Clarifications about the Spitfire Mk IX and XVI

[GScholz]

88?

[wpeters]

Were do you guys find all this stuff.. JUst would like to know for a little light reading

[Lusche]

88?

Click Here.

[Franz Von Werra]

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?  


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?
 

[Guppy35]

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.

[Karnak]

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.

[MiloMorai]

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!

[MiloMorai]

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.

[Franz Von Werra]

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...
 

[MiloMorai]

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

[Karnak]

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.

[Franz Von Werra]

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.

[MiloMorai]

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.   

[Franz Von Werra]

No no no... can you read? Or is it your writing? Clarify your stuff!
Germany lost 533 single engine aircraft!  
England lost 1034 single engine aircraft!  
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. 
And a drop-tank wasn't invented yet... simple thing and England lost for sure!  
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!
Allieds losses: 2233 planes lost
Germany: 1236 or 1345 aircraft lost
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_France
 

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
 

So give it up Milo... the first guys to the front line here already have.  

[Karnak]

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.