Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on September 14, 2013, 09:12:12 AM
-
Misinformation persists about the Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XVI in AH. Some people still believe that very few (Franz Von Werra claimed 12 yesterday) saw service in WWII, another claim that the total combat time for the Mk XVI was 39 hours. I have no idea where Franz got his 12 number from, though it might be accurate for bubble canopy Spitfire Mk XVIs. The old 39 hours of combat was based on the total combat time for a single Spitfire Mk XVI airframe, not the combined total of all Spitfire Mk XVIs. These claims are all based on poor understanding of what a Spitfire Mk XVI, or Mk IX, was. You can no more say "Spitfire Mk IX" and be accurate than you can say "Bf109G" and be accurate.
The following is a list of Spitfire Mk IX series aircraft:
Spitfire F.Mk IX: This version was powered by a Merlin 61 engine and had a universal wing. About 300 were built and it first saw combat in July of 1942. This is what we have in AH labeled as a "Spitfire Mk IX".
Spitfire F.Mk IX: In late 1942 or early 1943 the Merlin 61 was replaced by the Merlin 63. The aircraft are otherwise similar.
Spitfire HF.Mk IX: Introduced in 1943 with a high altitude Merlin 70 and a universal wing. Often equipped with extended wing tips.
Spitfire LF.Mk IX: Introduced in 1943 with a low altitude Merlin 66 and a universal wing. Often equipped with clipped wing tips.
Spitfire HF.Mk IXe: In early 1944 the universal wing was changed to the e wing with more hardpoints and two .50 cals replacing the quad of .303s alongside the 20mm, powered by a Merlin 70. Often equipped with extended wing tips.
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe: An e wing equipped low altitude fighter powered by a Merlin 66 introduced in early 1944. Often equipped with clipped wing tips. Important Note: This is what we have in AH labeled as a Spitfire Mk XVI
Spitfire Mk XVI: This is a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe powered by an American built Packard Merlin 266. Both came off the assembly line intermingled with the mark not even known until the Rolls Royce Merlin 66 or Packard Merlin 266 was mounted, the different mark number being for the purpose of identifying which tool sizes were needed to work on its engine. The Merlin 266 had a critical altitude about 1000ft higher than the Merlin 66 and it is that difference that reveals the Mk XVI in AH to truly be an LF.Mk IXe. Spitfire Mk XVIs were all delivered with clipped wings, though photos of full span Mk XVIs can be found.
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe: In 1945 a bubble canopy version of the Spitfire LF.Mk IXe was introduced. Very few made it into combat.
Spitfire Mk XVI: In 1945 a bubble canopy version of the Spitfire Mk XVI was introduced. Very few made it into combat.
Notes:
1) Over 3000 Merlin 66 Spitfire Mk IXs were built and 1200 Spitfire Mk XVIs were built, making a total of what is essentially the same fighter of over 4200.
2) Spitfire wing tips could be changed in about 30 minutes at the field. It was a fairly common occurrence, propably less complicated than mounting 20mm gondolas on the Bf109. Clipped wing Spitfire L.Mk Vs first appear in 1942.
3) I am not sure if any bubble canopy Spitfire HF.Mk IXes were built, so I didn't list it.
Are there any questions or disputes?
-
Great post. Should clear up a lot of questions.
-
Spitfire HF.Mk IX: Introduced in 1943 with a high altitude Merlin 70 and a universal wing. Often equipped with extended wing tips.
Spitfire LF.Mk IX: Introduced in 1943 with a low altitude Merlin 66 and a universal wing. Often equipped with clipped wing tips.
I would like these added in game sometime, there are a few other spitfires I cannot recall which ones but they would be delightful to add in game as well.
-
The LF.Mk IX would be extremely similar to the LF.Mk VIII that we already have, if it had full span wings. Less fuel, but otherwise hard to distinguish.
-
Are there any questions or disputes?
So...which of these was not the easy-mode version...?
- oldman (thanks for the post. How many LF IX(e)s and 16s were produced?)
-
So...which of these was not the easy-mode version...?
Spitfire Mk XIV, if any. The Spitfire being easy to fly and fight in was one of the characteristics of the fighter and one of the reasons it was as successful as it was.
- oldman (thanks for the post. How many LF IX(e)s and 16s were produced?)
I'll try to get those numbers for you, probably tomorrow evening. This post, and another I have been working on have been tools to keep me away during an 18 hour work shift. I recall about 1200 Spitfire Mk XVI's, so given they were coming off of the same production line as the LF.Mk IXe and the LF.Mk IXe was introduced first it could be as high as 2500 or so. It really depends on how many Merlin 66s vs 266s were available.
-
Which models were most used in WWII -- i.e., what one would consider to be the main-stream models? I, V, and one of the IX's?
-
RAAF 453 Squadron had more than 12 alone.
Page 168 has the start of the details.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/119116066/Defeat-to-Victory-Opt
-
Misinformation persists about the Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XVI in AH. Some people still believe that very few (Franz Von Werra claimed 12 yesterday) saw service in WWII, another claim that the total combat time for the Mk XVI was 39 hours. I have no idea where Franz got his 12 number from, though it might be accurate for bubble canopy Spitfire Mk XVIs. The old 39 hours of combat was based on the total combat time for a single Spitfire Mk XVI airframe, not the combined total of all Spitfire Mk XVIs. These claims are all based on poor understanding of what a Spitfire Mk XVI, or Mk IX, was. You can no more say "Spitfire Mk IX" and be accurate than you can say "Bf109G" and be accurate.
The following is a list of Spitfire Mk IX series aircraft:
Spitfire F.Mk IX: This version was powered by a Merlin 61 engine and had a universal wing. About 300 were built and it first saw combat in July of 1942. This is what we have in AH labeled as a "Spitfire Mk IX".
Spitfire F.Mk IX: In late 1942 or early 1943 the Merlin 61 was replaced by the Merlin 63. The aircraft are otherwise similar.
Spitfire HF.Mk IX: Introduced in 1943 with a high altitude Merlin 70 and a universal wing. Often equipped with extended wing tips.
Spitfire LF.Mk IX: Introduced in 1943 with a low altitude Merlin 66 and a universal wing. Often equipped with clipped wing tips.
Spitfire HF.Mk IXe: In early 1944 the universal wing was changed to the e wing with more hardpoints and two .50 cals replacing the quad of .303s alongside the 20mm, powered by a Merlin 70. Often equipped with extended wing tips.
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe: An e wing equipped low altitude fighter powered by a Merlin 66 introduced in early 1944. Often equipped with clipped wing tips. Important Note: This is what we have in AH labeled as a Spitfire Mk XVI
Spitfire Mk XVI: This is a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe powered by an American built Packard Merlin 266. Both came off the assembly line intermingled with the mark not even known until the Rolls Royce Merlin 66 or Packard Merlin 266 was mounted, the different mark number being for the purpose of identifying which tool sizes were needed to work on its engine. The Merlin 266 had a critical altitude about 1000ft higher than the Merlin 66 and it is that difference that reveals the Mk XVI in AH to truly be an LF.Mk IXe. Spitfire Mk XVIs were all delivered with clipped wings, though photos of full span Mk XVIs can be found.
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe: In 1945 a bubble canopy version of the Spitfire LF.Mk IXe was introduced. Very few made it into combat.
Spitfire Mk XVI: In 1945 a bubble canopy version of the Spitfire Mk XVI was introduced. Very few made it into combat.
Notes:
1) Over 3000 Merlin 66 Spitfire Mk IXs were built and 1200 Spitfire Mk XVIs were built, making a total of what is essentially the same fighter of over 4200.
2) Spitfire wing tips could be changed in about 30 minutes at the field. It was a fairly common occurrence, propably less complicated than mounting 20mm gondolas on the Bf109. Clipped wing Spitfire L.Mk Vs first appear in 1942.
3) I am not sure if any bubble canopy Spitfire HF.Mk IXes were built, so I didn't list it.
Are there any questions or disputes?
when they say universal thats the "c" wing right?
-
when they say universal thats the "c" wing right?
Yes. Calling it a 'c' wing came later. It is the wing that could, in theory, have the Spitfire armed with eight .303s or two 20mms and four .303s or four 20mms. In practice it almost always meant two 20mms and four .303s. I am not aware of any that flew with eight .303s and only a small number of Mk Vs using the four 20mms for ground attack and a couple Mk VIIIs using four 20mms to go after Ki-46s. The Mk VIII's using it in the Pacific theater puzzles me a bit as the Ki-46s usually came in at extremely high altitude and the outer cannons did not receive enough heating, thus being prone to stoppages when used at altitude, to say nothing of the performance loss for the extra weight. Some Spit Vs were flown to Malta with the four 20mm and then had two of them removed to be used as spares and fought with just two 20mms, no machine guns.
-
Misinformation persists about the Spitfire Mk IX and Spitfire Mk XVI in AH. Some people still believe that very few (Franz Von Werra claimed 12 yesterday) saw service in WWII, another claim that the total combat time for the Mk XVI was 39 hours. I have no idea where Franz got his 12 number from, though it might be accurate for bubble canopy Spitfire Mk XVIs. The old 39 hours of combat was based on the total combat time for a single Spitfire Mk XVI airframe, not the combined total of all Spitfire Mk XVIs. These claims are all based on poor understanding of what a Spitfire Mk XVI, or Mk IX, was. You can no more say "Spitfire Mk IX" and be accurate than you can say "Bf109G" and be accurate.
The following is a list of Spitfire Mk IX series aircraft:
Spitfire F.Mk IX: This version was powered by a Merlin 61 engine and had a universal wing. About 300 were built and it first saw combat in July of 1942. This is what we have in AH labeled as a "Spitfire Mk IX".
Spitfire F.Mk IX: In late 1942 or early 1943 the Merlin 61 was replaced by the Merlin 63. The aircraft are otherwise similar.
Spitfire HF.Mk IX: Introduced in 1943 with a high altitude Merlin 70 and a universal wing. Often equipped with extended wing tips.
Spitfire LF.Mk IX: Introduced in 1943 with a low altitude Merlin 66 and a universal wing. Often equipped with clipped wing tips.
Spitfire HF.Mk IXe: In early 1944 the universal wing was changed to the e wing with more hardpoints and two .50 cals replacing the quad of .303s alongside the 20mm, powered by a Merlin 70. Often equipped with extended wing tips.
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe: An e wing equipped low altitude fighter powered by a Merlin 66 introduced in early 1944. Often equipped with clipped wing tips. Important Note: This is what we have in AH labeled as a Spitfire Mk XVI
Spitfire Mk XVI: This is a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe powered by an American built Packard Merlin 266. Both came off the assembly line intermingled with the mark not even known until the Rolls Royce Merlin 66 or Packard Merlin 266 was mounted, the different mark number being for the purpose of identifying which tool sizes were needed to work on its engine. The Merlin 266 had a critical altitude about 1000ft higher than the Merlin 66 and it is that difference that reveals the Mk XVI in AH to truly be an LF.Mk IXe. Spitfire Mk XVIs were all delivered with clipped wings, though photos of full span Mk XVIs can be found.
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe: In 1945 a bubble canopy version of the Spitfire LF.Mk IXe was introduced. Very few made it into combat.
Spitfire Mk XVI: In 1945 a bubble canopy version of the Spitfire Mk XVI was introduced. Very few made it into combat.
Notes:
1) Over 3000 Merlin 66 Spitfire Mk IXs were built and 1200 Spitfire Mk XVIs were built, making a total of what is essentially the same fighter of over 4200.
2) Spitfire wing tips could be changed in about 30 minutes at the field. It was a fairly common occurrence, propably less complicated than mounting 20mm gondolas on the Bf109. Clipped wing Spitfire L.Mk Vs first appear in 1942.
3) I am not sure if any bubble canopy Spitfire HF.Mk IXes were built, so I didn't list it.
Are there any questions or disputes?
:airplane: If you are trying to start a "fan" club of you, sign me up! :salute This is outstanding information and for a aviation nut like me, I spent 2 hours learning things about the "Spits" I didn't know. I have a question which you may can answer related to another thread in here, relating to flat spins. Doing your research, did you run across any flight test notes from test pilots relating to that problem?
-
I've never seen anything remarking on Spitfire flat spins. If you look at the notes at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org you'll see claims that even the heavy Mk XIV had to be held in a spin or it would recover on its own within three spins, but I doubt they are including flat spins in that.
-
Yes. Calling it a 'c' wing came later. It is the wing that could, in theory, have the Spitfire armed with eight .303s or two 20mms and four .303s or four 20mms. In practice it almost always meant two 20mms and four .303s. I am not aware of any that flew with eight .303s and only a small number of Mk Vs using the four 20mms for ground attack and a couple Mk VIIIs using four 20mms to go after Ki-46s. The Mk VIII's using it in the Pacific theater puzzles me a bit as the Ki-46s usually came in at extremely high altitude and the outer cannons did not receive enough heating, thus being prone to stoppages when used at altitude, to say nothing of the performance loss for the extra weight. Some Spit Vs were flown to Malta with the four 20mm and then had two of them removed to be used as spares and fought with just two 20mms, no machine guns.
to your knowledge, did any spits experiment with 4-6 50's?
-
to your knowledge, did any spits experiment with 4-6 50's?
Not likely they would use the .50 as the main armament on their fighters, due to it not being a standard caliber in the UK. Would have had the potential to strain the supply system.
-
to your knowledge, did any spits experiment with 4-6 50's?
In the 1930s the RAF decided to go straight from the .303 to the 20mm. They saw the .50s as better than the .303s, but also as only a stopgap that would face the same deficiencies as the .303. The only reason any of their planes ended up with .50s was due to the readily available supply from the US. Per the US Navy's tests the Spitfire Mk XVI has the same effective firepower as the P-47's eight .50s.
There was a mockup on the Mk IV, the originally planned Griffon Spit, of six Hispano Mk IIs, but that obviously never happened.
-
In the 1930s the RAF decided to go straight from the .303 to the 20mm. They saw the .50s as better than the .303s, but also as only a stopgap that would face the same deficiencies as the .303. The only reason any of their planes ended up with .50s was due to the readily available supply from the US. Per the US Navy's tests the Spitfire Mk XVI has the same effective firepower as the P-47's eight .50s.
There was a mockup on the Mk IV, the originally planned Griffon Spit, of six Hispano Mk IIs, but that obviously never happened.
Wow thats just crazy.
and i thought 3 50 rounds were thre same as 1 20. I could be wrong? :headscratch:
-
Wow thats just crazy.
If bombers had continued to be a major target for the RAF it is quite possible that it would have seen service for bomber-killer Spits.
and i thought 3 50 rounds were thre same as 1 20. I could be wrong? :headscratch:
No, not rounds. A single M2 20mm installation was deemed as effective as an installation of three M2 .50s. So, ten 20mm rounds was equal to thirty-six .50 cal rounds, the respective number of rounds fired by such installations in one second, in the USN's opinion.
-
- oldman (thanks for the post. How many LF IX(e)s and 16s were produced?)
I don't think I can get you a precise answer. I was looking through "Spitfire: The History" by Morgan and Shacklady and the numbers simply aren't broken down like that. I can infer some things by the dates the orders were filled, but only to a degree. When it says an order for 1500 Spitfire F.21s was placed, then canceled, then partially reinstated as 673 Mk IXs that were filled as Mk IXs and Mk XVIs between June and October of 1944 I can safely say they all had e wings, but I have no idea how many were HF.Mk IXes, LF.Mk IXes or Mk XVIs. Another example was an order for 2190 Spitfire Mk Vs placed on 12 May, 1942 and built between July 1943 and May 1944 as a mix of Mk Vcs, Mk IXs and Mk XVIs.
Total Spitfire Mk IX production, all Mk IX serials, was 5663. Total Mk XVI production was 1053 and total production of the Mk IX stopgap airframe was 6716. Of the 5663 Mk IX serials most were built as LF.Mk IXs with Merlin 66s, but I have no idea what the breakdown between universal wings and e wings was. All 1053 Mk XVIs were LFs with the Merlin 266 and all had the e wing. Bare minimum that I can see being of the LF.Mk IXe/Mk XVI type would be about 2000, and it could be well above that.
-
when they say universal thats the "c" wing right?
One of the curses of post war writers. There was never a Spitfire IXc
On the Spitfire V they had the A wing with 8 303s, the B Wing with 2 20mm(60round cannon drums) and the C wing with the potential for 8 303, 2 20mm and 4 303 or 4 20mm.
The Spitfire IX was purpose built with the Universal Wing so there was no need to designate it as a C wing. It was used on the Spitfire V because it used three different wings.
When the Spitfire IX later was given the wing with the 2 .5MGs and 2 20mm it was designated E wing to differentiate it from what had been the normal production wing on the IX.
With the Spitfire XVI they never referred to it as the E wing as it was the only wing the Spitfire XVI used.
All XVI were LF versions with the 266. The overwhelming majority of Spitfire IX were LF versions as well. I can't give you an exact number but of the almost 1200 Spitfire IXs sent to Russia over 1100 were LFIXs. It was really the standard Spitfire IX from 1943 on.
The Spitfire XIV was first built with the Universal Wing, so when it was updated to the E wing it was referred to as a Spitfire XIVe. The Spitfire 18 which was very similar never had the E designation as it was the only wing it was produced with.
You get the idea?
Model builders, and post war historians screwed that up by referring to the Spitfire IXc
From the official Air Ministry publication on the Spitfire IX and XVI
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/email0214.jpg)
As for the IX vs XVI It's all about the engine. Put a 266 in an IX and it's an XVI.
This is a Spitfire LFXVI with a bubble top. Merlin 266 installed. Note the serial number TE214
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/TE214.jpg)
The next Spit off the production line, serial TE215 was a Spitfire LFIXe with a Merlin 66 installed.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/TE215.jpg)
-
Guppy, I wonder if we'll ever overcome the misconceptions about this subject?
-
Doubt it. It's been the same question going back to 2001 I think :)
Just checked. My ninth post on the AH boards was about Spitfire LFIXe and Spitfire XVI. July, 2001. It does never end;)
-
lol... again no source!
I learned the 'comon knowledge' from in game that Spit16s didn't see combat.
Only a few completed before war's end, and never even saw an enemy fighter...
If you guys are splitting hairs about this stuff then it only proves the point, and any combat becomes 'myth'... as in one pilot's source or what what!
Examples:
There were about 1000 he-177s made, debugged ones (as much as any plane goes), and we don't have it, but one spit16 pilot's myth and we get a spit16!!!
109g6's with taters, probably 1000 built also, no idea, but I'm sure it was a bunch, and we get the 150rpg and the 200rpg for the center 20mm, but not the tater? Booo!
Far as you guys saying stuff being mislabled, like this conversation about spits, and others about "we never had a g10," then you guys need to take that stuff up with HTC!!! They said 'g10' so I'm saying g10, till HTC says otherwise!
:banana:
-
One of the curses of post war writers. There was never a Spitfire IXc
On the Spitfire V they had the A wing with 8 303s, the B Wing with 2 20mm(60round cannon drums) and the C wing with the potential for 8 303, 2 20mm and 4 303 or 4 20mm.
The Spitfire IX was purpose built with the Universal Wing so there was no need to designate it as a C wing. It was used on the Spitfire V because it used three different wings.
When the Spitfire IX later was given the wing with the 2 .5MGs and 2 20mm it was designated E wing to differentiate it from what had been the normal production wing on the IX.
With the Spitfire XVI they never referred to it as the E wing as it was the only wing the Spitfire XVI used.
All XVI were LF versions with the 266. The overwhelming majority of Spitfire IX were LF versions as well. I can't give you an exact number but of the almost 1200 Spitfire IXs sent to Russia over 1100 were LFIXs. It was really the standard Spitfire IX from 1943 on.
The Spitfire XIV was first built with the Universal Wing, so when it was updated to the E wing it was referred to as a Spitfire XIVe. The Spitfire 18 which was very similar never had the E designation as it was the only wing it was produced with.
You get the idea?
Model builders, and post war historians screwed that up by referring to the Spitfire IXc
From the official Air Ministry publication on the Spitfire IX and XVI
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/email0214.jpg)
As for the IX vs XVI It's all about the engine. Put a 266 in an IX and it's an XVI.
This is a Spitfire LFXVI with a bubble top. Merlin 266 installed. Note the serial number TE214
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/TE214.jpg)
The next Spit off the production line, serial TE215 was a Spitfire LFIXe with a Merlin 66 installed.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/TE215.jpg)
Thanks! :aok
-
More myths?...
The 109k4 was NOT the only good 109!!! I say "109s sux in here" and you guys point and say "k4 is a monster..."
I still say the k-4 is a tub, and that all these luft aces, from Battle for Poland, through the Battle of Britain, Marselies 17kills in one day in the desert, to Stalingrad, to defending Berlin in May 45, most luftwaffe were mostly flying all thr OTHER variations!!!
Luft had all the aces, required pilot, plane, amo, and bullet proof glass, etc, etc...
And anyone saying "only luftwaffe saw other planes" is an fing joke!
Anotherwords, allieds claiming a nation didn't see enemy fighters, on continental Europe durring ww2, is a joke!
Check wikipedia.org, "list of ww2 flying aces"
Most nations involved were averaging 50-125 about losses per day, to the luftwaffes 50(? I forget) per day...
33,000 109s smoked 70,000 enemy planes bout, and considering the sway of stats do to losing at end, prooves the point, 109s and 190s were indeed uber alles!
*Edit, need to post that link for losses per day...
109s and 190s PWNT alle das arses!!! Get over it!
Call out Franz stupid thread! :D
-
Franz, you seem less than emotionally stable.
-
Karnak ignors the Das Facts, is why! :neener:
Source for planes per day is in that long he177 thread, and I'm at work on phone, on break!
More?
How about WoT!!!
Tiger tanks killed REGULARLY at distances of 1000meters easily, 1 shots!
Why allieds didn't like fighting them out in the field...
In that game, MAX view range possible is 500yards...
Only distance any of the allied tanks could hurt a tiger was at like 300yards.
Soviet t-34s were ramming weapons.
Captured panzerfausts is what killed tigers in east!
Allied bombers in west.
Tigers were plenty reliable, they only got 100s of hits to front, where transmission was, and survived, so yeah, tranny probs sometimes.
Wot is total balance, reversed crap. Check fprado.com, and wikipedia, just no .ru sites!
-
lol... again no source!
I learned the 'comon knowledge' from in game that Spit16s didn't see combat.
Only a few completed before war's end, and never even saw an enemy fighter...
If you guys are splitting hairs about this stuff then it only proves the point, and any combat becomes 'myth'... as in one pilot's source or what what!
Examples:
There were about 1000 he-177s made, debugged ones (as much as any plane goes), and we don't have it, but one spit16 pilot's myth and we get a spit16!!!
109g6's with taters, probably 1000 built also, no idea, but I'm sure it was a bunch, and we get the 150rpg and the 200rpg for the center 20mm, but not the tater? Booo!
Far as you guys saying stuff being mislabled, like this conversation about spits, and others about "we never had a g10," then you guys need to take that stuff up with HTC!!! They said 'g10' so I'm saying g10, till HTC says otherwise!
:banana:
what the hell are you on about ? there were thousands of spit XVI as they were IX with a different supercharger gearing . In fact the XVI we have should really be called the IX LfFe (low fighter e wing) the IXLFe had clipped wings(that could be converted to full span in 20 minutes or less) and the superchargers were set to a lower altitude . the IX we have in game is the HFe (high altitude E wing) with the same merlin 26 engine but rated for higher altitudes with full span wings (though not the extended wings of the VII ) the only difference between the XVI and the IX was that the royce merlin 26 was that the compressors were driven straight off the main crank shaft and the packard 266 was chain driven (possibly giving a better boost at higher revs but then only about 50hp at that and the chain system was slightly heavier so swings and roundabouts) .
The spit XVI IS a spit IX LFe . it's not splitting hairs it's FACT the confusion is because the XVI in game has a load out that was not common in RAF use where most IX/XVI were using 4 X .303 and 2 X 20MM . The ingame load out should be the same for both aircraft or have the load out options in hanger like the hurricane MKII and sea hurricane. The Spitfire XVI should be deleted and the wing / gun options added to the IX in hanger.
-
lol... again no source!
As stated:
"Spitfire
The History" (http://www.amazon.com/Spitfire-History-Eric-B-Morgan/dp/0946219486/ref=sr_sp-atf_image_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379856841&sr=8-1&keywords=spitfire+the+history)
by Eric B. Morgan , Edward Shacklady.
I learned the 'comon knowledge' from in game that Spit16s didn't see combat.
Only a few completed before war's end, and never even saw an enemy fighter...
Your source is random guys in an internet game of unknown expertise on the subject on which they are pontificating? Ok then. I'll go with my source.
If you guys are splitting hairs about this stuff then it only proves the point, and any combat becomes 'myth'... as in one pilot's source or what what!
Spliting hairs would be saying that thirteen Spit XVI's saw combat, not twelve. No, we're correcting gross inaccuracies in the player base's knowledge. You say twelve and I say 2000 minimum, perhaps more than 3000 in the same configuration is not a difference of hairs. I have research supporting my claim, you have in game whines.
Examples:
There were about 1000 he-177s made, debugged ones (as much as any plane goes), and we don't have it,
We also don't have the Wellington (11,000 built), the Pe-2 (11,000 built) or the Beaufighter (6,000 built). Adding something like the Spitfire Mk XVI or Bf109G-14 is cheap and easy for HTC compared to a completely new airframe, particularly multi-station bombers.
but one spit16 pilot's myth and we get a spit16!!!
This is simply wrong. Spitfire serial numbers prove it so.
109g6's with taters, probably 1000 built also, no idea, but I'm sure it was a bunch, and we get the 150rpg and the 200rpg for the center 20mm, but not the tater? Booo!
When the Bf109s were redone CMs didn't have the ability to limit loadout availability and the Bf109G-6 in AH was supposed to represent an early version, so no 30mm option. Now that CMs have that ability the 30mm should absolutely be added to the G-6.
Far as you guys saying stuff being mislabled, like this conversation about spits, and others about "we never had a g10," then you guys need to take that stuff up with HTC!!! They said 'g10' so I'm saying g10, till HTC says otherwise!
Pyro, IIRC, made that point about the old AH1 Bf109G-10. Seriously, find a chart (German real data chart, no AH chart) in which a Bf109G-10 is shown to do 452mph at best altitude.
More myths?...
The 109k4 was NOT the only good 109!!! I say "109s sux in here" and you guys point and say "k4 is a monster..."
The Bf109 was a great fighter. The Bf109K-4 is one of the best prop fighters in the game. The Bf109G-14 is very good as well. The Bf109F-4 is, against its contemporaries, clearly the best fighter of 1941 as modeled in AH. I would love to see the Bf109G-6/AS added. The Bf109G-10 can be added or not, it is irrelevant to the game in my opinion.
I still say the k-4 is a tub, and that all these luft aces, from Battle for Poland, through the Battle of Britain, Marselies 17kills in one day in the desert, to Stalingrad, to defending Berlin in May 45, most luftwaffe were mostly flying all thr OTHER variations!!!
Have you tried the K-4's contemporaries? I know you're a Luftwaffe fan, but spend time in the P-47D-40, P-51D, P-38L and, yes, even the Spitfire Mk XIV and Mk XVI. All late war fighters are tubs compared to early war fighters. The Bf109K-4 is clearly superior as a fighter to the three American fighters I listed and is not inferior to the British interceptors.
Luft had all the aces
I can name many American, British, Finnish, Italian, Japanese and Russian aces.
required pilot, plane, amo, and bullet proof glass, etc, etc...
And the other air forces didn't? They all had this stuff.
And anyone saying "only luftwaffe saw other planes" is an fing joke!
For most of the war Luftwaffe pilots had much better access to enemy aircraft than did other sides. Obviously 1940 would be the other direction with the Brits having better access.
Anotherwords, allieds claiming a nation didn't see enemy fighters, on continental Europe durring ww2, is a joke!
Nobody claims that they didn't see enemy fighters. What we point out is that they saw fewer enemy aircraft. Another aspect is that there were fewer enemy aircraft to go around. Add to that the different policies allowed by the superior Allied position, Luftwaffe you fly until you die or are too badly wounded, American/British you fly a number of operations and then are done.
Check wikipedia.org, "list of ww2 flying aces"
Most nations involved were averaging 50-125 about losses per day, to the luftwaffes 50(? I forget) per day...
33,000 109s smoked 70,000 enemy planes bout, and considering the sway of stats do to losing at end, prooves the point, 109s and 190s were indeed uber alles!
*Edit, need to post that link for losses per day...
And?
109s and 190s PWNT alle das arses!!! Get over it!
Call out Franz stupid thread! :D
You seem to conflate things at your convenience. You get frustrated that the German aircraft don't dominate in AH, primarily a fighter vs fighter game, so you turn to WWII kills and show how well they did against air forces as a whole, many, many bombers included, the admittedly poorly trained VVS included and think you've made a point.
Well, you do make a point, but not the one you think you're making.
-
Franz also doesn't seem to factor in that while it's true a lot of the LW aces made their mark in earlier variants of the 109, the fact is an awful lot of them also met their end in them. Not so much because they were bad pilots or it was a bad plane but their protracted TOD pretty much required them to fly until they died. Some made it thru to the end of the war, most did not. As such the guys that were flying the K-4 nearer wars end weren't exactly ace material for one and didn't have the time to rack up the numbers the other guys did for another. Either way the tide had turned on the LW and even the jets couldn't save them. I'd imagine those dead aces might not consider the K-4 so much of a tub especially vs the NME aircraft they'd have been facing at the end of the war which were also much improved (in many respects) variants of the same planes they'd have fought earlier in the war. It's not the plane---it's the pilot.
-
the IX we have in game is the HFe (high altitude E wing) with the same merlin 26 engine but rated for higher altitudes with full span wings
B3YT, what is this Merlin 26 you speak of?
The Spitfire IX HFe used a Merlin 70.
-
The Bf109 was a great fighter. The Bf109K-4 is one of the best prop fighters in the game. The Bf109G-14 is very good as well. The Bf109F-4 is, against its contemporaries, clearly the best fighter of 1941 as modeled in AH. I would love to see the Bf109G-6/AS added. The Bf109G-10 can be added or not, it is irrelevant to the game in my opinion.
This. Chill, Schlowy, please.
The K4 is the fastest prop driven aircraft in AH, between 8 and 27k. Faster than the heavily perked Tempest, 4-hog, Spit14, really everything. Also its the best climbing aircraft in the game. The gun is - well - a giant shotgun, an unique weapon. The flaps are great, just as the low speed handling, even though the raw turning performance is only medicore - yet it can still compete with a Spit14. Its an awesome aircraft, what ever anyone says.
I would say, the G-2 is also pretty good for being a 1942 fighter. WHile its turn rate isnt too good compared to the Spit9, the speed and the climb rate is still better. Pretty much the same story with the 109F and the Spit5.
The only thing i cant get, the Spit9 came out a couple months after the G-2, yet its enabled in the EW while the G-2 isnt. Imo, none of them are EW planes.
-
the IX we have in game is the HFe (high altitude E wing) with the same merlin 26 engine
The HF.Mk IX had a Merlin 70, and often had extended wing tips. The Spitfire Mk IX in AH is a Spitfire F.Mk IX (mid altitude, not high altitude) with a Merlin 61. It also does not have the "e" wing, which would be two 20mm cannons and two .50s as on the Mk XIV and XVI, but rather the older "universal" wing, hence being armed with two 20mm cannons and four .303s.
-
In many of the books I've read it states that the MkIX used the "universal wing" wing which was then renamed the E wing used in most other variations and renamed the as it could be fitted with other armaments such as the setup on the XVI we have and the XIV . I stand corrected on the MkIX HFe sorry I ment the standard Mk IX but you get the idea i was trying to make.
-
In many of the books I've read it states that the MkIX used the "universal wing" wing which was then renamed the E wing used in most other variations and renamed the as it could be fitted with other armaments such as the setup on the XVI we have and the XIV . I stand corrected on the MkIX HFe sorry I ment the standard Mk IX but you get the idea i was trying to make.
That is not a correct description on the universal wing. The universal wing was introduced on the Spitfire Mk Vc and allowed the guns to be changed between eight .303s, two 20mm and four .303s and four 20mm. In practice only the two 20mm and four .303s option was used with rare exceptions for four 20mm in the ground attack role and two 20mm by themselves on Malta. The ability to change wing tip types might also have been introduced with the universal wing, I am not sure.
The 'e' wing was introduced on later Mk IXs and used on the majority of Mk XIVs and all Mk XVIs. It had two 20mm and two .50s without the option to change gun types. It also had more hard points.
-
didn't the MKVIII also have the "universal wing"? A few squadrons in the far east would swap from the standard 2 X 20mm 4X.303 to 4 X 20mm for attack missions and bomber intercepts .
-
didn't the MKVIII also have the "universal wing"? A few squadrons in the far east would swap from the standard 2 X 20mm 4X.303 to 4 X 20mm for attack missions and bomber intercepts .
Yes. Mk VII, Mk XII and some MK XIV as well.
-
The MKVIII could switch it armament just like the universal wing .
-
The MKVIII could switch it armament just like the universal wing .
Not just like as it had a universal wing, as I said above.
-
The MKVIII could switch it armament just like the universal wing .
Could but didn't.
-
didn't the MKVIII also have the "universal wing"? A few squadrons in the far east would swap from the standard 2 X 20mm 4X.303 to 4 X 20mm for attack missions and bomber intercepts .
Not an accurate statement about squadrons swapping out. There was one Spit VIII given extended wing tips and 4 20mm and was set up that way in hopes of catching hi alt Dinah recce birds.
We have this discussion every year going back to the start of AH. The AH XVI is a very representative Spit for the last part of the war covering a similar time frame as the 190D9. Due to the lack of air to air, the LFIX and XVI flew predominantly ground attack so AH did a great job giving us that bird. In a perfect world we also get an LF IX with Universal wing. As is we have the VIII it does give us similar performance. And covers 43-45. And the IX we have covers 42-mid 43 well.
We don't need a 4 cannon Spit as they just weren't used outside of some tropicalized ground attack Vc and the one documented VIII we've found.
-
Dan,
Do you have any information on the "basta" a special IX that ran on 150 fuel?
IIRC they had a very short engine overhaul time but I don't recall more than that.
:salute
-
Dan,
Do you have any information on the "basta" a special IX that ran on 150 fuel?
IIRC they had a very short engine overhaul time but I don't recall more than that.
:salute
Many, perhaps most, LF.IX, XIV and XVI squadrons converted to 150 octane in 1944. I believe all P-47Ms were converted to 150 octane. Many Tempest Vs, P-51Ds and some Mosquito Mk VIs were converted to 150 octane in 1944.
In all cases, save perhaps the Mossie, the resulting performance would make them a perk plane in AH. The Mossie only did about 375mph on the deck.
-
Due to the lack of air to air, the LFIX and XVI flew predominantly ground attack
Too bad they didn't have drop tanks.
- oldman
-
Too bad they didn't have drop tanks.
- oldman
By late 44 they were mostly flying from bases on the continent. Not much need for more bomber escorts by that time though.
-
Too bad they didn't have drop tanks.
- oldman
:)
-
Dan,
Do you have any information on the "basta" a special IX that ran on 150 fuel?
IIRC they had a very short engine overhaul time but I don't recall more than that.
:salute
As Karnak stated, many were using that fuel in particular in the summer of 44 chasing V-1s
-
By late 44 they were mostly flying from bases on the continent. Not much need for more bomber escorts by that time though.
That was an old joke from Airwarrior Karnak :)
We had a scenario where the design limited the Spits to 75 fuel. The Airwarrior birds had no drop tanks so it went a long way to neutering the Spits in that Scenario. It was the first time I had a group in a Scenario and it was tough knowing you could cross the coast and basically have to return home due to fuel. I was younger and less understanding then and pitched a bit of a fit about it :)
-
As Karnak stated, many were using that fuel in particular in the summer of 44 chasing V-1s
This is Mossie centric, but I imagine the Spits worked the same. The Mossie's that were modified to take 150 octane for anti-Diver patrols retained that modification and kept using 150 octane once they were moved to other tasks.
-
I know it's not at all historical, but I'd love to see a K4 modeled on "what it" usage of 150 octane fuel.
-
Some G-10/K-4 units evidently did fly on C3 fuel, but information is very limited. Mostly just photographs of 109s with C3 stickers on them. C3 would increase power to ~2,000 hp.
-
I know it's not at all historical, but I'd love to see a K4 modeled on "what it" usage of 150 octane fuel.
Do you mean the the ones using 1.98ata and C3 fuel? The use of only C3 fuel only gave ~1800hp.
-
I've come to this thread late - what is Franz's issue, and which marks does he say did not see combat?
:headscratch:
-
I've come to this thread late - what is Franz's issue, and which marks does he say did not see combat?
:headscratch:
He claims to believe that only 12 Mk XVI's saw combat. I don't think he actually believes this, I think the claim fits his fancy as it matches well with his detestation of anything British.
-
Ah.
That's a fairly spectacular claim.
-
C3 was 100 octane, no?
-
C3 was 100 octane, no?
I think its a bit more complex than that, as petrol chemistry is
-
I've come to this thread late - what is Franz's issue
He's Schlowy, that's his issue.
ack-ack
-
The attached link has some interesting information about the 150 octane fuel.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
-
I've come to this thread late - what is Franz's issue,
He played with a screwdriver in the power socket and he has been like this since.
-
As Karnak stated, many were using that fuel in particular in the summer of 44 chasing V-1s
It was a long tima ago I read about the "Basta" but I seem to recall it was out of Italy and they not only ran 150 fuel but push the MAP somewhat past what it was rated for and the result was something like 10 hours or less and the manifolds would burn out.
I was wondering if you had any more imformation or maybe a good book to read about it,ya I don't just read the german stuff!!!! :devil
:salute
-
No no no, I stated, without source, that there were only twelve spit16's built BEFORE the war ended, and that none of those saw combat!
Source: channel 200 <--- good source!
I've seen no credible source that says otherwise! :banana:
Oh and again, take it up with HTC if a spit16 isn't a spit16, and a g10 isn't a g10. :headscratch:
And no idea who sclowy is...
And you guys say we have an early g6? Where does it say that? And if true, why?
Me thinks you guys are trying to do the 'Jedi Mind Trick' on us!
-
No no no, I stated, without source, that there were only twelve spit16's built BEFORE the war ended, and that none of those saw combat!
Source: channel 200 <--- good source!
I've seen no credible source that says otherwise! :banana:
I suggest you review the rules on trolling.
Oh and again, take it up with HTC if a spit16 isn't a spit16, and a g10 isn't a g10. :headscratch:
G-10 isn't in the game so it doesn't matter. Spit LF.IX and Spit XVI are the same thing so it doesn't matter.
And you guys say we have an early g6? Where does it say that? And if true, why?
Same reason we have an early Spitfire Mk V and Mk IX, to give better coverage of the war.
-
He's Schlowy, that's his issue.
ack-ack
That explains a very great deal, thanks.
-
I've seen no credible source that says otherwise!
You haven't been looking very hard then.
-
Who is/was Schlowy?
-
Serial pest, Luftwhiner so repugnant he made other Luftwhiners look unfairly bad.
-
Who is/was Schlowy?
Picture a more obnoxious version of Franz, but only a few years back.
-
Picture a more obnoxious version of Franz, but only a few years back.
Not "a few years back".
It's one and the same person. And still in game.
-
Is Schlowy still in game? I haven't seen him around.
-
I wouldn't imagine Schlowy had been able to keep his handle.
-
Picture a more obnoxious version of Franz, but only a few years back.
Worse than Kurfurst/Barbi and Crumpp? That is indeed bad!!!
-
Yup, worse than them.
-
That is bad!!!
-
Worse than Kurfurst/Barbi and Crumpp? That is indeed bad!!!
They may have been Luftwhiners but Schlowy takes it a step further and is bitter that Germany lost the war and is prone to making anti-semitic and pro-nazi comments on channel 200.
ack-ack
-
They may have been Luftwhiners but Schlowy takes it a step further and is bitter that Germany lost the war and is prone to making anti-semitic and pro-nazi comments on channel 200.
ack-ack
Yep. Good old 88 in action. Get him going on the 190 nose bounce. He can go on for days on the HTC conspiracy about that.
-
88?
-
Were do you guys find all this stuff.. JUst would like to know for a little light reading :x
-
88?
Click Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_%28number%29#As_a_Neo-Nazi_symbol)
-
RAAF 453 Squadron had more than 12 alone.
Page 168 has the start of the details.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/119116066/Defeat-to-Victory-Opt
Thanks Lyric!
YES, Page 168
"The first operation with the XVIs was conducted on 21 November, and until 23 November both marks were flown on operations. Most operations were against V2 sites around The Hague, quite often rearming at B.67/Unsel, in Belgium, for futher attacks on the return journey to the UK."
D-day had already happened june 6th 1944, FIVE MONTHS LATER, and Spit16's were still based in ENGLAND.
"Later operations flown on 29 April 1945, 453 moved to RAF Lasham, and by 15 June..."
Lasham is STILL IN ENGLAND.
SOO, GROUND ATTACK FROM ENGLAND LOL AND THEN WAR WAS OVER! (MAY 7th 1945) So the 453rd had 27 of them? Combat? MAYBE THEY HAD SOME MAJOR ISSUES AND DEEMED NOT WORTHY OF AIR TO AIR COMBAT?
:rofl
Wikipedia's table says from 'spitfire variants' article:
"XVI Castle Bromwich 1,054 First Mk XVI October 1944" soo... 1054 built but how many before wars end?
This paragraph of from Wikipedia 'spitfire variants' says a spit16 should be like a spit9!!!:
The Mk XVI was the same as the Mk IX in nearly all respects except for the engine, a Merlin 266. The Merlin 266 was the Merlin 66 and was built under licence in the USA by the Packard Motor Company. The "2" was added as a prefix in order to avoid confusion with the engines, as they required different tooling. All Mk XVI aircraft produced were of the Low-Altitude Fighter (LF) variety. This was not determined by the length of the wings (clipped wings were fitted to most LF Spitifres), but by the engine, which had been optimised for low-altitude operation. All production Mk XVIs had clipped wings for low altitude work and were fitted with the rear fuselage fuel tanks with a combined capacity of 75 gal.[38] Many XVIs featured cut-down rear fuselages with "bubble" canopies. On these aircraft the rear fuselage tank capacity was limited to 66 gal.[38]
AGAIN: Karnak...
you say that the spit16 isn't a spit16, ASK HTC, to include in the name LF.Mk IXe?
WHY ARE YOU CALLING ME OUT? CALL OUT HTC's crew!
(and NOT SAME planes btw, lots of versions are close, some very different!)
And still YOU SAY: (AFTER THE SPIT 9) "VERY FEW SAW COMBAT" (TO ALL THE LATER SPITS)
If you are saying this, they probably didn't see combat at all. LOL.
"NOW MAKE YOUR CHART AGAIN WITH PRODUCTION NUMBERS BEFORE WARS END AND TOTAL PRODUCED, AND CLAIMED KILLS!"
Then I will feel that I learned something from your post.
you say the 109g10 THAT GAME HAD wasn't a 109g10. AGAIN, TAKE THIS UP WITH HTC.
Wikipedia:
"Approximately 2,600 G-10s were produced from October 1944 until the war's end."
However it was modeled, the real ones were arguably "the BEST" 109s. If ask most Luftwaffe guys in here... SPEED with 20mm's... NOT THE TATER. (tater is neat but has issues, in game, like have to DROP YOUR SPEED and get right close behind a guy to tater him! No spraying about it. "Make the miracle shots, miss the easy ones." ~someone. So drop your speed, stall fight and maybe win, BUT GET PICKED IN A QUICK MINUTE IF IN MAIN ARENA.
You say our g6 is an early model, and you admit that 190a8 'might get a weight reduction.' Enough said?
I add that yes OUR 109g6 is weak, AWESOME TORQ ROLLS THO, when it probably had MORE KILLS THAN ANYTHING IN THE WAR. <-- Hartmann's plane.
And that the 190s pull up, how to aim 4x20mms or 2x20mm and 2xTATERS (ON SAME TRIGGER) with this 'nose drift BUG?'
410's noses down... how to aim a precision high-powerd sniper weapon with this 'drift BUG?'
SPACE INVADERS AND ASTROIDS THE NOSE STAYED WHERE YOU LEFT IT!
And the facts are all over the 109e had twice the kills of RAF fighters in Battle of Britain historic with England having RADAR and AT LEAST 50miles of water AT SHORTEST CROSSING (London and Calais).
And Politics?
Read 177 thread to learn all about how KARNAK hates the 177 and luftwaffles of any kind.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,345695.0.html
I don't know what you 'love' but I know you hate Luftwaffe, 20,000 posts of pretending to be OBJECTIVE while actually hiding HATRED against anything and everything German!
In the 1930s the RAF decided to go straight from the .303 to the 20mm. They saw the .50s as better than the .303s, but also as only a stopgap that would face the same deficiencies as the .303. The only reason any of their planes ended up with .50s was due to the readily available supply from the US. Per the US Navy's tests the Spitfire Mk XVI has the same effective firepower as the P-47's eight .50s.
There was a mockup on the Mk IV, the originally planned Griffon Spit, of six Hispano Mk IIs, but that obviously never happened.
IF IN THE 1930's THE RAF KNEW THEIR 303's SUXED, THEN WHY THE DID THE SUMMER OF 1940 BATTLE OF BRITAIN SPITFIRE HAVE EIGHT 303's!!! OH MEIN GOTT IN HIMMEL!!!
*EDIT: AND THE HURI Mk1 had EIGHT 303s!
Typical KARNAK LOGIC.
YOU SHOULD CHECK THE TROLLING RULES. AND PLEASE POST A DAM SOURCE ONCE IN A WHILE?
:neener:
-
We've already explained this to you once before so you are clearly just trolling regarding the number of Spitfire XVI that saw combat and how many squadrons. I'm not going to waste my time typing it all out again as clearly your reading and comprehension skills are lacking.
-
I posted and linked my primary, but not only, Spitfire source. Stating that I haven't provided a source doesn't magically make the source I provided disappear. You haven't provided any sources for your discredited claims.
As to the guns, that is well documented. Why they fought the Battle of Britain without cannons was due to delays in getting the cannons reliable enough for service. The first attempts to put cannons in Spitfire wings resulted in completely unacceptable stoppage rates, frequently jamming on one of the first three rounds fired.
Stop cherry picking my statements out of context. I did not say very few Spit XVIs saw combat. I said very few bubble canopy Spitfire Mk XVIs saw combat. That is a very significant difference and completely invalidates your claim of what I said.
In addition posting a pure Spitfire thread, as I did here, is not in any way, shape or form hatred of German stuff. Everything I posted in the OP stands completely on its own and has no critique of anything German. You brought your complaints about 109s here, not others. My limited comments about Bf109s in response to you are completely without a shred of hate and where you get those ideas are entirely internal to you.
-
Bf109G-10 neubau
G 10
Erla 544
G-10
Mttr 177
G 10/R6
Erla 971
G 10/U4
WNF 356
Total 2048 NOT 2600 as Wiki says!
-
just for you Werra
Spitfire production
http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/production.html
Do spend some time going thro the list to eliminate you ignorance.
-
Mr HTC's... there seems to be some issues, with our spitfire plane name designations.
*'seems' as in the issues might actually reeeeely be the posters having separate issues!
Possible solution: rename spit16 to spit16/spit-whatever! <--- too complicated for me!
Possible chronological forcast:
1) fix some Luftwaffe aircraft
2) add the He-177!
3) rename the spit!
hehehe, just address it please, before Karnak's head looks like Akak's haha...
:salute
-
And the facts are all over the 109e had twice the kills of RAF fighters in Battle of Britain historic with England having RADAR and AT LEAST 50miles of water AT SHORTEST CROSSING (London and Calais).
Royal Air Force
Type Losses
Hurricane 601
Spitfire 357
Blenheim 53
Other 76
Total 1087
Luftwaffe
Type Losses
Junkers Ju 87 74
Junkers Ju 88 281
Dornier Do 17 171
Dornier Do 215 6
Heinkel He 56 31
Heinkel He 111 246
Heinkel He 115 28
Henschel Hs 126 7
Messerschmitt Bf 109 533
Messerschmitt Bf 110 229
Total 1562
-
It won't get renamed, and I am not asking for such. HTC prefers simple mark designations for their British aircraft and has not ever released two versions of the same mark. I would not expect that to change.
Imagine a player, a gamer rather than a history buff, looking at the plane list and seeing:
Spitfire F.Mk IX
Spitfire LF.Mk IX
Spitfire Mk I
Spitfire Mk V
Spitfire Mk VIII
Spitfire Mk XIV
Instead of what we have now:
Spitfire Mk I
Spitfire Mk IX
Spitfire Mk V
Spitfire Mk VIII
Spitfire Mk XIV
Spitfire Mk XVI
Progression and likely potency is more obvious in the current setting, yes? And, as I explained in the OP the LF.Mk IXe and Mk XVI are the same airplane. If people would stop spewing misinformation in pursuit of their objectives it would be much better than some silly renaming.
-
Wikipedia said something like this:
1034 single engine fighters lost by England
533 single engine fighters lost by Germany
to clear up what I said earlier in this thread:
PLANES A DAY WORLDWIDE
From Germany's invasion of Poland Sept. 1, 1939 and ending with Japan's surrender Sept. 2, 1945 --- 2,433 days.
From 1942 onward, America averaged 170 planes lost a day.
Nation Aircraft Average
USA 276,400 113
S Union 137,200 56
G Britain 108,500 45
Germany 109,000 45
Japan 76,300 31
the link is dead since originally posted.
its nation, how many losses total, and how many per day average lost.
I quote meself!:
"NOW MAKE YOUR CHART AGAIN WITH PRODUCTION NUMBERS BEFORE WARS END AND TOTAL PRODUCED, AND CLAIMED KILLS!"
Then I will feel that I learned something from your post.
-
Wikipedia said something like this:
1034 single engine fighters lost by England
533 single engine fighters lost by Germany
You sure aren't very bright between the ears!
Your uber 109 didn't do a very good job of protecting the other Luftwaffe a/c with just over 1000 shot down. :D
-
No no no... can you read? Or is it your writing? Clarify your stuff!
Germany lost 533 single engine aircraft! :D
England lost 1034 single engine aircraft! :D
THEY DIDNT HAVE THE FUEL TO PROTECT THE BOMBERS. The one invention that didn't exist yet... a drop tank.
And this is with England having Radar, Fighting over their own land, and having atleast 50 miles of water between them and occupied France. :D
And a drop-tank wasn't invented yet... simple thing and England lost for sure! :D
Still more RAF Fighters lost!
BEFORE BATTLE FOR BRITAIN:
Oh, and The RAF got booted out of France by the way! Chased back to their homeland! :neener:
Allieds losses: 2233 planes lost
Germany: 1236 or 1345 aircraft lost
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_France
:D
AFTER BATTLE FOR BRITAIN:
England' Battle of Dieppe, August 19, 1942
England and Canada, without USA... FAILED pathetically to invade German occupied France!
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dieppe
:D
So give it up Milo... the first guys to the front line here already have. :D
-
Germany lost the Battle of Britain. The Luftwaffe failed to gain control of the skies over southern England. No matter what cherry picked shenanigans Franz and MiloMorai want to get into, that is the fundamental fact.
As to Dieppe, it was a very useful disaster. The Allies learned a lot from it.
-
LOL werra. drop tanks were used by the Lw in the SCW.
The job of fighters of the RAF was to shoot down the nazi bombers. The job of the nazi fighters was to protect the nazi bombers by shooting down the RAF fighters shooting down the nazi bombers.
The nazi fighters did a crappy job of protecting the nazi bombers from the RAF fighters!!! :D
The nazis failed to defeat the RAF > fact.
-
109s didn't do a terrible job. They lost more due to the impossibility of their goal than inferiority of their fighters or tactics.
-
There are a couple things we need to rember.
1 Herman Goreing overstated the capabilities of the Luft.
2 The German air force not working together in protecting the bombers.
3 Luft. bombing London by accident. Which leads to number 4
4 The bombing of Berlin (one of Churchill better decisions.) Great Moral Booster
5 Hitler becomes incensed with bombing London.( The Germans were actually winning the battle to this point) I admitt at a fairly slow rate but none the less winning.
6. The bombing of London stopped decimating the RAF's logistical rebuilding of its airforce.
7 The BIGGEST point of all. NEVER under estimate a person FIGHTING for his homeland. Many sacrified there lives to fulfill the mission :salute Why you may ask
They were fighting for all of buddies, their families, their sweethearts and finally for the soil that was stained with blood of their friends. :salute
Numbers don't matter so much as the moral of the fighters.
That was the final deciding factor of battle :old:
-
No no no... can you read? Or is it your writing? Clarify your stuff!
Germany lost 533 single engine aircraft! :D
England lost 1034 single engine aircraft! :D
THEY DIDNT HAVE THE FUEL TO PROTECT THE BOMBERS. The one invention that didn't exist yet... a drop tank.
Your reading comprehension isn't a strong suite is it? You are quoting an inaccurate figure for total RAF losses during the BoB, not fighter losses. RAF lost a total of 958 fighters (601 Hurricane losses, 357 Spitfire losses), not 1034 as you claim. Total RAF losses were 1087 during the BoB, compared to 1562 total losses suffered by the Luftwaffe, which includes 533 Bf 109s lost during the battle.
Source: Statistics of the Battle of Britain (http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html)
As for your claims about drops tanks not being invented at the time of the Battle of Britain, again (no surprise!) you're wrong. The first use of drop tanks was during the Spanish Civil War and the Japanese were using drop tanks on their fighters (Ki-27, A5M2) in China. Here is a picture of one of the A5M2s with a drop tank taken in 1938.
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/NavyJB&W2/A5M-52.jpg)
On December 8th, 1941, the Tainan Air Group took off from their base in Taiwan to attack US airfields in the Philippines and were able to make the round trip because the Zeros had drop tanks.
The Luftwaffe started to outfit the Ju-87R (long range version of the Stuka) with a 300 liter drop tank in early 1940 and the Bf 109E-7 started to use the same 300 liter drop tank in the summer of 1940. What made the use of drop tanks scarce was the shortage of wartime metals, which led to the development and use of paper constructed drop tanks.
ack-ack
-
109s didn't do a terrible job. They lost more due to the impossibility of their goal than inferiority of their fighters or tactics.
Luftwaffe tactics and strategy was the main factor that contributed to their loss, not the 'impossibility of their goal'. Read "The Most Dangerous Enemy: a History of the Battle of Britain" if you want a comprehensive view of the BoB from both sides.
ack-ack
-
I quote meself!:
"KARNAK... GO MAKE YOUR CHART AGAIN WITH PRODUCTION NUMBERS BEFORE WARS END AND TOTAL PRODUCED, AND CLAIMED KILLS!"
Then I will feel that I learned something from your post.
Ok, you guys have changed the topic...
on topic:
clearly defeated... spit16 source posted says 27 didn't see combat other than ground fire probably from the V2 bases. (Lyric's book source)
Spit blah blah version, was just like a spit9 with different engine. (Wikipedia)
off topic:
Luft kicked RAF out of France... LUFT fighters > RAF fighters.
then didn't have a drop tank for Battle of Britian still... LUFT fighters > RAF Fighter,
also 'channel dash' LUFT escorts capital ships through England's channel, LUFT fighters > RAF fighters.
Then battle of Dieppe, England failed to invade France without USA! LUFT fighters > RAF fighters.
Finally, USA won the war. Nuff said! And RAF became a 3rd world nation, with a nuke! Some job the RAF did! :rock
Can be closed now! <takes a bow> :salute all
wpeters:
4 and 5, this was englands way of switching the war to a war against civilians... and buying time and mercy from USA.
See this stuff about how England manipulated Germany's Luftwaffe navigation system... it was a couple of Non Directional Becons NDB's, towers sending a radio signal from France's coast, to help the Luftwaffe find their targets. England tricked the Luftwaffe into bombing London, then only a few hours later, RAF bombed Berlin... total setup.
From other thread:
Knickebein (crease leg) (reffered to as 'Headache' by England):
Germany's radio navigation during Battle for Britain.
From wikipedia.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knickebein_(navigation)
see "search for the beams section"
Sceptics started regarding the system as proof that the German pilots were not as good as their own, who they believed could do without such systems. It was Lindemann himself who proved this wrong, when his "photoflash" systems started returning photographs of the RAF bombing raids, showing that they were rarely, if ever, anywhere near their targets. <-- lol better than RAF bombers!
and see "counter measure section" (reffered to as 'Aspirin' by England)
The British broadcasters were later modified to broadcast their dots at the same time the German transmitters would, making it impossible to tell which signal was which. In this case the navigators would receive the equi-signal over a wide area, and navigation along the bombline became impossible, with the aircraft drifting into the "dash area" and no way to correct for it.
England was capable of manipulating the Luftwaffe Bombers navigation system, and either by accident or on purpose, caused London to get bombed! I'm sure England's radio broadcasts to the world did not mention 'aspirin'!!!
RAF tricked Luftwaffe bombers into bombing London, and the next night RAF bombed Berlin. The bombing of cities instead of military targets saved England during the Battle for Britain, and HENCE BEGAN THE BATTLE AGAINST CITES and CIVILIANS BEGAN!!!
See 'phases of wikipedia's Battle of Britain section, August 23rd, 24th,25th, and how cities were previously off limits by the fuhrer himself.
German Bombsites and Accuracy:
Durinig the Battle for Britain, a new upgraded Ju-88 was downed and captured intact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Graveney_Marsh
On 27 September, British Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane fighter planes from No. 66 and No. 92 Squadron RAF attacked what they recognized as a new variant of Junkers 88 over Faversham. An order had been issued to them to capture one such aircraft intact if possible.[1] One of the bomber's engines had already been damaged by anti-aircraft fire during a raid on London and the Spitfires were able to destroy its remaining engine, forcing the pilot to make a crash landing on Graveney Marsh.
Captain John Cantopher succeeded in disarming a demolition charge which enabled the bomber, which was equipped with a new and very accurate type of bombsight, to be captured for examination by British experts. The aircraft was taken to Farnborough Airfield where it was said to have "provided highly valuable information".[1] Cantopher was subsequently awarded the George Medal for his action.[3][4][5]
I do not know the name of this bombsite type, still, uhh, yeaah, Luftwaffe Bombers were capable of hitting a target!
This was 1940, so uhh, yeah too, I'm sure that by 1942, let alone 1944, the He-177 would have an accurate site also.
Oh, and no bombers had the accuracy afforded to bomber planes in our game!
-
If you want the kill total for Spitfires go get it yourself.
As I have shown the Spit XVI was rolling off the production lines along with the Spitfire LF.Mk IXe in early 1944. Over 1000 Mk XVIs were built and about 3500 Spitfire LF.Mk IXs were built. Spit XVIs were moved to the continent in July of 1944 along with LF.Mk IXs as the two were flown alongside each other in the same squadrons.
-
This revisionist history being spewed is even worse than what ever Barbi spewed.
-
Luftwaffe tactics and strategy was the main factor that contributed to their loss, not the 'impossibility of their goal'. Read "The Most Dangerous Enemy: a History of the Battle of Britain" if you want a comprehensive view of the BoB from both sides.
ack-ack
Strategy = bomb London till UK surrenders, more or less. Pretty damn impossible, if say.
I never said their strategy was good, just their flying and pilots, which really was the spit of the post :rolleyes:.
-
Strategy = bomb London till UK surrenders, more or less. Pretty damn impossible, if say.
I never said their strategy was good, just their flying and pilots, which really was the spit of the post :rolleyes:.
Nope. It was to achieve aerial supremacy by defeating the RAF.
-
No no no... can you read? Or is it your writing? Clarify your stuff!
Germany lost 533 single engine aircraft! :D
England lost 1034 single engine aircraft! :D
THEY DIDNT HAVE THE FUEL TO PROTECT THE BOMBERS. The one invention that didn't exist yet... a drop tank.
Drop tanks certainly existed, just not on the 109E-1/3/4. The Bf-110B was plumbed for drop tanks. In fact, drop tanks were use by the Luftwaffe on the He-51 during the Spanish Civil War.
-
Strategy = bomb London till UK surrenders, more or less. Pretty damn impossible, if say.
I never said their strategy was good, just their flying and pilots, which really was the spit of the post :rolleyes:.
Do yourself a favor and read about the Battle of Britain so you don't come off looking as foolish and ignorant as Schlowy.
ack-ack
-
I quote meself!:
"KARNAK... GO MAKE YOUR CHART AGAIN WITH PRODUCTION NUMBERS BEFORE WARS END AND TOTAL PRODUCED, AND CLAIMED KILLS!"
Then I will feel that I learned something from your post.
Ok, you guys have changed the topic...
on topic:
clearly defeated... spit16 source posted says 27 didn't see combat other than ground fire probably from the V2 bases. (Lyric's book source)
Spit blah blah version, was just like a spit9 with different engine. (Wikipedia)
off topic:
Luft kicked RAF out of France... LUFT fighters > RAF fighters.
then didn't have a drop tank for Battle of Britian still... LUFT fighters > RAF Fighter,
also 'channel dash' LUFT escorts capital ships through England's channel, LUFT fighters > RAF fighters.
Then battle of Dieppe, England failed to invade France without USA! LUFT fighters > RAF fighters.
Finally, USA won the war. Nuff said! And RAF became a 3rd world nation, with a nuke! Some job the RAF did! :rock
Can be closed now! <takes a bow> :salute all
wpeters:
4 and 5, this was englands way of switching the war to a war against civilians... and buying time and mercy from USA.
See this stuff about how England manipulated Germany's Luftwaffe navigation system... it was a couple of Non Directional Becons NDB's, towers sending a radio signal from France's coast, to help the Luftwaffe find their targets. England tricked the Luftwaffe into bombing London, then only a few hours later, RAF bombed Berlin... total setup.
From other thread:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/dogwhat.jpg)
-
Told ya.
-
I quote meself!:
"KARNAK... GO MAKE YOUR CHART AGAIN WITH PRODUCTION NUMBERS BEFORE WARS END AND TOTAL PRODUCED, AND CLAIMED KILLS!"
Then I will feel that I learned something from your post.
Ok, you guys have changed the topic...
on topic:
clearly defeated... spit16 source posted says 27 didn't see combat other than ground fire probably from the V2 bases. (Lyric's book source)
Spit blah blah version, was just like a spit9 with different engine. (Wikipedia)
off topic:
Luft kicked RAF out of France... LUFT fighters > RAF fighters.
then didn't have a drop tank for Battle of Britian still... LUFT fighters > RAF Fighter,
also 'channel dash' LUFT escorts capital ships through England's channel, LUFT fighters > RAF fighters.
Then battle of Dieppe, England failed to invade France without USA! LUFT fighters > RAF fighters.
Finally, USA won the war. Nuff said! And RAF became a 3rd world nation, with a nuke! Some job the RAF did! :rock
Can be closed now! <takes a bow> :salute all
wpeters:
4 and 5, this was englands way of switching the war to a war against civilians... and buying time and mercy from USA.
See this stuff about how England manipulated Germany's Luftwaffe navigation system... it was a couple of Non Directional Becons NDB's, towers sending a radio signal from France's coast, to help the Luftwaffe find their targets. England tricked the Luftwaffe into bombing London, then only a few hours later, RAF bombed Berlin... total setup.
From other thread:
Pssst! The war's been over for a long time. Your side lost. Spin it anyway you want, but you can't rewrite it to make a change the outcome.
You've gotta come out of your bunker. I realize it's safer for you down there and you can sieg heil to your hearts content, but you gotta grow up some time. :aok
-
Schlowy cosplaying.
(http://www.hogansheroesfanclub.com/images/tvGuide06may1967p16SchultzPictureLarge.jpg)
ack-ack
-
Hey man, some people liked Sgt. Schulz.
-
THIS IS KARNAK'S THREAD.
His burden of proof! His chart does not say #s built before the end of the war.
Lyric's book shows 27 built, and it ground attack only! No mention of air to air combat.
GET A SOURCE, OR GET OUT OF THE THREAD.
All you guys have done, is what you do everytime, turn this forum into a circus, ganging, and pushing to ban any oposition to YOUR PROPAGANDA. All the while, you flame and flamebait, violationg ROC.
:banana:
-
At least two sources have been posted which give a full overview of Spit production. Lyric's, as you can tell from the title, covers a single squadron.
You want to prove the Spit 16 didn't see combat? Go prove it. Why should we do your work for you.
-
Franz,
The following was based on data from the source I listed earlier. I posted it earlier in the thread.
I don't think I can get you a precise answer. I was looking through "Spitfire: The History" by Morgan and Shacklady and the numbers simply aren't broken down like that. I can infer some things by the dates the orders were filled, but only to a degree. When it says an order for 1500 Spitfire F.21s was placed, then canceled, then partially reinstated as 673 Mk IXs that were filled as Mk IXs and Mk XVIs between June and October of 1944 I can safely say they all had e wings, but I have no idea how many were HF.Mk IXes, LF.Mk IXes or Mk XVIs. Another example was an order for 2190 Spitfire Mk Vs placed on 12 May, 1942 and built between July 1943 and May 1944 as a mix of Mk Vcs, Mk IXs and Mk XVIs.
Total Spitfire Mk IX production, all Mk IX serials, was 5663. Total Mk XVI production was 1053 and total production of the Mk IX stopgap airframe was 6716. Of the 5663 Mk IX serials most were built as LF.Mk IXs with Merlin 66s, but I have no idea what the breakdown between universal wings and e wings was. All 1053 Mk XVIs were LFs with the Merlin 266 and all had the e wing. Bare minimum that I can see being of the LF.Mk IXe/Mk XVI type would be about 2000, and it could be well above that.
This will be my final post referencing my source as you refuse to acknowledge any such post.
-
PM me if you can pls Karnak.
-
THIS IS KARNAK'S THREAD.
His burden of proof! His chart does not say #s built before the end of the war.
Lyric's book shows 27 built, and it ground attack only! No mention of air to air combat.
GET A SOURCE, OR GET OUT OF THE THREAD.
All you guys have done, is what you do everytime, turn this forum into a circus, ganging, and pushing to ban any oposition to YOUR PROPAGANDA. All the while, you flame and flamebait, violationg ROC.
:banana:
So lets keep this simple for your simple mind. This Spitfire XVI TB752, that still survives in the museum at Manston is credited with four kills by four different pilots while operating from a German airfield. That's one Spitfire XVI.
http://www.spitfiremuseum.org.uk/spitfire/spitfire.htm
I'd suggest you look up the operations of 127 Wing made up of 403, 416 and 421 squadrons equipped with Spitfire XVI. 443 Squadron equipped with XVI. 131 Wing made up of 302 and 308 squadrons with Spitfire XVI. 145 Wing made up of 329 and 340 squadrons with XVI. 322 squadron had XVI. 66 Squadron had XVI, 602 Squadron had XVI. 453 Squadron had XVI. 129 squadron had XVI. These are all wartime squadrons operating the XVI
You can go sit in the corner now :aok
-
403 Squadron claimed 31 kills while flying XVIs and that's with the Luftwaffe being non existent for the most part.They had the XVI starting in December 1944. Their first kill was December 8, 1944 on a sweep over Germany. On Christmas day the Squadron CO shot down a 262 while in an XVI.
-
All the while, you flame and flamebait, violationg ROC.
No one is allowed to violate ROC!
Unless you buy me a drink first.
-
:rofl
-
:lol :aok
-
Where did Joseph Goebbels go? I was waiting for some reply from the Nazi propaganda minister.
-
Hey Guppy, can you PM me as well?
Thanks.
-
The silence is deafening from the bunker.
<crickets chirping>
-
See Rule #4
-
That's it? After all that preaching and Nazi propaganda and that's the best you can do?
Come on Joe. At least check with you astrologers :aok
-
See Rule #4
-
Apologies to mods.
Bottom line is, everything needed to determine XVI production has been posted in this thread. Some posters are too lazy to go do their homework. I won't post info to be cherry-picked by, ah, certain posters.
-
Dan, Neil Sterling has posted some documents on the RAF a/c strength as of April 26 1945.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/strength-r-f-26th-april-1945-a-38562.html
It lists 538 Spitfire LF XVI and 59 Spitfire F XVI in the UK.
Your remember how Barbi went on and on about the small numbers of Spitfire XIV? The document has 500 in the UK.
-
Yes, I remember that, and it should be pointed out that, in this case, "UK" means GB and the continent - 2nd TAF numbers are in there.
Thank Gawd Barbi and Crumpp aren't around here anymore - the latter would no doubt find some way of using that document to claim 2 TAF was never in Europe...
-
We have had this same conversation too many times. :headscratch:
-
Dan, Neil Sterling has posted some documents on the RAF a/c strength as of April 26 1945.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/strength-r-f-26th-april-1945-a-38562.html
It lists 538 Spitfire LF XVI and 59 Spitfire F XVI in the UK.
Your remember how Barbi went on and on about the small numbers of Spitfire XIV? The document has 500 in the UK.
To judge by the other sources which have been posted here ( :bhead) those totals will include both aircraft which were in schools, test and delivery units etc, and aircraft which had been damaged in battle or in accidents which were still on strength but awaiting write-off.
I can tell (almost) everyone what those numbers were if you're interested.
-
NOT TROLLING JUST TRYING TO LEARN STUFF HERE... K?
Yeah yeah I'm sorry too if trolled... but I call it like I see it.....oooohhhkkaaay?
at least don't throw WILD accusations around! ;)
and post bad pictures!
I only posted one video... pm me and i'll link it to you! :D
BACK TO BUSINESS OF SOLVING THIS DEBATE?
So now from MiloMorai's list, there were about 600 SpitXVI's, combined total for both USA and England in force, in May of 1945?
Maybe they saw a bunch of combat and some got shot down? But ONLY 600 late war spits at end of war???
To explain away some possible confusion... DID THE SPIT 16 SEE COMBAT? (short answer... probably!) : P
Adolf Galland's Book, "first to the last"... (he says a lot of stuff, mostly blames Goering and Hitler, seems never himself though!)
At first, Werner Molders was in charge of all luft fighter planes but he was mostly on the Eastern front. Galland was in charge, under Molders, of the western front, but when Molders died in November 1941, Galland was then head of all fighters.
Things Galland said: (go see his book, I can't find my copy, read it years ago)...
1) When the allieds were bombing Germany, the decision was made to station the luft fighters mostly IN Germany to PROTECT Germany. Yes this was sacrificing just about anything in France. Ofcourse this is western front, eastern front had fighters on the front line the whole time.
2) Also, "Following the latest bomb craters" a chapter that he talks about moving the Luft fighters to protect the LAST target, which wouldn't be the NEXT target sooo "following the craters"... even stationed in Germany, it was only till later when the Radar was helping...
2.5) He even speaks of a specific time... reports of "enemy planes" which were actually the Luftwaffe fighters... The Luftwaffe fighters this day were actually SEARCHING FOR THEMSELVES heh...
When D-day happened, there is a poster I saw long ago, by Galland showing the Normandy beach "Even our own troops asked the obvious question "where is the luftwaffe.""
3) At this time, D-day, as planned, the Luft fighters stationed in Germany moved to west to forward preset luft airbases in France. But, they ran into enemy fighters along the way, and so they got diverted to all over, total chaos? And some of the bases were already freshly bombed, or capped by enemy fighters, or too many planes at a small airbase while not enough at a fully stocked larger airbase... Yes, after D-day the luft went back into France but didn't actually reach the coast too much?
4) For a lot of 1944', Galland was "taking 'remainder planes from all over and putting them into his private reserve - a LARGE stash air-wing (I forgot the squad name)... The pilots were trained extensively to intercept bombers, I think he had about 1000 fighters? (I can't find the book). Gallands idea was to try to basically decimate an entire allied-1000-bomber-raid. At one time, the usa was sending about 500 to 600 fighter planes with the 1000 bombers. Some of the USA high command was recommending upping it to 2 fighters per bomber, so 2000 fighters per 1000 bombers... When to use the 1000 luft fighters to try to kill the 1000 USA bombers?... delayed, delayed, delayed...
What actually happened INSTEAD was that HITLER took Galland's private reserve, the 1000(?) fighters, STOLE THEM, and used them in the January 1, 1945 battle to attack USA fighters ON THE GROUND AT BASES IN FRANCE, DURRING BLIZZARD CONDTIONS, hoping to catch the P-51's ON THE GROUND. They did alright but they lost most of their better pilots... un replaceable!
Do consider that Germany's aircraft production went up and up until around Dec 44 / jan 45... "cottage industry"... planes were built by components in 'cottages'...
example: we all heard of the 'ballbearing' raids, Regensburg? or was it Stuttgart? I forget... but yes allieds high command were surprised that there were still luft fighters late in the war. Flown by noobs though, especially after jan 1st 1945. Operation Bastonge / Bodenplate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodenplatte
Luft fighters stolen by Hitler from Galland!
The above thing about luft fighters mostly stationed in Germany, and on Russian front, and only few in france... combined with this:
With the old saying "A P-51 can't do what a Spitfire can, but a P-51 does what it does over Germany"...
And "the bombers weren't safe until the long range escort... p-51"...
The p-47's had tried to protect the b-17's and b-24's but they couldn't do it for the WHOLE ROUND TRIP... After the P-51 came out, P-47's became mostly ground attack or greeter planes escorting for a the way out and return?
So the P-51 arrived and... full round trip... then later on, they were cut loose to try to kill the fighters instead of just protect the bombers?
SOOOOO...
One has to wonder, and question... if the Spitfire wasn't escorting bombers to Germany, and the Luftwaffe mostly wasn't stationed in france...
Then how much combat did the Spitfire actually see after the Battle of Britain?
Of course it saw action?!?! 22,000 built!!!
1) Spits were surely in Africa, but a lot of these planes were also Huricanes, and USA's P-40's... 'Tomahawks' flown by English pilots off English carriers in some cases?
2) Spits sent to USSR... flown by who I don't know...
3) Spits were protecting Malta first from invading Italy forces?, then from Germany? for the whole war? Or was this all huri's? (Grats RAF Malta Defense!)
3.5) Some in Suez Cannal also? Some in Gibraltar protecting the Straights of Gibraltar...
4) Spits were, of course, stationed and protecting England incase Germany sent a raid?
5) Spits were also fighting zeros on the other front, Pacific Theater of Opperations... stationed in Australia?
Seems like a lot of 'guard duty' for spits as far as Europe goes?...
6) Were some in Itally? Monte Casino, and all that? Germany held off the allieds in Italy from mid war till just about the end of the war... Siegfried line? Kesselring line? (getting confusing)...
7) Spits tipping over V1 buzz bombs?
After June 1944, D-day... to the end of the war 'May 8th, 1945...
Allieds were invading Europe on Western front, Soviets in Eastern...
The end result here is this map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Germany
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Map-Germany-1945.svg/250px-Map-Germany-1945.svg.png)
If Spit XVI's, both USA and ENGLAND powered types, were still based in England... then it would seem OBVIOUS that Spit encounters with Luftwaffe would be rare???
Short range fighter based far away?
Is this why England's fighter pilots didn't have sooo many kills? Mostly on guard duty?
Yes, the England had bombers, Lancasters etc etc, bombing stuff in France and Germany since middle of the Battle of Britain till the end of the war... what about fighters though?
WERE ANY SPITFIRES OF ANY MODEL/TYPE BASED ON EUROPE CONTINENT AFTER D-DAY?
Maybe this is why you guys have to go OVER AND OVER this issue about did Spit16's see combat?
Did any see combat? 22,000 spits made... I'm guessing, but I would like to see a graph of Spits total at the time, kills, and losses VS time... from 1939 onward... INTERESTING?
LUSCHE GOT A GRAPH?
Did any Spits at all, even earlier models, actually move onto the continent after D-day up to VE day? (june 6th 44 until may 8th 45)
Salute to RAF bombers... but for the Spits... does this explain its low sightings of Luftwaffe as some of you say?
NOT TROLLING JUST TRYING TO LEARN STUFF HERE... K?
-
WERE ANY SPITFIRES OF ANY MODEL/TYPE BASED ON EUROPE CONTINENT AFTER D-DAY?
There were many squadrons of Spitfire Mk IXs, Mk XIVs and Mk XVIs based on the continent after D-Day. This is easily found, common knowledge.
-
There were many squadrons of Spitfire Mk IXs, Mk XIVs and Mk XVIs based on the continent after D-Day. This is easily found, common knowledge.
Yep, it's even in the link Franz recently posted about Boddenplate.
-
even squadrons of meteors were on the continent just saying ;)
and yes please add them already Hitech! :D
-
even squadrons of meteors were on the continent just saying ;)
and yes please add them already Hitech! :D
surely. beg more.
-
you would love me to kill your 190 and 262 in a meteor repeatedly. don't lie.
-
you would love me to kill your 190 and 262 in a meteor repeatedly. don't lie.
1: i dont fly 262s any more. Check the logs.
2: belive it or not, no, i dont want to kill you, nor to take any revange on you.
-
Seriously Werra, how old are you and where do you live?
Instead of using Wiki for Bodenplatte read the book Bodenplatte by Manrho and Putz (ISBN 1-902109-40-6) In it are listed all the Allied airplane losses which include Spitfire IXs, XIs, XIVs and XVIs.
-
Or the books on 2 TAF by Shores & Thomas, or the Fighter Command War Diaries, or even one of umpteen websites which list where the RAF squadrons were located.
-
how many spit21 where deployed ?
-
how many spit21 where deployed ?
Not many. A squadron I think. Only action was sinking a German mini-sub and one Spit 21 lost to AA fire.
-
So just about the same as the P47M then
-
So just about the same as the P47M then
Spitfire 21 wouldn't use existing geometry in the game though. P-47M uses the exact same geometry as the P-47D-40. I think the P-47M saw significantly more action than the Spitfire 21 as well.
-
spit 21 ! sounds Interesting!
yep lets have that too!
can it catch a 163 in the vertical??
-
spit 21 ! sounds Interesting!
yep lets have that too!
Lets not.
can it catch a 163 in the vertical??
No.
-
We really need the Spit 21 for the last-day of WWII arena. Also, it would fill the roster gap in many made-up scenarios.
A must have.
:rolleyes:
-
I vote no more Spitfires period. Too many EZ mode fighters running around anyway, let's not reward the skilless with more options.
-
:rolleyes:
-
thread hijack
+1 spitfire mkII, mkXII and mk21
-
thread hijack
+1 spitfire mkII, mkXII and mk21
Seafire Mk III is the most needed Spitfire version that we lack by far. Spitfire Mk II is only needed if the Bf109E-7 is added. Spitfire Mk XII would be neat to have, but is pretty low priority. Spitfire F.21 is about as close to the bottom of the list of units to add as you can get while not falling off of it.
-
:rolleyes:
pretty much.
thread hijack
+1 spitfire mkII, mkXII and mk21
the Spit-190 :aok
-
I agree that the Seafire Mk.III would be a nice addition. However, our early Spit V is pathetic in the late war arena. I'd like to a see the clipped wing Spitfire LF Mk.VC with the Merlin 50 added. Capable of 350 mph at 6,000 feet, this Mk.V would be far more viable against late war fighters.
-
Or you could just fly the Mk IX... I mean, we do have other models for a reason.
-
Or you could just fly the Mk IX... I mean, we do have other models for a reason.
Oh the howls of outrage you'd get if you suggested that somebody just use the Bf109G-2 if they want the gondolas they're asking for on the Bf109F-4.
-
Or you could just fly the Mk IX... I mean, we do have other models for a reason.
Not the same for many reasons. The LF Mk.VC was engineered for low level combat, whereas the current F Mk.IX is not. The closest would the LF Mk.IX, or Mk.XVI. So, what would you rather face, the LF Mk.VC or the Mk.XVI?
LF.Mk.VC....
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/1d45/1946e16686kshd6fg.jpg)
-
Minus the roll rate, wouldn't performance be roughly comparable?
-
Minus the roll rate, wouldn't performance be roughly comparable?
No, not at all....
Spit LF.Mk.VC:
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/w3228speed.gif)
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/w3228climb.gif)
Spit F.Mk.IX:
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/lfhfspeed.gif)
(http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543climb.gif)
-
Low altitude, it certainly looks fairly close.
-
Spit F.IX doesn't climb anywhere near that fast down low and is also slower.
-
Unless I'm misreading the charts, they're about tied for speed (about 5mph different at most) and the Mk IX is about 200-300fpm better in the climb.
Now you have to admit neither of those numbers is going to make or break a fight in 90% of cases. Hardly enough to even put it above the bottom sixth of the to-do list.
Out of curiosity, when did this thing serve?
-
Out of curiosity, when did this thing serve?
1942.
-
Unless I'm misreading the charts, they're about tied for speed (about 5mph different at most) and the Mk IX is about 200-300fpm better in the climb.
Now you have to admit neither of those numbers is going to make or break a fight in 90% of cases. Hardly enough to even put it above the bottom sixth of the to-do list.
Out of curiosity, when did this thing serve?
That chart shows the LF.Mk V at 4700fpm initially and the F.Mk IX at 4400fpm initially. The F.Mk IX in AH does about 3700fpm initially.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=17&p2=2&pw=2>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
In AH the F.Mk IX hits 350mph at about 7500ft:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=17&p2=2&pw=2>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
1942.
The first F IX (BR581) was delivered to 64 Sqd on 10 June 1942.
-
Until this thread, I never really got into spitfire designations, confusing so far...
Anyways, WIDEWING, please, what say you about any versions of the spit16 seeing combat? Any logged kills, or even losses?
600 total in june of 45' then?
:noid
-
Until this thread, I never really got into spitfire designations, confusing so far...
Anyways, WIDEWING, please, what say you about any versions of the spit16 seeing combat? Any logged kills, or even losses?
600 total in june of 45' then?
:noid
You really can't be this dense Schlowy, the production/service/combat history and numbers have already been posted in this thread and other threads that have been referenced in this one. It is clearly documented that the Spitfire Mk XIV was produced in numbers, saw operational service on the squadron level and saw combat operations. Why you refuse to accept these facts, I have no idea but the facts have been laid out for you to see.
ack-ack
-
You really can't be this dense Schlowy, the production/service/combat history and numbers have already been posted in this thread and other threads that have been referenced in this one. It is clearly documented that the Spitfire Mk XIV was produced in numbers, saw operational service on the squadron level and saw combat operations. Why you refuse to accept these facts, I have no idea but the facts have been laid out for you to see.
ack-ack
Spit14? We were talking spit16... DUH, learn the alphabet and to count! : P
And only saw two posts for numbers, 27 that did ground attack and about 600 based in England of both usa and england made...
Please don't just point at a website peoples, post website and numbers made etc.
-
LOL Werra. RCAF had 4 squadrons (403, 416, 421, 443) of 127 Wing at Evere that took casualties on Jan 1 1945. Evere is continental Europe. 403 Sqd made 7 claims (4 Fw190, 3 Bf109).
What is this 'usa and england made'? Afaik no Spitfires were made in the USA.
-
With two minutes of searching, the earliest combat loss I can find with the Mk XVI is a single loss on the 9th of November 1944. There might be an earlier loss.
I can find the following RAF squadrons that operated the Mk XVI in 1944 and 1945 and lost aircraft in combat:
66
124
126
127
322
451
452
453
502
504
601
602
604
That's far from exhaustive, just a quick scroll through a Mk XVI produciton list.
-
With two minutes of searching, the earliest combat loss I can find with the Mk XVI is a single loss on the 9th of November 1944. There might be an earlier loss.
I can find the following RAF squadrons that operated the Mk XVI in 1944 and 1945 and lost aircraft in combat:
66
124
126
127
322
451
452
453
502
504
601
602
604
That's far from exhaustive, just a quick scroll through a Mk XVI produciton list.
And keep in mind that from a game perspective you'd need to also look at all squadrons that flew the Spitfire LF.Mk IXe as it has almost exactly the same performance, handling and armament. If you don't think the difference between the two .50s and four .303s is that much, look for all combat by Spitfire LF.Mk IXs which began delivery in mid 1943 as it also had almost exactly the same performance and handling.
The idea that the Spitfire Mk XVI is not appropriate for AH and that aircraft functionally the same did not see combat in mass numbers in WWII is simply misinformation propagated by anti-Spitfire dweebs.
-
With two minutes of searching, the earliest combat loss I can find with the Mk XVI is a single loss on the 9th of November 1944. There might be an earlier loss.
I can find the following RAF squadrons that operated the Mk XVI in 1944 and 1945 and lost aircraft in combat:
66
124
126
127
322
451
452
453
502
504
601
602
604
That's far from exhaustive, just a quick scroll through a Mk XVI produciton list.
Not all those squadrons operated the Spitfires in WW2.
ie 604:
April 1944 April 1945 de Havilland Mosquito Mk.XIII
October 1946 May 1950 Supermarine Spitfire LF.16e
-
Spit14? We were talking spit16... DUH, learn the alphabet and to count! : P
Oops, I made a typo. :rolleyes:
ack-ack
-
Not all those squadrons operated the Spitfires in WW2.
ie 604:
April 1944 April 1945 de Havilland Mosquito Mk.XIII
October 1946 May 1950 Supermarine Spitfire LF.16e
Thanks MiloMorai.
I have the first delivery of the Mk XVI to 604 in March 1945 (TD135 'NG-U' delivered 23-3-45) and then two more in April and then about a half dozen in June and July, but it looks like they didn't operate them until well into 1946.
Weird.
That's what I get for not double checking though.
-
Karnak, great post. Thanks!
-
anti-Spitfire dweebs.
lol at that phrase :lol
-
The headings of those performance charts for the Spit F.Mk.IX say: "Performance of Spitfire F.Mk.IX fitted with various marks of intercooled Merlin engines". Production F.Mk.IX had Merlin 61 running at 15lbs boost. Those charts list 18lbs boost pressure which most likely means standard Merlin 66 or similar which production LF.IXs / Mk.XVIs had.
-
So some of the posted info is false... and the rest is either not complete, or not sourced...
SORRY, BUT IM NOT TROLLING, JUST STATING THE FACT THAT I AM NOT YET CONVINCED! :)
-
So some of the posted info is false... and the rest is either not complete, or not sourced...
SORRY, BUT IM NOT TROLLING, JUST STATING THE FACT THAT I AM NOT YET CONVINCED! :)
All the info that has been posted showing the Spitfire Mk XVI serving operationally in squadron strength and seeing combat isn't false or incomplete. The only falsehoods in this thread have been perpetrated solely by you and no one else. You've failed miserably in trying to prove your point as you've failed time after time to show any verifiable data to prove your point. All you do is stick your head where the Sun doesn't shine and chant your little mantra of "Luftwaffe had all the aces...." over and over.
Face it Schlowy...you're wrong and it makes you bitter Germany lost the war.
ack-ack
-
Karnak, what happened to the old spit5 and spit9? Why were they changed?
-
So some of the posted info is false... and the rest is either not complete, or not sourced...
SORRY, BUT IM NOT TROLLING, JUST STATING THE FACT THAT I AM NOT YET CONVINCED! :)
What posted info is false?
You expect other people to do your research, dream on. You were given this link, http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/home.html, so go do your own research on the Spitfire XVI.
-
lol at that phrase :lol
Quite intentional I assure you. :P
Karnak, what happened to the old spit5 and spit9? Why were they changed?
Spitfire Mk Vc was changed to Spitfire Mk Vb to fill the empty 1941 spot. Having the Spitfire Mk Vc and the Spitfire F.Mk IX gave double coverage to 1942 and left 1941 uncovered. So long as we have the limited number of versions of Bf109 and Spitfires sacrifices have to be made for coverage sake.
The Spitfire Mk IX wasn't changed much. It retains the same performance it had in AH1, that of a Merlin 61 powered Spitfire F.Mk IX running +15lbs boost. It simply had the "e" wing options of .50s, 250lb bombs and 60lb rockets removed as they were not appropriate to the F.Mk IX.
-
Why does the spit14 in game perform so differently than described in RAF tactical trials of the spit14?
-
Schlowy, as a squad mate, I think you should throw in the towel.
Now I hate them as much as you do, maybe even more, but it's been proven it deserves to be in the game. Just let it go, dude.
-
let's not reward the skilless with more options.
DA? Anything you want to fly.
I mean look at my score. Certainly you can beat me.
-
Sorry to be a bit off topic but:
Widewing: I'm confused by your Figure 1. You describe it as Spit Vc but the figure says Spit Vb. Am I reading it wrong or is it really a Spit Vc?
The reason I'm curious is it shows an initial rate of climb of 4700 fpm, which matches most of the sources I have, while the AH Spit V IRoC is an anemic 3200 fpm on WEP and 2750 on mil pwr.
(I really miss the old AH Spit V. Spit Vs have almost zero usage now in AH MA.)
-
Spit V is under used because of the cannon ammo load.
The previous spit V was a later model than our current early spit 9 and completely superior to it in typical arena conditions. The AH FM tends to favor light planes with relatively high power that makes them fly like helicopters.
-
How many of the Spitfires Mark XVIs in squadron service had the bubble canopy?
-
What posted info is false?
You expect other people to do your research, dream on. You were given this link, http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/home.html, so go do your own research on the Spitfire XVI.
Lyric's book shows 27 built, and it ground attack only! No mention of air to air combat.
Other source in this thread (that I cant find, its too spammed up)...
says... almost 600 total in June 1945 (for both American and England powered engines)
All based in England...
Wikipedia says 1053 but that's total, not by end of war.
No sources that it ever saw combat... you guys post no sources, or too broad of a source, no specifics...
Yes I'm done, none of you have proven anything BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE SOURCES.
-
You're a twerp, sources have been posted up and down this thread.
-
Oh look I found one! That took almost 2 seconds to do!
SUPERMARINE SPITFIRE MK XVI (LF) - TYPE 361 SERIAL TB 752
TB 752 is one of the few surviving Spitfires with a wartime record. Built at Castle Bromwich in the early part of 1944 she entered service with the famous No. 66 Squadron at RAF Linton-on-Ouse in March 1945 bearing the Squadron Code LZ-F. Carrying an armament of 2 x 20mm cannons and 4 x 0.5 machine guns as well as a 500 lb bomb and 2 x 250 lb bombs: she was used initially against road and rail targets in Northern Holland and Germany.
On the 25th March 1945, TB 752 was classified as Cat C AC (badly damaged) after the port undercarriage leg failed to lower for landing, the main damage being to the wing and propeller blades. She was removed to No. 409 Repair and Salvage Unit and re-issued to No. 403 "Wolf" Squadron RCAF on 19th April 1945, operating from Diepholz in Germany and bearing the Squadron code KH-Z. On the 21st April and on his very first flight in TB 752, the Squadron 'C.O.', Squadron Leader 'Hank' Zary DFC RCAF destroyed a Me 109. Four days later Flying Officer David Leslie destroyed an unidentified German aircraft but believed to be a Fw 189 reconnaissance aircraft.
TB 752’s ‘Final Victory’ by Michael Turner On the 1st May Flying Officer ‘Bob’ Young destroyed a Fw 190 and two days later an He 111 bomber fell to the guns of Flying Officer ‘Fred’ Town. - TB 752’s ‘FINAL VICTORY’ which is depicted in the superb painting by Michael Turner (prints of which are obtainable from the sales area). After years of neglect ‘752’ was removed to Manston in 1955 and stood for many proud years as station gate-guardian - but sadly corroding away at an ever increasing rate.
It's not hard is it?
-
Lyric's book shows 27 built, and it ground attack only! No mention of air to air combat.
Other source in this thread (that I cant find, its too spammed up)...
says... almost 600 total in June 1945 (for both American and England powered engines)
All based in England...
Wikipedia says 1053 but that's total, not by end of war.
No sources that it ever saw combat... you guys post no sources, or too broad of a source, no specifics...
Yes I'm done, none of you have proven anything BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE SOURCES.
First, the Spit 16 used Merlin 266 engines (American built). The Spit 9 used Merlin 66 engines (British built).
I gave you the book Bodenplatte. The authors are German. Read it!!! How do you think those 7 claims were made if not in air combat?
Never saw air combat? If you say so. :rolleyes:
Yes it was used mostly for ground attack, as was the Spitfire 9, because they were assigned to the 2cd Tactical Air Force and German a/c were as scarce as chicken teeth.
So you are clueless and lazy. You have the Spitfire link, go read it as the build date, disposition and fate of the Spitfires are there. Please note the the locations of the losses (brush up on your geography).
-
Just going by what you just posted:
mostly ground attack
7 claims
mostly ground attack
7 claims
mostly ground attack
7 claims... hmmm
Its right there... I can almost put it together... uhh, uhh...
Oh my gosh! A revelation... could it have been VULCHES of parked planes?
Very possibly not "air to air combat"...
I am soooo out of here! :bolt:
-
At the time and ever since I have lobbied for the designation to be Spitfire LF IX rather than Spitfire XVI (16). As has been stated its the same plane and the version we have would be an example of the 1944 varient with the 50 caliber secondary guns and clipped tips. The only thing that changes its its name:
Spitfire I
Spitfire V
Spitfire IX
Spitfire LF IX
Spitfire VIII
Spitfire XIV
Seafire
Seems easier to follow the types with that list than the one we have. Like the Bf 109K-4 vs Bf 109G-10 I think just going with the 109K-4 made the most sense and was easier for players to understand and eventually HTC changed it to that rather than have 3 versions of the 109G. Maybe they will do the same here and we can ease up on the roman numeral alphabet soup and the obvious confusion with some on the details of the type as evidenced by this thread.
-
LOL, the crap Barbi spewed was bad enough so if you are out here, that is good as we don't have to put up with your crap any longer. :aok :aok :aok
As for air combat, on Jan 1 1945, 403 shot down a Bf109K-4 :eek: (blaue 16, WNr 331395, flown by Gerf. A. Diesing) and a Bf109G-14/AS :eek: (weisse 1, WNr 758992, flown by Uffz P. Gisevius) from JG27. 403 also got a Fw190A-8, <<, WNr 750093 flown by Fw F. Bachhuber of 15./JG54. They were all shot down by P/O S. Butte. Another 403 claim was a Fw190D-9, :eek: schwarze 14, WNr 210274 flown by UffzW Schmitz of 6./JG26.
You can do the research for the other 3 claims.
As you have a problem with geography, Evere is in Belgium, near Brussels.
-
You can't give Franz examples. If you do that he claims (knowing full well he is misrepresenting things) you are listing the full total activity of the Spitfire Mk XVI, not just a small subset.
So, unless we produce the full documented (on the internet, books aren't acceptable) production (dates included), kills and losses of the Spitfire Mk XVI it won't do any good. Hence, I advise, just stop responding to him. It is a pointless task.
-
You can't give Franz examples. If you do that he claims (knowing full well he is misrepresenting things) you are listing the full total activity of the Spitfire Mk XVI, not just a small subset.
So, unless we produce the full documented (on the internet, books aren't acceptable) production (dates included), kills and losses of the Spitfire Mk XVI it won't do any good. Hence, I advise, just stop responding to him. It is a pointless task.
Well when the brain is the size of a pea......
Agree Karnak but other people might be interested.
-
DA? Anything you want to fly.
I mean look at my score. Certainly you can beat me.
Certainly. K4 agreeable with you?
And score matters how, exactly? I'm proof score doesn't matter a wooden dime's worth.
-
Production dates, dates on squadron, dates damaged and dates off squadron are all available in the link Milo posted way back. They tie in nicely with Neil Stirling's strength data. There's several publications which deal with the RAF's order of battle, the squadron locations, as well as their claims and losses on a day-by-day basis. The best source for the 2nd TAF even lists times, places, pilot names, serial numbers, in most cases their Luftwaffe opponents etc.
All one needs is a library card, but that presupposes the applicant has the ability to sign his own name.
-
Sorry to be a bit off topic but:
Widewing: I'm confused by your Figure 1. You describe it as Spit Vc but the figure says Spit Vb. Am I reading it wrong or is it really a Spit Vc?
The reason I'm curious is it shows an initial rate of climb of 4700 fpm, which matches most of the sources I have, while the AH Spit V IRoC is an anemic 3200 fpm on WEP and 2750 on mil pwr.
(I really miss the old AH Spit V. Spit Vs have almost zero usage now in AH MA.)
Good question.
This was a Vb, but it had the Merlin 50. Thus, it's performance will be virtually identical to the Vc. Note the Vb is a little bit lighter, offset by the Vc's clipped wings.
-
Certainly. K4 agreeable with you?
And score matters how, exactly? I'm proof score doesn't matter a wooden dime's worth.
K4's fine with me. Lets try for this weekend and let's take this to PM's.
-
Production dates, dates on squadron, dates damaged and dates off squadron are all available in the link Milo posted way back. They tie in nicely with Neil Stirling's strength data. There's several publications which deal with the RAF's order of battle, the squadron locations, as well as their claims and losses on a day-by-day basis. The best source for the 2nd TAF even lists times, places, pilot names, serial numbers, in most cases their Luftwaffe opponents etc.
All one needs is a library card, but that presupposes the applicant has the ability to sign his own name.
I think he might be capable of making an X.
-
Amazing troll powers, Thought Karnak could deal with such. lol
First contention, Few Spit XVI reached operations before the end of the war.
Well. Karnaks Spitfires the history book says when every one was made. The first prototype one flew in December 1943. It stayed in an MU until nearly the end of the war.
5 or 6 trickled in before October 1944.
The first survived went to 332 sq on Nov 11 44.
The second the war as a trials plane, was compared to the equivalent MK IX and found identical. Scraped after the war
The third was sent to 66 sq on Oct 3, lost on fighter ops on Dec 15
The forth went to 322 sq on Nov 11
The fifth went to 127 sq on Nov 11.
Then there were two orders for Spit IX totaling 173 spits, with 52 delivered as XVIs delivered between Oct 3 and 19 1944, nearly squadron strengths of them went to 332 and 66 squadrons, the remainder in 1s and 2s to other squadrons including some of the 400 series Canadian squadrons. Of those 52, 15 were lost on fighter ops.
That is a summary of the first 25cm of the list of mk xvi serials in the spifire history, begins on page 434.
The list ends 502cm later on page 443. I will not summarize the list further for you except to say that the last seem to have been made in June 45. There are certainly lots that never even reached the Mobilization Unit until after May.
Many hundreds were in squadrons before the end of 1944. If they made it to an MU by March, they seem to have been in squadrons by April.
You are free to study it if you like but the simple fact is that the XVI was almost a back bone of the late war RAF. In the Canadian Spit squadrons it was almost the rule for the last 4 months of the war. A 5 minute glance showed 443 squadron still losing these planes on fighter ops on the 21st of April 1945.
If you can find copies of "Spitfire the Canadians" volume 1 and 2, the stories and pictures of Spit XVI are common.
And yes, there was a 6 X 50 cal trial spit. It was not a fear of the logistics that stopped the Brits adopting it, but the massive superiority of the Hispano.
-
Spitfire: The History is not required as the serial numbers are online, http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/home.html
-
Neato page, it was posted earlier, but none of those tabs say 'combat' let alone 'air to air combat!' :bolt:
-
Neato page, it was posted earlier, but none of those tabs say 'combat' let alone 'air to air combat!' :bolt:
Look at the history of those units, troll.
Yes they do. Two examples from a quick search,
TB297 LFXVI M266 6MU 8-1-45 340S 'GW-F' 15-2-45 Damaged by fighters and abandoned nr Bocholt 13-3-45
TB754 LFXVI M266 33MU 3-3-45 83GSU 17-3-45 403S 5-4-45 Combat with Fw190s of JG26 then engine cut crashlanded SE of Bremen 23-4-45
Pongo, MU is Maintenance Unit not Mobilization Unit
-
It's clear from the link above which squadrons XVIs were delivered to, when, and in what volumes.
The day-to-day history of the squadrons which accounted for the majority of air-to-air claims, along with a brief description of most of the claims themselves, is here:
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/docs/RCAF_Overseas_vol3_e.pdf
Of course, some readers may struggle with the table on pdf page 7 which associates squadrons with nicknames, used throughout the narrative. Those same readers may need crayons and paper to record which squadrons are on which wings, assuming they can manage the big words in the text which provide that information.
-
Neato page, it was posted earlier, but none of those tabs say 'combat' let alone 'air to air combat!' :bolt:
I gave examples of aircraft lost on fighter ops. What does fighter ops mean to you?
It might be hard for you to accept that your nazi heros really didn't want to fight Spitfires any more then you do, but that's the sad truth, The allies had far better planes, far better pilots and far more of everything by the time the Brits started putting surplus packard merlins into spitfire airframes. So your heroes just didn't show up to be shot down.
War had lost its fun for them.
-
Hey Pongo. Good to see you about.
Nothing we say will get Franz to admit what he already knows.
-
hmm, Pongo don't know me very well, do he? hehe
You guys said earlier that this question has been around for a long time... before me! I want to be believe that it saw combat! I even believe that it probably did, how much is the question! Your topic though, and your fails to prove because no sources yet! I admit that if you asked me to prove that the k4 saw combat, I might even have trouble with that too... with any plane, but it seems that the spity16 does have issue!
So don't blame me for this ongoing fail! :/
And my pointing out the lack of sources does not make me a troll!
Uh, about your other stuff, Mr Pongo, here is a claim!
Luft had all the aces, required pilot, plane, amo, bullet-proof glass, etc etc...
here is a source! <--- a source, they do exist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_flying_aces
Intermission time! check a neat video... :banana: :banana: :banana:
beastie boys - intergalactic! :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qORYO0atB6g
-
Switch up some.
The handbook.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29921791/Spitfire-IX-XI-and-XVI
-
Jesus, Lord, post links to accounts of combat, claims no links posted.
Like they say, never wrestle with pigs.
-
Jesus, Lord, post links to accounts of combat, claims no links posted.
Like they say, never wrestle with pigs.
It is called selective reading.
-
You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead :)
-
You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead :)
I know it as: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink the water.
-
I know it as: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink the water.
Or: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, but you can make it bloody well wish it had! :old:
-
It's just Schlowy trolling. I saw him in game a week or two ago, and he openly admitted his sole purpose in this thread is to troll.
-
Let's hunt him down in Spitfire Mark XVIs.
-
Thanks Lyric!
YES, Page 168
"The first operation with the XVIs was conducted on 21 November, and until 23 November both marks were flown on operations. Most operations were against V2 sites around The Hague, quite often rearming at B.67/Unsel, in Belgium, for futher attacks on the return journey to the UK."
D-day had already happened june 6th 1944, FIVE MONTHS LATER, and Spit16's were still based in ENGLAND.
"Later operations flown on 29 April 1945, 453 moved to RAF Lasham, and by 15 June..."
Lasham is STILL IN ENGLAND.
SOO, GROUND ATTACK FROM ENGLAND LOL AND THEN WAR WAS OVER! (MAY 7th 1945) So the 453rd had 27 of them? Combat? MAYBE THEY HAD SOME MAJOR ISSUES AND DEEMED NOT WORTHY OF AIR TO AIR COMBAT?
:rofl
Well this post needs an answer.
If you look on page #183 of the book you will see this squadrons last kill was in September 1944. Spit XVI as you pointed out was not around yet. A little hard to be involved in air to air combat when the Luftwaffe was cleared from the skies where the 453 squadron XVI's would later operate.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/119116066/Defeat-to-Victory-Opt
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Spitfires%20Greek/99-c190051902_zpsf07eb98c.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Spitfires%20Greek/99-c190051902_zpsf07eb98c.jpg.html)
As far as major issues are concerned for air to air combat page #127 has a note at the bottom of it. If they liked the XVI over the IX because of it's improved performance & they shot down plenty with the IX.
What do you think would have happened if they crossed paths with the Luftwaffe with the XVI?
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/Spitfires%20Greek/71-581c18f31a_zps2c5e5b62.jpg) (http://s1002.photobucket.com/user/barneybolac/media/Spitfires%20Greek/71-581c18f31a_zps2c5e5b62.jpg.html)
-
Let's hunt him down in Spitfire Mark XVIs.
I refuse to fly it. It is the plane of tards and the unskilled.
-
I refuse to fly it. It is the plane of tards and the unskilled.
Well if you want to continue being a loser, be my guest. :D :devil
-
I refuse to fly it. It is the plane of tards and the unskilled.
Have you ever flown it so as to be familiar with its limitations so as to better fight it? Offline even.
-
I refuse to fly it. It is the plane of tards and the unskilled.
I find those that usually disparage the Spitfire are those that lack the skill to fight one and to sooth their ego after being shot down by one, will call the Spitfire "dweebish, trainer, plane of the 'tards" in the false belief that it makes their death somewhat trivial because they were shot down by a Spitfire.
ack-ack
-
I find those that usually disparage the Spitfire are those that lack the skill to fight one and to sooth their ego after being shot down by one, will call the Spitfire "dweebish, trainer, plane of the 'tards" in the false belief that it makes their death somewhat trivial because they were shot down by a Spitfire.
ack-ack
Which is kind of an interesting thing given a number of German fighter pilots insisted that they had been shot down by a Spitfire and not by a Hurricane during the Battle of Britain. Had to have been a Spitfire as no mere Hurricane could possibly have gotten them.
-
I find those that usually disparage the Spitfire are those that lack the skill to fight one and to sooth their ego after being shot down by one, will call the Spitfire "dweebish, trainer, plane of the 'tards" in the false belief that it makes their death somewhat trivial because they were shot down by a Spitfire.
ack-ack
Unless I encounter a pack of them, they're usually not a problem.
However, I do think they're comically easy to fly, and refuse to fly them on the same principle I refuse to fly the La-7, F4U, and P-51: I can fly harder aircraft.
-
Unless I encounter a pack of them, they're usually not a problem.
However, I do think they're comically easy to fly, and refuse to fly them on the same principle I refuse to fly the La-7, F4U, and P-51: I can fly harder aircraft.
So in your mind just because you don't fly a Spitfire, you think you're the more skilled player over the one that does fly a Spitfire. :rofl
ack-ack
-
Unless I encounter a pack of them, they're usually not a problem.
However, I do think they're comically easy to fly, and refuse to fly them on the same principle I refuse to fly the La-7, F4U, and P-51: I can fly harder aircraft.
They're never a problem if you run away.... Of course, you must realize that some of the better players fly the Spit16 now and then, usually when outnumbered. Run across one of these chaps and I promise you'll have a problem... If you stick around.
-
So in your mind just because you don't fly a Spitfire, you think you're the more skilled player over the one that does fly a Spitfire. :rofl
ack-ack
No, I don't imagine myself better than those flying spits just because I fly a 109F, or a Ki-61, it what have you (though it would appear to be true for the average spit pilot). But I do know I've done more surviving against the horde in a G-2 or F-4 than in a Spixteen.
Mostly, though, I fly the harder aircraft to push myself.
-
Unless I encounter a pack of them, they're usually not a problem.
You must be extremely skillful and effective.
I can fly harder aircraft.
I think I'll take a look at your score and see how you get on...
I refuse to fly it. It is the plane of tards and the unskilled.
If and when you mature and learn to think for yourself, instead of recycling the typical prejudicial opinions of those around you, then your input would be meritorious. Presently you are a caricature of a laughable sect of Aces High forum members who's self honesty is as deficient as their objectivity both historically and technically.
-
No, I don't imagine myself better than those flying spits just because I fly a 109F, or a Ki-61, it what have you (though it would appear to be true for the average spit pilot). But I do know I've done more surviving against the horde in a G-2 or F-4 than in a Spixteen.
Mostly, though, I fly the harder aircraft to push myself.
Glancing at your stats it would appear that you would benefit from flying the Spitfire more than you think.
ack-ack
-
LOL I don't pay attention for a couple weeks and this thread gets going again?
Thought I answered Joe Goebbels back a ways. Apparently his reading and comprehension skills are lacking. What a surprise :)
-
Which is kind of an interesting thing given a number of German fighter pilots insisted that they had been shot down by a Spitfire and not by a Hurricane during the Battle of Britain. Had to have been a Spitfire as no mere Hurricane could possibly have gotten them.
I often wonder how many of those LW pilots who stated that the "English" pilots were their most skilled adversary were unknowingly recalling encounters with "subhuman" polish pilots.
-
So in your mind just because you don't fly a Spitfire, you think you're the more skilled player over the one that does fly a Spitfire. :rofl
ack-ack
Remember a long time ago in our first year of aw when we learned how to be a killer in the 109 and we thought we had teh skillz and we looked down our nose at spitfires? Some never get past that stage.
I still remember when Wotan chimped out on me in the ma and challenged me to a "duel" lolz. I let him pick the plane and he picked Gustav just like I knew he would. And it ended just like I knew it would.