Is Spitfire really the BEST British fighter???

[Anonymous]

Dalton also makes a good point when saying it was the P-47 mainly who bore the brunt of the fighter job over Europe in 1944, and not the Spitfire or the P-51.

That is hardly true. In late 1943 the P-51B arrived, and had some significant effect by early 1944. By late Spring 1944 the P-51D arrived, and had a major effect by the end of that Summer. By mid Fall, it was dominant.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

You guys act like the Spit XIV was the primary Spitfire in 1944 and 1945. They didn't even arrive in force until mid 1944, and only about 900 were delivered through the end of the war. It was the Spit IX and its Packared powered bubble top cousin the Spit XVI that made up the majority of late war Spitfires, with something just short of 8,000 being produced. The Spit IX's (several versions with improving performance were deployed) were a good match for any late model FW190A, and the XIV for the FW190D.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Nonskimmer]

YEah. and what do you mean we wouldnt have won without the USA? Sure, they helped, a lot, but when we won the Battle of Britain, it was just us. The USA werent even in the war at that time. The odds in the Battle of Britian were against us, but we still came through. We probably would have won with the USA, it just would have taken a whole lot longer.

You are kidding arn't you? Even during this time the USA was supplying Britain. Without US supplies Britain would have starved, her war industries would have ground to a halt, and Germany would have been able to eventually manage to force British capitulation. The same is true for the Soviet Union, though by then the USA was "in the war".

=S=

Lunatic

He's right, I'm afraid. The USA with her industry, agriculture, merchant fleet, and lend-lease were the "crutch" if you will that allowed Britain to hang on. The Commonwealth did what we could to help, but it wouldn't have made a significant difference in time. Without American aid, even before she officially entered the war, the results would have been far more dire.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Sorry I was forgetting about the USA supply routes

 

[KraziKanuK]

The LL to the Soviets had around 50% coming in the last year when the Soviet Union was already putting the boots to Germany. Some LL even arriving after the war ended.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

hey we were supplying LL to russia as well you know.......

 

[Anonymous]

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.

LOL - that is because the P-47's and P-51's had the range to reach into German held territory beyond the range of the Sptifires. The Germans wouldn't even venture into airspace patrolled by Spitfires! This "Spitfire flaw" is shared by both your 109 and the 190 wonder planes.

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 Spitfire's were limited to defense, just like the 109 and 190's. In the BoB, I agree the 109 was probably slightly superior for about 2 minutes of combat, after that the Spitfire was superior. Because it was not suited for offense, the 109 got beat anyway - it simply lacked the range for the job it was assigned.

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.

Ummm... the Spit Ia had 8 x .303's - weak but sufficient to kill any German fighter or bomber in the BoB. Some 109E's had 2 x 7.9 mm MG17's, certainly less effective than 8 x .303's, and 2 x MG-FF's or MG-FFM's with a mear 60 rpg. The cannon armed E's might be considered superior, but those 20mm were really not that useful in a dogfight and ran out of ammo fast. And the all mg armed E's made up a fair portion of the 109 force in the BoB - it had only 4 x 7.9 mm mg's.

The Spit Ib had 20mm cannon. The Spit V had 2 x 20mm + 4 x .303's, pleanty sufficient to kill any German fighter through the end of 1941. The FW-190A-1 entered combat in Sept. of '41 but that model had serious overheating problems and very weak armament. The Spit V was the dominant fighter over all German rivals until March '42 when the FW190A-3 entered service (with 2 x 20mm + 2 x 7.9 mm guns).

In June 1942 the Spit IX entered combat, armed with either 4 x 20mm or with 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50 calibers, only a few had 2 x 20mm + 4 x .303's. So much for your statement "The Spit had .303's its entire existance and 2 20mm Hispanos in later variations". The German's on the otherhand, continued to mount 7.7mm guns through the end of 1943 and even into 1944!

Also, the Hispano was cleary superior to the MG151/20 for fighter vs. fighter combat.

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.

The Spitfire IX was a very manuverable fighter. Yes the weight went up a little and its low speed turning was slightly diminished, but improvements in the wing construction and other control surfaces made up for a good part of that. And the same thing can be said about the FW-190A, later versions included more weight and more powerful engines, diminishing some manuverability characteristics. And none of the FW190A's could operate effectively above 24,000 feet, giving the altitude advantage to the Spitfire without contest. And the 109... the 109G was noticably less manuverable than the 109F, still had weak guns, had poor armor, poor visibility, and an inability to maintain the combat speeds of any of its rivals for more than about 1 minute! The Bf109 was a very old dog by the end of 1943, it should have been withdrawn from production by the middle of that year.

As for the carberators, you have this wrong. By 1941 the British were using the American carberator designs, such as that by Bendix. These carberators were not subject to failing under negative G loads. Fuel injection had some minor response advantages, but also some reliability and mixture problems not found in carberator designs. It is very hard to say which was better during WWII. American carberators never had any G problems - many 109's died when they tried the forward bunt move to escape American fighters or later Spitfires. And later Spitfires could dive with German fighters and achieve higher dive speeds.

As for the "Experten", it's a hard call about many of them. The nature of the way German military politics worked, the units status was determined by the kills scored by its leading aces. Very often, the whole squadron flew to support one or two pilots racking up as many kills as possible. US and British units did not do this, so it is hard to compare aces from the two sides.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

The LL to the Soviets had around 50% coming in the last year when the Soviet Union was already putting the boots to Germany. Some LL even arriving after the war ended.

Actually, LL aid was at its peak in 1944. By the start of 1944 over 50,000 trucks and 100,000 jeeps had been delivered to the Soviets, not to mention huge quantities of food without which the Soviet army and industry would have ground to a halt. Without the vehicles and food the soviets would have been unable to advance in 1943.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DJ_Dalton]

Maestro, you're coming a bit unglued, so left me try and address you're tangential and unspecific points one at time so that you are quite clear upon the fact that the Spitfire was a useful plane as a weapon, but not one you'd ideally equip yourself with if you had a choice.]

Okay s*cker, you're number is out ! You pissed me off !

Yes, thats easy to do with zealots especially if the pissee is a zealot and unarmed or underarmed.

When we give you comparisons of Spitfires VS FW-190 or Spitfire VS Bf-109, you say that's propagenda. (Now, see the section of your post I put in bold.) Where do you take you're freaking data ? In the Hitler's Youth manual ? Is it what you consider as non-propagenda datas ?

As I pointed out earlier the RAF tested 2 Bf-109's in these comparative trials. Pay attention now, we shouldn't have to go over this again. When this presentation is complete I want you to take this point and file it away because it will be disposed of. The first 109 was an E model acquired and tested right around the Battle of Britain. It compared very favorably to their contemporary Spitfire. And it could do things the Spitfire could not. Outdive and Outclimb it for example. It could also operate in high G and negative G situations without the engine losing power. Some even say if its leading edge flaps and soft stall characteristics were trusted it even turned better than a Spitfire (Marseilles for instance), but I'll not contest the Spitfires purported turning edge. Level speed wise, they were close. So its up to the pilot which he prefers the nimble slower climbing and diving plane or the energy machine.

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

The second plane tested was a Bf-109-G6/R6. FYI that is a bomber attacking variant with underwing 20 mm gondolas. Those gondolas degrade the performance of the aircraft significantly due to the increased weight and drag. The RAF decided to test this aircraft in this bomber killer configuration against a cleanly configured Spit XIV. (Thats right, they tested the best Spitfire they ever had vs. a Bf-109 two notches plus below its epitome, in a bomber attacking configuration. Even then the Spitfire was only 10 mph faster at 16,000 feet and climbed equally as well at that altitude. Additionally the zoom climb performance was equal unless full power was applied. to the Spit XIV (The Spitfire did substantially outperform this 109 at other elevations.) The following is not the source I read when I first went over this information. It does capsulize it though:

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v109.htm

Case closed on these comparative Bf-109 trials. Theres nothing more to discuss. You need to read the combat anecdotes now. The Spitfires could not catch 109's unless they bounced them low on Altitude and Energy.

Regarding the Focke Wulf 190A, it certainly had a serious performance edge on the Spit V. The Spit IX tended to even the situation more. However the 190 was always vastly more maneuverable and if you don't understand that by now you never will. I'll let the test results speak for themselves:

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm

Whats significant about the testing is that the RAF restricted the use of boost on the German planes, figuring that the Germans were restricted. Theres a lot of debate about this, but no hard evidence that the Germans similarly restricted themselves in emergency boost situations. Even in the very restricted boost testing required of the German aircraft, the British performance is certainly not stellar. However, what is not debateable is that the German planes performance increased significantly with additional boost. Once again, you need to refer to the anecdotal evidence about what the British planes were really able to accomplish in combat and though competent they were never dominate. The Brits were attrited by Germans. Not the other way around.

When I gave you its kill ratio, the Galland thing and the Spitfire/Hurricane thing, you do as if I never said anything. Who the f*ck are you ? A Nazi pigeon ?

I dismissed that quote, for a number of reasons. First off, Galland himself dismissed it, but you wouldn't even bring it up if you knew the context. Goerring was livid over the bombers losses in the B.o.B. and he asked Galland why his fighters couldn't protect the bombers and what he needed to get the job done. Galland responded "A squadron of spitfires". Do you know why? The 109 was an energy machine. It could always do things no other plane could do. But it was not designed to fly slow and pick Hurricanes off the tails of bombers. To do so marginalized its strengths and made it vulnerable. Spitfires were perhaps better suited for that role and that is what Galland was saying when he bristled at Goerrings criticism. By the way, it was Hurricanes doing most of the damage.

Now for the armament thing. From about the Mk. V on, Spitfires could be equipped of 8 x .303 OR 4 x 20mm OR 2 x 20mm + 4 x .303. From the Mk. VIII/IX on, they could also be armed with 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50.

very few Spits were 4 cannon armed. It degraded their performance

Now I'll agree with KrazyKanuK and invite everyone to ignore you.

At best, you're a Neo-Nazi German trying to restore his own contry's pride by pissing on the Spitfire and Great-Britain. At worst, you're a freaking redneck hidding in his house of a lost town in Saskatchewan, with a Nazi flag on his bedroom wall, the book "Meine Kampf" on the table next to his bed, a picture of Hitler right besite it and an illegal machine gun hidden under his bed.

You deserve a great kick in your fat ass, punk.

Truth be told, i've been laughing under my breath at your lack of education from the inception. You're either playing Ostrich or not a smart man. We all can't be clever, just like planes are not all equal. But now I've done my part and we can move on.

Theres a difference however in following blindly and scrutinizing the evidence and its in the latter that you'll find truth and enlightenment.

[/quote]

 

[Maestro]

My turn to say that you are a moron : you compare FW-190 with absolete Spits (Mk. V) !

The FW-190 came out in 1942, so you must compare it with an other Spit wich also came out in 1942 (the Mk. IX). Got it, smart ass ?

To prove you that you're a brain-washed Hitler-lover Neo-Nazi, I'll give you comparisons between Bf-109, P-51B, Spitfire Mk. IX and FW-190. Unfortunately, I don't have the comparison between the 109 and the Spit, but use your brain (may be for the first time of your life) and use the comparison of the Spit VS the P-51B to see how it could act against a Bf-109.)

P-51B Mustang VS Spitfire Mk. IX

- The Mustang had a greater range
- At top speed, their speed was the same between 10 and 15,000 feet and between 25,000 and 32,000 feet (otherwise, the Mustang was a little faster (30 to 45 km/h))
- The Spit had a better climb, even against a P-51B at top speed
- In dive, the Mustang could desengage easily
- The Spitfire could out turn the Mustang, even if the P-51 had his flaps down
- The Spitfire had a better roll at normal speed, but the performances were the same at 350 km/h
- The 4 x Browning MG were greatly inferior to the Spit's 2 x 20mm + 4 x .303

P-51B Mustang VS Messershmidt Me 109G

- The P-51 was faster than the 109 at any altitude (50 km/h at 16,000 feet and 80 km/h at 25,000 feet)
- Their climb were the same
- The Mustang was lightly superior over 25,000 feet, but the 109 had better performances under 22,000 feet
- In defensive position against a 109, the Mustang could evade it by doing a simple sharp turn
- In offensive position, the Mustang could always trap the 109

Focke-Wulf FW 190A VS Spitfire Mk. IX

- The Spitfire was lightly faster than the FW-190 at medium and high altitude (5 to 10 km/h)
- The FW-190 was faster at low altitude (5 to 10 km/h)
- The Spitfire had a better climb, that advantage was even more noticable over 22,000 feet
- In dive, the FW-190 was faster and more manoeuvrable

Note : If the Spitfire was flying at a high speed, the FW-190 couldn't successfully attack it. The better acceleration of the FW-190 made it easier to attack a Spitfire flying slowly.

Now, if you still think that I'm wrong, read the following comparison and use it as the Mustang/Bf-109 thing.

P-51B Mustang VS Focke-Wulf FW 190

- The P-51 was faster than the FW-190 at any altitude (approximately 80 km/h)
- Over 28,000 feet, that difference could reach 110 km/h
- They had the same climb
- The P-51B was better in dive than the FW-190
- In a turning fight, the Mustang was lightly superior
- The FW-190 had a better roll

Now, if you still percist to claim that the Spitfire was a piece of sh*t, you will prove that you're a jerk and that you will never understand the truth... Like a retard who wants to beleive in Santa Claus, even at 32 years old !

 

[Soren]

First of all just so we are clear, im not with either Maestro or Dalton on this one.

Anyway Maestro, just a little note: Cursing and being rude does nothing to increase your credibility !

 

[DJ_Dalton]

My turn to say that you are a moron : you compare FW-190 with absolete Spits (Mk. V) !

Ok, good point about comparing contemporaries. By the time they compared the "captured" FW190 to the up motored XIV, (1944) the FW190 was in a new series of motor with higher boosts and they weren't all up armored for bomber interception.

To prove you that you're a brain-washed Hitler-lover Neo-Nazi, I'll give you comparisons between Bf-109, P-51B, Spitfire Mk. IX and FW-190. Unfortunately, I don't have the comparison between the 109 and the Spit, but use your brain (may be for the first time of your life) and use the comparison of the Spit VS the P-51B to see how it could act against a Bf-109.)

Well, first off, I'm not contesting that the Mustang was not a much more dangerous adversary for the Luftwaffe. That was heavyweight championship fight competition. But following you're valid point just above, What planes are you comparing this Mustang to? The 1942 captured FW190 and the Wing Gondola 109G-6? I can't even begin to address this. Post the link.

Erich Hartmann shot down 7-8 Mustangs depending upon sources. 5 in one day, including one of the leading Mustang Aces "Kid Hoffer". KIA

Now, if you still percist to claim that the Spitfire was a piece of sh*t, you will prove that you're a jerk and that you will never understand the truth... Like a retard who wants to beleive in Santa Claus, even at 32 years old !

I never said the Spitfire was a piece of shit. I think it was better than every American plane but the Corsair, Mustang and Jug. It was better than every Russian plane until the Yak 3 and La-5/7. It was better than the Zero and probably all JP planes save the Gale and better than the Italian planes.

The problem with the Spitfire is that its role was reserved after about 1943. It just didn't carry the brunt anymore. America stepped in with its power planes.

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

 

[Nonskimmer]

Like a retard who wants to beleive in Santa Claus, even at 32 years old !

Actually, I'm 35. I...Uh, wait! Forget I said anything!

Seriously though man, try not to let it get under your skin too much. You'll never change his mind anyway.

 

[cheddar cheese]

better than the Italian planes.

Not the series 5 fighters. They were more than a match.

 

[Maestro]

My comparisons don't come from a web site, but from an old book (in French). That book took sources from several other books. Here are all of them :

Spitfire At War Vol 1 2...........................................Alfred Price - Ian Allan
Le Grand Cirque (The Great Show)............................Pierre H. Clostermann - Corgi
Aircraft In Profile.....................................................Profile Publications
Spitfire Story..........................................................Alfred Price - Arms Armour
I Flew For The Führer...............................................Heinz Knocke - Evans
Luftwaffe Night Units 1939-45...................................Osprey - Jerry Scutts
Wings Of The Weird And Wonderful Vol. 2.................Airlife - Capt. Eric Brown
High Flyers.............................................................Micheal Fopp - Greenhill Books
WW2 Fighter Conflict...............................................Alfred Price - PBS
United States Army in World War II :
The European Theater of Operations,
Cross Channel Attack..............................................Gordon A. Harrison,
Bureau du Chef de l'Histoire Militaire,Army Department,Washington D.C., 1951
Typhoon/Tempest In Action.....................................Jerry Scutts - Squadron Signal

That's all of them.

 

[Maestro]

Seriously though man, try not to let it get under your skin too much. You'll never change his mind anyway.

Yeah, you're right. I'll never change his mind. I should try to calm down...

 

[DJ_Dalton]

better than the Italian planes.

Not the series 5 fighters. They were more than a match.

Cheddar, you are correct. I neglected this plane. It was the best of motors in a very aerodynamic design. I don't know how many they made but it was exceptional.

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Ferone/3961.htm

 

[Anonymous]

What cracks me up is that the biggest flaw of the Spitfire - its range, was at least a serious a flaw of the 190 and more serious a flaw of the 109. How can you point at the Spitfire's lack of forward action in the later part of the war as indicating it was a flawed plane and not apply the same reasoning to its German counterparts?

I wonder when he will reply to my reply?

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DJ_Dalton]

What cracks me up is that the biggest flaw of the Spitfire - its range, was at least a serious a flaw of the 190 and more serious a flaw of the 109. How can you point at the Spitfire's lack of forward action in the later part of the war as indicating it was a flawed plane and not apply the same reasoning to its German counterparts?

Range isn't the reason the Spitfire was withdrawn. It was fighting over France and escorting British bombers until they went night action and America stepped in with large scale daylight bombing and long range fighter escort. Whenever the Spitfires flew over France they attrited in significant numbers and thats including D-Day and thereafter when it was all over but the crying for the Germans.

You people are far too influenced by those that write history. You need to give it a close and careful look to determine the detail of it.

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

 

[Anonymous]

What cracks me up is that the biggest flaw of the Spitfire - its range, was at least a serious a flaw of the 190 and more serious a flaw of the 109. How can you point at the Spitfire's lack of forward action in the later part of the war as indicating it was a flawed plane and not apply the same reasoning to its German counterparts?

Range isn't the reason the Spitfire was withdrawn. It was fighting over France and escorting British bombers until they went night action and America stepped in with large scale daylight bombing and long range fighter escort. Whenever the Spitfires flew over France they attrited in significant numbers and thats including D-Day and thereafter when it was all over but the crying for the Germans.

You people are far too influenced by those that write history. You need to give it a close and careful look to determine the detail of it.

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

That's just pure crap Dalton, the Spitfire was a relatively poor ground attack plane and suffered badly when it tried that mission.

And pointing to Lemkes success is again based really not upon his ability so much as that of his flight wing. Imagine how much easier it was to rack up the kills when you flew with a dozen or more other fighter pilots all trying to get you into the kill position. To be significant, you need to quote his unit's kills and losses, not just one pilot who they were trying to get the Knights Cross and other medals for.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=59593#59593 <== still awaiting response.

=S=

Lunatic