Bf-109F-4 and a bleak time for RAF

[Soren]

I agree with Udet, but although overall the Spitfire didn't do well against the 109 and 190, I'd still like to point out that the Spit XIV was certainly on par with the later 109's and 190's performance wise.

[Sgt. Pappy]

All while still arriving just in time during 1944 Most people make fun of my SpitXIV saying, 'o yea? it's got all that? how bout range? can't get there, can't fight.' I just say, it's a defense plane.. it waits for the stupid to come to it, and in 1945, Spit 14's got 75 Imp. gal. rear tanks (only 36 in the bubble canopy ones) but that gave it a better range.. at least 1000 miles.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Very true - Pilot Training, tactics? Perhaps knowing that you're fighting with your back against the wall...

Or maybe that the Spit V was a match for the F4 in a situation where the Germans had the advantage of numbers and the Spit V was defending. Sounds similar to the European scenario where the RAF had the advantage of numbers and the 109's were defending.

It should be pointed out that the Air Commanders at Malta complained that the squadrons sent to Malta, were often stripped of their best pilots. Which rules out the advantage of Pilot Training.

[Chingachgook]

X

[Chingachgook]

X

[Soren]

Well the Spit XIV actually wasn't that common, not many entered combat over mainland Europe.

[Chingachgook]

X

[Chingachgook]

X

[Soren]

The LF IX was a great climber, however it was way too slow - approx 40 km/h behind the later 109's at sea level, and more at alt.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Chingachgook

I have done a lot of reading on the Malta Squadrons.
The pilots may have been cast-offs, but they got better tactics down real quick.
Much of USAF tactics were written by an American pilot who flew Mk V for RAF in Malta.
IMHO the technical staff in Aboukir N. Africa was superior to those in England.

Thats good information for which I thank you.

I am waiting for someone to explain why the Germans did so badly against Malta as most people on the thread seem to believe that the 109F was so much better than the Spit V. According to them they should have been shot down in droves.

My view is that they were a good match

[Soren]

The 109F was superior, but not vastly so.

[lesofprimus]

Agreed...

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

I am waiting for someone to explain why the Germans did so badly against Malta

.. they did? Can you share the details?

Happy Christmas to all !

[Glider]

Quick History Lesson, Germans have free reign over Malta against minimal defence, first wave Spit V flown in, most destroyed on ground in hours, second wave Spit V's flown in, tide turns.
End of History Lesson

The way some of the people on the thread would have it, it should have gone like this.

Germans have free reign over Malta against minimal defence, first wave Spit V flown in, most destroyed on ground in hours, second wave Spit V's flown in, Germans go Goody Goody and shoot down all the Spit V's, Malta falls.
History didn't follow this pattern.

Simple question I am asking, is why didn't the Germans shoot down all the Spit V's if they had all the advantages

Not to much to ask is it?

[Sgt. Pappy]

There may have been an obstacle affecting the ranges at which the a/c flew that somehow was in favor of the Spitfire. I.e. The BoB favored the Spitty b/c they only had to use fuel for warmup, take-off, climb, combat and (usually) landing, while the Germans had to use lots of fuel for cruise to the enemy in addition to all the others.

Another factor may be that the fact the 109F's were built to the extent of just over 2,200 planes, while the Mk.V's were built to over 6,000 planes. By Malta, I'm assuming there were little over 1,000 Freds and about 3,000 - 3,500 Spit V's. The whole 'gang bang' thing may have come into play.