipment.
Originally posted by HoHun
If you put the Spitfire XIV on top, you can't simply leave out the Me 109K-4 which shares a lot of the same strengths (and weaknesses).
And where's the F4U, judged "best carrier fighter" by US pilots at the Fighter Conference?
Originally posted by MiloMorai
But he is not being specific on which model of the Spit and 109. It is the whole family.
Being the best at the FC is only one aspect. The combat and the influence in combat was also considered. This puts the F6F ahead of the F4U.
"..... also takes into account their combat success rate and influence on the conduct and outcome of various operations."
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Milo, your interpretation of the air combat during the BoB is highly interesting. To my knownladge, England was bombed until May 1941, when the LW`s bombers transferred to the east. Until then, they couldn`t stop any single LW raid, they couldn`t stop the LW from sinking 250 ships with 10 000 men onboard at Dunkirk, they couldn`t protect the convoys on the channel, they couldn`t protect their airfields in southern england, and finally, they couldn`t protect london and other major industrial cities, and finally, Spits and Hurris could only show up an inferior combat records against enemy fighters, the last reserves of pilots were being thrown into battle with only a few hours in fighters.. therefore I cannot see how your version matches the reality.
BoB ended when the Spitfires and Hurricanes forced the LW to fly at night using terror bombing. Now if it makes you any happier to think BoB end in 1941, so be it.
Yet, the LW could not stop 300,000 from escaping from Dunkque. Yet, in the MTO, the RAF forced Rommel to go on 'short rations' because his supply convoys could not reach NA in sufficient numbers. Then there is Malta which both the LW and RA failed to subdue.
You can point to the performance and tactical trials done with those 109, which you claimed were flown, tested etc..
I suppose you won`t be able to.
Look at the units they were assigned to. Says much. Can you produce every Spitfire, P-47, P-51 trial that the Germans performed.
The ranges I posted are from the respective Handbuchs, GLA datasheets for the 109E, F, and G. They are from primary sources and could be checked if neccesary. Disprove them with documents if you can.
Post them.
Spit later.
Brown's order of rank of the finest fighters in WW2, judged by objective performance and handling criteria, runs as follows:
1. Spitfire XIV
2. Fw 190D-9
Appearantly the FW 190 was more suited in the bomber destroyer role than fighting off the escorts,
Hmm, AFAIK, the FW 190 didn't stop the USAAF heavies either,
the 190s required their protective screen to operate effectively.
I have not seen the "turning back" of an entire bomber raid by 190's on print yet, but it coming from Crumpp should be pretty authentic. I am all ears here, whee, when, how much etc????????
I do have somewhere in my books some numbers of the USAAF having called off raids due to griveous losses, I think Schweinefurt. 17%?
EUROPEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS (Eighth Air Force)
VIII Bomber Command Mission No. 41: 67 B-17's of the 1st Bombardment Wing and 16 B-24's of the 2d Bombardment Wing are dispatched against the marshalling yard at Rouen, France. Thirteen B-24's drop 39 tons of bombs on the target at 1402-1403 hours local; we claim 14 aircraft destroyed, 3 probably destroyed and 3 damaged; we lose 2 B-24's, 1 is damaged beyond repair and 3 others are damaged; casualties are 5 KIA, 3 WIA and 17 MIA. 54 B-17's hit the target at 1430 hours dropping 134.75 tons of bombs; they claim 14 enemy aircraft destroyed, 1 probably destroyed and 5 damaged; we lose 2 B-17's, 1 is damaged beyond repair and 9 others are damaged; casualties are 8 WIA and 20 MIA. The bomb run over Rouen is considerably disrupted by the well-executed attack of fighters which down 2 bombers including the lead aircraft. This action is preceded by an earlier wave of German fighters which occupy the fighter escort while the second wave attacks the bombers
Originally posted by Angus
The 190 was more flexible to roles than the 109. Better interceptor, better attacker and definately equal in the role of air superiority.
"the FW-190's claimed 2 Spitfires for no losses. Priller and Glunz claimed the Spitfires. 12/JG2 (Me-109) lost two aircraft and 3/JG27 (Me-109) lost one pilot and aircraft."
Originally posted by Crumpp
While the claims can be called into question, it is hard to argue with the stated losses.
If the Luftwaffe says it lost X number of planes and the USAAF lost X number of planes you can believe them.
When they say X number of ENEMY planes were destroyed then take it with a grain of salt.
Crumpp
No one is questioning the claims Crumpp. On that day, the 190 was the better a/c of the 2 German fighters.
It would be intersting to see what percentage of losses/claims of 190s and 109s participating in combat on other days were in specific theatres.
What I don't know is how many 109s and 190s took off that day. Nor, if there was any losses in the other JGs (ie. JG26, 2, ...) in the West.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
To get the ball rolling on the 109 and 190 comparison,
from 6 Months to Oblivion
fighter losses, Nov 2 1944
Me109G-10, 14, K-4
I./JG 3 - 4
II./JG3 - 11
III./JG4 - 3
IV./JG4 - 5
I./JG27 - 11
II./JG27 - 1
III./JG27 - 5
IV./JG27 - 10
total - 50
Fw190A-8
IV./JG3 - 11
II./JG4 - 6
total - 17
What I don't know is how many 109s and 190s took off that day. Nor, if there was any losses in the other JGs (ie. JG26, 2, ...) in the West. A 'loss to participation' percentage comparison for the 109 and 190 can't be made until that is known. Need the claims as well.
Originally posted by Meyer
That's 6.25 losses/Gruppe for the 109, and 8.5 losses/Gruppe for the 190 :p
Hehe, that would make the Spitfire climb the ladder a bit, for although it probably has a negative KD, it flew quite a lot
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Come back when you understand what is being asked. >> A 'loss to participation' percentage comparison
This is really true! Often, after dozens of aircraft clashing, maybe 2 got shot down and the rest departed.
A 190 that jumped a P47/51 and failed, would have been in trouble.
Crumpp, these engines excell only at medium and low alts, none of them could compete against Ju 213A1, that engine was developing 1600 Hp at 18000 feet without wep.
An FW-190A8 with the BMW801TS (BMW 801S) motor was equal in speed to the P51D at sea level and faster on boost.
In the book put out by the Smithsonian on the restoration of their F-8, Dale Bucy and Mike Lyons state they could find no manufacturer's data plate for the engine, so the exact subseries and serial number could not be asertained..
Will be hard to talk to Mike Lyons since he passed away in Nov 1984 from cancer.
I've never seen an account of a short nosed 190 outrunning a Mustang.
How is the lifespan of a BMW radial tuned up like that?
One problem with your P-51 chart Crumpp it is for a -3 engine. By the time your 'improved' 801s were around, the P-51s were using the more powewrful -7 engines and more MP.
I'd love to see some anecdotes. You say it's equal or faster without MW50, - well that depends on altitude. So do you mean at best or at worst or what?
LW losses on the 24th of June 1940, before eagle day, in the channel fights.
Mustang speed and climb at low altitude test results from Boscombe Down
Crummp, Fw190A9 does 380mph on the deck??
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, you should be drooling over what he said about the P51. I remember Izzy claiming that the P51 cockpit was neither bigger nor had better view than the 109 cockpit, the Spitfire having smaller cockpit of course. Yet the 109 has a narrower fuselage, so the magic is achived, the cockpit is smaller on the outside but bigger on the inside eh :D
Originally posted by Crumpp
It does about 610kph on the deck with MW 50.
Crumpp
Originally posted by Crumpp
Still gathering data for the 24 July 40. There was action over the convoys but nothing spectacular. Unless of course you happen to be one of the two 109's I have found that were shot down that day or the two Spitfires.
Have not forgotten your request!
Crumpp
Originally posted by Tony Williams
A couple of comments:
I have a BoB video with some modern footage showing a pilot trying out the cockpits of a 109 and a Spitfire which were parked next to each other. The immediate response was how cramped the 109's cockpit was compared with the Spit. You could SEE the difference; he practically had to be shoehorned into the 109, and commented on how poor visibility was and how difficult it was to get proper leverage on the stick.
One of Eric Brown's gripes about the 109 was the operation of the slats, which opened unevenly and unpredictably in manoeuvres, 'giving rise to aileron snatching and completely ruining sighting on any aircraft being attacked.'
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
Originally posted by Angus
Ok, I claim this:
1. The Spitfire had a roomier cockpit than the 109.
Originally posted by Angus
2. The P51 has a much roomier cockpit than a 109.
Originally posted by Angus
3. The Spitfire has similar range with the same fuel load as a similarly powered 109.Quote[/B]
Well I guess we had already seen ranges for the 109s and Spits, so basically you are arguing those facts. Based on those, your statement only seems to be true in case of the Spit I and 109E, which had 637km and 660km range respectively, w. 85 and 88 gallon main tanks, basically the same fuel load, they are pretty equal in range... the Spit Is lower drag almost making up for the advantage the DB601 had over the Merlin in fuel consumption.
And that`s it. ANY other Spitfire looses waaaaaaay out in absolute range : draggier airframe combined with a thirsty engine, no mister, you wont get good range this way. Think about the Spit XIV, ca450 miles range with 112 gallons vs. ca.700miles range of the 109G with 88 gallons? 150 It`s all written in the reports. 125% the fuel capacity, but only 60% the range... Guess it has something to do with 50% higher fuel consumption of the late Merlins/Griffons, eh?QuoteOriginally posted by Angus[/B]
4. P51 should have a longer range on the same fuel load as a similarly powered Spitfire.
Yep, and the P-51 had very similiar range to a 109F/G/K - as long as on the same fuel load. Both had much longer range than the Spit.QuoteOriginally posted by Angus[/B]
Never heard of the British trying to copy the 109 Uberseat, obviously they didn't. I belive they stepped the rudder though, but got to look into my cockpit pics to see it better. They were also testing pressure suits BTW.
Oh, WHAT, how did you say? They COPIED the *very tiresome* etc. seating position of a 109 or 190 pilot sit in his plane? Maybe they realized this was better seating position for a fighter pilot ?
BTW, this one is quite an interesting subject, and on-topic, too : just how many things in the late Spitfire originated from enemy fighters, esp. the 109...
Besides I don`t get your comments on the "comfortable" seats of WW2 fighters. Have you seen those? A few dural plates, crudely formed and welded together, basically. Not much more is required, when you are thickly dressed and sit on your chute, anyway...Quote[/B]
Since practically all allied cockpits were roomier than the 109 one, that should however not have been a problem.
Uh, yes, of course, whatever you say Angie. I think you practically making sweeping statements and repeating urban myths - do you think this makes a good arguement?Quote
Then to the fuselage. The DB has a slightly smaller front than the Merlin, in both cases the fuselage depending on the engine size to hide behind it. Oh, dear, I have that from you actually.[/B]
That is very much doubtful you have such thing from me. But we seen your memory don`t serve you right when it comes what other have said.. maybe you should prefer something other than beer as your mental conditioner. Not that I am against beer in any form. ;)
Originally posted by Tony Williams
One of Eric Brown's gripes about the 109 was the operation of the slats, which opened unevenly and unpredictably in manoeuvres, 'giving rise to aileron snatching and completely ruining sighting on any aircraft being attacked.'
Originally posted by Kurfürst
To me it only proves that Brown was hardly as a good pilot as many think he was. With less then an hour spent in the Bf 109G he flew, hardly he could been one with that much of 'experience' . Any LW rookie in 1945, with as little as 20-30 hours know more about that plane than he.
II/JG26-Gruppen Kommanduer Hauptman Noack killed.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Noack was killed in a flying accident. He pulled too high on landing, stalled, and crashed. He was not shot down by Spitfires.
[/B]
Jumped by Spitfires over the Channel.
So the evil little beast could get even experienced pilots if their concentration slipped!
Originally posted by Crumpp
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1101990317_24july40.jpg)
Noack was killed in a flying accident. He pulled too high on landing, stalled, and crashed. He was not shot down by Spitfires.
Crumpp
So in essence the combat contributed to his death.
On the 24th the 109 Pilots got bounced I belive.
Actually Crumpp, those 4 did NOT go down at once. They went down in the ensuing dogfight.
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, Milo.
I belive the 109 was not much harder to land than a Spitty.
The Slats after all helped quite a bit.
I have however seen some text on weering and tipovers.
On the top, the 109 would usually kill the pilot.
Does anyone have something of this?
Originally posted by Crumpp
Really? Not disputing you just saying my reports do not mention any prior damage. You have a reference?
Crumpp
Originally posted by Angus
25th of June, JG52 III
Otto decker claims a Spitfire.
Werner Keidel gets shot down. KIA?
Willi Bielefeld - same. KIA?
Hans Schmidt - same, POW
Max Reiss - same, POW
8 pilots from 1 staffel in 2 days. Possibly 1 confirmed victory, since the Spitfires claimed on the 24th did not show as a loss on the RAF side.
Guppy??
Anyway, that's a lot of blood, 2/3rd of the staffel in 2 days.
The pilots shot down were primarily veterans, and on both days the top guy!
No wonder they pulled it out within the week.
Wonder which RAF pilots were at the trigger.
Guppy????? Milo?????
Originally posted by Angus[/B]
Now Izzie, you are one insulent little twit.
Are you calling Gunther Rall himself in as an urban legend for starters?
He is a LIVING legend, and I had the honor of talking to him yesterday.
Yet, you choose to promote your usual garbage, and highly selectED data, although some of it may be quite authentic.
To be honest, you deserve a bloody spanking lesson :D
[/B]
This is not really going round and round since it is basically broadt times width times height. Total value is cubics.
I have had a walkaround with a 109 and several Spitfires, along with some cockpit peeking. So I don't need to refer with a video.
You present Stiegler. I asked Rall. Belive what you want, but my final conclusion is from firstly my own eyes and then by asking Rall, that THE SPITFIRE COCKPIT IS DEFINATELY SOMEWHAT ROOMIER THAN THE COCKPIT OF A 109.
[/B]
BTW, did Stiegler have some flying hours in the Spitfire?
[/B]
Yes, you and Niklas actually. I think I have some pictures of the frontal area from you, I will look it up.
OMG, could it have been that the Spitfire had smaller frontal area?????
So and on to the Range.
Typical Babi style is to compare oranges with apples. So you choose the Griffon to the 109G.
Well, there are some hundred horses more under the hood of a XIV, and if you read about flight trials, the XIV outperforms the 109G in all aspects except perhaps the initial stage of a dive?
Dive away from that Spitty on your tail.......[/B]
I'm happy however to see that you admit the MkI has a similar range as the 109E....that is progress. Had to be since the operations of the MkI/II extended the operations of the Emil.....
[/B]
Originally posted by Kurfürst
And while we are at loss reports....
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1102087573_dunkirklosses.jpg)
From Mike Spick`s, Luftwaffe Fighter Aces.
Could you comment on this one, Angus?
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Barbi stop with this 109 range bs. You give the MOST economical range for the 109 and the normal range, not the Spit's MOST economical range.
Unsupported claim, but post docs that show the Spit I`s economic range.
But Milo, pray tell me, how could the Spit I having more endurance if the Merlin consumed a lot more?
The British/German equivalent of max. continous is Cruising (Rich) / Dauerleisung.
At this power, the Merlin consumed 68 gallon/h, the DB 601A only 59 gallon/h, 20% lower. Thus endurance was also 20% higher on the 109E.
Of course you can compare apples and oranges as you did.
Damaged 109s could be land safely in France but the RAF a/c had to fly back across the Channel and land in the UK, if they could make it that far. Never mind that the RAF was outnumbered more than 2:1.
Maths isn`t your strong point, Milo. 1652+ RAF single engined fighter sorties vs. 1595 LW single engined fighter sorties. Looks like the RAF had some slight advantage in fighter numbers, yet lost 97 fighters for 27 Bf 109s... Ratio ~4:1 for the 109`s favour again.
Of couse if you want to add bombers like the Stuka... I never knew the Stuka made such horrendous butchering of Spitfires... or maybe it was the Do-17 ? :D
But it`s so funny to see the 'vulnerable' Stuka operating in the same area with 1.2% loss rate despite the heavy flak from ships, whereas the Spits operating with 5 times as severe losses !Quote
quote: The higher the stick, the least force a human being can exert on it. A sitting`s human arm can exert about 25% more force in a lower position, than in a high position.
Never heard of leverage Barbi? A joystick is a Class 1 lever.
No Milo, I never heard of leverage on Spitfire stick, of which only the top 4 inches or so was moving, the rest was FIXED. Speaking of 'leverage', even the 109 had more leverage than that!
Originally posted by Angus
...And that's why after 4 years of fighting, the LW could mount no more than 200-300 fighters in the air on the western front, largely 190's.......
Originally posted by Angus[/B]
Oh dear, Izzy here again, it was just about to get comfy....
Range: Spitfires from Mk II onwards operated to middle Belgium roughly without Drop tanks. That would give the 109 a ticket from N-France to Birmingham on the same fuel. But up there they were a rare sight....
And now a cookie from the 109 pilot:
"...die beweglichkeit der Machine um Alle Achsen macht grossen Eindruck auf mich..."
Gunther Rall speaking of the Spitfire Mein Flugbuch, p. 214
Will look into loss numbers later. [/B]
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Guppy, here are the stats for 'exchange rate' when the LW was operating over the enemy area during the Battle of Britain. These statistics come from Hooton, but appearantly they were published by many others as well.
Spitfire vs. Bf 109 : 219 to 180 lost.
Hurricane vs. Bf 109 : 272 to 153 lost.
1.5 to 1 in the 109s favour...
Why I am posting this is just to put Angie back into his place with his tunnel vision on 24th June.. besides the point Angie, much like Nashwan, doesn`t really knows German unit designations, ie. he is mixing up German squadrons and wings.
Regardless, why is that I am completely unable to find any cross-checked loss accounts that would just once show the Spits getting the upper hand in combat in any more lenghty combat period, not just one day or a single small scale engagement. Was it always down the more experience, better tactics on the LW part... oh come on. Not in Dunkirk, where Spitfire pilots were from the more experienced ones, ie. Spit squadrons were not commenced into the fight before Dunkirk, they sustained no severe losses yet, all of their pilots were the ones who got through training in peacetime.
All in all, the Spitfire seem to have a bad combat history against the 109. Looks like the RAF kept underestimating the 109, the 109 kept the upper hand in combat over the RAF. ;)
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Spits were over Berlin in 1945, the 109s were not over London in 45.
Ah, long time no see !!! The Ultima Ratio. It proves nothing, expect you can`t prove anything.
I do wonder about one thing.
How much credit was due to the 109 in 1940 for being over London, having single handedly clearling the skies over Poland, Norwar, the Benelux, France, Dunkirk, the Channel all up to way to London, kicking a Spit butt in front of itself, and and how credit would it be there for the Spits for being over Berlin - if they were there at all, which I doubt, range, range, range! - following the USAAF in the great shadow it projected, and pounding the chest after all the others made victory a reality. Claiming the victory for yourself that others achieved is a sure sign of hybris.
Quite badly informed and factually wrong.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Spits were over Berlin in 1945, the 109s were not over London in 45.
Ah, long time no see !!! The Ultima Ratio. It proves nothing, expect you can`t prove anything.
I do wonder about one thing.
How much credit was due to the 109 in 1940 for being over London, having single handedly clearling the skies over Poland, Norwar, the Benelux, France, Dunkirk, the Channel all up to way to London, kicking a Spit butt in front of itself, and and how credit would it be there for the Spits for being over Berlin - if they were there at all, which I doubt, range, range, range! - following the USAAF in the great shadow it projected, and pounding the chest after all the others made victory a reality. Claiming the victory for yourself that others achieved is a sure sign of hybris.
Originally posted by Guppy35
You are missing the point. This always seems to come down to you believing the Spitfire was a disaster and the 109 was a wonder weapon.
And despite what you say, who won makes all the difference.
[/B]
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Great contribution, Milo, we are all thankful.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
It`s certainly no surprise to me if you perceive things this way. Perception gets distorted if emotions are involved. Any rightful and correct criticism, even DISCUSSION of the faults of the Spitfire is taken as a personal attack by you, and you start seeing things black and white.
You work yourself up when it is not displayed as it was longer ranged than anything (but esp. compared to the 109), wasn`t 100% perfect in handling, absolutely no problem with it`s roll rate, and above that, all the rest of it`s qualities were just 100% perrrffect. And if combat records are mentioned, and they don`t show 1000 to 0 kill rates for the Spitfire`s favour, you start pulling out the Ultima Ratio. Well, this thread was opened so to keep the other threads clean from such silly arguments.
Yep. Brazil won WW2. :cool:
Source is from Alfred Price, no less.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Be careful with Price. He has some really good information but the timeperiod was just too close to the event to get the whole picture. Lots of technical information that was:
1. Classified
2. Sitting at the bottom of 30,000 other documents waiting to be sorted and cataloged.
3. Veterans were not as willing to talk then as they are now.
4. Data is much easier to retrieve in the electronic age so you can sift through a lot more raw volume to find a specific.
Crumpp
What time period are you speaking of Crumpp? I've dealt with Price and he's been most helpful.
they were more then willing to talk
He has collected a lot of data and published some excellent work.
Oh, Crumpp lad, nice to see you.
Anyway, you 190 DWEEB
Yet, 109 veterans found it rather bad.
Do you have pic of your project?
"But I can`t find the speed gauge along all those cylinder temperature, oxygen pressure gauges".
Anyway, for Crumpp.
BTW, Crumpp, do you have anything on the FW 190 stability? AFAIK, it was stable in all axis, except in the roll axis where it was unstable.
Originally posted by Angus
That is BTW a very bad position for a 109 to be in, for from stall to quite some higher speed it accelerates slower than a Spit. (Wingloading issue, - drag)
Do you happen to have Technical Report No. F-TR-1102-ND (US rep on captured 190G-3) ? I have two pages, and somebody is requesting the whole report, I suppose for Flight Model issues + details.
"Unlike earlier versions of the Fw 190, which were powered by BMW air-cooled radial engines, the D-9 version was equipped with a Junkers Jumo 213 liquid-cooled inline engine. It was regarded as among the finest German fighter planes in service at the time."
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Gunther Rall, a memoir”
by Jill Amadio
He stated that in late 1944 the Germans had nothing in quantity that outperformed the allied fighters except the final Dora (D11?) and the 262.
Originally posted by gripen
Hm.. So far no one has come up with the evidence if the "Tsagi" values for the Bf 109G-2 are really tested. Apparently one person has the report but he can't read the text...
gripen
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, by the way.
This thread would be excellent to round up performance specs and links to the performance data of 109 and Spitty
.Angus
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Appearantly, one has the test report, and says its 17 pages long, VERY detailed and definietely comes from a flight test.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
and the results are in ood agreement with flight tests of rechlin on the 109G at 1.3ata.
Well, if you have documented LW flight tests of 109's, not to mention Spitfires, please upload
Originally posted by gripen
So far no one has come up with the evidence that the high altitude values in that report are from the flight tests.
gripen
Finally you use your own name in your post, thanks. Funny thing is that it was actually you who did not understand what Wood wrote.
Originally posted by gripen
Badboy
Funny thing is that it was actually you who did not understand what Wood wrote.
gripen
Originally said by Wood on page 36 of your reference
Glauert gives corrections for tapered wings as a function of the amount of taper, but this refinement is believed to be not justified in practice
Originally posted by gripen
So far no one has come up with the evidence that the high altitude values in that report are from the flight tests.
The problem with that Rechlin paper is that the speeds at high altitude appear to be calculated; claimed FTH is 6,4km while the speed values indicate about 7000m. [/B]
The russian data has very same problem, in both cases the values are not logical if compared with real tested data for 1,3 ata 2600rpm.
gripen [/B]
As for Mk IXs, Nashwan/Hop claims only some 350 were made in 1942 and Q1 of 1943
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Oh Gripen, guys who have the report say it is a flight tests, they can even name the serial no. of the plane it was done with... that`s something by anyone`s standards... what do you have on the contrary?
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Expect that it comes in very good agreement with other _flight tests_ of 109F-4 done by rechlin.
What would have happened if I had suggested that the slats were basically a bad design, hehe.
Originally posted by Angus
Takes a ton of work if you don't have the numbers handy.
Cristopher Shore's "Aces High" will give you most of the data about which and when so aircraft were taken into Squadron service by squadron size I mean.
It is however a lot of a job to break it up.
But, reading through it quickly, it seems that the Spit IX was quite well in service late 1942, and almost dominant in 1943
Certainly Spit Vs were still operating. Escorting the mediums to LW airfields and targets in France usually involved all types of Spits. Spit Vs would be close escort. VIIs or IXs would be high cover with the XIIs involved at medium alts along with LFIXs
Originally posted by Angus
Nice input Guppy.
Spit XII= basically a XIV with some quirks?
BTW, what squadron? And Aces there off????
Originally posted by Crumpp
Interesting. According to the Luftwaffe units stationed in the MTO in 1943 they report Spit V's as their major Spitfire opponent. I am sure the majority of Luftwaffe pilots would not know a Spit V from a XII looking out of the cockpit but the Luftwaffe intelligence reports the DAF fighters as Spit V's.
If all these other Spitfire varients were present, they certainly did not make a huge specific impact on the Luftwaffe pilots.
Crumpp
If nothing else it provided some comfort to the Spit V pilots
Originally posted by Crumpp
Thanks Guppy for clarifying that.
I definately agree that Spits became more potent. So didn't the Luftwaffe fighters.
Based off of Fabers FW-190A3 performance trials and crossed referenced with the tactical trials I think the Spit IX did provide more comfort to the RAF pilots. It's appearence is not even noticed in the Jagdwaffe FW 190 units on the Channel.
To the Luftwaffe the Spitfire started out a fighter to be respected and remained so throughout the war.
Pretty sure the reverse is the same for the 109 and 190.
Crumpp
Originally posted by Angus
Hey, don't make this into a 190 thread, 190 dweeb :D
Anyway, do you have the performance of the XII at hand?
I remember a tale of Harris. He had 190's jump his squad on purpose, countering with a high break. The 190's could not outzoom that one and had to run, but he could catch them.
Basically, after losing the initiative, the 190's couldn't do anything the XII couldn't.
I remember a tale of Harris. He had 190's jump his squad on purpose, countering with a high break. The 190's could not outzoom that one and had to run, but he could catch them.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Looking at the performance graphs for sea level performance, it looks like the FW-190A8 with the thin metal prop and 14 bladed Lufterrad is a little faster on the deck and climbs just as good.
With the wood wide chord prop, I think the FW-190A8 will be equal in speed and easily outclimb the Spit XII.
Crumpp
I would agree with that Guppy and Angus. The differences are so small that it could go either way in the air.
Originally posted by Nashwan
My memory must be worse than I thought, because I don't ever remember saying any such thing.
I did say only around 350 were built with Merlin 61 (afaik), but I think Isegrim has just assumed the Merlin 63, 66 and 70 were not fitted during until at least the second quarter of 43.
A quick glance at Spitfire the History proves that wrong, though, for example EN 478, first flight 17th Feb 43, En 476 13th Feb 43, En 479 24th Feb 43, En 480 19th Feb 43, etc (all with Merlin 63).
[/B]
I'm not looking through all 5000+ Spitfire IX serials to count how many were delivered before the first quarter of 1943, and you'd have to go through the Spit V serials as well to see which were converted. [/B]
Originally posted by Angus
So, anyway, in 1944 the skies were full of 109G10's and there were little pockets of resistance from Spit V's and a handful IX's right?
:D
Nashwan, you have a history for failing memory. One time you say one thing, a week later - the opposite and deny you ever claim anything else.
Nice switch about the second quarter Nashwan.
As for Mk IXs, Nashwan/Hop claims only some 350 were made in 1942 and Q1 of 1943
I did say only around 350 were built with Merlin 61 (afaik), but I think Isegrim has just assumed the Merlin 63, 66 and 70 were not fitted during until at least the second quarter of 43.
Because in other words, not a single Merlin 63/66/70 powered Spit IX before February 1943 (Merlin 63s entered service in February, 66 and 70 a month later).
Which leaves only the Merlin 61 powered Mk IXs up to Q1 of 1943.
As for Mk IXs, Nashwan/Hop claims only some 350 were made in 1942 and Q1 of 1943
Add to that maybe 1000-1500 Mk IXs produced in 1943
enough for what, 10 squadrons maybe?
A total ca5000 IXs was made,
about 300 in 1943, 1000 were supplied to the Russians, which leaves about 3700 for the RAF, produced in 1943, 1944, 1945.
Of course you dont. This would just prove how rare the Mk IX was until 1944.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
No, I presume the MkIXs were fairly widespread by 1944. There were about 20 squadrons in mid-1944 equipped with them in britain, that makes about 300-400 planes. MkVs were still around in some numbers.
The problem was, the LW was already well in the process of replacing the older Gs to the new high altitude models: G-6/AS, G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4 produced in huge numbers (alone of G-10 and K-4 4200+ were built..) by that time and against these, the MkIX`s performance was lacking a LOT at altitude.
The RAF wasn`t lagging behind the LW in technical development, but it was always one or two phase behind it in deployment...
Originally posted by Nashwan[/B]
Isegrim, I'm not responsible for your poor comprehension.
[/B]
You said 350 were made in 42 and Q1 43, I said more than that were made before Q2. It's exactly the same thing. Before Q2 = Q1, which is what you said.
[/B]
You are including Q1, so you have to include the planes that were produced in Q1. That includes Merlin 63 production.
[/B]
150 aircraft per squadron? Can I have some of what you're smoking?
[/B]
In a similar timeframe to the Spit IX, there were 100 Spitfire XIIs produced, equipped 2 squadrons.
[/B]
1000 Spitfire IXs in 1943 (plus 300 or so in 1942) would be ample for 25 - 30 squadrons. (not counting Spit VIIs in the UK, VIIIs in the Med etc)
[/B]
Actually about 5,600.
[/B]
Why are you removing the 1942 production?
5,600 Spitfire IXs produced, approx 1,180 sent to Russia. On top of that add 140 Spit VIIs, 1,680 Spit VIIIs, 1050 Spit XVIs.
Essentially 8,000 Merlin 60 series Spitfires.
According to the RAF website, "In February [1943], No 72 Squadron arrived in North Africa with Mk IXs.
By this time, most 11 Group squadrons had Mk IXs "
Pennypocket numbers again. Like with the XIVs. Too little, too late.
Originally posted by Nashwan
Damn, so that's why we lost the war!
Originally posted by Karnak
First you claim that 350 Spitfire IXs, all Merlin 61s, were built in '42 and Q1 '43. Then you concede that some Merlin 63 Spits were built in Q1 of '43, but your total accepted Spit IX production for '42 and Q1 '43 drops to 310?
Your math looks like this: 350 (Merlin 61) + x (Merlin 63) = 310. That means that -40 Merlin 63 Spitfires were built. That makes absolutely no sense.
You take no account of how these units were employed. You simply make up numbers and do a crude statistical analysis assuming that the units are evenly spread through the RAF.
Then when you look at your vaunted Bf109s and Fw190s you concentrate them all in the spot that best serves your bias. [/B]
The fact is that 1943 the Germans face Spitfire Mk IXs in numbers. [/B]
Spitfire Mk Vs were still in service, but the likely combat encounter for a Luftwaffe pilot, if encountering Spitfires, was Mk IXs. [/B]
You didn't get an Fw190 ace complaining that in 1943 the Spitfire was as good, or better, than his fighter in all ways other than roll rate because of the "awesome" Mk V. [/B]
You can try to rewrite history to favor your Fascist heroes all you want, but it doesn't make your view of history anything other than a fantasy. [/B]
Originally posted by Angus
From Izzy, about the massive hoardes of G10's and K's
"against these, the MkIX`s performance was lacking a LOT at altitude."
Are you sure they outperform the 1942 Mk IX (Merlin 61) above 40K or so???
Then on to the numbers.
Izzy seems to think that a Spitfire was a rare sight in the skies of WW2, don't know though where all the 109's eventually went.
After the summer of 1944, the former mighty LW was a well co-ordinated PENNYPOCKET nuicance force.
So, what happened with all the hoardes of 109's?
I'll compile a list of when most Spitfire squads re-equipped, when, and with what. I will scan it and mail it to the ones that want....
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Quite sure. Just look at at level speeds. Spit IXs looses, utterly.
Oh btw, 350 Merlin 61 IXs produced (Source:Nashwan). 2500 G-10s, 1600 K-4s, 1800 G-14/AS, 700 G-6/AS were produced, plus the change (G-5/AS).
They were well, all 1435 of them in service on 31st January 1945, 933 of them G-10, G-14/AS, K-4; further 527 in reserve.
Originally posted by Guppy35
Izzy, you aren't looking at the LW vs Spit IX in 43 bit very well.
I'm sure you know that there were different "Groups" in the RAF that covered certain areas of England.
11 Group was the one involved in the offensive ops over France due to it's location. This means it was the place to be if you were an RAF Spit pilot in 43. It also means that the Spit IX squadrons were operating in 11 Group.Quote[/B]
So while you could argue that there may have been more Spit Vs overall in Fighter Command at the time, it would be wrong to say the Vs were seeing the majority of combat.
So basically you make an assumption on a single Group, ignoring all others theathres of combat? Was there no combat with Spits over Africa, Sicily, Italy, (+the Far East) ? Or that doesn`t count ?
Most of these theatres were relying on MkVs, or not even Spitfires, obsolate planes like the P-40 and Hurricanes. The problem was, they faced up-to-date 109G there as well. In the end of June 1943, 1100 out of the 1258 Bf 109 type daylight fighters were Gustav, but practically all on the frontlines, for similiar reasons you would find the older planes in rear areas in the RAF.
The RAF however NEVER have enough of the newer planes, and had to fill the ranks with old ones... Hurris in 1940 and 1941... Spit Vs, P-40s in 1942-43... MkIXs in 1944-45.Quote
An example from Ramrod 312, November 11, 1943 to the Todt HQ in the Pas De Calaise:
...
So you have 13 Spit IX Squadrons involved, 2 Spit XII and 1 Spit VII to go with the 5 Spit V Squadrons that flew close escort.
That's 16 squadrons of later Mark Spits to go with the 5 Spit V Squadrons. The math looks pretty simple.
Indeed it does look simple. Most, if not all IX squadrons in the entire england in the very end of 1944 amounted 13... every squadron has 20 planes maximum on paper, 12 are usable for operations - the rest are reserves. Even in the best case, we have a mere ca 150 MkIXs in the entire British Isles where they were concentrated. Oh, plus the change, 30-40 XIIs and VIIs.
Of course it would be much easier to just take a glance at the OOB of the RAF in say, mid-1943, but sadly none of these are in sight. Until that, the number of aircraft produced clearly shows the MkVs were dominant for most of 1943. Those poor RAF guys flying them...
Originally posted by Guppy35
Spit Squadrons that operated IXs in 1943:
....
I count 56 Squadrons that operated the Spitfire IX during 1943. Did they all have them on January 1, 1943? No. But these squadrons all had them at some point in 1943 which tells you how things must have looked going into 44 as well.
56 x 12 =672 if my math is right. And generally a Squadron had 18 aircraft minimum to keep 12 operational so that gives you roughly 1008 Spit IXs tied up in those 56 Squadrons.[/B]
Originally posted by MiloMorai[/B]
You compare an a/c produced in late 1942 to the production of 109s after the production of the a/c had changed to another engine.:rolleyes:
[/B]
Yet Barbi dares to say this:
That`s nice, but I don`t see how the bulk of MkIXs/VIIIs/XVIs produced in 44/45 would do anything with 1942/43. :rolleyes:
So his numbers add up to 6600 109s, yet Merlin powered Spitfire production (after the Mk V) was 8470 a/c. To that Spit number must be added the Mk XIIs and Mk XIVs.
More number manipulation by Barbi. Facing the Allies in NW Europe there was only 666 109s 'onhand' of which only 463 were servicable.
Originally posted by Angus[/B]
Oh, oh, at it again.
I won't quote servicability numbers, there are others that have them much more handy than I.
But 2 aircraft over the beaches of Normandy on D-day, 3 waves over Arnhem, only a slight interception in the last one, etc etc shows how thin the once mighty LW had become at the fall of 1944.
[/B]
Then to turning circles.
Most of both allied and axis pilots agree on the same, - the Spitfire outturns the 109. 109 May win the game if loadouts and pilot skill are in its favour. Simple as that.
[/B]
And for your info, I AM compiling the list. It will however be in XLS format, and I'll perhaps gladly mail it to everybody EXCEPT Izzy, heheheheheheheeheh
:D
(Well, since it's already decided there will be no list)
So,finally, aside, what was the ceiling of the G10 and Kurfurst?
And the 109F and G2-G6?
Originally posted by Kurfürst
That is because the RAF was still relying on old, obsolate 1942 a/c even in 1945. As you say, my comparision is not 'fair', but so unfair was life, too, MkIXs had to struggle against K-4s which outclassed them greatly.
[/B]
I doubt anyone understands what you trouble is, poor Milo. Maybe you need a girlfriend. Or boyfriend. Or just a friend at last. :D
No manipulation involved on my part, poor Milo, I just showed how many 109s were in the LW in 1945.
Facing the LW in NW Europe was the 2nd TAF, made up by 30 Squadrons of MKIX/XVI, and 5 MKXIVs. These had maximum 420 planes on hand, +180 in reserve.
75% of the Bf 109s were of the newest type, with superior altitude performance.
85% of the Spitfires were of old types. [/B]
Originally posted by Guppy35[/B]
You just don't get it Izzy.
You going to forget the 1600 or so VIIIs produced too? The parent company at Supermarine was focused solely on VIII production by June of 43 and had phased out IX production there. VIII were going to the Med, Far East and Australia as they were tropicalized.
You want to throw all these numbers around but you don't really want to listen as you've decided that somehow all that the RAF was flying well into 44 was the Spit V.
Somehow the numbers are all you focus on not how the Spits were used.[/B]
The premiere Spit Wings flying out of England in late 42 into 43 were flying Spit IXs. Tangmere had the XIIs, Kenley, Biggen Hill, Hornchurch, etc all were operating IX Wings.[/B]
These were the guys seeking out the LW over France.[/B]
Since you are so big on numbers, lets go back to that November 11,1943 raid where I detailed the operation.
They were not intercepted at all. None of the flights.[/B]
Where were all these thousands of 109s that day? Where were they that entire month? 190s tried to intercept a raid on the 25th. That's it. 2 TAF didn't see LW fighters at all outside of the 1 time in November.[/B]
I go through the logbooks of these Spit pilots from 43 and they rarely see enemy aircraft? Why is that if there are all these 1000s of 109s lurking about?
[/B]
I have the logbook of a RCAF Spit driver who started Ops in December 41 and finished in August 44. He saw enemy planes exactly 7 times in 289 combat sorties. Only five of these times were they fighters and they only engaged 1 time.
Where were all those 109s?
[/B]
Originally posted by Guppy35[/B]
LOL no manipulation. That's why the IXs and XVI pilots were flying ground attack to hide from the 109s.
And here I thought it's because they couldn't find any 109s to fight with.[/B]
Originally posted by Karnak
Barbi,
You have no records backing up your claims and yet you persist in taking an absolutist stance on the subject.
You are utterly hopeless.
Originally posted by Karnak
Barbi,
Not one of your claims is backed up by anything other than your assumptions of what the numbers mean, and you accuse us of lacking proof?:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Kurfürst
No manipulation involved on my part, poor Milo, I just showed how many 109s were in the LW in 1945.
Facing the LW in NW Europe was the 2nd TAF, made up by 30 Squadrons of MKIX/XVI, and 5 MKXIVs. These had maximum 420 planes on hand, +180 in reserve.
Originally posted by Guppy35[/B]
You still miss the essential point. Now you imply the RAF was avoiding combat with their Spits. When you make comments like that, it's clear there is no talking to you.
Originally posted by Guppy35[/B]
Since the 109 is clearly the greatest propeller driven fighter ever built why did the LW build the 190?
Originally posted by Guppy35[/B]
Since the Spits were hiding and the LW was dominant, why did the Allies win the war?
Originally posted by Guppy35[/B]
Based on your conclusions, I should assume that the Spitfire, or any Allied fighter for that matter, was a design abortion that should never have flown and clearly was utterly outclassed by the 109.
Isn't that it in a nutshell?
Originally posted by Angus
oh, more for Izzy
Spit IX's (merlin 61) could cruise at 43K already in 1942. That was
way above the 109's ceiling in that time.
Originally posted by HoHun
Yes, I was about to point that out. The Me 109 could not take the next-generation engines like the DB603 or the Jumo 213, but the Fw 190 could. That meant the Fw 190 line had all options for further development, while the Me 109 was stuck with the DB605 which had reached the end of its development potential in 1945.
As for 109 vs. 190, the 109F was tested in Rechlin vs. the 190A-2, and despite the latter being the newer design, the German basically found the 109 in almost every way superior in combat performance.
Based on this report the RLM decided too keep the FW190 in production, accelerate the developement of the BMW801 to make it more reliable and replace the Bf109s of the west front JGs (JG26 & JG2) as fast as possible with the new airplane.[/B]
I doubt the RLM would have taken the above action if they found the 109 in almost every way superior in combat performance. [/B]
Originally posted by MiloMorai[/B]
Again you manipulate the 109 numbers Barbi. How many of those 109s were facing the Allies in NW Europe?
[/B]
On hand and what were capable of combat (servicable) is another of your dis-information tactics.
Why is that relevant Milo?
How many Spitfires were servicable in January 1945? You shouldn`t count squadron reserves or planes that were non servicable.
nice switch Milo, since when the single Luftflotte 3 equal the entire LW?
31 May 1945
The strength of the Royal Air Force (RAF) stands at some 55,469 aircraft as at this date, of which 9,200 were first-line machines.
Now Milo, either compare like with the like, servicable a/c of the LW on West vs. servicable aircraft of the RAF in NW europe.. or just stuck it up and shut up.
Even you numbers, if they have any connection to real life, show 154 Bf 109s of the Reichsverteidigung, plus 452 with the Luftflotte 3. That`s 606 Bf 109s on the West, and don`t include any of the reserves.
we can count RAF squadrons at their nominal 20 plane strenght, but then we should also count LW reserves
Originally posted by Angus
Well, I guess the LW forgot to train navigation.
How else can thousands of planes miss something 100 miles long, travelling at low to medium alt at 150 miles, 3 days within a week........in DAYLIGHT ....
Oh, maybe it didn't happen except in the angieworld.....:D
Originally posted by MiloMorai[/B]
Your the one Barbi that is not comparing like with like > front line a/c to front line a/c in combat units. The RAF's MU, OCU and OTU can be added in if you so desire.
What reserves? The JG Gruppes could not even equipe themselves with enough sevicable a/c to bring their numbers up to their theoretical full compliment of a/c.
[/B]
Nope you can't because they were not on the books of front line units.
'Onhand' is not much use if they can't get into the air Barbi by sitting on the ground waiting for maintainance to make them servicable for combat.
[/B]
Luft 3 - 452
Luft Reich - 154
front line total - 606 on hand of which only 446 were combat capable.
Originally posted by HoHun
Well, I don't know how much effort went into redesigning the Spitfire for the Griffon. The RLM considered the effort to redesign the Me 109 prohibitive, but I've got to admit I haven't the full story but read only one protocol.
>In September 1944, Bf 109G Werknummer 410 528 was built with a Jumo 213 E (same as in Ta-152H), four blade porpellor, being a prototype for an unarmed, high alt photo recce.
Thanks, I hadn't been aware of that.[/B]
>So I guess fitting goodies like the 603N was indeed a possibility. Mtt would probably not proceed with those, I think, the jets were there, and in view of those "P-thousend" projects, further development of the 109 just didn`t make sense, not to say the date was 1945.
Yes, the development of the Fw 190 line made more sense at the time. It wasn't only the larger engine, but also the increased fuel load out, the armament etc. that made a larger (though heavier :-) airframe more sensible. The Ta 152 was even envisioned to take the Jumo 222, but I suspect that wouldn't have been a simple bolt-on job either :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun) [/B]
The RAF had only 1-2 operational a/c in many of it`s fighter squadrons instead of 20 in late 1944. They were far less capable of bringing their numbers up to their theoretical full compliment of a/c it seems. One would understand 1-2 aircraft missing, but 90% of the squadron?!
They were, Erganzungsgeschwaders were frontline units, and of course you play the dirty trick of not listing them.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Oh of course it did happen Angie. Just count the crosses around arheim. Thousends of them... As you said LW fighters turned up and shot down a number of aircraft. Most of the LW concentrated in Germany, against the USAAF bombing raids at that time. Ask the USAAF bomber crews about their experiences... they lost 241 aircraft to enemy fighters in September, compared to 150-160 in July and August.
The rest is history. Units of the W-SS and heavy tanks encircled British paratroopers (hmm, where was ULTRA, they expected 2nd line troops..), and practically wiped them out to the last men. wehrmacht soldiers with pistols, rifles and mgs were playing turkey shot at the transports freely. Where was the RAF to save them? They didn`t even have supplies! Why were they not evacuated by air?
Originally posted by Oldman731
Having kept my mouth shut to this point, I am finally moved to ask:
Kurfurst....are you happy with who won the war, or do you wish it had turned out otherwise?
- oldman
In September 1944, Bf 109G Werknummer 410 528 was built with a Jumo 213 E (same as in Ta-152H), four blade porpellor, being a prototype for an unarmed, high alt photo recce
Fw 190 Sturm groups
Originally posted by Naudet[/B]
Kurfürst, we speak of the same report and yes i own the entire document.
[/B]
I find it pretty funny that you say the FW190 was choosen because the LW in the West faced mostly bombers, which for 1941 (and this is the time of the report) werer the LW almost only battled RAF fighters is really not true..
Beauvais, the german chief test pilot in Rechin, wrote in a text about the 109:
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is interesting because Beauvais clearly states in the report that Gollob was prejudicial to the 109.
That`s a highly subjective understanding of what Beauvais "clearly states" :
"In autumn 41 Gollob came to rechlin with the order to compare the BF 109 to the FW 190. He and his fellows prefered instincivly the 190."
In fact Gollob selected the call sign's for the aircraft.
For the 109 - "Adler"
For the 190 - "Otto"
And...?
All before the first flight took place. Gollob's report reads:
Can I see the full report?
Here is the 109F series:
And it's FW-190A 801D2 powered contemporary:
Hmm, the 801D2 power FWs were contemporary to the F-4 and G-2 in 1942. At that time, the D-2 engine was restricted to 1.32ata, the F-4 already run at 1.42ata, the G-2 at 1.3ata.
At these boost, sl speeds were the following :
190 A-3/4 : 540 kph (from crummps curves)
109 F-4 : 537 kph
109 G-2 : 525 kph
ROC of the FW190 is ~15.5. ROC of the G-2 was 21m/sec - at Kampfleistung! I guess the F-4 was similiar on full power.
I don`t see the advantage you are talking about. The superiority at altitude for the 109 is, however, clear.
The below is from flight tests in Rechlin, F-4 vs. A-2 :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1104514716_vergleich_me109_-_fw190_03.jpg)
The performance data for the Bf 109 F-4 and the FW 190 A-1 or A-2 (FW 190 with engine BMW 801 C) were flown, the data for the modified FW 190 A-2 (FW 190 with engine BMW 801 D) and the Me 109 G project however only calculated.
The tests show the clear advantage of the 109F-4 over the contemporary FW 190A-2 in both speed and climb at ALL altitudes.
For the 109G14 and 109K4:
Even the older model FW-190A5 is faster on the deck and I will wager, just as Willi Reschke claims, the FW-190A climbs better at lower altitudes.
Huh? SL speeds :
A-5 : 565 kph
G-14 : 568 kph
G-14/AS : 560 km/
K-4 :
-580 kph with DM (early engine, replaced by DB/DC after a few intial aircraft)
-593 w. DB 1.8
-607 kph w. DC/1.98
All 1944 109s are just as fast as the 190As, the K is considerably faster, even at low levels.
As for climb rates, even the claim is ridiculus that the 190 would compete w the 109. :D The lowest climb rate you would find for an 1944 109 was 22-23 m/sec at full power. Even the best climbing D-9, after equipped w. MW50 in 1945, was good for no more than ca. 22m/sec. The other As could do about 17-18 m/sec at best...
Now as I understand it. The 109K4 was not cleared for 1.98ata with MW50 until the last months of the war. At that point, it is equal to the FW-190A8/801TS or FW-190A9 on the deck. The FW-190D series is much faster by this time than either of them.
As for 1.98ata, I have seen evidence that DB was supplying the frontline with the engines set to 1.98ata already in 1944.
Dec 5 handbook of the DB/DC notes the use of 1.98ata, and no restrictions mentioned. If you know any evidence to the contrary, please let me know. I haven`t seen any.
I`d like to see evidence of the A8/TS and the A-9 ever coming near 600kph on the deck. The D-9s did not receive serially built in MW 50 until early 1945, even with which their speed was only marginally higher than the 109K`s at 1.98ata (615kph vs. 607 kph).
At high altitudes the 109 was superior but at lower altitudes the FW-190 was hands down the better fighter for air-to-air combat.
Actually the FW 190`s only advantage over the 109 was roll rate, and 2-30 kph speed at the deck in 1943. In all other respects, turn rate, acceleration, and especially climb rate, the 109 was superior. The 190A was not really mature until 1943...
Hmm, the 801D2 power FWs were contemporary to the F-4 and G-2 in 1942. At that time, the D-2 engine was restricted to 1.32ata, the F-4 already run at 1.42ata, the G-2 at 1.3ata.
rue for all aircraft, so pretty much irrevelant. Besides I think the 109 would gain more from closing the radiators, they created far more drag when open the gills on fw.
No, they were, for a time, to 1.35iirc, they had cooling problems (rear cylinder banks).
Not according to Rechlin.
Given the evidence of flight tests, he is wrong.
I doubt the 190s cooling grills would be THAT serious.
JG301 had one group of these, to be replaced with the Bf 109K-4/R6.
Originally posted by Naudet
First i like to ask about Butch's Board, does he have opened a new one or put the old back on?
If yes, please give me a link to it, because that board was always a source of exellent discussions and informations.
Crumpp, AFAIK in AH the 190A-8 is faster than the 109G-6 down low.
That explains why 109`s Gruppen were assigned for high cover of FW 190s and not vica versa.
Originally posted by Crumpp[/B]
Facts are:
The Bf-109 did not have the punch for an average Luftwaffe pilot to have ANY chance of bringing down a single bomber with the 109's entire ammo load.
[/B]
Put the Gondies on a 109 and it barely has the required punch but loses the performance to survive against the escorting allied fighters.
You know I wonder, Crummp, how could the 4300kg+ 190A w. 2000 HP 801TS even hope to catch up with the 3300kg 109G/K w. 2000 HP...? Physics thrown out of the window?
Yeah, I'd like to see the 190's redone as well, however I don't think we can expect a game designer to put as many hours into research as you have done. It is not unreasonable for HTC to model the 190 series the way they have done since the current performance is the general impression people have of these planes. Would be nice to see them redone, but I'd expect a lot of whining from Allied fans ignorant of the true nature of the 190.
I already proved the opposite.
Why?
Originally posted by GScholz
It is not unreasonable for HTC to model the 190 series the way they have done since the current performance is the general impression people have of these planes.
How many A-9`s were made w. TS?
As for 1.98ata, I have seen evidence that DB was supplying the frontline with the engines set to 1.98ata already in 1944.
Dec 5 handbook of the DB/DC notes the use of 1.98ata, and no restrictions mentioned. If you know any evidence to the contrary, please let me know. I haven`t seen any.
There are of course some who proceed with the agenda to prove it was "never officially cleared". By coincidence, such claims only show up when it comes to performance comparision with their favourite aircraft...
S : Crumpp, unless you back up your claims with flight tests or direct comparisons, that`s my last word on the subject. I do not wish to discuss you subjective beliefs, as they are not proven right objectively, and they can`t be proven wrong to you anyways. My points are firmly backed up by the evidence of flight tests and direct comparisons, so I don`t have to prove any further.
Top Level speed has nothing to do with top level acceleration. If it would have, even the P-47 would accelerate as well or better than the FW 190. From tests we know the P-47 compared as a pig to the 190 in acceleration.
As for high speed control, the 190 was better with lighter controls, but 109 pilots didn`t find it difficult to control the plane either at high speeds.
Originally posted by Angus
When it comes to speed, zoom and roll, I was just wondering if anyone had the performance of the clipped, chopped and cropped Spitfire MkIX's (+25 boost).
Originally posted by Angus
But the clipped some Mk IX's right?
And altered the turbine?
Originally posted by MANDO
Kurfürst, vertical zoom climb has little or nothing to do with power/weight ratio. That ratio is so insignificant for WW2 planes that we can take it out of the equation for vertical zooms. 450hp/t or 490hp/t mean the same, attach these engines pointing up to a mass of 4000 and 3000 Kg and see what happens: nothing.
For as it stands, the AFDU tests clearly showed the P-51 and Tempest markedly superior to the FW 190A.
Power to weight ratio is important. Two main factors apply to zoom climbs: Power to weight ratio and weight.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Shaw's book has a great example of the P51 not being able to zoom with an FW-190A.
And real life test have even better example the 190A biting the dust while trying to zoom with the P-51, the 109 easily keeping up with it.
Here the 109 is FAR behind the FW-190 at low altitudes:
LOL, Bf 109G-6 with gunpods, without Methanol, standard in 1944, lololol. Some comparision!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1104622742_doraspeed3.3.jpg)
Here we have-
560kph at Sea Level using Max Emergency power for the Bf-109G14
568 kph for the Bf-109G14/U3
580 Kph for the Bf-109K4.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1104593038_bf109k4-performances-chart1.jpg)
Now lets look at the FW-190A8:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1104588952_translated-fwchart.jpg)
Lets see 578kph is DEFINATELY faster than 560kph or 568kph for the Bf-109G14.
By 10 km/h (wow, now THAT`s an advantage.. 6mph), provided the FW 190A-8`s results don`t take into account compressibility, they don`t have the ETC501 rack installed, the gear flaps are installed, the surface is smoothened and filled....
At 7.5km, the G-14/AS beats the A-8 by 60 km/h, 680kph vs. a miserable 620...Well actually even the G-2 beats it 2 years earlier...No wonder they needed those 109 escorts. :D
]The Bf-109G14 came out in JULY '44.
Except of course the G-14`s performance was the same as the G-6/AS`s w. MW 50, which appeared 8 months sooner, in December 1943... The G-14 just standardized things.
The SAME month the FW-190A8, which wasalready substantially faster than even the NEW Bf-109G14, was being re-engined to FW-190A9 standards!
"substantially faster". <---He means 10 kph. :lol
I wonder what 60km/h is then... The Millenium Falcon compared to a 3-legged donkey?:D
TS/TH powerplants were never standard on the A-8, only a handful were so powered.
So in reality, FW-190A8's are leaving Bf-109G6's in the dust at low altitudes with such a speed difference 109 Gruppes are complaining!!
In Crumpp`s own private reality, that is... :lol
FW-190A9 does 595kph on the deck at 1.82ata@2700U/min. Much faster than the Bf-109K4 does until the last month of the war were it was able to equal the speed.
Considering the K-4 did 593 kph at SL at the lowest boost it and worst configuration according to it`s ORIGINAL documentation, and not prelimanary GLC charts from August 1944, dated 3 months before it`s actual operational service...
So Crumpp`s directory :
"much faster" = +2 km/h
"substantially faster" = +10 kph :lol
The A-9 wasn`t even faster when it run at maximum boost
Naturally the K-4 was much faster (oh no, sorry.."substantially faster" ) when full boost is compared with full boost, at 607 kph, it`s 12km/h faster than the A-9.
By then however, the FW-190A was replaced by the FW-190D9.
Sadly the D-9 initially had no MW50 to play with until February 1945, and in this state it could do 576 kph only according to the JG 26 war diary, and even according to Crumpp`s own docs... vs. 593 kph of the K-4 at low boost, 607 kph on high boost.
The hard facts are the 109 never got it's moment in the sun after the BMW 801C powered 190A's.
It`s hard BS. No 190 pilot ever came even near that of the achievements of 109 pilots, No 190 unit ever came even near that of the achievements of 109 units. 109s escorted 190s in the West, 109s were employed as fighters in East.
Except of course the G-14`s performance was the same as the G-6/AS`s w. MW 50, which appeared 8 months sooner, in December 1943... The G-14 just standardized things.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Interesting, then there must be another reason why the 109 was better in zoom climbs than the 190.
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, pure zoom has nothing to do with power, power comes on top of the thing.
Originally posted by Angus
The finest zooming thing of WW2 had no power from it's initial start, i.e. probably some caliber of naval gun shooting from 0K to 16Km or so if you get what I mean.
http://www.acepilots.com/german/nowotny.html
LOL, Bf 109G-6 with gunpods, without Methanol, standard in 1944, lololol. Some comparision!
And real life test have even better example the 190A biting the dust while trying to zoom with the P-51, the 109 easily keeping up with it.
By 10 km/h (wow, now THAT`s an advantage.. 6mph), provided the FW 190A-8`s results don`t take into account compressibility, they don`t have the ETC501 rack installed, the gear flaps are installed, the surface is smoothened and filled....
S/TH powerplants were never standard on the A-8, only a handful were so powered.
Wow, this has became truly a hilarious thread. I'm sure Pyro will improve flight models of the Bf 109 and Fw 190 soon because these experts here have so convincing data.
Originally posted by Crumpp
As funny as your aeronautical theories!!
Originally posted by Angus
So, when it goes to comparing aircraft which revert from fast level flight (or dive) to a steep climb, the pure climb potency becomes less important than the mass * speed, especially in the beginning.
Then, the thrust+lift vs weight becomes gradually more important.
Originally posted by GScholz
This is exactly what I described in my previous posts. Plead read them more carefully.
Well, if some one is interested about funny aeronautical theories, then just look for the Crumpp's "wet lifting area" or his theory on swept back wings in another thread ("Explain this and win the prize").
This is exactly what I described in my previous posts. Plead read them more carefully.
Originally posted by GScholz
Also note that the higher the initial speed, the more the weight factor becomes dominant. Likewise, the lower the initial speed the more power to weight factor becomes dominant.
Also note that in a match up between a heavy plane with poor power to weight, and a light plane with good power to weigh: All other factors being equal the heavier plane will always pull away from the lighter plane initially in the zoom. The lighter plane however will catch up in the final stages of the climb. Even if both planes can zoom up to the exact same altitude, the heavier plane will always get halfway first. This is because in the initial stage speed is high and so is drag. That means there is little available excess engine power since most of it is countering drag. Inertia is then the only force available to counter gravity in a zoom climb. However as speed falls off, so does drag, and more excess engine power becomes available to counter gravity. This happens just about when the P-47 starts to flounder while its pilot is chanting "stall! stall! stall!" to the 109/Spit/Lala/Niki that is hanging on its propeller behind him slowly climbing closer and closer.
Originally posted by Angus
So, when it goes to comparing aircraft which revert from fast level flight (or dive) to a steep climb, the pure climb potency becomes less important than the mass * speed, especially in the beginning.
Then, the thrust+lift vs weight becomes gradually more important.
Originally posted by GScholz
This is exactly what I described in my previous posts. Plead read them more carefully.
Originally posted by MANDO
Quite the opposite.
Originally posted by MANDO
In any case, lets compare a 88mm AA gun with a 12.5mm MG, both firing at 70 degrees, the 12'5mm have even better muzzle velocity and the 88mm shell is more draggy, which is going to have better range? Now go a place a very small propeller at the nose of these 12.5 rounds, with a ridiculous power/weight ratio and lets see whether that improves the range or not ...
Originally posted by Crumpp
And if you look at the power curves of the 801 vs. DB engines in their contemporary planes, the 801 maintains a large power advantage at low altitudes. As much as 300 or more horsepower depending on the engine/alt considered.
Crumpp
I have no doubt. I've always been of the belief that the 190 was the superior performer at lower altitudes. The only reason the 109 was better at altitude was because the DB didn't lose as much power as the BMW did with alt. IMHO of course.
"Die Höhenruderkräfte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr groß." (The elevator forces and fin loads become very large during high speed)
Originally posted by Angus
Hi all
Just popped in to tell you that I am prowling along with that RAF document.
It will basically list all fighter deploys to all RAF fighter units at all fronts (AFAIK)
So, not just the Spits, - hell gotta read it all to hair them out, so I'd better do all.
Many surprizes. Such as mk V's being deployed (although in little quantity) as late as 43/44, while griffon engined XII's had been around for a while!!!!
And XIV's in the far east actually!
One squad went all the way from Gladiators to Tempests in mere 4 years.
Feel free to ask, but warning, I'm only up to 41st sqn, gotta go all the way to 600+
Originally posted by MiloMorai[/b]
For Barbi.
You should read this report, especially the last paragraph about 100 grade fuel and note the date of 11.39.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1-12lbs.jpg
Lets not hear any more about the lack of 100 grade fuel during BoB.
It`s well known the 109 series produced high stick forces on the elevator at high speeds, yet not high enough to restict the the airplanes manouveribilty, which was still above what an avarage pilot could sustain.
Beware also that the handpicking includes high-alt Spits for sl speeds, and Low-alt Spits for ceiling, and then finally, for ultimate rollrate, pick the extended-wing-high-alt Spit
I just checked, a total of 180 A-9s, 353 D-9s were delivered from the factories to the 1st line daylight fighter units up to dec31 1944.
Source of this BS?
Oh, and btw 1700 K-4s were produced, Crummp, 856 of them up to dec 31st 1944. Apprx. 450 of these were already issued to the troops by that time, supplemented by ca 535 of the 'bastard' G-10d, all fresh from the factories!
Originally posted by Crumpp
No Bf-109G6's received MW-50 EXCEPT for a few R2 photoreconnaissance versions.
Well Knoke`s diary mentions, on 28th April 1944 :
"We received new aircraft with high altitude supercharges, fresh from the factory. These planes are also fitted with the MW device of which`s development I also participated."
So the vast quantities of MW-50 powered G6's before July '44 are simply fiction. An untruth does not get any truer with the number of times it is repeated. Only a "possibility" existed which there is exists no proof.
Are you and Goebbels related in any way?
As for you source, it`s a joke.
The guy who wrote doesn`t have the slightest idea of designations used in the 109. His "G-6/R3". Only Rustzustand were noted in the designation, Rustsatz, like Rustatz III., installation of a droptank, or Rustsatz VI, gondola guns did NOT change the desingation etc.... who`s that guy anyway?
Besides you don`t even understand your rather poor source, because it does not state anywhere MW was not used before mid-44, only that it become a standard by then.
Prien/Rodeike notes : "Equally common was the retroffiting of MW 50 injection, resulting in the G-6/U3. The only external difference between U2 and U3 was the servicing triangle painted beneath the filler hatch, which specified mixture to be used. Conversion from U2 to U3 was a simple matter." Page 108.
Now to your graphically representation of nothing....
You have the deck speed of the Bf-109K4 at 1.8 ata as 595kph!!
Well over what it could actually do.
Really, Messerscmitt must have gone mad, because he says so in this graph :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1104933917_109k_db18.jpg)
So 580kph was the TOP speed of the Bf-109K4 at sea level.
Nope, 595 kph on 1.8ata. 607 kph on 1.98ata.
The FW-190A8/801S could do 595kph at sea level.
That`s way slower than what the K-4 was capable of :
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/715_1104924968_spd_109gkvsixvs190ad.jpg)
I told you will love that graph.
"We received new aircraft with high altitude supercharges, fresh from the factory. These planes are also fitted with the MW device of which`s development I also participated."
As the air war progressed through 1942 and 1943, newer variants of the 109 were introduced in an effort to maintain a competitive advantage. From an aerodynamic standpoint, incremental changes were introduced with the original G series, and a seminal change became evident with the introduction of the G-6 variant in early 1943. This model introduced higher-caliber cowl guns (13mm MG131s vs. 7.7mm MG17s on earlier models), but substantial modifications were required to the airframe in order to accommodate this change. Aerodynamically, the aircraft suffered from the addition of two large circular fairings covering the feed chutes for the MG131s, and the increased weight of the weapons and their ammunition led to a further slight decline in performance. Clearly, more power was required.
DB605ASM: Provisions for the use of MW50 additive with 96 octane C3 fuel. It was possible to use standard 87 octane B4 fuel with this engine, in which case the use of MW50 was absolutely required to obtain the best possible power and avoid engine damage. The compression ratio of the engine was raised as well, to 8.3:1 (left) and 8.5:1 (right), giving 1,800 h.p. at 1.7 ata at takeoff. Other changes introduced with this variant included a larger capacity oil cooler (Fo987) and redesigned cylinder head covers, both of which were fitted to the DB605D as well. (source: Mermet, p. 9/10) The Fo987 was first evaluated on G-6/AS W.Nr. 16550 (KT+DX) in June 1944 (source: Monogram Luftwaffe Interiors, p. 155).
Nope, 595 kph on 1.8ata. 607 kph on 1.98ata.
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is about correct for the Focke Wulf. However it does not look like they include some of the subcontracted factories.
Crumpp
Would not the C-Amt Monatsmeldung include non Fw construction (ie subcontracted factories)?
So 580kph was the TOP speed of the Bf-109K4 at sea level.
Nope, 595kph on 1.8ata. 607 kph on 1.98ata.
The FW-190A8/801S could do 595kph at sea level.
The guy who wrote doesn`t have the slightest idea of designations used in the 109. His "G-6/R3". Only Rustzustand were noted in the designation, Rustsatz, like Rustatz III., installation of a droptank, or Rustsatz VI, gondola guns did NOT change the desingation etc.... who`s that guy anyway?
Prien/Rodeike notes : "Equally common was the retroffiting of MW 50 injection, resulting in the G-6/U3. The only external difference between U2 and U3 was the servicing triangle painted beneath the filler hatch, which specified mixture to be used. Conversion from U2 to U3 was a simple matter." Page 108.
The Monatsmeldungen include all factories producing fresh a/c and on a separate sheets the a/c coming from reparation centers or conversion centers.
Report No. F-TS-406-RE dated 10 Sept. 1945.
"First use by unit in October 43 when some testing Gustavs were delivered to operational units, real deploiement in April 1944.
AHA! Poor Knoke, he mixed up the type of his aircraft, the boost of his aircraft, and the date in his diary which he recorded 1-2 day within the events...
The 4th possibilty is that a blind 190 zealot, after being confronted with the real performance specs, makes up stories to twist the truth.
There`s a 2500x1200 pixel sized scan of an original Mtt document showing 595 kph at SL, with a low boost.
You lied about the A-8`s introduction, you keep lying about the introduction of MW into the G-6s, you keep calling Knoke a liar because, you keep lying about the engines fitted to the A-8, you keep lying about the production and availability of the a-9s...
Crump says:
I am not surprised Izzy. They were constantly trying to get it to work acceptably in the 109.
Crumpp says:
If it came "fresh from the factory" the other possibility is Knoke has his dates mixed up. He is only a few months off.
Third possibility is these are Bf-109G6/U2's with GM-1 and Knoke has his boost systems confused. The U2's did come out in "early '44" according to Rodeike. After Jul '44 they were approved for MW-50 use and it was very easy to convert them.
2. I have the test flight reports from 1943
Originally posted by MANDO
Angus, it seems you found the well known and probably most biased site on iternet about WW2 fighters.
A bit different story than told in the Izzy graph......
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, Spot on Crumpp.
That's why I'm making my own, and I will call on you all to provide data, and mail the xls to you as well ;)
Originally posted by Angus
Hello
Excel can be a pain!
What I could easily do in 1980's basic, I cannot do in Excel!!!!
AFAIK, it actually cannot either.
I have mailed the ideas to shubie, if they are of any use.
I am continuing with Excel, but since there are gaps to fill in for full accuracy, it will take a lot of calculation.
(Calculating speed or climb for every 100 feet of alt from deck ti ceiling, having calculated climb rate (as an average between available points) or speed available in every one)
So, the quickest way seems to be to use a sheet of millimeter paper, a ruler and a pencil, even today.
Unless you know of some really simple and good graph application.
However, as an end effect, the XLS thing will be mammothly huge, and should provide every data of climb and speed from start to end, IN NUMBERS ;)
So, will check in later
Originally posted by GScholz
As for the Lalas: First flight of re-engined LaGG-3: January 1942.
Production start La-5: June 1942.
Production start La-5FN: late 1942.
Production start La-7: June 1943.
I think the Yak 3 appeardd in 44/45.
The Yak-3 with the VK-105 engine did see continuous use in the last year and a few months of the war.
Originally posted by Angus
I think the Yak 3 appeardd in 44/45.
Originally posted by Angus
This I found:
"The first attempt to build a fighter called the Yak-3 was shelved in 1941 due to a lack of building materials and an unreliable engine.
Btw Crummp it's not a VK 105 but a VK 105 PF2.
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, Straffo, TY in advance if you can dig up something.
Also, if you need some info, I may be able to help. Just post :)
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The Spitfire was probalby a not easy plane to master with so sensitive elevators for an ill trained rookie.
Originally posted by Angus
I belive Rall's fears were based on :
1. Former experience fighting the RAF pilots.
2. Former experience fighting with Spitfires.
Bear in mind that his squadron got mauled so badly in the BoB that it was pulled out of battle after 6 days of fighting.[/B]
As for your takeoff run, I have never seen anything indicating that a 109 would go up quicker, - rather the contrary.[/B]
You mentioned that the 109 would groundloop easier, - true enough, normally KILLING the pilot. (Krupinsky being one of the luckier ones)[/B]
Now for the propeller, you're probably right. Normal prop clearance for the Spit was only 6 inches.
But that was also the case with many other WW2 era aircraft. [/B]
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, something debated by Izzy...
"Bear in mind that his squadron got mauled so badly in the BoB that it was pulled out of battle after 6 days of fighting."
SQN: III JG 52. Where did 8 come from?
Started engagements 24/6/40, withdrawn due to heavy losses on the 29th.
Originally posted by Angus[/B]
Now then second paragraph.
Rall claimed 3 Spitfires, all Soviet flown.
He clashed with them in the BoB, so he knew their looks and movements.
FYI, I have a very nice picture of a 109 on the nose (rough braking?), - on a concrete runway!
Landing accident, - maybe the guy thought he was in a Spitty... [/B]
Originally posted by Angus
Nice and fast.
Was looking myself.
Stanford-Tuck was also with 610.
Now the Irony is that he met Rall right after the war, and they became very good friends.
Tuck also had a lifelong friendship with Galland, - -and those two were advisors on the making of the classic move "the Battle of Britain" Richard Attenborough, right?
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, and what changes.
While the RAF suffered almost crippling losses on the French mainland, they gradually pulled themselves together with better and better success, - and Spitfires gradually increasing their numbers.
November was the last month of LW daylight operations, the last engagement being on the 27th.
Spitfires jumped I/JG51 shooting down 6, with AFAIK no losses.[/B]
The month turned out RAF:146 kills (some handful ack), LW 31 (Hurries and Spits)
So, the LW switched over to nighttime ops.
[/B]
Originally posted by Angus[/b]
Oh, guess what.
Was looking at BoB statistics and some more this morning.
I stumbled across two items which I am sure Izzy's gonna love.
1. LW losses in may and June 1940 were 1100 aircraft.
Originally posted by Angus
FYI, the total results of that day, based on loss records mind you, were LW bombers 35 with several damaged,LW total 55, while RAF stood at 28.
Date was 14 Sep 1940
Source: Christopher Shore's DUEL FOR THE SKY, ten cruicial air battles of WW2, Page 34 and 52
Originally posted by Angus
He also claims that a P51 cockpit was cramped.
Compared to the Spitfire cockpit, it was as one described,a Saloon ;)
Originally posted by Karnak[/B]
Barbi, has anybody anywhere ever described the Spitfire's cockpit as "roomy"?
Originally posted by Karnak
Barbi,
I've not read the entire thread. As I said, I've never seen anybody claim the Spitfire's cockpit was roomy. If Angus did, he's wrong. The Spitfire's cockpit is known to be one of the tighter fitting WWII fighter cockpits.
That document is about the P-51B, without the Malcolm Hood no doubt. Most people when refering to the P-51 assume the P-51D is the version being discussed.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Here`s what former 109 aces Franz Stiegler has to say :
"How did the cockpit feel in the 109?
The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Now this one should be more interesting :
"Apart from performance, it was also very important the plane to possess a sort of 'goodwill'.
The Bf 109 - except for take-offs - was an easy-to-fly airplane, and in addition it brought back the pilot even with serious damage. My plane, 'Blue 1' received hits multiple times, in one case when attacking a Boston formation the skin on the left wing was ripped off on half square meter, the main spar was damaged and the undercarriage tire was blown to pieces, yet it dropped without a problem and the plane landed just like it was a training session. Not to mention it`s valuable quality that it never caught fire during landing on the belly after a fatal hit, in contrast to many other type, with which such emergency procedure put us at a serious risk because of the danger of fire and explosion. To summerize : we loved the Bf 109.
We did not like war. Alas, as we were soldiers, we performed our duty. The end of this sad story is marked by white marble in the world`s cemeteries."
- Pinter Gyula,
2nd Lt., RHAF. 101st Fighter Regiment, 1991.
Note : 'training session', he says 'school circle', ie. to take off, then land, not sure of the english equivalent.
Many pilots regarded the Malcolm-hooded P-51B/C as the best Mustang of the entire series. It was lighter, faster, and had crisper handling than the later bubble-hooded P-51D and actually had a better all-round view. Its primary weakness, however, was in its armament--only four rather than six guns, which often proved prone to jamming. Some of the modifications applied to the P-51D to improve the ammunition feed were later retrofitted into P-51B/Cs, which made them less prone to jamming. With modified guns and a Malcolm hood, the P-51B/C was arguably a better fighter than the P-51D, with better visibility, lower weight, and without the structural problems which afflicted the D. Its departure characteristics were also more benign.
That puts FB377 at 395 mph/636 kph at SL in full combat configuration with bomb racks. By September of '44 the RAF had 250 Mustangs ranging over NW Europe in this configuration, and 350 by Mar/April '45. At any given time during that period they were as common, or more common, than Fw 190D-9's.
It is entirely possible that Oscar outran some USAAF P-51D's on the deck- it is also quite possible that they weren't running at full WEP, either. After all, chasing a single 190 may not be reason enough to firewall the throttle and run at max boost for a long period of time over enemy territory. Being chased by a 190 on the deck most certainly would be. What is not possible is that he could have outrun a 2000+ HP RAF Mustang III at any altitude. edit: Let me clarify that statement- Of course it is possible that a new condition 190A9 could outrun a +25 lbs clapped-out Mustang III with a rough airframe and a tired engine. However, if both airplanes were in similar condition the Mustang III would be much faster at most altitudes.
Many pilots regarded the Malcolm-hooded P-51B/C as the best Mustang of the entire series. It was lighter, faster, and had crisper handling than the later bubble-hooded P-51D and actually had a better all-round view. Its primary weakness, however, was in its armament--only four rather than six guns, which often proved prone to jamming. Some of the modifications applied to the P-51D to improve the ammunition feed were later retrofitted into P-51B/Cs, which made them less prone to jamming. With modified guns and a Malcolm hood, the P-51B/C was arguably a better fighter than the P-51D, with better visibility, lower weight, and without the structural problems which afflicted the D. Its departure characteristics were also more benign.
Remember, I wasn't contesting Oscar's account- I posted in response to your comment that an 801S-engined 190 would be slightly faster than an RAF Mustang III running +25 lbs boost. That is not at all true.
Originally posted by LRRP22[/B]
As for TK589, I don't dispute the speeds- I just don't believe that it represents the speed of a factory fresh airframe.
and
the description of the wing surfaces was, as you know, a factory finish. All Mustangs had filled and sanded wing joints- every single one.
Originally posted by LRRP22[/B]
Like I said, the +18 lbs speeds only seem to be 5-10 mph below other tests which could easily be attributed to a little engine wear and tear.
Originally posted by LRRP22
Crummp's quote:
Notice the speed gains occur after the wing is cleaned up AND the racks removed.
LRRP,
did the P-51 have overheating problems when operating at high boost? The other question is, how long could the P-51 run at max speed? Thanks
Originally posted by Angus
So,,,,,old second hand Spitties were not on pair with the newest German and even Russian stuff, and non original radio sets were not too good.
Originally posted by LRRP22[/B]
Milo,
Not that I am aware of. WEP was always limited to 5 minutes in both the Spitfire and Merlin Mustang, regardless of boost level, but that was intended to extend engine life and not because of engine cooling or failure problems.
Notice that one of the is a cleaner P-51B, the other is a draggier P-51D...
Oh, unimportant, blending it together until it fits the agenda is nice enough.
Yet, by coincidence, the time limit imposed on the Merlin 66`s operating temperature was max. 5 limits at 135 degrees temperature. I believe the V-1650-7`s was somewhat lower.
So TK 589 with a condition of factory finish was not representative for a plane with factory finish condition.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
LRRP2, you can fluff your baloon, go into longht depths about the 'poor' nature of ALL the aircraft used in ALL tests... you can add Hop`s own brainchild - kindly show a qoute from the report you claim states 45 mins... you can go into lenght about my person and my 'agenda'..and so on.
All this only shows you have no facts, just the desperation so that your hand-picked test will be the last and only world in the subject. And for the lack of factuality, you make up with talk, talk, talk.
I am sure the retarded ones will buy it all. More serious people will take their bet on the RESULTs.
"Thank you for your enquiry, which we received on 21 July [2004]. I am rather puzzled by the paragraphs you quote. RAF Hendon's Operations Record Book makes no mention of such a trial in October 1944, and Hendon seems a slightly odd place to hold it - it would have been necessary to bring in all the instrumentation (theodolites, radar etc). and it would seem easier to use the facilities of the research establishments at Boscombe Down or Farnborough, especially the former as its role centred around evaluating aircraft."
AVIA 6/10618
August 1944
Mustang III FB 377
Wing racks fitted. +25Lbs boost
383mph at 0ft 391mph at 3900ft.
The paintwork was in very poor condition. The paint on the leading edge and inboard surface of the wings was badly chipped. This is most serious in the case of the Mustang due to the thickness of the paint layer. At least six seperate coats of paint had been applied.
In the cleaning up tests, the leading 2 ft. of the wing surfaces had to be stripped of paint and repainted. The rest of the aircraft was rubbed down only.
This gave a total increase of 21 m.p.h. and the effects of the seperate items are estimated as 8 m.p.h. due to the bomb racks 1 m.p.h. due to the aerial bracket and 12 m.p.h. due to the improved finish.
Originally posted by Karnak
So Barbi knowingly used bad info on a board that had not yet had that info debunked?
Barbi, that is very, very, very poor form. Doing that sort of thing is what gets scholars run out of their professions as laughing stock. I would strongly urge you to never do so again, regardless of what you wish to be true. Lying to prove your point does nothing to prove your point and merely makes you a liar. It has nothing good to reccomend it.
Remember, I wasn't contesting Oscar's account- I posted in response to your comment that an 801S-engined 190 would be slightly faster than an RAF Mustang III running +25 lbs boost. That is not at all true.
That is not what I claimed. Please read the post's.
The FW-190A9 is just barely faster with MW-50 at sea level than the Mustang III using 80"hg. Backs up Oscar's experience over the Ardennes forest in Dec. 44.
Ummm...yes you did
Crumpp says on page 2
An FW-190A8 with the BMW801TS (BMW 801S) motor was equal in speed to the P51D at sea level and faster on boost.
Crumpp says:
The FW-190A9 is just barely faster with MW-50 at sea level than the Mustang III using 80"hg. Backs up Oscar's experience over the Ardennes forest in Dec. 44.
Neil Stirling says:
Just for interest.
Report. Brief performance trials and position error measurement.
Mk III
FX.858.
Merlin 100 +25lbs.
April 44.
404mph at 2,000ft /419mph at 5,200ft./455mph at 17,800ft.
4,500ft/min at 1,600ft/4000ft/min at 13,000ft.
I apologize if I read you out of context, I just wanted to clarify what an operational RAF Mustang III was capable of at 80" Hg.
Yes it was. And it appeared in far fewer numbers than the FW-190A9 much less 801TS FW-190A8's. It seems to be the only Mustang varient that is faster than the FW-190A9 at sea level.
Originally posted by Karnak
So Barbi knowingly used bad info on a board that had not yet had that info debunked?
Barbi, that is very, very, very poor form. Doing that sort of thing is what gets scholars run out of their professions as laughing stock. I would strongly urge you to never do so again, regardless of what you wish to be true. Lying to prove your point does nothing to prove your point and merely makes you a liar. It has nothing good to reccomend it.
Besides I find his arrogance quite fitting for his post history, qouting a letter claimed to be from Neil one time, then ignoring that Neil also says he is wrong (ie. max. 370/380mph on the deck for the Mustang).
Originally posted by LRRP22
For other P-51D speeds, why don't you check 'AHT'? North American's test shows 368 mph at sea level and 67" Hg, while the USAAF test shows 373 mph at SL on the same 67" Hg. Even if those tests are without wing racks, that still leaves 360 mph and 365 mph for the respective tests.
365 mph and 360 mph in USAAF test for P-51D at 67"Hg, taking into account the presence of standard wingracks. If we take what Neil said, 8-12mph for the racks, then it`s 361mph and 356mph.
Crumpp, you should check that graph, the spit`s curve shape isn`t remotely similiar to the originals... what`s so difficult in those excell tables, I cannot get that..
Not sure of the origin, but I think it`s Black Six simulated against two Mk IXs.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Computer aided Graphics.
All the best,
Crumpp
Originally posted by Karnak
I only recall one time, about four years ago, that I actually did that.
I have not called you any name, other than Barbi, in this thread.
I don't call people "Nazis".
I don't think you are a Nazi, Barbi. I think you are a misguided idealist like our American Confederate nuts who are convinced of the rightousness of their heroes. You like to put your guys on a pedastal and wax long about how great they were, and part of that for you seems to be denegrating the other side in its entirety. You want your noble heroes to have gone down fighting exceptionally well against the pedastrian masses in their cheam crappy equipment.
That is where we differ.
I think The Spitfire was a great and classic warplane. You think it was utter crap.
I think the Bf109 was a great and classic warplane. You think it was a divinely inspired engineering miracle.
And it goes that way across the whole spectrum of Allied and German equipment.
Originally posted by DaddyAck
American Confederate nuts
Whoa buddy, chill on the stars and bars man.:D
(I happen to be from Dixie):cool:
Originally posted by Big G
At the end of the day, the Spit shot down more 109's than the other way round, the spit prevented the Germans from having air superiority over the Uk, No matter how people will try and explain this, the fact remains, The Spit beat the 109 when it mattered -Period
Originally posted by Big G
At the end of the day, the Spit shot down more 109's than the other way round, the spit prevented the Germans from having air superiority over the Uk, No matter how people will try and explain this, the fact remains, The Spit beat the 109 when it mattered -Period
Originally posted by Big G
Tells me that there was more 109's in the air than spits and they still got beat, even with more numbers.
so an outnumbered Air force beats the best that Germans had in an inferior aircraft ? doesn't stack up, still, we will never know unless we were flying these things over Dover!
Originally posted by Big G
And If I remember correctly, the Germans also outnumbered the RAF on occasion, more pilots, more planes more "kills"
Originally posted by GScholz
This tells me you're completely biased and unable to admit you're wrong. By your reasoning the US lost the Vietnam War because the US soldier and equipment was inferior to the NVA. Clearly a fallacy.
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Again the other way around. The RAF had more fighters in the BoB than the LW. It`s in the strenght reports of the two sides.
And YET the RAF lost more fighters, more Hurricanes, more Spitfires than the LW. Much more.
As said, stats are stats. You don`t have to like them, but that`s what the orders of battles, the strenght and loss reports tell us.
Originally posted by DaddyAck
I do believe if the Fatherland launched it's opperation sealion as planed before turning to USSR England would have fallen.
Originally posted by Angus
The RAF was down to 50 planes yes :D
It was said the RAF Fighter Command has only 50 planes in reserve, and that was pretty much the case by 7th September, when the FC`s leaders cried out that they 'need a miracle' to survive that hammering. Had the battle continue, the RAF would simply run out of pilots,
I've been looking at these casualty figures, and I've come to the conclusion that at our present rate of losses we can just afford it. And I'm damn certain that the Boche can't.
Dowding had to call in the classes before they finished the fighter schools, which was already drastically shortened in the summer.... he used up everything, throwing untrained pilots for the Germans as cannon fodder to gain some time..
he had no replacement for a long fight, but the idea was that if they can hold out until the automn comes, the Germans had to cancel their plans anyway because of the worsening weather.
Waging a continous air war or crossing the channel on makeshift boats is not possible in storms.
Originally posted by Nashwan[/B]
Keith Park to Lord Willoughby de Broke, Chief Controller 11 Group, morning of 7th September 1940, just before the Luftwaffe turned to attacking London.
FC held a meeting on the 7th September to discuss the situation. Douglass Evill, Dowding's deputy, prepared lists of losses and replacements. He found 348 fighter pilots had been lost or injured in the previous 4 weeks, 280 replacements had been turned out by the training units.
At the meeting Dowding outlined plans to increase output to 320 pilots a month.
On the 6th Sept, the RAF had 950 Spit and Hurricane pilots ready for duty.
[/B]
In contrast, the Germans had become seriously under strength.
[/B]
On his second tour he found serviceability at 75% for 109s, 70% for bombers, 65% for 110s.
Fighter geschwader complaining replacements had only done 10 landings in 109s, and had never fired a cannon in training.
(Perhaps this explains the 109 landing accidents issue?)[/B]
No. Dowding, at the Sept 7th meeting, outlined plans to:[/B]
"meet wastage greater than any incurred so far" (This was the creation of "C" squadrons in quiet parts of the country, which would take newly trained pilots and give them operational training away from the battle) (This wasn't an ption for the Germans as they had committed almost all their fighter units to the BoB)
[/B]
And as to it being a long fight, on the 7th Sept Park said he did not believe the fight could last longer than another 3 weeks, Dowding said he was planning on it going on "very much longer" than that.
Their "continuous campaign" had seen the RAF increase by about 200 pilots and 150 fighters between early July and 7th September, whilst the Luftwaffe strength had declined quite sharply. (See Milch's figures above) [/B]
Originally posted by Kurfürst
In contrast of your claims, the German strenght was pretty much the same during the whole battle, and quality did not decline as happened on the RAF side.
Thats interesting before just before the Battle the bombers had 67% servicibility rate, fighters were at 77%. It seems that British efforts were insignificant enough to let the Germans even INCREASE their servicibilty rates or keep them up.
Dowding couldnt care less about them.
Originally posted by Angus
Correct!
IMHO, the LW could have easily won the BoB, had they done several mistakes, such as this one.
Same goes with the RAF, - they did several big mistakes on pair with the LW ones.
Put it this way.
LW does no mistakes, RAF all, LW wins by some margin
RAF makes it right, LW makes it wrong, RAF wins a crushing defeat.
Anyway, in RL it was a RAF victory by a margin, the debate goes about how wide that margin was, and all of us agree upon that I belive, - except perhaps one :D
Originally posted by Big G
Like I said earlier, when the chips were down the Spit won and the 109 lost:D
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Yet with all these a/c, the LW could not defeat the 24 squadrons (384 Spit/Hurries) of 11 Group.
Originally posted by Angus
From Izzy:
"the total wastage being 1960 fighters during the BoB. "
Never seen anything like that. Source?
Originally posted by GScholz
Well then, how many planes did the RAF lose during the BoB? All aircraft types + accidents and write-offs? (edit: of course combined for all the RAF commands (fighter, bomber, coastal etc.)
How many did the LW lose?
Originally posted by GScholz
Does it include Bomber Command and Costal Command losses?
Does it include RAF aircraft destroyed on the ground?
Originally posted by GScholz
With the loss of 271 bombers (62 in daylight raids and 209 on night operations) I find it quite unrealistic that the RAF lost only 537 airmen. I guess they are not included in your numbers. With a modest guess of 5 airmen lost per aircraft Bomber Command crew losses alone amounts to ~1300.
Anyone have data on Costal Command?
Originally posted by Guppy35
I think the question then comes down to how do you break down the B of B losses.
The numbers I listed are specific to the B of B air battle. They don't include LW losses from operations outside of the scope of air operations over England.
So maybe we need to go back a step and define what the question is that folks want answered. B of B losses
or RAF v Luftwaffe losses in total for the time frame the B of B was going on.
Two totally different questions don't you think? If we are talking B of B, I think the focus should be on the air ops over the B of B.
But then again that's how these arguments always go I guess.
Dan/CorkyJr
Originally posted by GScholz
Bomber Command was bombing Germany as reprisals for the LW Bombing British cities. If they don't count ... then the LW bombers don't count. I don't know the RAF Costal Command losses, but if they don't count then neither does the Ju-52's and other utility AC (like search and rescue flying boats) the RAF shot down in the channel. Germany and Britain were at WAR. If you single out a select few criteria or operational areas you can manipulate the numbers to what ever you like.
Originally posted by GScholz
Use ALL the numbers, not just the ones you like. The RAF won the BoB simply by continuing to exist. However some here like to think it was a foregone conclusion that they would.
Originally posted by GScholz
Well we are talking about what DID happen. And some here likes to be selective about the facts (on both sides, and most authors).
Every single plane flying to or from Britain was part of the battle. That's why they call it Battle of Britain, and not the Battle of Fighter Command or Battle of London.
Originally posted by GScholz
You missed the "to and from Britain" part. Learn to read.
Originally posted by Guppy35
Bomber Command was a seperate entity from Fighter Command. RAF bombers had been to Germany prior to the B of B. It's not like those bombing raids started as a result of the B of B. That they hit Berlin after the LW hit London was only part of their ongoing operations.
Originally posted by Guppy35
But you know, like all these threads there is clearly no point in carrying on as no one is listening anyway right?
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Interesting, as the RAF admitted 900-odd of it`s fighters lost in combat, the total wastage being 1960 fighters during the BoB.
That would mean the LW completely destroyed the 11 Group 5 times during the battle. ;)
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, Milo, your LW numbers are much higher than the ones I have!
(From memory)