General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: RJH57 on April 04, 2016, 01:35:11 AM
Title: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: RJH57 on April 04, 2016, 01:35:11 AM
debunking the myth of the Spitfire: http://hushkit.net/2015/12/04/dismantling-the-spitfire-myth/ (http://hushkit.net/2015/12/04/dismantling-the-spitfire-myth/)
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Zimme83 on April 04, 2016, 02:13:34 AM
That article has some flaws, it for example does not consider that during BoB Spitfires more often engage LW fighters while Hurricanes went after the bombers. The numbers of available planes during BoB was not the real issue either, RAF had more fighters at the end of the fights than the beginning. Replacing the losses of pilots was a bigger problem. The idea of only having Hurricanes instead of the spitfire might have worked in 1940 but the Hurricane was still obsolene and with new 109 versions (and the 190) the Hurricane would quickly have lost is effectivity in combat. In the early years of the war it was few planes besides the spitfire that could compete w the German fighters. RAF were able to counter the 190 w the introduction of the spit IX and i don't see that there was that many other planes that could have done it in so short time.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 04, 2016, 02:32:28 AM
debunking the myth of the Spitfire: http://hushkit.net/2015/12/04/dismantling-the-spitfire-myth/ (http://hushkit.net/2015/12/04/dismantling-the-spitfire-myth/)
It's on the Internet. It must be true.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: MiloMorai on April 04, 2016, 05:24:24 AM
Did the Hungarian lawyer write that article? :D :D
"its range in fighter variants was always poor, its narrow-track undercarriage invited accidents and its roll rate wasn’t competitive, a dangerous shortcoming for a fighter."
Describing the Bf109 he is.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 04, 2016, 05:29:18 AM
He does have a point about the production cost of the Spitfire, but that's it. In everything else there was little to choose between the Spit and 109.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Zimme83 on April 04, 2016, 05:31:01 AM
These "what if" scenarios could be fun but in this case he hasn't thought it trough. Claiming that the MB:3 would have been a good replacement for the spitfire is a bit bold since the MB:3 had the Napier Sabre engine, same as Typhoon and the reason for its initial failure. I have hard to see that it would have worked out any better in the MB:3. It would btw have been just another "Tempest".
In the final years of the war RAF would have been able to replace the Spit w the Pony. The problem is the mid war years, US aircraft industry did not picked up the pace until after Pearl Harbor and initially only planes available for RAF to replace the spit would be the P-38 and P-40 and I don't see that it would have been beneficial in any way. P-40 was already in the RAF inventory and could probably have been reasonably competitive if equipped with a later version of the Merlin but I see no advantages to that compare to having the Spitfire.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: DaveBB on April 04, 2016, 05:31:40 AM
Spitfire was always lacking in range. Good for defense, but not suited for offense when compared to long range US aircraft. Also air-to-ground capability was lacking. But it was a 1930s design.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 04, 2016, 05:38:24 AM
Had the P-51 not come along there would have been armed Spitfires over Berlin in 1944. Unarmed photo recon Spits had been flying to Berlin and back since 14 March 1941...
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Zimme83 on April 04, 2016, 05:41:54 AM
Had the P-51 not come along there would have been armed Spitfires over Berlin in 1944. Unarmed photo recon Spits had been flying to Berlin and back since 14 March 1941...
It would have been a solution for it for sure. but its how things work, the Allied figured out that they needed a long range escort fighter so they put their efforts there and the result was the Pony.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 04, 2016, 05:51:06 AM
Yes, and the British scrapped the Long-Range Spitfire program in favor of just buying Mustangs from the US.
The Germans also made a few long range variants of the 109 and 190 for special purposes, but the Luftwaffe rarely needed more range than what the standard models offered.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: MiloMorai on April 04, 2016, 05:55:11 AM
Well... Of course they kept the Hurricane in production during BoB since they had not been able to replace them all with the spitfire but I'm sure that Fighter command would have preferred to have only spitfires if it had been an option.
And while true that the spit V were outmatched by the 190, the Hurricane would have been in an even worse position. And since there was no other aircraft available to counter the 190 it was the wisest thing to do to upgrade the spit. And after all, all it needed was a new engine.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: RJH57 on April 04, 2016, 10:01:26 AM
England had the advantage during the Battle Of Britain NOT because of any great superiority in the Spitfire's performance but because the limited range and loiter time of the Luftwaffe's Me-109E fighter. The English early warning radar network was another huge advantage that enabled controllers to vector and advise their interceptors. Also, British pilots who bailed lived to fight again whereas Luftwaffe bailers went into captivity.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Chalenge on April 04, 2016, 10:10:10 AM
How many years after WWII was the Hurricane still produced? and the Spitfire?
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: mike8318 on April 04, 2016, 10:47:17 AM
But most importaint, who won the BOB?
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: LCADolby on April 04, 2016, 11:00:42 AM
Let's wiki xD Hurricane 1937-1944 Spitfire 1938-1948
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on April 04, 2016, 11:04:01 AM
The Germans also made a few long range variants of the 109 and 190 for special purposes, but the Luftwaffe rarely needed more range than what the standard models offered.
That's just where I'd like to be: sandwiched between 3 fuel tanks. Not that there's any "winning" that one, fighters being thirsty beasts in all cases. My understanding of the 109's sole fuel tank location (behind) is that, when holed, it tended to spill fuel that would run forward under the pilot's seat. Galland got his burns from a leak of this sort, minor though they were in his case.
Far more interesting: I'm getting the impression, both from the various bulges on the MkIX's wing, from the wing's susceptibility to damage and overload, and due to the fact that the Spit manages both low wing loading and apparently (reasonably, given the top speeds of the late Marks) low parasite drag, that the Spit's wing must have a fairly low thickness... this would of course compromise bending stiffness and strength and, when combined with beautifully balanced controls, enable those endearing wing snap-offs.
And a quick anecdotal google search reveals... that the SPit used a 12% t/c (though I think that's root - t/c decreasing as we go out) and the 109 used a 14% t/c at root (11.2% at tip). Not that you've got sufficient control authority at high speed to load the 109's wings anything like the Spit's anyway.
Reading about the AR240 development, I'm thinking this is in line with German practice of the time, given that AR240 used a higher wingloading to decrease parasite drag. AR240 was up around 60 psf. Consider our friend the 410 as well. Perhaps if they'd used a lower t/c...
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Arlo on April 04, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
Let's wiki xD Hurricane 1937-1944 Spitfire 1938-1948
Production only tells part of the story. Where the Hurricane petered off in use rather quickly I beleive it was the widespread use and designs of jets that took out the Spit/Seafire:
(Also from Wiki)
"Post war, the Fleet Air Arm replaced its Merlin powered Seafires with Griffon powered aircraft, initially with the Seafire Mk XV and Mk 17 and from 1948 by the definitive Seafire Mk 47.[34] In 1950, HMS Triumph started a tour of the Far East, embarking 800 Naval Air Squadron with Seafire 47s along with 827 Naval Air Squadron equipped with Fairey Fireflys. Following the outbreak of the Korean War, HMS Triumph was diverted to operations to try to stem the North Korean offensive, Seafires flying ground attack and combat air patrols from July until September 1950, when HMS Triumph was replaced by HMS Theseus, equipped with Sea Furys. During operations off Korea, Seafires flew 360 operational sorties, losing one aircraft shot down by friendly fire from a B-29 Superfortress and a second aircraft lost when its arrestor hook failed to extend. The Seafire proved more vulnerable to the stresses of carrier operation with many aircraft suffering wrinkling of the rear fuselage brought about by heavy landings. Following the end of operations, when peacetime airworthiness rules were re-imposed, all but three of 800 Squadron's Seafires were declared unserviciable owing to wrinkling.[35]
The Royal Canadian Navy and French Aviation Navale also obtained Seafires to operate from ex-Royal Navy aircraft carriers following the end of World War II.[36] Canada's Seafire Mk XVs were flown from HMCS Magnificent and HMS Warrior before being replaced by Sea Furies in 1948.[37] France received 65 Seafire Mk IIIs, 24 of these being deployed on the carrier Arromanches in 1948 when it sailed for Vietnam to fight in the First Indochina War, the Seafires operating from land bases and from Arromanches on ground attack missions against the Viet Minh before being withdrawn from combat operations in January 1949. After returning to European waters, the Seafire units were re-equipped with Seafire XVs but these were quickly replaced by F6F Hellcats from 1950.[37]
The Irish Air Corps operated Seafires for a time after the war, despite having no naval air service nor aircraft carriers. The aircraft were operated from Baldonnel (Casement Aerodrome) much in the same way as normal Spitfires but retaining the folding wings. During the 1950s, an unsuccessful attempt to recycle the Merlin engines was made, by replacing the ailing Bedford engine in a Churchill tank with an engine from a scrapped Seafire.[38] On 19 June 1954, the last Spitfire in Irish service was withdrawn.[36]
In the Fleet Air Arm, Spitfires and Seafires were used by a number of squadrons, the Spitfires used by training and land based squadrons. Twelve 800 series squadrons used Spitfires and Seafires (Numbers 801 NAS, 802 NAS, 808 NAS, 809 NAS, 879 NAS, 880 NAS, 884 NAS, 885 NAS, 886 NAS, 887 NAS, 897 NAS and 899 NAS). Several units of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve also flew Seafires postwar, including 1831, 1832 and 1833 squadrons.[39]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seafire
Then again, South America loved it's Mustangs and Corsairs.
""Football War"[edit]
Corsairs flew their final combat missions in 1969 during the so-called "Football War" between Honduras and El Salvador, in service with both air forces.
Lynn Garrison in F4U-7 133693 – N693M leads Corsair IIs of VA-147, over NAS Lemoore, CA, 7 July 1967 prior to first deployment to Vietnam on USS Ranger. The A-7A "NE-300" is the aircraft of the Air Group Commander (CAG) of Attack Carrier Air Wing 2 (CVW-2) The conflict was famously triggered, though not really caused, by a disagreement over a football (soccer) match. Cap. Fernando Soto of the Honduran Air Force shot down three Salvadoran Air Force aircraft on 17 July 1969. In the morning he shot down a Cavalier Mustang, killing the pilot. In the afternoon, he shot down two FG-1s; the pilot of the second aircraft may have bailed out, but the third exploded in the air, killing the pilot. These combats were the last ones among propeller-driven aircraft in the world and also making Cap. Soto the only one credited with three kills in an American continental war. El Salvador did not shoot down any Honduran aircraft.[95]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F4U_Corsair
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 04, 2016, 11:55:44 AM
23 yrs is a pretty good run for a 1930s design. :D
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 04, 2016, 12:16:45 PM
[italian] No, nonononono... [/italian] The 109 was produced from 1937 to 1958. It served well into the 1960s with the Spanish air force. Where do you think they found the 109s for shooting "Battle of Britain" (1969)... ;)
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Bruv119 on April 04, 2016, 12:36:29 PM
slander. Spitfires are Awesome. Nuff said. :airplane:
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: mechanic on April 04, 2016, 12:37:27 PM
The Germans also made a few long range variants of the 109 and 190 for special purposes, but the Luftwaffe rarely needed more range than what the standard models offered.
Interesting picture, thank you. That is a lot of fuel all around me, I would prefer not to know the design if I was flying it.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 04, 2016, 12:41:59 PM
P-51 wasn't much better. Most if not all WWII single engine fighters had fuel tanks nestled around the cockpit area. You want all the things that change weight during flight to be as close to CG as possible. Fuel and ammo mostly.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Zimme83 on April 04, 2016, 01:03:40 PM
A single engine prop fighter have few other places to have the tanks but around the pilot..
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 04, 2016, 02:01:51 PM
A single engine prop fighter have few other places to have the tanks but around the pilot..
I don't think it's package so much as what Scholz noted; stability considerations. The last thing you want is big longitudinal changes in CG. OTOH, it's kind of a pity to put the most variable stuff near the CG, since that means the fixed masses are now going to be greater contributors to pitch and polar moments of inertia.
Which raises another point: the P-39 likely has a low PMI. I could see this as not being useful for turn performance but being quite helpful in elevator authority. On the downside, what was the 39's flat spin like? Probably wicked...
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: MiloMorai on April 04, 2016, 02:47:51 PM
The Germans also made a few long range variants of the 109 and 190 for special purposes, but the Luftwaffe rarely needed more range than what the standard models offered.
That graphic is standard for late war Spit IXs and XVIs.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Zimme83 on April 04, 2016, 04:15:09 PM
I think when "Winkle" Brown interviewed Göring after the war they both agreed it was a draw. Which is perhaps a fitting parallel to this thread.
It did not ended as much as it faded away when Germany started their ops in the East.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Squire on April 04, 2016, 05:16:29 PM
Quote
Had the P-51 not come along there would have been armed Spitfires over Berlin in 1944.
It seems to be a very common idea to mix the USAAF and RAFs wartime strategies and just call them "Allies". This is a mistake.
The USAAF and ONLY the USAAF had a long range daylight bomber strategy in the ETO in WW2. The RAF had a seperate but parallel strategy of night bombing which was eventually morphed into what was loosely described as the "Combined Bomber Offensive".
The USAAF was responsible for escorting its bombers. Not the RAF. The USAAF had the need for a long range fighter. Not the RAF. Not in daylight.
The RAF had no plans for a long range bomber offensive in daylight. Ergo it had no plans and no need for fighters to escort its bombers in daylight. That was a USAAF problem.
P-38s were over Berlin and if there was no Mustang P-38s would have continued on as the 8th AF Fighter Commands primary escort fighter along with the P-47 Thunderbolt. The P-51B did not see combat until December 1943. It was a late comer to escort duty but the USAAF already had not one but two fighters already doing the work. I see no indication that they suddenly would have converted to Spitfires in 1944. I am sure that the long range Spit was considered...it was...but that does not mean any sort of manifest destiny. Lots of planes were tested for all kind of roles they never flew.
...and saying the Spit could not fly to Berlin is criticising it for a role it was never going to be asked to perform...by the USA or Britain. It was a short range fighter interceptor and later fighter-bomber.
I also find it curious the notion somehow that Spits were an oddity in the fighter bomber role when the P-47, P-38, P-51, Typhoon and Hurricane did those roles and NONE of them were designed for it either...so why the Spit gets singled out? Anyways the record of the RAF and RCAF Spit fighter-bomber units in 1944-45 is every bit as good as any of the others despite some unsubstantiated claims to the contrary.
From the original article:
Quote
It took 13,000 man hours to build the airframe – for that amount of effort you could have two-and-a-half Hurricanes or three-and-a-bit Messerschmitt Bf 109s.
...The Hurricane took 10,000 man hours so maybe homey can get a math tutor. 13,000 not 25,000.
"Straw-man" the size of a T-Rex the whole muddled splotch of it.
Ltr. :salute
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Zimme83 on April 04, 2016, 05:36:56 PM
The numbers ive found is 10.000 man hrs for the hurri and 15.200 for the Spitfire. For 109E the numbers ive found is 12.000 man hours in 1939. (it was down to 2000 hours for the 109G in 1944 but its irrelevant in this case.)
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Karnak on April 04, 2016, 05:38:27 PM
Squire,
The USAAF also had a long range armed Spitfire project that was also ended when the Merlin P-51 came along.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Squire on April 04, 2016, 05:52:42 PM
I don't dispute that but the argument that somehow the Spitfire falls short as a design because it can't fill a foreign services long range escort role seems somewhat far reaching. It was not designed to fly for the defence needs of the United States.
I will also point out that by the time the P-38 was withdrawn from escort duty in the ETO the Allies had landed in Normandy. So what the huge benefit would have been I think is dubious anyways. The "hump" was behind them by the time the P-51 (or insert Spit variant here) was in service in large #s.
Also there is no guarantee a "project" of any kind would have led to anything. Its just a big historical "maybe".
One last item. When the Allies landed in Normandy they didn't need a fighter to go to Berlin they needed a fighter to bomb and strafe enemy troops 2-4 times a day and shoot down anything they came across while covering their advancing armies. Its a narrow focus to assume that only the long range air war mattered...wringing hands and fretting about flying over Berlin as if that was the sole purpose of Allied air power.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: DaveBB on April 04, 2016, 08:30:54 PM
Wet wings. P-51 had them, as did later model P-47s.
Pure and simple, the Spitfire was a short range interceptor. Anything it could do, a P-51 or P-47 could do, 600 miles further away.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Chalenge on April 04, 2016, 09:42:43 PM
I think the PR Spitfires might disagree with you on that. Granted, the PRs were not interceptors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie3SrjLlcUY
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Crash Orange on April 04, 2016, 10:46:06 PM
[italian] No, nonononono... [/italian] The 109 was produced from 1937 to 1958. It served well into the 1960s with the Spanish air force. Where do you think they found the 109s for shooting "Battle of Britain" (1969)... ;)
Wasn't that mostly because no one would sell more modern designs to Franco?
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: FLOOB on April 04, 2016, 10:57:38 PM
NOT because of any great superiority in the Spitfire's performance but because the limited range and loiter time of the Luftwaffe's Me-109E fighter.
That's like saying car A didn't win the drag race because it was better, it won because car B was worse.
You can find photos of spits with bombs under their wings and even kegs of beer but you'll be hard pressed to find any photos of a spit with wing drop tanks. This tells me that if anyone was trying to make a long range spitfire they either weren't trying very hard or they didn't want to. The only time I've ever head of spits using under-wing drop tanks was when flying across the atlantic.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: FBKampfer on April 04, 2016, 11:55:57 PM
No, it's like saying car A won because car B ran out of fuel because the race was held next to where Car A was parked.
It says nothing about which fighter was better.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: nrshida on April 05, 2016, 01:22:34 AM
Strange myth to address: that the Spitfire was war-winning. I don't feel that's a very common belief. The Spitfire does and always will hold a special place in British culture because it made a timely and significant contribution to forestalling invasion. I don't know if it's true but we were always told that the civilians of the day tuned into the radio communications of the Battle of Britain on their valve radios. If so this undoubtedly included some pretty raw and emotive sounds. Back against the wall, Western Europe fallen, Gerry at the door and all that. Sticky wicket.
As to the Battle of Britain being considered a draw. I think that's disingenuously confining the context too much. Adolf had to destroy the RAF and gain air superiority to invade and he couldn't do that. Plus Göring was immediately put on the Atkins diet for punishment. That's a lose-lose on the sausage side I think. :rofl
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Karnak on April 05, 2016, 02:06:28 AM
In that regard, my view has been this:
The Spitfire held the line in the air in the west, then the P-47 broke the back of the Luftwaffe in the west and then the P-51 finished the Luftwaffe as a fighting force in the west.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on April 05, 2016, 05:06:06 AM
Strange myth to address: that the Spitfire was war-winning. I don't feel that's a very common belief. The Spitfire does and always will hold a special place in British culture because it made a timely and significant contribution to forestalling invasion. I don't know if it's true but we were always told that the civilians of the day tuned into the radio communications of the Battle of Britain on their valve radios. If so this undoubtedly included some pretty raw and emotive sounds. Back against the wall, Western Europe fallen, Gerry at the door and all that. Sticky wicket.
As to the Battle of Britain being considered a draw. I think that's disingenuously confining the context too much. Adolf had to destroy the RAF and gain air superiority to invade and he couldn't do that. Plus Göring was immediately put on the Atkins diet for punishment. That's a lose-lose on the sausage side I think. :rofl
Yep, the victory conditions being different for the Jam Bun, it's a loss for the cabbage crates, especially those monkeys on the ceiling that were ushered into the briny.
In any case, I find this whole thread silly. The "myth" of the Spitfire... har-bluddy-har. Just look at the war record. By all accounts, it was an excellent air superiority fighter and even interceptor - and generated lots of kills.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Chalenge on April 05, 2016, 05:35:45 AM
That's right. No myth to see here. Move along. Move along.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: MiloMorai on April 05, 2016, 05:59:00 AM
That's like saying car A didn't win the drag race because it was better, it won because car B was worse.
You can find photos of spits with bombs under their wings and even kegs of beer but you'll be hard pressed to find any photos of a spit with wing drop tanks. This tells me that if anyone was trying to make a long range spitfire they either weren't trying very hard or they didn't want to. The only time I've ever head of spits using under-wing drop tanks was when flying across the atlantic.
Wasn't that mostly because no one would sell more modern designs to Franco?
No, in the '50s they had American F-86 Sabers, and later they got F-104s, F-4s and F-5s. They also bought French jets in the '60s.
The engine in the 109/Buchon was a British Merlin... I guess since it was indigenous produced it was cheap and could be fielded in large numbers as a ground attack platform. The 109 last saw action in 1958 in the Ifni War in Spanish West Africa.
Back for a brief while to do some research. Thought a bit of old fashioned British sarcastic humour would add a little colour while I'm here.
Was thinking about you recently actually. Had a little go at the JSF design brief just for fun. It is hard. Model about 1/3 complete. Will post some pictures if I ever get it finished.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 05, 2016, 07:26:30 AM
Looking forward to it. Yeah, if it was easy I doubt Lockheed Martin would have all these problems with it. ;)
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 05, 2016, 07:28:06 AM
How's Tiny Shida? Not so tiny anymore I suspect.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Arlo on April 05, 2016, 07:42:37 AM
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 05, 2016, 07:59:38 AM
This ridiculous non-existing myth debunking myth has been thoroughly debunked. We're already into who won the BoB and other digressions so.... How's Tiny Shida doing? :aok
(Arlo, you can turn away if you want ;))
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: RJH57 on April 05, 2016, 08:57:49 AM
What saved Britain was Operation Barbarossa - the diversion of almost all of Germany's resources to support the invasion of Russia. Most of the factors that had allowed Fighter Command to "win" the Battle of Britain were reversed in the summer of 1941 with the RAF's failed sweeps and "Circus" operations over north-western Europe. Just as the Luftwaffe failed to force Britain to make peace, so the RAF with its own air campaign in the aftermath of the BoB failed to defeat Germany.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Chalenge on April 05, 2016, 09:03:41 AM
And yet . . . 'Merica!
What you're really upset about is America/Russia kicked the Germans butt? I kind of like the way things turned out.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: RJH57 on April 05, 2016, 09:10:22 AM
What you're really upset about is America/Russia kicked the Germans butt? I kind of like the way things turned out.
yea, the Great Liberator Josef Stalin and the freedom-loving Communist Party that created the wonderful Workers' Paradise in Eastern Europe after the war :D But I agree - the United States and Russia were responsible for winning the war, England could never have done it on it's own.
This ridiculous non-existing myth debunking myth has been thoroughly debunked.
I think there's been a mythunderstanding :rofl
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: nrshida on April 05, 2016, 10:36:12 AM
I think RJH57 once blew all his money on a second-hand Triumph Spitfire and was so butt-hurt over the Lucas electrical system that it drove him to Luftwhinery and the need to participate in dubious cosplay photos for his avatar.
This ridiculous non-existing myth debunking myth has been thoroughly debunked. We're already into who won the BoB and other digressions so.... How's Tiny Shida doing? :aok
I am happy to say he is now very well thank you. He's been discharged from his last hospital monitoring, growing healthily and is apparently very smart. Much smarter than his Dad which is not saying a lot but a relief nonetheless given what John Wayne said about life. Recently taken an interest in shooting offline in Aces High. He also likes bailing out because he believes the parachute is a balloon and likes to see it. Much like Zack1234 in that regard.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 05, 2016, 10:45:15 AM
Good to hear :)
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on April 05, 2016, 10:54:07 AM
I think RJH57 once blew all his money on a second-hand Triumph Spitfire and was so butt-hurt over the Lucas electrical system that it drove him to Luftwhinery and the need to participate in dubious cosplay photos for his avatar.
Still, if the hat isn't a replica, it has genuine value.
The rest, alas, RJH, demands an answer. The photo is dubious... The part he didn't state was where the doubt accrues. I can only speak for myself, but I'm suspecting that alcohol might've been involved, for that is the most charitable source of bad judgment I can ascribe. Of course, my own avatar looks like a squashed cat, but it's the old family crest, long out of use in my neck of the woods. :D
I'll give you this, though: FDR appears to be downright sympathetic to Stalin's politics, given how he sold Eastern Europe down the river. No wonder most of those nations participated in the Eastern funzone. Of course, post-war, they were all of a different mind, but, by my count, some 20-odd nations participated in the war on Russia - and they had cause.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: DaveBB on April 05, 2016, 06:46:53 PM
No wet wings on either of those aircraft. Wing tanks yes, but no wet wings.
By all means you are correct. I would just like to state the term "wet wing" relative to WWII aircraft is quite often misused. A simple google search of "P-51 wet wing" or "P-47 wet wing" brought up a myriad of books and articles using that term to refer to onboard wing tanks.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Karnak on April 05, 2016, 10:23:08 PM
By all means you are correct. I would just like to state the term "wet wing" relative to WWII aircraft is quite often misused. A simple google search of "P-51 wet wing" or "P-47 wet wing" brought up a myriad of books and articles using that term to refer to onboard wing tanks.
Only WWII combat aircraft that I am aware of having a wet wing is the G4M 'Betty'. Consequences were, as Mitsubishi told the IJN, predictable.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: RJH57 on April 05, 2016, 10:56:20 PM
I am sure the Betty had a wet wing and that Mitsubishi told the IJN that they could not make an effective warplane with the demanded range on only two engines, that they needed four to have the weight allowance for protection. The IJN didn't have many pilots trained for four engines and told Mitsubishi to proceed with two engines. Mitsubishi had to use the wet wing in order to save weight and carry more fuel to meet the range requirements.
I am not certain that the Betty was the only WWII combat aircraft with a wet wing. I do know that the A6M, also famously flammable, did not use a wet wing.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: RJH57 on April 06, 2016, 12:35:16 AM
I'll give you this, though: FDR appears to be downright sympathetic to Stalin's politics, given how he sold Eastern Europe down the river.
not just FDR but Churchill as well - sold Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc... down the river. Recent documents have revealed that British PM Maggie Thatcher was also quite willing for the Soviets to stay in Eastern Europe in order to prevent German re-unification.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: MiloMorai on April 06, 2016, 06:47:02 AM
I am sure the Betty had a wet wing and that Mitsubishi told the IJN that they could not make an effective warplane with the demanded range on only two engines, that they needed four to have the weight allowance for protection. The IJN didn't have many pilots trained for four engines and told Mitsubishi to proceed with two engines. Mitsubishi had to use the wet wing in order to save weight and carry more fuel to meet the range requirements.
I am not certain that the Betty was the only WWII combat aircraft with a wet wing. I do know that the A6M, also famously flammable, did not use a wet wing.
The wings became wet when the non self-sealing fuel tanks were punctured.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on April 06, 2016, 10:11:43 AM
not just FDR but Churchill as well - sold Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc... down the river. Recent documents have revealed that British PM Maggie Thatcher was also quite willing for the Soviets to stay in Eastern Europe in order to prevent German re-unification.
The Venona decrypts outed several US diplomats - most notably, to my mind, Dean Acheson - as being in Soviet service. The British motivation is both more understandable and more shortsighted, imj.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Squire on April 06, 2016, 02:34:03 PM
Its so easy to sit in an armchair 60 years later and complain that the last generation did not enter into a Third World War in 1945 right after they just ended the Second World War to appease their political ideologies.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: FBKampfer on April 06, 2016, 04:13:25 PM
Only WWII combat aircraft that I am aware of having a wet wing is the G4M 'Betty'. Consequences were, as Mitsubishi told the IJN, predictable.
Here's a scan from Japanese Maru mechanic book handling Betty where separate fuel cells are visible (G4M2): (http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/G4Mfuel_zpsswnduijz.jpg)
Another drawing about G4M2 which looks like an integral tank between the spars in mid-wing and also integral leading edge tank: (http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/G4Mfuel2_zpsflv3vc8s.jpg)
Francillon indeed mentions integral fuel tanks when talking about the G4M1. As far as other WWII aircraft, Brewster F2A-family also had two integral fuel tanks in mid-wing inside a torsion box-like spar.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 07, 2016, 03:02:28 AM
That's a wet wing.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: FBKampfer on April 07, 2016, 04:55:07 PM
Don't try to muddy the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
The fact is that both aircraft had roughly equal endurance and range, and you're using the 109's relatively short range as a basis for saying the Spitfire was better.
You're either stupid or you don't care.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: FBKampfer on April 07, 2016, 04:59:14 PM
Yes intercepting the a/c attacking the a/c the 109 is escorting.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Squire on April 07, 2016, 05:45:58 PM
Quote
Most of the factors that had allowed Fighter Command to "win" the Battle of Britain were reversed in the summer of 1941 with the RAF's failed sweeps and "Circus" operations over north-western Europe. Just as the Luftwaffe failed to force Britain to make peace, so the RAF with its own air campaign in the aftermath of the BoB failed to defeat Germany.
The RAF made no attempt to destroy the Luftwaffe as a military arm in 1941. No historian anywhere that I have ever read compares The Battle of Britain in 1940 to the RAFs 1941 offensive operations over Norther France. They are in no way similar in scope of forces or strategic aims.
...it was not until late 1943 and Operation POINTBLANK that the Allies sought to destroy German fighter forces and aircraft industry. The British had no capability to mount such an operation in 1941.
...unlike the Luftwaffe in 1940 who did.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: FBKampfer on April 07, 2016, 07:10:28 PM
Yes. The 109's were out near the end of their range, leaving little combat time.
Range was sacrificed for performance, as the aircraft was conceived as an interceptor.
Both the Spitfire and 109 were basically the smallest possible airframe mated to the best engines available, with pure performance being the primary design goal. Range and armament were secondary considerations.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: FLOOB on April 07, 2016, 10:27:37 PM
The fact is that both aircraft had roughly equal endurance and range, and you're using the 109's relatively short range as a basis for saying the Spitfire was better.
You're either stupid or you don't care.
Me??
You barfed in the punchbowl we all share, and now you expect us to believe it’s alphabet soup?
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: RJH57 on April 08, 2016, 12:10:42 AM
The RAF made no attempt to destroy the Luftwaffe as a military arm in 1941. No historian anywhere that I have ever read compares The Battle of Britain in 1940 to the RAFs 1941 offensive operations over Norther France... are in no way similar in scope of forces or strategic aims.
I agree, the English had no hope of defeating Germany on their own and knew it, were just counting on the United States to eventually join the fray.
The RAF made no attempt to destroy the Luftwaffe as a military arm in 1941.
There was no Luftwaffe to destroy in western Europe at that time, most of it was in the east supporting Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia. But after the much over-rated Douglas Bader :banana: was appointed OC of Tangmere Wing, it began flying operations in the summer of 1941 given the name of "Circuses" and "Rhubarbs" and claimed a PREPOSTEROUS (!!) 311 enemy a/c destroyed, 130 probably destroyed and 159 damaged. :rofl In fact the Germans _never_ had more than 150 single-engine front-line fighters in the Pas de Calais in August 1941. Douglas Bader was very much a "Air-Vice-Marshal Leigh-Mallory" man, both ambitious men and advocates of using "Big Wings" :airplane: - which achieved little success - to confront the Luftwaffe. Fyi, when Bader was appointed as OC of Tangmere Wing he immediately replaced pilots, officer cadre, squadron leaders and flight commander with men admiring of and agreeable to Bader.
The Spitfire held the line in the air in the west, then the P-47 broke the back of the Luftwaffe in the west and then the P-51 finished the Luftwaffe as a fighting force in the west.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: nrshida on April 08, 2016, 04:21:15 AM
I agree, the English had no hope of defeating Germany on their own and knew it, were just counting on the United States to eventually join the fray.
Is that because the Germans are so uber and powerful and skilful? Wow. Must be the aryan DNA huh?
One factor I never see raised in these slightly dubious discussions is that the fight was by no means even because Germany essentially had a twenty year advance over everyone else with equipment and tactics. They started with no legacy weapons, a completely re-structured military a huge R&D budget and used the Spanish civil war and other naughtiness to test elements of a new approach as far removed from the previous trench warfare as possible. It was indeed innovative but let's not forget why it was motivated. In the interwar years Europe was fumbling with the concept of trying to move to a world peace philosophy - so outraged were most NORMAL people and governments about the horrors of the first world war. Just look at the arts movements and social developments of the day. Look at the policy of appeasement and that poor deluded fool Neville Chamberlain. Hitler and the other fascists took advantage of this movement to rearm with a vengeance while externally promising peace. The back-stabbing, lying, monotesticular, scumbag.
Britain did not have the capacity immediately after the BoB to counterattack anything interesting and Germany's U-boat blockade was to try and forestall the inevitable and Hitler bloody-well knew it. Had America stayed out it's highly likely Britain would eventually have closed the technological and tactical gap - even it it would have taken to the late 50s - and some kind of different landscape of Europe would have eventually announced. There is evidence for this if you compare equipment towards the closing of the war. They were never going to leave Hitler unmolested if they could. This was an ethical as well as political objection. Go listen to Churchill's speeches.
But by no means let any of those factors disturb your Luftwining, slightly racist, unobjective delusions that Nazi Germany was noble and uber alles and that Britain is and always was the bad guy in every possible scenario. A not uncommon point of view as it deserves to be, apparently.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Bruv119 on April 08, 2016, 04:48:38 AM
:D
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: LCADolby on April 08, 2016, 05:01:47 AM
Herr Hitler failed to read the history of that other little corporal that tried to cross The English Channel. I hear he came a cropper.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: nrshida on April 08, 2016, 05:03:02 AM
What ho Bruv old chap. Someone told me you were a father now. Congratulations. When do the baby's flying lessons commence? I heard you can get child-safe CH sticks now.
Still get to fly a bit here and there? Dont worry. The nappy changing phase only lasts 3-4 years tops. 5 if you're very unlucky.
:banana:
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: dirtdart on April 08, 2016, 05:33:45 AM
Hear hear Shida. I am glad to see that the bulletin boards are sporting his usual. The Spitfire was a fantastic airplane and I think the real expert you have to weigh against is that English naval officer I believe last name Brown who has many documentaries on the internet and The credibility of having flown the greatest variety of aircraft of any man ever and take his comments of the Spitfire so heart.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on April 08, 2016, 10:22:14 AM
The back-stabbing, lying, monotesticular, scumbag.
The word you want is monorchism... http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/19/hitler-really-did-have-only-one-testicle-german-researcher-claims (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/19/hitler-really-did-have-only-one-testicle-german-researcher-claims)
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: FBKampfer on April 08, 2016, 12:50:08 PM
Is that because the Germans are so uber and powerful and skilful? Wow. Must be the aryan DNA huh?
One factor I never see raised in these slightly dubious discussions is that the fight was by no means even because Germany essentially had a twenty year advance over everyone else with equipment and tactics. They started with no legacy weapons, a completely re-structured military a huge R&D budget and used the Spanish civil war and other naughtiness to test elements of a new approach as far removed from the previous trench warfare as possible. It was indeed innovative but let's not forget why it was motivated. In the interwar years Europe was fumbling with the concept of trying to move to a world peace philosophy - so outraged were most NORMAL people and governments about the horrors of the first world war. Just look at the arts movements and social developments of the day. Look at the policy of appeasement and that poor deluded fool Neville Chamberlain. Hitler and the other fascists took advantage of this movement to rearm with a vengeance while externally promising peace. The back-stabbing, lying, monotesticular, scumbag.
Britain did not have the capacity immediately after the BoB to counterattack anything interesting and Germany's U-boat blockade was to try and forestall the inevitable and Hitler bloody-well knew it. Had America stayed out it's highly likely Britain would eventually have closed the technological and tactical gap - even it it would have taken to the late 50s - and some kind of different landscape of Europe would have eventually announced. There is evidence for this if you compare equipment towards the closing of the war. They were never going to leave Hitler unmolested if they could. This was an ethical as well as political objection. Go listen to Churchill's speeches.
But by no means let any of those factors disturb your Luftwining, slightly racist, unobjective delusions that Nazi Germany was noble and uber alles and that Britain is and always was the bad guy in every possible scenario. A not uncommon point of view as it deserves to be, apparently.
Wrong, only their airforce, and infantry were largely modernized. Very few Panzer III's and IV's were fielded when Germany rolled up every major military power in Europe through 40 and 41. Only in 42 did Panzer III's really start to form sizeable portions of the panzerwaffe. Prior to that, they were heavily reliant on the already obsolete Panzer I and II's.
And large portions of their artillery arm remained obsolescent throughout the war. Only the leFH 18, 10,5cm K18, and 15cm K39 could be called truly modern designs, and not even all of them were the modernized version suited for mobile warfare. Some still had wooden spoked wheels.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they were übernehmen, but saying Germany didn't start with any legacy weapons is only technically true.
The number one reason they performed as well as they did was their tactics. They were decades ahead of anyone else. Literally nobody else had even the slightest inkling of how to handle their equipment.
Number two was that they were willing to field new equipment the absolute instant it got off the assembly line. Only have 12 of the new Tigers? Perfect, gas em up and throw em at the Russians.
New 190 has problems with the cockpit temperatures? Use them anyway.
The German military is always made out to be far more robust than it actually was.
And the third reason they performed as well as they did was that they were motivated. Morale is huge.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: nrshida on April 08, 2016, 01:46:33 PM
Wrong, only their airforce, and infantry were largely modernized. Very few Panzer III's and IV's were fielded when Germany rolled up every major military power in Europe through 40 and 41. Only in 42 did Panzer III's really start to form sizeable portions of the panzerwaffe. Prior to that, they were heavily reliant on the already obsolete Panzer I and II's.
And large portions of their artillery arm remained obsolescent throughout the war. Only the leFH 18, 10,5cm K18, and 15cm K39 could be called truly modern designs, and not even all of them were the modernized version suited for mobile warfare. Some still had wooden spoked wheels.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they were übernehmen, but saying Germany didn't start with any legacy weapons is only technically true.
The number one reason they performed as well as they did was their tactics. They were decades ahead of anyone else. Literally nobody else had even the slightest inkling of how to handle their equipment.
Number two was that they were willing to field new equipment the absolute instant it got off the assembly line. Only have 12 of the new Tigers? Perfect, gas em up and throw em at the Russians.
New 190 has problems with the cockpit temperatures? Use them anyway.
The German military is always made out to be far more robust than it actually was.
And the third reason they performed as well as they did was that they were motivated. Morale is huge.
Blitzkrieg tactics are about as opposite to trench warfare as possible. I'm sure that contributed to its development. The dissolving of the German Army and Navy and Airforce after the treaty of Versaille paved the way for a later clean sheet of paper approach not accessible to other nations who retained the structures, doctrines and tactics they had.
I'm happy to be corrected by more knowledgeable people on details and specifics. However I think the point still stands and yet is seldom mentioned. Regardless of technique / equipment mixtures, many of those armies and airforces they rolled over where comparatively ill-equipped and ill-prepared and certainly old-fashioned in their tactics. In a period of potential and lasting peace they rushed into the vacuum and took advantage of that with aggression, subjugation and ultimately the extermination of uncountable innocent people.
Perhaps some people on this forum should bear that in mind when idolising the tools that did that work.
Debunking the myth of the Spitfire. Do me a lemon flavour.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Squire on April 08, 2016, 08:13:08 PM
Quote
Just as the Luftwaffe failed to force Britain to make peace, so the RAF with its own air campaign in the aftermath of the BoB failed to defeat Germany.
Quote
There was no Luftwaffe to destroy in western Europe at that time
Sorry you have lost me as what your point was then. Also I don't see the relevance of what Tangmere Wing did or didn't do or Douglas Bader either.
Not achieving their 1940 objectives against England ensured that Germany would fight a disastrous two front war with Britain and the USA. That's what failure did to them. They would never be able to throw their entire weight East against the Soviets...and after Moscow 1941 that's what they had to do. The Eastern Front did not exist in a vacuum. The United States entry into the war did not take place in a vacuum. The fact that Britain was still in the war after 1940 had a long lasting impact on WW2...all of it bad for Germany.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Karnak on April 08, 2016, 10:48:34 PM
I would say that the effect the RAF had in 1941 is to keep some of the Luftwaffe out of Russia, thus easing the pressure on the USSR. Whether the price the RAF paid was worth that is up for debate.
There may of also been some usefulness in showing people in the low countries that the Germans hadn't won yet and reminding the Germans themselves that wars have consequences.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Squire on April 09, 2016, 02:07:00 AM
It was entirely sound to conduct operations over Northern France in 1941 as they are gearing up for wider operations to come, they need to keep units battle seasoned, they need to try new tactics and aircraft and yes, they need to be seen to be fighting where they can. Would historians have viewed them kindly if they just sat back and did nothing for a few years? I would think not.
That said its true that the Luftwaffe did better on the kill-loss exchanges and there were a number of reasons for that. I take nothing away from them...but the idea though that it was some "Second BoB?"....no. Not even close.
There was sort of a "Second BoB 1940"...it happened over Malta in 1942. The Spitfire won there too. :banana: < oh look I did a dancing banana of my own!
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Zimme83 on April 09, 2016, 05:25:20 PM
Sorry you have lost me as what your point was then. Also I don't see the relevance of what Tangmere Wing did or didn't do or Douglas Bader either.
Not achieving their 1940 objectives against England ensured that Germany would fight a disastrous two front war with Britain and the USA. That's what failure did to them. They would never be able to throw their entire weight East against the Soviets...and after Moscow 1941 that's what they had to do. The Eastern Front did not exist in a vacuum. The United States entry into the war did not take place in a vacuum. The fact that Britain was still in the war after 1940 had a long lasting impact on WW2...all of it bad for Germany.
Russia would have defeated Germany regardless of what was happening on the western front. By the time the Battle of Stalingrad was over there was still very Little action on the western front. Most important effect of D-day was that it prevented Russia from taking western Europe too... Almost 90 % of the German Soldiers were fighting in the East, the remaining 10% would not have changed the outcome.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Oldman731 on April 09, 2016, 07:57:47 PM
Russia would have defeated Germany regardless of what was happening on the western front. By the time the Battle of Stalingrad was over there was still very Little action on the western front. Most important effect of D-day was that it prevented Russia from taking western Europe too... Almost 90 % of the German Soldiers were fighting in the East, the remaining 10% would not have changed the outcome.
Agreed.
That said, 60,000 trucks and all of the rest of the equipment we sent to the Bolsheviks, at significant cost to a lot of sailors, didn't hurt their chances any.
- oldman
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: FLOOB on April 09, 2016, 09:13:04 PM
Russia and the Soviet Union are two different things you diddlying hillbillies. Half of the soviets didn't even speak russian in the 1940s.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Zimme83 on April 09, 2016, 09:54:52 PM
And what was the Soviet union called Before the revolution...?
(Spoiler: Russia)
Soviet Union = Russia under communist rule (post ww2 also including Countries in Eastern Europe taken by Soviet forces during the war)
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: FLOOB on April 09, 2016, 10:23:51 PM
And what was the United States of America called before the revolution? "The English from the Great British Colonies in North America fought to victory on Iwo Jima." That would actually make more sense than your russia = ussr contention because americans actually speak english.
Russia wasn't a beligerent military in WWII because it didn't have a national military because it wasn't a nation. It was one of the united soviet socialist republics.
Suck on facts!
Now watch him keep trying to rationalize.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Zimme83 on April 09, 2016, 11:17:18 PM
I don't have to.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Brooke on April 10, 2016, 12:29:17 AM
I don't think it was Acheson but others in Roosevelt's administration who were outed as Soviet agents (mainly through information from defector Whittaker Chambers, then backed up by Venona intercepts and other sources), such as Alger Hiss (attendee and involved in drafting agreements at the Yalta Conference), Harry Dexter White (high-level Treasury Department official, senior American official at Bretton Woods), Lauchlin Curry (Roosevelt's economic advisor), and Laurence Duggan (also in the State Department). Roosevelt was told about them by Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle but dismissed the information entirely.
Huge amounts of information on things like this (and much, much more) were brought to the west by Vasili Mitrokhin when he defected along with his archive. He was a senior archivist for the KGB for 30 years. The book "The Sword and the Shield" summarizes material in the Mitrokhin Archive.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Bruv119 on April 10, 2016, 09:04:04 AM
What ho Bruv old chap. Someone told me you were a father now. Congratulations. When do the baby's flying lessons commence? I heard you can get child-safe CH sticks now.
Still get to fly a bit here and there? Dont worry. The nappy changing phase only lasts 3-4 years tops. 5 if you're very unlucky.
:banana:
Thanks Shida, sure is life changing :D,
Your not wrong on the training I walked her through a CV take off and landing and we shot a set of ju88's down that were attempting to torpedo our ship. This pic was a good 2 months ago.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Gman on April 15, 2016, 10:54:25 AM
Quote
thankfully my setup is in a cupboard under the stairs with door
Trying very hard not to make Harry Potter references. Hah hah.
Great pics Bruv, make sure you keep copies of those, they'll be very important to you and your family some day. Well done is all I need to say really.
I agree with Gscholz regarding the OP, there was really not a lot to choose between the Spit and 109 IMO throughout the war. They did leapfrog one another from time to time, but overall, there were very evenly matched airplanes, incredibly so really, throughout many phases of a very, very long war, and in a time of rapid and incredible aeronautical advancements. IMO the higher kill numbers attributed to the Hurricanes were a function of having more Hurri numbers and squadrons. Had their been an equal split between Spit/Hurri squads and numbers, I would bet that the Spit would have a lot more kills and effectiveness. In every area save taking punishment, and perhaps gun placement/platform, it's a better a/c.
My one grandfather was an enlisted radio tech (the other ferried Lancs from Canada to the UK) and served in several Spit squadrons/bases, and gave me a few books written by and about Canadian Spit pilots, the best of which was about Beurling and his and compatriots experience on Malta. One passage that always stood out to me was when they shot down a new 109F, and it crash landed in nearly perfect condition. They marveled over everything from the sleek/slick paintjob to the motor and weapons, and felt it was every inch a better fighter than their Spit5s of the time, yet perception is a tricky thing - once the Spit9 came out, the Germans would likely have felt the same about it comparing it to a 109F had they found a mint crash landed Spit9.
Also, a lot of great stuff about how individuals hot rodded their Spit5s, motor and WEP mods, as well as removing the 303 guns and ammo - something several pilots did in Malta, Beurling included. No pewpewpewpewpew, just PEW PEW PEW.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Mister Fork on April 15, 2016, 02:18:17 PM
Also, a lot of great stuff about how individuals hot rodded their Spit5s, motor and WEP mods, as well as removing the 303 guns and ammo - something several pilots did in Malta, Beurling included. No pewpewpewpewpew, just PEW PEW PEW.
+1 Gman .. the history of pilots 'personalizing' their fighters goes back to WWI - and it's something that's not modeled in any simulator/game ever made - though we do have some here in Aces High. For example, the ability to not take certain ammo types - Dale/Doug have done a good job on weapon choices i.e. 6x50Cal vs 4 for the P-51 and same for P-47's, or adding Gondolas to the 109, and weapon variants in the 190 and 110.
If Beurling and others truly modded their Sheitfires, what else did they do to squeak out performance advantages?
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: GScholz on April 15, 2016, 02:41:21 PM
Adolf Galland had an ashtray and cigar lighter in his 109s. He liked to smoke a lot. He also had two modified 109F made just for him because he thought the standard F was under armed. In one plane he had the cowl machine guns replaced with MG 131s (which would later become standard in the G-6 onward). In the other 109 he had MGFF canons added to the wings like in the 109E.
I have no idea what's in the basket or what it's for...
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Arlo on April 15, 2016, 02:50:24 PM
He had gotten so many medals by that time that Goering resorted to sending gift baskets instead.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Gman on April 15, 2016, 04:11:37 PM
One of the RCAF groups had Galland come over many years after the war, and speak here in Canada. This is briefly mentioned in the book "1000 Shall Fall". Franz Stigler who was in Canada by then too was at the same event. Galland apparently was so nervous about meeting former foes, many of whom whose friends he and the LW had shot down, that he nearly didn't do it even once he had arrived in town. When he finally decided to not back out and showed up, when he was introduced, the entire auditorium stood up and gave him a standing ovation. He wept openly, mostly smiling, and once the uproar finally died down, gave a very engaging lecture.
I wish I could have seen that, and met him then.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Mister Fork on April 15, 2016, 04:13:21 PM
One of the RCAF groups had Galland come over many years after the war, and speak here in Canada. This is briefly mentioned in the book "1000 Shall Fall". Franz Stigler who was in Canada by then too was at the same event. Galland apparently was so nervous about meeting former foes, many of whom whose friends he and the LW had shot down, that he nearly didn't do it even once he had arrived in town. When he finally decided to not back out and showed up, when he was introduced, the entire auditorium stood up and gave him a standing ovation. He wept openly, mostly smiling, and once the uproar finally died down, gave a very engaging lecture.
I wish I could have seen that, and met him then.
Me too. That would have been great.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Vulcan on April 18, 2016, 03:35:46 PM
My one grandfather was an enlisted radio tech (the other ferried Lancs from Canada to the UK) and served in several Spit squadrons/bases, and gave me a few books written by and about Canadian Spit pilots, the best of which was about Beurling and his and compatriots experience on Malta.
Was watching a documentary about him last week. The bit at the end cracked me up, they had him doing war bond raising - giving talks. There was a recording where he is talking about a targeting a german pilots head, then hitting it (seeing the head blown off), and blood streaking down the side of the canopy. In the background you can hear the audience freaking out. He was pulled off the war bond circuit after that.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Gman on April 18, 2016, 03:58:48 PM
Yep Beurling was quite a nut. He would practice shooting his handgun at all kinds of crazy stuff working on his deflection shooting, would borrow his airfield's 2 seat trainer/messenger plane to do air shows of his own creation at very low alt over civilians or whomever, and a pile of other insane behavior.
That war bond tour, a reporter had asked him how he felt about killing, and that's when he started that story of shooting just his 20mm at the Italian pilot, and how "he thought it was great, killing them, and how sometimes like that case he only needed 3 or 4 cannon shots as he would plant the pilot in the head and see it explode". He was considered by many who flew with him to have the best eyes and be the best shot in the air force.
One CO of his decided to actually sit down and talk with him and ask him about his shooting and marks he would put on his cockpit/sights himself and whatnot - Beurling explained in depth for the day how he went at airborne shooting and his own technique for deflection. That CO put it to use - 4 days later he had 3 quick kills doing so.
The books about him explain all this better than my memory can, but he was quite the fighter pilot. Anyone given the nickname "Buzz", then having a new one "screwball" assigned...I think that says it all.
http://www.constable.ca/caah/beurling.htm
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Rich46yo on April 18, 2016, 05:49:35 PM
That was the most flawed summary of an airplane I think I ever read. I wont bother going over its sillyness cause with 8 pages they no doubt have already been covered.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 18, 2016, 07:10:01 PM
Yep Beurling was quite a nut. He would practice shooting his handgun at all kinds of crazy stuff working on his deflection shooting, would borrow his airfield's 2 seat trainer/messenger plane to do air shows of his own creation at very low alt over civilians or whomever, and a pile of other insane behavior.
That war bond tour, a reporter had asked him how he felt about killing, and that's when he started that story of shooting just his 20mm at the Italian pilot, and how "he thought it was great, killing them, and how sometimes like that case he only needed 3 or 4 cannon shots as he would plant the pilot in the head and see it explode". He was considered by many who flew with him to have the best eyes and be the best shot in the air force.
One CO of his decided to actually sit down and talk with him and ask him about his shooting and marks he would put on his cockpit/sights himself and whatnot - Beurling explained in depth for the day how he went at airborne shooting and his own technique for deflection. That CO put it to use - 4 days later he had 3 quick kills doing so.
The books about him explain all this better than my memory can, but he was quite the fighter pilot. Anyone given the nickname "Buzz", then having a new one "screwball" assigned...I think that says it all.
http://www.constable.ca/caah/beurling.htm
There are some recordings around the Intertardnet of some of Beurling's war bond speeches. He was brutally frank about combat in those speeches, didn't sugar coat it at all.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Gman on April 18, 2016, 08:27:46 PM
Hey Rich, how you been, don't remember seeing you for a while, welcome back.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Oldman731 on April 18, 2016, 08:29:22 PM
Hey Rich, how you been, don't remember seeing you for a while, welcome back.
What he said. How's the boy?
- oldman
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: bustr on April 18, 2016, 08:34:02 PM
From reading the link about Beurling, he liked to make his kills 250 and closer. I bet what he did to get marks in his cockpit for aiming was to get the armorer to setup his bird for harmonization on the 250 yd target. Then place marks inside of his windscreen or on his reflector plate corresponding to the IP points for the 20mm on each wing. A bit of trig and the harmonization chart for his bird, from there and he would have the points for 150 and 50.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Gman on April 18, 2016, 10:00:24 PM
Ya very likely, I'll have to dig through my books and find the exact passages, one of them had some pretty good details regarding his self created deflection shooting method. Beurling did take the odd shot at long range, one which was observed by several other pilots was an 800 yard shot at a very, very wide angle, and just a quick burst connected with that target and downed it - that kill it said in 2 books really started to launch his rep as a great shot. After that it is accurate to say that he tried to fire as close to 250 as possible, as his method and convergence were optimized for that range.
The reverse is true too, he took some shots where he said the target literally blocked out the rest of the sky, around 50 yards, maybe even 30 in one case, the one where he famously described shooting the Italian pilot in the head in a white plain, to a crowd of about 10,000 shocked civilians.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: bustr on April 19, 2016, 10:51:24 AM
He must have had a singular presence of mind. Inside of 150 you have to clearly remember your rounds are very low and only one stream will be of any use against a small fighter. Sometimes in the MA I remember, many times I aim center of the reticle. You have to wonder what he would have done with his life without a war.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: Rich46yo on April 19, 2016, 11:55:57 PM
Hey Rich, how you been, don't remember seeing you for a while, welcome back.
Good thanks. Sadly working PMs and a lot of it and just no time for gaming. Hopefully 2017 will be different. Or lll will be exciting enough to re-join even tho I have only a few hours a week to play. Hope you, and all, are well. I'm happy for the community a new version is launching. Be well.
Title: Re: debunking the myth of the Spitfire
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on April 25, 2016, 03:03:16 PM
I don't think it was Acheson but others in Roosevelt's administration who were outed as Soviet agents (mainly through information from defector Whittaker Chambers, then backed up by Venona intercepts and other sources), such as Alger Hiss (attendee and involved in drafting agreements at the Yalta Conference), Harry Dexter White (high-level Treasury Department official, senior American official at Bretton Woods), Lauchlin Curry (Roosevelt's economic advisor), and Laurence Duggan (also in the State Department). Roosevelt was told about them by Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle but dismissed the information entirely.
Huge amounts of information on things like this (and much, much more) were brought to the west by Vasili Mitrokhin when he defected along with his archive. He was a senior archivist for the KGB for 30 years. The book "The Sword and the Shield" summarizes material in the Mitrokhin Archive.
You're correct, Brooke. It might have been wishful thinking on my part, probably based on his defense of Hiss.
I always wondered, just based on the level of penetration of admin positions in the US, which highly-placed Narzzies (Zack's preferred term) were Stalinistas. Many have suggested Bormann. I keep thinking about Zitadelle; obviously known in detail in advance, and connect that dot to the fact that the Soviets never produced Bormann's body.