best combination of manuverabilty and speed in an allied...

[Udet]

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

Spit IXs had no trouble with any of the 109s that took part in Bodenplatte.

Really? Can you please provide a list Spitfire Mk. IX aces, and the number of Bf 109s they shot down?

[Hot Space]

I would of thought that out of all the spits invovled the Spit XIv would of been better. Ok, only a bit faster then the IX low down, but

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

Spit IXs had no trouble with any of the 109s that took part in Bodenplatte.

The vast majority of pilots that flew for Germany were very unseasoned during Bodenplatte. Most Of the experienced Germans were used as flight leaders just to get them on target and tell them what to do. Most of those who were shot down by allied planes were green pilots. Comparing the SpitIX and 109 from then and saying that it was nothing but Spit IX being a better plane is not true statement. You want to compare Spit vs 109 its hard. BOB the British were going for the bombers mostly and had higher losses vs the 109 then was true fair to compare. During 41-42 when Britain attacked targets in France the Germans in 109 layed a serous beating of the British planes (Spits alot of them) and the Germans were going mostly for bombers also then and were vastly out numbered. So if you want to compare Spit to 109 that would alot fairer. Both sides had trained crews both had negatives of their side of one kind or another. It is a ageless arguement 109 or Spit, hard to compare fairly at any time. Fun to try. If it was me I would choose the 109 forsure.

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by Udet

Really? Can you please provide a list Spitfire Mk. IX aces, and the number of Bf 109s they shot down?

Don't have to be aces.

#2 in XIVs got a K-4
#401 in IXs got 4 109s
#403 in XIVs got 3 109s
#414 in IXs got 3 109s

IXs - 7, XIVs - 4

Could be more but I wasted enough time.

LOL, even the Typhoon got some 109s.

A total of 22 109 Gs and Ks lost to RAF fighters.

It was IXs from 401 which got the 1st CW 262.

ps @ hunter. Most IXs were fighter bombers so would have only basic combat fighter experience.

[Glider]

Nearly all British and Commonwealth Aces flew Spits so take your pick.

Hunter makes some good points but one question is 'If the late 109's were that good, why did the vast majority of German pilots prefer the 190'?'

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Glider

Nearly all British and Commonwealth Aces flew Spits so take your pick.

Hunter makes some good points but one question is 'If the late 109's were that good, why did the vast majority of German pilots prefer the 190'?'

Actually the vast majority of German aces preferred the 109, especially the top aces. Important difference there.

[Erich]

it was not preference but what was offered to them in their Geschwaders

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

Don't have to be aces.

#2 in XIVs got a K-4
#401 in IXs got 4 109s
#403 in XIVs got 3 109s
#414 in IXs got 3 109s

IXs - 7, XIVs - 4

Could be more but I wasted enough time.

LOL, even the Typhoon got some 109s.

A total of 22 109 Gs and Ks lost to RAF fighters.

It was IXs from 401 which got the 1st CW 262.

ps @ hunter. Most IXs were fighter bombers so would have only basic combat fighter experience.

While the Spit is a good plane like I said comparing the Spit and the 109 in this battle is not fair. I have read articles from Allies pilots who did get in the air and they said most of the Germans didn't even make any evasive maneuvers when they attacked them, or the German pilots just jumped out of their plane as soon as their were in a disadvantageous position. They simply didn't know what to do when a enemy got on their tail. Like I said, all I am saying comparing the Spit to the 109 based on this air combat is not fair. Would you think comparing Spit losses to 109 losses when the British were attacking France in 41-42 was fair ? If you do you are in for a big surprise. Brit loss alot more Spit than Germans lost 109. Not trying to start a pissing fight but it is hard to compare the two fairly.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Erich

it was not preference but what was offered to them in their Geschwaders

Eric I have read where some Aces were able to delay their a/c being changed or get their choice of a/c they wanted, most of the time no but a few top aces I think were able to from what I have read. Do you agree that most of the top aces flew 109s?

[Erich]

at one time or the other.

Hartmann's JG 52 never had Fw's available to them, only 109's

Barkhorn flew both as well as the Dora 9 in JG 6

Rall flew a combination of craft, 109 in JG 300 though he had the Dora 9 offered to him but he layed low and did no op flying while as Geschwader Kommodore of JG 300. He flew the Me 262 after war

Kittel flew both and prefered the 190

Nowotny flew both and died in the Me 262

Rudirffer flew both and ended flying the Me 262

Bär flew both and prefered the 190 and ended the war in the Me 262

Graf flew both

Weissenberer flew the 109 and then Me 262

Phillip flew both, died in the Fw 190

Schuck flew in JG 5's Bf 109 only unit and then Me 262 at wars end

on it goes...

[Udet]

Mr. KrazyKanuk:

Well, this might be the last time I waste my time in responding to you.

Now I am moving away from technical data sheets which appear to be the specialty of several guys here. Now the hardest of the facts: battle record.

Yours was an interesting evasive action: "they do not have to be aces..."

22 Bf 109 Gs and Ks? Not what you can call a fruitful harvest when one knows of the number of German fighters deployed for the operation.

But back in business wasting my time with you:

Possibly so, they do not have to be aces...the point is that wherever you look, whatever the period or phase of the war you pick, you name it: Battle of Britain, 1941, 1942, 1943, pre D-day 1944, post D-day 1944, the Bf 109 produced far more aces than any of its contemporary Spitfire ever came close to achieve during each period.

Major Helmut Wick during the Battle of Britain alone shot down 25 Spitfires. This, during a time when the Germans had high losses operating over enemy territory, and still no Spitfire pilot shot down what you can call a significant number of Bf 109 E.

"Johnnie" Johnson shot down 38 German planes within a period of 3 years.

So Mr. Crazy, differences are substantial as you might perceive.

To make the long story short, you should have learned by now that if you claim the Spitfire to have been such a wonderfully flawless fighter -clearly superior to most German designs-, superior virtually throughout the entire war, such fact, by force, should have produced a vast number of British aces with numbers of kills that at least should scratch the records of the German aces.

But no. Such aces do not exist. Noble Marmaduk (south africa)? If I recall correctly he never flew Spitfires, the fact is he got shot down and killed early in the war by a Bf 110 -another one of the planes the allies have portrayed as "doomed"-.

Where are the aces of fighter force that was in a state of war the entire duration of WWII -nearly 6 years-? Furthermore, where are those aces who flew, according to your words, a plane that virtually surpassed most -if not all- German designs?

Something must be very rotten around here.

The brunt of the fighter war over Europe in 1944-45 was carried out by the P-51s, P-47s and P-38s, the Jug more importantly.

[Jabberwocky]

Ginger Lacy got 11 109E's in the BoB

Archie McKellar got 9 109E's

"Cocky" Dundas got 6 109E's.

Josef Frantisek got 8 109E's (in Hurricanes )

Gordon Sinclair got 4 109'E's


Fighter Command (and 2TAF, ADGB and 100 Group) fighter claims in the ETO alone were evaluted post war as ~10,700. Given that there were over 18,000 fighter pilots that fought under Fighter Command and various British fighter organisations in the war period, its hardly suprising that there weren't scads of high scoring individuals. RAF pilots saw far less fighter on fighter action than their German counterparts. If you put Johnny Johnston, or Ginger Lacy or Marmaduke Patel or Johnny Bladwin or Edgar Barwell in the same situation as Galland or Wick or Lang or Marseille or Priller, their scores would of been somewhat similar.

[Jabberwocky]

RAF Spitfire Claims for 1/1/1945

2 Sqn (Mk XIV): 2 Destroyed
308 Sqn (Mk IX): 13 Destroyed
317 Sqn (Mk IX): 5 Destroyed, 1 probably destroyed, 4 damaged
401 Sqn (Mk IX): 8 Destroyed, 1 probably destroyed, 3 damaged
403 Sqn (Mk XIV): 8 Destroyed, 1 damaged
411 Sqn (Mk IX): 2 Destroyed
412 Sqn (Mk IX): 7 Destroyed, 1 damaged
414 Sqn (Mk IX): 3 Destroyed, 1 damaged
610 Sqn (Mk XIV): 1 Destroyed

Total aerial claims: 49 destroyed, 2 probably destroyed, 10 damaged.

Aerial losses:

2 Sqn: 2 MIA, 1 Cat. E
308 Sqn: 4 Cat. E, 1 KIA
317 Sqn: 1 Cat. E
403 Sqn: 2 Cat. E
412 Sqn: 1 MIA
414 Sqn: 2 Cat. E


Total aerial losses: 13 Spitfires lost, 2 pilots KIA, 1 pilot MIA (412 Spitfire IX pilot shot down by flak and captured on afternoon sortie)

USAAF claims were 66 Destroyed, 4 probably destroyed and 15 damaged. USAAF combat losses were 29 fighters Cat. E and 8 pilots MIA.

LuftWaffe Pilot losses were

JG 1: 18 KIA/MIA, 6 PoW, 1 WiA
JG 2: 23 KIA/MIA, 10 PoW, 3 WiA
JG 3: 11 KIA/MIA, 6 PoW, 2 WiA
JG 4: 16 KIA/MIA, 6 PoW, 1 WiA
JG 6: 17 KIA/MIA, 6 PoW,
JG 11: 22 KIA/MIA, 4 PoW,
JG 26: 12 KIA/MIA, 8 PoW, 4 WiA
JG 53: 10 KIA/MIA, 4 PoW, 6 WiA
JG 54: 7 KIA/MIA, 5 PoW, 1 WiA
JG 77: 6 KIA/MIA, 5 PoW
SG 4: 3 KIA/MIA, 1 PoW

Total pilot losses: 220 KIA/MIA/PoW, 18 WiA

Total fighter losses: 241 destroyed, missing, written off on return.

[syscom3]

Which Spit had the fastest climb rate to 33,000 ft?

[Erich]

Für Bodenplatte:

German forces lost 271 a/c with 60-100 %
65 a/c with 0-59% damage

57 MIA
86 KIA
70 POW
21 WIA
102 pilots came away ok

this does not take into account the losses by Ju 88G-1 and G-6 a/c and crews doing pathfinder work.

16 nf crews were either in action or were killed at their airfields due to Allied bombings, 5./NJG 6 being a prime target at Essen-Mülheim AF.

this as the result of the latest research done by Ron Pütz and John Manhro in their Bodenplatte book