Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???

Dalton -

I am not even really a fan of the Spitfire. I think it is over-rated because its performance envelope peaked around 240-270 IAS, depending on model. At higher speeds, its roll and turn performance degraded significantly.

But, I think you are trying to make too much of a case for the 109. Like the Spitfire, it lacked good high speed handling characteristics. All your argments about what a great diver it was mean nothing, since both the P-51 and the P-47 - its primary foes in 1943-45, could easily out-dive it. P-51 pilots consistantly report that they could easily out turn the 109, and also that they could out turn the 190, but not so easily.

=S=

Lunatic

[Udet]

Guys:

The year 1942 saw the following map:

(i) Main theather of operations for the Luftwaffe: EASTERN FRONT.

(ii) Very secondary theather of operations for the Luftwaffe: ENGLAND AND CHANNEL.

(iii) Theather of operations where the RAF was located on this year: A SECONDARY ONE.

This means the bulk of the Luftwaffe and its main offensive effort was placed against the Soviet Union.

After the end of the Battle of Britain (late 1940), the RAF enjoyed virtually of an entire year (1941) to rest and to refit its fighter squadrons, since British skies and the channel were a secondary place for the Germans. It was during this period -less than a year after the end of the Battle of Britain- when the Luftwaffe switched east and chewed and swallowed the VVS.

During 1942, the Luftwaffe kept only a small fighter force in France, yet the Spitfire squadrons proved totally uncapable of dealing with the Luftwaffe. Two famous battles (Channel Dash and Dieppe) substantiate this assertion.

And not just that, losses of Spitfires were huge at the hands of both the Fw190s and Bf109s throughout 1942.

I find it strange that after achieving a victory over the Luftwaffe in the famous BoB, the RAF, after having enjoyed of one year (1941) as secondary adversary in the west, time during which the Luftwaffe did not rest that much and pulverized the massive VVS, could just not gain air superiority over a small fighter force.

Perhaps the losses of RAF fighters and pilots (which were high) during the Battle of Britain had an effect far more profound than previously acknowledged or the Spitfires which followed the MkI were inferior to both the Butcher Bird and the 109.

[DJ_Dalton1]

Very insightful post Udet.

The truth about WWII is that Germany was beaten by Russia's Army, Britain's Navy and America's Air Force. It really took all three to do it and its probably a good thing for the world they were able to reign in Hitler.

Britain's Air Force wasn't going to get it done.

I want to state a correction. Bartels did not receive his G-10 in June, I misread the profile.

Here is a little disinformation I ran across. Its funny they discuss the Manston 109 that I've been belaboring and how it was proof of degraded 109 handling. Theres no mention of the Pods of course. Its clearly the same plane and mentions it was wrecked before it could be compared to a Tempest. I assume you are all knowledgeable enough to know that those gondola bomber busters were seriously degraded in both speed and maneuverability and were far more vulnerable to bouncing fighters. They were not designed for dogfights:

"A Luftwaffe pilot would land his Bf 109G at RAF Manston by mistake later in the war and allow comparison of the Messerschmidt against current Allied types, showing it to have few advantages and many disadvantages relative to the Spitfire Mark IX and XIV, as well as the P-51C Mustang. The Gustav was lost in an accident before it could be tested against a Tempest Mark V.":

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1154

And here we are, mere aviation buffs far more knowledgeable with our ability to use the net than those that have written history. Our power is immense. We can divine the truth if we scrutinze and search for it.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/vie...?p=59729#59729

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Originally Posted by DJ_Dalton1

Yeah, I agree concentrating well on one thing is the key to life.

Ok, The lancaster sucked for a number of reasons. First off, it lacked a belly turret and when I'm playing flying sims I always zoom up and gut shoot it. Its defenseless from underneath.

Secondly, I don't think its particularly fast so its easy to get multiple passes on it before it gets to target.

I think its got a decent bomb load, but if you hit it jusssssssst right.........KABOOM the whole thing goes up in a really nice pyrotechnics display.

Lets see what else....oh yeah........they had to go night bombing with it because they were getting murdered during the day. I see an escort there in your picture but really can't make it out. It looks more like an Aircobra than a Spitfire to me. Do you know what it is?

Anyway, night bombing resulted in the Luftwaffe's response with Wilde Sau and early one morning the Germans got confused and landed at Manston instead of France I guess and the U.K. got a nice bomber hunter to test and everyone is all confused because of it.

Thats about it.

ok, yes, the lanc didn't have a "belly" turret, this was to allow for a colossal bomb bay (actually longer than the B36's!!), the use of H2S and to keep the lanc's amazing manouverability. Ok so in a flight sim you can come up underneth, and it'd be stupid of me to deny that many many lancs were shot down from underneath, but did the flight sim also show the lanc pulling off evasive manouvers?? proberly not............

and if you think that just because a particular approach is covered by a gun turret a plane can't be attacked by that approach, just look ant the B-17, in thoery every possible approach is covered by a gun, look how many got shot down...........

ok about it not being fast, what 4 enginged bomber in 1942 was?? bombers will never be as fast as fighters (well, apart from the mossie of course) and the lanc was faster than a B-17 for exapmle, and about the fact that "its easy to get multiple passes on it before it gets to target", it had several hundred miles to travel to get to berlin for example, it could get attacked at anytime on the way there or the way back............

and yes you're right, the lanc had a huge payload, but about hitting it "jusssssssst right.........KABOOM the whole thing goes up in a really nice pyrotechnics display" this is true of any bomber, and unless you attack from the underneath you aint gonna hit the bomb bay, and you're unlikely to aim for the bomb bay as if you do set the bombs off, chances are you'll get blown up as well................

and the RAF was bombing by night before the lanc came into service, due to high losses, the lanc simply carried on the old tactics, and it was safer by night, if it saves lives it can't be that bad, and the escort in my pic is and RAF mustang as CC said, and would you look at that, it's a daylight raid, as of 1944 the lanc undertook more daylight raids than most people think, and without the expected early war losses.............

and i have no idea what that last paragraph was about...........

and CC i'm impressed, you're not converted to the religion that is lancasterism are you??

[DJ_Dalton1]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

you're not converted to the religion that is lancasterism are you??

As a matter of fact Lanny, I just received my confirmation. I am a Lancasterite.

Its one helluva badass Whamma Jamma.

...and one other thing. The Jerries really had absolutely nothing to compare.

Udet,

I'd answer that the RAF did poorly against the Luftwaffe' in 1942 for the same reason the Luftwaffe' did poorly against the RAF in 1940 - their planes were not suited to fighting over enemy held territory.

In general, it is much harder to fight over enemy held, or even contested territory, than it is over friendly territory. Most Luftwaffe' kills were scored either over German held territory, or within a few miles of German held territory.

Look at the number of times Luftwaffe' pilots were shot down. It is very common for those pilots who scored large numbers of kills to have been shot down at least once for every 30 or so kills they scored. Because they were over their own territory, or close to the lines, they were usually able to get back behind their lines before bailing out or ditching the plane, therefore they were very often able to fly again.

When a USAAF pilot, or an RAF pilot after the BoB, got shot down, usually it was over German held territory and they ended up either dead or as a POW. This meant that relatively green pilots replaced them. In combination with tendancy of German units to try to rack up large numbers of kills for a few "experten" in each unit, and the fact that the Germans enjoyed periods of numerical and techinical superiority on each front at the start of the war, also goes a long way toward explaining the difference in kills for German aces vs. Allied aces.

The Spitfire was not a good air superiority fighter. But, neither was the 109 or, even though it was better in this role, the 190.

=S=

Lunatic

[mosquitoman]

Once the RAF had the long range escort, they could bomb tactical targets with much more accuracy and with low losses

More accuracy than what?

Are you saying the bombsights on the Lanc were better than those on the B-17?

=S=

Lunatic

[mosquitoman]

More accuracy than there would be at night

[the lancaster kicks ass]

so DJ, do you still think the lanc "sucks ass"??

[DJ_Dalton1]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Udet,

I'd answer that the RAF did poorly against the Luftwaffe' in 1942 for the same reason the Luftwaffe' did poorly against the RAF in 1940 - their planes were not suited to fighting over enemy held territory.

hmmm, thats gonna be hard to resolve as pertains to Russia. I guess the early success can be attributed to I-15, I-16 and Mig 3 ineffectiveness and that when the Russian Planes improved Germany was generally on the defensive fighting over German held Russian territory. I don't know. I think the B.o.B. was lost because the Hurricanes were able to evade 109's. The 109's couldn't stay and the German bombers faired poorly in their self defense. I think the Spitfires faired poorly in their offensive actions because they were an extremely overrated airplane their entire existance. (At least compared to the German fighters)

Look at the number of times Luftwaffe' pilots were shot down. It is very common for those pilots who scored large numbers of kills to have been shot down at least once for every 30 or so kills they scored.

The germans counted all their downed planes even if they were downed by debris, as Hartmann was several times. He went down once for every 40 kills. I did read about one experten who had 61 kills if I recall correctly and he went down 17 times. However, many of these lost planes weren't immediate losses. They were nursed back to friendly territory and counted lost.

When a USAAF pilot, or an RAF pilot after the BoB, got shot down, usually it was over German held territory and they ended up either dead or as a POW. This meant that relatively green pilots replaced them. In combination with tendancy of German units to try to rack up large numbers of kills for a few "experten" in each unit, and the fact that the Germans enjoyed periods of numerical and techinical superiority on each front at the start of the war, also goes a long way toward explaining the difference in kills for German aces vs. Allied aces.

The above seems another creative/searching attempt to explain away what can't be explained away. Of the Top 20 RAF scoring aces, 3 were taken prisoner:

Roland Tuck (30) - POW Jan. 28, 1942
John Braham (29)- POW Jun. 19, 1944
Douglas Bader(22) POW Aug. 9, 1941

http://www.acesofww2.com/UK/UK.htm

For America, the only Top 20 Ace taken prisoner at the Western Front was:

Gabby Gabreski (twenty eight)- POW Jul. 20, 1944

If you look down the list you'll find:

Hubert Zemke (17.75)- POW Oct. 30, 1944

http://www.acesofww2.com/USA/USA.htm

Tuck and Bader might have been able to increase their victory totals if they hadn't been shot down. However the British fought the entire war and like the Americans adopted the German Finger Four Schwarm as well, but does anyone really think these guys were going to get 100 kills or even 50?

It wasn't Allies being taken POW and German use of the Schwarm that dwarfed Allied victories in comparision with the Germans. It was something much more primary. The best team doesnt always win but sometimes the number of Wins and Losses define the debate.

You seem to totally disregard the fact that the Luftwaffe' had a huge advantage during the early part of the war. Most Luftwaffe experten gained most of their kills on the E. Front, against badly outclassed opponents. By the time they faced roughly equivelant technology, they were very well seasoned vetrans with hundreds of sorties behind them. The faced pilots who were comparative novices, and when things got relatively even in terms of technology, they fought over their own territory.

Looking at the Allied Aces who got shot down vs. those that didn't is kinda stupid don't you think. Had the Experten been out of action on the first plane they lost - they'd never have been Experten!

Loss because of debrie damage does not matter - for the Germans that pilot was able to get home, for the P-51 pilot over Germany (or Spitfire pilot over France), he was not.

High kill counts of the German Experten are easily explained:

1) They faced inferior opponents early in the war where most of them racked up the majority of their kills.

2) When the quality of the opposition improved, they fought mostly over German held territory or near German held territory, frequently allowing them to be shot down and return to the cockpit where an enemy would be out of the war.

3) The whole squadron was oriented towards racking up the maximum number of kills for the few experten in the unit.

4) Because they enjoyed a huge technical advantage against their foes early in the war, they were generally much more experianced than their opponenents later in the war.

5) They had no system of rotation, they flew until the war ended or they were no longer able to fly. This means that they flew far more sorties than their Allied counterparts, and a much much higher percentage of those sorties were flown as non-rookies. The most dangerous missions for any pilot are their first few combat missions.

=S=

Lunatic

[DJ_Dalton1]

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

You seem to totally disregard the fact that the Luftwaffe' had a huge advantage during the early part of the war. Most Luftwaffe experten gained most of their kills on the E. Front, against badly outclassed opponents. By the time they faced roughly equivelant technology, they were very well seasoned vetrans with hundreds of sorties behind them.

What you'll also find is that the great Luftwaffe Aces came in cycles. The aces from the B.o.B. were in very rare cases still the lead aces at the end of the war. The early aces were of course Molders, Galland, Marseilles, Pflanz, Philipp. Mid War Aces arose like Nowotney and a host of others and then late war you had Hartmann and Kittel among scores of others. (Don't hold me to the war period identified. I could be off.) In each case they attained huge kill totals. If a single Experten had fought the whole war and been lucky enough to live how many kills might he have obtained? You can't explain away the war long success on the basis of early success. Many times the same pilots were not involved in different stages of the war.

If you want to say the German training was perhaps superior. I might acquiesce to that, but I think it was far more than training. The British knew how to fly after WWI also and a great deal of what aircraft became in WWII was a result of what was learned in WWI. The Germans studied this very carefully and I think it was key to their success. I think the Americans learned the lessons of WWI fairly well too, but to some extent I think the lessons of WWI were lost on the British and Japanese. The latter of which are probably excused because they didn't fight it.

The faced pilots who were comparative novices, and when things got relatively even in terms of technology, they fought over their own territory.

As pertains to the fighting over "home territory" I think we've disposed of the POW issue being a significant factor in suppressing Ace "kill totals". If you're saying that pilots fight more boldly and confidently over their own territory and that helps them increase their victory totals, I think the leading aces in the B.o.B. were German, though I am not entirely certain of this:

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/balthasar.html

The Russians certainly didn't fare extremely well until very late war and obviously defending Mother Country at all costs is probably not real good for Fighter Pilot longevity. Pat Pattle is probably a good example there.

Looking at the Allied Aces who got shot down vs. those that didn't is kinda stupid don't you think.

I don't know. You're the one that raised this as an issue.

High kill counts of the German Experten are easily explained:

Thats the problem, the kill totals have to be "explained away". Its "the rationalization of why the totals are not as dominate as they appear". Its a very tenuous position to have to argue from.

1) They faced inferior opponents early in the war where most of them racked up the majority of their kills.

2) When the quality of the opposition improved, they fought mostly over German held territory or near German held territory, frequently allowing them to be shot down and return to the cockpit where an enemy would be out of the war.

3) The whole squadron was oriented towards racking up the maximum number of kills for the few experten in the unit.

4) Because they enjoyed a huge technical advantage against their foes early in the war, they were generally much more experianced than their opponenents later in the war.

5) They had no system of rotation, they flew until the war ended or they were no longer able to fly. This means that they flew far more sorties than their Allied counterparts, and a much much higher percentage of those sorties were flown as non-rookies. The most dangerous missions for any pilot are their first few combat missions.

yes these reasons are part of the argument formulated to try and explain away the dominance of a defeated nation. It has to be explained away. They couldn't have been superior or at least not as superior as all that.

=S=

Lunatic[/quote]

[cheddar cheese]

and CC i'm impressed, you're not converted to the religion that is lancasterism are you??

Why thankyou Well you could say I have in a way...still wish it looked better thoguh.

[helmitsmit]

The other reason the spit wasn't a good nightfighter was when you tookoff u couldn't see over the nose! And once in the air it was so twitchy it was amost to manuourable! Dangerous! I do think they couldn't install radar either because it would ruin the aerodynamics.