Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???

Nonskimmer · 03-10-2005, 05:06 PM

GO MAESTRO - GO MAESTRO!

I agree with you!

KraziKanuK · 03-10-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmaxt

R. Lenard posted shots of P-51s on carriers B-25s too.

The P-51 and the Spits never operated operationaly from carriers simply because 1) The Navy used only AIR cooled engines and 2) in the Hellcat/Corsair they had perfectly capable aircraft with better range and capacity for ordanance.

Those P-51 pics were taken during carrier qualifying trials. Acrually the USN was consider using the P-51 because of its range. The capture of some islands negated this consideration.

The Brits used Spits from carriers.

mosquitoman · 03-10-2005, 07:23 PM

The thing is that over Britain there weren't the numbers of German planes as there were over Germany, Russia etc. Richard Bong was the highest scoring American ace but he "only" got 40 kills

DJ_Dalton · 03-12-2005, 01:42 AM

"The thing is that over Britain there weren't the numbers of German planes as there were over Germany, Russia etc. Richard Bong was the highest scoring American ace but he "only" got 40 kills"

No, I didn't say the Spitfire was a complete piece of ****. It was just the most overrated plane of the Western Front. The arguement that the British aces didn't down as many Germans because the German planes were lacking in numbers just doesnt hold water. Mainly because the Germans killed large numbers of Spitfires in engagements. (I will grant the FW190 was responsible for a lot of that but the Bf-109's dropped Spitfires in their manner as well.) The Germans were there to be shot down, if the British pilots were able to manage it. Even a guy like Johnson got victories vs. Bombers and the like. Though he got his share of FW's and Bf's. He was good as far as his plane allowed him to be. The Spitfire was a dueling machine. The German Planes murder weapons. That was the difference.

Even the historians will tell you that it wasn't the Spitfire that won the Battle of Britian. It was the Hurricane. The Spitfire had lines that were appealing and it got a nice reputation among the populace but the reason for it was that the British goverment sold the people on its role as the lead protectorate. What it actually accomplished was far removed from the impression left by the propaganda.

Even the comparative tests are full of propaganda. All the nice data didn't hold water, so you have to ask yourself, Why? Restriction of ata, testing a gondola German plane, failure to test a contemporary of the XIV (G-10). You have to judge the merits by the combat and there the Spitfire was certainly at a disadvantage unless the German pilots got in or were forced into a sustained turn fight.

One of the leading Luftwaffe Aces was Hans Philip. He downed 178 Eastern Front planes and 28 Western Front craft. To paraphrase him he stated:

"It is a joy to fly among 20 Spitfires utilizing my aircrafts abilities vs those of the Spitfire. It is another thing altogether to fly into a formation of massed bombers with their arrayed defensive guns and be forced to drive into that maelstrom. It makes one understand that one is mortal"

Very prophetic words by Philip. He was killed shortly thereafter in a attack vs bomber formations.

The Spitfire was respected. It was not feared. Those questioning its import are always gonna win the arguement based on the head to head matchups. The Spitfire just wasn't especially effective vs. the Luftwaffe Fighters. It did have some strengths.

Chiron · 03-12-2005, 03:40 AM

"The Spitfire just wasn't especially effective vs. the Luftwaffe Fighters."

Is that TRUE????????

Was Germans held technological superiority over all its rivals: on land, on sea, and in the air????????????????

03-12-2005, 04:21 AM

Dalton...

Excuse me but that is hogwash. The Spitfire was the superior plane when compared with its rival Bf109 at almost any point in the war after 1941. There is very little comparison data vs. the G-10 because the G-10 came into the war so late. Figures I have are that it didn't enter signficant service until after October 1944 - by then the Allies owned the skies. The Spitfire XIV entered the war about a year earlier.

If you take a look at Spitfire Mk XIV versus Me 109 G/K - A Performance Comparison, every reasonable effort is made to make a fair comparsion between the two rivals.

Furthermore, a lot of the performance of the Bf109G-10 (and the G-14 and K) are gained through use of "Special Emergency Power", which was not really that valuable for combat operations. Use of the GM1 (NO2) system required the right load and rpm conditions and MW50 also be available. For most reasonable combat comparisons MW50 boosted performance but not GM1 should be considered.

Also, as I've mentioned before, the Bf109's had very limited top speed performance - the cooling system simply didn't work very well at high speeds because of the boundary layer seperation issues. Messershmitt chose to accept this limitation rather than suffer the increased drag and weight of increasing the scoop size, radiator size, and coolant capacity. The British on the otherhand, made the other choice, enlarging the cooling system and scoop mouths to try to injest the turbulent air and get what cooling could be had from it and increasing the available power to overcome the drag/weight penalties. Neither solution was optimal, but the German solution was more limiting.

Also, generally speaking the Spitfire had more effective firepower from about the Spit V on, and with the Spit XIV it also had a much superior gunsight. And Spitfire pilot enjoyed much better visability than the 109 pilot from about the Spit V on. The pilots ability to see the enemy first is a huge advantage.

In general the Bf109 simply was not as adaptable as the Spitfire. It was at its peak with the F model, after that it was increasingly obsolete.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avbf1091.html gives a lot of detail on the Bf109.

In General though, I'd say both the Bf109 and the Spitfire shared the same basic flaw - both were very much limited to the interception role. They could only be used offensively with the saftey of overwhelming ground superiority, so they could operate from fields very near the front lines. You don't win wars by relying on interceptors.

The FW's were much more competitive, but also lacked range. Furthermore, the FW190A's lacked high-altitude performance, a critical weakness, and both the P-51 and P-47 were more than a match for them anyway. So few D's and Ta's saw combat as to have made little difference one way or another.

=S=

Lunatic

KraziKanuK · 03-12-2005, 05:22 AM

The Spit XIV equiped 616 in Jan 44. The Spit 21 in early 45. The G-10 and K-4 production started in Oct 44.

Some quotes from other sources:

"Olivier Lefebvre, noted authority on the BF 109, has stated:

The DB605DM was cleared up to 1.75ata, the DB605DB pushed the limit up to 1.8ata, both could be sustained with use of either B4+MW-50 (as mentionned in various documents, even if it was an afterthought in the DM case) or C3-MW-50. However the DB605DC max boost at 1.98ata could be achieved with use of C3+MW-50 only.

As for the fuel supply, I own copies showing detailed stockpile status for February-April 1945... But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.

As of March 1945 only a handful of 109 gruppen were using C3 for their mounts, one of the few being the II/JG11 which were responsible for testing the 605DB/DC over January-March 1945. According to a document dated late January 1945 coming from DB the 1.80 had just been cleared following serious troubles (pre-ignition) reported by the unit testing the 1.80 ata boost. It is also noted that following the clearance of the 1.8ata boost the 1.98ata operational tests could now begin but with concern about the sparkplugs thermal resistance IIRC. C3 was not used by 109 units until the 1.98ata boost was cleared, they relied on B4+MW-50 so that C3 could go to the 190 units. And even after the clearance only few gruppen got it because of shortages due not only to C3 production but also to C3 delivery to the units.

AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately I do not have much details for April 1945, but I doubt it would have changed much, given the situation."

So much for the use of 'boost juices''.

This is what a nazi Germany lovin zealot says about the MW graph:

"No, my darling, what Mike Williams does is taking the DC graph which notes 'ohne MW', and then puts its data on his own chart, and claims it`s maximum performance on 1.8ata, when it`s not. Of course if he`d choose the right chart, he would have to show with much better performance both low and high.

Then he tooks the data for the slower K-6, but lists it as a K-4 on his own. Let`s not even mention the really lowly trick of putting the 109K with thin yellow line on white background, so that everyone will have difficulty seeing how badly the K-4 outpaced the SpitXIV - even compared to Mike`s own imaginative performance curve on +21 lbs.
Really classy from Mike, lowest performance on low boost and wrongly labeled, hardly visible curves for high boost.

The he gets data for a 3550 kg projected K-4 graphs from May 1944, 200 kg heavier than the normal K-4 - yeah, 'fair' representation of climb performance! And of course a little more tricks for Sondernotleistung, Mike`s chart says it 'experimental propellor'. The original doc says the serial and experimental prop produces the same climb performance, but nice trick to dismiss the numbers."

This is the type of graph he posts to prove how superior German a/c were. Notice he has no Spit XIV or American a/c on the graph.

Maestro · 03-12-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ_Dalton

"The thing is that over Britain there weren't the numbers of German planes as there were over Germany, Russia etc. Richard Bong was the highest scoring American ace but he "only" got 40 kills"

No, I didn't say the Spitfire was a complete piece of s**t. It was just the most overrated plane of the Western Front. The arguement that the British aces didn't down as many Germans because the German planes were lacking in numbers just doesnt hold water. Mainly because the Germans killed large numbers of Spitfires in engagements. (I will grant the FW190 was responsible for a lot of that but the Bf-109's dropped Spitfires in their manner as well.) The Germans were there to be shot down, if the British pilots were able to manage it. Even a guy like Johnson got victories vs. Bombers and the like. Though he got his share of FW's and Bf's. He was good as far as his plane allowed him to be. The Spitfire was a dueling machine. The German Planes murder weapons. That was the difference.

Even the historians will tell you that it wasn't the Spitfire that won the Battle of Britian. It was the Hurricane. The Spitfire had lines that were appealing and it got a nice reputation among the populace but the reason for it was that the British goverment sold the people on its role as the lead protectorate. What it actually accomplished was far removed from the impression left by the propaganda.

Even the comparative tests are full of propaganda. All the nice data didn't hold water, so you have to ask yourself, Why? Restriction of ata, testing a gondola German plane, failure to test a contemporary of the XIV (G-10). You have to judge the merits by the combat and there the Spitfire was certainly at a disadvantage unless the German pilots got in or were forced into a sustained turn fight.

One of the leading Luftwaffe Aces was Hans Philip. He downed 178 Eastern Front planes and 28 Western Front craft. To paraphrase him he stated:

"It is a joy to fly among 20 Spitfires utilizing my aircrafts abilities vs those of the Spitfire. It is another thing altogether to fly into a formation of massed bombers with their arrayed defensive guns and be forced to drive into that maelstrom. It makes one understand that one is mortal"

Very prophetic words by Philip. He was killed shortly thereafter in a attack vs bomber formations.

The Spitfire was respected. It was not feared. Those questioning its import are always gonna win the arguement based on the head to head matchups. The Spitfire just wasn't especially effective vs. the Luftwaffe Fighters. It did have some strengths.

Dalton, you've just proved me that you're a jerk. (Now I understand why Les could be so aggressive with some newbies.)

May be the spitfire didn't win the BoB, but it got a kill ratio of 1:10 during that battle (and I think it kept that ratio until the end of the war). Does a crap plane could have done that ? No.

The reason why it didn't won that battle is because the Spitfire Mk. I was relatively new so the RAF fighter groups were mostly equiped with Hurricanes.

Also, the Hurricanes were told to attack the bombers while the Spitfires would take on the fighters. Why ? Because the Hurricane could take more damages and the Spitfire was more manoeuvrable.

Also, when Hitler (or Goering, can't remember) asked Galland what he needed to win against the RAF, he replied : "A squadron of Spitfires".

Finaly, I would like to point out an oxymoron you made. At the beginning of your post, you said :

"The arguement that the British aces didn't down as many Germans because the German planes were lacking in numbers just doesnt hold water."

Then you said :

"One of the leading Luftwaffe Aces was Hans Philip. He downed 178 Eastern Front planes and 28 Western Front craft."

How can you say that when you can't name a German pilot who scored more than 40 victories on the Western Front ?

cheddar cheese · 03-12-2005, 10:36 AM

Priller scored 68 victories against Spitfres on the Western front, out of a total of 101 kills.

DJ_Dalton · 03-12-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maestro

[

How can you say that when you can't name a German pilot who scored more than 40 victories on the Western Front ?

Who says I can't name German Pilots that exceeded 40 Western Front victories?...lol Theres a slew of them and whats significant is that theres not a single allied pilot to exceed that number and the Brits fought the whole war. (Pat Pattle excepted) Is there huge conclusion jumping going on here by those that think the Spitifire was more than a Yak 9?

I chose Philip for a number of reasons One was that he dwarfed the records of the Western pilots. Another was that he moved from the East to the West front effortlessly and was as at ease destroying Spitfires as Yaks. The most important reason was to show how many of the top Luftwaffe met their ends vs bombers and not the Wests fighter aircraft.

By the way MOST 109's were lost to takeoffs and landings due to their power and narrow track. The ground was a more significant adversary than Spiffires.

When Johnson took a cannon they retired him. I seem to recall that was late 1944, early 1945. Can't lose the kingdoms leading ace (3

...lol

You don't have the data to win this arguement. Give it up.

DJ_Dalton · 03-12-2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RG_Lunatic

Dalton...

Excuse me but that is hogwash. The Spitfire was the superior plane when compared with its rival Bf109 at almost any point in the war after 1941.

The problem with your blanket, fact inconsistent and unsupported statement is that the Spitfires were restricted to smaller and smaller roles as the war progressed. They couldn't do what the P-47's and P-51's could. Those planes could outdive the luftwaffe and had the fuel loads to generally came in from above them. Spitfires would have lost the war people. Why do you cling to the illusion that they were an exceptional plane? The Battle of Britian? They were mauled there, pickin on Heinkels and Junkers and 110's when they could. They were outmatched vs the 109's.

The Spit had .303's its entire existance and 2 20mm Hispanos in later variations. That gun just didn't compare with the German cannon and thats why Spitfires fell out of the air in the numbers they did.

The Spitfire was energied up for the IX but it lost its maneuverability. It was carburated its entire existance and just could not match the German planes in hard G maneuvers. It lost its power people not to mention its unresponsiveness in the roll or at high speed. What don't you understand. For every fiction you create or misrepresentation you cling to. I'll point to another Experten that slaughtered Spitfires. The question with this Experten is which plane did he kill them in later and I think its the FW190, but that plane was more suited to bomber attacks.

Heres one. Killed per usual in an attack upon bombers by P-47's. This is the way the war went. Not the way of the Spitfire...lol

By the way the Spitfires got creamed in the wars after WWII also.

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

DJ_Dalton · 03-12-2005, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiron

"The Spitfire just wasn't especially effective vs. the Luftwaffe Fighters."

Is that TRUE????????

Was Germans held technological superiority over all its rivals: on land, on sea, and in the air????????????????

Without a question.

If it wasn't for the U.S. Britain would be a good German Colony. The Russians helped too.

KraziKanuK · 03-12-2005, 12:20 PM

Dalton,

I have never seen anyone as ignorant about the Spitfire as you. It is not worth the trouble to correct all the errors you have in your posts.

Nonskimmer · 03-12-2005, 12:45 PM

Makes for a good laugh, though.

DJ_Dalton · 03-12-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KraziKanuK

Dalton,

I have never seen anyone as ignorant about the Spitfire as you. It is not worth the trouble to correct all the errors you have in your posts.

Its more likely you've never run across anyone that is more familiar with the air war or anyone that spent more time looking into the details rather than listening to those who ultimately prevailed awarding their own laurels.

You're problem is going to be you can't point to anyone or anyting to dispell your utter emptiness on the issue. Thats o.k., I won't hold it against you, you've brought a knife to a gun fight, just like the Spitfire.

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